Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of Greek philosophy from the earliest period to the time of Socrates"

See other formats 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 


at|http  :  //books  .  google  .  com/ 


■imiii 

HU  ADUF    U 


^^^g^^. 


r^g>j^>^>^-a>^>s>g>^a^,g>'^>*>^Ng>^^ 


HARVARD  COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 


\ 


1 


From  the  Library  of 
CHARLES  HENRY  CONRAD  WRIGHT 

Class  of  1S91 

Professor  of  the  French  Language 
and  Literature 

GIVEIM  BY  HIS  CHILDREN 


J^^^^^s^^:^^^^%^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


^ 


^ 


m  n 


A   HISTORY 


GREEK    PHILOSOPHY 


VOL.  n. 


LOXDOK  I    PBISTED   BT 

aP0TTM\\OODB    AXD   CO.,   XTSW-BTRBXT    SQUABV 

AXU   lUBLXAXXBT    BT1UEXT 


A   HISTOKY 

OF 

GEEEK   PHILOSOPHY 

FBOM  THE   KABLIEST   PERIOD   TO  THE 
TIME   OF  SOCRATES 

WITH    A     GENERAL    INTRODUCTION 


TRANSLATED  FBOM  THB  QSB1£AN  OF 

D»  E.  ZELLER 

PR0FIB80R     IN    TBI     UNIVBB8XTT     OF     BBBLIN 
BT 

S.  F.  ALLEYNE 

IN    TWO     VOLUMES 
VOL.  IL 

LONDON 

LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 

1881 

All    rights    rttervtd 


%\\    \\50M    (2). 


HARVARD 
UNIVERSITY! 

LIP'^ARY 
'^fP  10«974 


^^^^\ 


CONTENTS 

OF 

THE    SECOND    VOLUME. 


THE  PRE-SOCRATIO  PHnX)SOPHY. 

SECOND  SECTION. 

HERACLEITUS,  EMPEDOCLES,    THE    ATOMISTS, 
ANAXAGOBAS. 

I.  HsBJLCLnrus. 

PAGE 

1.  General  standpoint  and  ftrndamental  ooneeptiuns  of  the  doe- 

trine  of  Hezadeitns 1 

2.  Cosmology 47 

%,  Man :  his  knowledge  and  his  actions 79 

4.  Historical    position    and   importance  of    Heradeitns.    The 

Heradeiteans 1 04 

II.    EVPIDOCLBS  AMD  THB  ATOMISTS. 

A.   Empedodes: 

1.  UniTersal  hases  of  the  physics  of  Empedocles :  genera- 

tion  and  decay,   primitive   substances,  and  moving 
forces  117 

2.  The  world  and  its  parts 145 

3.  Religious  doctrines  of  Empedodes  .  .        .171 

4.  Scientifie  character  and  historical  position  of  the  Em- 

pedodean  doctrine  ........     184 


vi          CONTENTS  OF  THE  SECOND   VOLUME,  • 

B.  The  Atomistic  philosophy :  paob 

1.  Physical  bases  of  the  system.    Atoms  and  the  Void       .  207 

2.  Movement  of  the  atoms.    Formation  and  system  of  the 

nniyeise.    Inoxganic  nature 236 

3.  Organic  nature.    Man :  his  knowledge  and  his  actions   .  253 

4.  The  Atomistic  doctrine  as  a  whole:  its  historical  posi- 

tion and  importance.    Later  adherents  of  the  school     .  292 

ni.  Anaxagobas. 

1.  Principles  of  his  system:  Matter  and  Mind    .        .  .321 

2.  Origin  and  system  of  the  universe 354 

3.  Organic  natores :  Man 368 

4.  Anazagoras  in  relation  to  his  predecessors.     Character  and 

origin  of  his  doctrine.   The  Anazagorean  school.    Axchelaus  878 


THE  PBB-80GBATIC  PHILOSOPHT. 

THIRD  SECTION. 

THE     SOPHISTS. 

1.  Origin  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine 894 

2.  External  history  of  the  Sophists 407 

3.  Teaching  of  the  Sophists  considered  in  its  general  character    .  429 

4.  Sophistic  theory  of  knowledge  and  Eristic  disputation         .    .  445 

5.  Opinions  of    the    Sophists    concerning  Viitae  and  Justice, 

Politics  and  Beligion.    Sophistic  Rhetoric  ....    469 

6.  Value  and  historioftl  importance  of   the  Sophistic  doctrine. 

The  yarious  tendencies  included  in  it 496 

INDEX 517 


ERRATA. 

Page  24,  8,  line  6— /or  infira,  p.  556,  8,  drd  ed.  rtad  infra,  p.  46, 1. 
„    54  (fint  colmnn),  line  10— >r  inf.  p.  708,  2,  drd  ed.  read  inf.  284,  2. 
„    57,  2,  line  7  (second  colnjnn)— /or  heat  and  warmth  rtad  light  and 

warmth. 
„    59,  8— >r  p.  621,  2  rwuf  67,  2. 
„    69,  n.  line  12  (first  colnmn)— /or  Diog.  iL  8  (inf.  p.  77)  read  Diog. 

ix.  8  (inf.  p.  77, 1). 
„    70,  line  12  (second  oolnmn)— /or  868,  5  recuf  868,  2. 
„    80,  note  l—omit  i.  614  sq. 

„    96,  note  2,  line  12— /or  p.  601  sq.  8rd  ed.  rtad  inf.  113  sq. 
„    196, 1,  line  12— /or  p.  707, 1,  4  read  148,  4 ;  149,  8. 
„    207, 1,  line  18 — onut  sometimes. 
„    810, 1,  line  2— /or  294,  2  read  294,  4. 
„    820,  2,  line  1—for  Diogenes  rtad  Diagoras. 
„    412,  line  B^for  Leontinm  rtad  LeontinL 
„    453, 1— /or  p.  688, 1  read  680, 1. 
„    458,  4,  last  line— /or  p.  688,  2  read  682,  2. 


THE  PHILOSOPBT  OF  THE  GREEKS 

IN  ITS 

HISTOEICAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

THE  PRE-SOCRdTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 
511.  HERACLEITUS,EMPEDOClES,THE  ATOMISTS,ANAXAQORAS. 

I.  HERACLEITUS.* 

1 .  Ths  general  dandpoint  and  fundamental  conceptions  of 
the  doctrine  of  Heracleittu. 

While  in  the  Eleatic  School  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity 
of  all  Being  had  led  to  the  denial  of  the  possibility  of 
plurality  and  Becoming,  contemporaneously  *  with  that 

*  Schleiermacher,     HerakleUoa  Heracleitus  is  placed  in  the  6&th 

dtr  Bunkle,  etc. ;  Mus.  d.  Alter-  Olympiad  (404-600  b.c),  no  doubt 

thumsw.  i.  1807t  p.  313  sqq.  (now  on  the  authority  of  ApoUodorus, 

in  Schleiermacher's  Werke^  3  Abth.  who  takes  his  dates  almost  en- 

i.   1   sqq.);    Bernays,  Heraclitea^  tirely  from  Eratosthenes.  Similarly, 

Bonn,   1848;   ibid.    Rhem,    Mut,  EusAb.  Chron.  gives  01.  70;  Syn- 

iV:  F.  vii.  90  sqq.,  ix.  241  soq. ;  ibid,  cellus,  p.  283,  C.  01.  70,  1.    He  is 

Die   Heraklitiaehen    Brief e,    Berl.  describedasacontemporary  of  Da- 

1869 ;    Lassalle,  Die    Philosophie  rius  L  in  the  interpolated  letters 

Herakleitos    dee    Dunkeln,    1858,  (Diog.  ix.  13,  cf.  Clemens,  Strom. 

2  vols. ;  Gladisch,  HerakkUos  und  i.  302  B;   Epictet.  Enohirid.  21), 

Zoroaster^  1859  ;  Schuster,  Hera-  in  which  that  prince  inyites  him  to 

kleUos  von  Bphisus^  1873;  Teich-  his  court,  and  Heracleitus  declines 

/.  muller,   Neue   Stud.  z.    Geaeh.  d.  the  inyitation.   Eusebius,  however, 

Degriffe.  1.   H.  Herakleitos,  1876.  and  Syncellus,  p.  254  C,  place  his 

'  In  Diog.  ix.  1,  the  prime  of  prime  in  01.  80,  2;  o^.  81,  2 ;  in  the 

TOL.   II.  B 


HERACLEITUS, 


school  there  arose  in  Asia  Minor,  at  the  opposite  pole 
of  the  Greek  civilised  world,  a  system  which  developed 


80th  or  8  Ist  Olympiad,  and  this 
statement  seems  to  derive  confirma- 
tion from  the  ftict  that,  according 
to  Strabo,  xiv.  1,  i.  26,  p.  642  (in 
comparison  with  his  evidence  no 
weight  can  be  attached  to  the  8th 
of  the  so-called  Heraclitean  letters, 
p.  82,  Bern.),  Hermodorus  theEphe- 
'  sian,  who,  we  are  told  by  Pliny,  H, 
Nat,  zxxiv.  5,  21,  and  Pomponius, 
Digest,  i.  1,  tit  2,  /.  2,  §  4,  assisted 
the  Roman  decemviri  in  their  legis- 
lation (OL  81,  4 ;  462  b.c.)>  was  no 
other  than  the  friend  of  Heradei- 
tns,  whose  banishment  the  philoso- 
pher could  not  forgive  his  country- 
men. (Strabo  /.  c,  Diog.  ix.  2,  &c. ; 
vide  if^fra.)  From  this  Hermann  in- 
ferred (J)e  P/nlos.  Imic.  Mtatt.  p. 
10,  22),  and  Schwf^gler  agrees  witb 
him  {Rom.  Gesch.  iii.  20 ;  otherwise 
in  Gesch.  d,  Griech.  Phil.  20,  Kost- 
lin's  edition,  where  also,  p.  79,  the 
reference  of  Parmenides  to  Hera- 
cleitus,  which  Bemays  conjec- 
tured, but  which  is  irreconcile- 
able  with  Hermann's  computation, 
is  admitted)  that  Heracleitus  was 
born  about  01.  67  (610  b.c.)  and 
died  about  01.  82  (460  b.c.).  I 
have  shown,  however,  in  my  trea- 
tise Be  Hermodoro  Ephesio  et 
Hermod.Plat.  (IVIarb.  1869),  p.  0 
sqq.  that  this  opinion  is  not  justi- 
fiable. The  statement  of  Ehise- 
bins  repeated  by  Syncellus  is  in 
itself  not  nearly  so  trustworthy 
as  that  of  Diogenes,  taken  from 
ApoUodorus;  Hermann  urges  in 
it6  &vour  thatEusebius  determines 
the  date  of  Anaxagoras  and  Demo- 
critus  more  accurately  than  Apol- 
lodoms,  but  this  is  not  the  case. 
On  fJie  contrary,  the  statement 
loses    til   weight  by  its   glaring 


contradiction  with  the  earlier 
utterances  of  the  same  author. 
Where  Eusebius  found  the  state- 
ment, and  on  what  it  is  based,  we 
do  not  know ;  but  if  we  remember 
that  the  prime  of  Heracleitus  (not 
his  death,  as  Hermann  says:  the 
words  are  olartu  habebatury  cog- 
noscebaturt  ffir^^e)  is  here  made 
to  coincide  (dmost  exactly  with  the 
legislation  of  the  decemviri,  it 
appears  probable  that  it  arose  from 
the  supposition  that  Hermodorus, 
the  friend  of  Heracleitus,  entered 
into  connection  with  the  decemviri 
'  immediately  after  his  banishments 
and  that  his  banishment  coincided 
with  the  iucuii  of  the  philosopher. 
Now  the  assertion  of  Diogenes  can 
hardly  be  founded  upon  any  accu- 
rate chronological  tradition ;  it  is 
far  more  likely  (as  Diels  acknow- 
ledges, Rh.  Mn8.  xxxi.  33  sq.)  that 
its  author  knew  only  of  the  gene- 
ral statement  that  Heracleitus  had 
been  a  contemporary  of  Darius  I., 
and  that  in  accordance  with  this,  he 
placed  his  prime  in  the  60th  Olym- 
piad ;  i.e.  in  the  middle  of  Darius's 
reign  (01.  64,  3-73,  4).  But  that 
this  theory  is  at  any  rate  a4)proxi- 
mately  correct,  and  that  the  death 
of  Heracleitus  cannot  be  placed 
later  than  470-478  b.c.,  we  find  ex- 
tremely likely  for  other  reasons. 
For  though  we  may  not  lay  much 
stress  on  the  circumstance  that, 
according  to  Sotion,  ap.  Diog.  ix.  6, 
Heracleitus  was  regarded  by  many 
as  a  pupil  of  Xenophanes,  the  allu- 
sion to  him  by  Epicharmus,  which 
we  have  found  probable  vol.  i.  p.  632, 
would  imply  that  his  doctrine  wa« 
known  in  Sicily  as  early  as  470  b.c.  ; 
and  since  he  himself  instances  as 


HIS  DATE  AND  LIFE. 


the  same  presupposition  in  a  contrary  direction,  and 
regarded  the  one  Being  as  something  purely  in  motion 
and  subject  to  perpetual  change  and  separation.  The 
author  of  this  system  is  Heracleitus.^ 


mec  to  whom  varied  knowledge  has 
not  brought  wisdom,  only  Xeno- 
phanes,  Pythagoras  and  HecatAus 
in  addition  to  Hesiod,  this  looks  as 
if  the  later  philosopher,  and  espe- 
cially his  antipodes  Parmenides, 
were  unknown  to  him.  Moreover, 
the  statements  about  Hermodorus 
do  not  by  any  means  compel  ns  to 
regard  Heracleitus  as  later.  For 
first,  the  theory  that  Hermodorus, 
who  took  part  in  the  decemvirs' 
legislation,  was  the  same  person 
as  the  friend  of  Heracleitus  is 
not  based  even  by  Strabo  (as  I 
have  shown,  /.  c.  p.  1 5)  on  trust- 
worthy tradition,  but  merely  on  a 
probable  conjecture ;  and  secondly, 
we  have  no  reason  to  assume  that 
Hermodorus  was  of  the  same  age 
as  Heracleitus.  Supposing  him  to 
have  been  20  or  25  years  younger, 
it  would  be  quite  possible  to  admit 
his  participation  in  the  lawgiving 
of  the  decemviri,  without  on  that 
account  altering  the  date  of  Hersr 
cleitus*  death  to  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century.  We  certainly  cannot 
place  the  banishment  of  Hermo- 
dorus and  the  composition  of  Hera- 
cleitus* work  earlier  than  478  b.c, 
for  the  rise  of  democracy  at  Ephesus 
would  scarcely  have  been  possible 
before  the  deliverance  from  the 
Persian  dominion.  On  the  other 
hand  this  event  may  have  given 
rise  to  the  deliverance.  Both 
theories  are  compatible  with  that 
supposition  :  on  the  one  hand,  that 
Heracleitus  died  in  476  b.c.  ;  on 
the  other,  that  Hermodorus  as- 
sisted the  decemviri  in  452  b.c. 


Aristotle  fixes  the  age  of  Hera- 
cleitus at  60,  if  the  reading  of  the 
manuscripts  in  Diog.  viii.  52  be 
correct:  *^picr<yriKt\s  yhp  ainhy 
(Empedocles)    frt  re  'HpiCicXeiroK 

Sturz,  however,  instead  of  'Hpi«c- 
\tirov  reads  *Hpcuc\€iBriSy  and  Cobet 
has  admitted  this  conjecture,  which 
is  favourably  regarded  by  many 
authorities  (more  than  a  conjecture 
he  does  not  consider  it),  into  the 
text.  It  does  not  commend  itself 
to  me  as  indispensable ;  for  it  is 
perfectly  conceivable  that  Aristotle 
may  have  connected  the  two  men 
together  in  reference  to  their  age, 
and  the  biographer  of  Empedocles, 
here  referred  to  by  Diogenes  (that 
these  words,  as  well  as  the  context, 
are  derived  from  Apollodorus  seems 
to  me  doubtful,  in  spite  of  the  ob- 
servations of  Diels,  Rh,  Mus.  xxxiii. 
38),  may  have  also  quoted  what  he 
had  taken  the  opportunity  to  say 
about  Heracleitus,  in  the  same 
way  that  in  §  65  Philolaus  is 
mentioned  with  Heracleitus.  On 
the  other  hand  it  is  very  possible 
that  'HpcUcA.ctTov  may  have  been  a 
mistake  for  'HpcucXr/^f;  and  we 
must  therefore  leave  this  question 
undecided  like  many  others  respect- 
ing the  chronology  of  Heracleitus. 
*  The  native  city  of  Heraclei- 
tus, according  to  Uie  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  ancients,  was 
Ephesus.  Metapontum  is  substi- 
tuted by  Justin,  Cohort,  c.  3,  but 
this  is  merely  a  hasty  inference 
from  a  passage  in  which  Herac- 
leitus is  named  in  connection  with 


B  2 


HE^ACLEITUS. 


The   doctrine  of    Heracleitus,*   like    that   of    the 


Hippaflus  of  Metapontum ;  as  was 
customary,  in  accordance  with 
Arist.  Meiaph.  i.  3,  984  a,  7.  His 
father,  according  to  Diog.  ix.  1 ,  &c., 
was  called  Bljsoo,  but  others  name 
him  Heracion  (whom  Schuster,  p. 
362  sq.,  conjectures  to  have  been  bis 
grandfather).  That  he  belonged  to 
a  family  of  position  is  evident  from 
the  statement  of  Antisthenes,  ap. 
Biog.  ix.  6,  that  he  resigned  the 
dignity  of  fiaaiKws  to  his  younger 
brother;  for  this  was  an  office 
hereditary  in  the  family  of  An- 
drodus,  the  Codrid,  founder  of 
Ephesus  (Strabo,  xiv.  1,  8,  p.  632 ; 
Bernays,  HercKlitea,  31  sq.).  He 
held  decidedly  aristocratic  opinions 
(vide  t«/m),  while  his  fellow-citi- 
Eens  were  democrats ;  this  explains 
why  his  friend  Hermodorus  should 
have"  been  exiled  .(I^iog*  J*-  2) 
and  he  himself  regarded  with  little 
favour  (Bemetr.  ibid,  16).  The 
persecution  for  atheism,  however, 
which  Christian  authors  infer  from 
this  (Justin.  Apoi,  i.  46;  Apol,  ii. 
8;  Athenag.  Supplio.  31,  27),  is 
perhaps  wholly  derived  from  the 
fourth  Heraclitean  letter  (cf.  Ber- 
nays, Hfurakl.  Br.  35),  and  is  ren- 
dered improbable  by  the  silence  of 
all  ancient  authorities.  Concerning 
the  last  illness  and  d^th  of  Hera- 
cleitus  all  kinds  of  unauthenticated 
and  sometimes  contradictory  stories 
are  to  be  found  in  Diog.  ix.  3  sqq., 
Tatian,  C.  Grac.  c.  3,  and  elsewhere 
(cf.  Bernays,  HeraM,  Briefe,  p.  66 
sq.).  If  they  have  any  historical 
foundation  (Schuster  thinks,  p. 
247,  they  may  have  a  good  deal),  we 
cannot  now  discover  it.  Lassalle's 
opinion  (i.  42),  that  they  arose 
merely  from  a  mythical  symbolising 
<if  the  doctrine  of  the  passage  of 
opposites  into  one  another,  appears 


to  me  far-fetched.  The  disposition 
of  Heracleitus  is  described  by 
Theophrastus  as  melancholy  (ap. 
Biog.  ix.  6 ;  cf.  Pliny,  H.  N.  vii. 
19,  80),  and  this  is  confirmed  by 
the  fragments  of  his  writings.  But 
the  anecdotes  which  Biogenes  (ix. 
8  sq.)  relates  concerning  his  misan- 
thropy are  worthless ;  not  to  speak 
of  the  absurd  assertion  that  he 
wept,  and  Bemocritus  laughed,  over 
everything  (Lucian,  Vit,  Auct.  c. 
13;  Hippolyt.  Refut.  :.  4;  Sen. 
De  Ira,  ii.  10,  6  ;  Tramqu.  An.  16, 
2,  &c.).  As  to  any  instructors 
that  he  may  have  had,  ordinary 
tradition  seems  entirely  ignorant ; 
which  proves  that  the  ancients 
(Clemens,  Strom,  i.  300  c,  sqq. ; 
Biog.  ix.  1 ;  Prootm.  13  sqq. ; 
similarly  Galen,  c.  2)  found  it  im- 
possible to  connect  him  with  any 
school.  It  is,  therefore,  manifestly 
an  error  to  represent  him  as    a 

Supil  of  Xenophanes,  which  is 
one  by  Sotion,  ap.  Biog.  ix.  6,  or 
as  a  scholar  of  Hippasus,  which 
is  asserted  by  another  account  (ap. 
Suid.  *HpiK\.\  probably  a  miscon- 
ception of  Arist.  Metaph.  i.  3  ;  or  to 
connect  him,  as  Hippolytus  does, 
loc.  cit.f  with  the  Pythagorean 
StoSox^.  But  that  he  claimed  to 
have  learned  everything  from  him- 
self, to  have  known  nothing  in  his 
youth  and  all  things  afterwards 
(Biog.  ix.  6 ;  Stob.  Fhril.  21,  7 ; 
Procl.  in  Tim.  106  £),  seems 
merely  an  inference  from  some 
misapprehended  utterances  in  his 
works. 

*  Our  most  trnstworthy  source 
of  information  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Heracleitus  is  to  be  found 
in  the  fragments  of  his  own  work. 
This  work  was  written  in  Ionic 
prose,  and  according  to  Biog.  ix.  6, 


HIS   WORK. 


EleaticB,  developed  itself  in  express  contradiction  to 


12;  aom.  atr<nn,  v.  671  C,  bore 
the  title  ircpi  ^^cws.  We  are  told 
in  Biog.  iz.  5  that  it  was  divided 
into  three  Kiyoi^  tXs  re  rhy  ircpl  rov 
Tfrearrhs  Kot  rhy  roktriKhy  Kid  9co- 
Karfim6v,  It  is  quite  possible  (as 
Schuster  remarks,  p.  48  sqq.  in  op- 
position to  Schleiermacher,  Werke 
g,  Phil.  ii.  25  sqq.)  that  the  work 
may  have  contained  several  sec- 
tion9,  each  deroted  to  a  par- 
ticnlar  subject;  and  this  may  be 
brought  into  connection  with  the 
fact  that,  according  to  Diog.  12,  it 
also  bore  the  title  of  Movaag;  if, 
like  Schuster,  p.  57,  we  think 
of  the  three  muses  of  the  older 
mythology.  (On  the  other  hand, 
two  more  titles  are  given  in  Biog. 
12,  which  are  certainly  spurious ; 
cf.  Bemays'  Heraeleit,  8  sq.)  But 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Movecu 
originate  with  Phito,  Soph.  242 
p ;  not  (as  Schuster,  p.  329,  2,  is 
inclined  to  suppose)  with  Hera- 
cleitus ;  and  the  names  of  the  three 
sections  giren  by  Diogenes  (as 
Schuster  observes,  p.  54  sq.)  with 
the  Alexandrian  catalogues,  and 
that  these  names  correctly  described 
the  contents  of  the  work  is  quite 
uncertain,  as  is  proved,  among 
other  evidence,  by  the  double  titles 
of  the  Platonic  dialogues.  The 
fragments  we  possess  contain  very 
little  that  could  be  assigned  to  the 
second  section,  and  still  less  that  is 
appropriate  to  the  third,  if  the  for- 
mer were  really  devoted  to  politics 
and  the  latter  to  theology;  and  it 
is  the  same  thing,  as  we  shall  find, 
with  the  other  txBditions  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  Heradeitus  (cf. 
Susemihl,  Jakrb.  f.  Philol,  1873, 
H.  10,  11,  p.  714  sq.).  I  believe  it 
to  be  impossible  to  recover  the  plan 
of  the  work,  with  any  certainty. 


from  the  fragments  in  existence; 
and  Schuster's  attempt  at  such  a 
reconstruction  is  founded  on  sup- 
positions that  are  generally  doubt- 
ful, and  in  some  cases,  it  appears 
to  me,  more  than  doubtful.  That 
this  was  the  sole  work  of  Hera- 
deitus is  unquestionable,  not  only 
because  of  the  indirect  testimony  of 
Aristotle,  JRhet.  iii.  6,  1407  b,  16 ; 
Biog.  ix.  7 ;  and  Clemens,  Strom. 
i.  332  B,  where  mention  is  made 
of  a  o^pofi/Ao  in  the  singular,  and 
not  of  trvypdfAfuna^  but  because  no 
other  work  was  either  quoted  or 
commentated  on  by  the  ancients.  In 
Plutarch.  Adv.  Col.  14,  2  'HfHucKtl- 
rov  9k  rhv  iMpodurrpriv,  we  should 
read,  with  Biibner,  *HpakK%ilov 
(vide  Bemays,  Bh.  Mus,  vii.  93  sq.), 
an  amendment  which  of  itself  set- 
tles Scbleiermacher's  doubt  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  this  writing,  and 
the  trustworthiness  of  Plutarch's 
statements  concerning  Heradeitus 
(2.  c).  Bavid,  Scholia  Aria.  19  b. 
7 ;  Hesych.  Vir.  Bl.  'HpdicK. ;  Schol. 
Bekker,  in  Plat.  p.  364,  mention 
Heracleitus's  avyypdfifjutra ;  but 
this  is  only  a  proof  of  their  care- 
lessness. The  Heradeitean  letters 
cannot  possibly  be  considered  genu^ 
ine.  Concerning  a  metrical  version 
of  the  Heradeitean  doctrine,  vide 
ir^fra,  p.  2 1 , 1 .  Whether  Heradeitus 
really  deposited  his  work  in  the 
temple  of  Artemis,  as  is  stated  in 
Biog.  ix.  6  and  elsewhere,  cannot 
be  ascertained ;  if  he  did,  it  could 
not  be  for  the  sake  of  secrecy,  as 
Tatian,  C.  Gr.  c.  3,  suggests.  Nor 
can  we  suppose  that  his  wdl-known 
obscurity  (c£  Lucret.  i.  639),  which 
procured  for  him  the  title  of  trira- 
rttyhs  among  later  writers  (such  as 
Pseudo-Arist.,  De  Mundo,  c.  5, 
396  b,  20;  Clem.  Strom,  v.  571, 


HEBACLEITUS, 


the  ordinary  mode  of  thought.     Look  where  he  will, 


C),  pioceeded  from  ditoontent  and 
misaDthropy  (Tide  Theophrastufi, 
ap,  Diog,  6,  and  Luc.  VU,  Auot. 
14) ;  or  from  a  wish  to  conceal  his 
opinions  (vide  DioRT.  6 ;  Cic.  N.  i>. 
i.  26,  74 ;  iii.  14,  35  ;  Divm.  ii.  64, 
1 33,  &c).  Against  the  latter  view, 
vide  Schleiermacher,  p.  8  sqq. ; 
Krische,  Fonohumgen^  p.  69. 
Schuster  sajs  in  its  fAVOur  (p.  64, 
72  sq.,  76  sqq.)  that  Heradeitus 
had  every  reason  to  conceal  opinions 
which  might  have  brought  upon 
him  an  indictment  for  atheism; 
but  on  the  other  hand  it  is  notice- 
able that  in  .his  fragments  those 
judgments  on  religious  usages  and 
political  conditions,  which  would 
have  given  the  most  violent  offence, 
are  enunciated  in  the  plainest  and 
boldest  manner  possible  (vide  vnfray 
opinions  of  Heracleitns  on  ethics 
and  politics),  while  those  propo- 
sitions which  are  difficult  to  under^ 
stand,  on  account  of  the  obscurity 
of  the  language,  are  precisely  those 
which  could  in  no  way  have  en- 
dangered the  philosopher,  however 
clearly  he  might  have  expressed 
them.  Not  one  of  the  ancients 
asserts  that  Heradeitus  was  ^r- 
fo%dy  obscure  in  his  writings,  in 
order  to  avoid  persecution.  The 
cause  of  his  obscurity  seems  to 
have  lain  partly  in  the  difficulty  of 
philosophic  expositions  at  that 
epoch,  and  partly  in  his  own  pecu- 
liar character.  He  clothed  his 
profound  intuitions  in  the  most 
pre^ant,  solemn,  and  for  the  most 
part,  symbolical  expressions  possi- 
ble, because  these  suited  him  best, 
and  seemed  best  to  correspond  with 
the  weight  of  his  thoughts;  and 
he  was  too  sparing  of  words  and 
too  little  practised  in  the  art  of 
composition   to   escape    the   am- 


biguity of  syntactical  arrangement, 
which  wss  noticed  by  Aristotle 
{Hket,  iii.  6,  1407  b,  14;  cf.  De- 
metr.  De  Eloeui.  c.  192).  He  him- 
self characterises  his  language  as  a 
language  adapted  to  the  subject, 
when  in  Fr.  89,  38  (ap.  Pint.  P^fth, 
Orac,  c  6, 21,  p.  897i  404 ;  Clemens, 
Strom,  i.  304  0.  and  pseudo-Iambi. 
De  MysttT.  iii.  8,  refer  to  the  first 
of  these  fragments,  and  not  to  some 
different  utterance,  and  peeudo- 
lambl.  l)t  Mytter,  iii.  15  to  the 
second),  according  to  the  most  pro- 
bable acceptation  of  these  frag- 
ments (which  Lucian,  ^.c,  confirms), 
he  compares  his  discourses  to  the 
earnest  and  unadorned  words  of  an 
inspired  sybil,  the  oracular  sayings 
of  the  Delphic  god.  This  oracular 
tone  of  the  Heraclitean  utterances 
may  be  connected  with  the  censure 
of  Aristotle  (Eth.  N.  vii.  4, 1146  b, 
29  ;  M.  Mar.  ii.  6,  1201  b,  6),  who 
says  he  had  as  much  confidence  in 
his  opinions  as  others  had  in  their 
knowledg-e.  When  results,  merely, 
without  demonstration  are  to  be 
set  forth  in  a  statuesque  style,  the 
distinction  between  the  several  gra- 
dations of  certainty  can  neither  be 
felt  nor  represented.  The  confi- 
dence with  which  Heracleitns  sta- 
ted his  convictions  is  seen,  among 
other  examples,  in  the  expression 
(Fr.  137;  Olympiod.  t»  Gory.  87 
vide  Jahn's  Jahrh,  SttppL  xiv.  267 ; 
cf.  Diog.  ix.  16):  Xryw  rovro  koX 
waph  UtfHr^yp  &y.  Vide  also  tnfra^ 
where  '  the  one  on  whom  he  relies 
more  than  on  thousands,'  is  pri- 
marily himself.  A  remark  attri- 
buted to  Socrates  on  the  difiKculty 
of  Herscleitus's  exposition  is  given 
in  Biog.  ii.  22 ;  ix.  11  sq.  In  Diog. 
ix.  15  sq.,  mention  is  also  made  of 
some  ancient  commentators  of  He- 


HIS   WORK. 


nowhere  can  our  philosopher  find  true  knowledge.* 
The  mass  of  men  has  no  intelligence  for  eternal  truth, 
though  it  is  clear  and  obvious ;  that  which  they  daily 
encounter,  continues  strange  to  them;  whither  their 
own  road  leads  is  hidden  from  them ;  what  they  do 
when  they  are  awake,  they  forget,  as  if  it  were  done 
in  sleep ;  *   the  order  of  the  world,  glorious  as  it  is. 


ncleitns's  work.  Brandii  {Gr, 
Rojn.  Pha.  i.  164),  with  good  rea- 
80D,  on  account  of  other  passages, 
Diog.  Ti.  19,  and  iz.  6,  doubts 
whether  the  Antisthenes  here  a1- 
loded  to  is  the  Socratic  philosopher 
(▼ide  Sehleiermacher,  p.  5)*  and 
lASsalle  makes  the  unfortunate 
snggestiony  i.  3,  that  in  Ens.  Pr,  Ev. 
XT.  13,  6,  Antisthenes  the  Socratic 
is  not    coUed    ^HpoirAcovruc^s,   but 

cf.  part  IL  a,  261.  4.  In  my  quo- 
tation of  the  fragments,  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages,  I  use  Schustei's 
enumeration,  but  at  the  same  time 
mention  from  whence  the  fragments 
are  taken. 

>  Frag.  13,  ap.  Stob.  Floril,  3, 
81 :  6K6ciow  \6iyovs  ^iKovoa  ovfitU 
a^ucpwrcu  {-  4«rai)  is  rovro  &irr€ 

K^xmpurfUvow,  After  yiyvAcKuv 
older  editions  have  ^  y^  B^hs  ^ 
eiiplov;  this  was  repudiated  by 
Oaififord  on  the  ground  of  the  MSS., 
and  was  manifestly  interpolated  by 
some  commentator  who  referred 
the  99^y  irdrrto9  Ktx»purfi4yoy  to 
the  seclusion  of  the  wise,  in  mis- 
taken aUusion  to  Arist.  Polit.  i.  2, 
1263  a,  29  ;  cf.  Lassalle,  i.  344  sq. ; 
Schuster's  defence  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  words  p.  44,  does  not 
convince  me.  In  the  words  8ti 
^o^,  etc.,  Lassalle  refers  {ro^hw 
to  the  divine  wisdom,  and  therefore 
explains  them  thus :    '  That   the 


absolute  is  exempt  from  aU  sensible 
existence,  that  it  is  the  negative.' 
To  me  it  seems  more  likely  that 
the  true  meaning  is  this:  'None 
attains  to  understand  that  wisdom 
is  separated  from  all  things,'  that 
is,  has  to  go  its  own  way,  diverging 
from  genwal  opinion.  This  does 
not  contradict  mirOai  rf  |vr^,  as 
Schuster  (p.  42)  believes,  for  ^vyhy 
is  something  different  from  the 
opinion  of  the  people.  Schuster's 
explanation,  which  is  that  of 
Heinze  (Jjehre  vom  Logos^  p.  32), 
'that  wisdom  is  the  portion  of 
none,'  as  far  as  I  can  see,  does  not 
harmonise  any  better  with  his  con- 
ception of  Iwhp,  In  order  to 
decide  with  certainty  as  to  the 
sense  of  the  words,  we  should  know 
the  connection  in  which  they  stand. 
«  Fr.  3,  4,  ap,  Arist.  RheL  iii. 
5,  1407  b,  16;  Sext.  Math,  vii. 
132  (who  both  say  that  this  was 
the  beginning  of  Hemcleitus's 
work);  Clem.  Strom,  v.  602  D; 
Hippol.  R$fut,  ix.  9:  rov  x6yov 
TovV  Hvros  al.  :  tov  6yros  or 
TOW  94owTos;  the  latter,  which  is 
the  usual  reading  in  our  Aristote- 
lian text,  is  inadmissible,  if  only 
for  the  reason  that  in  that  case  the 
M  cannot  be  connected  with  the 
preceding  context,  whereas  Aris- 
totle expressly  remarks  that  we 
do  not  know  whether  it  belongs  to 
what  goes  before,  or  what  follows 
it ;  it  seems  to  me  Aristotle  must 


HERACLEITUS. 


liave  reftd  roSSc  ({vror,  and  Hera- 
cleitus  must  have  written:  roOd* 
iSfros  OF  roi/8e  46yr.  oltl  o^^kctoi 

ifcoMrcu  «ra)  &icov<rarrcs  rb  wpStrov 
ytvoiUvtov  yhp  itdrrttv  Kara  rhy 
\6yov  t6v^€  iar€ipoiffiv  (bo  B«m. 
Mull.  Schust.  read)  ioiKonn  ififki- 
fitvoi  hr4»y  ical  lipywy  roio(nwv 
bKoionf  iyii  8iYrycS/uu  kot&  ^<}(rir 
9i€up4wy  liccurror  iral  ^pd(tty  Skws 

XaW^ct  dK^va  4y€p04yT§s  woiowri 
(-eovai)  8ic«tf<nrffp  ^ic<{(ra  c08oktcs 
iviKayBdyoyrai.  In  this  much  dis- 
puted fragment  I  think,  with  Heinse, 
2.  c,  10,  and  elsewhere,  that  &cl  is 
to  be  connected  with  46yTos;  the 
X^TOf,  in  my  opinion,  refers  indeed 
primarily  to  the  discourse,  but  also 
to  the  contents  of  the  discourse, 
the  truth  expressed  in  it ;  a  confu- 
sion and  identification  of  different 
ideas,  united  and  apparently  in- 
cluded in  one  word,  which  should 
least  of  all  surprise  ns  in  Heraclei- 
tus.  He  says :  *  This  discourse  (the 
theory  of  the  world  laid  down  in 
his  work)  is  not  recognised  by^men, 
although  it  ever  exists  (1.0/  that 
which  always  exists,  contains  the 
eternal  order  of  things,  the  eternal 
truth),  for  although  all  happens  ac- 
cording to  it  (and  thus  its  truth  is 
confirmed  by  all  facu  nniyersally) 
men  behave  as  if  they  had  never  had 
an^  experience  of  it,  when  words  or 
things  present  themselves  to  them, 
as  I  here  represent  them '  (when 
the  views  here  brought  forward  are 
shown  them  by  instruction  or  by 
their  own  perceptions).  Schuster, 
18  sq.,  refers  the  \6yos  to  the 
'  revelation  which  nature  offers  us 
in  audible  speech/  But  even  if 
we  are  to  understand  by  yiyofi4y»y 
irdrrmy,  etc.,  and  the  ipytty  roio^rvyf 
etc,  that  all  corresponds  with  the 
A^f  of  which  Heradeitos  is 
speaking,  the  \6yos  is  not  described 


as  the  discourse  of  nature;  and 
nature  is  not  only  not  mentioned 
as  the  discoursing  subject,  but  is  not 
named  at  all.  In  order  to  asctibe 
this  signification  to  the  \6yos,  we 
must  suppose  that  roGSt  refers  to 
a  previous  definition  of  the  K6yos 
as  \Ayos  rvs  ^^«'€»s.  That  there 
WHS  any  such  previous  definition, 
is  improbable,  as  this  passage  stood 
at  the  commencement  of  Hera- 
deitus's  work;  and  even  if  its 
first  words  (as  Hippolytus  states) 
ran  thus:  row  9h  K&yov  roSSc,  we 
need  not  refer  th^  di  to  anything 
besides  the  title  of  the  writing  (in 
which  \6yos  wepl  ^vcios  may  have 
occurred);  we  need  not  suppose 
with  Schuster,  p.  13  sqq.,  that  a 
long  introduction,  and  one,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  so  little  in  harmony 
with  the  tone  of  the  rest,  preceded 
what  Heraclei  tus  had  said,  accord- 
ing to  Aristotle,  4y  x'g  ipxS  'rod 
ovyypdfifAaros,  according  to  Sextus 
4yapx^t^*''os  r&y  vcpl  ^lUrtws.  If 
so,  however,  the  twice  repeated  88c, 
as  in  the  commencement  of  Hero- 
dotus*s  history,  can  only  refer  to 
the  Heradeitean  work  itself.  Cf. 
also  Fr,  2,  Clem.  Strom,  ii.  362 
A  :  oh  yiip  ^poy4own  roiaCra  iroAXol 
6K6<roi  (for  which  perhaps  we  should 
read :  6ii6ffois  cf.  ots  4yKvpov<n  ap. 
M.  Aur.  iv.  46)  iytcvpatlmwny,  oM 
IMBdrrts  yiy^Kowt  iavrouri  Sk 
Zok4ovoi.  Fr.  1,  HippoL  /.  c. : 
^{ifiriTijrrou  ol  iyBponroi  irp6s  r^y 
yy&ffiy  rwy  <pay€p&y,  etc.  M.  Aurel. 
iv.  46  :  &i2  ToS  *HpaK\9ir9tov  fitfty^- 
<r$ai  8t(  yris  Bdyaeros  08afp  y9v4ir$aif 
etc.,  fi9fJLy^<r$at  Zh  k«U  rod  **  4wtKay- 
9ayoii4vov  f  IBhs  ftyfr  "  koI  8t<  <*  f 
fidKiara  Biyiy«c&s  6fu\ov(n  KSy^^" 
r^  rk  8Aa  Stoiicovrrt,  "  rovrt^  }iiap4^ 
poyraiy  ical  ots  KoJft  iifA4paif  4yKvpoviTiy 
ravra  aibrols  ^4ya  ^MiUycrai* "  aral  8t« 
'*  oh  8ft  tunc^p  KoBMoyras  irouiy 
Koi  \4ytiy"  .  .  .  ical  8ri  od  8«r 
"  ToSSas  roK4«ty  "  [sc.  Xi&yow  \4ytiy 


IGNORANCE  OF  MANKIND. 


for  them  does  not  exist.'  Truth  seems  to  them  in- 
credible ;^  they  axe  deaf  to  it,  even  when  it  reaches 
their  ears ;  *  to  the  ass  chaff  is  preferable  to  gold,  and 
the  dog  barks  at  everyone  he  does  not  know,*  Equally 
incapable  of  hearing  and  speaking,'^  their  best  course 
would  be  to  conceal  their  ignorance.^  Irrational  as 
they  are,  they  abide  by  the  sayings  of  the  poets  and 


or  Bomethiog  of  the  kind],  roOr' 
ItfTt  Kwrk  ^ikhy  KaB6ri  iraf>ctX^0a/Aev. 
The  words  marked  as  a  quotation 
I  agree  -with  Bemays,  Sh.  Mu8. 
rii.  ]  07,  in  regarding  as  cited  from 
Heracleitus,  bnt  manifestly  only 
from  memory,  and  therefore  not 
altogether  literally.  The  words  in 
Hippocr.  T.  9i«ur,  i.  5  (if  taken  from 
Heracleitas)  must  belong  to  the 
same  connection :  ical  r&  fihv  vfyfia- 
eavtri  obx  oXSouriK,  &  [1.  oHoo'i,  r^] 
Zh  oh  wpfffoirowrt  BoKtovtriP  ft94veUf 
Kol  rit  ijAv  6p&aiy  oh  yiy^Kowriy^ 
AaX*  SftMs  ainottri  irdyra  yiytrai  9i* 
h^^miy  B^iriy  koI  &  fio^Xityrcu  «ral  & 
fih  fioCXoyrcu. 

*  In  this  sense,  as  blaming  the 
ordinary  mode  of  conception,  I  nn- 
derstand,  at  any  rate  conjectarally, 
the  fragmentary  words  in  Theo- 
phrast.  Metaph.  314  (FV,  12,  16, 
Wimm.) :  AoVcp  <r^  (for  which 
Wimmer  conjectures  cttpbs,  and 
Bemays  ap,  Schuster,  p.  890,  o-dpoy, 
off-Bcourii^ ;  (ripof,  which  signifies 
the  same,  is  still  nearer^  «2k^  k^X^' 
fjymy  6  KdWurros,  wiiAy  'Hp(iicAei- 
rof,  K6<r/ios.  Schuster  supposes  this 
to  be  HeracleitDs*s  own  opinion ; 
but  neither  of  the  two  explanations 
he  pr^osee,  is  satisfactory  to  me. 

'  Tbda  at  least  may  be  the 
meaning  of  Fr.  37 ;  Clem.  Strom,  y. 
691  A :  hwurrijf  yip  Bioi^vyydyti  fi^ 
yiy^Kttr^M.  The  preceding  words 
in  Clemens  I  do  not  believe  to  be 
from  Hexadeitus,  partly  because 


$dBri  TTJs  yy6<T%ms  is  an  expression 
which  reminds  us  so  strongly  of 
Christian  language  (cf.  1  Cor.  ii. 
10;  Rev,  ii.  24;  1  C<^r,  yiii.  1,  7  ; 
2  Cor.  X.  6,  and  other  passages), 
and  partly  because  for  the  reasons 
already  given,  gupra^  p.  6.  I  can- 
not agree  with  Schuster,  who,  p.  72, 
finds  in  this  fragment  a  recom- 
mendation to  guard  against  perse- 
cution by  means  of  mistrustful 
precaution. 

*  Fr.b\  Theod.  Cur,  Gr.  Aff. 
70,  p.  13;  Clem.  Btnm.  ▼.  604 
A:  oJ^hyvroi  iMo^aayr^s  xw^pois  ioi' 
Kcuri'  ^Ttf  avrouri  fiOfTvpdu  (the 
prorerb  witnesses  concerning  them) 
vaptSyras  irtTyau. 

*  Fr.  28 ;  Arist.  Eth.  N.  x.  6, 
1176  a,  6:  *iipdK\9iT6s  4yrfffty^  6yoy 
ffipfAor'  hy  i\4ff$ai  fuiWoy  ^  XP*^^''* 
Fr.  36 ;  Pint.  An  8em  s.  ger.  resp. 
c.  7,  p.  787  :  KiJrcf  yip  «ral  fia6(ovo-iy 
ty  hy  fji^  yiy^cKwri  Koff  '^pdnXutoy. 
I  give  to  these  and  similar  sayings, 
which  have  only  reached  us  in  frag- 
ments, the  signification  whidi 
seems  to  me  the  most  probable, 
without  absolutely  vouching  for  it, 

*  Fr.  32;  Clem.  8tr.  ii.  369  D: 
hKovvai  ohK  htiordfiityoi  o68'  •(ir«iir. 

*  Fr,  31 ;  ap.  Stob.  F/oril.  3, 
82 :  Kpincruv  iLfioBliiy  Kp4ff<roy  (^  4s 
rh  fiicoy  ^4p%af)  ;  this  addition 
seems  later.  Plutarch  differs  some- 
what in  his  interpretation,  as  we 
find  in  several  places ;  cf.  Schleierm. 
p.  11  ;  Mull.  816 ;  Schuster,  71. 


10 


IIERACLEITUS. 


the  opinions  of  the  multitude  without  considering  that 
the  good  are  always  few  in  number ;  that  the  majority 
live  out  their  lives  like  the  beasts,  only  the  best  among 
mortals  preferring  one  thing,  namely  undying  glory,  to 
all  besides ;  *  and  that  one  great  man  is  worth  more  than 
thousands  of  evil  persons.^  Even  those  who  have  earned 
the  fame  of  superior  wisdom  in  most  cases  fare  very 
little  l)etter  at  the  hands  of  Heracjeitus.  He  sees  in  them 
far  more  diversity  of  knowledge  than  real  intelligence. 
On  Hesiod  and  Archilochus,  on  Pythagoras,  Xenophanes 
and  Hecatseus,  but  above  all,  on  Homer,  he  passed  the 
severest  judgments ;  *  a  few  only  of  the  so-called  seven 
wise  men  are  treated  by  him  with  more  respect.*     How- 

*  jFV.  71,  as  this  is  restored  by 
Bepnays,  Herod,  32  sq. ;  cf.  Schus- 
ter, 68  sq.  (in  preference  to  La&- 
saU^  ii.  303):  from  Procl.  t» 
Alcib,  p.  255  ;  Creuz.  iii.  115,  Cous. ; 
Clem.  Strom,  v.  576  A :  ris  ykp 
abr&y  [sc  r&vwoWwv]  v^os  ^  ^f^y ; 
Hilljuay  iu}i9oiai  firoyreu  koX  SiSa- 
ffKdK^  (1.  'Kooy)  XP^oi^cu  6fii\tff  ouk 
flhSrts  Uri  iroXXoi  kokoI  ixiyoi  8i 
aya&ol,  tdpiomtu  ykp  ty  itnla  iriv- 
roap  ol  &pi<rroi  k\4os  ii4yaoy  BvriT&Vf 
01  Bh  iroAAoi  K9K6fni»rat  ^Kuffirtf, 
Krfivta,  The  remainder  is  an  ex- 
planatory addition  of  Clemens.  In 
my  interpretation  of  the  last  pro- 
position, I  differ  from  Bemays, 
Lassalle  (ii.  436  sq.)  and  Schuster, 
who  make  Onrrwy  dependent  on 
K\4os,  Bemays  sees  in  the  juxta- 
position of  the  words,  k\4os  iJyaoy 
OvrrruVf  an  ironical  allusion  to  the 
worthlessness  of  that  which  even 
the  best  desire.  Laesalle  finds  in 
them  the  thought  that  fame  is  the 
realised  infinity  of  finite  man. 

•  Fr.  30,  according  to  Bemays, 
toe.  cit.  p.  35 ;  ap,  Theodor.  Prodr. 


(Laz.  Miscel.  p.  20) ;  cf  Symma- 
chus,  Epist.  ix.  115 ;  Diog.  ix.  16  : 
6  tls  fivpiQi  wop*  'HpatcXtirtp  4ity 
ttpiOTot  ^.  Olympiodor.  in  Gorg. 
p.  87  (Jahn's  Jakrb,  SuppfeTnenib, 
xiy.  267)  gives:  cfs  ifiol  iLvrl 
iroWiy.  Similarly,  Seneca,  Ep.  7, 
10,  represents  Democritus  as  say- 
ing:  Unus  miki  propopulo  est  ct 
popiUns  pro  uno,  and  it  is  possible 
that  Democritus,  in  whom  we  shall 
find  other  echoes  of  Heracleitus, 
may  have  taken  this  saying  from 
him. 

»  Cf.  on  this  point  Fr.  22  sq. 
(»up.  vol.  i.  p.  336, 5  ;  510, 4) ;  Fr. 
25  (infra,  p.  16,  1) ;  -FV.  134 ;  Diog. 
ix.  i  :  r6y  (f  "O/ATtpoy  f^ao'Kff  A^ioy 
ixr&y  kyi&ywy  {which  we  must  pri- 
marily refer  to  the  iiywvts  fLowriKol) 
4KfidX\*a-$ai  koI  PmrlCftrBeu  xat  *A/>- 
xiXoxoy  dfwlus.  Fr.  76  (vide  if^f, 
p.  32,  1).  Heracleitus  censures 
Homer,  because  he  would  do  away 
with  strife. 

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


FLUX  OF  ALL   THINGS, 


11 


ever  gre^t  then  may  be  the  differences  between  the 
theory  of  Heracleitus  and  that  of  the  Eleatics,  they  are 
both  equally  opposed  to  the  ordinary  theory  of  the  world. 
According  to  Heracleitus,  the  radical  error  in  the 
popular  mode  of  presentation  consists  in  its  attributing 
to  things  a  permanence  of  Being  which  does  not  belong 
to  them.  The  truth  is  that  there  is  nothing  fixed  and 
permanent  in  the  world,  but  all  is  involved  in  constant 
change,*  like  a  stream  in  which  new  waves  are  continu- 
ally displacing  their  predecessors ;  ^  and  this  means  not 

Arist,  250  b,  9  ;  in  Metaph,  iv.  8, 
p.  298,  10  Bon,\  Fseudo-Alez.  in 
Metaph.  xiii.  4,  9,  p.  717,  14,  765, 
1 2  Bon. ;  Ammon.  De  Interpr,  9 ; 
Sckol.  in  At.  98  a,  37 ;  Diog.  iz. 
8;  Luciac,  V.  Auct,  14;  ISext. 
Pyrrh.  Hi.  115;  Plut.  P^tf.  i.  23, 
6;  Stob.  Eol.  i.  396,  318.  The 
same  theory  ia  preaupposed  by 
Epicharmua,  ride  supra^  vol.  i. 
529  sq. 

*  Plato,  Crat.  402  A,  Tide  pre- 
vious  note ;  Plut.  de  Ei  ap.  A  c. 
18  :  irorofi^  70^  ohK  tcriv  4fifi^vai 

**  cKiiytiiTi  Kot  irdXiy  ffuydyti  "... 
**irp6ir€uri  ical  incmri."  I  consider 
that  these  words  are  from  Hera- 
cleitus, and  Schlei<»rmacher  is  also 
of  that  opinion,  vide  p.  30.  The 
words  in  the  sixth  Heraclitean  let- 
ter (as  Becnavs  rightly  observes, 
p.  55) :  [i  ^os\  "  avviiyti  rh  aKiB- 
ifdfi€ya  "  point  to  this.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  words,  ov8i  .  .  .  Kurit, 
c(iy,  appear  to  me  to  be  an  explana- 
tory addition  of  Plutarch.  Hera- 
cleitus can  scarcely  have  spoken  of 
Bvrrr^  oirtrla ;  and  we  can  hardly  help 
seeing  in  tcarh  9(iy  (which  Schus- 
ter, p.  91,  finds  a  difficulty)  the 


by  Aleseus,  ap.  Diog.  i.   76,  can 
hardly  be  our  philosopher. 

>  Plato,  2W^  160  D:  kot^ 
.  .  .  'HfMLr\eirov  .  .  .  oloy  pt^fiofra 
KimtiaOat  ra  irivra.  Ibid.  152  I) 
{inf.  p.  18,  2)  ;^  Crat.  401  D:  Koff 
'HpdExAciroy  &y  ffyoivTO  t&  6yra  I4y€u 
Tc  irdrra  aral  lUv^iv  oMy.  Ibid. 
402  A :  XtTci  irov  'Hp^A.  8ti  irdrra 
Xo>^<  <ral  ovihy  fiir^tt  kcA  iroroftoD 
^ap  dxcuccE^wv  rh.  6yra  \4y€i  &s  Sis 
is  rhv  aibrhp  Ttora^v  oi/K  hy  ifificUns. 
Jhid.  412  D  :  rh  way  cTvcu  iyiropti^ 
rh  .  .  .  iroXir  tArov  .  .  .  roiovr&y 
Ti  €Jwutj  oloy  ohZ^y  tXKo  ^  X^P*"'- 
Soph.  242  Csqq. ;  vide  inf.  p.  33, 1 ; 
Arist.  Metaph.  iv.  5,  1010  a,  13 
(vide  next  note).  Ibid.  1,  6,  sub 
init. :  vsus  'Hf>a«cXctrcfo<s  5<{{air,  &»s 
avdrrmy  r&y  ahrBitTvy  &cl  ^tSyrwy 
col  iwurHifiifs  ircpl  a^&y  oifK  oifcn^t. 
Ibid.  xiiL  4,  1078  b,  14 :  ro7s  'Hpa- 
M\ttr«£ots  XAyois  &s  ird^rwy  ruy 
tua^jfrSffy  imt  Pt^rrwy.  De  An.  i.  2, 
405  a,  28  (after  the  quotation, 
538,  2,  8):  iy  Kiviiir^i  V  cTku  t& 
hyra  Kiuttiyos  i^rro  ical  ol  iroA- 
Aot  Tnp.  i.  11,  i04  b,  21  :  in 
wdarra  juyclroi  icaB'  'HpdKXeiroy. 
Phpt.  viii.  3,  253  b,  9  {infra,  p. 
15.  1);  Ik  Ccdo,  iii.  1,  298  b,  29 
{inf.  p.  21,  1).  Also  later  writers, 
as  Alex,  in  Top.  p.  43 ;  Schol.  in 


12 


HERACLEITUS. 


merely  that  all  individual  existences  are  fleeting,  but 
that  any  continuance  in  the  state  of  a  thing  is  a  delu- 
sion, as  we  are  distinctly  assured  by  Heracleitus  himself, 
as  well  as  by  all  our  other  authorities  from  Plato  and 
Aristotle  onwards.*     Nothing  remains  what  it  is,  every- 


Aristotelian  Stoic  form  of  expres- 
sion. The  same  expression  is  used 
by  Plut.  de  s.  Num.  Find.  c.  15,  end 
p.  669;  Qu,  Nat.  2,  3,  p.  912; 
Simpl.  Phys.  17  ft,  m,  308  b; 
Plut.  Qu.  Nat.  adds,  irtpa  -^kp 
iwifi^ti  08ara;  more  fully  Clean - 
thes,  ap.  Eus.  Pr.  Eo.  xvi.  20,  1 : 
'MpdixA..  .  .  .  \4yiiiv  otntii'  irOTaftoltn 
roiffiy  alroicrip  4pL$oipox^iP  Irfpa  ical 
crcpa  fiBara  4wif^€i  (the  rest  cannot 
be  regarded  as  Heracleitean).  In 
Heracleitus,  AUeff.  Horn.  c.  24,  p. 
51,  Mehl.  we  find:  irora/iox;  rols 
avrott  ififialpofidw  re  koI  ovk  ifjificd- 
yofi9y,  tl/Aty  re  Kol  ovk  flfxtp^  which 
may  be  explained  thus :  *  We  only 
seem  to  descend  into  the  same 
river,  idpntical  with  itself;  in 
truth,  we  do  not  descend  into  the 
same,  for  during  our  descent  it  is 
changing  ;  and  so  we  ourselves  are 
and  are  not,  because  we  also  are 
constantly  changing'  (Schuster's 
interpretation,  p.  88 — *  we  are  in  it, 
and  at  the  same  time  no  longer  in 
it,'  is  less  satisfactory  to  me).  The 
words,  however,  likewise  admit  of 
another  interpretation  :  *  In  truth 
we  do  not  go  down  into  the  same 
river,  and  we  are  not  the  same 
(after  ttfifv  we  may  supply  ol 
adrol  from  the  preceding  context) 
as  before.'  Arist.  Metaph.  iv.  5, 
1010  a,  12,  is  in  favour 'of  this 
interpretation :  {KparifKot)  *H/»o- 
K\%lr^  ivtrlfta  «iir^rri,  5ti  81s  ry 
alr^  woTOfi^  oltK  timv  iik&^vtu' 
abrhs  ykp  ^ero  o^'  5ira{;  for  if 
Heracleitus  had  also  said  this, 
there  was  no  reason  for  the  censure. 


So  does  Seneca,  Ep.  68,  23 :  Hoe 
e8tf  quod  ait  Heraclitut :  *  in  idem 
fiumen  bis  descertdimus  et  non  de- 
sctndimus.'  The  latter  past>age 
might  be  quoted  in  favour  of 
Schleiermacher's  conjecture,  I.  c. 
143,  that  in  Heracleitus  (AUeg. 
Horn.  1.  c.)  "  Sis  "  should  be  inserted 
after  worofuns  rots  adroTs ;  but  it 
seems  to  me  more  probable  that  the 
<6w'in  Seneca  is  an  explanatory 
addition  taken  from  the  famous 
proposition :  '  We  cannot  descend 
twice  into  the  same  river.'  Schus- 
ter's restoration  of  the  text  of  He- 
racleitus from  the  above  quotations 
(p.  86  sqq.)  is  not  at  all  clear  co 
me.  All  the  expressions  here  cited 
need  not  necessarily  be  taken  from 
one  and  the  same  place. 

*  Schuster,  p.  201  sq.,  has  been  at 
much  pains  to  prove  that  Heraclei- 
tus, in  the  sentences  quoted  above, 
merely  intended  to  express  the 
thought  '  that  nothing  in  the  world 
escapes  the  final  destruction.'  I 
cannot,  however,  satisfy  mjself  that 
his  argument  is  really  satisfactory. 
In  the  first  place,  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  the  original  ex- 
pression of  the  Heracleitean  doc- 
trine (as  he  believes,  vide  p.  86), 
is  to  be  found  in  the  words  irdtrra 
Xttpti  Koi  oh9hif  fU¥9i,  Crat.  402  A 
(vide  the  last  note  but  one).  It  is 
not  altogether  clear  from  this  pas- 
sage whether  these  were  actually 
the  words  of  Heracleitus :  it  is  also 
very  improbable  that,  if  they  were, 
he  should  not  often  have  recurred 
to  his  original  view ;  and  in  that 


FLUX  OF  ALL   THINGS. 


13 


thing  passes  into  its  opposite,  all  comes  out  of  all ;  all 
is  all.  The  day  is  sometimes  longer,  sometimes  shorter  ; 


case  we  might  conjecture  that  he 
would  not  always  have  employed 
one  and  the  same  formula.  Why 
the  expression,  adduced  by  Schuster 
should  be  more  authentic  than  the 
others  that  have  been  handed 
down  to  us;  why  the  irAma  pt7y 
which  is  mentioned  by  Aristotle 
three  times  (2>0  Ccdo,m.  1,  Metaph, 
\,  6,  and  De  An.  i.  2,  vide,  iff/nz, 
p.  22,  4) ;  or  the  corresponding 
passage,  oXov  ^e^/uara  jcivcio^ou  tA 
-■tiyra,  which  is  quoted  in  Plato  as 
a  saying  of  Heracleitus,  Theat.  160 
D,  should  not  equally  reproduce 
his  own  words;  why  he  should 
have  said  wdvra  x^'P*'*  ^^^  ^^^ 
(according  to  Crat.  401  D)  Uyai 
rh  wdtn-a  ical  lUvtiv  ohtkv,  it  does 
not  appear.  Whatever  expression 
Heracleitus  may  have  employed, 
the  chief  qu<»stion  is,  what  he 
meant  by  it.  And  he  himself  leaves 
no  doubt  upon  this  point.  The 
river,  which  labitur  et  labetur  in 
omne  voUtbilia  avum,  would  have 
been  a  very  inappropriate  illustra- 
tion of  the  proposition  that  all 
thing?  in  time  come  to  an  end ; 
but  it  is  perfectly  just  in  regard  to 
the  constant  change  of  things. 
This  is  clearly  marked  by  Hera- 
cleitus as  the  point  of  comparison, 
when  he  says  that  we  cannot  go 
down  twice  into  the  same  river. 
Whether  the  river  flowed  on  eter- 
nally, or  at  some  time  or  other 
came  to  an  end,  is,  in  reference  to 
this  point,  quite  immaterial.  But 
even  if  the  explanations  of  Hera- 
cleitus had  been  less  equivocal 
than  they  are,  the  opinion  of  the 
writers  who  were  acquainted  with 
his  works,  not  as  we  know  them, 
in  small  fragments,  but  in  their 
whole  connection,  would  be  decisive. 


These  writers  are  unanimously 
Agreed  that  he  denied  any  perma- 
nent state  of  things.  Schuster  says 
(p.  207  sq.)  that  Plato  was  the 
first  to  ascribe  this  meaning  to 
wdyra  xa>/x*— that  Aristotle  fol- 
lowed his  example,  but  betrayed 
in  Phys,  viii.  3,  that  he  had  not 
himself  found  a  definite  explanation 
of  the  words  in  Heracleitus's  work. 
For  my  part,  I  can  charge  neither 
Plato  nor  Aristotle,  nor  even  Plu- 
tarch, nor  Alexander,  who  were 
equally  in  possession  of  this  much 
read  book,  with  so  careless  and 
superficial  an  account;  and  1  do  not 
see  what  can  justify  us,  even  irre- 
spectively of  Heracleitus's  own 
assertions,  in  opposing  their  unani- 
mous declarations  with  a  theory 
which  cannot  bring  forward  a 
single  witness  in  its  defence.  For 
even  Phi/s.  viii.  3  proves  nothing. 
Aristotle  here  says,  253  b,  9  :  ipcuri 
riu€S  KiyuffOcu  rwy  Svrotv  ol  r&  fikv 
T&  8*  ot,  &XA^  wdvra  ical  &cl,  &A.X& 
KapBdyuif  r^v  ^fxtr^pav  ciadriffiv. 
Tf.hs  ots  Kal-wtp  oh  9iopiCoyras  Tolay 
Kltrritny  Kiyowriv^  i)  irinras^  oh  X°^^' 
irhy  arayrritrai.  He  therefore  ex- 
pressly attributes  to  Heracleitus 
(with  whom  this  passage  is  prima- 
rily concerned)  the  assertion  that 
all  things  are  involved  in  perpetual 
change.  He  fails,  however,  to  find 
in  Heracleitus  a  distinct  explana- 
tion as  to  the  kind  of  change  that 
is  here  meant ;  and  he  goes  on  to 
show  in  regard  to  all  kinds  of 
change, — increase  and  diminution, 
transformation  and  change  of  place 
(cf.  Part  II.  290,  3rd  ed.),  that  they 
cannot  go  on  uninterruptedly.  But 
what  follows  from  this  ?  What  is 
there  to  show  that  Aristotle's  ac- 
count of  the  matter  may  not  have 


14 


HERACLEITUS, 


and  80  is  the  night ;  heat  and  moisture  alternate ;  the 
sun  is  at  one  period  nearer  to  us  and  at  another  farther 


been  correct ;  viz.,  that  Heracleittut 
distinctly  maintained  the  perpetual 
variation  of  things,  and  proved  it 
(as  we  shall  find)  \>y  many  ex- 
amples, but  that  he  did  not,  like 
Aristotle,  distinguish  logically  the 
various  kinds  of  change,  and  there- 
fore in  places  where  he  announced 
his  proposition  in  a  general  nuin- 
ner,  he  held  to  the  indeterminate 
conception  of  the  motion  (or  the 
flux)  of  all  things,  without  explain- 
ing wherein  this  motion  consisted ; 
whether  the  place,  or  the  size,  or 
the  material  constitution  of  things, 
or  all  these  at  once,  were  constantly 
changing.  In  Plato,  also,  The(Bt. 
181  B  sqq.,  the  proposition  that, 
according  to  the  Heracleitean  doc- 
trine, wivra  itavav  Klvricriy  &ec 
jcti^firai,  everything  is  perpetually 
changing  ita  place  as  well  as  its 
constitution  (is  subject  to  a  con- 
stant iLKKoletffis  as  well  as  a  ircpi- 
<l>o(>a),  is  indeed  declared  to  be  the 
proper  sense  of  the  doctrine,  but  in 
such  a  manner  that  we  can  plainly 
see  that  it  was  Pkto  who  first 
discriminated  these  two  kinds  of 
motion.  Schuster  is  of  opinion  that 
to  assume  the  perpetual  change 
of  individuals  would  lead  to  the 
greatest  difficulties.  If  we  suppose 
that  their  shape  is  perpetually 
changing  (which  no  one,  so  fiir  as 
I  know,  ascribes  to  Heracleitus), 
this  is  contradicted  by  the  continu- 
ance of  the  earth,  sea,  and  sky,  of 
souls  after  death,  etc.  If  they 
are  constantly  changing  their 
substance  for  some  other  sub- 
stance, this  theory  is  compatible 
neither  with  the  period  of  the 
world's  conflagration,  nor  with  the 
following  period  in  which  all  is 
sea   (vide  i^fra^  Her,  Cosm.)t  nor 


eyen  with  the  present  coemical 
period ;  it  would  only  be  in  keep- 
ing with  the  idea  that  everything 
is,  at  every  moment,  changing  all 
its  old  parts  for  new;  that  the 
world  is  every  moment,  as  by  magic, 
disappearing  and  reappearing-  ~ 
which  we  can  hardly  suppose  to 
have  been  the  opinion  of  Hera- 
cleitus.  But  in  onler  to  refute  the 
accounts  of  his  doctrine  by  these 
consequences,  two  things  must  first 
be  demonstrated.  First,  that 
Heracleitus,  in  case  the  accounts 
are  correct,  himself  drew  these 
inferences;  and  secondly,  that  he 
found  difficulty  in  them.  And 
neither  of  these  two  presupposi- 
tions can  I  admit.  How  do  we 
know  that  Heracleitus,  if  he  held 
the  perpetual  transformation  of 
substances,  regarded  this  transfor- 
mation as  taking  place  momentarily, 
and  not  gradually,  now  quickly, 
and  now  slowly?  or  that  he  ever 
said  to  himself, '  If  all  is  constantly 
changing,  this  must  be  true  of  the 
smallest  particles  of  matter  ? '  How 
again  do  we  know  thatfromhis  point 
of  view  such  an  absolute  transfor- 
mation of  substances  would  seem 
unthinkable?  Even  on  this  pre- 
supposition, the  apparent  perma- 
nence of  particular  things,  even 
their  continuance  till  the  end  of 
the  world,  would  be  perfectly  ex- 
plicable, if  we  alao  suppose  that 
what  they  lose  on  one  side  would 
be  made  up  to  them  on  the  other ; 
which,  according  to  p.  569  sq.,  3rd 
ed.,  aeema  to  have  been  actually 
Heracleitus's  opinion.  Cf.  with 
the  preceding  obaerrations,  Suse- 
mihl,  £.  e,  725  sq. ;  Siebeck,  Ztschr, 
f.  Pha.  Ixvii.  245  sq. ;  Teichmiiller, 
Neue  Studim,  i.   118  sqq.      The 


FLUX  OF  ALL  THINGS. 


15 


away.  The  visible  passes  into  the  invisible,  the  in- 
visible again  into  the  visible;  one  thing  takes  the 
place  of  another,  or  is  lost  by  means  of  the  other ;  the 
great  is  nourished  by  the  small,  the  small  by  the  great. 
From  man,  too,  nature  takes  some  parts,  while  at  the 
same  time  she  gives  him  others ;  she  makes  him 
greater  by  giving  to  him,  and  less  by  taking  away,  and 
both  coincide.*     Day  and  night  are  the  same  ;  that  is, 


last-meationed  author  believes  that 
Heracleitos  opposed  his  doctrine 
of  the  flux  of  all  things  to  the 
ansertioQ  of  Xenophanes  that'  the 
Deity  is  unmoved.  I  cannot  agree 
with  this  cozgecture — for  Xeno- 
phanes denies  motion  only  of  the 
Deity  (ride  supra,  vol.  i.  p.  648  : 
566),  whereas  the  proposition  of 
Hemcleitus  refers  to  things,  and 
not  to  the  Deity  as  such. 

'  Thib  is  in  the  passage  of  the 
Pseudo-Hippocrates,  t.  Siafnjs,  i. 
4  sqq.,  which  Bemays,  Bgrad.  10 
sqq.,  supposes  (irrespectively  of 
many  additions  by  Hippocrates 
himself)  to  have  been  taken  from 
the  work  of  Heracleitus,  though 
perhaps  only  the  writing  or  ine 
information  of  some  disciple  of 
Heracleitus  may  have  been  made 
use  of  (further  details,  p.  d70, 
third  edition).  I  take  from  it  what 
teems  to  me,  at  any  rate,  according 
to  the  sense,  to  belong  to  Heraclei- 
tus ;  where  words  are  wanting  in 
our  text,  this  is  indicated ;  Ix^'  '^ 

lufifjuyrj'^^  'fol  iuuepiBripcu  Ttmtr6. 
This  latter  word,  however,  is  cer- 
tainly not  Heracleitean  in  this  ac- 
ceptation; the  reduction  of  gene- 
ration and  decay  to  the  combination 
and  separation  of  matter  rather 
betrays  (as  will  be  shown,  /.  e.)  the 
influence  of  Anazagoras  :  t^Kcurroy 


wphs  rdvra  Kcd  irdvra  Tphs  ^Kturrov 
rtavr6  .  .  .  x*P*'  ^^  iritna  iral  0«ia 
ical  ityBp^wwa  iytp  Kcd  xdn-w  ikfitifiS- 
fifva'  rifUptj  K(d  t{f<pp6yri  M  rh  fiir 
Ktaroy  Koi  ixAxicroif  .  .  ,  irvpot 
^(poios  Koi  ZBaros*  ^Kios  M  Tb  /ta- 
Kp6raTov  ical  fipax^cBrov  .  .  .  ipdos 
Z-nvX  axSros  'AtSfj,  ^dos  *At8j7 
ffK^os  li\vi  (vide  infra)  <potT^ 
\^Kal  fitraKivureu]  Kuua  £8ff  ica2 
riSc  Kcure  trduniy  &priy,  Btmrpri<r- 
a6fifua  Ktiud  tc  t&  r&vSt,  ra  94 
t'  ad  ra  mIvuv.  (Here  come  the 
words  ical  t&  i»^v  •wp-fitraovo'i,  &c , 
given  aurpra,  p.  7,  2,  but  which 
do  not  apply  here)  ^oir96yT»y  5* 
in^iimv  &9truvb4Te  Kfifft  avufAitryo- 
pi4irwy  "Kphs  ftAXqAo,  r^y  'reirpwfi4vfiy 
fioiprjv  Inaffrov  imrKripol  «oX  iicX  t6 
IJL4iov  Kclk  M  Th  fiuoy.  ^op^  8« 
irSuriy  &t'  itWiiKofy,  r^  fi4(ovi  iwh 
rov  fxtloyot  Koi  r^  fitioyi  iwb  rod 
fi4(oyos.  aif^dyerai  xai  rh  fi4(ov  &xb 
rod  4\d<r<Toyo8  .  .  .  4ir4pret  Bh  4s 
Mpontoy  fi4p9a  fi9p4»y,  ZKa  ^\uy 
.  .  .  riin^yK7p^6fityarh.9hBdi<royra- 
Kou  ritfihy  \afifidyovra  irKeioy  irot^«, 
ra  Sk  9iZ6^a  fietoy,  vplowny  &y- 
epwrot  i^Xoy,  6  fihy  SfXxci,  6  9h  i$$49i, 
(Aristophanes  uses  the  same  figure. 
Wasps,  694)  rh  8*  abrh  rovro  iroi- 
4owri  (similarly  c.  16)  pttioy  Bk 
wot4oyrts  irXtioy  Tot4owri  (in  making 
the  wood  smaller,  they  make  it 
irXcTov ;  i.e.,  they  make  more  pieces 
out  of  it)   rh    d'   airrh   koX   ^iwit 


16 


HERACLEITUS, 


there  is  one  essence  which  is  now  light,*  now  dark  ;  * 
beneficial  and  destructive,^  upper  and  under,^  beginning 


kpBp^mr  80  it  is  with  the  na- 
ture of  man ;  fh  fi^y  (nominative) 

[rov"]  Si  Kafifidif€i,  ical  t^  ^^y 
BfSwo-i,  Tovo^qi  irKior  (and  that  to 
which  it  gives,  becomes  more  by  so 
much),  rod  Si  Xa/ijSivci,  roaovrtp 

flUO¥. 

»  Frag.  26,  Hippol.  Befut.  ix. 
10 :  vti4fM  ykpf  ^ffl  (sc.  *HpdicX.), 
Kcu  ¥vi  iarip  ip^  K4yuv  &94  iro»j* 
tiZdaKoKos  Si  trKtiffrvv  *H(r(oSor* 
rovToy  ivUrrctrreu  TXcurra  ciS^yai, 
8<mj  iiiAiffiiP  Kot  €b^p6iriiy  odic  iyl- 

«  So  IfffT*  Iv  is  to  be  understood. 
Sshuster,  p.  67,  expkins  it  thus : 
*  Day  and  night  are  the  same  ;  that 
is  to  sayj  a  division  of  time ' — a  pro- 
position, the  profundity  of  which, 
in  my  opinion,  would  better  Huit 
the  Platonic  Dionysodorus  or  some 
Sophist  of  the  same  stamp,  than 
Heradeitus.  What  Heracleitus 
meant  by  the  unity  of  day  and 
night  is  clear  from  Fr,  67  (tw^c, 
p.  17,  3).  His  censure  of  Hesiod 
refers  to  Theoff.  124,  where  'H^^pa 
is  represented  as  the  daughter  of 
N^(.  If  he  also  censured  Hesiod 
for  believing  in  lucky  and  unlucky 
days,  whereas  one  day  is  like  ano- 
ther (Pint.  Cam,  19;  Sen.  Ep.  12, 
7),  it  must  have  been  in  some  other 
passage,  for  there  is  no  allusion  to 
it  here. 

»  Fr.  83 ;  Hippol.  /.  e. :  Bd^aurad 
^ffiv,  8Sq»p  KaBapf&raTov  ko)  fMgp6' 
Torov  (which,  however,  according 
to  TeichmiUler^B  just  observation, 
K  Stud.  i.  29,  is  not  to  be  trans- 
lated *  troubled'  or  *  dirty,' as  Schus- 
ter has  it,  p.  249 ;  it  means  impure, 
and  primarily  refers  to  the  bad  taste 
and  undrinkableness  of  sea- water) : 


ix^^i  lihw  ir6riitov  jcal  awr^pioy, 
kvBpdnrois  Si  &ic<noy  koI  6xi$pioy. 
Here  comes  in  the  example  of  the 
phvsicians  (Fr.  81)  who  rifuforrts 
KaXovrfs  irayrri  fiaffOpiCoyrts  Kcuc&t 
Toht  ifiPmarovyras  itran-UgrraL  fii|Si'ir 
A^iov  iiurf^Siy  Xofifidftiy  iroftk  rAy 
hji^ffTo^yrwy  ravra  4frY<i(6fiiyoi  rk 
ityaBh  iral  r&s  voUrovSf  iiratriiiyrai, 
&c.,  may  be  thus  explained : '  They 
complain  that  they  receive  nothing 
corresponding  to  the  reward  they 
deserve— nothing  worthy  of  them, 
as  a  reward ;  they  accordingly  con- 
sider the  evils  they  inflict  on  men 
as  something  very  valuable — as 
iyaBdJ  We  get  the  same  result 
if,  in  accordance  with  the  Gottin- 
gen  edition  of  Hippolytus  and 
Schuster,  p.  246,  we  substitute 
fiiaBhy  for  fu<r$&y»  Bemays  {Rhein. 
Mu8.  ix.  244;  Heraclii.  Br.  141) 
proposes  iircurdoyrai  firiiiy  A{iot 
fiurBuy  Kofifidytiy^  &c.,  *  they  ask, 
little  as  they  deserve  a  reward,  pay- 
ment from  the  sick.'  Tn  this  case 
it  is  not  Heracleitus  himself  who 
concludes  ^m  the  conduct  of  the 
physicians  that  fsood  and  evil  are 
identical ;  but  Hippolytus  draws 
this  conclusion,  in  taking  the  ironi- 
cal kyafik  of  Heracleitus  as  earnest. 
That  he  may  be  allowed  the  fuU 
credit  of  this  I  will  not  dispute. 
The  addition  which  Schuster,  p. 
247,  is  disposed  to  make  to  the 
fragment,  from  Ep.  Herod,  vi.  54, 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  have  origi- 
nated with  Heracleitus. 

*  Fr,  82 ;  Hippol.  ix.  10 :  yya- 
^*ltp  ^<r\v^  ilShs  tvBuaKoXvKoKi^  . . . 
fJa  iar\^  ^ifo*},  Kol  o^^*  kcX  rh  &yw 
KtU  rh  KUfrm  ty  4ari  kqjL  rhahr6.  (The 
upper,  e.g.  in  the  revolution  of  the 
heavens  and  the  transition  of  the 
elements  one  into  another,  becomes 


FLVX  OF  ALL  THINGS. 


17 


and  end.*  Mortal  and  immortal  ^  are  the  same.  Sickness 
and  health,  hunger  and  satiety,  labour  and  refreshment 
are  alike;  the  Deity  is  day  and  night,  summer  and 
winter,  war  and  peace,  plenty  and  want ;  all  is  one,  all 
becomes  all.*  From  the  living  comes  death,  and  from 
the  dead  life,  from  the  young  old  age,  and  from  the  old 
youth  ;  from  the  waking,  sleep,  and  from  the  sleeping, 
wakefulness.  The  stream  of  generation  and  destruc- 
tion never  stands  still ;  tlie  clay  out  of  which  things 
are  made  is  for  ever  bemg  moulded  into  new  forms.* 


under,  and  vice  rersi ;  upper  and 
lower  are  consequently  the  SAme 
essence.  Meantime  it  is  a  question 
whether  the  words  koI  rb  &»»  .  .  . 
rh  ovrb  belong  to  Heracleitus,  or 
merely  contain  an  inference  drawn 
by  the  author  from  *  iXbs  &pw  '  &c.) 
4^f  Siw  xdrv  filii  KoL  &fjrfi.  We 
shaU  hare  more  to  say  on  this  sub- 
ject further  on. 

^  Fr.  68;  Pbrphyr.  in  Schol. 
Fen.  in  11.  xiv.  200:  ^vvhv  dpx^ 
Kok   v4pa9   M    k&kKov  ircpi^fpc(as 

*  Cf.  Fr,  60,  infra,  chapter  on 
Her.  Antkrop. 

'  Fr,  84 ;  ap.  Stob.  Floril.  iii. 
84 :  ifodcos  {rytiity  iwoifiir^p  ifih  koL 
iyQ0bv,  Kifths  KSpov,  icdfiOfTos  &i^ 
wawraf,  Fr.  67;  HippoL  BefiU, 
iz.  10 :  6  Otbs  fi/itpv  c^p^yiy,  xtittiov 
B4poSf  w6\€fios  tlfyhvfit  ic6pos  \ifi6s, 
Philo.  Leff,  AlUff.  ii.  62  A:  *HfNi. 
xXctretov  S^ifs  ireupos,  leSpop  feed 
■Xfn^yjHrivtiv  (cf.  infra,  chapter  on 
Htr.  Cornn.  last  pa^e)  iral  Xw  rh  vow 

*  ^.  69 ;  Plut.  con9.  ad.Apoll. 
10,  p.  106:  ir6T€  ykp  4w  Jifuv  ainots 
9btc  tffrw  6  Odtnaros;  ic<d  f  ^vuf 
'HpdUcXciTos,  To^^  r'  im  (Schleier-. 
macber,  p.  80,  conjectures:  'rtin6 
T*  ^9Ti;    Bemays,  Rh,  Mu8,  vii. 

YOL.  IL  i 


103,  Schuster,  p.  174,  &c.:  toutA 
t'  fyi;  the  latter  alteration  seems 
to  me  to  lose  the  sense  of  the 
passage;  and  in  both  I  am  dis- 
satisfied with  the  re  ;  I  should 
therefore  prefer  "rovrk  rh")  (&y 
ica)  TtBmiKis  koI  rh  iypriyophs  Ktilrh 
KotfcuSoy,  Kol  yiop  nqX  yripatSir  rdBe 
yitp  iiera'rw6yra  iKuvd  iari  Kiuttiya 
^dKiv  iurcan<r6ma  ravro.  &s  yitp 
ix  rov  adrov  miXov  B^yarai  ris  irA^r- 
ruy  (^a  avyx^^v  koX  x6\uf  vAcCr- 
Tciy  KoX  (Tvyxuy  <cal  rovro  Iv  vofi' 
tv  roiuy  &5ia\c/«T«tf;*  oiKr«  koX  i^ 
fl>6ais  in  rris  abriis  fiKns  wd\ai  fiky 
rohs  irpoy6yous  iifi&y  AWo-xcv,  cTra 
avytx^it  ainois  iy4yyiiirt  robt  ira- 
r4paSf  €tra  vfuiSf  rfr'  &AAovf  Ar*  eUX- 
015  ivoKMcA^aet.  ica2  6  rrjs  y^i^dcuts 
irorofi^s  otros  ^k5cAcx«s  ^4my  oH- 
TOTc  o-T^o-fTcu,  iral  irdAiK  ^|  iyay- 
rias  ainf  6  r^r  fBopas  cfrc  'Ax^fWK 
•Yre  K»Kvrhs  KoKoifAtyos  ttrh  rwy 
woinrSy,  ^  vff^irfi  ody  olria  ^ 
M^cura  4ifuy  rh  rod  ifKlw  ^s,'  if 
abrii  Ktd  rhy  (o^tf^y  ftyci  f 8i|y. 
I  agree  with  Bernays  (/.  c.)  as 
to  the  probability  of  Plutarch's 
haying  taken,  not  merely  the  words 
rabrh  .  .  .  yiipaihy  from  Hera- 
deitus,  but  the  whole  drift  of  the 
passage ;  and  that  the  image  espe- 
cially of  the  clay  and  its  moulding 


18 


HERACLEITUS. 


All  life  and  consciousness  of  life  ^  is  founded  on  this 
constant  motion,  which  alone  constitutes  the  existence 
of  things ;  nothing  is  this  or  that,  but  heeomea  what- 
ever it  is^  in  the  movement  of  the  life  of  nature ;  things 
are  not  to  be  conceived  as  permanent,  and  finished  once 
for  all ;  they  are  continually  being  reproduced  ^  in  the 


— in  all  probability  also  that  which 
is  said  of  the  stream  of  Becoming 
and  decay,  of  light  and  Hades — is 
chiefly  borrowed  from  the  same 
source.  \b  to  the  meaning  of  those 
words,  Plutarch  says : '  Heradeitus 
declares  the  living  to  be  identical 
with  the  dead,  the  waking  with  the 
tfleeping,  &c.,  because  both  pass 
intx)  one  another  (for  as  the  living 
becomes  dead  when  it  dies,  so  the 
dead  becomes  living  when  the 
living  feeds  upon  it ;  as  the  young 
becomes  old  through  the  lapse  of 
years,  so  the  old  becomes  yotmg  by 
the  propagation  of  the  species), 
and  it  cannot  be  urged  that  this 
was  too  trivial  for  the  profound 
philosopher  (Lassalle,  i.  160);  for 
in  the  first  place  the  thought  that 
in  a  certain  sense  the  dead  again 
becomes  the  living,  and  the  old, 
young,  was  sufficiently  remote  from 
the  ordinary  presentation,  and 
secondly,  the  inference  would  be 
in  any  case  peculiar  to  Heracleitus, 
that  consequently  the  living  and 
the  dead  are  one  and  the  same. 
In  themselves,  however,  the  words 
might  likewise  signify :  the  living 
is  at  the  tame  Hme  dead,  and  vice 
versA,  because  the  living  only  arose 
from  the  destruction  of  a  previous 
existence ;  and  the  dead  is  undergo- 
ing the  transition  to  that  existence ; 
waking  is  sleeping,  and  sleeping 
waking ;  because  in  waking  all  the 
powers  are  not  in  full  activity,  and 
in  sleep  they  are  not  all  at  rest ; 


youth  is  age,  because  it  only  arises 
from  that  which  has  long  been  in 
existence;  and  age  is  youth,  be- 
cause it  only  consists  in  constant 
renewal ;  and  even  the  more  ab- 
stract expressions  that  life  is  at  the 
same  time  death,  &c.,  allow  of  jus- 
tification (cf.  Pint.  De  Ei,  ap.  D 
c  1 8,  p.  392).  The  unity  of  death 
and  life  is  referred  to  in  Fr.  139 
{Etymol,  Moffn,  v.  filos;  Eustath. 
in  Jl.  p.  31,  6)  :  r^  oZv  fii^  twotia, 
Il\w  fiios  tpyov  8i  ddimirof . 

'  Hence  the  statements  in  Tlac, 
i.  23 :  'Hp.  iiptfjday  ical  ardruf  iic 
r&p  ^\topiu^p9i'  iari  yitp  tqvto  r&y 
v9Kpwf.  Iambi,  ap.  Stob.  i.  906 : 
rh  fk\v  rots  abrois  inikiv^w  K^/xoror 

iraiwrtr.  Numen.  ap.  Porph,  Antr, 
Nymph,  c.  10 :  tBw  luX  'Hp^Xctror 
(-oy)  ^vxfjn,  <l>dyM  riff^iVy  fiii 
ddyarov,  iypfci  ywMai^  tbat  is  to 
say,  the  fieiy  seeks  to  be  trans- 
formed into  the  moist  (vide  tfifra, 
chapter  on  Her,  Antkrop.) 

'  Plato  Theaet.  162  D:  fy^  ipA 
ir«U  iUk*  oh  ^aSkw  Xiyor  &s  ipa  l» 
fi^y  avrh  icaO*  a&rh  oMv  ivrip^  ohV 
$,v  ri  xpo<rc(iroiT  if>$&s  obV  ^oiovovv 
rt,  &XX'  ii»  its  fiiyu  yrpocarfoptvr^s^ 
Ka\  a/iiKfhv  ^arctrou,  fcal  ikv  fiaph, 
Kou^Wf  ^^fivavrd  re  o8t»s,  &s  /iiySe* 
i^s  6yros  Ms  fiiir^  rivhs  fxfrr*  6rroiO' 
vovv*  iK  t^  8^  ^flas  re  leal  ttiv^tatms 
ical  KpdiirufS  vpds  KXXi}Xa  yiyptrcu 
,ir<ivra  &  8^  ^aiuy  «Tirai  ohx  ipOAs 
irpoavByopt^orrts'  I0T1  ftky  yiip  ov94' 
Tor*  oMy,  ad  8^  yiyvtrat,      156 


FLUX  OF  ALL  THINGS. 


19 


flux  of  phenomena  by  means  of  active  forces;  they 
merely  mark  the  points  where  the  opposing  streams  of 
natural  life  cross  each  other.^  Heracleitus  therefore 
likens  the  world  to  a  mixture  which  must  continually 
be  stirred  that  it  may  not  decompose,^  and  the  world- 1 
creating  power  he  compares  to  a  child  who,  in  play^i 
draws  his  pebbles  this  way  and  that.'  While,  there- 
fore, Parmenides  denies  Becoming,  in  order  to  maintain 
the  conception  of  Being  in  its  piurity,  Heracleitus  denies 


£ :  airhijukw  Ka0  c^h  fiii^^y  tlpcu ,  .  . 
iy  tk  rp  %fi6s  &XAifXa  JfuXif  mb^a 
yiyp^ff^ai  ko)  vaarrota  dat6  riis  Kurli- 
ffwms  .  .  .  M^y  cTroi  Ik  adrh  Koff 
airrh  iXXit  rtwl  iul  yiyv^ffihuy  rh  8' 
«Tj«t  voPTax^Otw  i(,<uper4ov.  In  the 
firat  of  these  passages,  this  opiQion 
is  ge&emlly  ascribMl  to  all  the  an- 
dent  philosophers,  except  Parme- 
nides, and  especially  to  Heracleitus. 
Empedoclea,  and  Protagoras ;  and 
the  Tirl  is  only  applicable  to  Pro- 
tagoras. However,  it  has  already 
been  prored,  and  -we  shall  see,  far- 
ther on,  that  the  words  qnoted 
eorreetly  represent  the  doctrine  of 
Heracleitus. 

'  Farther  details  hereafter. 

*  Fr.Sb;  Theophr.  De  Vertig, 
9,  p.  138 ;  Wimm. :  cl  8^  m^  (this 
is  no  doubt  correct;  Bernays, 
Herack  7>  reads :  ti  8^),  Koddxtp 
*HpdMK€ir6s  ^n^t,  KoX  6  KvK€inf  Hite- 
Toraj  fiii  Kipoifitwos  (thus  Wimmer 
reads,  following  Usener  and  Bern. ; 
the  older  editions  leave  out  m^, 
which,  however,  in  spite  of  Las- 
salle,  i.  75,  is  decidedly  required 
by  the  context  Of.  Lucian,  Vit, 
Auet.  14:  I^«c8ok  o^\vy  iXki  kus 
it  JTHKcfira  vdrra  ffw€i\4orTtu,  lud 
MTi  rmnh  rdpn^ts  itrtpn^lii,  yvwrts 
iypwrhi,  fiiya  /uk^,  6p9»  xifru  irtpi' 
Xmpiorra  mil  iLfi9tfi6fi€va  ip  rg  rod 


al&yos  Tai8ij7.  The  anecdote  in  Pint. 
Gamdit,  c.  1 7»  p*  51 1,  can  scarcely 
have  any  connection  with  this  do<»- 
trine.  The  jrvicf <l»r  of  Heracleitus 
is  mentioned  by  Chrysippus,  ap. 
Philodem.  NcU,  Be,  Ool.  vii. ;  ac- 
cording to  Petersen's  emendation, 
to  which,  however,  Sauppe  prefers 
another  and  simpler  version.  Epi- 
curus, ap.  Diog.  X.  8,  calls  Hera- 
cleitus a  Kwarr^s. 

•  Prod,  in  Tim,  101  F:  dtXXoi 
tk  Kol  rhy  dn/ifuovpyhy  iyr^KoviMvp^ 
yely  rt€d(€iy  ^IfyfiKcun,  KaBdv§p  'Hpi£- 
K\€nos,  Clem.  Paedoff.  i.  90  C: 
rowdrriy  riv^  ira/^ety  irat9tkv  rhy 
Icunov  Ala  'HfK£ic\ciros  \^«i.  Fr. 
49;  Hippol.  jRs/u^.  ix.  9 :  olhy  vtus 
iari  ira(^(wy,  werr€^y  vai9hs  ^ 
fioffiK'nfti-  Luc.  I.  e. :  ri  fhp  6  My 
im;  iroif  vof^on^,  vtefft^wv^  8ia- 
^p6fAtyos  (or  better,  as  Bernays 
reads) :  avv9icup€p.  =  iy  r^  8<a- 
p4p9tr$eu  irvfi^p6ii€yos.  Bernays 
(Rhein.  Mu$,  vii.  108  sqq.)  illus- 
trates these  pansages  excellently 
from  Homer,  II.  xv.  360  sqq.; 
Philo.  Incor.  M,  950  B  (500  M.)  ; 
Plut.  De  Ei.  c.  21,  p.  393,  where, 
however,  the  game  of  draughts  is 
not  specially  mentioned.  There  is 
probably  an  allusion  to  the  vous 
twv^y  in  the  ireTTiwri^f,  Plato, 
Law9,  X.  903  D. 


c  2 


20  HERACLEITUS. 

Being  that  he  may  maintain  in  full  force  the  law  of 
Becoming ;  while  Parmenides  declares  that  the  notion 
of  change  and  of  movement  is  merely  a  delusion  of  the 
senses,  Heracleitus  asserts  the  same  of  the  notion  of 
permanent  Being ;  while  Parmenides  regards  the  ordi- 
nary mode  of  thought  as  erroneous  in  principle  because 
it  assumes  generation  and  destruction,  Heracleitus  comes 
to  a  similar  conclusion  precisely  for  the  opposite  reason. 
But  the  metaphysical  proposition  that  all  things 
are  in  a  continual  flux  becomes  with  Heracleitus  a 
physical  intuition.  The  living  and  moving  element  in 
nature  seems  to  him  to  be  fire ;  if  all  things  are  con- 
ceived in  perpetual  motion  and  change,  it  follows  that 
all  things  are  fire.  This  second  proposition  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  developed  from  the  first  by  conscious 
reflection,  but  the  law  of  change  which  he  everywhere 
perceives,  presents  itself  to  him  through  the  direct 
action  of  the  imagination  imder  this  symbolical 
aspect,  the  more  general  import  of  which  he  cannot 
therefore  separate  in  his  own  consciousness  from  the 
sensible  form  in  which  it  is  contained.  In  this  way  we 
must  understand  the  assertion  ^  that  Heracleitus  held 

'  Arist.  De  Codo,  iii.  1,  298  b,  do-Alex,  on  Metaph.  xii.  1,  p.  643, 

29:  olihrikfi^y  &XXa  xdirra  yiw«a'  18   Bon.:   6  yikv  yhp  'Hp<iic\ctrof 

$cU  r4  ^€uri  koI  ^ccy,  clvai  8^  iray(»f  obirloM   ircd  ipxV    ^iB^o  rh  «rvp. 

oM^v,  ly  ^4  rt  lUvov  trofiirtuf,  i^  Dipg.  ix.  8 :    rvp   cTrac  (rroixccoy. 

ot  ravra  vdma  fitreurxfltt^fiCwOai  ClemeDS,  Cohort.  43  A :  rh  vvp  &s 

T€^vKftr  Brtp  ioUcaffi  fioiKtc^ai  X^  hpxh^^^  a4fiorr9s.    The  same  is 

yet»  ftXAoi  re  woXXol  mU  'HfkUeXet-  said  in  the  verse,  ap.  Stob.  Ed.  i. 

ros  6  'E4>4aios.    Metaph.  i.  3,  884  282  (cf.  Flut.   Plae.  i.  3,  26)  U 

a,  7 :  'Imrcuror  M  wvp  6  Mrrorov-  mpht  yiip  wdirra  jccU  c{f  wvp  irdurra 

rufos  KoX  *HpdKK§iTos    6  'E^icios  Tc\fvr$,  which,   however,   in  this 

{i^fjAy  Ti04an\    Ibid.  iii.  4,  1001  form  is  evidently  spurious,  and  an 

a,  16 :  Ircpoi  5c  wvp  o2  8*  d^pa  ^offXw  imitation  of  the  weU-known  verse 

c7mu  rh  \if  ToOro  ical  rh  hw^  4^  ot  rh,  of  Xenophanes  (««p.  voL  i.  p.  667, 

ivra  %Xvai  re  KaX  y€yoy4vcu.    Pseu-  4),  which,  however,  as  is  proved 


THE  PRIMITIVE  FIRE. 


21 


fire  to  be  the  first  element,  the  principle  or  primitive, 
matter  of  aU  things.^  ^  This  world,'  he  says,  ^  the  same 
for  all,  has  been  made  neither  by  one  of  the  gods  nor 
by  any  man ;  but  was,  and  is,  and  shall  be,  an  ever  living 


by  Simpl.  Phys,  111  b»  contains 
much  that  is  truly  Heracleitean. 
For,  after  Simplicius  has  given 
as  the  doctrine  of  Heracleitns, 
ix  vwp6t  wrtpatrfidyov  wdtrra  ttnu 
Kol  clf  Tovro  wdyra  iunxX^aBea^ 
he  afterwards  says:  *Hpdtc\tiros 
**  c2f  vvp"  \4ym¥  **iudiK  wvphs  rk 
wdmrtC  As  these  words  are  made 
into  a  hexameti*r  in  Stobens,  and 
as  we  elsewhere  (ap.  Proc  in  Tim. 
36  C;  Pint.  Plac.  li.  21;  Qu.  Plat. 
Tiii.  4,  9,  p.  1007;  cf.  also  the 
wvphs  iiAMfiiiP,  infra,  p.  27,  1)  meet 
-with  fragments  of  Terse  bearing 
Heradeitns's  name,  we  may  sup- 
pose that  there  was  a  version  of 
his  doctrine,  made  in  hexameters 
to  assist  the  memory,  which  pro- 
bably emanated  from  the  Stoics. 
Schuster,  p.  364,  coojectures  the 
author  of  it  to  have  been  Seythi- 
aus,  who,  accoiding  to  Hieronymus, 
ap.  Biog.  ix.  16,  rendered  the  work 
of  Hen^eitus  into  verse ;  and  re- 
fers to  versified  fragments  in  Stob. 
i.  26. 

>  On  this  Teichmiiller  remarks 
{N.  8tmd.  i.  118  sq.,  and  simi- 
larly, p.  185,  148  sq.,  although  he 
quotes  my  vezy  words,  from  '  The 
metaphysical  proposition'):  'Ac- 
cording to  this,  therefore,  Hera- 
deitus  first  discovered  the  meta- 
physical truth,  and  then  made  the 
deduction,  which  depends  upon  the 
observation  of  things.'  I  really 
thought  I  had  said  the  contrary 
soificiently  clearly  to  have  been 
sale  from  such  a  misrepresentation 
of  my  opinion.  £ven  the  '  meta- 
physical   proposition  is  obviously 


not  to  be  understood  as  an  a  priori 
one;  I  am  speaking  of  the  law  of 
change,  which  Heracleitus  every- 
where perceiv&df  and  I  have  shown, 
p.  13  sq.,  on  what  kind  of  pjercep- 
tions  the  philosopher  based  his  pro- 
position. I  derive  the  proposition 
from  observation,  and  expressly 
remark  that  it  did  not  precede  the 
assertion  'All  is  fire'm  the  con- 
sciousness of  Heracleitus.  I  cer- 
tainly do  not  suppose,  however,  in 
regard  to  this  fire,  that  Heiudeitus 
was  thinking  merely  of  the  actual 
fire  that '  we  see,  and  hear  crack- 
ling,' etc. ;  nor  that  any  man  ever 
thought  that  the  whole  world  had 
been  and  would  be  again  such  a 
visible  crackling  fire;  nay  more, 
that  it  was  so  ^ways,  even  at  the 
present  time.  Heracleitus  says  of 
the  world,  not  only  ^y  iral  l^rcu,  but 
^y  iul  KoX  HffTk  Hal  t<rrai  wvp  iMi(»oy, 
Consequently,  I  cannot  but  Uiink 
that  this  view  is  svmbolicaL  That 
fire  was  to  Heracleitus '  only  a  sym- 
bol for  the  law  of  change,'  I  never 
said,  but  it  is  imputed  to- me  by 
Teichmiiller,  who  naively  quotes 
the  very  words  which  refute  him 
(*  Heracleitus  did  not  separate  the 
more  general  meaning  of  this  con- 
ception from  its  sensible  form'), 
as  evidence.  But  if  Heracleitus,  in 
asserting  the  world  to  be  fire,  did 
not  mean  to  assert  the  absurdity 
that  it  was  visible  fire,  the  con- 
ception of  fire  must  have  had  a 
signification  with  him,  transcend- 
ing its  directly  sensible  content; 
that  is  to  say,  it  was  a  symbolical 
conception. 


nERACLEITUS. 


fire,  kindled  and  extinguished  in  due  measure : '  >  fire, 
never  resting,  rules  in  all.^  He  thus  indicates  his 
reason  for  calling  the  world  a  fire ;  it  was,  as  Simplicius  ' 
and  Aristotle  ^  observe,  in  order  to  express  the  absolute 


1  Fr.  46  (ClemeDS  Strom,  t. 
599  B.  Pint.  An,  Pr.  5,  2,  p.  1014 ; 
Simp].  De  Calc  132  b,  31,  19; 
SchoL  in  Ariat  487  b,  46,  33): 
K6<rfA0v  r6y9€  rhp  tArhp  awdvr»tf 
otfrt  rts  Bwy  oiht  kiS^^mv  iwoi- 
ifo'cf^  AXX*  ^v  ktX  KoX  lirroi,  wvp 
&«i{<»or,  kwr6fA§¥oir  fUrpa  icat  &«o> 
fffitrvifi^yov  fi^pa.  To  the  latter 
definition  I  shall  presently  recnr. 
The  words  rhv  ain-hv  awdmuv  about 
which  Scbleiermacher  (p.  91)  is 
uncertain,  I  consider  genuine,  on 
account  of  their  very  difficulty, 
though  they  are  wanting  in  Plu- 
tarch and  Simplicius ;  theimdmtv, 
I  refer,  as  masculine,  to  the  gods 
and  men,  so  that  the  words  would 
indicate  the  reason  why  none  of 
these  can  have  made  the  world; 
namely,  because  they  aU,  as  parts 
of  the  world,  are  contained  in  it. 
Lassalle,  ii.  66  sq.,  says :  '  the  one 
and  same  out  of  all  things,  that 
which,  springing  from  all,  is  in- 
ternally identical ; '  but  the  force 
of  this  explanation  is  not  clear. 
That  the  world  is  the  same  for 
all,  Heracleitus  remarks  also  ap. 
Pint.  De  Supent.  3,  ride  i^f.  chap- 
ter on  Her.  Anthrop.  We  need  not 
enquire  with  Schuster  (p.  128),  who 
supposed  the  world  to  hare  been 
created  by  a  man,  nor  need  we,  with 
Teichmiiller,  N.  Stud.  i.  86,  answer 
the  question  by  a  reference  to  the 
Oriental  apotheosis  of  princes  (they 
were  not  so  foolish  in  Egypt  or 
Persia  as  to  regard  a  faTOurite 
prince  as  the  creator  of  the  world). 
'  No  god  and  no  man  *  means,  as 
has  already  been  obseryed,  vol.  1., 


p.  569, 1,  no  one  absolately.  To  the 
Greeks  of  the  time  of  Heracleitus, 
indeed,  the  notion  that  the  world 
was  made  by  one  of  the  gods  would 
haye  been  scarcely  less  strange  than 
the  idea  that  a  man  made  it.  The 
eternity  here  ascribed  to  the  world 
by  Heracleitus  does  not  contradict 
the  assertion  of  Aristotle  that  all 
his  predecessors  considered  the 
world  as  become,  or  created :  this 
has  already  been  pointed  out,  yol. 
i.  p.  440,  1 ;  670 ;  cf.  also  ff|/m. 
Her.  Co8m. 

'«  ^.  68;Hipj)ol.2?^u<.ix.  10: 
r&  54  wdyra  olaitiiu  K*paw6s.  Hip- 
pocr.  T.  Siflur.  i.  10,  end  (yide  infra, 
p.  27,  note).  We  meet  with  the 
same  world-ruling  fire,  also  under 
the  name  of  iccpovir^f,  in  the  hymn 
of  Cleanthes  (Stob.  Ed,  i.  80),  verse 
7  sq.  where  that  Stoic,  who  we  find 
from  other  indications  especially 
resembled  Heracleitus,  fxalts  Zeus 
as  '  He  that  holds  in  his  hands  the 
&«1  ((6oyraiecpavir^y(the«vpAc/(»ov) : 

*  Pht/s.  8  a:  KcU  S<ro(  84  U 
iOtyro  rh  vtoixmp  .  .  .  ical  roCrwv 
^Kwrros  «lf  rh  BpaffT^(noy  iveiSc  mX 
rh  irphs  y4v^<np  hrtrfiZuop  iic^iwou, 
eoX^r  ftkPf  etc.  'HpiicXuros  84  tit 
rh  {ttoy6vop  Kol  hifuoupyuAp  rov 
vup6s.  Ibid.  6  a,  m :  rh  {may6»o¥ 
fcal  ^iifuovpyiKhv  koI  wwwrm^y  ffol 
9iiL  wdrrtty  xt^P^^  "^  wdmtty  bX- 
Xwrn-uchy  r^r  O^pfuiniros  iuK/rdfuyot 
ra^Ttiy  ^axor  riiy  Z6^ay, 

*  De  An,  i.  2,  406  a,  25:  mil 
*Hpd»K€iros  84  r^y  VxV  ^'^^  ft^*^ 


THE  PRIMITIVE  FIRE. 


23 


life  of  nature,  and  to  make  the  restless  alternation  of 
phenomena  comprehensible.  Fire  is  not  to  him  an 
unvaiying  substance,  out  of  which  things  derived 
were  compoimded,  but  which  in  this  union  remains 
qualitatively  unchanged,  like  the  elements  of  Empe- 
docles  or  the  primitive  substances  of  Anazagoras ;  it  is 
the  essence  which  ceaselessly  passes  into  all  elements, 
the  universal  nourishing  matter  which,  in  its  eternal 
circulation,  permeates  all  parts  of  the  cosmos,  assumes 
in  each  a  dififerent  constitution,  produces  individual 
existences,  and  again  resolves  itself ;  and  by  its  abso- 
lute motion  causes  the  restless  beating  of  the  pulse 
of  nature.  By  fire,  the  fire-flash  or  lightning,^  Hera- 
cleitus  understood  not  merely" visible  fire,  but  heat  in 


riXXa  ffwirrriw  *  «U  iuroffiarr^a- 
t6p  Tf  (Tontrik  has  this,  iDstead 
of  the  Ml  of  the  Vulgate ;  I  prefer 
I*,  in  acoordsDce  with  Cod.  SX  10), 
ffoi  ^4ojr  &«^  T^  Bh  KUfo6fAfvoy  kiwov- 
fiiv^  yty^KtcBau  Further  details 
coneemiog  this  passage,  infra,  p. 
26,  1,  and  Ber,  Anthrop.,  note  4. 
AristoUe  himself  sajs  in  Heraclei- 
lean  language,  Meteor,  ii.3,  357  b, 
32 :  rh  rSrw  ^rran^  iM,ru9  ica2  rh 
rrit  ^\ayhs  ^vfta.  De  Vita  et  m, 
c  5,  470  a,  3 :  T^  l\  vvp  del  8ia- 
Ttku  yiwofiwoy  iral  ^op  Ainrtp  to- 
Taft6s,  Similarly  Theophr.  Fr.  3 
(ite/yjw),  3, 

'  The  iccpavi^f  has  already  come 
before  us,  p.  22,  2,  in  a  connection 
in  which  it  can  only  signify  fire  as 
the  creatiFe  prindfde  of  the  world, 
and  not  merely  bghtning  in  the 
^Mcial  sense,  vpiiffriip,  howerer, 
has  doubtless  the  same  general 
signifieanee  in  F^.  47;  Clemens, 
Sirom.   v.   699    C:    rvp^s   tpowai 


^fUifu  y^,  rh  9h  ^/juav  irpiiffriip, 
whether  Heracleitus  may  have  dis- 
criminated frptiffriip  according  to 
the  most  literal  interpretation  of 
the  word  (as  Stob.  Ed,  I  694,  as- 
serts) from  Mpowifh,  or  considered 
both  alike  as  lightning.  Lassalle, 
ii.  76  sq.  would  distinguish  vpri- 
oT^p  from  Tvp  by  making  trpiiar^p 
the  cosmical  elementary  fire,  the 
basis  of  all  things,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  yisible  fire ;  while  he  ro- 
^rds  wVp  as  the  Tisible  fire  only. 
But  this  theory  finds  no  support 
in  the  passage  just  quoted — the 
only  place  where  Heracleitus  names 
v^rHp;  nor  in  the  fact  that 
vpfiffriip  (as  Lassalle  says^  *was 
already  the  designation  in  use 
among  the  Orphics  for  the  impure, 
t.0.  material,  sensible,  fire :  *  which 
means  that  in  an  Orphic  fragment 
ap.  Proc  ia  Tim.  137  C,  therefore 
in  a  poem  centuries  later  than  He- 
racleitus, these  words  occur :  ir/»9- 
ST^p  i^jijiipov  "wvphi  Mos. 


24 


HERACLEITUS. 


general,  the  warm  matter,  or  dry  vapours,  according  to 
the  language  of  later  writers ;  *  and  for  this  reason 
he  even  substituted  for  fire  the  breath,  the  -^vx^**  P®^" 
haps  also  aether.'    But  it  would  imply  a  misconception 

'  Aristotle  expressly  says  this 
in  the  passage  we  have  just  been 
discussing.  Cf.  also  Fr,  89  ap. 
Clem.  atrofiL  yi.  624  D;  Philo 
JEtem.  Mundi,  968  C  (cf.  ProcL 
in  Tim,  86  ;  Julian  Orat  V. 
166  D.  Spanh. ;  Oljmpiodor.  im 
Gorg,  Jahn*s  Jdhrbb.  Supptementb. 
ziy.  367,  642):  inrxpf^*^  Bdwwros 
08«p  (al.  ^pgci)  yfW<r9ai,  v8art 
5i  Od»wros  T^r  y§y4irBai'  iic  yijs  5i 
9timp  yiyrratf  i^  t9wros  84  ^'vx^. 
Philo  indeed  explains  ^x^  as  dV» 
and  Rutarcb  ie  Ei,  16,  p.  392, 
represents  HerHcleitus  as  saying 
irvp^s  Od^aros  &^pi  yivwti  Kcd  kipoi 
ddtwros  08aT<  y4y9tris ;  that  this  is 
incorrect  is  clear  firom  our  previous 
quotations,  and  others  which  are 
yet  to  come  (chap,  on  Her.  Casm.), 

*  Aether  is  not  named  in  any 
of  the  fragments  of  Heracleitns ; 
but  that  Sie  conception  was  not 
unknown  to  him  appears  probable 
firom  the  predicate  edBptos,  which 
he  gives  to  Zeus  (Fr,  86,  vide  in- 
fiuj  p.  666,  8,  3rd  ed.)  fipom  the 
Platonic  derivation  of  aether  from 
if  2  B4u,  CrtU,  410  B,  and  still  more 
ffom  the  fact  that  Pseudo-Hippocr. 
De  Cam.  i.  426  E,  declares  that 
Btpfihy  appears  to  him  to  be  the 
same  as  what  was  called  by  the 
ancients  aether;  the  Stoics,  too, 
identified  the  upper  Are  with 
aether  (vide  Part  in.  124,  4  ;  129, 
2 ;  2nd  ed.).  It  is  not,  however,' 
quite  certain,  for  the  Stoics  may 
have  arrived  at  their  conception 
through  the  Aristotelian  doctrine, 
and  the  treatises.  capK&viB  (judging 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  elements 
which  it  contains,  and  other  indica- 


'  When  Aristotle  I.  e.  (vide 
previous  note)  says  thatJHeradeitns 
sought  the  soul  in  the  ivaOv/u/atf-iy, 
i^  fis  rdtWa  trifpiffTritrty,  it  is  plain 
that  this  iuMi0vfjtlaurts  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  irup  which  is 
elsewhere  declared  to  be  Hera- 
deitus's  primitive  matter.  Schuster 
thinks  (p.  162)  it  is  useless  to  en- 
quire whether  Aristotle  meant  the 
same  thing  by  the  two  words ;  to 
me  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt 
so  clear  an  expression.  If,  in  one 
place  fire,  and  in  another  the  ifor 
Oufdoffis  is  designated  as  the  prin- 
ciple from  whicli  Heracleitus 
thought  all  things  arose,  we  can 
onlj  suppose  (unless  we  charge 
Aristotle  with  the  most  obvious 
contradiction)  that  one  and  the 
same  thing  is  intended  by  both 
terms.    Aristotle  indeed  says  (cf. 

L26,  1)  exactly  the  same  of  the 
iBufdeuru  that  Plato  says  of  the 
all-permeating  essence.  Philoponus 
(in  k,  I.  €.  7),  therefore,  nghtly 
interprets  Aristotle,  when  he  says : 
irvp  ii  [*Hp.  I\f7€v]  off  r^v  ^K6ya 
{&s  yhp  * kpurrmixus  ^o-V  ^  ^\hl 
6ir€pfio\^  i<m  irvp6s)  *  &\A^  irvp 
I\f7e  riiw  ^ripiuf  iufoBuulcuriy,  4k 
reUirris  o5k  t Twu  koX  riiv  ^rvx^v.  The 
expression  ^§pfio\ii  wvphs  for  flame 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  Heraclei- 
tean ;  the  quotation  only  refers  to 
what  Aristotle  said  in  his  own 
name  (Gm.  et  Corr,  ii.  3, 830  b,  26  ; 
Meteor,  i.  8,  340  b,  21) ;  not  to  an 
utterance  of  his  concerning  Hera- 
cleitus. Against  Lassalle*s  inter- 
pretation of  kyoBvySMTis  (i.  147 
sqq. ;  ii.  328  sqq.),  cf.  Part  in.  b, 
23,  2nd  ed. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  FIRE, 


25 


of  his  whole  system  to  say,  as  Aenesidemus  '  does,  that 
he  supposed  all  things  to  consist  of  warm  air.  In 
accordance  with  this  larger  import  of  the  word, 
Heradeitus  says  of  his  fire,  that  it  is  never  destroyed,^ 


tionfl)  much  later  than  Aristotle. 
The  farther  snppoeition  (Lass.  ii. 
89  sq.)  that  aether  was  the  highest 
ereatire  principle  of  Heraeleitns, 
and  that  he  held  three  stages  of 
fire,  in  -vhich  it  manifested  itself 
more  or  less  purely,  tiz.  aether, 
wvpy  and  vffntrr^p,  has  no  real 
fonndation,  though  its  author  has 
taken  much  pains  to  prove  it. 
liasBalle  thinks  that  this  theory 
alone  can  explain  the  assertion  of 
Aenesidemus,  that  air  is  the  first 
principle  of  Heracleitus;  but  I 
have  shown  (Part  iii.  b,  23  sq., 
2nd  ed.)  that  we  do  not  require  it 
for  this  purpose.  He  also  urges 
that  in  Ambrosius  Hexaem.  i.  6  T., 
1,  8  Maur.,  and  also  in  Ps.-CeDso- 
rinus  jPV.  1,  4,  in  the  enumeration 
of  the  elements,  air  (which  can  only 
have  come  there  by  a  confusion 
with  aether),  and  not  fire,  takes 
the  highest  place,  as  if  that  enu- 
meration were  necessarily  accord- 
ing to  a  strict  order,  and  as  if 
C^isorinus  had  not  immediately 
after  remarked:  the  Stoics  place 
aether  above  air;  and  below  air, 
water.  He  lays  great  stress  on 
the  quotation,  I.  e,  [muikdus  eon" 
eUU]  quaituor  eUmetUUy  terra,  aqua, 
upte,aere,  <mju9  prineipalem  solem 
quidam  ptUatU,  ut  CUmthes;  but 
eufus  does  not  refer,  as  Lassalle 
supposes,  to  aer,  but  to  mundus; 
for  Gleanthes  regarded  the  sun  as 
the  iijtfiowaehv  rod  tt^Cfiov  (vide 
Part  m.  a,  125,  1,  2nd  ed.).  He 
relies  on  the  Stoical  discrimination 
of  aethereal  and  common  fire,  in 
regard  to  which  it  is  a  question 
whether    it   was    borrowed   from 


Heracleitus,  and  which  (even  in 
Heracl.  AUeq.  Horn,  c.  26)  does  not 
absolutely  coincide  with  the  dis- 
tinction said  to  have  been  made  by 
our  philosopher  between  aether  and 
fire.  He  thinks  that  the  apathy  of 
aether  ^ps.-Oensorinu6,  /.  o.)  which 
contradicts  the  Stoic  doctrine,  must 
have  been  taken  from  Heracleitus, 
whereas  it  is  fkr  more  likely  that 
its  source  is  Aristotle's  Physics 
(ride  Part  il  b,  331, 2nd  ed.)  from 
which  we  must  also  derive  the 
conceptions  of  Ocellus,  2,  23,  and 
the  spurious  fraghients  of  Philolaus 
(Lassalle,  however,  considers  them 
authentic),  which  were  discussed 
vol.  i.  399,  1 ;  ef.  /.  e.  p.  358. 

>  Ap.  Sext.  Math.  z.  233 ;  ix. 
360 :  cf.  Tertull.  De  An.  c.  9,  14  ; 
Part  ni.  b,  23  sq. 

«  Fr.  66,  Clem.  Paedag.  ii.  196 
C :  r^  |A^  ivvov  vms  iv  rts  \dBot ; 
that  the  subject  of  imy  is  Tvp  or 
^f  we  see  from  the  addition  of 
Clemens :  X'fitrrrat  yAr  yhp  f<re»f 
rh  vXtrfhrrhv  ^&s  ris,  rh  M  rotirhr 
hB{fpcer6v  iariv.  Schleiermachei^s 
emendations  (p.  93  sq.)  seem  to 
me  unnecessary.  Heracleitus  may 
very  well  have  said — *  No  one  can 
hide  himself  from  the  divine  fire, 
even  when  the  all-seeing  Helios 
has  set.'  The  nt  is  also  defended 
by  Lassalle,  ii.  28  (who  pertinently 
reminds  us  of  Comut.  N.  Dear.  11, 
p.  35);  Schuster,  p.  184;  and 
Teichmiiller,  N.  Stud.  i.  184. 
Schuster,  however,  refers  it  to 
Helios,  who  obeys  the  laws  which 
are  inherent  in  fire ;  but  with  this 
I  cannot  agree. 


26 


HERACLEITUS. 


that  it  is  not  like  sunlight  connected  with  a  particular 
and  therefore  changing  phenomenon,  but  is  the  univer- 
sal essence,  which  is  contained  in  all  things  as  their 
substance.^  We  must  not,  however,  reduce  it  on  that 
account  to  a  metaphysical  abstraction,  as  Lassalle  does. 
When  Heracleitus  speaks  of  fire,  he  is  not  thinking 
merely  of  ^  the  idea  of  Becoming  as  such,'  <  the  unity 
in  process  {processirende  Emkevt)  of  Being  and  non- 
Being,' &c,;*  there  is  not  a  word  to  imply  that  he 
means  only  the  '  ideal  logical  entity  of  fire,'  and  not  the 
definite  substance  perceived  in  the  sensation  of  heat,  or 
that  fire,  as  a  principle,  is  absolute,  immaterial,  and 
different  from  every  kind  of  material  fire.'    His  own 

*  Cf.  Plato,  Crat,  412  C  aqq., 
who,  in  his  playful  etymology  of 
Sfiroior,  probably  borrowed  from 
HeradeittiB,  proceede  quite  in  the 
style  of  Heracleitus  when  he  says, 
Zaot  yhp  ifyowntu  rh  iray  fTnu  4v 

fidifovtri  romniv  ri  cTvoi,  otoy  olikv 
iXXo  1^  X^P*"'*  ''^  '^  ro^ou  vamhs 
thod  ri  iu^ihtff  Hi*  oZ  vdirra  rit 
ytyy6iMya  yiyv€<rBar  «Tmu  hk  rdxur- 
roy  Tovro  Koi  Xcirr^aroF.  It  must 
be  the  subtlest  in  order  to  pene- 
trate all  things,  and  also  the 
Tdx^rrovj  Airr*  xpV^^^  A*nrtp 
iffrAai  Toit  Axxou  (the  same  predi- 
cates which  Aristotle  attributes  to 
the  ivoBv^aois),  This,  the  iUeuov, 
receives  different  explanations ;  one 
says :  6  fAkw  ydp  ris  ^tri  roOro  •tyai 
BIkoiop,  rh¥  liKiov  .  .  .  another: 
ipcfT^f  ci  oMy  hUaioy  olfuu  tjyau.  iv 
rois  ijfBpAwots  ^veit^F  6  4|\ioi  8^ 
(perhaps  a  play  on  the  words  m^  'v- 
yov).  Another  understands  by  it 
fire  in  the  abstract :  6  ik  oIk  aZ  rh 
irup  ^fflyf  &AAd  rh  Btpfihv  rh  iy 
rf  vvpl    4y6y,    This  seems  to 


me  one  of  the  evidences  for  the 
view  taken  of  the  Heracleitean  ftre 
in  the  text,  which  Schuster,  p.  159, 
has  missed.  Other  evidences  are  to 
be  found  in  Aristotle's  reduction  of 
vvp  to  the  hfoBv/dturis  (supra  24, 
1)  and  in  Heracleitus*s  own  utt«r- 
ances  (20, 1 ;  22,  1 ;  22,  2).  When 
Schuster  observes :  *  Fire  is  every- 
thing in  the  world,  but  it  is  for 
the  most  part  extinguished,'  he  in 
fact  asserts  the  same  thing  as  the 
words  he  censures  (fire  is  the  uni- 
versal essence,  &c.).  Vide  the  ex- 
planation of  these  words,  p.  22  sq. 

*  As  liissalle  supposes,  i.  361 ; 
ii.  7,  10. 

*  3id.  ii.  18,  30.  Lassalle's 
verbose  and  prolix  defence  of  these 
assertions,  when  closely  examined, 
proves  little.  He  first  maintains 
that  fire  consists  in  this :  *  that  it  is 
not  Being  but  pure  process ;'  from 
which,  however,  even  if  the  propo- 
sition were  more  accurate  than  it  is, 
nothing  would  follow  in  regard  to 
Heracleiiui^s  conception  of  fire. 
He  appeals  to  the  above-mentioned 


THE  PRIMITIVE  FIRE. 


27 


utterances,  on  the  contrary,  as  well  as  the  statements  of 
ancient  writers,  leave  no  doubt  that  it  was  fire  as  a 
definite  substance  in  which  he  sought  the  principle  and 
essence  of  all  things. 

The  primitive  fire,  however,  changes  into  the  most 
various  forms,  and  this,  its  transmutation,  is  the  produc- 
tion of  things  derived.  All  things,  says  Heracleitus, 
are  exchanged  for  fire,  and  fire  for  all  things,  as  wares 
for  gold,  and  gold  for  wares ;  ^  and  herein  he  gives  us  to 

these  Heracleitean  philosophers  saj 
of  vvf>  or  $€fffi6y,  Jjassalle,  ii.  22, 
thinks  he  has  foand  the  true  doc- 
trine of  Heracleitus  in  Marc.  Ca- 
pella,  yii.  738,  although  that  writer 
does  not  mention  Heracleitas  ;  but 


passages  of  the  Cratylus ;  but  the 
B^p/thv  ir  rf  Tvpi  iAtf,  eyen  if  it 
reallj  corresponds  with  Heraclei- 
tus's  opinion,  is  not  immaterial, 
but  onlj  the  same  matter  which 
commnnicates  its  heating  power  co 
lire ;  and  if  it  be  urged  that  some 
explain  ^ixatow,  like  Anaxagoras, 
from  yovSf  this  explanation  does 
not  relate  tD  fire  but  to  the  9iKaiov, 
and  it  is  not  deriyed  from  Heraclei- 
tus bat  from  Anaxafforas.  Lassalle 
farther  supports  his  yiew  by  refe- 
rence to  two  passages  in  Ps.  Hip- 
pocr.  V.  8ia/r.  i.  10,  and  De  Cam. 
1.  425  E.  And  the  thoughts  there 
expressed  haye  certainly  a  Hera- 
cleitean stamp,  for  in  the  first  pas- 
sage, primarily  in  regard  to  man,  it 
is  said  of  the  BtpiiArvrov  kcX  ltrxvp6- 
rarer  vvp,  Srcp  wAimnr  htiKpofrUrca, 
S(«vor  tmarra  leatrik  ^^tw,  that  miM- 
r«  8i&  wtarr^  icv3<py$  fcal  rdit  koX 
ixMipa,  oviirort  i,Tptid(op ;  and  in 
the  second :  Sojc^it  94  fu>i  h  jvotX^o- 
ttmp  Btp/thy  iM»wr6v  re  cTvcu  Ktii 
MwZr  vdrra  Kai  6pay  koX  iuco^^w, 
icol  «2B^»iflu  wdarra  KtJt  r^  6rra  KaX 
rh  fiixXoyra  UrtaOoi,  What  con- 
clusion is  to  be  drawn  from  this 
against  the  identity  of  Heracleitus's 
fire  with  physical  yital  heat  (the 
vvjp  rcxi'iiMy  of  the  Stoics)  I  do  not 
see.  Bic^genes  (yide  sup,  287,  7) 
says  ptecisely  the  same  of  air,  as 


the  materia  iTtformis  and  the  four 
elements  in  the  passage  might  haye 
shown  him  that  this  is  simply  a 
Stoic-Platonic  exposition.  In  yol. 
ii.  27,  he  also  attempts  to  proye 
the  immateriality  of  the  Heraclei- 
tean primitiye  fire  from  Chalcid. 
in  Tim,  c  323.  p.  423  M  (fingamvs 
enim  esae  hunc  ignem  sine  cerum  St 
sine  ullitts  materia  permixtione  ui 
putat  Seradilus) ;  here  he  has  mis- 
understood the  words  of  this  Neo- 
Platonist  (who  is  besides  not  a 
yery  authentic  source).  An  ignis 
$ine  materia  permixtione  is  not  an 
immaterial  fire  (of  which  I  neyer 
remember  to  haye  found  a  trace  in 
any  of  the  ancient  philosophers — 
not  eyen  among  the  Neo-Plato- 
nists),  but  a  fire  which  is  not  adul- 
terated by  any  admixture  of  burn- 
ing substances.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  Lassalle's  statement  (i.  360 ; 
ii.  121)  that  Sext.  Math.  x.  232, 
asserts :  *  According  to  Heracleitus 
the  first  principle  was  not  a  mate- 
rial body. ^  I  pass  oyer  some  further 
obseryations. 

»  fV.  67  ;  Pint  BeEi.  c.  8,  end 


28 


HERACLEITUS. 


understand  that  the  derived  arises  out  of  the  primitive 
matter,  not  merely  by  combination  and  separation,  but 
by  transformation,  by  qualitative  change ;  for  in  the 
barter  of  wares  for  gold,  the  substance  does  not  remain, 
but  only  the  worth  of  it.  Any  other  conception  would 
be  altogether  irreconcileable  with  the  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  this  philosopher  concerning  the  flux  of  all 
things.  It  is,  therefore,  decidedly  untrue  to  assert,  like 
some  of  our  authorities,  that,  according  to  Heracleitus, 
things  are  formed  by  means  of  the  union  and  separation 
of  substances,*  if  this  is  intended  in  the  sense  given. to 
such  expressions  by  Empedocles,  Anaxagoras,  and  De- 
mocritus.  But  such  language  is  also  inaccurate  and  mis- 
leading if  we  understand  by  it,  as  some  have  done,^  that 


p.  388:  irvp6s  r*  ian-aiifl0tff0ai 
trdyrOf  ^ahf  6  *HpdK\tiros,  leai  vvp 
aTrdmWf  A<nr*p  xpvffov  xp^f^fo-  '^ol 
Xprif^rtaw  xpvff^s.  Heracl.  AlUff, 
Homer,  c.  43,  p.  92,  therefore  says : 
levpbs  yhp  8^,  Kark  rhv  ^xHriKhv 
'H/KU\«iroy,  iLfiot$f  rik  vitna  yiyt- 
rai.  Similarly  Simpl.  Phys.  6  a, 
and  Diog.  ix.  8 :  Tvphs  ifiotfi^v  rh 
vdyra,  also  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  xiv.  3, 6 : 
iiftoifi^v  ykp  {vvphs)  cTyeu  rh  trdifra, 
*  AriBtx)t]e  is  not  among  these  ; 
he  says  indeed  in  MetapK  i.  8,  988 
b,  34 :  rfj  likv  ykp  &y  8^(cie  <rroi- 
X^ufiiaroToy  cTvcu  irduToty  i^  ot 
yiyvovreu  avyKp(e€i  vp^ov,  toiov- 
rov  tk  rh  fJuKpofAtpiarrarov  wol  Ktv- 
Tdrarov  h»  rfij  r&r  trtofjuimp^  but  he 
only  here  brings  forward  what  may 
from  his  own  standpoint  bo  urged 
for  the  theory  that  fire  is  the  pri- 
mitive element ;  he  does  not  say 
that  Heracleitus  himself  proTed  it 
in  this  way.  On  the  other  hand, 
Hermias,  JrrU,  c.  6,-  expounds  the 
doctrine    of    Heracleitus    (rather 


confusedly)  thus:  &/>x^  rStv  5x«v 
rb  Trvp'  dJo  Z\  abrov  ird^iij  iipai6Tris 
Kcd  wvKp6rriSf  ri  fikv  iroioDo-a,  ri  8^ 
vdaxowra,  if  fi^y  trvyKplvowra^  ^  8^ 
JiioKpiyowa,  and  Simpl.  Phys.  310 
a,  says  of  Heracleitus  and  otlier 
physicists:  Zik  wwcv^€ws  koL  im' 
v^ff^vs  rha  ywitrtis  icol  t^opas 
kr<j9i96affif  tr^Kpiffis  8c  ris  ^  vi/- 
Kywris  iffri  koX  Jitducpuris  ^  yJ^ttffis, 
The  same  origin  of  things  from 
fire  is  presupposed  by  Lucret.  i. 
645  sqq.,  in  combating  the  Hera- 
deitean  doctrine,  but  we  cannot 
infer  anything  from  this  as  to  the 
doctrine  itself.  In  the  Plac.  i.  13, 
and  Stob.  i.  350,  the  theory  of 
atoms  is  ascribed  to  Heracleitus  ; 
apparently,  if  we  may  jixdge  from 
Stobseus,  through  a  confusion  with 
Heracleides. 

*  Aristotle  says  (PAy*.  i.  6, 
189  b,  8)  of  the  philosophers  who 
only  assume  one  primitive  matter : 
vAvrts  yt  rh  tv  rovro  rots  iyamlois 
ffxyitMrliovtriK   oloy  WKv6rifri  kcX 


FIRE  AND  ITS  TRANSFORMATION. 


29 


Heracleitus  believed  things  tx)  arise  out  of  fire  by  con- 
deoFation  and  rarefaction,  and  to  resolve  themselves  into 
fire  again.^  It  is  undeniable  that  when  fire  passes  into 
moisture,  and  moisture  into  earth,  condensation  takes 
place,  and,  in  the  opposite  case,  rarefaction.  But  from 
Heracleitus'  point  of  view,  rarefaction  and  condensation 
were  not  the  cause  but  the  consequence  of  the  change 
of  substance ;  as  he  represents  the  process,  it  is  not  that 
the  closer  juxtaposition  of  the  fiery  atoms  makes  mois- 
ture arise  out  of  fire,  and  solid  earthy  particles  out  of 
moisture ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  from  the  rarer 
element  is  produced  a  denser,  since  fire  is  changed  into 
moisture,  and  moisture  into  earth ;  and  that  conse- 
quently in  order  to  reproduce  fire  out  of  the  other 
substances,  not  merely  a  decomposition  of  their  primi- 


fjLoySTTiTt  (Anaximenes  and  Dioge- 
nes) Jcol  rf»  fioXKop  Kol  Ijrrov 
(Plato).  It  would,  however,foIloif 
not  that  Heracleitus  regarded  the 
derived  as  arising  from  rarefaction 
and  condensation,  but  only  from 
the  development  of  opposites  from 
the  primitive  matter ;  and  this  is 
quite  correct.  Only  the  later 
writers  ascribe  to  him  rarefaction 
and  condensation.  Thus  in  Diog. 
ix.  8  sq. :  vvpds  d/toi/3^y  t&  irdvra, 

.  .  .  irvKvovfAtyov  yiip  rh  rvp  ^{iry- 
paiv9<r9ai  awiffrdfjMySy  rw  ylvtaSat 
S^p,  «T|7f^ficyoK  8c  rh  5Jiup  tts  yrjy 
rpimirOtu,  etc.  Plut.  Plac.  i.  3, 
25(8tob.i.  304):  ^HpdxKtiros  .  .  . 
apx^iP  r&y  BXmv  rh  frvp  .  ra^ov 
9k  ieareurfi€tnn^4yov  KOfffMwotfurBai 
ra  vdrra.  irp&rov  fihv  ykp  rh  to- 
Xy/t^p^^frim»f  aibrov  tls  abrh  <rv- 
ffrtXKSfuw^y  yrip  ydn^rBcu,  Irctra 
itraxaXmiUmir  r^v  T^y  ^h  rod  rvphs 
^^f  1  08wp  &irorcXffi(r0ai,  i^yoBvfit^ 


ixtvov  tk  kipa  ylvtffOai.  Simpl.  Phys. 
6  a;  Heracleitus  and  Hippasus 
4k  irvphs  itoiovffi  T&  6»rairvKy^<rti 
Kol  fioy^ffti. 

'  Which  is  manifestly  the  case 
in  the  first  of  the  passages  quoted 
from  Simplicius ; .  Simplicius  re- 
duces condensation  and  rarefaction 
to  a^Kpiffis  and  didKpuris,  in  the 
same  manner  that  Aristotle  had 
already  done,  Phi/a,  viii.  7,  10,  p. 
260  b,  7;  265  b,  80;  condensa- 
tion, he  says,  results  from  the  parts 
of  a  body  drawing  more  closely  to- 
gether, and  rarefaction  from  their 
keeping  farther  apart  He  further 
says  tluit  the  proper  expression  for 
derivation  from  one  primitive  mat- 
ter would  be  condensation  and 
rarefaction ;  and  from  more  than 
one,  union  and  separation;  re- 
marks which  Schleiermacher  (p. 
39)  has  no  ground  for  thinking 
*  tounderlich* 


30  HERACLEITUS. 

live  constituents,  but  an  entire  transformation,  a 
qualitative  change  of  the  parts,  as  well  as  of  the  whole, 
is  necessary.  The  language  he  uses  to  describe  the 
passage  of  one  element  into  another  shows  this  clearly 
enough,  for,  instead  of  rare&ction  and  condensation,  of 
the  union  and  separation  of  substances,  we  read  only  of 
transmutation,  of  the  extinction  and  kindling  of  fire, 
of  the  life  and  death  of  the  elements ; '  terms  which 
are  employed  by  no  other  natural  philosopher.  But 
the  most  decisive  argument  is  that  any  theory,  which 
assumes  a  primitive  matter  of  unchangeable  quality, 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Heracleitus.  Fire  with  him  means  something  en- 
tirely different  from  the  elements  of  the  early  physicists ; 
the  elements  are  that  which,  amidst  the  change  of 
particular  things,  remains  unchangeable;  the  fire  of 
Heracleitus  is  that  which  by  means  of  constaint  trans- 
mutation produces  this  change.* 

It  follows  then  from  the  flux  of  all  things  that 
everything,  without  exception,  unites  in  itself  opposite 
qualities.  Each  change  is  a  transition  from  one  condi- 
tion to  the  opposite  condition ;  •  if  everything  changes 

*  A/iM/3^  (vide  supra^  p.  27.  1)»  lectical  nature  of  motion  was  He- 
rpcm^  (Fr,  47,  tupra,  23,  1),  irfiiv-  racleitas's  principle  of  deriTation, 
waBai  and  &irrc4r9«  (aupra,  p.  22,  he  is  in  error ;  a  logical  principle 
1 ;  cf.  Pint.  Plac,  i.  3 ;  auproy  28,  sepaiAite  from-  a  physical  principle 
2)  C^v  and  BAtwrot  (p.  24»  2).  -vas  altogether  unknown  to  him. 

*  Why  fire  is  subject  to  this  If  we  further  enquire,  how  he 
continual  transformation,  Hera-  knows  that  aU  things  change,  the 
cleitus  does  not  say;  the  only  only  answer  is — he  Imows  this  from 
theory  that  would  correspond  to  experience,  as  he  appn^hends  expe- 
his  doctrine  is  this,  that  it  does  so  rience  (vide  iupra^  p.  21,  1). 
because  thisisinherent  in  its  nature  *  *No,'  says  Schuster,  241,  1, 
— ^because  it  is  the  ktlC^oy.  When,  *only  into  a  state  that  is  different 
howerer,  Lassalle  asserts  that  the  from  the  previous  state.'  But  the 
phyrical,  and  not  the  logical,  dia-  subsequent  state  only  differs  from 


FIRE  AND  STRIFE, 


81 


and  only  exists  in  this  mutation,  things  are  but  a 
middle-term  between  opposites  ;  and  whatever  point  we 
may  seize  in  the  flux  of  Becoming,  we  have  only  a 
point  of  transition  and  limit,  in  which  antagonistic 
qualities  and  conditions  encounter  one  another.  While, 
therefore,  all  things,  according  to  Heracleitus,  are  per- 
petually involved  in  transmutation,  everything  has  at 
every  moment  opposite  principles  in  itself ;  it  is  and  it 
is  not ;  and  we  can  predicate  nothing  of  a  thing  the 
opposite  of  which  does  not  equally  and  simultaneously 
belong  to  it.^  The  whole  life  of  nature  is  a  ceaseless 
alternation  of  opposite  conditions  and  phenomena,  and 
each  particular  thing  is,  or  rather  becomes^  that  which 
it  is,  only  through  the  perpetual  emergence  of  the  oppo- 
sites midway  between  which  it  stands.^    Or,  as  this  is  ex- 


the  previoiu  state,  because  a  part 
of  the  preTioiis  chaTacteristics  hare 
been  exchanged  for  such  as  eoald 
not  coexist  in  the  same  subject  and 
in  the  same  relation;  and  such 
eharaeteristics  we  call  opposites. 
Eyeiy  difference  leads  back  to 
partial  opposition,  and  erery 
change  fluctuates  between  two  con- 
ditions, which,  when  conceived  in 
a  perfectly  definite  manner,  exclude 
one  another. 

'  Ct  besides  what  is  said  on  ^. 
11  sq.,  the  statement  of  Aenesi- 
demus,  ap.  Sext.  Pyrrh.  i.  210: 
'The  sceptics  say  that  the  opposite 
appears  in  all  things,  the  Heradei- 
teans,  that  it  actually  belongs  to 
aU  things ; '  and  the  corresponding 
statement  of  Sextus  himself,  ibid, 
ii.  69,  63 :  Gorgias  teaches  iimh^v 
«TrBA :  Heracleitns,  itima  ^Imcu  (that 
is  to  say,  eyerythtng  is  all) ;  De- 
mocritus  teaches  that  honey  is  nei- 


ther sweet  nor  bitter,  Heracleitns 
that  it  is  sweet  and  bitter  at  once. 
'  Cf.  Diog.  ix.  7  sq. :  v^a  rt 
yi¥€ff$ai  Koff  tlftappiirfiv  ical  hh  r^s 
imrriorpoiriis  iipfASc'Beu  r^  6yra 
.  .  .  yivtv9m  T€  irhfTa  kwt*  iyay 
ri^Tura.  Stob.  Eal.  i.  58 :  *HpdK\. 
rb  repio^iKhv  vvp  HZioy,  tlftapfjJmjy 
ik  \Syoy  4k  rris  ivamioBpofiSas  ^/it- 
ovpyhv  T&y  6yrwy,  Philo.  Qu.  rer. 
div.  h.  510  B  (503  M),  after  illus- 
trating the  proposition,  Tdyff  8<ra 
^i'  K6(riu\f  trx^^^v  ivayria  c?kou  v^ 
^vKCF,  by  many  examples:  %y 
yhp  rh  i^  iifA^oiy  r&y  ivaanUav^  oZ 
rfvuBiyros  yy^piua  rii  iyayrla.  oh 
TOUT*  iffriy,  d  ^otrir  *EXAt|ycf  rhv 
fi4yay  ical  iuUBifioy  Tap*  ahrots  *Hpd- 
K\€iToy  icc^dXcuoy  rrjs  abrou  ttpo- 
tmiffdtiwoy  (pi\oiroi>las  abx*^f^  ^s 
edp^trci  Kotpps.  Ibid.  Qu,  in  Gen. 
iii.  5,  and  p.  178,  after  a  similar 
explanation  :  June  Heradittu  libros 
C07i8crip8it   de  ncUura,  a  theologo 


S2 


HERACLEITUS. 


pressed  by  Heraeleitus :  All  arises  from  division ;  strife 
is  the  father  and  lord  of  all  things,  the  law  and  order  of 
the  world ;  ^  the  unlike  is  joined  together,^  high  and  deep 

nostro  mutuatua  sententiaa  it  con' 

trariu,  odditis  immmsia  atquelabo' 

riosis  arffumentis.     The  last  words 

would  imply  that  Heraeleitus,  like 

the  Fseudo-HippocTAtes  (vide  su- 
pra,  p.   16,    1),   had  proved    his 

doctrine  of  opposites  by  numerous 

examples. 

^  FY,  75;    Hippol.  Btfui.  ix. 

0 :  T6K€fAos  rdtfT^y  ftJkv  rvHip  iffri 

irim-wy  8i  $aari\§vs,  koL  robs  yikp 

0€ovs  (iei^t  robs  9k  Mp^ovs,  rodf 

fjuhy  M\ovs  iTolria€  robs  9i  ^Xci;^^- 

pout.    Philodem.  ir.  Zbatfitlcu  CoL 

7.    Chrysippus  said,  Zeus  and  the 

•w6K€fios    are   the  same,  as  Hera- 
eleitus also  taught,  vide  supra,  p. 

17,  2;  Plut.  De  la.  c.  48,  p.  370: 

*Hpdic\9iTos  ii^y  7&P  &yTiKpvs  irtJAc- 

fioy  6yofjidCtt  war4pa  koI  fiaai\4a  xal 

K6pioy    TdvTwv,      Procl.  in    Tim. 

64  A:    *Hp.  .  .  .  IX«7e'    v6\*futs 

variip  vdyrtty  .     Fr.  77  :  Ong.  c. 

Cela.  vi.  42 :  ci  5i  XP^  rby  v6\tfioy 

i6yra  ^wby  Koi  Adcriy  ip^iy,  Kcd 
yiy6/Mya  irdtna  tear*  tpof  «ca2  XP*^' 
fi^ya,  where  Schleiermacher's  read- 
ings, c28cVai  for  ci  8i  and  Hpiy  for 
iptiyf  are  less  bold  than  he  himself 
supposes.  I  am  not  more  certain 
than  he  is  about  beginning  with 
Xp9^h»yo-t  for  Lassalle's  interpre- 
tation (i.  116  sq),  *  bestir  them- 
selves,' cannot  be  proved  to  be 
6r€>ek;  Brandis's  at^C&ikwa  does 
not  seem  to  me  like  Heraeleitus. 
Schuster's  conjecture,  p.  199,  ap- 
pears preferable,  Kora^p^yMya, 
*  applying  themselves  to.'  Aristotle 
(vide  next  note)  confirms  the 
words  yty6iiMya,  &c.  Hence  the 
censure  of  Homer,  ap.  Eudem.  Eth. 
vii.  1,  1236  a.  26  :  ttoL  'Hpdit\€iros 
inrifi^  r^  TOt^tf'am    **  &s  fyis  l«c 


TC  9€&y  Kol  iiydpAwtay  dir^XoiTO."  oh 
ykp  hf  cTycu  hpfiovlouy  /a^  tyros  h^4ot 
«cal  fiap4os,  obik  ri  {^a  &y«v  tf^Xco* 
Kcd  t^vos  iyuiniwy  tyrwy.  The 
same  is  related  by  Plutarch,  /.  c. 
(on  which  cf.  Schuster,  p.  197  sq.) : 
Ohalcid.  in  Tim.  c.  296;  SchoL 
VenU.  z.  U.  xviii.  107;  Simpl.  in 
Categ.  Schd.  in  Ar.  88  b,  30,  who, 
in  making  good  this  censure,  olxh- 
ew9ai  ydp  ^vt  vdyra,  perhaps  has 
taken  some  words  from  Heraclei- 
tus's  book.  This  doctrine  of  t^Ac- 
fjMs  is  also  referred  to  in  Plut  I>e 
Sol.  Anim,  7,  4,  p.  964 ;  but  it  is 
a  mistake  to  represent  the  philoso- 
pher as  blaming  Nature,  because 
she  is  ir6K9fAos. 

«  Arist.  Eth.  N.  viii.  2,  1165  b, 
4:  Kol  *HpdK\€iros  rh  arri^ovy 
ffvfi^poy  Kol  iK  r&y  Sio^cp^rrwy 
KiaX>S<rrr\y  hipiMviay  Ktd  vdvra  kot* 
fyty  yiy€irBai.  The  ianl^ovy  is  to 
be  understood,  in  the  spirit  of  the 
figurative  lang^uage  of  Heraeleitus, 
in  the  most  literal  sense,  of  two 
pieces  of  wood,  which  are  cut  in  an 
opposite  direction,  in  order  to  be 
added  to  one  another,  or  propped 
against  each  other:  the  cufA^fpoy 
also,  primarily  denotes  that  which 
reciprocally,  or  jointly,  bears 
another.  However,  it  would  be 
quite  io  the  manner  of  Heraeleitus 
if  here  again  he  included,  under 
the  same  idea,  the  different  con- 
ceptions designated  by  one  word ; 
and,  therefore,  meant  by  the  avfi^- 
poy,  the  compatible,  and  by  the 
h^l^ow,  the  hostile.  But  I  can- 
not, like  Schuster,  p.  227,  limit 
their  meaning  to  this.  Gf.  on  t^is 
passage,  Hippocr.  ir.  Stair,  i.  648  E. 
ohcoidftoi     /jc     Ztwp6p»v    tr^fi^poy 


STRIFE. 


83 


must  unite,  in  order  that  a  concord,  male  and  female, 
a  new  life,  may  be  produced.^  What  separates,  unites 
with  itself*:  the  structure  of  the  world  rests  upon 
opposite  tension,  like  that  of  the  bow  and  the  Ijrre  ;  ' 


ifydfwToi,  etc.,  and  Alexander, 
Apkrod.  ap.  David  8chol,  t»  Jrist, 
81  b,  33,  wbo  explains  the  nature 
of  the  &irrMcc(^eya  in  the  ^a3'ocl81} 
^6Xu  Sripa  ^rr^  kmQitrt^s  npos 
vA^ti  &AXifXa. 

'  Arist.  in  the  two  passages 
just  quoted.  The  psendo-Hippocr. 
shows  more  at  length,  ir.  Sicut.  i. 
1 8,  that  every  harmony  consists  of 
high  and  low  tones :  rk  irX«i<rra 
Sidl^pa    /uiAurra  (vft^pci  icai   rh 

etc.  (Cf.  the  icaAXftmj  hpfxovia  in 
the  last  note.)  He  continues : 
ftidytipot  A^  ffitivdCovirty  Mp^ouri 
Z*tup6fHpy  trvfti^pmy,  vamoicarit  (vy- 
KplyowTts,  ix  r&y  cdnStv  ob  rk  tdnk^ 
fipActv  KcH  ii6<ny  MpAmoVf  etc., 
which  sounds  somewhat  like  Hera- 
deituB.  The  comparison,  too,  of 
the  opposites  in  the  world  with  the 
opposition  of  sounds  in  speech, 
wluch  is  made  by  Hippocr.  i.  23  ; 
Arist.  De  Muf%do,  c.  5,  890  b,  7 
sqq. ;  Plut.  Tranq,  An,  c.  16,  p. 
474  (the  last  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  example  of  high  and 
low  tones),  may  have  previously 
been  made  by  Heracleitus.  That 
he  proved  his  doctrine  of  opposites 
by  numerous  examples,  we  are  told 
by  Philo  {mtpra,  p.  31,  2),  and  so 
out  of  the  many  that  are  to  be 
found  in  Hippocr.  /.  c.  c.  15  sqq.; 
Pseudo- Arist.  /.  c, ;  Philo,  Qa,  Rer, 
JHv.  Ear,  609  D  sqq. ;  Hosch ;  and 
others,  here  and  there  one  may 
have  been  derived  from  Heracleitus. 
*  Fr.  80,  Hippol.  Ref.  ix.  9 :  ol 

6fio\oy49r  ToXlrrpeirof  kpuoviri  Zk»- 
VOL.   II. 


<nrcp  tS^ov  koL  K^fnis.  Plato,  Soph, 
242  C  sqq.  Some  make  Being  a 
plurality,  others,  after  the  Eleatic 
manner,  a  Unity.  *UZ€s  8i  koX 
2<icfXucaX  tipts  6<n§poir  Mowrou 
(Heracleitus      and      Empedocles) 

\4irrtpoy  h^6r*fta  Kfd.  Kiy^iv,  &s 
rh  %v  voxxi  re  jced  My  i<my  l^x^P^ 
3i  Kol  ^i\i^  ffvyix^^'  ha0tp6fi€- 
yov  yiip  &fl  Ivjtj^pTai^  ^aurXy  al 
<rvyToyiT€peu  r&y  Movo-mv,  al  Bk 
fMAcuM^cpeu  rh  ii^y  &«i  Tcuf6^  oUrms 

fA^y  ty  tjyai  ^wri  rh  vay  icol  ^i\oy 
^  *A4>po9lrriSt  tot>  8i  iroXXa  ical 
vo\4fuoy  abrh  ofrry  8«i  ytac6s  ri. 
Ibid,  Symp,  187  A :  rh  tv  ydp  ^triffi 
QHpdKX.)  9iap€p6fityoy  airrh  aSrr^ 
Ivfi^dptirBai  fiffwep  apfxoviay  r6^ov  re 
Koi  \ipas.  1  assume,  with  Schuster, 
p.  230,  that  the  most  authentic 
text  is  that  of  Hippolytus ;  ouly 
in  regard  to  irdKiyrpovos  vide  the 
following  note.  The  divergences 
in  the  Platonic  quotations  show 
that  neither  If  nor  %y  was  the  sub- 
ject to  9ta^€p6ii9yoy;  nor,  of  course, 
the  K6afjMSt  so  often  mentioned  by 
Plutarch.  It  seems  to  me  better 
to  understand  9ta/p9p6fityoy  itBelf  as 
subject ;  tbev  do  not  comprehend 
how  that  wnich  separates  comes 
together:  it  is  a  apfu>yla  iroX/v- 
rpowos  (or,  the  harmony,  i.e.,  the 
world,  is  va\lyrpovos\ 

•  Vide  previous  note.  Plut  De 
Is.  c.  46,  p.  369 :  vaXiyroyos  yhp 
kpfioyiri  KOCiMv  SicoMnrfp  K'bpii\s  iccU 
r6lov  Koff  'Hp4icAciroF.  Similarly, 
without  mention  of  Heracleitus, 
but  otherwise  word  for  word  the 


34 


HERACLEITUS. 


whole  and  divided,  coBgruous  and  incongruous,  accord«> 
ant  and  discordant,  must  unite  in  order  that  from  all 


same,  Ve  Tranqu,  An.  c  15,  p. 
473,  while  on  the  other  hand  we 
read,  De  An,  Procr.  27, 2.  p.  1026 : 
*HpdK\€tros  8i  iraXirrpvwor  opfAO- 
viyt¥  icd(r/uou  8itaNnrc/»  Kb^t  iced 
r6lov.  Simpl.  Phy$,  11  a:  As 
*Hpdlft\ctTot  rb  kyoBhv  irai  rh  kok^w 
%U  ralrfhv  X4yw  cvwUvtu  Hicriv  t6^ov 
KoX  \ipas.  Porphyry,  Antr,  Nymph. 
C.  29 :  ical  5i&  rovro  traXivroyos  if 
kpuovia  ftoi  (al.  %)  ro|c^ci  5i'  it^v- 
rimy.  The  text,  however,  is  here 
no  doubt  corrupt ;  Lassalle  (i.  96 
sq.,  112)  takes  'shoot  through  '  as 
synonymous  with  *  penetrate ' ;  but 
this  seems  to  me  imp'^ssible,  and  I 
can  credit  neither  Porphyry  nor 
Heracleitus  with  so  monstrous  an 
image  as  a  harmony  shooting  with 
a  bow.  SchleiermHcher,  p.  70,  con- 
jectures instead  of  to(^vc<:  r6^0Vf 
cl ;  so  that  the  meaning  would  be  : 
'  And  therefore  Harmony  is  called 
a  "  strained  back  "  harmony  and  a 
harmony  of  the  bow  because  it  is 
brought  about  by  contradictions/ 
In  this  case  we  should  have  ez- 
ppcted,  instead  of  u  Si*  ^r,  8ri  5. 
T.  i.  Perhaps  some  words  have 
been  lost,  and  Porphyry  may  have 
written  ic.  9.  r.  iraXirrpowos  ii 
apixovid  K6<rfJtou  &s  \ipas  ical  t^^ov, 
Sti  9.  ivy  QTt  as  Schuster  more 
simply  proposes  (page  231)  i^ 
apfioyla  K6fHu  ffol  rS^ou  ^trtp  8i' 
iw.  The  meaning  of  this  expres- 
sion ha£>  always  been  a  difficulty, 
even  in  ancient  times.  If,  accord- 
ing to  the  precedent  of  Plato's 
E^ximachus  and  of  Plutarch,  the 
apfioidri  Kiipiis  were  understood  of 
the  harmony  of  tones,  there  would 
be  no  corresponding  meaning  for 
the  apfioiflii  T^|ov,  and  if  the 
hpfiovlri  r6^ov  were  referred  to  the 


stretching  of  the  bow,  there  would 
be  a  difficulty  about  the  appto¥(ti 
Kvfnis ;  and  the  predicate  voXWofos 
or  vaklpTpcros  would  suit  neither 
interpretation.  Bemays  seems  to 
haye  been  the  first  to  disooyer  the 
right  meaning  (Rh.  Mus.  yii.  94) 
in  explaining  apfioyla  by  the  com- 
bination or  form  of  the  lyre  and  the 
bow,  i.e.  of  the  Scythian  and  ancient 
Greek  bow,  which  being  bent  at  the 
two  ends  so  greatly  resembles  a 
lyre  in  shape  that  in  Arist.  Rhet, 
iii.  11,  1412  b,  35,  the  r6^ot^  is 
called  <^pfuy^  tixof^ot.  Schuster 
also,  p.  232,  takes  this  yiew,  only, 
instead  of  the  Scythian,  he  under- 
stands the  ordinary  bow,  which 
appears  to  me  less  appropriate.  It 
is  this  form  which  is  designated  by 
the  predicate  traKlmporros  (bent 
backwards)  or  tcoXlvrowos^  which  I 
prefer;  rifytv  icaKivrovov  seems  a 
bow  of  the  form  alluded  to,  as 
Wex  shows,  Zeifschr.  fur  Alter- 
thumtw.  1839,  1161  sqq.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  similar  image  to  the 
one  spoken  of,  aupra.  p.  32,  2. 
The  conjecture  which  Gladisch 
tries  to  support,  Zeitschr.  fur  Alt 

1846,  961  sqq.;  1848,  217  sqq., 
that  in  the  above  passages  fiap4ot 
instead  of  At^prys ,  and  B^fos  instead 
of  T<j(oi/,  is  to  be  read  (according  to 
Bast,  KrU.  Ver$.  uber  den  Text  d. 
Plat.  GastmahU,  1794,  p.  41  sq.), 
besides  bein^^  unnecessaiy,  is  yeiy 
daring  in  the  face  of  so  many 
and  such  trustworthy  testimonies. 
Bergk's   slighter  alteration   (Ibid. 

1847,  36)  **r6^ov  icat  rf^pijf**  can 
also  be  dispensed  with.  Rettig, 
Ind.  Leetl.  Bern.  1865,  agrees  with 
the  interpretation  of  Bemays,  only 
he  thinks  the  comparison  of  Hera- 


STRIFE, 


S5 


one  may  come,  as  all  come  from  one.^     In  a  word^  the 
whole  world  is  ruled  by  the  law  of  opposition. 


eleitOB  has  reference  not  to  the 
form,  but  to  the  force  of  the  bow 
and  of  the  lyre.  '  As  the  two  con- 
flicting moments  of  the  extinguished 
and  re-kindled  fire  condition  the 
phenomenon,  so  the  straining 
apart  of  the  arms  of  the  bow  and 
Ijre  conditions  the  tension'  (p. 
16).  This  conception  also  is  com- 
patible with  the  words,  and  eon- 
tains  a  suitable  sense.  Lassalle, 
i.  106  sqq.,  opposes  Bernays, 
but  the  ground  on  which  he  does 
so  appears  to  me  not  very  impor- 
tant, and  two  of  the  passages  to 
which  he  refers,  Apul.  De  Mundo, 
c.  21,  and  Iambi,  ap.  Stob.  Floril. 
81,  17*  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question.  The  statement  of 
Porphyry  (noticed  above),  even 
were  the  text  of  it  in  order,  could 
equally  prove  nothing.  Synei^.  JDe 
Insomn.  183  A,  compares  the  har- 
mony of  the  world  with  that  of  the 
lyre,  and  explains  the  latter  by  the 
harmony  of  tones  :  which  makes  it 
probable,  indeed,  that  in  his  ex- 
planation of  Heracleitu8*s  words 
he  18  following  Plato,  but  cannot 
afiiBct  our  judgment  concerning 
Heradeitus's  own  opinion.  Las- 
ffidle  himself  understands  our  view 
as  '  a  harmony  of  the  lyre  with  the 
bow'  (p.  111).  He  observes 
(p.  113),  *Der  Bogm  m  die  Seite 
in  HervorflieauM  der  EinzelheU 
und  tamii  der  Untersehiede ;  die 
Letter  die  steh  eur  Einheit  ordnende 
BemeffWff  dertelben.  The  bow  is 
the  nde  whence  flows  forth  singu- 
larity, and  therefore  differences, 
the  lyre  is  the  movement  which  re- 
duces them  to  order:  an  allegwy 
of  which,  indeed,  no  Neo-Platonist 
need  be  ashamed,  but  whieh  the 


most  skilful  commentator  would 
find  it  impossible  to  harmonise 
with  Hemcleitus's  words.  The 
harmony  of  the  world  is,  indeed, 
compared  to  that  of  the  lyre  and 
the  bow,  which  must,  therefore,  be 
something  known  and  given  in  ex- 
perience, the  point  of  the  compari- 
son lies  in  the  icaKivTovot  or  raXiv- 
rpowos ;  but  where  is  the  mention 
of  a  harmony  of  the  lyre  toith  the 
bow ;  and  what,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  we  to  understand  by  the  anti- 
type—a harmony  of  difierences, 
changing  into  its  opposite  ? 

*  Fr,  98  ;  Arist.  De  Mundo,  c. 
5,  396  b,  19  :  trw^ttas  o3Xa  [moI] 
obx^  oZKUy  a'vfup€p6fjLMF0¥  [ira2]  Sia- 
^p6fi€9f0Vf  avy^ioif  [ical]  5tf  Soy  koI 
iie  Tivrw  %v  icai  4^  Ms  trdtna.  The 
words  irol  i^  Tdyr^v,  &e.,  which 
Schleiermacher,  p.  79,  separates 
from  the  first  quotation,  appear  to 
me  to  belong  to  it.  The  oixa  ohx^ 
oZ\a  (the  xal  in  each  case  was  most 
likely  wanting  in  Heracleitus,  al- 
though they  may  have  been  found  in 
the  text  of  the  work  on  the  world)  is 
thus  explained  by  Hippocrates :  ir. 
SiOiT.  c.  17 :  oUoS6fu>i  4k  9ta^6pwv 
ff^lA^pov  4pyd(oyTcu,  rk  fikv  (i|p& 
typalyoyrts  rk  ik  ^pk  ^pa(roFrcf , 
rk  fihv  5Xa  iuup4orr9s  r&  M  Hiippri- 
fi4ya  (rw7i04»r€s.  Schuster,  p.  286, 
gives  to  oZKos  the  signification, 
woolly,  compact,  sprightly;  for 
he  says  Heracleitus  here  gives  ex- 
amples taken  from  the  three  arts 
of  weaving,  architecture  and  music. 
But  this  does  not  follow  from  the 
context  of  the  passage,  t.  K6a-fiou ; 
ffviA^tp6iixwo¥  and  tta^§p6fi€yoy  con- 
tain no  special  allusion  to  archi- 
tecture, and  the  4k  irdrrmy  |y,  &c., 
would  also  contradict  this  inter- 


D  2 


d6  HERACLEITUS. 

Ob  account  of  these  statements  Heracleitus  is  cen- 
sured by  Aristotle  and  his  commentators  for  denying  the 
law  of  contradictories.^  Later  writers  on  the  other  hand 
maintain  that  it  is  his  merit  to  have  first  recognised 
the  unity  of  opposites,  the  identity  of  Being  and  non- 
Being,  and  to  have  made  it  the  foundation  of  his  sys- 
tem.* Whether  this  be  regarded  as  a  merit  or  a  defect, 
neither  view  of  it  is  absolutely  true.  Heracleitus  could 
only  be  said  to  deny  the  law  of  contradictories  if  he 
maintained  that  opposite  qualities  could  belong  to  the 
same  subject,  not  merely  at  the  same  time,  but  in  the 
same  respect.     But  this  he  does  not  say.     He  observes. 


pretation,  and  would  seem  to  show 
that  the  expNssions  ahonld  betaken 
in  a  wider  sense ;  as  in  all  the  arts, 
one  arises,  iK  iroKK&v,  and  vice 
versA,  but  not  U-k^v^vv. 

■  Arist.  Metaph.  iy.  8,  1005  b, 
23  :  Mvofrov  yhp  bmvovp  vralnhv 
droXofi/S^ciy  cTyoi  ical  /u^  eTveu, 
KolOdvtp  rtv€s  otoPToi  (vide  toI.  i. 
553,  1)  Kiy€iv  *HpdK\€iroy,  Ibid. 
c.  4,  init,  where  Heracleitas  is  not 
indeed  named,  bnt  is  evidently  in- 
tended ;  ibid,  c  7,  end :  foticc  8'  6 
fxky  *HpaK\€iTov  \iyos,  \iy»v  irdirra 
eTroi  ircd  /u^  cTrw,  ftirarra  &Xt|0i} 
iroiciy.  Similarly  c  8,  init. ;  ibid. 
xi.  5.  1062  a,  81 :  rax^ws  V  &r  tij 
KcA  eArhr  thy  *HpdK\firoy  .  .  .  iiyd- 
fKcurty  byuoKoy^iy,  fitfiiwoTt  tAj 
iiyTuctiti4yas  ^detis  Svyarhy  §ly€u 
Karit  T&y  oJtnmv  hXrfi^^irBui*  yw  9* 
oh  irvyttXs  ^wrov  rt  wort  Kiytt,  rvb- 
TTiy  fAa/3c  T^v  IS6^aM.  Ibid.  c.  6, 
1068  b,  24 ;  Top.  viii.  5,  156  b, 
80  :  iyoBhy  ica)  Kcuchy  €ty<u  rabrhy, 
KaBdw€p  *HpdicK€vr6s  ^ifvty.  Phys. 
1.  2,  185  b,  19 :  AXX^  mV  «i  ry 
X6y^  iy  rit  irra  vdrra  .  .  .  rhy 
*HpcMK§lro¥  xAyoy  avfifialytt  \4ytiy 


tUfTOii*  rabrhy  yiip  fffreu  hyaBtf  tatt 
KOK^  €jyeu  fccd  fiii  brfoB^  koX  byaS^, 
&<rr9  rcdnhy  tlarai  byoBhy  koX  obK 
isyoBhy  Koi  AvOpwiros  Koi  tmros.  The 
commentators  express  themselves 
similarly.  Alex,  ad-  Metaph.  loiO 
a,  6:  1012  a,  21,29;  1062  a,  25, 
36  b,  2,  p.  265,  17 ;  294,  30 ;  295, 
19  ;  296, 1, 624  sq.  Bon. ;  Themist. 
Phys.  16,  b  (113  Sp.);  Simpl. 
Phv8.  11  a,  nnt  18,  a,  m ;  efl  Las- 
salle,  i.  80.  Asklepins,  Schol.  tn 
Arist.  652,  a,  11  sq.  attributes  to 
Heracleitus  the  proposition,  tya 
bpuTfthy  tlyeu  wdyrmy  r&y  irpayftdTmy^ 
but  he  only  said  this  avftfioXucw 
or  yvfiyturriK&s.  Simplicius  and 
Aristotle,  however  (vol.  i.  p.  553, 
1),.  cannot  help  confessing  that  an 
inference  is  here  ascribed  to  He- 
racleitus, which  he  never  drew  and 
could  scarcely  have  recognised  in 
this  form.  Cratylus  maj  perhaps 
have  given  more  occasion  to  it. 
Plato,  Theat.  182,  e.  sqq.  calls  this 
assertion  only  a  consequence  of 
Heracleitus's  view. 

*  Hegel,  Getek.  d.  Phil.  i.  305  ; 
Lassalle,  i.  81  sq. 


STRIFE.  37 

indeed,  that  one  and  the  same  essence  assumes  the 
most  opposite  forms,  and  that  in  everything,  the  opposite 
conditions  and  qualities  between  which,  as  subject  to 
Becoming,  it  fluctuates,  are  united.  But  that  it  unites 
them  in  one  and  the  same  respect,  he  does  not  say — for 
the  reason,  no  doubt,  that  such  a  conception  ^  which  as 
far  as  we  know  was  first  expressly  noticed  by  Plato  and 
Aristotle  * )  never  occurred  to  him.  Nor  on  the  other 
hand  has  he  spoken  of  the  unity  of  opposites,  the  unity  of 
Being  and  non-Being,  in  so  general  a  manner,  and  the 
general  view  does  not  follow  so  absolutely  from  the  ex- 
pressions he  uses.  To  say  that '  One  and  the  same  essence 
is  light  and  dark,  day  and  night ;  one  and  the  same  pro- 
cess is  generation  and  destruction,'  is  one  thing ;  to  say 
that  ^  there  is  no  difference  between  day  and  night,  be- 
tween Being  and  non-Being  as  such,'  is  quite  another ; 
to  maintain  the  unity  of  opposites  in  the  concrete  is 
not  identical  with  maintaining  it  in  the  abstract ;  to 
assert  that  opposites  are  found  in  the  same  subject,  is 
not  to  assert  their  identity.  The  former  view  alone  can 
be  deduced  from  the  examples  which  Heracleitus  brings 
forward,  and  he  had  no  occasion  to  go  farther,  since  his 
concern  was  not  with  speculative  logic,  but  with 
physics.  We  must  not,  however,  suppose  *  that  his 
proposition  meant  no  more  than  this:  ^Each  thing 
displays  rery  different  qualities,  either  simultaneously, 
if  it  be  suddenly  brought  into  connection  with  several 
other  things,  or  successively,  if  it  be  opposed  to  one, 
and  that  a  variable  thing ; '  in  the  language  of  Her- 

■  Cf.  Part  n.  a,  527,  1,  third    editioiL 
edition;    Part  u.  b,  174,  second  *  Schuster, p.  236  sqq. 


38  HERACLEITUS. 

bart,  that  the  oo-existence  of  contiaries  is  merely  the 
prodnct  of  an  accidental  opinion.  Of  such  an  idea 
neither  Heracleitus'  own  utterances  nor  the  ancient 
accounts  of  him  bear  any  trace.  On  the  contiury,  he 
says  quite  universally  and  with  no  limitation  whatever, 
that  the  things  which  are  apparently  opposed  to  each 
other — such  as  day  and  night,  war  and  peace,  above 
and  below — are  one  and  the  same  ;  and  the  limits  of  his 
reflection  are  indicated  by  the  fact  that  he  has  not  as 
yet  enquired  under  what  conditions,  and  in  what  sense, 
this  coincidence  of  opposites  would  be  possible. 

But  though  it  is  necessary  that  all  things  should  be 
sundered  into  opposites,  it  is  equally  necessary  that  the 
opposites  should  again  combine  to  form  a  unity ;  for 
that  which  is  most  opposed  originates  from  one  and  the 
same;  it  is  one  essence  which,  in  the  course  of  its 
changes,  produces  opposites  and  again  cancels  them ; 
which  in  all  things  produces  itself,  and  in  the  work- 
ing of  conflicting  principles  sustains  all  as  one.'     In 

'  Ft,  67 ;    Hippol.  Befut,  ix.  jrreepectirely  of  Schuater's  inter- 

10:    ^  6«^r  V^P>}  ^h^vnh  x^ifi^v  pretatioD,  *oach  one  makes  a  label 

BipoSi  v^i^c/uos  •Ip^rn,  K6pos  \ifx6s'  for  it  at  pleasure ')  in  that  way  we 

iiXKoioureu  9h  ZKnffirtp  tray  avfifuyf  get  no  suitable  sense,   since   the 

Bv^/uuri'    hyofAdC^rcu    Koff    r^i^v  forms  which  the  primitive  matter 

indarov.     Bemays,  Rh,  ]^us,  iz.  assumes  in  its  transformation  are 

246,  in  the  second  clause  of  this  something  objectively  given,  and 

fragment  where  the  text  is  evi-  cannot  be  described  by  any  com- 

dently  defective,  would  substitute  parisons  we  may  choose.     It  is 

O^fM  for  Bv^fuuri;    Schuster,   p.  rather  to  be  explained  thus:   it 

188  would  introduce  ohos  before  (the  air  mixed  with  perfumes  )  is 

Bv^fiaffi.    To    me  it    seems    still  named  according  to  the  smell  (vide 

simpler  to  read  Ztcms  Hp  instead  of  vol.  i.  p.  291, 2)  of  any  one  of  these 

Zicwinrtp  {aiip  in  the  old  orthogra-  perfumes.      (We  do  not  say  we 

phy  is  very  like  irvp).    In  the  con-  smell  air,  but  we  smell  myrrh,  &c.) 

elusion  Koff  iil^if^v  is  not  to  be  The  Stoics  (ap.  Stob.  £d.  i.  66) 

translated,    as    by    Schuster  and  express  themselyes  similarly  of  the 

others,  <at  pleasure;'  for    (even  irycO/ua,  which  penetrates  all  things: 


HARMONY. 


80 


separating  itself  from  itself,  it  unites  itself  with  itself;  ^ 
out  of  strife  comes  existence,  out  of  opposition,  union ; 
out  of  unlikeness,  coincidence;  One  comes  out  of 
all ; '  all  things  submit  to  the  Deity  for  the  concord 
of  the  whole ;  even  the  unlike  unites  itself  to  God  and 
becomes  like ;  even  that  which  appears  to  men  an  evil, 
is  for  them  a  good ; '  and  out  of  all  things  is  produced 
that  hidden  harmony  of  the  world  with  which  the 
beauty  of  the  visible  cannot  compare/     This  is  the 

X^^cwi,  &  tk  hiKoia.  Gf.  Hippoer. 
ir.  hioir,  c.  11 :  wiana  yiip  Sfioia, 
tt.v6funa  Hvra'  ical  a^fi^pa  irdmOf 
Zidu^opa  i6vrar  9iaX9y6fitpa  o^  9ia- 
\9y6fieyaf  yp^fifiy  ^xprra,  iypi^fiom 
(speaking  and  not  speaking,  ra- 
tional and  inational,  as  the  two 
main  divisions  of  the  rdma),  dire* 
rayriof  6  rp6jros  ^Kdartt¥,  6fio\0' 
yoifjLtwos  ....  &  ft^y  oZw  Mpmiroi 
idmray^  ohlSiKort  Ktnk  rwvrh  l^fi 
olh-t  6p$As  otfrc  fiii  6p9&s'  dxdffa  8^ 
$€o\  $$€<rcaf  alc2  6p$»s  lx<''  *^  ^^ 
6p$dL  jcal  r&  fiii  opSk  rwrovroy  iia» 
^p€t,  (80  Littri;  preferably, 
Bemays,  JSerael,  22 :  ^«<  koI  t& 
6p$»s  Kcd  rh  fiii  hpBAs,  ro<r.  8ia^.) 
Cf.  the  quotations  from  Aristotle 
and  Simplicius,  p.  32 ;  33,  3. 

*  Plut.  An.  Procr.  27,  5,  p. 
1026 :  iipftoviri  7^  A^oi^t  pe»«fnis 
Kptlrrw/  KoB*  *Hp«UXf  iroi^,  4y  ff  riis 
iianpophs  Koi  riit  trtp^TTirat  6  fAty- 
y^p  0€hs  Iffpvif'c  KtH  Kar49v<r9y, 
The  first  part  of  this  fragment  is 
also  in  Hippol.  iz.  9 :  8r<  5i  .  .  . 

X^ffi*  hpfioyia  iupay^s  pw^prts 
Kpthrvp.  imuyu  ital  vpo6euffidC§t 
vph  rov  yiyv<ncofi4yov  rh  Ikyyvroy 
abrov  k(A  k6pvrov  r^f  Surificars.  Cri 
8^  iffriy  hparhs  iufBp^oit  .  ,  ,  iy 
rovrois  Xiyw  %truv  tfi^u  &icp))  fii- 
BiiffiS^  raura   iyi»  •Kponiiim^   ^trl, 


TJks  ^vpoffriyopias  fitraXafi^ 
fidyoy  8i4  rks  riff  tXriSf  9(*  lis 
KmxAf^^j  *apdKXd^€if.  Here  we 
hare  nothing  to  do  with  appella- 
tions at  pleasure.  Teiehmiiller, 
N,  Slv€L  i.  66  sq.,  thinks  the  dis- 
puted sentence  can  be  explained 
-vithont  altering  the  text,  by  making 
the  subject  to  evfifuyp  and  iyoitd- 
(€T€Uf  0Mf ,  by  which  is  meant  fire. 
For  my  put  I  cannot  conceire,  even 
from  HeraeleitoA's  point  of  view,  a 
god  who  becomes  mixed  with  per- 
fumes. Ka4f  fiZoyijy  Teichmnller 
likewise  translates  'at  pleasure.' 

■  Plato,  Soph.  L  c,  vide  suprot 
p.  38,  2 ;  cf.  262  B,  where  the  dif- 
ference between  Heradeitus  and 
Empedodes  is  said  to  be  that  Em- 
pedoeles  represents  these  states  of 
union  and  separation  as  alternating, 
and  Heracleitns  recognises  in  the 
separation  itself  a  continual  and 
contemporaneous  union. 

«  Ct  p.  35,  1. 

•  Sehol,  Ven,  ad  21.  W.  4 :  irrf- 
A«fiM  ffo)  fJtdxfu  iifiiy  8cti^  Soirc?  r^ 
9k  9tp  oM  ravra  SciFdE*  trvrrcXci 
y^  imsyra  6  Mf  wpbs  opfMyica^ 
r£r  (HxXacw  f^  jcal  eyidently  only  a 
different  readins)  BXmy  outovoft&y 
rk  ffvfupipoyroj  dnp  iral  'HpiicXc<rof 
\^i,  in  r^  iiJky  $9^  icoX^  vctrra  Kcd 


40 


HERACLEITU8. 


rovriffri  r&  dparii  rmv  iMpirttv  .  .  . 
(c.   10)  oSrws   *HpdK\tiTos   iv  Ytrp 

ToTs  i^wdffiw  .  .  .  Icrri  yitp,  ^alv, 
apfioyiii   &^ai^s   ^OKcp^t   Kp*lTTwy 
Ka\'    Scttp    .  .  .   vportyAm,    oh    r& 
iu^aani  vporiftfiaas.     On  the  groand 
of  this  last  quotation  it  is  conjec- 
tured by  Schuster  (p.  24 ;  in  oppo- 
sition to  him,  vide  Teichmiiller,  A'. 
8i,  i.   154  sqq.)  that  the  words  of 
Heracleitus  ran  thus :    is  rl  yhp 
apfiLoviri  i/^ap^s  ^€»€pris  Kptlrrotfy; 
*  Why  should  an  invisible  harmony 
be  bettf^r  than  a  Tisible?'    But 
acute  as  this  conjecture  is,  it  can- 
not be  substantiated  by  the  text  of 
Hippolytus,  if  we  consider  this  in 
its  whole  context.    As  the  words 
hpfiLoyiri,  &c.,  are  quot-ed,c.  9,  with- 
out f<m,  and  as  these  words  cannot 
be  taken  to  mean  that  the  invisible 
is  better  than  the  visible,  Hippo- 
lytUB  cannot  (as  I  wrongly  admitted 
to  be  possible  in  the  Jenaer  L,  T, 
1876,  Art.  83)  have  had  the  inteiv 
rogative  4s  rl,  but  merely  $cti  in 
his  text  of  Heracleitus.      Nor  are 
we  forced  by  the  passage  in  c.  10 
to  the  theory  of  another  text ;  for 
he  does  not  here  conclude,  as  we 
should     expect    from    Schuster's 
reading,  that  the  visible  was  pre- 
ferred by  Heracleitus  to  the  in- 
visible, but  that  both  are  made 
equal :  since  at  one  time  he  calls 
the  apfioriri  k^Mufiis  the  better,  and 
at  another  he  gives  the  preference 
to  the  8<rwv  Si^ts,  &c.    That  this 
conclusion  is  false  is  quite  clear, 
but  we  are  not  justified  in  disallow- 
ing the  employment  of  the  passage 
in  c.  9,  because   of  the  *  want  of 
understanding*    that  it    evinces. 
However    Hippolytus    may    have 
misinterpreted  the  words  of  Hera- 
cleitus, the  use  which  he  makes  of 
them  shows  how  he  read  the  pas- 
sage, and  refutes  the  theory  accord- 


ing to  which  he  makes  the  same 
passage  in  one  of  the  two  quota- 
tions, immediately  succeeding  one 
another,  express  the  contrary  of 
what  it  is  said  to  express  in  the 
other.  This  theory  seems  the  mure 
inadmissible,   since    Plutarch   en- 
tirely agrees  with  the  first  citation 
of  Hippolytus,  and  with  the  read- 
ing of  icri  in  the  second.  I  cannot 
endorse  Schuster's  judgment  that 
the  *  obscure  account '  in  Plut.  L  c. 
can  have  no  weight  in  opposition 
to  the  '  dear  testimony  *  of  Hippo- 
lytus.    The  onlj7  thing  that  seems 
to  me  dear  in  Hippolytus  is  that  in 
his  quotation  in  c.  9,  he  coincides 
with  Plutarch.  That  which  Schus- 
ter calls  Hippo1ytU8*8  dear  testi- 
mony which  refutes  Plutarch,  is, 
in  fact,  only  his  own  conjecture, 
which  is  supported  neither  by  the 
MS.  of  Hippolytus,  nor  by  the  con- 
nection or  the  passage.     On  the 
other  hand,  Plutarch's  statement 
concerning  what  he  had  read  in 
Heradeitus  (and  nothing  else  is  in 
question  here)  is  not  in  the  least 
obscure ;  it  is  nerfectly  evident  that 
he  only  found  in  Heracleitus  the 
assertion  that  the  invisible  har- 
mony is  better  than  the  visible ; 
and  not  the  question,  *  Why  should 
the  invisible  harmony  be  better 
than  the  visible?'    Plutarch  fur- 
ther says  of  the  ipftowia  ^m^tph, 
that  God  has  hidden  in  it  the  Sta- 
ipoped  and  irtp^rriTMs;  these   ex- 
pressions certainly  do  not  belong 
to  Heracleitus,  nor  does  Plutarch 
cite  them  as  belonging  to    him. 
But  that  some  Heradeitean  sen- 
tence was  floating   in  Plutarch's 
mind    (probably   some    words    in 
connection  with  the  double  har- 
mony)— ^we  see  from  Philo,  Qu»  in 
Gm.  IV.  1,  p.  237  Auch. :  arbor  est 
secundum  HeraclUum  na-iura  nos- 
tra, qua  se  obduoere  atque  absconderd 


HARMONY. 


41 


divine  law  to  which  all  things  are  subject,^  the  hitcq 
whose  decrees  nothing  in  the  world  can  transgress ;  ^ 


amat.  *  The  tree '  does  not,  indeed, 
belong,  M  Schuster  thinks  (Fr.  74, 
p.  193,*  Nature  loves  to  bide  her- 
self, like  A  tree  ; '  Teichmnller  fol- 
lows  him,  N.  Stud.  i.  1S3),  to  the 
eitation  £rom  Heradeitns ;  it  refers 
to  the  tree  previoiuly  mentioned 
by  Fhilo,  the  oak  of  Mamre,  Gen. 
xriii.  1,  which  is  allegorised  in 
this  way ;  and  if  it  appears  other- 
wise in  our  Latin  text,  the  two 
translators,  or  one  of  them,  must 
be  answerable  for  it.  (The 
Armenian  text,  as  I  am  informed 
by  Petermann,  stands  literally 
thus:  *The  tree,  according  to 
fieracleitus  our  nature,  loves  to 
eoooeal  and  to  hide  itself/)  The 
proposition  which  is  supported  by 
Themistocles,  Or.  v.  69  b  (^^15  Ik 
lea/f  *Hp<£icX.  Kif&rr9(r$au  ^lAci,  simi- 
larly in  the  second  recension  of  Or. 
Y.  or  xii.  169  b),  and  by  Philo,  Be 
Prof.  476  C;  Julian,  Or.  vii.  216 
C  (Strabo  x.  8,  9,  p.  467,  does  not 
belong  to  this)  that  nature  icpinr- 
TCirAu  jco)  uarMtviku  ^iXci.  The 
words  added  by  Themistocles  (in 
both  places)  ku  vpb  rrjs  ^iftmos  i 
Tnt  ^io-cws  iTifuovf»y6sy  are  evidently 
not  taken  tcom  Heradeitus  (Las- 
salle  i.  24,  is  inclined  to  think 
tbey  are;  so  is  Schuster,  316,  1, 
but  the  passages  he  adduces  in 
support  of  this  view  from  the 
writings  of  the  Stoic  and  Neo- 
Platonic  period  are  not  conrincing 
to  me).  From  all  this  it  is  clear 
that  the  visible  harmony  can 
neither,  with  Schleiermacher  (p. 
71).  be  considered  to  mean  the  ele- 
ments (while  the  invisible  harmony 
refers  to  organic  beings);  nor  with 
Lassalle  (i.  97  sqq.),  the  *  veiled 
and  internally  hidden  harmony  of 


the  universe,'  which  is  not  visible ; 
still  less,  however,  can  we  agree 
with  Plutarch,  who  describes  the 
apfiovia  ^aF«pA,  not  (as  LassaUe 
says)  as  hidden,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  that  in  wkieh  the  itpfutyia 
A^aH^f  conceals  itself.  The  mi;tn- 
ide  harmony  must  be  the  same  as 
nature,  who  hides  herself:  the 
inner  regularity  of  Being  and  Be- 
coming; and  by  the  visible  har- 
mony must  be  meant  either  the 
external  phenomenon  of  this  re- 
gularity, or  musical  harmony  in 
particular;  so  that  the  sense  would 
then  be:  *The  inner  harmony  of 
the  world  is  more  glorious  than 
any  concord  of  tones/  Schuster 
connects  into  one  fragment  the 
words  on  the  visible  and  invisible 
harmony  with  those  which  Hippo- 
lytus  further  quotes,  Zicoffwif  i^ts, 
&c. ;  but  the  manner  in  which 
Hippolytus  mentions  the  two  state- 
ments does  not  justify  this;  and 
the  sense  of  the  words  (as  we  have 
explained  it  above)  makes  such  a 
connection  impossible. 

»  Fr.  123;  Stob.  Flaril.  iii. 
84  :  rp4^vrcu  ykp  irA»r9s  ol  iufOpdt- 
ittvoi  p6fjLot  dwh  Ms  rov  Btlov.  npa- 
r4€i  yiip  rovcvrov  6K6irov  i$4\ti  iral 
^lapK^ei  irSo-i  Koi  w^piylrtrsu, 

*  Fr.  64;  Plut.  De  ExU.  11,  p. 
604:  fiKios  y&p  ovx  drcpj94<r«Tai 
fi4Tpc^  ^&iv  6  'Hpdut\€tTor  tl  8i  /u^, 
*Epivy6f5  fu¥  liiKfis  irUovpoi  i^fufyfi 
trowrty.  Somewhat  difiering  from 
this,  ibid.  De  la.  48,  p.  370 :  ^Xiov 
Si  [sc.  'HpcdcXciros  qnidp]  fiii  ihrcp- 
fiiia'€<r$at  robs  irpo*r4iKoirras  tpovs'  ct 
5i  /u^,  yXjArras  fuv  9unis  hruto^povs 
i^€vpififf9i¥.  Instead  of  'E^j^k^v 
and  the  unintelligible  yXArriu 
Bemays  (Heracl,  15 ;  Bh.  jftic.  iz. 


42 


HERACLEITUS, 


the  dependence  or  necessity  by  which  all  things  are 
ruled.^    The  same  universal  order,  conceived  as  efficient ' 


269,  3)  conjectures  Xitrvai  to  have 
been  the  word  n«ed  by  Heracleitus. 
LaasAlIe.  i.  361  sqq.,  defends  7Acrr- 
rai,  and  supports  his  reading  by 
Philostratns,  Apoll,  i.  26,  2,  who 
mentions  four  images  of  birds 
(tv^ycs),  reminding  us  of  divine 
retribution,  named  from  the  9f«F 
yhStrrcu  of  the  Magi ;  and  he 
thinks  that  he  has  hereliy  proved 
not  only  that  the  handmaiaens  of 
Dike  were  called  *  tongues '  among 
the  Persians,  but  that  Heracleitus 
was  acquainted  with  the  religious 
doctrines  and  symbols  of  the  Magi. 
This  is  certainly  a  mistake;  for 
even  if  pictures  of  the  wryneck 
as  symbolical  of  *refpiee  finem^ 
were  used  by  the  Persians  and 
called  the  tongues  of  the  gods,  it 
would  not  follow  that  the  Erinnyes 
were  called  tongues  of  the  gods  or 
simply  yXSn-rai,  But  even  Ber- 
nays's  suggestive  conjecture  has  to 
be  given  up  ;  for  Schuster,  p.  184, 
and  previously  Hubmann  (cf. 
Schuster,  p.  867),  propose  kXSoBqs 
for  y\(£fTTas  (tne  spinners,  the 
Moirse,  who,  as  goddesses  of  Death, 
know  how  to  find  the  sun  when  it 
would  overstep  the  measure  of 
their  life).  Gi.  further  concerning 
5/icij,  Orig.  c.  Celt,  vi.  42  (vide  sup, 
p.  32,  1 ),  and  what  is  quoted  p.  26, 
1,  from  Oratylus.  Clemens,  Strom. 
iv.  478  B,  A(fn?s  6rofia  ohic  tiu  jjfSc- 
(fay,  does  not  seem  to  belong  here. 
»  Plut.  Plac,  i.  27:  *HpAK\. 
rirra  naSt  tlfiapfi4irriVj  t^¥  84  ahriiy 
inrApx^iv  froi  hvi,yKn¥.  So  Theodo- 
ret,  CvT.  Gr.  Af,  vi.  13,  p.  87; 
Diog.  ix.  7 ;  Stob.  i.  68 ;  supra ; 
Stob.  i.  178  (Plac.  I  28);  *Hp<£- 
icAcfr.  obirlay  MifAopfiivris  &ir«^alrc- 
ro  \6yoy  rhv  hA  ohcias  rod  vM/rhs 


MKorra,  offri}  8*  i<rrl  rh  tdBipi^w 
a&fjMf  ffx4pfM  r^f  Tov  weanhs  ycre- 
<rc««f  Koi  ir€pi69ov  fidrpoy  frayiiinis. 
tdvra  84  leaff  tlfiapfi4ini¥,  r^v  5' 
a^  V  Mipx^^v  iivAy lentr  ypi^t  yomr 
%<rrt  yikp  9lfAa(ifi4vii  vdarrtos.  Here 
there  is  a  break  in  the  text  which 
is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as 
Heracleitus'  own  words  are  about 
to  follow,  whereas  what  goes  before 
has  such  a  Stoical  sound  that  it  is 
of  little  consequence  to  us  whether 
the  words  from  aSrff  to  ytWcrettr 
are  (according  to  Scbleiermacher's 
conjecture,  p.  74)  an  interpolation 
relating  to  obala,  or  not.  If  the 
text,  as  I  believe,  is  in  its  right 
order,  the  meaning  would  be  this : 
he  explained  the  €lfiapfx4tm  as  the 
\6yotf  which  permeates  the  matter 
of  the  world  (the  al64ptop  a-Sfia)^  as 
the  ffir4pfjM,  &c.  Simpl.  Phvs.  6, 
a :  'HpcUXctTos  84  iroici  xal  {cf .  as 
to  this  reading,  Schleiermaoher,  p. 
76 )  rd^w  Ttyh  koI  xP^*^^^  i»pi<rfi4vov 
T^f  ToO  ic<(<r/Aov  fiffra^oX^s  icardl  twa 
tlfiapiiimiif  kvdyKiiv,  Cf.  ap.  P«. 
Hippocr.  r.  8icut.  i.  4  sq.  (viae  sup. 

L7,  2;  16,  1,  the  expressions)  8i* 
iyitriy  MriPf  tV  irtwp«tfi4niv 
fMlpnf,  and  Plut.  An,  Procr,  27,  2. 
p.  1026 :  V  tlfiapfi4vriif  ol  woWol 
KoXoucri  .  .  .  *HpdKX.(iros  84  iroXir- 
rpoTtov  opfAoylriif  Kda-ftov^  etc.,  ibid. 
De  Eif  c.  9,  p.  388.  But  here  we 
cannot  be  certain  how  much  is 
taken  from  Heracleitus. 

^  Fr.  24 :  Dioff.  ix.  1  :  #!>« 
yitp  ty  rh  ao^hy,  iwlirTM0at  yy6fi,iiy 
fjrt  ol  iyKvfitpyiio'^i  irdrra  (Neut. 
plur.)  ilk  Tdyrwv,  Instead  of  the 
senseless  oi  iyxvfi.  Schleiermacher 
conjectures,  p.  109  (cf.  Lassalle,  i. 
384  sq.),  oifi  Kvfi^pvfyfn^  Bemavs, 
Sh.  Mus,    ix.    262    sq.,    oiajcfC«t, 


ZEUS  AND  THE  ORDER   OF  TBE  WORLD,     43 


force,  is  called  the  world-ruling  wisdom,  the  \070p,'     | 


Schuster,  p.  66,  0T1}  re  Ku$€pviiv€if 
or  otn  {otti  Tf)  Kvfitpyijcaif  and 
Kvfi^pif^tf  is  often  found  in  a  similar 
eonnection,  with  Heracleitus  and 
others,  as  Schuster  and  I^ssalle 
prore.  Fr.  14 ;  Griff,  c.  Cels,  vi. 
j2:  ^os  yhp  iiyBp^uor  /Uir   oi'K 

^  is.  76:  ^94  (dtra  .  .  .  ^^o'ls 
&XXms  Tc  Imrcuecy  itirofi^v  icai  /io<- 
pay  &  rov  ^pwovpros,  Birtos  levfitpva^ 
TOt  rh  a^furtar,  Ka9*  'HpcUXctroy. 
Instead  of  iXXws  t«,  Schleierma- 
cfaer,  p.  118,  here  reads  KAAo^tr ; 
SemaTS,  Skein.  Mua.  iz.  255: 
iifuiorL  Onlj  the  expression  rb 
^patfow  hnn  m/^cpvarcu  rb  ffiifarw 
18  to  be  considered  Heracleitean  (it 
appears  to  me  too  well  attested  to 
be  affected  by  the  observations  of 
Heinze,  which  will  be  discussed 
infra,  p.  45,  n,)\  the  Airo^^o^  and 
luiipa  have  quite  a  Stoic  sound. 

1  On  the  Logos  of  Heracleitus, 
cf.  Heinxe,  Die  Lehre  vom  Logos  in 
d.  Gt.  Phil.  9  sqq. ;  Schuster,  p. 
18  sqq.  Teichmuller,  N.  Stud.  i. 
167.  That  Heracleitus  designated 
the  reason  that  works  in  the  world, 
anionic  other  names  by  that  of  the 
Ixigoe,  cannot  be  actually  proved 
from  Fr.  3  (mp,  p.  7,  2),  but  the 
truth  to  which  the  whole  world 
bears  witness,  approximates  to  the 
conception  of  reason  inherent  in 
the  world.  Fr.T\  Sext.  ilfa^A. vii. 
133.  is  less  doubtful:  8tb  lu 
f  vM-dtti  T^  (uy^.  rov  \6yov  8i  iivrot 
(wov  (iAownv  olwoKKoi  its  iZieuf  Uxop- 
r€s  ^p^tn/itrir^as  if  in  their  opinions 
they  had  a  private  reason  of  their 
own).  By  the  \6yos  KoiphSf  in 
opposition  to  the  I9la  ^p6vjiai5,  can 
only  be  meant  Keason  as  the  com- 
mon principle;  and  this  it  is,  so 
far  as  it  makes  laws  that  are  bind- 
iog  on  the  whole  world.    Schuster's 


explanation  of  the  >Jyos  as  the 
'speech   of  the  visible  world,'  is 
founded  on  two  presuppositions,  viz., 
that  Fr,  7  stooa  in  immediate  con- 
nection  with  the   third  fragment 
discussed  p.  7,  2 ,  and  that  in  that 
fragment  \^ot  meant  the  '  speech 
of  Nature.'    Of  these  suppositions, 
the  former  cannot  be  proved,  and 
the  latter,  as  above  remarked,  is 
very  unlikely.     The  Hoivhs  x6yos 
must  surely  mean  essentially  the 
same  with  Heracleitus  as  wi&  his 
successors,  the  Stoics  (cf.  Fart  ni. 
a,  126,  2,  second  edition).    When, 
therefore,  Sexrus,  L  e,  and  yiii.  8 
explains  the  K0iv6s  \6yos  by  means 
of  rh,  Koii^  4>mv6tJLtra,  he  is  rightly 
opposed  by  Lassalle,  ii.  284,  and 
wrongly  defended  by  Schuster,  p. 
23.     Sextus  himself,  yii.  133,  had 
previously  explained  the  \&ycs  as 
the  Otiof  \6yo5.  Benson  appears  as 
something  objective,  and  different 
from  the  thought  of  the  individual, 
since  we  find  in  Fr.  79,  Hippol. 
ix.  9 :  ovK  iftov,  &XX&  rov  Kiyov  (so 
Bemays,  Sh.  Mus.  ix.   255,  and 
afterwards  generally  for  hSyftaros) 
iuco^eai^as  hfioKoyi^iv  (ro<p6f  hrtv, 
%9  irdvra  tilSdvcu  (cf.  p.  45,  fi.) ;  but 
the  interpretation  'not  listening  to 
me,  but  to  the  speech  as  such,  the 
contents  of  the  speech,  the  reasons ' 
(cf.  Schuster,  83,  228)  is  also  ad- 
missible.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
definitions  quoted  in  the  previous 
note  and  at  p.  31 ,  3,  from  Stobseus, 
of  the  €lfuipfi4Kn,  the  A^os  is  no 
doubt  taken  irom  the  Stoic  termi- 
nology ;  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  v.  599  C, 
the  dioiKtay  \&yos  KOi  Btht  is  not 
found,  as  Lassalle  thinks  (ii.  60), 
in  the  citation  from   Heracleitus, 
but  in  the   interpretation  by  the 
Stoics  of  Heracleitus's  words  ;  this 
interpretation  itself  is  VPiy  inexact, 


44 


HERACLEITU8. 


Zens  or  the  Deity  ^ — and  uo  far  as  it  produces  the  end- 
less series  of  cosmical  periods,  and  of  the  varying  con- 
ditions dependent  on  them,  the  iEon.*  All  these  concep- 
tions signify  with  Heracleitus  one  and  the  same  thing,' 
and  the  world-forming  force  as  active  subject  is  not 
here  distinguished  from  the  universe  and  the  universal 
order.*     This  force,  however,  also  coincides  with  the 


and  is  expressly  described  by 
Clemens  as  an  addition  of  his  own 
(Si/i'dfMt  yhp  A^t, '  the  meaning  of 
his  statement  is ').  Also  in  Mar- 
cas  Aurelius,  iv.  46  (vide  tup,  p. 
S,  «i.)f  it  is  the  Stoic  who  adds  to 
the  words,  f  ijuikutra  9t7iv€K&s  byn- 
\ovai  X^9»,  these :  r^  t&  8\a  Siot- 
Kovvri.  Originally  scaively  more 
was  intended  by  them  than  by  the 
parallel  passage:  ots  koS*  riti4i*aif 
dyKvpova-i,  that  which  i6  constantly 
presented  to  the  eyes  of  men.  Las- 
salle,  ii.  63,  thinks  he  has  dis- 
covered in  Fr.  48,  vide  inf.  p.  66, 1, 
the  pre-existence  of  the  Logos,  but 
we  shall  find  that  \6yos  here  means 
nothing  more  than  relation.  To 
sum  up  the  results  of  the  whole : 
Heracleitub  taught  indeed  that 
Eeason  ruled  in  the  world,  and 
ciUled  this  universal  Reason  the 
K^oSf  but  the  concept  of  A.^of  was 
not  nearlv  so  prominent  with  him 
as  with  the  Stoics.  Lassalle  s  ex- 
position requires  to  be  essentially 
limited  in  reference  to  this;  his 
conjectures  as  to  the  connection  of 
this  doctrine  with  the  Zoroastrian 
dogma  of  the  word  of  Creation  and 
of  law,  find  no  support  (as  Heinze, 
p.  66,  acknowledges)  in  the  sayings 
of  Heracleitus  ;  for  these  presup- 
pose nothing  that  transcends  the 
Greek  language  and  the  Greek 
ideas. 

'  Besides  what  is  quoted  supm, 


p.  19,  3;  32,  1;  38,  l,cf.  ^.  140; 
Clem.  Strom,  v.  604  A:  ly  rh 
co^hy  fiovyoff  XiyftrOcu  49i\u  jccd 
oOk  4d4\u  (oder  oint  40.  k,  i$.)  Zn^hs 
otyofia.  I  cannot  here  discuss  the 
interpretations  of  these  words  by 
Bemays,  Rh.  Mu8.  iz.  266 ;  Schus- 
ter 346,  and  others.  To  me  the 
best  interpretation  seems  to  be 
this :  '  One  thing,  the  only  wise, 
wills  and  also  wills  not  to  be 
named  by  the  name  of  Zeus.'  It 
wills  to  be  named  so  because  in 
truth  it  is  that  which  we  honour 
under  that  name ;  but  it  also  wills 
not,  because  with  this  name  pre- 
sentations are  connected  which  are 
not  consistent  with  that  primitive 
essence.  That  the  form  -Ziyi^s  is 
chosen  instead  of  Ai^s,  to  indicate 
its  derivation  from  ^y,  I  agree 
with  other  writers  in  thinking 
probable ;  but  do  not  lay  ^ny  great 
stress  upon  it. 

'  Cf  the  quotations  on  p.  19,  3. 
What  Heracleitus  says  about  the 
^on,  perhaps  gave  occasion  to  the 
assertion  of  iBnesidemus  (or  Sex- 
tus),  that  the  statement  that  time 
is  identical  with  the  wpArov  ffAfia 
(discussed  in  Part  ui.  b,  24) 
emanated  fi^om  Heracleitus. 

*  For  example  the  ir6KtfjLos  is 
called  sometimes  Zeus,  sometimes 
iUrit  and  the  .£on  is  explained  as 
Zeus,  and  infuoupy^s. 

*  The  modem  commentators  on 


REASON  AND   THE  WORLD. 


45 


primitive  matter  of  the  world ;  the  Deity  or  the  law  of 

Bcious  thinking,  he  must  hare  sup- 
posed it  always  to  be  such ;  for  he 
describes  it  as  the  h^iifi^op  (vide, 
sv/pra,  p.  22, 1),  the  fib  ^vvov  (supra, 
p.  25,  2),  the  all-governing  power, 
which  even  in  the  present  state  of 
the  world,  despite  the  partial  trans- 
mutation of  the  primitive  fire  into 
other  snbstances,is  not  extinguished. 
That  Heracleitus,  however,  defined 
the  world-ruling  wisdom  as  self- 
conscious,  could  only  be  affirmed 
or  denied  if  we  were  sure  that  he 
had  ever  proposed  to  himself  the 
question  of  its  self-consciousness. 
But  this  is  highly  improbable.  He 
speaks  of  the  intelligence  which 
rules  all  things,  of  the  divine 
wisdom  (vide  supra^  p.  42, 2),  of  the 
txrt  9v»oy  from  which  nothing  is 
hidden ;  he  says  in  Fr,  79  (vide 
supra,  ^.  43,  n.)  Ii^  trdpTa  tt^ipoi ;  we 
have  no  occasion  to  change  tl94yai 
for  cTyoi  (as  in  the  Oxford  edition 
of  Hippolytus,  Lassalle,  i.  339, 
Heinze,  p.  28  sq.) ;  for  ^lUitfot  in 
this  place  expresses  nothing  more 
than  the  other  passages  we  have 
just  been  considering,  or  than  the 
h  <ro(t>hp,  Fr,  140  (p.  44,  1).  But 
though  these  conceptions,  founded 
on  human  self-consciousiiess,contain 
implicitly  the  character  of  personal 
self-conscious  thought,  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  Heracleitus  saw 
this  clearly,  or  that  he  expressly 
said  to  himself,  the  Reason  that 
rules  the  world  must  be  conceived 
as  a  personality;  had  he  said  so, 
he  could  not  possibly  have  con- 
ceived it  at  the  same  time  as  the 
substance  through  the  transmuta- 
tions of  which  all  things  come  into 
existence.  The  question,  indeed,  of 
the  personality  of  the  primitive 
essence  in  this  sense  was  never 
raised  in  the  ancient  philosophy 


the  HeradeitFtan  philosophy  are 
not  quite  agreed  as  to  how  Hera- 
cleitus conceived  the  reason  ruling 
in  the  world.  According  to  Ber- 
nays,  Bh,  Mus,  ix.  248  sqq.,  he 
conceived  it  as  conscious  intelli- 
gence. Lassalle  (i.  325,  335  sc[q., 
et  passim)  sees  in  it  only  the  objec- 
tive law  of  reason;  and  Heinze 
{Lekre  vom  Logos,  28  sqq.),  agree- 
ing with  Peipers  (Die  Erkmntniss- 
t£oT%s  Platis,  i.  8  sq.)  comes  to 
a  similar  conclusion.  Lastly, 
Teichmiiller  C^.  Studien,  i.  181 
sqq.),  diflfering  from  both  views,  is 
of  opinion  that  self- consciousness 
cannot  be  separated  from  Hera- 
cleitus*8  world-ruling  wisdom ;  but 
Heracleitus,  as  I  assume,  not 
only  did  not  discriminate  as  yet 
between  subjective  and  objective 
reason,  but  represented  this  reason 
as  subject  to  an  alternation  of 
sleep  and  waking,  of  weaker  and 
stronger  actuality ;  as  to  any  per- 
sonality in  regard. to  it,  it  never 
occurred  to  him  at  all.  This  last 
proposition  is  certainly  not  com- 
patible with  the  self-consciousness 
which  Teichmfiller  recognises  in 
Heracleitus's  world-ruling  wisdom ; 
for  where  self-consdousness  is,  there 
is  also  personality,  whether  the 
word  be  used  or  not,  and  whether 
the  characteristics  which  belong  to 
the  conception  of  personality  be 
present  in  more  or  less  force.  Nor 
is  there  any  proof  of  the  theory 
that  Heracleitus  believed  the  self- 
consciousness  of  the  divine  xAyot 
to  be  sometimes  extinguished  and 
again  revived ;  this  follows  as 
little  in  the  doctrine  of  Heracleitus 
fit>m  the  analogy  of  alternating 
cosmical  conditions,  as  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Stoics.  If  he  conceived 
the  divine  wisdom  as  a  «elf-con- 


46 


HERACLEITUS. 


the  universe  is  not  separated  firom  the  primitive  fire  ;  ^ 
the  primitive  essence  forms  all  things  out  of  itself,  by 
its  own  power,  according  to  the  law  inherent  in  it. 
Our  philosopher's  theory  of  the  universe  is  therefore  the 
most  outspoken  pantheism ; '  the  divine  essence  by  the 

6irctA^^Toy*IirTaa'af  .  .  .  JcoU  .  .  . 


(which  hfts  not  even  a  word  to 
expr68B  '  porsonality ') — nor  in  the 
other  sense,  until  the  time  of  Car- 
neades  and  Plotinos;  and  conse- 
quently we  find  not  unfrequently 
that  thought,  knowledge,  reason,and 
BO  furth,  are  attributed  to  natures 
which  we  from  our  point  of  view 
could  not  conceive  as  personalities. 
So  it  is  with  Heracleitus.  He  re- 
cognises in  the  world  a  reason 
which  guides  and  penetrates  all 
things,  and  he  ascribes  predicates 
to  this  reason  which  we  could 
only  ascribe  to  a  personal  being ; 
but  he  is  wanting,  not  merely  in 
the  more  definite  conception  of 
personality,  but  even  in  the  dis- 
crimination of  reason  from  matter. 
Anaxagoras  was  the  first  to  sepa- 
rate them  definitely  and  on  prin- 
ciple ;  and  to  this  tlie  celebrated 
passage  relates  in  Metaph,  i.  3, 
084  b,  15,  where  Aristotle  says 
thut  Anaxagoras  fir^t  perceived  in 
your  the  cause  of  the  order  in 
nature,  which  (as  Teichmiiller,  189 
sq.,  rightly  observes  in  opposition 
to  Heiuze,  I.e.  35  sq.)  cannot  serve 
as  a  proof  that  Heracleitus  did 
not  ascribe  knowledge  to  the  Deity, 


'HpiLcX.  Hippol.  B^ut.  ix.  10 :  \^ci 
9h  Kci!t  ipp6ififwyrovTO€hai  rh  vvp  koX 
r^s  Stout^o-CMf  T&y  5Xa»y  alrtoyicaA.c? 
di  ainh  jcfni^Tfioffvpriy  Koi  K6poy  XP^^f- 
ftoairn  94  iariw  if  iuucAfffififfis  icar* 
ainhy^  ri  Sh  iicwCptoirtt  K6pos,  Sext. 
Math.  vii.  127.  Vide  in/  P-  82,  1. 
Heracleitus  held  the  ir«pi4xoy  to 
be  rational,  and  thought  the  0uos 
\Syos  came  into  man  through  the 
breath.  On  account  of  this  identity 
of  fire  with  the  Deity,  the  south  as 
the  starting  point  of  light  and  heat 
is  called  the  sphere  of  bright  Zeus, 
Fr,  86  ;  Strabo  i.  6,  p.  3 :  iiws  yap 
KoX  kffrripas  ripfuna  ^  ftpicrof,  koX 
kyriop  T^f  &pjcTov  ohpos  (udplou 
Ai^s.  I  cannot  give  any  more 
exact  interpretation  of  these  worda. 
Schuster,  257  sq.,  understands  by 
oipoi  €d6pl<nf  Aihs  the  south  poie ; 
but  Teichmiiller  rightly  objects 
that  we  cannot  expect  to  find  th>s 
conception  with  Heracleitus.  He 
himself  thinks  that  by  oZpoSf  Arc- 
turns  is  meant;  but  olpos  oiBplou 
Ai^r  would  be  a  strange  designa- 
tion in  that  case,  and  how  far 
Arcturus  can  be  called  one  of  the 
boundary  points  between  morning 


As  in  this  passage,   the  God  of    and  evening  is  not  at  all  clear.  The 
Xenophanes  is  not  alluded  to,  be-    words  assert  nothing  more   than 


cause  he  is  not  introduced  as  a 
principle  that  explains  nature 
(afriof  ToO  K6afiov),  so  the  yy^fiti 
of  Heracleitus  is  passed  over,  be- 
cause it  is  not  opposed  to  matter 
as  an  independent  principle. 

>  Vide  supra,  p.  22, 1, 2 ;  31,  2 ; 
Clemens  Coh.  42  C:  t^  vvp  e^hy 


that  north  and  soutn  lie  between 
east  and  west;  and  the  o^pos 
cdBpiou  Aihs  only  signifies  the  re- 
gion of  light. 

'  In  this  pantheistic  sense  we 
must  understand  the  anecdote  re- 
lated by  Aristotle,  Pari.  An,  L  5, 
645  a,  16,  namely,  that  Heracleitus 


THE  FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD,  47 

necessity  of  its  nature  is  constantly  passing  over  into 
the  changing  forms  of  the  finite,  and  the  finite  abides 
only  in  the  divine,  which  in  undivided  unity  is  the 
substance,  cause  and  law  of  the  world. 

2.  Gosmology. 

If  we  enquire  further  how,  in  the  beginning  of  our 
world,  the  transition  of  the  primitive  essence  into 
derived  existence  was  accomplished,  we  are  told  that, 
according  to  Heracleitus,  fire  was  first  changed  by  the 
Divine  Creative  Reason  into  air,  and  then  into  moisture, 
which  is  as  it  were  the  seed  of  the  world ;  from  this  the 
earth  arises,  and  the  sky  and  all  that  they  contain.^ 
Here  we  cannot  help  seeing  the  influence  of  the  physical 
doctrine  of  the  Stoics,  which,  for  the  very  reason  that 
it  professed  to  be  merely  a  reproduction  and  elucidation 
of  Heracleitus's  doctrine,  has  so  greatly  biassed  and 
confused  the  views  of  subsequent  writers  in  regard 
to  the  latter.*    So  much,  however,  is  certain:   that, 

called  out  to  strangers  "who  had  5taKo<r/i^o-«ws,  t  koAc?  Bd\curaay,  iK 

scrupled  about  visiting  him  in  his  i^ro&rovaZdisyiyeraiyriKaiohpcafbs, 

kitchen:   titrtiytu  Bafipovpras,  thai  koI  rh,  4fiirtpi€x^H-fyci.     Concerning 

yiip  Koi  irravSa  Btois.     Cf.  Biog.  ir^or^p,  cf.  p.  23,  1. 

iz.  7  :  irdma  i^vx&v  ttvat  kcA  Hcufid'  *  In  Clemens's  commentaij  on 

pmy  vA^pi).  the  words  of  Heracleitus  we  must 

>  Clem.  Strom,  t.  599  sqq.  D.  refer  the  following  expressions  to 

That  Heracleitus  held  the  world  to  the  doctrine  and  terminology  of 

be  "nnderived  is  shown  by  Fr.  46  the  Stoics :  \iyos  icoi  Btbs  tA  aifi' 

(p.  22, 1),  that  he  held  it  also  to  be  rama  9totK&v,  on  which  cf.  p.  44,  n. ; 

derived  by  Fr.  47  :  firiv^t  rk  ivi-  inr^p^ui  rijs  $iaico<r^^<r€Wf  ;  also  the 

p(p6fuva  (Fr,  47)  :  *'  iruphs  rpoiral  addition  5i'  it4pos,  which  is  perpetu- 

vptfTor  0dhxura-a'  BaXdoffris  ik  rh  ally  recurring  in  Stoic  writings, 

pihf  fifjuav  yv  rh  5i  Ijfuffv  Tfrncriip"  and  was  required    by  the    Stoic 

9vvdfi9L  ykp  kiyti  (vide  p.  44,  n.),  doctrine     of    the     elements    (cf. 

5t(  wvp  M  rov  iioacovrros  \6you  Part  iii.  a,  186.  4,  137,  2,  169,  1, 

cox  B€ov  rh  tf'vfuroyra  9t*  itipos  rp^'  second  edition),  but  has  no  place  in 

wrrai  ecf  ^pip  rh  its  ffir4pfia  rrjs  the  language  of  Heracleitus,  and 


48 


HERACLEITUS. 


according  to  Heracleitu?,  in  the  formation  of  the  world,^ 
the  primitive  fire  was  first  changed  into  water  or  sea ; 
and  from  this,  by  means  of  a  second  transformation 
developing  itself  in  opposite  directions,  came  on  the 
one  hand  the  solid  element,  the  earth;  and  on  the 
other  the  warm  and  volatile  element,  the  hot  wind ;  * 
a  theory  which  makes  the  relation  between  Heracleitus 
and  Thales  the  same  as  that  between  Thales  and 
Anaximander,^  who  was,  of  all  the  older  lonians,  the 
philosopher  with  whom  Heracleitus  was  most  closely 
allied.  We  are  told  nothing  more,  however,  about  his 
opinion  concerning  the  formation  of  the  world. 

The  three  forms  assumed  by  the  primitive  essence 


contradicts  (as  will  presently  be 
shown)  his  theories  on  the  transi- 
tion of  substances  into  one  another. 
Among  the  Stoics  we  find  in  the 
formula  rpcnH)  nvphs  ZC  hipos  tls 
vdecp  that  8i*  Upos  always  occurs 
as  an  interpolation ;  and  in  none 
of  our  authorities  is  it  said  '  fire 
is  changed  into  air,  and  air  into 
water.'  This  circumstance  seems 
to  indicate  that  an  older  exposi- 
tion must  haye  been  in  use,  in 
which  only  the  transition  of  fire 
into  water  is  spoken  of,  as  in  the 
47th  fragment  of  Heracleitus. 

*  I  agree  with  Schuster  (p.  148 
sq.)  that  Fr.  47  treats  of  the  ori- 
gin of  the  world  from  the  primitive 
fire  and  not,  as  it  has  been  thought, 
since  Schleiermacher,  of  the  trans- 
mutation of  the  elements  in  the 
world.  For  we  have  no  reason  to 
mistrust  the  assertion  of  Clemens 
that  Fr,  47  referred  to  the  forming 
of  the  world,  and  was  connected 
with  Fr.  46  (aup,  p.  22,  1).  (In 
the  iTi^p6/u¥€t,  howeyer,  there  is 
no  'immediate*    connection  with 


Fr.  46.)  The  PlacUa  also,  in  the 
passage  quoted  p.  28,  2,  refer  to  a 
description  by  Heracleitus  of  the 
formation  of  the  world,  though 
they  contain  a  wrong  account  of  it, 
viz.,  that  through  the  separation  of 
the  grossest  portions  from  fire, 
earth  was  first  formed ;  from  earth 
water,  and  fipom  water  air.  The 
second  part  of  this  exposition  is 
doriyed  from  the  Stoic  doctrine  of 
the  elements  (Fart  in.  a,  169,  1),  • 
but  that  earth  should  proceed  im- 
mediately from  fire  is  contrary 
eyen  to  the  theory  of  the  Stoics. 

'  This  does  not  mean  that  the 
one  half  of  the  sea  was  to  be  earth 
and  the  other  fire,  so  that  nothing 
more  would  remain  of  it ;  the  words 
daxdffffris  Si,  &c,  assert  only  that 
the  sea  includes  (potentially)  in 
itself  earth  and  fire  in  equal  parts, 
so  that  both  might  equally  proceed 
from  it.  Cf.  TeichmiUler,  N.  Stud, 
i.  54  sq. 

*  Cf.  concerning  him,  yol.  i.  250 
sq. ;  concerning  the  similar  view  of 
Xenophanes,  yol.  i.  p.  569. 


FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD, 


49 


in  the  beginning  are  regarded  by  Heracleitus  in  the 
present  condition  of  the  world  as  the  limits  between 
which  the  alternation  of  substances,  the  rotation  of  Be- 
coming and  decay  moves.  He  denominates  the  change 
(as  Diogenes  says  *)  as  the  way  upwards  and  downwards, 
and  supposes  the  world  to  originate  in  this  way.  Fire, 
he  said,  changes  by  condensation  into  water,  and  water 
into  earth  ;  earth  on  the  other  hand  becomes  fluid  and 
changes  into  water,  from  the  evaporation  of  which 
almost  all  other  things  are  derived.  The  former  of 
these  processes  he  called  the  way  downwards,  the  latter 
the  way  upwards.  This  exposition  cannot,^  like  the 
fragment  in  Clemens,  apply  to  the  genesis  of  the  world, 
but  only  to  the  transmutation  of  matter  in  the  world  at 
the  present  time.*    This  is  what  Plato  means  by  the 

passefl  on  to  another  point.  No  more 
can  be  concluded  from  the  words  rhv 
K^fffutv  yiytffBai  Kwrii  rainy^v.  For  1 , 
icotA  raimiv  refers  not  only  to  the 
6Sbf  K^rw  but  to  the  bVhs  &vw  ttdrno : 
the  previous  context  speaks  of  this 
as  one  simple  way,  not  of  two 
ways,  iXhs  ftv«»  and  iXbs  Kdrw ;  ac- 
cording to  Schuster,  however,  only 
what  is  said  of  the  dJihs  Kcerf  (irv- 
K»o6fupoif  .  .  .  Af^ci)  applies  to 
the  making  of  the  world,  and  what 
follows  applies  to  its  destruction. 

2.  The  persistent  use  of  the  present 
forms,  yiytoBai^  i^vyptUt^a^ai,  etc., 
shows  decidedly  that  something 
now  going  on  is  alluded  to,  not 
something  that  formerly  happened. 

3.  The  formation  of  the  uniyerse 
would  be  very  inadequately  de- 
scribed in  the  words  which  Schus- 
ter points  out,  for  nothing  is  said 
of  the  formation  of  the  heavens 
(cf.  p.  47,  1).  4.  The  words  wdKtp 
r  at  T^p  yriVf  etc.,  cannot  possibly 


*  ix.  8,  according  to  the  quota- 
tion on  p.  78, 1 :  leol  riiv  lura^Xhv 
696^  &yw  xdrtf  r6y  re  K6trfioy  yiyttrBtu 
Kork  mfrmy.  vuKyoifuyoy  yhp  rh 
wvp  i^ifypaiy^ffBai  ^vyurrdfieyoy  t€ 
ydf^aBaitHm^t-wrtyy^yov  8i  rh  SScap 
«f  yriy  rpiwtffBcu'  kcU  Tolmiy  Wbv 
M  ri  irdfrrw  cTvoi  Xt7ci.  ir6Xiy  r* 
teMiP  [1.  obS]  -ri^r  y^y  x«Mr6at  i^  ?f 
rh  88mp  yiytffBai,  iK  9h  roh-ov  r^ 
Xoflrjk,  ffX^Vhy  trdtna  hr\  t^v  &va- 
Bvpiao'iv  iydyvy  r^y  inrh  t^s  0dkdr- 
nvf.  alhTi  8*  ^<rrlr  ^  4w\  rh  &yv  696s, 
yl»*^dai  S'  &ra9vfu^ci5,etc.(p.  52,2.) 

'  As  Schuster  believes,  156  sq. 
148. 

'  Schuster  indeed  thinks  it  is 
clear  from  the  connection  that  here 
also  the  formation  of  the  world  is 
intended.  But  Diogenes  has  al- 
ready comi>leted  his  observations 
OD  Hendeitus's  doctrine  of  the 
origin  and  conQagration  of  the 
vorld  in  the  previous  words  (p. 
77, 1,2);  with  ind  rl^y  ^mto/SoXV  he 

TOL,  11.  E 


50  HERACLEITUS. 

way  downward  and  the  way  upward,*  and  later  writers 
without  exception '  who  comment  on  the  meaning  of  the 
expression  take  the  same  view.  We  have,  moreover, 
an  observation  of  Heracleitus  himself  on  the  vicissitudes 
of  matter,  and  the  principal  forms  which  he  supposes  it 
to  assume,  and  this  entirely  agrees  with  the  statement 
of  Diogenes.  '  For  souls,'  he  says,  ^  it  is  death  to  be- 
come water,  and  for  water  it  is  death  to  become  earth  , 
but  water  comes  from  earth,  and  souls  from  water.' ' 
Schuster  would  refer  this  sentence  to  living  beings  only, 
whose  souls  are  continually  forming  themselves  from 
the  watery  constituents  of  their  body,  and  again  re- 
solving themselves  into  those  constituents  ;  just  as  the 
latter  are  constantly  changing  from  water  to  earth,  and 
from  earth  back  again  to  water.^  But  this  inter- 
pretation contradicts  the  unanimous  testimony  of  our 
witnesses,*  which  we  have  the  less  reason  to  doubt,  since 

eontain  a  dMcription  of  the  iinri-  i  PhiUb.    43    A.      The    wise 

piaffts,  for  it  is  said  the  rest  came  maintain  that  our  body  can  never 

out  of  the  water,  which  is  almost  be  in  a    state   of  rest.  kA   yhp 

entirely  to  be  explained  by  the  Avarra  &iw  re  mU  irdETw  ^7.     There 

evaporation  of  the  earth  and  of  the  is  no  question  here  of  the  origin 

water.    Schuster  therefore  reads :  and  destruction  of  the  world,  bat 

iK  tk  roinQ}»  rh    jrvp,  rh    AoiirA  simply  of  the  mutation  of  things 

trx*^'^f  etc.    But  this  alteration  of  in  the  world, 

the  text  would  only  be  allowable*,  *  £.  g.  Philo.  De  JEtem,  M, 

if  the  received  text  would  bear  no  958   A :    r&  oroixcia  rov   K6e^fiov 

admissible  construction.    It  makes,  .    .     .    ioXix^^ovra  (traversing 

however,  very  good  sense,  thou^  a  96XaxoSj  that  is,  a  path  returning 

not  tbe  same  that  Schuster  ascribes  into  itself)  &cl  ical  r^y  oMiy  Mw 

to  it ;  whereas  in  his  reading,  the  (bw  koI  Kdrm  0iircx«s  itfuifiopra,  as 

simple  thought  that  lire  arises  from  Heracleitus  expresses  it  (vide  ifol- 

water  by  the  evaporation  of  the  lowing  note).    Max.  Tyr.  41,  4: 

water  would  be  expressed  by  the  furafioX^v  6pfs  (rmfuhmr  vo)  tcW- 

confused  and  obscure  expression  rh  ^'ewj ,  kXXayiiv  69&v  iwm  koI  ic^m 

\otwh   ffX^^y  vdrrtL,   etc.     What  xarii  rhv  'HpiicKuToif. 

can  be    meant  by  Xotwjt  velrra  ?  '  ^.  80 ;  sup,  p.  24,  2. 

Fire  is  the  only  thing  which,  in  the  *  Loo,  eit,  268  sq.,  157,  165. 

conflagration  of   the    world,  still  *  Philo,  ioo,  eit.  958  C,  adduces 

continues  to  arise  from  water.  this  passage  in  proof  of  his  remark 


THE  ELEMENTS.  51 

we  are  told  by  Aristotle  that  Heracleitus  denominated 
fire,  which  constitutes  the  substance  of  all  things,  as 
soul.'  We  are,  therefore,  fully  justified  in  maintaining 
that  Heracleitus  considered  fire,  water,  and  earth,  as  the 
fundamental  forms  which  matter  assumed  in  its  trans- 
formation. Some  of  the  later  authors  indeed  try  here 
to  introduce  four  elements  by  interpreting  ^  the  soul ' 
of  Heracleitus  as  air,  or  regarding  it  as  intermediate 
between  fire  and  water.*  But  this  cannot  out-weigh  the 
distinct  declaration  of  Heracleitus  ;  more  especially 
since  the  general  tendency  of  that  period  to  misin- 
terpret the  ancient  philosophers  on  this  point,  was 
especially  encouraged  by  the  Stoic  commentators,  who 
could  not  resist  identifying  their  own  conceptions  with 
those  of   Heracleitus.'     For  the    same  reason  little 

on  therotationofthe  elements,  and  is  no  longer  attribnted  ezpressly 

Clemens,  Strom,  ti.  624  A,  thinks  to  Heradeitns).    Plat  Flac.  i.  3 ; 

that  Heracleitus  is  here  imitating  vide  sup.  p.  28,  2 ;  Max.  Tyr.  I.  c. 

I  Orphic  verses  which  he  quotes,  The  last  writer  does  not  ascribe 


bat  which  in  tmth  rather  imitate  the  four  elements  to  Heracleitus, 

the  language  of  Heracleitus  in  as-  but  says  in  his  own  name  that  ilre 

serting  that  from  the  ^x^  comes  passes  into  air,  air  into  water,  water 

water,  from  water  earth,  and  vio^  into  earth,  and  earth  again  into 

vtTtiL    See  the  authors  quoted  in  fire. 

note  2,  tii^,  who  also  refer  the  *  Schuster,  167  sq.,  indeed  be- 

paasage  to  the  elements  generaUj.  lieyes,  and  TeichmuUer  (JV.  Stud. 

1  Gf.  p.  22,  4;  24,  1.  i.  62  sqq.)  partly  agrees  with  him, 

'  Of.  Hut.  Jh  Ei.  c.  18,  p.  392,  that  Heracleitus  in  his  doctrine  of 

who  thus  giree  the  passage  quoted  the  elements  did  not  omit  the  air. 

abore  from  Fr,  89 :  wvp^s  94paros  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  there 

iUoi  y4wtffu  mi  kipos  Bivwrot  Vivn  is  no  adequate  proof  of  this.    He- 

ytM^if.    Also  Fhilo,  loe,  cit.^  who  racleitus  may  very  weU  have  spoken 

thus  explains  it:  ^^iiv  yitp  oidfurot  when  he  had  occasion  to  do  so,  of 

dpoi  rh  vwtvfia  r^r  fikw  Upos  rtXcu-  the  air  (as  I  have  said  p.  88,  1,  in 

<tV  yir^eip  noros,  i^v  V  CHaros  regard  to  Fr.  67)  ;  but  it  does  not 

yn9  9JiKtyy4p9^twaiidrrmu,    Max.  follow  that  he  reckoned  it  as  one 

Tyr.  41,  4 ;  Sehl.  p.  286  R :  ^  vt^  of  the  fundamental  forms  of  matter 
rhw  T^r  Bdiwrow  Kai  &V  &  ''^'^  — ^^t  we  may  call  his  elements. 
wvf^BdrrnntrfSdmpCgthrUpotBdi^a'  As  Anaxagoras  and  Democritus 
raw,  yij  rhw  ff^aros  (which,  however,    represented  the  air  as  nn  assem- 

•  2 


52 


HERACLEITU8. 


importance  is  to  be  attached  to  the  fact  that  some  of 
the  later  representations  speak  of  a  direct  transmuta- 
tion of  fire  into  earth,*  or  of  earth  into  fire.*    Nor  must 


blage  of  different  kinds  of  substan- 
ces (vide  fw/.  816,  3,  708,  third 
edition),  so  Heracleitus  may  have 
seen  in  it  something  intermediate 
between  -water  and  fire,  a  transi- 
tional form,  or  a  series  of  transi ti  onal 
forms.  The  fact  that  Plutarch  rn- 
trodnces  air  into  the  passage  from 
Heracleitus,  discussed  supiu,  p.  24, 
2 ;  61,2,  cannot  weigh  against  the 
clear  meaning  of  Heracleitus's  own 
words.  If  iBnesidemus  substi- 
tuted air  for  fire  as  the  primitive 
matter  of  Heracleitus  (vide  Fart 
III.  b,  23),  this  can  be  explained  (as 
shown,  ioc.  cii.)  without  assuming 
that  Heracleitus  ascribed  to  air  a 
similar  part  as  to  earth,  water  and 
fire.  The  opinion  of  iRnesidemus 
concerning  Heracleitus's  primitive 
essence  (which  in  any  case  is  mis- 
taken) cannot  be  brought  forward 
as  a  proof  of  this  theory. 

»  Plut.  Plao.,  Ioc.  cii. 

»  Max.  Tyr.;  cf.  p.  61,2.  In 
that  senjse  we  might  understand 
Diog.  ix.  0:  ylvtirBM  i,vaBvtiida'9ts 
&ir^  TC  yrjs  fcal  0aXiim)s,  hs  fikw 
Xofixpits  KoX  KoBaphs,  hi  BkffKoreivdv 
«Ji^€(r0ai  Si  rh  yukv  Tvp  dirb  rdc  Ae^t- 
irpuu,  rh  8i  lyp6y  i^rd  r&v  Mpwv. 
•But  this  is  not  necessary.  For 
even  if  Lassalle's  theory  (ii.  99) 
that  only  the  pure  vapours  rise 
from  the  sea,  and  only  the  dark  and 
foggy  vapours  from  the  earth,  as 
well  as  the  opposite  theory  that 
the  pure  and  clear  vapours  arise 
from  the  earth,  and  the  dark  from 
the  sea,  is  contradicted  by  the  fact 
(which  Teichmiiller  points  out,  N, 
Stud,  i.  67)  that  the  vapours  arising 
from  earth  and  sea  are  alike  ol^ 


scure,  and  though  it  might  be  more 
correct  on  that  account  to  represent 
clear  and  dark  vapours  as  rising 
both  from  earth  and  sea,  this  is 
not  quite  the  point  in  question. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  Diogenes  is 
not  saying  that  the  earth,  as  this 
elementary  body,  changes  into  fiery 
vapours;  y^  here  designates  the 
land  in  contradistinction  to  sea, 
with  the  exclusion  of  the  water  in 
the  lakes,  rivers,  marshes,  and  the 
ground  moist  with  rain.  And 
secondly,  it  is  a  question  whether 
the  clear  and  dark  vapours  ascend 
at  the  same  time  side  by  side,  and 
are  not  all  at  first  dark  and  moist, 
becoming  afterwards  bright.  The 
dark  would  then  serve  to  feed  the 
clouds,  the  bright  would  go  to 
make  the  stars  and  the  bright  skj. 
Schleiermacher,  p.  49  sq.,  defends 
the  idea  of  a  direct  transformation 
of  earth  into  fire,  on  the  ground 
that  Aristotle,  whose  meteorology 
appears  to  be  essentially  dependent 
on  Heracleitus,  speaks  of  a  diy 
evaporation  side  by  side  with  a 
moist;  and,  therefore,  of  a  direct 
transition  of  earth  into  fire.  But 
the  dependence  of  Aristotle  upon 
Heracleitus  cannot  be  proved  either 
in  a  general  seose  or  in  regard  to 
this  particular  point.  There  ia 
lastly  not  the  smallest  ground  for 
the  conjecture  of  Ideler  {Arist.  Me- 
teorol.  i.  361)  that  Heracleitus 
may  have  borrowed  the  doctrine  of 
the  double  evaporation  from  the 
Orphic  poems;  what  is  said  by 
Flato,  Crat.  402  B,  and  by  Clemens, 
Strom,  vi.  629,  cannot  be  quoted  in 
support  of  it. 


THE  ELEMENTS. 


5,1 


we  seek  in  Heracleitus  a  conception  of  the  elements  in 
the  Empedoclean  or  Aristotelian  sense ; '  his  meaning 
is  simply  that  the  three  kinds  of  matter  mentioned 
above  are  the  first  manifestations  of  the  primitive 
matter  in  its  transformation — ^the  first  bodies,  to  which 
ail  others  may.  be  reduced,  and  which  are  produced  one 
from  the  other  in  the  given  order ;  *  and  this  regular 


>  Empedodes  nnderstftDds  by 
his  so-called  elements  (he  himself, 
as  is  "well  known,  does  not  use  the 
vord)  invariable  primitive  snb- 
Btances,  which  as  such  never  pass 
over  into  each  other.  Aristotle 
makes  his  elements  pass  over  into 
each  other,  but  he  does  not  derive 
them  from  any  matter  preceding 
them  in  time ;  for  the  irpArri  t\ii 
has  never  existed  as  such;  it  is 
only  the  ideal  presupposition  of  the 
elements,  their  common  essence, 
that  exists  merely  under  these  four 
fonnii.  Heracleitus,  on  the  con- 
trary, represents  fire  as  existing  for 
itself  before  the  framing  of  the 
world,  and  only  changing  in  course 
of  time  into  water  and  earth. 

*  The  question  whether  Herac- 
leitus, *in  kindling  wood  for  his 
hearth-fire,  always  reflected  that 
this  earth  must  change  first  into 
sea  and  then  into  irp7i<rrhp,  before 
it  could  rise  into  fire'  (Schuster, 
166),  is  one  which  the  history  of 
philosophy  is  not  required  to  an- 
swer. He  probably  did  not  think 
every  time  he  looked  at  the  Cays- 
troe,  that  it  was  not  the  same 
river  as  before,  nor  torment  himself 
at  every  draught  of  water  as  to 
whether  the  dryness  of  his  soul 
would  not  suffer  thereby.  The 
only  question  which  concerns  us  is 
this :  how  Heracleitus  on  his  own 
presuppositions  explained  common 
phenomena  like    the    burning  of 


wood  ?  K  nothing  has  been  told  us 
on  this  subject  we  have  no  right 
therefore  to  disbelieve  in  those  pre- 
suppositions. We  certainly  do  not 
know  how  Heracleitus  explained 
the  burning  of  wood,  nor  even  that 
he  :ried  to  explain  it.  If  he  tried, 
the  answer  was  not  far  to  seek. 
He  did  not  require  (as  Schuster 
thinks)  to  regard  the  wood  ahao- 
lutely  as  earth.  He  might  consider 
that  earth  and  water  were  mingled 
in  it :  that  when  it  is  consumed, 
the  earth,  so  far  as  it  does  not 
change  into  water,  remains  behind 
as  ashes.  The  remainder,  together 
with  the  water  contained  in  the 
wood,  first  changes  into  dark  va- 
pour, then  into  light  vapour,  first 
into  smoke,  then  into  fire  (which, 
according  to  Theophrastus,  I>e  Ign"^ 
Fr.  iii.  3,  is  burning  smoke,  and  ac- 
cording to  Arist  Meteor,  ii.  2,  355 
a,  5,  is  supposed  by  many  physicists, 
as  Diogenes,  supra,  p.  295,  to  be 
nourished  by  moisture).  Here  he 
had  an  explanation,  which  was  not 
more  inconsistent  with  appearances 
tban  many  others,  and  accommo- 
dated itself  admirably  to  his  other 
theories.  Or  he  might  regard  the 
burning  as  a  coming  forth  of  the 
fire  contained  in  the  vepUxov  (vide 
i^f.  p.  SI  sq.),  and  as  an  escape  of 
the  burning  particles  of  wood  into 
the  wtpt4xov.  Definite  evidence  con- 
cemiDg  the  scientific  theories  of  a 
philosopher  cannot  be  outweighed 


64 


HERACLEITUS. 


progression  is  equally  maintained  on  both  sides,  as  he 
expresses  in  the  sentence:  the  way  upwards  and  the 
way  downwards  is  the  same  J  This  expression  also 
shows  us  that  change  of  substance  is  with  Heracleitus 
likewise  change  of  place ;  the  nearer  a  body  approaches 
to  the  fiery  nature,  the  higher  it  rises;  the  farther 
removed  it  is  from -that  nature,  the  lower  it  sinks;  as 
even  sensible  observation  would  go  far  to  prove.* 

words  quoted,  p.  49,  1),  which  ex- 
plains iMTQifioMi  aa  the  change  itUo 
one  another  of  the  voXeftos  and 
dfio?iioyici,  the  moment  that  leads 
from  Being  to  non-Being,  and  firom 
non-Being  to  Being  (vid^  also  ii. 
246,  and  with  another  combinatioQ 
of  the  words,  ii.  137).  Diogenes 
himself  never  leaves  us  in  any 
donbt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  ^S5s 
&M0  and  icirw.  It  is  a  singnlar  ob- 
jection to  make  (/.  c.  173  sq.)  that 
the  quality  of  the  elementary  stages 
of  transmutation  cannot  be  de- 
scribed as  ihhs  fdri.  The  tMry 
from  fire  through  water  to  earth  is 
the  same  as  that  from  earth 
through  water  to  fire,  although  the 
direction  pursued  in  the  one  case 
is  different  from  that  pursued  in 
the  other. 

*  That  the  way  upward  and 
downward  does  not  involve  any 
change  of  place  I  cannot  admit 
LassaJle  attempts  to  prove  this 
very  diffusely  (ii,  241-260),  and 
Brandis  (^Gesch,  d,  Entw.  i.  68) 
agrees  with  him  on  the  point. 
Lasealle's  argument  has  little 
force  :  '  Motion  upward  and  down- 
wards,' he  says, '  is  rectilinear :  the 
motion  of  Heracleitus  is  circular' 
(this  is  only  true  so  far  as  he  re- 
presents the  transmutation  of  mat- 
ters under  the  figure  of  a  circle) ; 
*  the  sea  lies  deeper  than  the  earth ' 


by  the  impossibility  of  reconciling 
certain  facts  with  those  theories, 
so  long  as  we  are  in  ignorance 
whether  and  in  what  way  the  phi- 
losopher himself  tried  to  reconcile 
them.  Did  Democritus  and  Plato 
regard  wood  as  incombustible,  be* 
cause  according  to  their  theory 
earth  cannot  be  converted  into  fire  ? 
vide  injra,  p.  708,  2^  third  edition. 
Part  IL  a,  676.  2. 

»  Fr.  82,  ap.  Hippocr.  De  Alim. 
ii.  24  K;  Tert.  Adv,  Marc,  ii.  28, 
and  more  fully  ap.  Hippol.  vide 
eup.  p.  49,  1 ;  also  p.  50,  1.  Las- 
salle  (i.  128,  173  sqq.)  is  not  con- 
tent with  referring  the  upward  and 
downward  way  to  the  stages  of  the 
elemental  process,  and  the  identity 
of  the  two  ways  to  the  sameness  of 
these  stages ;  he  thinks  the  above 
proposition  also  means  that  the 
world  is  constant  unity,  constant 
adjustment  of  the  two  contradictory 
moments  of  Being  and  Nothing,  of 
the  tendency  to  yhwis  and  to 
iKvipwris  or  negation.  But  this  is 
to  make  the  durk  philosopher 
darker  than  he  already  is.  Tnere 
is  no  passage,  either  from  or  about 
Heracleitus,  which  warrants  our 
understanding  the  bXbs  Hvm  and 
Kirv  as  anything  except  the  way 
from  earth  to  fire,  and  vice  versd ; 
even  in  Diog.  ix.  8  it  is  only  Las- 
salle's  wrong  translation  (cf.  the 


CIRCULAR,  MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ELEMENTS.    66 


The  transformation  of  matter  moves  therefore  in  a 
circle;  when  its  elementary  nature  has  attained  in 
earth  its  greatest  distance  from  its  primitive  form,  it 
returns  through  the  earlier  stages  to  its  commencement. 
The  uniformity  and  jBzed  order  of  this  movement  is  the 
one  thing  that  is  permanent  in  the  flux  of  the  world's 
life.  Matter  is  incessantly  changing  its  nature  and  its 
place,  and  consequently  nothing,  as  to  its  material  in- 
gredients, ever  remains  the  same  as  it  was  before ; 
everything  is  subject  to  a  continual  transformation,  and 
therefore  to  a  continual  loss  of  its  material  parts,  and 


(thAt  18,  than  the  terra  firma,  not 
deeper  than  the  sea- bottom) ;  '  but 
if  we  understand  the  68^s  JSan»  as 
rebiting  to  pUee,  it  must  be 
higher'  (an  argument  by  which  we 
might  prove  that  Plato  and  Aris- 
totle knew  nothing  of  the  natural 
places  of  the  elements) ;  '  in  regard 
to  place,  the  above  and  below,  the 
way  upward  and  the  way  downward 
are  not  identical'  (vide  previous 
note  and  p.  16,  4).  'Plato  and 
Aristotle  could  not  have  been  silent 
about  the  Mlhs  tarn  cdrw,  if  this  ex- 
pression had  been  used  in  a  liteml 
sense,  and  not  merely  as  a  figure.' 
(Why  not?  Are  they  not  silent 
abcmt  many  conceptions  of  great 
importance  in  the  system  of  Herao- 
leitos  ?  Plato,  however,  does  men- 
tion, I%iMi,  43  A,  the  doctrine  that 
everything  constantly  JSan»  rt  koX 
anirw  ^«r,  and  in  TheaL  ISl  B,  he 
says  that  this  doctrine  makes  eveiy- 
thing  to  be.  perpetually  changing 
its  place  as  well  ss  its  nature); 
'  Dicg.  ix.  S  eq.  does  not  speak  of 
any  graduated  motion  in  regard  to 
place '  (see  preceding  note).  'Aris- 
totle, Phys,  viii.  3,  expressly  denies 
that  ttiw  and  ttArm  are  to  be  under- 


stood in  regard  to  place '  (this  is 
not  the  case ;  if  it  were  so  he  would 
also  expressly  deny  that  Heraclei- 
tus  taught  the  perpetual  transmu- 
tation of  matter) ;  '  Ocellus  (i.  12) 
places  the  iiilo^os  ttofrh  rSwoy  and 
jcor^  fiera$o\ij¥  in  opposition  to 
each  other.'  How  we  are  to  under- 
stand by  ivM  anything  except  up- 
wards with  reference  to  space ;  or 
by  Kdru  anything  but  downwards, 
Lassalle  does  not  explain.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  anaent  writers, 
one  and  all,  who  mention  the  doc- 
trine of  Heracleitus,  understood  it 
in  the  way  that  has  hitherto  been 
customary.  Lassalle  (ii.  25 1 )  him- 
self indeed  finds  himself  obliged  to 
admit  that  Heracleitus  may  also 
have  employed  the  expression  69hs 
Afm  for  the  procession  of  the  ele- 
ments, and  in  that  there  must  be  a 
change  of  place.  As  fire  occupies 
the  upper  portion  of  the  world, 
Stob.  Eel.  1.  600,  reckons  Heraclei- 
tus among  those  who  regard  the 
sky  as  n^iwos ;  this  is  not  incom- 
patible with  the  statement  in  Diog. 
ix.  9,  that  he  never  precisely  ex- 
plained the  nature  of  tne  m9pt4xoy. 


66  HERACLEITU8. 

this  loss  must  perpetually  be  compensated  by  the  influx 
of  other  parts  passing  on  the  way  upwards,  or  the  way 
downwards^  into  its  place  and  into  its  nature.  The 
appearance  of  permanent  Being  then  can  only  arise 
from  this:  that  the  parts  which  flow  off  on  the  one 
side  are  replaced  by  the  addition  of  others  in  the  same 
proportion ;  to  water  must  be  added  as  much  moisture 
from  fire  and  earth  as  it  has  itself  lost  in  fire  and 
earth,  &c. ;  the  permanent  element  in  the  flux  of 
things  is  not  matter,  but  the  proportion  of  matters ; 
the  world  as  a  whole  will  remain  the  same,  so  long  as 
the  elements  pass  over  into  each  other  in  the  same  pro-> 
portion ;  and  each  individual  thing  will  remain  the 
same  so  long  as  the  same  equality  in  change  of  matter 
takes  place  in  this  particular  place  in  the  world.  Each 
thing  is  consequently  that  which  it  is,  only  because  the 
opposite  streams  of  matter,  the  advancing  and  the 
retreating  stream,  meet  in  it  in  this  definite  direction 
and  in  this  definite  proportion.*  The  regularity  of  this 
process  is  what  Heracleitus  calls  by  the  name  of  Har- 
mony, iUri^  Fate,  world-ruling  wisdom,  &c. ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  flux  of  all  things  arises  from  the 
change  of  substances,  and  the  universal  law  of  strife 

*  In  favour  of  this  acceptation  cumstance  that  particular  things 
of  Heradeitus's  doctrine,  we  cer-  and  the  world  as  a  whole  seem  to 
tainly  cannot  adduce  Fr.  48  (on  continue  for  a  longer  or  shorter 
which,  cf.  p.  65,  1)  as  direct  evi-  period  unchanged.  This  theory  is 
dence,  supposing  these  words  to  established  by  the  well-known  ex- 
refer,  not  to  the  change  of  the  ample  of  the  river  Qp.  U,  2),  which 
elements  into  one  another,  but  to  Aristotle  {Meteor^  li.  3,  357  b,  30 
the  destruction  of  the  world.  But  sq.)  uses  in  this  sense ;  and  also 
from  what  we  know  of  his  theory  by  Aristotle's  own  assertion  (««p. 
concerning  the  flux  of  all  things,  p.  1 3,  n.)  that  according  to  Heraclei- 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  tus  all  things  were  for  ever  chang- 
otherwise  have  explained  the  cir-  ing,  only  we  do  not  notice  it. 


CIRCULAR  MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ELEMENTS.    67 

from    the   opposition   of    the  upward  and  downward 
way. 

If  we  imagine  this  theory  logically  applied  to  all 
parts  of  the  world,  the  result  would  be  a  natural  scien- 
tific system  in  which  the  different  classes  of  the  Beal 
would  correspond  to  so  many  stages  of  the  universal 
process  of  transformation.  Heracleitus,  however,  was 
in  all  probability  far  from  entertaining  the  idea  of  a 
comprehensive  description  of  nature ;  and  the  fact  that 
besides  the  anthropological  theories  presently  to  be  con- 
sidered, nothing  remains  to  us  of  his  natural  philosophy 
except  a  few  astronomical  and  meteorological  state- 
ments,^ is  probably  to  be  explained  as  much  by  the 
incompleteness  of  his  own  exposition  as  by  the  de- 
ficiencies in  our  information  concerning  it.  The  point 
which  is  most  commonly  mentioned,  and  which  stands 
almost  alone  in  this  connection,  is  his  well-known  theory 
of  the  daily  renewal  of  the  sun.  He  not  only  thought, 
as  some  other  philosophers  did,  that  the  fire  of  the  sun 
is  fed  by  ascending  vapours,^  but  that  the  sun  itself  is 

'  From  the  utterance  of  Fhilo.  w9pi4xoy  6vot6u  iariv  ob  StiXoi*  cTvcu 

Qun  in  Gm,  iii.  5,  quoted  p.  81,  2,  fi4yroi  iv  aJtn^  ffKd^ca   if^orpofi- 

we  can  only  conclude  that  Herac-  fi4vctt  Kark  Koi\oy  rphs  riiiaSy  iy  ols 

leitus  proTed  his  doctrine  of  the  h0poi(ofi4yas  riis  Kofiwp^s  kyoBvfud- 

oppoadons  of  Being  bj  a  number  <r€is  AirorcXciy  ^\6yas,  hi  cTvoi  7& 

of  examples.    There  is  no  question  turrpa.    Of  these  the  sun  diffuses 

of  the  detailed  system  of  physics  more  heat  and  warmth  than  the 

to  which  Lassalle  (ii.  98)  finds  al-  rest,  because  the  moon  moves  in  an 

Insion  here.  atmosphere  that  is  not  so  pure  and 

*  Arist.  Meteor,  ii.  2»  864  a,  is  nearer  the  earth,  and  the  other 

33 :  Btb  Kol  y^Koioi  irdvTcf  Baoi  rSty  heavenly  bodies  are  too  distant : 

JTp^tpoy  ^4Koifioy  rhv   ^\ioy  rp4-  iKXtirtiy  8'  fjKioy  koX  ff%K4)yi\y  Hufw 

^w9ai  r^  iyp^.     That  Heracleitus  <rrpt<^fi4ywy  r&y  ffKo^&v  rois  re 

is  classed  among  these,  we  see  from  icar^  firjya  tris  trcX^viys   ^'x^/xari- 

what  follows.       In   Diog.    ix.    9,  fffuths  ylytaSai  <rrp€^pL4yiis  iy  airrf  ^ 

there  is  a  full  account  of  Heraclei-  narii  puKp^y  rris  fftd^s.      What 

tus*8  theory  of  the  stars:  t^  ^k  Diogenes  says  is  asserted  in  the 


58 


HERACLEITUS. 


a  burning  mass  of  vapour ;  ^  and  as  he  supposed  that 
these  vapours  were  consumed  and  burned  up  during  the 
day,  and  were  produced  afresh  on  the  morrow,  he  airived 
at  the  proposition  that  the  sun  was  new  every  day ;  *  so 

>  AriBt.  ProbU  xziii.  30,  end : 
Jiib  icol  ^aai  rtycs  rmv  ^pcurXciTifttfy- 
rwy,  iic  yukp  rov  vorifiov  ^pcuyofiirov 
Ktd  infyyvfi4vov  \l0ovs  yitftirOat  feed 
T^y,  in  si  rris  0aA(irn|s  rhtf  I^Xior 
kyaBvfuairBou. 

*  Plato,  Bep,  vi.  498  A :  irphs 
Hh  rh  yiipas  iicrhs  S^  TiM»r  ixiymp 
iiwocfi4ywyT€u  woKh  fioXAor  rov 
'HpeucXttrkiov  iiXiov,  ttroy  Mn  odic 
4^vroyrtu.  Arist.  Meteor,  ii.  2, 
355  a,  12:  iirA  rpe^ofUyou  y*  [sc 
roO  iikiov]  rhy  tUnhy  rp6iroy^  Avirwp 
iKuyol  ipaai,  9riKoy  9n  aaH  6  fjXios 
oi  fi6yoy,  KoBdwtp  6  *H/NtirXctr^s 
^tiffif  yios  i4>*  iifidpp  iirrly,  &AA'  M 
vios  ffvytx^h  which  Alex,  in  A.  /. 
rightly  explains  thns :  oif  fUyoy,  &s 
'K^tAcit^s  ^fi<rh  yios  4^  VP'4pp 
&y  liy,  Ka£t  iKdtmiv  rifi4pay  &AAos 
4^aiirr6fMyo5y  rod  wp^ou  4y  rf  Hda^t 
fffi€yyu/i4yov.  The  words,  Wos  4^* 
Vfi4pii  4}Aios  are  quoted  by  Produs, 
in  Ttm.  384  B,  from  Heracleitus. 
To  these  words  (and  not  to  some 
oth«>r  passage  as  Lassalle,  ii.  1U5, 
thinks)  allusion  is  doubtless  made 
by  Plotinus,  ii.  11,  2,  p.  97  D : 
*HpaicAfir^,  hs  1^  &€l  koI  rhy  fiXioy 
ylyytffBcu.  One  of  the  soholiasts  of 
Plato  represents  the  sun  of  He- 
radeitus  as  going  down  into  the 
BfA  and  being  extinguished  in  it, 
then  moving  under  the  eaith  to- 
wards the  east  and  being  there  re- 
kindled. This  may  be  brought 
into  connection  with  the  quotation 
from  Diogenes  (cf.  preceding  note) 
in  the  following  manner :  After  the 
sun's  fire  is  burnt  out^  i.e.,  after  it 
has  been  changed  into  water  (for 
this  we  must  in  any  case  sabstitttte 


Pladta,  ii.  22,  27,  28,  29  ;  Stob.  i. 
626,  550,  558 ;  8ekol.  in  Plat.  p. 
409  Bekk.  of  the  sun  and  moon  ; 
but  StobsuB  speaks  of  the  sun  in 
Stoic  language  as  Ayofcfui  rocpbr  ^ic 
T^j  BoX^ojis,  The  boat-diaped 
form  of  the  sun  is  likewise  alluded 
to  b^  Ach.  Tat.  in  Arat.  p.  139  B. 
Similarly  Anaximander  (whom 
Heracleitus  follows  so  much)  re- 
presents the  fire  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  as  fed  by  vapours,  and  as 
streaming  out  of  the  husky  cover- 
ings that  surround  it.  Cf.  vol.  i. 
S.  25 1 .  The  latter  he  conceives  in  a 
ifferent  manner  from  Heracleitus, 
who  keeps  to  the  old  notion  of  the 
ship  of  ^e  sun  and  moon.  Stob.  i. 
510,  no  doubt  incorrectly,  calls  the 
heavenly  bodies  triKhyMra  wvpds. 
In  the  Plac.  ii.  25,  6 :  'HpdUcAciros 
(t^v  (rcA^nyi')  y^y  6fiix^V  Ttpui- 
\'nfip.4yny.  Schleiermacher,  p.  57f 
rightly  alters  the  name  to  'Hpaic- 
\ti9iis.  According  to  Diog.  ix. 
7;  Plae,  ii.  21;  Stob.  i.  526; 
Theod.  Cur.  Gr.  Aff.  i.  97,  p.  17, 
Heracleitus  ascribed  to  the  sun  the 
diameter  of  a  foot.  Perhaps,  how- 
ever, this  may  be  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  a  statement  relating  to  this 
apparent  diameter,  and  not  con- 
cerned with  the  question  of  his  real 
magnitude.  At  any  rate,  it  would 
better  accord  with  the  importance 
.  Heracleitus  ascribes  to  the  sun 
(«»/*.  p.  60,  2),  if  he  supposed  his 
size  to  be  something  commensurate. 
But  it  is  quite  possible  he  may 
have  said,  *  the  sun  is  only  a  foot 
broad,  and  yet  his  light  fills  the 
whole  world.' 


THE  SUN  AND  STARS, 


69 


that  even  the  apparent  permanence  which  the  continuous 
ebb  and  flow  of  matter  lends  to  things  belongs  to  the 
sun  only  for  this  short  time.^  Aristotle  expressly 
denies^  that  he  applied  this  notion  to  the  other  heavenly 
bodies :  when,  therefore,  we  are  told  that  he  supposed 
the  moon  and  the  stars  to  be  fed  by  exhalations — that 
he  regarded  the  moon,  like  the  sun,  as  a  cup  filled  with 
fire,^  and  the  stars  as  masses  of  fire,  we  must  consider 
the  first  assertion,  at  any  rate,  as  an  arbitrary  extension 


far  the  extiDctioii  in  the  sea),  the 
boat-ehaped  husk,  in  wliich  it  was 
contained, goes  in  the  way  described 
to  the  east,  in  order  there  to  be 
filled  witli  burning  vaponis.  Only 
the  snn's  fire  would  then  be  re- 
newed ereiy  day.  his  envelope  on 
the  other  hand  would  continue; 
bat  this  makes  no  difference  in 
regard  to  the  hypothesis ;  for  as  the 
ftre  is  what  alone  is  seen  by  us  as 
the  snn,  it  might  still  be  said  that 
the  son  was  eveiy  day  renewed ; 
and  if  Heracleitus  really  belieyed 
in  these  reservoirs  of  fire  of  the 
sun  and  stars  (which  the  singular 
explanation  quoted  from  him  of 
eclipses  and  the  phases  of  the  moon 
seareely  allows  us  to  doubt),  it  was 
more  natural  that  he  should  sup- 
pose them  solid  and  therefore 
dozable,  than  as  consisting  of  va- 
pours, and  passing  away  with  their 
content.  Lassalle,  ii.  117,  thinks 
that,  according  to  Heracleitus,  the 
solar  fire  was  not  completely 
changed  into  moisture  during  any 
part  of  the  day,  but  that  this  pro- 
cess was  completed  in  the  course 
of  the  Bun*8  &i^htly  progress  round 
the  other  hemisphere  (we  have  no 
right  to  speak  of  the  other  hemi- 
sphere as  ikr  as  Heracleitus  is 
eonosmed);  and  that  this  is  the 
foundation  of  the  statement  of  the 


Platonic  scholiast.  But  such  is 
obviouoly  not  his  opinion,  nor  can 
those  writers  have  entertained  it, 
who  simply  attribute  to  this  philo- 
sopher the  statement  that  the  sun 
was  extinguished  at  his  setting. 
Schuster's  remark  (p.  209)  that  if 
Heracleitus  regarded  Helios  as  a 
god,  he  would  not  have  supposed 
him  to  be  generated  afresh  every 
day,  but  only  to  change  his  sub- 
stance, likewise  contradicts  all  our 
evidence  and  the  words  of  Hera- 
cleitus himself. 

>  Fr.  64  {sup.  ^.  41,  2)  seems  to 
refer  lo  this  duration  of  existence ; 
but  it  may  also  relate  to  the  boun- 
daries of  its  course,  for  the  daily 
life  of  the  sun  would  have  a  longer 
duration  if  it  pursued  it«  course 
fiirther.  The  measurements  of  time 
and  space  here  coincide. 

'  Meteor.  I.  c.  855  a,  IS :  Aro^ 
ifov  8i  Kol  rh  fi6yov  ^povrlaai  rov 
^A/ov,  rmv  8*  JkXXmf  Harpvy  TopiMv 
avTohs  T^r  caprriplay,  rwrolnvp  ical 
rh  irXrfios  leal  rh  fiiytBos  tvrmv. 
Also  in  J^robl,  loc.  oit.  it  is  only  the 
sun  which  is  formed  fh>m  the  va- 
pours of  the  sea. 

•  Vide  p.  621,  2  ;  cf.  Olymp.  in 
Meteor,  f  6  a,  p.  149  Ideler.  On 
the  other  side,  cf.  Bemays,  HeraoL 
12  sq. 


60 


HERACLBITUS, 


of  hifi  actual  words.^  He  appears  to  have  thought  little 
of  the  stars,  because  their  influence  on  our  world  is 
small.^  As  to  his  explanations  of  other  celestial  phe- 
nomena, the  statements  that  have  come  down  to  us  are 
so  fragmentary  that  we  can  glean  hardly  anything  from 
them  as  to  his  real  doctrine.' 


^  Still  more  may  be  said  against 
the  theoiy  that  Heracleitus  sap- 
posed  the  sun  to  be  nourished  by 
the  evaporations  of  the  sea,  the 
moon  by  those  of  the  fresh  waters, 
and  the  stars  by  those  of  the  earth 
(Stob.  Eel,  i.  610 :  cf.  624;  Plut. 
Plac.  ii.  17).  Here  the  th«»ory  of 
the  Stoics  is  most  likely  ascribed 
to  Heracleitus.  This  philosopher, 
as  ve  have  shovn,  was  silent  as  to 
the  nourishment  of  the  stars,  and 
he  could  not  have  believed  that  the 
earth  was  directly  transmuted  into 
the  same  vapours  from  which  the 
fiery  element  was  fed  (cf.  p.  62). 
The  Heradeiteaus,  who  are  spoken 
of  in  the  Aristotelian  problems 
(vide  p.  68,  1),  make  quite  another 
application  of  the  difference  be- 
tween salt  water  and  fre^h. 

»  Cf.  Fr,  60,  ap.  Plut.  Aqm,  an 
ign.  util.  7>  3,  p.  967  :  d  fi^  fjAiof 
^K,  9h^p6yn  &y  ^r;  or,  as  it  is 
expressed  in  Plut  De  Fartuna, 
c.  3,  p.  98 :  ilXiov  fi^  im-os  &cica 
rwy  &X\fl»v  ioTfMv  €{f^p6vriu  tw  Ijryo- 
fi«v.  Gleanthes,  who  among  the 
Stoics  seems  most  to  have  resem- 
bled Heracleitus,  ascribed  such 
importance  to  the  sun,  that  he  de- 
clared it  to  be  the  Heat  of  Deity 
(Part  m.  a,  126,  1),  and  this  we 
are  told  of  the  Heracleitean  school 
(Plat.  Crat.  413  B ;  cf.  sup.  p.  26, 1 : 
rh¥  ^\ioy  9ud6irra  koI  Kifoma  4iri' 
rpQfwtiuv  rh  ivra.  Heracleitus 
himself,  however,  did  not  (cf.  sup. 
p.  26,  2)  maintain  this ;  had  he 


done  so,  he  could  not  have  said  that 
the  sun  was  extinguished  daily.  In 
Plut.  Q^.  Plat.  vii.  419  we  have  no 
right  (Schuster,  p.  161,  thinks  the 
contrary)  to  refer  anvthing  beyond 
the  words  fipof  of  Tovra  ^ipown  to 
Heracleitus. 

'  After  the  words  quoted  p.  62, 
2 ;  67,  2,  Diogenes  thus  continues  : 
flfjL4pa¥  re  kojL  ir^fiera  yivvrBoi  koL 
fi7}yaa  iral  &pas  irtious  koI  iyuunovs, 
dcroiJs  TC  ical  wtifAora  Kot  rk  roirois 
Bfioia  Kork  ras  dta^Spovs  iufaBvfJudfftis. 
r^v  fA^v  yhp  \afiwphv  iyaBufdaaw 
^XoyeoB^uray  iy  r^  k^kK<i^  rov  ^Aiou 
^fi4pay  woitiy^  r^y  8i  iyayrlay  iwi- 
KpaT^trwray  yiiera  iirorf\tiv  /col  iic 
fiky  rod  Xofiwpov  rh  0€pfihy  av^a»6- 
fi€yoy  B4pos  woiuy,  ix  Si  rod  vko' 
rtiyov  rh  ^phy  trKwyd^oy  x^^f^f^ 
itwepydC^aBcu.  iutoXo^tts  84  robots 
fcal  vcpl  r&y  &W»y  airiokoy§7.  He- 
radeilus,  according  to  this,  derived 
the  change  of  day  and  night,  as 
well  as  that  of  the  seasons,  which 
is  coupled  with  it,  in  the  fragment 
quoted  (p.  38, 1)  from  the  alternate 
preponderance  of  the  fiery  element 
and  the  moist.  That  he  mentioned 
the  sessons  we  know  from  Plutarch 
(vide  previous  note).  His  expla- 
nation of  the  other  phenomena 
mentioned  above  is  referred  to  by 
Stob.  Eel.  i.  694  :  'H/itdcX.  fipoyr^y 
liky  Korii  avarpoipks  kyiyMV  koX 
V€^S»y  Kol  ifiirr^a'€is  trytuftdroty  c» 
T&  y4<prif  iurrpaachs  8i  Kvrh  rhs  rwv 
$vfit»fi4yoiy  i^di^tis,  wpriffriipas  Hh 
Kark  yt^&y  ifiirpf^fftis  koI  fffiiaus. 


STRUCTURE  OF  THE   UNIVERSE. 


61 


How  Heracleitus  conceived  the  form  and  stnic- 
ture  of  the  universe  we  are  not  expressly  told.  As, 
however,  the  transformation  of  matter  has  a  Kmit  in  fire 
above  and  in  the  earth  beneath,  and  as  this  qualitative 
change  coincides  in  Heracleitus  with  ascent  and  descent 
in  space,  he  must  have  conceived  the  universe  as  limited 
above  and  below;  whether  he  thought  it  spherical  in 
form  we  do  not  know,*  and  in  respect  of  the  earth  the 
contrary  theory  seems  the  more  probable.*  Nor  can  we 
prove  that  he  held  the  diurnal  revolution  of  the  heavens.' 
But  he  must  at  any  rate  have  regarded  the  world  as  a 

In  the  statement  of  OlympiodoruB 
(Meieorol.  33  a;  i.  284  Id,),  thht 
Heracleitus  beliered  the  sea  to  be 
a  transpiration  from  the  earth, 
there  seems  to  be  (as  Ideler  rightly 
conjectures)  some  confusion  with 
Empedocles,  to  which  Fr.  48,  quoted 
p.  65.  1,  may  have  given  rise. 

*  Hippokr.  «-.  iuur.  (sup.  p. 
15,  1)  says  indeed:  ^dos  ZfiA, 
ckStos  'Aj8i;,  ^dos  'Af8]7,  ffK^ros 
ZifW.  ^oirf  icctya  &9m  icat  rc^€ 
iccMTc  wturaaf  Ap^nv,  But  in  the  first 
place,  it  would  not  certainly  follow 
from  this  that  the  world  was  sphe- 
rical; for  if  the  heayens  turned 
sideways  around  the  earth,  and  the 
earth  were  supposed  cylindrical  in 
fonn,  as  we  find  among  the  earlier 
and  later  lonians  {auv.  vol.  i.  p.  275 
sq.),  the  under  world  would  still 
he  illuminated  as  soon  as  the  sun 
in  consequence  of  this  revoluMon 
went  below  the  horizon.  And 
secondly,  we  do  not  know  whether 
the  author  is  correctly  expressing 
Heradeitus's  meaning ;  his  state- 
ment is  eertainly  quite  incompati- 
ble with  that  philosopher's  doctrine 
of  the  daily  extinction  of  the  sun. 
Ltssalle*8  supposition  that  it  is  not 


entirely  extinguished  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted (ct  p.  58, 2)  as  a  solution  of 
the  difficulty.  Besides  the  same 
light  which  illuminated  the  upper 
world  could  not  in  that  case  be  also 
in  Hades. 

'  As  not  only  Anaximander  and 
Anaximenes,  but  also  Anaxagoras, 
Bemocritus,  and  doubtless  also 
Diogenes,  ascribed  to  the  earth  the 
form  of  a  cylinder  or  plate,  it  is 
very  unlikely  that  Heracleitus 
should  haye  conceived  it  otherwise. 
The  theory  of  its  beiner  a  sphere 
seems  to  have  been  confined  to  the 
Pythagoreans  and  the  adherents  of 
their  astronomy,  until  towards  the 
end  of  the  fifth  century. 

'  His  ideas  about  the  daily  ex- 
tinction of  the  sun  and  the  boat  of 
the  sun,  and  of  the  moon,  point 
rather  to  a  free  movement  of  the 
several  heavenly  bodies,  such  as 
was  held  by  Anaximenes  (rap.  vol. 
i.  p.  275  sq.).  Heracleitus,  who 
troubled  himself  little  about  the 
stars  and  astronomy,  never  seems 
to  have  reflected  xheX  the  daily 
rising  and  setting  of  all  the 
heavenly  bodies  presupposed  some 
common  cause. 


62  HERACLEITUS. 

coherent  whole,  as  indeed  he  clearly  says,^  for  only  in 
that  case  would  the  circular  movement  he  possible,  in 
which  all  comes  from  one,  and  one  from  all,  and  the 
contrarieties  of  existence  are  bound  together  by  an 
all-embracing  harmony.  When,  therefore,  Heracleitus 
is  reckoned  by  later  writers  among  those  who  taught 
the  unity  and  limitedness  of  the  world,*  this  is  in  fact 
correct,  though  he  doubtless  never  himself  employed 
those  expressions. 

If  there  be  only  one  world,  this  must  be  without 
beginning  or  end,  for  the  divine  creative  fire  can  never 
rest.  In  this  sense  Heracleitus  says  expressly  that  the 
world  has  ever  been  and  will  ever  be.*  This,  however, 
does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  change  in  the  con- 
dition and  constitution  of  the  universe ;  such  a  theory 
might  rather  seem  to  be  required  by  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  mutability  of  all  things,  though  it  is  not  so 
in  truth;  for  that  law  would  have  been  sufficiently 
observed  if  the  whole  had  maintained  itself  in  spite  of 
the  change  of  its  parts,  and  nothing  individual  had  had 
any  fixed  existence.  Heracleitus  might  well  have  held 
this  theory,  as  the  two  physicists,  Anaximander  and 
Anaximenes,  had  held  it  before  him ;  and  to  Anaxi- 
mander he  was  in  many  respects  closely  allied.  Indeed, 
the  ancient  writers  almost  unanimously  attribute  to 
him  the  theory  that  the  present  world  will  at  some 

1  Fr,  46,  9S;  supra,  35,  1.  ^vaioK&ymv  is  not  coxuiter  to  this, 

*  Diog.  ix.  8 :  wewtpdirBai  t§  rh  for  Hezacleitos's  primitive  matter 

irw  K€tt  iya  cTwu  kSc/iop,    Theodo-  is    not    unlimited.     Lassalle    (ii. 

doret,  Cfur.  Grr.  Aff.  iy.  12,  p.  58 ;  154),  who  refen  the  passage  to 

Simpl.  Thyz.  6  a ;  Aiist.  PAys.  iii.  Heracleitus,    has    overlooked    the 

5.  205  a»  26 :  od0«lf  rh\¥  toA  (kct-  additional  words  kaU  &irc(poy. 

p0y    vvp    hroiTiffw    ovM    yiiv   r&v  '  Cf.  p.  22,  1. 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   UNIVERSE.        63 

future  time  be  dissolved  in  fire,  and  that  from  the  con- 
flagration a  new  world  will  be  produced,  and  so  ad  i/n- 
JinUum.  The  history  of  the  miiverse,  therefore,  moves 
forward  in  a  continuous  alternation  of  reproduction  and 
destruction  according  to  fixed  periods  of  time.'  This 
theory,  however,  has  recently  been  warmly  disputed, 
first  by  Schleiermacher  ^  and  afterwards  by  Lassalle.^ 
But  Lassalle  has  not  sufficiently  distinguished  between 
two  notions,  which  may  certainly  both  be  characterised 
by  the  expressions,  the  ^  burning  up '  of  the  universe  or 
the  '  destruction '  of  the  universe,  but  which  in  fact  are 
&r  removed  from  one  another.  The  question  is  not 
whether  an  annikUcUion  of  the  world  in  the  strict 


*  For  the  destruction  of  the 
world  the  Stoics  always  use  the 
CKpreasion  iKw6pmris.  It  cannot 
be  proTed  to  have  been  used  by 
Heracleitos.  Clemens,  Strom,  v. 
649,  iin sajB  expressly,  f^HtrrMpov 

*  Loe.  eU,  94  sqq.  Likewise  by 
Hegel,  Geach.  d.  Phil.  i.  313  ;  and 
Marbach,  Gesch.  d.  PhU.  i.  68. 
Neither  of  these  authors,  however, 
enters  into  details  with  regard  to  it. 

*  ii.  126,  240.  Brandis,  who 
had  strongly  maintained  the  He- 
racleitean  destruction  of  the  world 
by  lire  against  Schleiermacher  (6^. 
Bom,  PkU.  L  177  sq.),  seems  to 
hare  been  persuaded  by  Lassalle 
to  abandon  this  theoiy  (Gsach.  d, 
Entw.  i.  69  sq.).  In  order  to  ex- 
plain the  statements  of  the  ancients, 
be  puts  forward  the  conjecture 
that  Heracleitus  held  a  double 
kind  of  motion ;  oue  which  is  with- 
out opposite,  and  which  he  charac- 
terised as  rest  and  peace ;  and  one 
which  is  involved  in  the  opposites 


ofcosmical  conditions;  and  he  so 
expressed  himself  in  regard  to  these 
two  motions,  that  their  ideal  sepa^ 
ration  might  be  taken  for  a  tempo- 
ral separation :  '  It  is  even  possible 
that  he  himself  might  have  so 
apprehended  them.'  The  latter 
theoiy  virtually  reasserts  the  He- 
lacleitean  conflagration  of  the 
world ;  for  if  a  period  of  opposi- 
tionless  motion  follows  a  period  of 
motion  involving  oppositions,  this 
is  AS  much  as  to  say  the  litaK6(rfitiais 
is  followed  by  an  iiaripwris.  We 
can  hardly,  however,  attribute  to 
Heracleitus  a  merely  ideal  separa- 
tion of  thtse  two  motions,  and  to 
me  it  is  still  more  inconceivable 
that  he  should  have  spoken  of  an 
oppositionless  motion  (in  itself  a 
coniradietio  in  adjecto).  As  this 
view  will  be  refuted  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  I  need  not  here  enter  into 
it  more  particularly.  Lassalle*s 
len^hy  discussion  can  of  course  be 
noticed  only  in  regard  to  its  essen- 
tial content. 


64  HERACLEITU8. 

sense,  an  absolate  destruction  of  its  substance  was 
intended ;  this  Heracleitus,  of  course,  could  not  main- 
tain, since  to  him  the  world  is  only  the  definite  form 
of  existence  of  the  divine  fire,  and  the  divine  fire  is 
consequently  the  substance  of  the  world.  He  has  also 
declared,  as  explicitly  as  possible,  that  he  did  not 
maintain  it.  What  we  are  concerned  with  is  simply 
this :  Did  Heracleitus  believe  that  the  present  state  of 
the  world,  and  the  distribution  of  elemental  substances 
on  which  it  is  based,  remains  on  the  whole  unchanged, 
despite  the  continual  transformation  of  the  particular  ? 
Or  did  he  consider  that  from  time  to  time  all  the 
different  substances  return  into  the  primitive  substance, 
and  are  again  reproduced  from  it  ? 

That  this  latter  was  his  opinion  seems  to  be  proved 
by  his  own  statements.  It  is  true  that  some  of  these 
leave  us  uncertain  whether  he  meant  a  continual  produc- 
tion of  individual  things  from  fire,  and  a  corresponding 
return  of  these  into  fire,  or  a  simultaneous  trans- 
formation of  the  universe  into  fire,  and  a  fresh  creation 
immediately  succeeding  it.^  In  others  the  language  he 
uses  can  scarcely  apply  to  anything  except  the  future 
conversion  of  the  world  into  fire — the  destruction  of 
the  world,  to  which  the  authors  who  transmit  these 
statements  to  us  do  in  fact  apply  them.  *Fire,' 
says  Heracleitus,  *  will  come  upon  all  things  to  order 
them   and   to   seize    them;'^   and    in    another    frag- 

*  Such  as  the  anT^ftcvoy  iJL^pa  w6»ra  rh  wvp  iwt\$hp   xptrcl  Koi 

Koi  kwocfitm^^fityop  fihpa ;  sup.  p.  iraroX'^eTac.     Here  the  nee  of  the 

22,  1 ;  the  tls  irvp  ica2  iK  irvpbs  ra  future  tense  (which  is  certified  in 

v^a,  p.  20,  1|  and  the  quotation,  the  case  of  the  first  Terb  by  the 

p.  27,  1.  second)  makes  it  probable  that  it 

'  Fr,  68,  ap.  Hippol.  iz.   10:  is  not  a  continuous  transformation 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD. 


65 


ment  he  described,  as  Clemens  informs  us,  the  new  forma- 
tion of  the  earth  in  the  sea '  which  preceded  the  burning 
of  the  world.  Aristotle  says  still  more  unequivocally  : 
Heracleitus  and  Empedocles  are  of  opinion  that  the 
world  is  sometimes  in  its  present  state,  and  then  again 
is  destroyed  and  enters  upon  a  new  state,  and  that  this 


of  all  things  into  fire  which  is 
spoken  of,  as  in  the  present,  itJuna 
oiOKiCti  K€pavrhs  (sup.  p.  22, 2) ;  but 
a  tmnsformation  of  this  kind  at 
some  definite  fhtnre  time  ;  and  that 
Hippoljtns  is  therefore  justified  iu 
qooting  the  words  as  an  authority 
for  the  iKwifpnffis. 

»  Ft.  48 ;  Clem.  Strom,  v.  699 
B  (Ens.  iV.  Ev.  xiii.  13,  33) :  twttt 
8«  T^Kuf  iofoXufifidyercu  (so.  6  k6- 
vitos,  how  the  world  will  again  be 
taken  back  into  the  primitive  es- 
sence ;  the  expression  is  Stoic,  cf. 
Part  ui.  a,  140,  6 ;  and  in  respect 
to  the  corresponding  Araxvpco^,  cf. 
ihid.  130, 3)  :  Kot  iKwupovrat,  ea^&s 
Sid  ro^^v  8i)A4><*  '*  OdXoffira  8ia- 
X<crcu  icol  /urp^cTcu  tts  rhy  avrhv 
kSyow  SkoTos  'KpArov  (Ens.  irp6<rBw) 
h  ^  ycircVtfw  7^.**  That  these 
vords  reallj  refer  to  the  return  of 
the  earth  into  the  sea,  from  which 
it  arose  when  the  cosmos  was 
formed  (vide  p.  47  sq.),  the  distinct 
Uognage  of  Clemens  forbids  us  to 
doubt  There  is  all  the  less  reason 
to  cancel  79,  with  Lassalle  (ii.  61), 
or  with  Schuster  (129,  3),  to  sub- 
stitute ')fy¥.  As  the  sea  then  be- 
came in  its  greater  part  earth,  so 
DOW  the  earth  must  again  become 
wa,  in  accordance  with  the  univer- 
nl  law  of  the  transmutation  of 
matter(cf.p.  49sq.).  Diogenes  also 
uses  x<270M  (stfp.  p.  49, 1)  to  desig- 
nate this  transformation  of  the 
Mith  into  water.  Lassalle,  /.  0., 
ezpUins  the  words,  fit  rhv  obrhv 

TOL,   II.         .  ] 


\Ayov  *  according  to  the  same  law.' 
But  in  this  the  meaning  of  cxf  is  too 
little  regarded.  It  signifies  rather 
*  to  the  same  size,'  or  more  accu- 
rately (since  k6yos  designates  the 
proportion,  in  this  case  a  proportion 
of  magnitude),  '  so  that  its  magni- 
tude stands  to  that  which  it  had  as 
earth,  in  the  same  proportion  as 
previously,  before  it  became  earth.' 
(Vide  also  Peiper's  Erkenntnias- 
tkeorie  Plato* b^  8.)  I  cannot  admit, 
with  Heinze  {Lehre  v.  Log.  25),  that 
in  that  case  iK6<ros  must  be  substi- 
tuted for  6Kotos,  6  oMs  oTos  signi- 
fies the  same  as  6  abrhs  &s  (the 
same  magnitude  as  that  which  was 
previously).  Heinze  cancels  yq  like 
Lassalle,  and  explains  the  passage 
thus  :  '  The  sea  is  changed  into  the 
same  A^os,  that  is,  into  the  same 
fire  of  the  nature  of  which  it  was 
previously  before  it  arose  indepen- 
dently.' But  even  if  it  is  the  same 
nature  which  is  explained  now  as 

Srimitive  fire,  and  now  as  x^os,  it 
oes  not  follow  that  these  concep- 
tions are  themselves  interchange- 
able, and  that  the  same  expression 
which  designates  this  essence  on 
the  side  of  its  intelligence,  could 
be  used  for  a  designation  of  the 
materia]  substratum  as  snch.  A 
pantheist  may  say,  '  God  is  spirit 
and  matter ; '  he  will  not  therefore 
say,  'the  derived  substances  are 
resolved  into  the  primeval  spirit* 
but  *they  are  resolved  into  the 
primitive  nuUter* 


HERACLEITUS, 


goes  on  without  ceasing.^  Heracleitus  (he  observes 
elsewhere  ')  says  that  all  will  at  last  become  fire ;  and 
that  this  does  not  relate  merely  to  the  successive,  trans- 
formation of  individual  bodies  into  fire,  but  to  a  state 
in  which  the  collective  totality  of  things  has  siravJUor' 


>  De  Cotlo,  i.  10,  279  b,  12: 
yw6y^tVQV  fily  olv  Airayrcs  cTmiI  9a- 
<rip  (bc.  rhv  ohpoofhv^  hXXh  'Y9v6fi9vop 
ol  fiky  &t9ior,  ol  9h  ^Baprhy  &<nrrp 
Sriovy  iWo  r&v  pwru  ffvyurrofi^ytty, 
ol  V  ivaKXi^l  M  fihy  oSrvs,  M  9k 
<(AAo»s  ^X*'*'  ^9tip6iJLWoy  koX  rovro 
iL%\  SiarcXeiir  o0r(»s,  &a'W€p  'EfixcSo- 
leXrjs  6  ^^payavrTyos  iral  *HpdK\€tros 
6  'E^^o-ioj.  The  words  M  —  &AA«r 
Hx^ty  may  either  be  translated :  '  it 
iH  DOW  in  this  condition  and  now  in 
that/  or,  '  it  is  sometimes  in  the 
same  condition  as  now,  and  some- 
times in  another/  This  does  not 
afTect  the  present  question;  but 
the  use  of  pO^ipSfi^yov  seems  to 
favour  the  second  rendering.  As 
Prantl  rightly  observes,  this  word 
can  only  be  connected  with  &\\ms 
fx^iy,  so  that  the  sense  is  the  same 
as  if  it  stood :  M  9^,  <l>$€ip6fi€yoyt 
A\\ws  ^x<(^>  But  if  ixXus  ^x*'*' 
deacribes  the  state  of  things  after 
the  destruction  of  the  world,  ofh-ws 
fx**^  must  apply  to  the  oppo- 
site of  this,  tJie  world's  present 
condition.  In  the  rovro  &ci  Siarc- 
A.«tK  o0rw5,  rovro  evidently  refers 
to  the  whole,  M  /i^  ofhvs  6rh  8i 
AkXus  fx*^^  •  '  ^^i^  ^b®  alternation 
of  the  world's  conditions,  is  always 
going  on/  Lassalle,  ii.  173,  would 
refer  it  exclusively  to  the  ^ipS- 
fttpoyy  and  explains  it  thus :  '  this 
destruction  is  eternally  fulfilling 
itself;'  so  that,  as  he  says,  an  al- 
ternation in  time  of  the  construction 
nnd  destruction  of  the  world,  as 
part  of  fleracleitns's  doctrine  (and 
in  that  case  as  part  of  Empedocles's 
also)  is  positively  excluded  by  this 


passage.  It  is  obvious,  however, 
that  the  words  in  themselves  can- 
not have  this  meaning.  It  may 
seem  strange  that  Aristotle  should 
ascribe  10  Heracleitus  the  opinion 
that  the  world  is  derived,  whereas  , 
Heracleitus  himself  (sup,  p.  22,  1 ) 
so  distinctly  describes  it  as  unde- 
rived.  But  Aristotle  is  speaking 
only  of  this  present  world,  of  the 
framework  of  the  sky  (o^pctyhs) ;  as 
to  the  rest,  he  acknowledges,  280 

a,  11 :  rh  iyaX^Jk^  ovyimam  leat 
9ia\^ty  ahrhy  (here  also  is  a  strik- 
ing refutation  of  Lassalle's  emen- 
dation) oMy  iWoi^tpoy  iroi€iy 
4(rr\y^  ^  rh  KaroffK^vd^tiy  a^hy 
iuHioy  iXXh  fierafidWoyra  r^y  ftafh- 
<p^y,  Alexander  (ap.  Simpl.  De 
Casio,  132  b,  32  sqq. ;  Schol.  487 

b,  43)  observes  quite  in  accordance 
with  this :  '  If  Heracleitus  calls  the 
ic6o'tios  eternal,  he  must  understand 
by  the  word:  oh  r^y9f  r^y  9iaK6- 
fffittay,  &XX&  KttB6Kov  rit  Syra  itai 
r^y  roitrmv  hiikrofyy^  koB*  ^y  ei j  lirtt- 
rtpoy  iy  ftrpti  v  nerafioXij  roO 
ToyrhSf  TOT^  /t^y  tls  irvp  rorh  9k  eh 
rhy  rot6y9^  Kiirpuoy.  Also  vol.  i.  p. 
670.  1. 

»  Phys,  iii.  5,  206  a,  3 :  fiowep 
*^pdK\tir6s  ^r)iny  tkwwna  ylyooBal 
iroTc  irvp.  Meteor,  i.  14,  342  a,  17 
sq.  is  also  applied  by  commentators 
to  Heracleitus;  here  there  is  men- 
tion of  the  theory  that  the  sea  is 
becoming  smaller  by  drying  ap. 
But  a  reference  is  the  more  uncer- 
tain, as  a  theory  of  this  Icind  is 
nowhere  attribut^ed  to  Heracleitus, 
though  it  is  ascribed  to  Democritos. 
Vide  infra,  chapter  on  Democritus. 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD. 


67 


neously  assumed  the  form  of  fire  is  clear  from  the 
language  used,^  and  still  more  from  the  connection. 
For  Aristotle  says,  he.  citj  that  it  is  impossible  that 
the  world  can  consist  of  one  single  element,  or  pass 
over  into  a  single  element,  as  would  be  the  case  if  all, 
according  to  Heracleitus's  theory,  were  to  become  fire.^ 
The  Stoics  from  the  first  understood  Heracleitus  in  no 
other  way ; '  and  it  is  very  improbable  that  in  so  doing 
they  should  merely  have  adopted  Aristotle's  view,  and 
not  have  formed  their  opinion  from  the  philosopher's  own 
assertions.  There  are  many  other  testimonies  to  the 
same  effect,^  and  though  much  trouble  has  been  taken  to 

second  editioD),  there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  it.  As  I  have  shown  in 
the  Hermes,  xi.  4  H,  the  proofs, 
which,  according  to  Theophrastus, 
Fr,  30  (Philo,  JEtem.  M,  959  C 
sqq..  p.  510  sqq.  Mang.),  were  even 
in  his  time  brought  forward 
againf^t  the  Aristotelian  eternity  of 
the  world  by  the  advocates  of  an 
alternate  formation  and  destruction 
— are  to  be  referred  to  the  founder 
of  the  Stoa.  If  they  do  not  origi- 
nate with  him,  they  must  be  all  the 
more  directly  derived  from  the 
Heracleitean  school. 

*  Diog.ix.8(p.77,l;78.1);M. 
Aurel.  iii.  8  ('Hf>dKA.  w€pl  t^s  toD 
K6<rfjLov  itcwvpi&irtws  roffavra  ipvano- 
\jorfl<ras) ;  Pint.  Plao.  i.  8,  26; 
Alex.  Meteorol.  90  a,  m,  p.  260 
Id.,  where  Lassalle^s  attempt  (ii. 
170)  to  do  away  with  the  iiar^pwrts 
is  as  impossible  as  in  the  passage 
quoted  p.  66,  2  (Lassalle,  ii.  177 
sq.  in  regard  to  him,  Bemays' 
HemklU,  Brief e,  121  sq.).  Also 
Simpl.  loc.  (fit.  n2h,  17  (487  b, 
83>,  and  PAy«.  6  a,  HI  b,  257  b 
(where  Lat^alle  indeed  thinks  no 
writer  could  express  himself  more 
2 


,  not  irarrtt  merely. 

*  Lassalle  (ii.  163).  who  is  de- 
termined to  banish  the  Heracleitean 
conflagration  of  the  world,  even  out 
of  Aristotle,  simply  ignores  this 
context;  yet  he  seems  to  have  a 
misgiving  on  the  subject,  and  so 
reeortato  the  following  desperate 
expedient.  In  the  passage  of  the 
Physics,  which  at  a  later  date 
passed  into  the  second  half  of  the 
eleventh  book  of  the  Metaphysics 
(which  book  was  compiled,  as  is 
well  known,  from  the  Physics),  the 
propOBition  from  which  the  words 
in  question  are  taken  {Phys.  205, 
a,  1-4;  Metaph.  1067  a,  2-4) 
may  first  have  been  transferred 
from  the  Metaphysics. 

•  There  is  no  direct  evidence 
of  this,  but,  as  the  first  teachers 
among  the  Stoics  attached  them- 
selves  in  their  physics  to  Herac- 
leitus, whose  doctrines  were  ex- 
plained by  Cleanthes  and  Sphserus 
(Diog.  ix.  16;  vii.  174,  178),  and 
as  the  theory  of  the  iicwipctffis  was 
taught  in  the  Stoic  school  from  its 
commencement,  and  especially  by 
Cleanthes  (vide  Part  iii.  a,  132  sq. 


68 


HERACLEITU8, 


discover  statements  to  the  contrary,  not  one  trustworthy 
testimony  has  been  found  in  all  the  post-Aristotelian 
literature,  to  prove  that  the  alternate  formation  of  the 
world  and  its  destruction  by  fire  was  ever  denied  to 
have  been  a  doctrine  of  Heracleitus ;  ^  no  such  denial 


clearly  against  the  iterifwa-is^  than 
Simplicius  does  in  the  words :  Scot 
&cl  /t«V  ^curiy  •Jycu  K6afU}Vt  olt  fiir 
Th»  ainhp  Acl,  kXkk  &XXotc  &XAoy 
yty6fitkoif  Korrd  rivas  xp^*^^  irtpi6' 
8out  &s  *Avalititvns  T«  ital  *Hpi' 
KAeiros).  Themist,  Phys.  33  b,  p. 
231  Sp. ;  Olympiodorus,  Meteoro/. 
32  a,  p.  279  Id. ;  Eufleb.  iV.  tv. 
xiv.  3,  6  ;  Philo,  JEteni.  M.  940  B 
(489  M).  In  this  last  passage 
Heracleitus  is  not  named,  but  he 
is  certainly  intended.  He  is  named 
in  the  passage  in  Clemens,  Slrom. 
V.  699  B,  which  is  no  doubt  taken 
from  the  same  source,  and  is  partly 
similar  in  language  (here  again 
Lassalle,  ii.  159,  seeks  to  explain 
away  the  obvious  meaning).  Cf. 
Strom.  V.  649  0.  Lucian,  V.  auct. 
1 4.  Further  details  if^fra,  p.  77, 1 . 
1  Lassalle,  ii.  127,  after  Schlei- 
ormacher,  appeals  first  to  Max.  Tyr. 
xli.  4,  end :  /jterafioXhy  ^p^s  trvfidTotv 
Ko)  yty4fftws,  iXKeey^y  68£v  &r«  kqI 
Kdrw  Kark  rhy  'H/kUXctroy  .  .  .  8ia- 
Sox^v  Sp^s  fiiov  ical  fierafioKiiy  cw- 
tidrcty,  Kcuyovpylay  rov  Hkou.  *  This 
writer,'  he  concludes, '  was  acquaint- 
ed with  no  other  renewal  of  the 
world  than  the  partial  one  which  is 
constantly  occurring.'  He  had  no 
occasion  to  speak  of  any  other  in 
this  place :  he  is  here  simply  men- 
tiouing  the  fact  of  experience  that 
the  destruction  of  one  thing  is  the 
birth  of  another;  but  the  4kwv- 
pwffts  is  not  an  object  of  experience, 
of  4p$v.  Lassalle  further  quotas, 
M.  Aurel.  x.  7 :  &<""€  icoi  ravra 
ia'aX.ri^9rivat  ch  rhy  rov  i\ov  Xiyoy^ 


efr«  Kork  wtploBoy  iiewvpovfjiiyov  cfrc 
iCitlois  kfioifiais  kyatf^ovfiiyov ;  and 
asks,  with  Schleiermacher,  *  to 
whom  except  Heracleitus  can  we 
refer  this  latter  theory  of  iKw6- 
ptaats  which  is  opposed  to  that  of 
the  Stoics  ? '  It  has  ahready  been 
shown,  in  the  previous  note,  that 
Marcus  Aurelius  attributes  ^fcut^* 
points  to  Heracleitus ;  when  he 
speaks  of  those  who  substitute  a 
perpetual  for  a  periodical  renova- 
tion of  the  world,  this  must  refer 
to  the  Stoical  opponents  of  the 
destruction  by  fire  (among  whom 
we  may  count  Aristotle  and  his 
school) ;  Hud  the  same  holds  good 
of  Cic.  N.  De.  ii.  33,  86;  Ps.- 
Censorin.  Fr.  1,3.  A  third  citation 
of  Schleiermacber  (p.  100),  and 
Lassalle  (i.  236 ;  ii.  128)  is  Plut. 
J)if.  orac,  12,  p.  416 :  koL  i  KX^S/a- 
fiporos'  iucoim  Tai>r',  f^i},  iroK\&y 
Kttl  6p&  rify  Srorlfc^v  iicwvpwny, 
&<nr§o  rk  'HpeueXHTOv  ffol  *Op^4ms 
4irive/AofA4yriy  $vri,  o5t«  jcal  rk 
*H<ri6^v  Kol  iryyt^airaT&tray.  But 
though  tliis  seems  to  show  that 
certiiiu  opponents  of  the  Stoic 
4Kwipw<ris  sought  to  withdraw  from 
it  the  support  of  Heracleitus  as 
well  as  of  other  authorities,  the 
passage  does  not  inform  us  in  the 
lea^t  on  what  the  attempt  was 
based,  or  whether  the  censure  that 
the  Stoics  misapplied  the  sayings 
of  Heracleitus  had  any  foundation 
in  fact.  Lassalle  makes  a  stiU 
greater  mistake  when  he  quotes 
i.  232)  on  his  own  behalf;  Philo, 
^e  Vict,  839  D  (243  M)  :  U€p  oi 


^; 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD, 


m 


can  be  discovered  even  among  those  Stoics  who  were 


l»M9  K^pw  tud  xpl^f*'^^^  iKdXteoPf 
ol  9k    ticw^pmnv   fcal    8iaic^0';Ai|<rfy, 
and  says  that  in  this  paasage  K6pos 
and  iiar^pmats,  xp^l"*^^^  A^d  '<<^' 
KSo'fiafais  are  synonymoufl.    So  also 
the  treatise  of  Philo  on  the  im- 
perishableness  of  the  world,  which 
Lassalle  also  qnotes,  ascribes  to 
Haracleitas  the  relative  destmciion 
of  the  world  which  was  held  by 
the  Stoics;  cf.  p.  67,  3.    The  same 
is  the  case  with  Diog.  ii.  8  (in/rat 
p.  77)»  whose  words  LassaUe  (ii. 
136)  is  obliged  to  twist  into  their 
opposite,  in  order  then  to  discover 
in  them  an  *  exceedingly  important 
argument '  against  the  burning  of 
the  world.     Nor  can  we  gather 
mnch  from  Flotinns,  v.  1,  9,  p.  490 : 
«al  'Hp<CacXciTOS  5^  rh  ty  olSci^  &t8(oy 
ical  pmrr6¥y  for  the  theory  that  the 
Deity   or    the    primitive    fire    is 
eternal,  was  as  little  denied  by  the 
Stoics,  in  spite  of  their  iicw^pwriSj 
as    by    Heradeitns.      In    Simpl. 
De  CoBlo,  132  b,  28  (Schol.  487  b, 
43),  we  first  meet  with  the  asser- 
tion   that    Heracleitus    8i'  alyty- 
liirmv  r^y  kavrov  ao^Uuf  iK^ipwv 
ov  ravra^  Svcp  Soikcc  rois  iroXAoii, 
<riv<alFCi,  for  he  also  writes  K6<rfiotf 
tMc,  &c  {sumra,  p.  22, 1),  and  in 
agreement  with  this  we  read,  Stob. 
Eel.  i.  454:  'Updnktirot  oh  xarck 
Xp^ror  thai  y^ynfrhv  rhv  K6<rfiow, 
aAA&  KOft^  Mrouuf.    Bnt  what  can 
we  infer  from  this?    It  is  iucon- 
venient  for  the  Neo-PUtonists  to 
find  in    Heradeitns,  in  place  of 
their  own  doctrine  of  the  eternity 
of  the  world,  an  alternate  genesis 
and  destruction,  and  so  in  his  case, 
as  in  others,  they  declare  that  this 
is  not  to  be  understood  chronologi- 
cally, but  ideally.    But  Simplicius 
himself  repeatedly  says  that  Hera- 
deitns spoke  of  such  an  alternation 


(vide  previous  note),  and  Stobseus 
presupposes  him  to  have  done  so. 
Lassalle,  ii.  142,  thinks  he  has 
found  valuable  evidence  in  &ivour 
of  his  view  in  the  treatise  rfp\ 
HuJrfis  of  the  Pseudo-Hippocrates, 
where  it  is  said,  in  the  first  book, 
that  all  things  consist  of  fire  and 
water ;  that  these  are  alwajs  in  con- 
flict with  each  other,  but  neither  is 
able  entirely  to  overcome  the  other; 
and  therefore  the  world  will  always 
be  as  it  now  is.  But  although  the 
first  book  of  the  work  rtpl  9icdms 
mav  contain  much  that  is  Hera- 
cleitean,  it  combines  with  it  (as  is 
ndw  generally  admitted)  such  hete- 
rogeneous elements  that  we  are  not 
the  least  justified  in  regarding  the 
treatise  as  an  authentic  record  of 
the  physics  of  Heracleitus.  This 
is  evident  when  we  consider  the 
doctrine  which  forms  the  comer 
stone  of  its  whole  physiology  and 
psychology :  that  all  things  are 
composedof  fire  and  water.  The 
question  as  to  the  date  of  this 
treatise  is  therefore  of  secondary 
importance  as  far  as  Heradeitnis 
is  concerned,  though  it  would  cer- 
tainly be  interesting  in  relation  to 
the  history  of  philosophy  in.  the 
fifth  century,  if  Teichmijiler  {K 
Stud.  i.  249  &qq.)  could  succeed 
in  proving  that  it  &lls  between 
Heracleitus  and  Anaxagoras.  But 
that  is  far  too  early  a  date.  There 
are  no  traces  in  it,  certainly,  of 
the  existence  of  the  Platonic  and 
Aristotelian  philosophy;  nor  can  we, 
I  admit,  infer  an  acquaintance  of 
the  author  with  Aristotle's  theory 
of  the  dements  from  C,  4  suh 
init.,  where  fire  is  described  as 
warm  and  dry,  and  water  as  cold 
and  moist,  especially  as,  according 
to  Plato,  Symp,  186  D;  188  A; 


70 


HERACLEITUS. 


Soph.  242  D,  and  the  quotation 
concerning  Alcmaeoo,  vol.  i.  525, 1, 
these  four  natural  qualities  had 
previously  been  insisted  on  with 
great  emphasis  by  the  physicians ; 
and  as  water  seems  to  have  been 
called  by  Archelaus  (infra,  p.  847, 
3,  3rd  ed.)  rh  ^xp^r  as  well  as  rh 
^p6y.  But  though  these  considera- 
tions might  lead  us  (with  Bemays, 
HernkL  3  sq.,  and  Schuster,  pp. 
99,  110)  to  assign  the  treatise  to 
the  Alexandrian  period,  everything 
is  against  the  theory  that  it  belongs 
to  the  second  third  of  the  fifth 
century.  An  exposition  so  detailed, 
entering  into  particulars  of  all 
kinds  with  the  unmistakeable  aim 
of  empirical  completeness,  and  in 
many  parts  of  the  ^rst  book  quite 
overladen  with  such  discussions, 
is  very  far  from  the  style  of  that 
period,  as  it  appears  in  all  the 
philosophical  fragments  of  the  fifth 
century.  Eren  the  fragments  of 
Diogenes  and  Democritus,  and  the 
treatise  of  Polybus,  found  amonff 
the  works  of  Hippocrates  (ircpl  ^Si 
^los  ^i^/M^ov),  are  evidently  much 
more  simple  and  ancient  in  expres- 
sion. The  author  of  the  wtpl  Hudrris 
indeed  tells  us  that  he  belongs  to  an 
epoch  advanced  in  literature,  when 
he  speaks  of  the  many  (c.  1),  who 
have  already  written  about  the 
diet  most  compatible  with  health, 
and  also  ii.  39  of  all  those  who 
(SkScoC)  have  written  on  the  effect 
of  what  is  sweet,  fat.  See.  That 
there  should  have  existed  a  whole 
literature  on  these  subjects  before 
the  time  of  Hippocrates  is  highly 
improbable.  Teichmiiller,  indeed, 
reminds  us  that  Heradeitus  in  Fr. 
13,  vide  gupra  (p.  7.  1),  appeals 
to  his  study  of  the  earlier  litera- 
ture; but  this  is  irrelevant,  1st, 
because  Heradeitus  is  there  speak- 
ing only  of  k^ot  which  he  has 


heard,  not  of  a  literature  which  h3 
has  studied  ;  and  2nd,  the  question 
is  not  whether  there  were  nny 
writings  at  all  at  that  time  (in- 
duding  the  poems  of  Hesiod, 
Homer,  Xenophanes  and  others), 
but  whether  tiiere  was  an  exten- 
sive literature  on  these  particular 
subjects.  For  the  above  reasons, 
we  cannot  build  on  the  evidence  of 
Heradeitus^s  22nd  fragment  {sup. 
vol.  i.  p.  386,  5 ;  363,  5).  Another 
aigument  is  that  the  author  of 
the  treatise  does  not  know  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Atomists,  of  £m- 
pedoclee  and  Anaxagoras.  It 
would  be  more  exact  to  say  that 
he  does  not  mention  them;  but 
in  the  case  of  a  writer  who  never 
mentions  other  opinions  as  such, 
and  only  quotes  from  them  what 
he  has  himself  adopted,  this  does 
not  prove  that  he  was  unacquainted 
with  them,  and  stiU  less  that  they 
were  not  in  existence.  But  even 
that  cannot  be  said.  G.  4  is  ex- 
plained by  the  author  thus :  '  No- 
thing is  generated  or  destroyed 
absolutely,  but  everything  changes 
merely  by  combination  and  separa- 
tion :  when  therefore  he  speaks  of 
generation  he  is  only  describing  the 
^vfifilaytaBtUt  and  when  he  speaks 
of  desdniction,  the  8icurp^vc<r9«.'  It 
seems  to  me  clear  that  this  is  not 
Heracleitean ;  and  when  Schuster 
(p.  274)  maintains  that  it  is  so 
(without  authority  indeed  from 
anjjT  of  the  fragments  or  from  other 
evidence),  I  can  only  account  for 
it  by  his  own  denial  (discussed 
p.  12,  1)  of  the  doctrine  of  the  flux 
of  all  thixigs.  We  do  not  find  this 
identification  of  generation  with 
the  union,  and  of  destruction  with 
the  separation  of  underived  and 
imperishable  substances,  before 
Empedocles,  Leucippus  and  Anax- 
agoras;   and   when    Teichmiiller, 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD, 


71 


p.  262,  asks  vhj  one  anthor  maj 
not  have  been  adlied  on  this  point 
with  Xenophanes  (Parmenides 
must  surely  be  intended ;  for 
Xenophanes  never  formally  denied 
generation  and  destmction),  and 
Anaxagoras  with  our  aathor,  the 
simple  answer  is  this :  becanse 
Ajiaxagoras,  Empedodes  and  Leu- 
cippiiB  were  known  to  all  antiquity 
as  the  authors  of  systems  whicn 
have  for  their  common  foundation 
the  conception  of  generation  and 
destruction ;  whereas  nobody  knows 
anything  of  the  treatise  mpX  Ziaiinis 


from  which  Teichmiiller  derives 
this  fundamental  conception ;  be- 
cause a  compiler,  like  our  author, 
who  is  so  entirely  wanting  in  acute- 
ness  and  logical  perception  as  to 
confuse  Heracleitus's  w6ana  x"P<< 
with  the  above  mentioned  doctrine 
based  on  the  presuppositions  • ' 
Parmenides, — can  never  have  been 
the  discoverer  of  that  doctrine ;  be- 
cause lastly,  as  will  appear  from  the 
following  comparison,  the  reminis- 
cence of  passages  from  Anaxagoras 
and  Empedodes  is  unmistakable. 
Of.  Tttpi  iiair.  c.  4  :-=- 


o8ro»  tk  ToOrmv  ix^*^^^  xovA.- 
JuLS  Kmi  xoKTo^or^  I94as  kiroKpt- 
rmrrai  Air*  iAA^Xwi^  ical  dttfUfidrMf 


Xpilfidrtn'  ov9h  yiyercu  5  ri  fiii  ical 
9p6a$9¥  ^y  ^ufifju(Ty6fuya  8i  koX 
9uucpty6fi€ya  &AXoiovrai*  yofd(ercu 
9k  irapa  'p&p  ia^p^mr^  etc. 


yo/u/ifcrai  tk  r.  r.  Mp,  rh  yAy  (( 


ojrrc  CI  (iioy  iijroBcaftiy  oX6y  re 
.  .  .  vov  ykp  kwoQwywroi ;  oi^rc  rh 
fifl  %r  7cr4<r0ai,  ir6$ty  yhp  i^rai ; 

8  Ti  8*  &»  Ztakiymiuu  y^viffBoi 
il  kwoXJff^ai  rmy  iroJOimy  ttyticey 
if^i^y^ict, 

Tovra  8^  (ytydifBm  kirokMai) 
^vfifdayto'Bm  Jcoi  itoKpiy^oOai  ^riXA 
. .  .  ytyiffBai  Isyi^T^ycu  rtttnh,  iar<h- 
Xia^ax,  f/MtmBiiyaif  9iaKpi$^yai  rctM, 


Anaxagoras  FV.  3  (p.  798,  3rd 
edit.):  rovrdtty  8i  ofhots  ix^yrwy 
Xph  ^okUiv  iyuycu  xoAX2t  re  irol 
xayrota  iy  wwri  rots  avyKptyofidyois 
Ktd  inedpfAwra  nhnmy  xpil/^Tovv  icol 
tHias  Toyroias  tx^^^fi^ 

Ft,  6  f  798, 2) :  <rwtpiUruy  .  .  . 

Fr.  8  (Mi.)  ^tpov  5i  obUy 
iariy  Zfioioy  Mtyl  ftXAy. 

Fr.  22  (793,  1)  :  rb  Ji  yiyMtrBat 
ical  kxSWwrBcu  olfK  6p0&s  yofil(owriv 
*EXAi}yffs  oitBhy  ykp  XP^f^  yiyerw, 
ovZk  kwdXXvToi  &XX*  &«^  46yT»v 
Xpi7/tu&r»»r  avfifuaytral  re  km  Sia- 
Kpiytrm, 

Anax.  ap.  Arist  (p.  793, 4) :  rh 
ylyywBoi  koX  kw6\KwrBai  rabrhy 
KoBicTiiKe  r^  kXXoiovffB€u, 

Emped.  v.  40  (611, 1, 3rd  edit.) : 
01  8*  8tc  /iky  Korh  ^fira  fuyky  ^dos 
alBipos  liqj  .  .  .  r4^c  fiky  r699  ^aal 
y€y4aBm. 

Emp.  92  (609,  1):  roOro  8' 
hrau^^iatu  rh  iray  rl  K€  koX  ir6Bty 
4XB6y;  inj  94  icc  icaL  iaroKoiai^; 

Em^.  44  (611.  1):  ySiup  8*  4-wi' 
^nf**  1^^  airrhs  (referring  to  the  use 
of  the  word  yiyytaBai  etc). 

Anax.  Fr.  22  (793,  1):  koL 
othrtu  &y  6pB&s  K«\oicr  rh  re  yiyi- 
<r9cu  prvfifdaytffBoi  iccU  Thiar6xXvffB«u 
itanpiy^ffBai, 


72 


HERACLEITU8. 


ipmnlos,  c.  11.  wifMS  yiip  mU  i^^a'ts 
.  .  .  o^x  ^/MA.o7^erai  dfioXoTf ^ju«ya' 
v^/ioy  yhp  f$wav  Mptnrot  ahrol 
kmnouriv^  od  ytvAaicowres  ittpX  ^p 

fiHtray. 

C.  28 :  ifwx^  M^i'  ^^^i'  o^^  ^A^^n 
ical  iy  fiiCoyi  teaX  iw  ixdo'covi. 


EmpedocleSt  y.  44,  also  Demo- 
critus  (infra,  694,  4,  705,  2,  3rd 
edit.)  r6fju^  y\wcb,  y6fi^  iriKphr  etc 
irtp  9h  Arofia  Koi  KMy6»  (instead  of 
irtf  later  accounts  have  ^^ci). 


Anaxag.  Fr.  8  (804,  1) :  v6os 
8^  vol  8/AOi^f  ^<rri  iKal  d  /a^^w  irol 
6  iXdaffvy, 


I  know  not  whether  Teichmiiller 
would  represent  AnaxRgoras  in  the 
last  quotation  as  plaffiarising  from 
the  author  of  vcpl  StoTnjs.  It  'seems 
to  me  quite  unmistakable  that  the 
latter  has  here  adopted  a  proposi- 
tion which  was  necessary  to  Anax- 
agoras  on  account  of  his  main 
point  of  view,  but  which  is  not 
at  all  compatible  with  the  theory 
of  souls  being  compounded  from 
lire  and  water.  I  think  it  hns 
been  sufficiently  shown  that  this 
writer  was  preceded  by  all  the 
physicists  of  the  fifth  century 
down  to  Democritus ;  but  there 
is  yet  another  proof  from  another 
side.  Even  the  discovery  on  which 
he  most  prides  himself,  that  living 
natures,  the  human  soul  and  all 
things,  are  compounded  out  of  fire 
and  water  (c.  4-6,  35  et  pass.)  is 
not  his  own,  but  is  borrowed  from 
Arcbeiaus  the  physicist  (infra^  p. 
847,  8rd  edit.),  and  when  (c  3)  he 
attributes  to  fire  the  power  of 
moving  all  things,  and  to  water 
that  of  nourishing  all  things, 
scarcely  half  the  idea  is  original ; 
for  Archelaus  had  represented  the 
warm  as  in  motion  and  the  cold 
at  rest.  In  accordance  with  all 
this,  our  treatise  must  be  regarded 
as  the  work  of  a  physician  in  the 
first  decades  of  the  fourth  century, 
who,  in  writing  it,  made  use  of  the 
physical  theories  then  most  preva- 
lent in  Athens — in  the  first  place 


those  of  Archelaus,  and  next  those 
Heracleitean  theories  which  had 
there  become  known  through  Cra- 
tylus.  This  circumstance  makes 
ir  probable  that  it  was  written  in 
Athens,  though  possibly  by  an 
Ionian.  The  above  theory  of  date 
and  place  of  composition  agrees 
with  what  is  said  in  the  work  (c 
23) :  ypaft^ruc^  roi6p99*  trxfiyt^Tw 
irvv9€ffis,  ajifi-fila  ^vTJs  Mpteirivrfs 
.  ,  .  8i'  iirrii  (rx^^T«ir  ii  yvwris 
ravra  irdvra  ivdpvwos  Starp^ff-trcrcu 
(he  speaks  the  sjunds  described  by 
the  ax^fiara)  koI  d  iwi<rrdfievos 
ypdfifuxfra  «ca2  6  /u^  iirurrdfitvos  :  if 
by  the  seven  o-x^ftoro,  which  in 
this  connection  can  hardly  mean 
anything  else  than  letters,  the 
seven  vowels  are  meant,  these  as 
parfi^vra  might  still  be  called  in 
preference  tn/jfJiXa  ipttv^s:  for  it 
was  only  after  the  time  of  Euclides 
(408  B.C.)  that  there  were  seven  in 
use  in  Athens.  A  much  more  trust- 
worthy mark-  of  this  later  time  is 
to  be  found,  however,  \A  the  way 
our  suthpr  opposes  y6fios  to  ^^vis 
(c.  11,  vide  supra).  This  oppo- 
sition is  unknown  prior  to  the 
Sophists.  Teichmiiller  s  objection 
(p.  262)  proves  nothing.  The 
question  is  not:  Oan  we  suppose 
such  a  difference  to  have  existed 
between  the  philosophical  and  the 
popular  point  of  view  ?  can  we 
prove  that  the  words  ySfios  and 
^liffts  were  separately  used  ?    But 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD,  73 

* 

opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  burning  of  the  universe,* 
as  held  by  their  own  school.  From  Aristotle  onwards, 
therefore,  it  has  been  the  unanimous,  or  all  but  unani- 
mous, tradition  of  ancient  authors  that  Heracleitus 
taught  that  the  world  would  be  destroyed  by  fire  and 
would  then  be  formed  anew. 

Some  have  attempted  to  refute  this  theory  by  older 
and  more  authentic  evidence.  Plato  distinguishes 
the  opinion  of  Heracleitus  from  that  of  Empedocles 
thus :  ^  Heracleitus,'  he  says,  ^  held  that  the  existent 
was  continually  coming  together,  even  in  separating 
itself;  whereas  Empedocles,  instead  of  a  continual 
concomitance  of  union  and  separation,  maintained  a 
periodic  alternation  of  these  two  conditions.'  ^  How 
could  this  language  have  been  justified,  it  may  be 
asked,  if  Heracleitus,  as  well  as  Empedocles,  had  taught 
that  there  was  an  alternation  between  the  condition  of 
divided  and  contradictory  Being  and  a  condition  of  the 
world  in  which  all  things  become  fire,  and  consequently 
all  distinction  of  things  and  substances  ceases  ?  But, 
in  the  first  place,  Heracleitus,  even  if  he  maintained 
that  the  world  was  destroyed  by  fire,  need  not  necessarily 
have  presupposed  that  in  this  destruction  all  opposition 
and  all  movement  would  be  for  a  time  extinct  as  in  the 
Sphairos  of  Empedocles :  he  might  have  thought  that,  in 
accordance  with  the  living  nature  of  fire,  a  new  appear- 
ance of  the  elemental  contradictories,  a  new  creation  of 

eui  W6  prove  that  they  were  op-  divine  law  {suyra,  p.  41, 1).   With 

posed  to  each  other  formally  and  this  author  they  stand  in  a  natural 

OD  principle  in  the  language  and  contradiction. 

thought    of   the    earlier   period  ?  ^  Cf.  Part  m.  a,  142,  sdcond 

With    Heracleitus    human    laws  edition. 

derive    their    support   from    the  *  Sup,  p.  83,  2. 


74  HERACLEITUS. 

the  world  was  beginning.  If  even  he  ascribed  to  the 
state  in  which  all  was  resolved  into  fire  a  longer 
duration,  he  need  not  have  considered  it  a  state  of 
absolute  oppositionless  unity  ;  for  fire  in  his  view ' 
is  the  living  and  eternally  moved  principle,  and  its 
existence  is  a  perpetual  appearing  and  disappearing  of 
opposites.  Supposing,  however,  that  he  had  explained 
in  neither  of  these  ways  how  the  periodical  dominion  of 
fire  was  compatible  with  the  flux  of  all  things,  the 
question  remains  whether  Plato  would  on  that  account 
have  refrained  from  comparing  him  with  Empedocles  in 
the  manner  quoted  above.  For  the  two  philosophers 
are  in  fact  opposed  to  each  other  in  their  principles,  as 
he  says:  ^  Empedocles  supposes  that  there  existed  at 
first  a  state  of  perfect  union  of  all  substances ;  only 
after  the  cancelling  of  this  state,  does  he  allow 
separation  to  enter  ;  and  by  the  abolition  of  this 
separation  union  is  again  established.  Heracleitus,  on 
the  other  hand,  declares  that  union  is  already  present 
in  and  with  separation ;  that  every  simdering  is  at 
the  same  time  a  coalition,  and  vice  versa.  He  did 
not  intend  to  retract  this  principle  in  his  doctrine  of  a 
periodic  change  in  the  conditions  of  the  world ;  if  the 
two  doctrines  are  not  compatible,  it  is  a  contradiction 
which  he  has  not  observed.'  Is  it  inconceiveable  that 
Plato,  where  he  wishes  to  characterise  the  relation  of 
the  Heracleitean  and  Empedoclean  principles  shortly 
and  decisively,  should  confine  himself  to  their  general 
presuppositions,  without  enquiring  whether  their  other 
theories  were  altogether  consistent  with  these  ?  Is  not 
this,  at  any  rate,  much  easier  to  believe  than  that  Aris- 


CONFLAGRATION  OF  THE   WORLD,  75 

totle  and  all  his  successors  so  grossly  misunderstood  the 
system  of  Heracleitus,  as  we  must  suppose,  if  we  reject 
their  evidfence  as  to  the  conflagration  of  the  universe  ?  * 
Now,  as  already  observed,  the  alternation  of  cos- 
mical  conditions  was  not  involved  in  Heracleitus's 
doctrine  of  the  flux  of  all  things ;  and  if  he  really 
imagined  that  after  the  conflagration  there  would  be  a 
period  in  which  nothing  would  exist  except  the  primi- 
tive fire,  and  that  in  this  fire  all  oppositions  would  be 
absolutely  cancelled,  such  a  doctrine  would  be  incom- 
patible with  the  creative  vitality  of  that  fire,  and  with 
the  proposition  that  the  Keal  is  perpetually  sundering 
from  itself,  in  order  again  to  be  united.  But  the 
question  here  is  not  what  might  be  deduced  from  the 
Heracleitean  principles,  but  to  what  extent  the  philo- 
sopher himself  drew  the  inference  ;  and  nothing  justifies 
us  in  supposing  that  he  never  set  up  any  theory  that 
did  not  necessarily  and  logically  follow  from  his  general 
principles,^  or  which  if  logically  developed  might  not 
clash  with  them.  The  daily  extinction  of  the  sun  does 
not  in  truth  follow  from  the  proposition  of  the  flux  of  all 
things;  closely  considered  it  rather  contradicts  the  theory 
which  may  easily  be  deduced  from  the  presuppositions 
of  Heracleitus,  that  the  mass  of  elemental  substances 

'  Aristotle,  however,  says,  P^«.  4pe/tf?ir. 

Tiii.  3,  268  b,  9,  in  reference  to  'If  all   the   elementary  sub- 

Heracleitus,  although  he  distinctly  stances  are  involved  in  perpetual 

attribates  to  him  the  doctrine  of  transmutation  according  to  a  fixed 

the  ooofiagration  of  the  world :  puri  succession,  and  herein ,  a  like  qoan - 

TIMS  iciycur0ai  rmv  6vT»y  ol  r&  /uiy  tity  of  one  substance  is  constantly 

rit  8*  ot,  iiXXii  irdrra  Koi  Ael,  while  arising  out  of  alike  quantity  of  the 

he  has  previously  (c.  1.  260  b,  26)  other  (vide  supra,  p.  66),  it  neces- 

ascribed  to  Empedodee  the  propo-  sarily  follows  that  the  collective 

sition :  4k.  lUp^i  jcircurtfeu  leol  vdAiv  amount  must  remain  the  same. 


76  HERACLEITUS, 

(fire,  water,  and  earth)  must  always  remain  the  same  ; 
for  that  of  fire  would  be  considerably  diminished  without 
perpetual  compensation.  But  we  cannot  on  that 
account  deny  that  Heracleitus  held  the  theory.  The 
pre-existence  of  the  soul  and  its  existence  after  death 
cannot,  strictly  speaking,  be  brought  into  connection 
with  the  ceaseless  change  of  all  things ;  but  we  shall 
nevertheless  find  that  Heracleitus  believed  in  it.  .  It  is 
the.  same  in  regard  to  the  case  before  us.  He  could  not 
only  have  done  without  the  conflagration  of  the  world, 
but  he  could  even  have  carried  out  his  leading  ideas 
more  consistently,  if,  instead  of  a  periodical  genesis  and 
destruction  of  the  universe,  he  had  taught,  like  Aristotle, 
that  the  universe  was  without  beginning  or  end,  while 
its  parts  were  continually  changing.  But  this  thought 
is  so  far  in  advance  of  ordinary  opinion  that  even 
philosophy  was  long  in  attaining  to  it.*  Not  one  of 
the  ancient  philosophers  had  any  idea  of  explaining  the 
constitution  of  the  world,  except  in  the  form  of  a 
cosmogony  ;  not  even  Plato  in  his  exposition  can 
dispense  with  this  form.  In  comparison  with  the 
prevailing  notions,  it  was  much  that  a  philosopher 
should  assert,  like  Heracleitus,  that  the  world,  accord- 
ing to  its  substance,  was  without  beginning.  Before 
the  system  of  the  world  as  such  was  declared  to  be  un- 
derived,  and  an  eternity  of  the  world  in  the  Aristotelian 
sense  was  asserted,  an  attempt  was  made  to  combine 

1  The  Eleaticfl  alone  declared  side,  as  has  been  shown  {sup.  toI* 

Being  to  be  underived;  but  Par-  i.   569    sq.),    held    such    changes 

menideFandhis  followers  do  not un-  within  the  world  itself,  that  his 

derstand  by  this  Being  the  world  theory  likewise  is  far  removed  from 

as  such,  for  they  deny  multiplicity  that  of  Aristotle. 
i»nd  change.    Aenophanesi  on  his 


PERIODS  OF  THE   WORLD,  17 

the  pre-supposition  of  an  origin  of  the  world  with  the 
newly  won  perception  of  the  impossibility  of  an  absolute 
beginning,  by  the  theory  that  the  world  was  indeed 
eternal  according  to  its  essential  nature,  but  that  its 
condition  was  subject  from  time  to  time  to  so  complete 
a  change  that  a  new  formation  of  the  world  became 
necessary.  If  this  was  not  the  most  logical  or  the 
most  scientific  theory,  it  was  at  any  rate  the  theory 
then  most  obvious  to  philosophy,  and  which  Heracleitus 
found  in  Anaximander  and  Anaximenus,  his  immediate 
predecessors,  in  the  ancient  Ionian  school,  and  this  is 
enough  to  silence  all  opposition  to  the  unanimous 
tradition  of  antiquity. 

As  every  process  in  the  world  has  its  fixed  measure, 
so  also  the  duration  of  the  changing  cosmical  periods  is 
accurately  defined ;  *  and  with  this  is  probably  con- 
nected the  statement  (the  correctness  of  which  is  not 
thoroughly  established)  that  Heracleitus  believed  in  a 
great  year  which,  according  to  some,  he  reckoned  at 
10800,  and  according  to  others  at  18000  solar  years.^ 

1  Diog.ix.  8:  y^waorBoit'  ahrhv  This  year  is  fixed  by  Linus  and 

[thw  Ko^Tftow]    iK  wvpbs  Koi  ird\i¥  Heracleitus  at  10800  solar  years ; 

4tnnfpoviriku    Kori    rivca  •w€pi69ovf  others  determine  it  differently.     On 

^roAA^  rhif  tr^fiwaura  aldra'  rovro  the  other  hand,  Stobseus  says,  Ecf. 

tkyirtirBaiKoff  ^lixapiUvnv.     Simpl.  i.  264  (Plut.  Plac,  ii.  32):  'H/mC- 

PJufS.  6  a  (sup.  p.  42, 1);  similarly  k\citos  [rhp  fi4yaf  ^Mavrby  rl0crai] 

257   h,   u;    Ik   CcBlOy    132   b,    17  fic  ftvpiety    dirraicuxcMwv    ivimnStv 

(&:hol.  487  b,  83);  Eus.  Pr,  Ev.  riKtoK&v.      Bemays,    Bhem.    Mus. 

IDT.  3,   6  :  xP^¥ov  re  &pl<rBat  r^t  2V.  F.   vii.    108,   thinks  that  this 

rw  irirrmp  tls  rh  xvp  ^voXMrcMs  iceU  number  was  deduced  from  Hesiod's 

T^s  Ik  roirov  ywifftws.  Terses,  ap.  Plut.  J)ef.  Orac,  11,  p. 

'  By  the  great  year,  says  Cen-  416 ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how 

Borinus,  Di.  Nat.  18,  11,  we  are  to  this  could  be  done.    Schuster,  on 

understand     the     period      which  the  other  hand  (p.  375  sq.),  gires 

elapses  before  the  seven   planets  the  preference  to  the  statement  in 

again  find  themselves  in  the  same  the  Placita,  for  he  conjectures  that 

sign  as  they  were  when  it  began.  Heracleitus  may  have  assigned  to 


78 


HERACLEITUS. 


The  separation  of  opposites,  or  the  formation  of  the 
world,  was  called  by  Heracleitus,  strife;  the  union  of 
what  was  separated,  peace  or  concord.  The  state  of 
divided  Being  he  called  also  want ;  that  of  the  unity 
which  was  introduced  by  the  confla^ation,  satiety.* 
In  this  contradiction  the  life  of  the  world  moves,  in 
small  things  as  in  great;  but  it  is  only  one  essence 
which  manifests  itself  in  the  change  of  forms :  the 
creative  tire  is  all  that  comes  into  being  and  passes 
away.     The  Deity  is  war  and  peace,  want  and  satiety.' 


the  world  (as  he  did  to  man,  vide 
tn/.  p.  87,  4)  a  period  of  30  years, 
and  to  each  cosmical  year  twelve 
ceDturies  instead  of  twelve  months ; 
of  the  36000  years  which  we  «et 
in  this  wav,  the  htht  JSlv»  and  k^tm 
would  each  occupy  18000.  This 
seems  to  me  altogether  too  uncer- 
tain, and  the  Placita  also  spenk  dif- 
ferently: they  must  therefore,  as 
Schuster  thinks,  have  confused  the 
duration  of  the  9iaK6fffiiiffts  with 
that  of  the  whole  cosmical  year. 
Lassalle,  ii.  191  sqq.,  advances  the 
opinion  (corresponding  with  his 
hypothesis  about  the  sun,  sup.  p. 
58,  2)  that  Heracleitu8*8  great  year 
is  equivalent  to  the  time  which 


is  always  understood  in  other  pms- 
sages.  Lassalle's  *  great  year' 
might  equally  well  begin  and  end 
at  any  moment. 

*  Diog.  acconiing  to  the  pre- 
vious quotation:  ruv  S*  imtrriwv 
rh  fA^v  iwl  r^v  y4y4frty  Ayow  KoXtTo'^ 
Bat  ir6\9fioy  Koi  fpiv^  rh  8*  M  rh» 
imriptoffip  &fu>\oyi<iy  kcA  tlpriprfv. 
Hippol.  Refut  ix.  10  :  sup.  p.  17,3; 
46,  1 ;  Philo,  Leg.  AUeg.  ii.  62  A ; 
sup,  p.  17,  3;  2>«  Vict.  sup.  p.  68  w. 
The  K6pos  and  the  xp^^M-^^^'^V  are 
alluded  to  by  Plutarch  in  the  pas- 
sage of  De  EL  c.  9,  discussed  in  vol. 
iii.  a,  140, 6.  second  edition.  Hera- 
cleitus, however,  is  not  mentioned, 
and  the  whole  stiitement  probably 


elapses  before  all  the  atoms  in  the    refers  to  a  Stoical  interpretation 


uniTerse  have  passed  through  the 
circle  of  Being,  and  have  arrived  at 
the  form  of  fire.  Not  only  is  this 
entirely  different  from  what  is  said 
by  our  authorities,  but  it  is  (even 
irrespectively  of  the  atoms  which 
are  absolutely  incompatible  with 
his  physical  theories)  much  too  far- 
fetched and  subtle  for  Heracleitus ; 
indeed,  in  itself  it  is  wholly  un- 
natural. Each  year  must  have 
some  definite  point  where  it  begins 
and  ends;  and  so  has  the  'great 
year/  if  we  understand  by  it  what 


of  myths.  The  Stoics  had  natu- 
rally borrowed  tlie  expression  K6pos 
and  xP^H^*^^'^  from  Heracleitus  ; 
but  we  have  no  right  to  take  for 
granted  that  what  Plutarch  here 
says  of  the  duration  of  both  states 
is  also  from  Heracleitus,  especially 
as  the  Stoics  themselves  seem  by 
no  meanM  unanimous  about  it. 
Seneca,  Ep.  9,  16  (/.  e.  p.  131,  2), 
expresses  himself  as  if  the  itcripwrts 
were  merely  a  short  episode  be- 
tween successive  worlds. 

«  %?.  pp.  17,3;  88,  1;  46,  1. 


ANTMROPOLOGY 


79 


3.  Man — hU  Knowledge  and  his  Actions. 

Man,  like  everytliing  else  in  the  world,  in  the  last  resort 
originates  firom  fire.  But  in  this  respect  there  are  great 
differences  between  the  two  parts  of  his  nature.  The  body 
considered  in  itself  is  rigid  and  lifeless ;  when,  there- 
fore, the  soul  has  departed  from  it,  it  is  to  Heracleitus 
only  an  object  of  aversion.^  In  the  soul,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  infinite  portion  of  man's  nature,^  the  divine 
fire  in  its  purer  form  has  been  preserved.'  The  soul  con- 
sists of  fire,  of  warm  and  dry  vapours,*  which  consequently 


'  Fr.  91,  vide  inf.  p.  83,  3 ;  Fr. 
61  (ap.  Plat.  Oil  Conv.  iv.  4,  3,  6 ; 
Grig.  c.  Cels.  t.  14,  24  ;  cf.  Schleier- 
macher,   106):  Hkvcs  Koirpiuv  4k» 

fiXT/T^tpOl, 

«  Fr.  90 ;  Diog.  ix.  7.  Tert.  De 
An.  2;  cf.  Schuster,  270,  391  sq., 
^X^'  ircfpora  ohK  hv  i^tipoto  iratrau 
invoptvSfUPos  696v  o9r»  fioBbv 
Xir/w  dx*^  I  agree  in  the  main 
-with  Schuster  that  trwlpara  refers  to 
the  limit  to  which  the  soul  goes,  the 
limit  of  it8  nature ;  but  it  seems  to 
me  the  alteration  which  he  proposes 
in  the  text  can  be  dispensed  with. 
Still  less  can  I  endorse  Lassalle's 
emendations  (ii.  357). 

'  It  is  so  far  not  without  reason 
that  Chalcid.  in  Tim.  c.  249  (as 
^own  by  LttS8alle,ii.  341)  ascribes 
to  Heracleitus  the  Stoic  doctrine  so 
familiar  to  the  ancients  generally, 
of  the  constant  interdependence 
between  the  human  spirit  and  the 
Dirine.  In  what  form  however, 
and  how  definitely  he  brought  for- 
ward this  doctrine,  we  cannot  learn 
from  this  late  testimony. 

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


ftituris  means  the  same  as  what  is 
elsewhere  called  irvp.  Although  this 
fire  is  called  iurufiar^ceroyf  we  must 
not  conclude  with  Themistius  (vide 
inf.)  that  it  was  iun&fiaroVf  or  with 
Lasealle,  ii.  3ol,  that  it  was  some- 
thing absolutely  immaterial ;  the 
meaning  is  that  it  was  the  rarest, 
the  least  palpable  substance,  the 
substance  which  comes  nearest  to 
actual  in  corporeality.  The  reason 
given  for  thisdefinition,  viz.  that  the 
soul  must  be  moved,  in  order  that 
it  may  know  things  that  are  moved, 
is  a  conjecture  of  Aristotle,  who 
has  already  {Be  An.  404  b,  7  sq.) 
stated  the  general  presupposition 
on  which  he  bases  it.  (>f.  also 
Philop.  De  An.  C,  7  (supra,  p. 
24,  1);  Themist.  Dc  An.  67  a, 
u  (ii.  24  8p.) :  xal  *HpdK\etros  8i 
^f  i-px^y  tW«toi  twv  tvrwVf  ravrriv 
rlBtrat  koI  ^x^v  iFvp  ykp  koL  oSror 
r^v  y^p  hfaBufjdeuriy  i^  fis  t^  &AAa 
(Twlimiirip  (so  Arist)  ovk  &AAo  ti 
^  ft  dp  ^oKfiTr4ov^  rovTo  8c  Koi 
iur^fMTOP  Koi  piov  ktt.  Arius  Did. 
ap.  £u8.  Pr.  Ev.  xv.  20,  1 :  dva- 
Bvfiioffiy  fily  odv   ifiolws  r^  'Hpa- 

Tert.  De  An.   c.    5 :  Hippasus  et 


80 


HERACLEITUS, 


on  that  account  are  also  called  *  soul.'  *  The  purer  this 
fire  is,  the  more  perfect  is  the  soul :  *  the  driest  soul  is 
the  wisest  and  best ; '  *  it  strikes,  we  are  told,  through  the 


Heraclitus  ex  igni  (animum  effin- 
gunt).  Macrob.  Somn.  i.  14 :  He-' 
racUtics  pht/gicua  [animum  dixit] 
scintWam  iiellcuns  essentia  (i.e..  of 
the  heavenly  fire).  Nemes.  Nat, 
Horn.  c.  2,  p.  28 :  'HwticX.  8i  t^« 
lji\v  ToS  itcanhs  ^vx^p  (this  is  not  of 
course  HerAcleitus's  ezprestdon) 
avaBufiicuTiv  ix  tSo¥  dypSiv^  r^y  8i  iy 
rois  {^01  s  h.v6  T€  rrjs  iicrhs  ica2  t^j 
iy  ahrots  &Ka0uftiourc»f  byLoy^vri 
(scil.  Tjj  &vadi;^i(i(rei,  or  better: 
rp  rov  irovrbs)  irtipwciycu.  Simi- 
larly Plut.  Bac.  iv.  8,  6.  Accor- 
ding to  Sext.  Math.  ix.  363  ;  Tert. 
Be  An,  9,  14,  it  was  said  by  some 
that  Heracleitus  held  the  soul  to 
be  air.  For  the  explanation  of 
this,  of.  Part  iii.  b,  28,  26. 

'  Fr.  89 ;  sup.  p.  24,  2 ;  60  sq. ; 
i.  614  sq. 

*  Ft.  64,  66.  This  proposition 
is  very  commonly  attributed  to 
Heracleitus,  but  the  readings  of 
the  MSS.  are  so  various  that  it  is 
difficult  to  decide  how  it  originally 
stood.  Stob.  FkrU.  6,  120,  haf> 
adi}  ^vxh  <ro^ur6.rii  KaX  kpivTTi. 
Our  MS.  gives  aJU-n  (ilp^,  another 
av7^  ()jp^.  In  the  fragment  of 
Musonius,  ibid.  17,  43,  the  read- 
ings vary  between  aftj  without 
Inp^,  ow7%  Ifiph  and  a5  717  luip/fi. 
Instead  of  oiJi?  Porph.  Antr.  Nymph. 
c.  11,  has:  ^vp^  rj>wx^  tro^vrdTti; 
similarly  Glykas,  Annal.  74,  116 
(Schleiermacher,  p.  130):  ^vxh 
IrjpoHpfri  vo^twipni.  Similarly  Plut. 
V.  Bom.  c.  28  :  cArj\  yhp  i|wxh  l'?p^ 
(al.  aHn  7.  ^.  fcol  (.)  hpiani  tcoff  *HpdU 
KXciToi',  &<nrf/>  iffrpaac^  y4^vs9tair- 
rafxhri  tov  irAiunos  (that  this 
addition  is  also  taken  from  Heraclei- 
tus seems  probable,  partly  from  the 


connection  in  Plutarch,  and  partly 
from  the  passage  about  to  Iw 
quoted  from  Clemens).  Plat. 
V^.  Orac.  41,  p  432 :  a9ny  7^ 
^Tip^  ^vxv  KoS*  *HpdK\uroy.  On 
the  other  hand  we  find  in  Pseudo- 
Plut.  De  Esu  Cam.  i.  6,  4,  p.  995 : 
"  alry^  ^ripii  ^x^  (ro^rdrri "  jcar^ 
T^i'  *HpdK\9iroy  ioiitey  (sc.  \4y9w) ; 
or,  according  to  another  reading. 
«^  ivpV  f"X^  ^'■o^  *•  *»*•  'Hp. 
l[otK€y.  Similarly  Galen.  Qu.  An. 
MoreSj  etc  c.  6,  vol.  iv.  786  K,  and 
to  the  same  effect  Hermias  in 
Phadr,  p.  73:  airy^  |ijo^  ^X^ 
ao^vrdrri,  and  Clemens  Pisdag.  ii. 
166  C,  without  mention  of  He- 
racleitus: a^7^  Z\  tfvx^  |irp^  co- 
^on-cini  Aol  apUrrri  .  .  .  oifB4  iart 
xdBvypos  rats  iKrov  dlvov  avaBvfud- 
atiriy  y9<p4\Tis  BlKtiy  vwfiaroTOiov' 
fidyri.  Philo,  ap.  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  viii. 
14,  67  has:  oi y^i  i-np^^  ^u^  o"o- 
^mrdnn  icai  kpiarn,  and  that  the 
true  reading  in  this  place  is  not,  as 
in  some  texts,  avy^  or  awTj;  (one 
text  has  ^vpp  4^xf )  l>ut  ol  yrj,  is 
clear  from  the  passage  in  Philo's 
Le  Prouid.  ii.  109:  in  terra  sicca 
animus  est  sapiens  ac  virtutis  mnans 
(for  further  details,  cf.  Schleierma- 
cher, p.  129  sq.).  Schleiermacher 
supposes  that  there  were  three  dif- 
ferent expressions :  oZ  yrj  (iip^,i^x^, 
&c.,  atfij  ^vxht  &c.,  auy^  ^p^i  ^'vx^, 
&c.  But  this  is  very  improbable ; 
and  even  if  the  first  of  the  three 
fragments  is  distinct  from  the  other 
two,  these  latter  seem  to  be  origi- 
nally identical.  How  the  expres- 
sion really  stood,  and  how  its  dif- 
ferent versions  are  to  be  explained, 
cannot  be  positively  determined. 
I  do  not  thmk,  however,  that  the 


ANTHROPOLOGY, 


81 


bodily  veil  like  lightning  through  clouds.*  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  soul-fire  is  polluted  by  moisture,  reason 
i3  lost;*  and  in  this  way  Heracleitus  explains  the 
phenomena  of  intoxication ;  the  drunken  man  is  not 
master  of  himself  because  his  soul  is  moistened*^  As, 
however,  everything  is  subject  to  perpetual  change,  and 
is  constantly  being  produced  anew,  so  it  is  with  the 
soul :  not  only  did  its  fire  come  from  without  into  the 
body,  but  it  must  be  fed  from  the  fire  without  in  order 
to  sustain  itself — a  theory  which  was  obviously  sug- 
gested by  the  process  of  breathing,  if  once  the  soul  were 
compared  to  the  vital  air.*     Heracleitus  consequently 

Sophod.  Phil.  1 199  {fipomas  ahycus 
fi'  €lai  <p\oyiCtop),  Schuster's  ex- 
planation :  '  If  the  gas  is  diy,  the 
sonl  is  wisest/  is  (even  irrespec- 
tively of  the  gas)  contradicted  by 
what  is  said  above — that  it  would 
only  be  possible  to  speak  of  an  abyii 
^rifA,  and  to  declare  the  dry  airy^  to 
be  wisej  supposing  there  were  sJso 
an  airyii  iypd.  Would  anyone  say : 
*  if  the  beam,'  or '  if  the  flame,  is  dry  ?* 

*  I  doubt  whether  that  which 
is  ascribed  to  Heracleitus  by  Ter- 
tullian  {Be  An.  14),  as  well  as  by 
wSSnesidemus  and  Strabo,  is  authen- 
tic, viz.,  that  the  soul,  in  totum 
corpus  diffusa  et  ubique  ipsa,  velut 
flatus  in  ealamo  per  cavemaSf  ita 
per  sensucUia  variis  modis  emcef. 

*  Gf.  the  proposition  quoted 
sup.  p.  24,  2,  which  primarily  has  a 
more  general  meaning. 

■  IV.  63 ;  Stob.  Flanl,  6,  120  : 
Mip  bK&rw  fu$v<r0p  ftyrrai  ^ir^ 
iTMths  Mi$ov  ff<paXX6fi€yoSf  oifK 
iirdtotp  8in)  fialp^i,  iyf^v  r^p  ^*fX^^ 
^xftw'.  Of.  Pint.  Qu.  Conv,  iii., 
Proem.  2,  and  Stob.  FloriL  18,  32. 

«  Of.  vol.  i.  p.  485,  2. 


proposition,  **  ahyii  {np9>  i|n/x^  vo- 
^errdnir  is  Heradeitean.  The 
lubject  T^vx^  as  part  of  the  predi- 
Cdte  has  something  very  disturbing 
in  it,  and  0^7^  ^ph  would  be  a 
singular  pleonasm,  for  there  is 
DO  0^  ^p^;  the  rise  of  mois- 
ture is  an  extinction  of  the  beam. 
If,  therefore,  the  words  were  origi- 
nally 80  written  by  Heracleitus 
(as  certainly  spems  probable  from 
the  frequency  with  which  they  are 
quoted),  we  must  suppose  that 
there  was  some  difference  in  the 
puDCtnation.  If  Heracleitus  wrote 
that  the  moist  sonl  was  imprisoned 
by  the  body,  but  that  the  dry  soul 
^itmrtu  rov  a^iuiros,  8k«s  W^cos 
ovT^'  (ij^  ^X^  (To^wrdrv  icol  kpi- 
rni  (and  something  of  the  kind 
Kerns  to  be  presupposed  in  Pint. 
y.  Bom.  28),  eveiything  would  be 
folly  explained.  Schuster,  p.  140, 
Boggests  that  Plutarch's  iffrpair^ 
would  be  much  more  applicable 
than  aby^ ;  whereas  Teichmiiller, 
^.  Stud.  L  65,  shows  that  o^ 
stands  also  for  lightning;  cf.  //. 
aii.    244;     Hes.     Tkeog.     699; 

VOL.  II.  G 


82 


HERACLEITU8. 


supposed  ^  that  Reason  or  warm  matter  entered  into  us 
through  the  atmosphere,'  partly  through  the  breath, 
partly  through  the  organs  of  the  senses.'  When  these 
avenues  are  closed  in  sleep,  the  light  of  reason  is  ex- 


>  i8h»p.p.42,2;  Sext.3faa.yii. 
127  844*:  kpdffMi  yiip  r^  ^vaut^ 
['Hf>aic\€(T9»]  rh  ir§pi4xo¥  4ifjMt  \071- 
k6p  Tff  ^1^  Koi  ^otfvipfs  .  .  .  rOVTOP 
Hi  rhy  Buov  \6yov  koIV  'HfkUcXctroy 
8i*  hfOLirpfi^s  trwdffarrts  vo%po\  yipS^ 
fAfBa,  «ca2  4v  fiiy  Ihnfois  Kn^moi  Kordi 
ik  fytpifuf  irdkof  %iup^¥W  4p  ykp 
ro7t  thryois  tiwrdyrtop  rw  olffBirrtK&p 
Tr6fmv  xv^C^at  ri)r  trp^t  rh  w^pti- 
Xov  ffvfA/^vtas  6  i¥  iifuy  rovf,  fi6tnis 
rris  Korh  i^ycnrvo^v  wpoff^^cttos  c»- 
(ofidmis  olop^i  rivos  ^ifys  .  .  .  ^v 
8i  4yfnfyop6<n  irdKip  9ik  r&v  attrBri' 
TiK&r  ir6p€»y  &(nr*p  8ii  nywy  OvplB»y 
Tpoidft^  KoL  ry  T€pi4xom  <rvfi- 
^iXKwp  Xayti^p  Mitrrai  9^ya/jup. 
Zpw€p  ody  rp&Koy  ol  AyBpcuets  tAi}- 
ffidtrayr^s  r^  irvpi  icar'  iiKKoiwriP 
^tdwvpoi  ylyopTOif  x^P<^^*^''  '^ 
fffidyyvPTtu,  ofhw  ind  4  4irii€y»0€i(ra 
roi$  ini.T4poit  ffAfiturip  iarh  rov  irt- 
pi4xoPT03  fuiipa  Korit  /ihp  rhp  X^P*' 
(Tnhp  a'x^i^f'  iXoyot  yiptrai,  Kctrh 
i^  T^p  ii^  r&y  irXcl^Ttfy  ir6ptty  ffvfir- 
^wrvp  4^ci8^s  r^  8Xy  KoBiffrarcu, 
The  image  of  the  emben  is  em- 
ployed in  another  connection  by 
the  pseudo-Hippocrates,  ir.  Bca(r. 
i.  29.  That  Seztus  here  repro- 
duces the  conception  of  Heracleitus 
in  his  own  words,  or  those  of  ^ne- 
sidemus,  is  plain.  The  assertion, 
Sext.  Til.  849  (cf.  Tert.  Be  An,  16), 
that  the  soul,  according  to  He- 
racleitus, was  outside  the  body,  is 
merely  an  inference.  Ibid.  AT.  viii. 
286,  according  to  Heracleitus's  ex- 
press declaration  :  /t^  cTvai  XoyiKhy 
rhy  Mprnnoy^  fUyoy  8'  twdpx^^t^ 
^p€P^p9s  rh  wfpidxop.  Similarly 
the  so-caUed  Apollonius  of  Tyana, 


Epist.  18 :  *Hpdic\ A^oyop  ^Jytu 

itarii  ^6<rty  ^^lyo't  rhp  iySptpwofy, 

*  That  this  is  the  meaning  of 
the  TtpUxoy  is  clear  from  thp 
words  of  Sexttts;  we  are  con- 
nected with  the  air  outside  us  l>y 
means  of  our  breath,  and  with  the 
light  outside  u«  by  means  of  oor 
eyes.  This  mode  of  conception  is 
not  strange  in  Herieleitus ;  if  rea- 
son is  identical  with  fire,  it  is  quite 
natural  that  it  should  enter  man 
with,  the  animating  and  warming 
breath,  and  be  nourished  by  light 
and  air.  Only  if  we  refine  away 
Heracleitus's  primitive  fire  to  a 
metaphysical  abstraction,  as  La^- 
salle  does,  have  we  any  right  to 
find  fault  with  this  sort  of  language 
from  him.  Lassalle  (i.  305  sqq.) 
understands  by  the  w^pUxop  *  the 
universal  and  actual  process  of 
becoming,'  or  (ii.  270)  the  objective, 
world-forming  law,  which  is  called 
the  ircpi^x*'*^*  because  it  overcomes 
all  things.  But  w^pidx^tp  does  not 
mean  '  overcome '  (certainly  not,  as 
Lass.  i.  308  represents  it,  with  the 
accusative  of  the  object),  and  rh 
irfpi4x**y  never  means  anything  else 
than  *the  surrounding.'  In  the 
passa^  from  Sextus  no  other 
meaning  can  be  thought  of.  More- 
over it  seems  to  me  (as  to  Lassalle, 
i.  307)  improbable  that  Heracleitus 
himself  ever  made  use  of  the  ex- 
pression wtpi4xop. 

*  Whether  Heracleitus  ima- 
gined that  the  soul  was  also  de- 
veloped from  the  blood,  and  was 
sustained  by  it  (cf.  p.  79,  4),  is  not 
quite  clear. 


ANTHROPOLOGY.  83 

tinguished,  and  man  is  limited  in  his  presentations  to 
his  own  world — to  the  subjective  fancies  of  dreams,^ 
though  in  reality  he  still  cannot  withdraw  himself  from 
the  moTement  of  the  universe.*  When  these  avenues 
are  opened,  in  awaking,  the  h'ght  of  reason  is  again 
kindled;  when  the  connection  with  the  outer  world 
through  respiration  ceases,  this  light  goes  out  for  ever.' 
But  Heracleitus  (as  subsequently  Empedocles,  in  a 
somewhat  different  manner)  brought  mythical  notions 
of  life  and  death  into  a  connection  with  these  physical 
theories,  which  was  certainly  not  required  by  his  philo- 
sophical presuppositions.  From  these  presuppositions 
we  could  only  deduce  that  the  soul,  like  everything  else 
perpetually  reproducing  itself  in  the  flux  of  natural  life, 
retains  its  personal  identity  so  long  as  this  production 
proceeds  in  the  same  manner  and  in  the  same  propor- 
tion: that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  destroyed,  as  an  in- 
dividual, when  the  formation  of  soul-substance  ceases 
at  this  definite  point ;  and  since  soul-substance,  accord- 
ing to  Heracleitus,  consists  in  warm  vapours  which  are 
partly  developed  from  the  body  and  partly  drawn  in 
with  the  breath,  the  soul  cannot  survive  the  body. 
Heracleitus  seems  to  have  contented  himself  with  the 
vague  notion  that  life  continues  so  long  as  the  divine 
fire  animates  the  man,  and  that  it  ceases  when  that  fire 

*  Plat  De  Supent.  e.  8,  p.  1 66 :    r&¥  4p  r^  Kwrfi^  yivofkiimv, 
6*BpAkKMVT6s^nnsi,roishfpfnfop6o%v  •  2^.91,  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  iv. 
Zra  jKol  mir^v  tcSffiov  fffreu,  rmif  8^     530  D :  Mfwwot  iw  c^^^i^  ^tdot 

0rf^ir$ai.  {Sr  8i  lirrcrcu  rctfycwros  «08«y  kw^ 

*  M.  Atirel.  xi   42:   icol  raifs    0-/3«<r9fh  i^tt  iyfrnyopits  l*T«rai 

dpydras  fflroi   Xiytt  iro)   <rw9pyohs 

o  2 


84 


HERACLEITUS. 


leaves  Lim.  He  personifies  this  divine  element  and 
says  that  men  are  mortal  gods  and  gods  immortal  men ; 
our  life  is  the  death  of  the  gods,  and  oiir  death  their 
life.^  So  long  as  man  lives  the  divine  part  of  his 
nature  is  bound  up  with  the  baser  substances,  from 
which  in  death  he  again  becomes  free.^  Souls,  he  says, 
traverse  the  way  upwards  and  the  way  downwards ;  they 
enter  into  bodies  because  they  require  change  and 
become  weary  of  continuing  in  the  same  state.'     He 


>  Fr,  60,  the  original  form  of 
which  is  doubtless  given  by  Hippol. 
Befut,  ix.  10,  iu  the  worda  :  A^dwi- 
TOi  Onrrol,  9vr\ro\  Mawroi^  (uvrts 

$loif  rt9»tSnts,  Schleiermacher, 
patting  together  the  following  pas- 
sages :  Herad.  Alleg.  Horn,  c  24, 
p.  61  Mehl. ;  Max.  Tyr.  Diss.  x.  4, 
end  (xli.  4  ad  fin.);  Clem.  Padag. 
iii.  216  A  ;  HierocL  in  Carm.  Aur. 
p.  186  (263) ;  Porph. -4fi^r.  Nt/mpk, 
c.  10,  end ;  Philo,  Leg.  AUeg.  i.  p. 
60  C  {Qti.  in  Gen.  iv.  162);  cf. 
Luc.  V.  Auct,  14,  deduces  from 
tliem  this  view:  Mfwnoi  0*ol 
Birrirol,  dtol  r*  &if6p»woi  diBdvaroif 
(jSikrfs  fhy  iK^lpuv  0dv€trov,  $iHiv- 
Kotrrts  T^y  inelvmy  {«i4iy.  Against 
him  and  LassaUe,  i.  136  sq.,  vide 
Bemays,  Heracltit.  Brisfe,  37  sq. ; 
cf.  also,  p.  17, 4 ;  and  Clem.  Strom. 
iii.  434  C:  oirxJi  fcal  'HpcucAcxrof 
Bivwroy  T^y  y4ywiy  maXti; 

*  Heracleitus's  theory  was  con- 
sequently expounded  by  Sext.  ^/rrk, 
iii.  230  ;  Philo,  L.  AlUg.  60  (J,  and 
others,  in  similar  language  to  that 
of  the  Pythagoreans  and  Platonists. 
Whether  the  passaffe  in  Sextus,  I.  c, 
*Hp.  ^fivlyf  OTi  Kot  rh  Qy  «cal  rh 
kvoBwtty  ical  ^i'  r^  Qy  iifuis  iari 
ical  4y  rf  r€BydyMt  contains  He- 
racleitus's  own  words,  or  is  merely 


an  inference  from  the  utterance 
quoted  above,  is  doubtful.  StiU 
less  can  we  be  sure  from  the  pas- 
sage in  Philo  that  Heradeitos  him- 
self emplojed  the  comparison  of 
the  (t&fM  with  the  aiifM  (sup.  vol.  i. 
482   1   2V 

*  LimbL  ap.  Stob.  Ed.  i.  900 : 
*HpdKX9iTos  iihf  yhp  ifu>tjS&r  &Mry- 
leaiat  riBtrat  iK  r&y  ivayriay  6My 
Tff  &y«  iral  xdrtt  9uLwopt{t€cBai  r&t 
ifwx^f  6rc^\i7^f,  Kol  rh  /i^y  rots 
atnots  €vtfi4y9iy  ndfueroy  cTmu,  rh  9h 
ftPTO/SiiAAcii'  ^4p9iy  MiwcaHrtw.  The 
Sdme,  ibid.  896,  in  regard  to  the 
different  theories  of  the  deteriora- 
tion of  the  soul  it  is  said :  «ra0* 
*HpdKKtiToy  ik  Ti}s  iy  r^  fjirrafidK- 
K^cBoi  kyawaikris  .  .  .  alrlas  yiyyo^ 
fi4yfis  rmy  nareeyciy&y  iy§pyiif»drt»y. 
These  statements  are  illustrated 
and  confirmed  by  JEn.  6az. 
Theophr,  p  6,  Boiss.i  6  fiky  yiip 
*HpaKKuros  SioSoxV  iiWYnday  n- 
B4fiwos  ftrw  icol  kAtw  r^t  ^v)^i  r^y 
wop^iay  l^  ylyttrBat.  4irt\  icdftarot 
airrf  r^  Stitnovpy^  ffvy4rw$oi  koI 
iyu  fieri  rov  9«ov  r^c  rh  way  trvfort' 
p(iro\c(y  ical  6ir^  iK^iy^  rerdxBat  jccU 
ipX*fr9cUf  9iii  rovro  rg  row  1ip§pMty 
4wtBvfu^  iral  itpxfis  fthe  dominion 
over  the  body)  ^XtriSi  ttdrw  ^<rl 
r^y  y^vx^iy  ^9pwBm.  Here,  how- 
ever, the  Heracleitean  doctrine  is 


LIFE  AFTER  DEATH. 


85 


applied  also  to  individual  souls  that  which  could  only 

be  said  logically  of  the  universal  soul,  or  of  the  divine 

animating  fire.     We  see  from  various  traces  that  he 

attributed  a  further  existence  to  souls  escaped  from 

their  bodies.  In  one  of  his  fragments  he  says  that  there 

awaits  man  after  his  death  that  which  he  now  neither 

hopes  nor  believes ;  ^  in  another  he  promises  a  reward  to 

Creuzer,  would  substitute  &7xc«'9m, 
but,  as  he  himself  observes,  the 
passage  from  ^neas  is  in  favour  of 
tpx*^oi)  €lKd(€Uf  $9€ffKty  (as  to  the 
reasons  of  the  soul's  descent)  i^A^- 
aas  #cr^  rifup  TOiricai  rbv  \<6yw. 
When  PlutHrch,  De  Sol,  Anim,  7, 
4.  p.  9664,  says  of  Empedodes  and 
Heracleitus  that  they  blame  Nature 
(cf. p. 32, }):  &s  iwdymiv «cai  •w6Kmimw 
•0<ray  .  .  .  Svov  xal  t^v  yivtffiy 
aAr^v  4\  kHiidas  avirrvyxiv^uf  A/- 
70Mrc  T^  tfnjT^  ffvptpxofi^yov  rov 
&0aMlTOv  Kol  r4^€a&at  rh  ywofi^vow 

intomemiUpois,  it  is  a  question  whe- 
ther the  latter  part  of  this  passage 
from  5vov  onwards  is  (as  Schuster 
supposes,  185,  1)  really  founded  on 
Heracleitenn  uttemnces.  It  re- 
minds us  most  obviously  of  Empe- 
dodes, inf.  p.  3,  666,  2,  third  edit. 
*  Fr,  69,  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  iv. 
632  B;  Cohort.  13  D;  Theod. 
Cur,  Gr.  Af.  viii.  41,  p.  118; 
Stob.  Floril,  120,  28;  MpiSnrovs 
fiipfi  ieiro9af6ifras  Burffti  obx  fXirop' 
TOi  0^8^  SoK^OMTi.  Perhaps  there 
is  a  reference  to  the  same  subject 
in  Fr,  17,  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  ii.  366 
B;    Theod.  i.  88,  p.   16:    iiiu  /a^ 

hpf^tpwiniTor  ihp  Koi  Saropor.  In- 
stead of  dKnuTcu  and  i(cv^<r«i, 
Theodoret  has  iXirl^irrt  and  t^pii- 
<r6Tc.    Schuster,  p.  46,  conjectures 


interpreted  in  a  Platonic  sense. 
Heracleitus  certainly  never  spoke 
of  the  DemiourgoB ;  and  the  other 
similarities  between  this  passage 
and  the  Fhaedrus  may  be  occa- 
noned  (as  Lassalle,  ii.  236  sq., 
seeks  to  prove),  not  »o  much  by 
the  influence  of  Heradeitas*8 
nrritings  on  Plato,  as  by  that  of 
Plato*8  on  .£neas.  JBneas,  p.  7, 
flays  of  Heracleitus :  f  Zoicti  rmr 
wiwtHf  T%  ^'vx^t  &rd(ira«Xay  c7vai 
T^r  «2f  T^ySc  rhp  $lor  ^yy^y  ;  and 
Nomen.  ap.  Porph.  De  Antro 
I^mph,  e.  10  (tup,  p.  18,  1),  agrees 
with  this  in  the  quotation :  **  ifrv- 
X^tf*'  r4pi^"  ftii  Bdrarop  from  He- 
racleitus (this,  as  Schuster,  p. 
191,  supposes,  is  an  addition  of 
Kumenius  referring  to  the  propo- 
sition quoted  p.  24,  2,  and  an  ad- 
dition that  is  oontraiy  to  the 
meaning  of  Heracleitus,  who  repre- 
sents the  ripfis  as  consisting  pre- 
cisely in  the  transmutation,  the 
9dpar9s  of  the  soul),  '*  ^ppfft  yr4- 
v9ai^  rif^iv  Zh  tZroi  ahrtui  rV  «<< 
T^w  y4p99iw  wi&aip.  The  propo- 
sitions of  Heracleitus  are,  however, 
mokt  authentically  fi:iven  by  PloU- 
nns  in  the  passage  (iv.  8, 1)  pointed 
out  by  Lassalle,  i.  131  :  6  /i^»  yAp 
'HpdKXtiTot  ,  .  .  kfwifids  re  kpcey- 
mtdas  Ti04fupos  4k  t6p  ipovrimPj 
696p  vff  dam  ical  itdrtf  «liri^y,  icol 
"  fUTOifidWop  itptattvitroA  "  ical  "  Kd- 
puerrit  4<m  rott  abrots  fAox'^^^  koI 
ipX^^"^  (^ci'O  lAssalle,  following 


so 


HERACLEITUS. 


those  who  have  fallen  gloriously ;  Mn  a  third  he  speakd 
of  the  condition  of  souls  in  Hades ;  *  in  two  others  he 
makes  mention  of  the  daemons '  and  heroes,^  and  assigns 


»  Fr,  120,  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  it. 
494  B;  Theod.  Cur,  Gr.  Aff.  ix. 
39,  p.  117 :  fi6poi  yiip  fi4(op€f  /i4(o' 
rar  fxolpas  KaefK'^^^^i  cf*  ^'  ^^^i 
ap.  Theod. :  iifnfi^drovs  qI  9coi 
rtfJMO'i  Ktd  ol  Mpvroi,  I  cannot, 
with  Schuster,  p.  304,  regard  these 
passages  as  ironical. 

«  Fr.  70  Plut  Fac,  Lun,  28, 
end,  p.  943 :  'HpdxX,  ttww  tiri  td 
^vxou  iafi&trrai  icaXt  B^v,  The 
meaning  of  these  words  is  obscure. 
Schuster's  explanation :  Souls  scent 
out  Hades,  reach  after  it  greedily 
as  a  restorative,  is  the  less  satis- 
factory to  me,  as  Plutarch  gives 
the  sentence  in  proof  that  souls 
in  the  other  world  can  feed  them- 
selves on  vapours.  In  this  eon- 
nection  we  might  bring  forward 
what  Aristotle  quotes,  De  Sensu, 
c.  6,  443  a,  23:  i>s  €i  trirra  rd 
6vra  Kairvhs  yivono,  fiiyts  tof  8107- 
vottif.  Bemays,  Rh.  Mus.  ix.  265, 
refers  it,  in  a  far-fetched  manner, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  conflagra- 
tion of  the  world.  In  these  proposi- 
tions we  can  hardly  look  for  any 
special  reference. 

■  Fr.  61,  Hippol.  Rtfut.  ix.  10 : 
Mai€  i6m  [Bern.  i6inas]  iwavl- 
areurOm  «ccd  ^ixtacas  yivtirOeu  iytprl 
(titrrctp(fio  Bern .  instead  ofiy€prii6¥' 
Tuv)  KOI  v€Kp&v.  I  refer  these  words 
to  the  daemons  assigned  as  the  pro- 
tectors ol  men,  cf.  Hes.  '£.  koX  rifi, 
120  sqq.,  260  sqq.  LassaUe  i.  185 
sees  in  them  a  resurrection  of  souls, 
but  this  is  a  mistake,  at  any  rate 
in  regard  to  the  expression ;  for 
iToyitrraa^eu  does  not  here  signify 
to  rise  again,  but  to  raise  oneself, 
namely,  to  be  overseers  of  men.  I 
must  express  myself  still  more 
decidedly  against  the    idea    that 


Heracleitus  enunciated  the  doe- 
trioe  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  (LassaUe,  ii.  204).  LassaUe 
does  not  mean  indeed  by  this  re- 
surrection the  iydtrrcuns  aapxhi  in 
the  Christian  sense,  which  fiippo- 
lytus,  /.c,  finds  to  be  clearly  taught 
{<paytp&s  must  be  substituted  for 
^w«paf^;  he  means  only  this: 
that  all  the  particles  of  matter 
which  had  previously  formed  a 
human  body,  find  themselves  again 
united  at  a  later  period  of  the 
world  in  a  similar  body.  This 
conception  is  not  only  much  too 
far-fetched  for  Heracleitus,  and 
entirely  without  support  from  any 
of  his  writings,  but  it  is  quite 
incompatible  with  his  point  of 
view :  these  particles  of  matter  do 
not  exist  any  longer  in  the  later 
period  of  the  world ;  they  are  as 
these  definite  substances  entirely 
destroyed  in  the  stream  of  Becom- 
ing; they  have  become  other 
substances  ;  and  if  even  they  may 
have  been  partially  changed  again 
into  the  constituents  of  human 
bodies,  there  is  no  ground  for  the 
supposition  that  from  those  par- 
ticular substances  which  arose  from 
some  particular  body,  and  from  no 
others,  a  body  will  afterwards 
again  be  formed.  Schuster  (p. 
176)  prefers  this  reading :  [p^ifunf 
494\€i]  4y0dZ€  46m  4witffTturdai  koI 
^vXoKOS  (  B  <^KBi^)  yivfffOat  iy^fnl 
C  K,  V,  But  Hippolytus,  as  it 
seems  to  be,  would  then  haye  had 
greater  difficulties  in  finding  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh,  than  in  the 
ordinary  text  with  its  4'ww(&TairBeu. 
*  Ft,  180,  Orig.  c.  Cels.  vii.  62 : 
oCt9  ytyy^irimv  Btohs  otfrc   |jp«as 


LIFE  AFTER  DEATH, 


87 


the  daemons  as  guardians,  not  only  to  the  b'ving,  but  to 
the  dead ;  and  he  is  said  to  have  taught  that  all  things 
axe  full  of  souls  and  dsemons.^  It  is  doubtless,  there- 
fore, his  opinion  that  souls  enter  the  body  from  a  higher 
existence,  and  after  death,  when  they  have  proved 
themselves  worthy  of  this  privilege,  they  return  as 
daemons  into  a  purer  life ; '  in  regard  to  details,  how- 
ever, he  seems  to  have  retained  the  ordinary  notions 
concerning  Hades.' 

AlVTiether  Heracleitus  enquired  more  particularly 
concerning  the  corporeal  life  of  man  cannot  be  dis- 
covered with  certainty  *  from  the  very  little  that  has 
been  handed  down  to  us  by  tradition  on  this  subject. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  passages  quoted 
from  him  in  which  he  applies  his  standpoint  to  the 
cognitive  faculty  and  moral  action  of  man. 

I,  I  consider  to  be  an  emendation  of 
Clemens,  referring  perhaps  to  the 
view  of  the  /mto/SoA.^  discassed 
ewpra^  p.  84,  3,  or  else  a  protest  of 
the  Christian  against  the  philoso- 
pher who  treats  death  simply  as 
the  end  of  life ;  it  would  not  agree 
with  the  KOKidsiy  r^v  y4v€(rip  which 
Clemens  finds  in  the  passage)  "  xai 
veuSoT  jcaraXffirou^i  fUpovt  y^vi' 
ir0eu,*'  No  great  weight,  however, 
is  to  be  attached  to  these  observa- 
tions. What  is  said  in  Hippocr. 
«-.  Smut.  i.  23  end,  on  the  seven 
senses,  and  ibid.  c.  10,  on  the 
abdomen,  and  on  the  three  revolu- 
tions of  fire  in  the  human  body, 
can  hardly  be  taken  from  Hera- 
cleitus; the  statement  (of  Joh. 
Sicel,  Walz,  Shett,  vi.  95,  quoted 
by  Bernays,  Serad.  19),  that 
Heracleitus  pursued  anatomical 
enquiries,  is  more  than  doubtful. 


»  Diog.  ix.  7,  cf.  p.  46,  2. 

'  And  in  an  individual  life ;  not 
as  Theodoretus,  v.  23,  p.  73,  says, 
in  the  soul  of  the  worlo. 

'  Cf.  the  similar  eschatology  of 
Pindar,  sujmi,  voU  i.  p.  70. 

*  We  find  from  Fr,  62  ap.  PluU 
Def,  Orac.  c.  11;  Plac.  v.  24; 
Pbilo,  Qu,  in  Gen,  ii.  5,  end  p.  82 
Auch. ;  Censorin.  Di,Isat.  C,  16,  rf. 
Bemays,  Bh,  Mas.  vii.  105  sq., 
that  he  reckoned  the  life  of  a  man 
at  thirty  years,  because  a  man  in  his 
thirtieth  year  might  have  a  son 
— who  was  himself  a  father,  and 
therefore  human  nature  completes 
its  circuit  in  that  time.  Reference 
is  made  to  this  circle  in  FY,  73, 
ap.  Clem.  Strom,  iii.  432  A :  "  ^irct- 
tiur  (1.  Irffira)  y€v6iupoi  (<6ciy  iQ4- 
Xawri  fA6povs  T*  tx**^t*  /MtAAofr  84 
iunamb*tr9ui  (this,  in  spite  of 
Schustei's  representations,  p.  193« 


88 


HERACLEITU8. 


In  regard  to  cognition,  he  could  only  place  itA 
highest  problem  in  that  which  to  him  was  the  central 
point  of  all  his  convictions,  viz.  in  seizing  the  eternal 
essence  of  things  in  the  flux  of  the  phenomenon,  and  in 
freeing  ourselves  from  the  deceitful  appearance  which 
presents  to  us  a  permanent  Being  of  the  changeable* 
He  therefore  declares  that  wisdom  consists  in  one  things 
in  knowing  the  reason  which  rules  all ;  ^  we  must  follow 
the  common  reason,  not  the  particular  opinions  of 
individuals ;  ^  if  a  discourse  is  to  be  reasonable  it  must 
be  foimded  on  that  which  is  common  to  all,  and  the 
only  thing  which  is  thus  common  is  thought.'  Only 
the  rational  cognition  of  the  Universal  can  therefore 
have  any  value  for  him :  the  sensual  perception  he  must, 
of  course,  regard  with  mistrust.  What  our  senses 
perceive  is  merely  the  fleeting  phenomenon,  not  the 
essence ;  ^  the  eternally  living  fire  is  hidden  from  them 
by  a  hundred  veils ;  ^  they  show  us  as  something  stiflF 


>  Supra,  p.  42,  2.  This  know- 
ledge, howeyer,  is  itself  according 
to  LasBalle,  ii.  344,  conditional  on 
a  '  revelation  to  oneself  of  the 
objective  and  absolute.'  Lassalle 
in  support  of  this  relies  partly  on 
Sext.  M.  Till.  8,  iBnesidemus 
defined  the  hXt\QU  as  the  /i^  \ri9ov 
r^v  Koof^v  yy^fiiiy ;  and  partly  on 
the  fragment'  quoted  p.  25,  2. 
Seztus,  however,  does  not  say  that 
^nesidemus  had  this  definition 
from  Heracleiius,  and  if  he  did, 
we  could  not  conclude 'very  much 
from  it.  The  fragment  calls  fire 
the  fiii  BvvoPj  which  is  something 
quite  different  from  the  fiii  kri$oy. 
Though  it  is  very  possible  that 
Heradeitus  may  have  baid  that 
the  Divine  or  Beason  was  know- 


able  to  all,  there  is,  even  apart 
from  Lassalle's  modernising  view 
of  this  thought, — no  proof  of  it  to 
be  di6C()verMl. 

*  Fr,7;  cf.  p.  43,  1. 

*  J^.  123  ;  Stob.  Flora.  3,  84 : 
^w6y  iffri  irwri  rh  ^poy^ar  ^hy  pi^ 
kiyoyras  l<rxvpl(9C$«u  xph  fV  f***^ 
ird^rcty,  HKtoairtp  y6fi^  T6Xts  jcal 
ToXb  Urxvporipttr  rpd^oyrcu  7^, 
K.T.A,.  sup,  p.  41,  1.  On  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words,  cf.  p.  43,  1. 

*  An'st.  Metaph,  i.  6,  sub  init^ : 
reus  'HpaicA.ciTc(oi5  9^|aif,  &s  rmy 
aioBrtrw  &cl  ^€6yrmy  koX  hnm^iiuis 
T€p\  abr&y  ohK  otfnis. 

*  Diog.  ix.  7  :  r^v  Zptuny  ^c^- 
dctrdcu  (I\c7c).  Lucret.  Rer.  Nat. 
1.  696 :  cridit  erUm  (HeracUtus) 
Bcnsw  ignem  eognoseere  vere,  cetera 


COGNITION. 


89 


and  dead  what  is  really  the  most  movable  and  living  of 
all  things.*  Or,  as  the  later  theory  of  the  Heracleitean 
school  expresses  it,  all  sensation  arises  from  the  collision 
of  two  motions ;  it  is  the  common  product  of  the  in- 
fluence of  the  object  on  the  particular  organ,  and  the 
activity  of  the  organ  which  receives  this  influence  in  its 
own  peculiar  manner  into  itself*  Sensation,  therefore, 
shows  us  nothing  permanent  and  absolute,  but  only  a 
single  phenomenon  as  this  presents  itself  in  the  given 
case  and  to  some  definite  perception.*  Although,  there- 
fore, we  may  certainly  learn  from  sensible  observation. 


won  credit,  fire  being  the  only  sen- 
sible phenomenon  in  which  the 
»>ab6tance  of  things  displays  itself 
aooording  to  its  true  nature. 

'  Ft,  95,  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  iii. 
444  D,  where,  according  to  Teich- 
mnller^B  jost  observation,  N.  St.  i, 
97  sq..  instead  of  UuBaySpM  8i  koL 
ahovild  be  read:  TlvOaydp^  koI: 
9damr6s  itrrtr  6K6ira  hftpBim^s  bpio- 
^9,  6K6ca  8i  cfiSorrcs  fhrvos :  '  as 
we  see  in  sleep,  dreams,  so  we  see 
in  waking,  death.'  The  openiog 
words  of  this  fragment  are  thus 
interpreted  by  Lassalle,  ii.  320 : 
'What  we  see,  being  awake,  and 
hold  to  be  life,  is  in  troth  the  con- 
stant passing  away  of  itself.'  But 
this  constant  passing  away,  in 
whidi,  according  to  Heracleitus, 
the  life  of  nature  consists,  he  would 
never  have  described  by  the  sinister 
word  death.  Schuster,  274  sq.,  in 
Older  to  avoid  the  degradation  of 
the  sensuous  perception,  here  gives, 
as  it  appears  to  me,  an  interpreta- 
tion very  far-fetcbed  and  unlike 
Heradeitiis,  which  Teichmuller 
rightly  discards. 

'  Theophrast  Ve  Sentu,  i.   1 


sq. :  ol  8^  ircpl  *Aya^ay6paif  ical 
'Hp<icA«troy  T^  ^y<iyTi^  (irotoOo-i  rriy 
aXc&fiffiv),  which  is  afterwards  thus 
explained  :  ol  8i  r^y  aiaBtio'iy  vtro' 
Kafifidyoyr^s  iv  IlKKoi^cu  yiytaOai 
Kol  rh  iiky  Hfiomy  kwoBh  tirh  rod 
dfAiolov,  rh  V  ivarrUty  ml^Mhv, 
roin^  irpo<r4$ta€Ly  r^y  yy^firiy.  iiri- 
fiaprvptlv  V  oXovrai  koX  rh  wtpi  rifv 
a^ify  avfifituyoy  rh  yh^  Sfiows  r^ 
{Topkl  Btpfihy  fi  ^vxp^*'  ob  voitiy 
cdaOfia-iy.  According  to  this  evi- 
dence, which  is  confirmed  by  He- 
racleitus*s  doctrine  of  the  opposites 
in  the  world,  there  would  be  all 
the  more  ground  for  refemng  to 
the  fleracleiteans  as  well  as  to 
Protagoras  the  exposition  in  the 
7%e(Bi.  166  A  sqq. ;  Plato  himself 
refers  us  to  them,  180  c.  sq.  If 
even  the  more  definite  development 
of  this  theoiy  was  the  work  of 
later  philosophers  such  as  Cratylus 
and  Protagoras,  yet  the  fimdamen- 
tal  idea  in  it,  viz.,  that  the  sensible 
perception  is  the  product  of  the 
concurrent  motion  of  the  object 
and  of  the  sense,  and  has  conse- 
quently no  objective  truth,  belongs 
to  Heracleitus  himself. 


90 


HERACLEITUS. 


in  so  far  a«  this  shows  us  many  qualities  of  things ;  ^ 
although  the  two  nobler  senses,  and  especially  the  eye, 
ought  to  be  preferred  to  the  rest,^  in  comparison  with 
the  rational  perception  the  sensible  perception  has  little 
worth ;  eyes  and  ears  are  bad  witnesses  to  men  if  they 
have  irrational  souls.'  But  it  is  precisely  this  testi- 
mony which  the  generality  of  men  follow*  Hence  the 
deep  contempt  for  the  mass  of  mankind,  which  we  have 
already  seen  in  this  philosopher ;  hence  his  hatred  for 
arbitrary  opinion,^  for  the  unreason  which  does  not 
perceive   the   voice   of  the   Deity,*  for  the  stupidity 


»  Vide  supra,  p.  86,  2  ;  88,  6. 

«  Fr.  8.  Hippol.  Befui.  ix.  0 : 
8<r»r  l^if  dxo^  ijJJhi<m  ravra  hfh 
vpoTifi4w ;  on  the  sense  of  sight  es- 
pecially, Fr.  91.  Fr.  9,  Polyh.  xii. 
27 :  6^aX4iJo\  ykp  r&v  &twv  Xnpifii' 
<FT(poi  fid^vptSt  which  (notvrith- 
standing  the  different  opinion  of 
BemajB,  Rh.  Mus.  ix.  262  ;  Lass.  ii. 
323  sq. ;  Schuster,  25,  1)  seems  to 
me  to  contain  nothing  more  than  (for 
example)  what  Herodotus  says  (i. 
8),  and  what  Polybius  understands 
by  the  passage,  namely,  that  one  can 
better  rely  on  one's  own  sight  than 
on  the  assertion  of  others. 

•  Fr.  11;  Sext.  Math,  vii. 
1^6:  KOKoi  fidprvpts  h,p9fn&iroi(riv 
h^BoKiuii  KoL  ira  ficipfidpovs  if^vx^s 
ix^^^v  (which  is  no  doubt  more 
authentic  than  the  version  of  it 
ap.  Stob.  Flaril  4,  66).  Instead 
of  the  last  three  words,  Bernays, 
ffA.  Mu8,  ix.  262  sqq.,  conjectures  : 
fiopfi6pov  iffvx^  l^x'^'^^^f  because  in 
the  reading  of  Sextus,  the  genitiye 
ix^y^^y  after  iwOp^ois  is  yery 
strange,  and  because  in  the  time  of 
Heradeitus,  fidpfiapos  would  not 
have  had  the  signification  of  rude. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  ascribe  thiA 


signification  to  it,  even  if  we  adopt 
the  usual  reading  ;  we  get  a  better 
meaning  if  the  word  be  taken  in 
its  original  sense;  one  who  does 
not  understand  my  lang^oage,  and 
whose  language  I  do  not  under- 
stand. Heracleitus  says  then  in 
his  figurative  mode  of  expression  : 
it  is  of  no  use  to  hear  if  the  soul 
does  not  comprehend  the  speech 
which  t^e  ear  receives;  and  the 
strange  genitive  ix^vrmp  seems  to 
have  been  used  precisely  because 
the  sentence  relates  primanly  to 
the  ears  (though  it  ij  also  of  course 
applicable  to  the  eyes).  Cf.  Schus- 
ter, 26,  2. 

*  Biog.  ix.  7  :  riii^  otitinw  Upiu^ 
ySffoy  lA.f7c.  He  was  nevertheless 
accused  by  Aristotle,  Eth.  N.  vii. 
4,  1146  b,  29  (M.  Mor.  ii.  6,  1201 
b,  5).  of  an  over-bearing  oonfldence 
in  his  own  opinions,  as  has  already 
been  noticed.  Schleiermacher,  p. 
138,  compares  with  the  passage  of 
Diogenes  the  foUowmg  words  from 
ApollTyan.  Bpist.  18:  iyKoXmrr^os 

but  this  is  not  quoted  by  ApoU.  as 
Heracleitean. 

»  Fr,  188 ;  ap.  Orig.  <?.  CeU,  vi. 


COGNITION, 


91 


tvhich  is  puzzled  and  confused  by  every  discourse,*  for 
the  frivolity  which  wickedly  plays  with  truth ;  *  hence 
also  his  mistrust  of  the  erudition  which  prefers  learn- 
ing from  others  to  enquiring  for  itself.'  He  himself 
will  be  content  after  much  labour  to  find  little^  like  the 
gold-diggers;^  he  will  not  rashly  pass  judgment  on 
the  weightiest  things ;  *  he  will  not  ask  others,  but  only 
himself,^  or  rather  the  Deity,  for  human  nature  has  no 


12 :  hf^p  r^wios  l/iKovirt  Tphs  9eU' 
fiO¥0S  icminrtp  wais  vphs  Mp6s, 
The  oonjectund  Mifioyos  for  iul- 
/wpos  (Bemays,  Herod.  15)  neems 
to  me  onnecessary.  For  Schuster's 
Tiev  of  this  passage,  cf.  it^f.  93,  2. 
*  Fr.  35 ;  Plur.  Aud.  Poet,  c 
9.  end,  p.  28 ;  De  And.  c.  7,  p.  41  : 
fiXii^  Mptntos   vtrh  'nrrhs    K6yov 

«  Clem.  8tr<m.  v.  649  C:  Jo- 
ff«^rrwr  7&p  6  ZoKiiJuArvrot  yw^ffMi 

A^^^CTOi  ^cu8wif  ritcrovai  koX  fidprv- 
p€Ls.  The  first  half  of  this  fragment 
I  do  not  think  to  be  satisfactorily 
explained,  either  by  ttchleierma- 
cher,  who  would  substitute  hoKiom 
and  ytytf^aKtuf  ^kdfftrti,  nor  Jby 
Lassalle,  ii.  321.  Even  the  pro- 
posal of  Schuster,  840,  1 :  ioK,  y.  h 
ioKifiATUTov  yiifenu  yw^CKti  ^uXdur- 
^€w  (*  so  a  poet  decides  to  adopt 
from  that  which  passes  for  credible 
the  most  credible'),  does  not  en- 
tirely satisfy  me.  Lassalle,  by  the 
4<vB«y  TfjcroFfS  understands  the 
bensee.  I  agree  with  Schuster  in 
thinking  the  allusion  to  the  poets 
far  more  probable  (cf.  p.  10,  3). 

'  In  this  sense,  as  has  been 
preriously  remarked,  we  must  un- 
derstand the  sayings  of  fleradeitus 
against  Polymathy,  «wpra,  toI.  i. 
610,  4 ;  336,  5.  The  firagment  on 
this  subject^  ap.  Stob.  FhHL  84, 


19,  Gaisford,  was  rightly  restored 
to  Aoaxarchus. 

*  Fr.  19  ap.  Clem.  Strom,  iv. 
476  A ;  Theod.  Cwr.  Gr,  Aff,  i.  88,  p. 
16 :  xpvir^y  ol  9i(fifityoi  T^r  iroXXV 
opdcvoviTi  Kcd  tiplaKowriw  ixlyop. 
How  Heracleitus  applied  this  il- 
lustration we  are  not  told ;  but  the 
turn  given  to  it  in  the  text  seems 
to  me  the  most  natural.  Cf.  also 
Fr,  24  and  140,  »up,  p.  42,  2  ;  44, 
1,  and  the  Fr.  21  pointed  out  by 
Lassalle,  ii.  31 2 ;  Clem.  Strom,  r. 
615  B:  xf^  ykp  cl  fiAXa  to\K&v 
lirropas  ^i\off6<povs  tufUpas  cTveu  km* 
*HpdK\tirotf,  where  laropiat  inde- 
peodent  enquiry,  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  mere  polymathy. 

*  According  to  IHo^.  ix.  73,  he 
is  reported  to  have  said:  /x^  c/ic^ 
irtpl  rAy  fxryiffrwu  trvfifiaXXtiftfBaf 
which  does  not  sound  like  his  usual 


20  (ap.  Pint.  adv.  Col.  20, 
2,  p.  1118;  Suid.  TloffrovfMs.  Cf. 
Lassalle  i.  301  sq.):  i^ifyerdfiyiv 
ifjMt9T6v.  The  right  interpreta- 
tion of  these  wo^,  which  the 
above-named  writers,  and  many  of 
the  more  recent  commentators,  re- 
fer to  the  demand  for  self-know* 
ledge,  is  probablv  given  by  Dioi 
genes,  ix.  6 :  lovrSy  1^  hCftraffQa- 
jcal  /tiotfcu'  vdma  irap*  ^vrov.  (Cf. 
Schuster,  69,  1,  62,  1.)  Whether 
Plotinus  (iv.  8,  i.  p.  468)  under- 


HERACLEITUS. 


intelligence,  which  the  divine  nature  alone  possesses ; ' 
human  wisdom  is  nothing  else  than  the  imitation  of  na- 
ture and  of  the  Deity.^  Only  he  who  listens  to  the  divine 
law,  the  universal  reason,  finds  truth ;  he  who  follows  the 
deceptive  appearance  of  the  senses  and  the  uncertain 
opinions  of  men,  to  him  truth  remains  for  ever  hidden.' 
This  does  not  as  yet  amount  to  a  scientific  theory  of 
knowledge ;  nor  can  we  even  suppose  that  Heracleitus 


BtandB  the  expression  thus  seems 
doubtful.  In  y.  9,  5,  p.  559,  he 
follows  the  interpretation  accord- 
ing to  which  ifuunhv  designates 
the  object  that  is  sought  or  en- 
quired for ;  he  says,  in  a  discussion 
concerning  the  unity  of  thought 
and  Being,  6f>$&s  &pa  .  .  .  rh 
ifunnhv  ilii(riadfja!iy  its  %v  r&p  trruv. 
This  is,  of  course,  not  conclusive 
as  to  the  original  meaning  of  the 
sentence;  but  stiU  less  can  I  ad- 
mit Lasisalle's  theory  that  the 
words  &s  %v  r.  t,  also  belong  to 
Heracleitus,  and  that  the  whole 
proposition  means,  *  one  must  re- 
gard oneself  as  one  of  the  existent 
things,'  i.e.,  as  existing  as  little  as 
they  do,  and  inyolved  in  the  same 
flux.  How  this  can  be  deduced 
from  the  words,  I  fail  to  see,  and 
it  does  not  seem  to  me  probable 
that  Heracleitus  should  have  spoken 
of  tvra,  &s  %v  rw  Svr»v  seems  to 
me  an  addition  of  Plotinus,  in- 
tended to  justify  his  application  of 
Hemcleitns's  saving  to  the  question 
in  hand.  The  indedsive  sentence 
ap.  Stob.  FUyrU,  5,  119,  h,v9pdiicoi<n 
Toffi  fiirftrrt  ytpAtrmv  kavrabs  kojL 
ato^poMiv  is  rightly  regarded  by 
Schleiermacher  as  spurious. 

»  Fr.  14,  138,  9up,  p.  42,  2; 
90,5. 

«  Vide  Fr.  123,  sup.  p.  41,  1. 
This  seems  to  have  been  also  the 


original  meaning  of  the  proposi- 
tions {Fr,  16)  quoted  in  the  Grsater 
Hippias,  289  A  sq.,  as  Heraclei- 
tean,  though  eyidently  not  in  the 
words  of  the  philosopher,  &t  tipa 
trtO^Kuy  6  icd^Xiirros  alcrxp^s  kv^ptt- 
irtl^  y4v9i  ffVfifid\\€tVf  .  .  .  Sri 
MpAwwv  6  c-o^tArafros  Tpht  0thv 
irlBiiKOf  ^ovf (TM  ical  tro^if  koI  mix- 
Xei  KoX  ro7s  &XAoif  Twriv.  In  Hip* 
poc.  trtpl  Siotr.  i.  c.  12  sqq.  many 
examples,  not  always  happily 
chosen,  are  brought  forward  to 
show  that  all  human  arts  arose 
from  the  imitation  of  nature, 
though  men  are  not  conscious  of  it. 
This  thought  seems  to  belong  to 
Heracleitus;  but  the  development 
of  it,  as  it  stands  here,  can  be  but 
partially  his.  Cf.  Bernays,  Herad. 
23  sqq.,  Schuster,  p.  286  sqq. 

•  What  Sext.  Math,  vii.  126, 
131,  says  of  Heracleitus  is  there- 
fore substantially  true:  r^ig  cHa- 
difffip  .  .  .  Avurrop  tlrai  v*w6iUK9^ 
rhv  Si  Kiyov  ^miBrroA  Kpiriliptoy 
.  .  .  rhy  Koiyhy  \6iyoy  kv^  Buoy 
Kol  ol  Kork  tuToj(^y  yty6fuBa  XeyiKoi 
Kpiriipioy  &\i}0claf  ^ritriy.  Many 
sceptics,  on  the  other  hand,  reckon 
him  among  their  number;  but 
this  only  exemplifies  the  weU- 
known  arbitrariness  of  the  school, 
Diog.  ix.  76,  Cf.  Sext.  Pyrrh, 
209  sqq. 


COGNITION.  93 

felt  the  want  of  such  a  theory,  or  clearly  saw  the  neces- 
sity of  giving, an  account  to  himself,  before  any  enquiry 
concerning  things,  of  the  conditions  of  knowledge  and 
method  of  investigation.  The  propositions  quoted 
above,  as  was  the  case  with  the  kindred  theories  of  his 
contemporary  Parmenides,^  were  essentially  deductions 
from  a  physical  theory  which  brought  him  into  such  ab- 
rupt antagonism  to  sensible  appearance,  that  he  thought 
himself  obliged  to  mistrust  the  evidence  of  the  senses. 
It  does  not  follow  from  this  that  he  purposed  to  form 
his  system  independently  of  experience,  and  by  means 
of  an  a  'priori  construction ;  for  such  a  design  would 
have  presupposed  enquiries  into  the  theory  and  method 
of  knowledge  which  were  alike  unknown  to  him  and  to 
the  whole  of  the  pre-Socratic  philosophy.  Still  less 
are  we  justified  by  Heracleitus's  own  expressions,  or  by 
the  statements  of  our  most  trustworthy  authorities,  in 
making  the  ancient  Ephesian  the  first  representative 
of  empiricism  or  discovering  in  him  a  tendency  to  ob- 
servation and  induction.*  His  reflection  was  concerned 
with  the  objective  in  nature;  like  every  other  philo- 

'  Cf.  vol.  i.  591  sqq.  tu8  as  blamiDg  men,  '  because  they 

^  Sclmster  (p.  19  sqq.)  supports  do  not  seek  for  knowledge,  by  en- 

this  statement  mainly  on  the  frag-  quiring  into  that  over  which  they 

ments  (2, 3),  discussed  p.  7,  2.   But  stumble  every  day '  (that  in  order 

in  ^.3  there  is  not  one  word  to  show  to  know,  they  do  not  enter  upon 

that  the  Xiyos  &cl  Av  is  only  per-  the  way  of  observation ),  whereas 

eeired  through  the  senses ;  that  we  Heracleitus  blames  them  *  because 

should  <  observe  the  visible  world/  they  do  not   understand  (or  con- 

and  '  on  the  ground  of  appearance '  sider,  ^poviovvi)  that    on  which 

should  follow  out  the  true  state  of  they  stumble  every  day ; '  and  do 

the  case,— still  less  to  show  that  not  (in  what  way  is  not  stated) 

this  is  the  ofdy  way  to  ajrive  at  instruct    themselves     about     it. 

the  knowledge  of  truth.    In  Fr,  2  Schuster  likewise  refers  to  ^.  7 ; 

Schuster  introduces  what  is  irrele-  but  I  have  alreadpr  proved  (p.  39, 4) 

▼aDt  when  he  represents  Heraclei-  that  his  explanation  of  this  cannot 


04 


HEIUCLEITU8. 


sopher  he  started,  in  fact,  from  perception,  and  formed 
his  convictions  by  the  development  of  this ;  but  he  never 


be  subHtantiated.  I  have  also  re- 
marked, in  the  same  place,  that 
we  hare  do  right  to  give  the  mean- 
ing which  Schuster  adopts,  to  the 
sentence  about  the  unseen  har- 
mony, nor  to  bring  into  direct 
connection  with  it  the  quotation  on 
p.  90,  2 :  tffwv  t<^ii  iito^  fAdBriffis 
Tavra  #7^  vporifiiw.  In  itself, 
however,  it  does  not  imply  that  the 
fidJdriais  results  only  from  sight 
and  hearing,  but  merely  that  the 
pleasures  of  knowledge  are  to  be 
preferred  to  all  others :  how  much 
IS  contributed  to  knowledge  by 
thought,  how  much  by  observa- 
tion, the  fragment  does  not  say. 
Further,  in  Fr.  7,  the  ^vyhp  or  the 
X^os  ^whs  does  not  mean  the 
*  speech  of  the  visible  world  ; '  and 
those  are  not  censured  who  '  in- 
dulge their  own  thoughts,'  and 
'  seek  in  the  invisible  instead  of 
the  visible*,  each  one  for  himself,  a 
particular  solution  of  the  univer- 
sal riddle*  (Schuster  23  sq),  cf.  p. 
43,  1 :  not  to  mention  that  Hera- 
cleitus,  with  his  cTj  ifiol  fivoioi 
(sup.  p.  10,  2),  certainly  did  follow 
his  own  thoughts;  and  the  Kotvii 
yv^firi,  to  which  Schuster  with 
JEnesidemus  (ap.  Sext.  Mafh.  viii. 
8)  refers  ^whv,  was,  for  him  at 
least,  an  authority.  Schuster,  p. 
27  sq.,  lastly  quotes  Lucret  i.  690 
sqq..  who  calls  the  senses  that  unde 
omnia  eredita  pendent,  unde  hie 
cogniius  est  ipsi  quern  nominat 
igneni;  but  he  forgets  that  Lucre- 
tiua  takes  this  observation,  not 
from  HeracleitUB,  but  from  his 
own  presupposition  against  Hera- 
cleitus.  When  he  wants  to  give 
the  doctrine  to  Heracleitus,  he  says 
(yide  p.  90,  4)  that  among  all  the 


sensuous  perceptions,  he  ascribed 
truth  to  that  of  fire  only  (not,  ax 
Schuster  says,  to  fire  *  under  all 
its  disguises  and  changes,'  but 
simple  visible  fire).  To  withhold 
credence  from  the  second  of  these 
statements  because  the  first  has 
been  misapprehended,  is  to  invert 
the  order  of  things.  This  sap- 
posed  evidence  in  favour  of  Schus- 
ter's view  thus  turns  out  to  be 
distinct  evidence  against  it;  its 
incorrectness,  moreover,  appears 
from  what  is  quoted,  sttpra,  p.  88, 
6;  89,  1;  90,  3,  and  especially 
from  Aristotle's  assertion  (88,  4) : 
that  Plato  followed  Heracleitus 
in  his  conviction— 6f  t&v  fiioihf- 
rvv  del  ^6vr»v  koDl  iwiarhiais 
ir€p\  abr&v  oIk  o^mis.  The  con- 
jecture that  Aristotle  is  here 
Kpeaking  only  of  Cratylus  and  the 
Heracleiteans,  who  *  on  this  point 
thought  very  differently  from  their 
master'  (Schuster  31),  is  wholly 
inadmissible.  Aristotle  does  not 
say  rats  r&v  'HfMucXfircfwy  B6^ais, 
but  Tour  *HpaKX€iT€iois  96^s  ;  now 
a  *HfNucAc^Tcios  96^a  is  as  certainly 
an  opinion  of  Heracleitus  as  the 
*HpaK\§ir€tos  $4<ris,  Phys.  i.  2,  185 
a,  7,  is  a  proposition  of  Heracleitus, 
and  the  'HpoirXcfrctoi  Xiyin  in  the 
parallel  passage  to  this  Metaph, 
xiii.  4  (sup.  p.  1 1, 1)  are  statemenU 
of  Heracleitus.  'HpcurXt irciot  sig- 
nifies proceeding  from  Heracleitus ; 
and  if  hj  an  inaccurate  use  of 
langfuage  it  might  be  used  in  re- 
gard to  an  opinion  which  had  been 
merely  derived  by  his  scholars 
from  his  doctrine,  it  certainly 
could  not  be  used  of  any  opinion 
that  contradicted  his  own.  Schus- 
ter,   therefore,    has    recourse    t<> 


COGNITION. 


06 


proposed  to  himself  the  question  from  what  sources  his 
convictious  had  arisen.  When  in  this  way  he  had  arrived 
at  theories  which  contradicted  the  assertions  of  our 
senses,  he  did  not  say,  as  a  true  empiricist  must  have 
said,  that  the  theories  must  be  false :  he  said  that 
the  senses  were  deceptive,  and  that  rational  knowledge 
alone  was  trustworthy.  But  by  what  process  we  are  to 
attain  this  rational  knowledge,  neither  Heracleitus  nor 
any  of  the  pre-Socratic  philosophers  expressly  enquired. 
The  principle  ascribed  to  him  by  modem  writers,' 
that  the  names  of  things  explain  to  us  their  essential 


another  theory,  viz.  that  Aristotle 
aMTibes  the  conclnsioiiB  which  were 
drawn  by  FUto  from  the  doctrine 
of  Heraeleiuxs  to  Heradeitus  him- 
self: a  saspicioD  which  would  only 
be  jiutifiable  if  the  assertions 
of  Aristotle  contradicted  other 
trustworthy  authorities ;  where^ 
as,  in  truth,  they  coincide  with 
them  all.  But  from  the  fact  that 
Protagoras  united  his  sensualism 
with  the  proposition  about  uni- 
Torsal  BeoomiDg,  we  must  not 
conclude  with  Schuster  (31  sq.) 
that  Heracleitus  also  attached 
aapreme  importance  to  the  sen- 
suous perception;  certainly  not 
if,  like  Schuster,  we  rt^present 
Gratylus  as  op^ed  to  Heracleitus 
through  his  rejection  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  senses.  Why  should 
not  the  Sophist,  who  made  no  claim 
to  reproduce  Heradeitus's  doctrine 
aa  such,  diverge  more  easily  from 
it  than  (acco^ing  to  Schuster's 
theory)  a  philosopher  who  de- 
cidedly professed  that  doctrine? 
It  is  not  true,  however,  that  Pro- 
tagoras said  'that  there  was  an 
iwiarhitii,  and  that  it  was  the 
aama   as   «BMfi9it    and    opinion 


founded  upon  clUrBrivis*  On  ac- 
count of  the  relativity  of  percep- 
tions, he  rather  denied  the  possi- 
bility of  knowledge  (cf.  p.  896  sqq., 
3rd  ed.)-  But  if  in  this  there  lies 
also  the  presupposition  that -know- 
ledge, if  knowledge  were  possible, 
could  onlv  arise  from  perception, 
the  hypothesis  here  admitted,  viz. 
that  there  is  a  knowledge,  is  im- 
mediately opposed,  and  opposed 
for  the  very  reason  that  perception 
cannot  guarantee  knowledge.  So 
far  as  we  can  argue  from  J^otago- 
ras  to  Heracleitus,  the  oi^y  result 
is  that  Heracleitus,  as  little  as 
Flrotagoras,  ascribed  objective  truth 
to  sensible  perception.  Arcesilaus 
the  Academiciau,  c  9,  proved  the 
impoesibility  of  knowledge  simply 
from  the  uncertainty  of  percep- 
tions (cf.  Pt  III.  &,  44S  sq.,  2nd  ed.), 
but  no  one  concludes  from  this  that 
Plato,  whose  track  he  follows  in 
his  polemic  against  sense-lmow- 
ledge.  admitted  no  other  kind  of 
knowledge. 

*  Lassalle,  ii.  362  sqq. ;  Schus- 
ter, 318  sqq.  Against  Lassalle, 
vide  Steinthal  Geach.  d.  Sprach,  i. 
165  sqq. 


96 


HERACLEITUS, 


nature,  cannot  be  proved  by  direct  evidence,*  nor  with 
certainty  by  induction,  from  the  Oratylus  of  Plato ;  * 
and  though  it  would  harmonise  well  with  Heracleitus's 
general  modes  of  thought,*  we  have  no  right  to  con- 


^  Lassalle  appeals  to  Prod,  in 
Parm,  i.  p.  12  Cous. :  (Socrates 
admires)  roO  *HpaicXc(rc(ov  (8i5a- 
ffxaK§iov)  r^v  8*4  t«v  6uofidrup  M 
r^y  r&v  6vrttr  yywrw  6^6y.  But 
this  utterance  in  which  Heracleitus 
himself  is  not  mentioned,  hut.  only 
his  school,  is  entirely  founded  on 
the  Platonic  Cratylua ;  and  the 
same  holds  good  of  the  passages 
of  Ammon.  De  Interpr.  24  b,  30  b. 
In  the  second  of  these  it  is  said 
expressly :  '  Socrates  shows  in  the 
CratyUu  that  names  are  not  o0r» 
^{fvti  its  *Hp«U\c(TOf  iKwy%v  (So- 
crates does  not,  however,  name 
Heracleitus).  The  first  also  un- 
mistakably alludes  to  the  Platonic 
dialogue  (428  E),  as  even  Schus- 
ter acknowledges,  819  sq.  ;  in 
the  observation  that  many  hold 
names  for  ^lifmt  ^Hfuovpylujiara, 
KaOdiTfp  ii^lou  KpardKos  ira2  *Hpd' 

'  In  the  CratyUu,  it  is  said  by 
the  Heracleltean  of  that  name 
oySfjLOTOs  hpd&nrra  cTi^m  iK^urr^  r&v 
ovrwv  ^^0'ci  irc4»uKviay  (383  A,  cf. 
428  D  sqq.),  and  that  Cratylus 
really  maintained  this  is  the  more 
likely,  as  the  astounding  inferences 
which  he  draws  (p.  384  B,  429 
B  sq.,  436  B  sq.)  from  his  proposi- 
tion are  entirely  consistent  with 
his  other  caricatures  of  the  Hera- 
cleitean  doctrine  (tn/ra,  p.  601 
sq.,  3rd  edit.\  But  it  does  not 
follow  from  tnis  that  Heracleitus 
himself  set  up  such  a  principle. 
Schuster  thinks  that  a  school, 
which  exaggerated  the  doctrine  of 
the  flux  of  aU  things  so  greatly 


as  Cratylus  did,  could  not  at  first 
have  hit  upon  it.  I  do  not  see 
why,  so  long  as  they  did  not  draw 
from  this  doctrine  the  sceptical 
consequences  of  Protagoras.  But 
if  Cratylus  was  not  the  first  to  set 
up  this  principle,  it  did  not  there- 
fore necessarily  emanate  from 
Heracleitus ;  between  the  death 
of  this  philosopher  and  the  epoch 
when  Plato  heard  the  discourses 
of  Cratylus,  there  are  more  than 
sixty  years.  Schuster  seeks  (p.  323 
sq.)  to  prove  that  Protagoras 
also  held  the  above-mentioned 
doctrine,  which  be  could  only 
have  derived  from  Heracleitus. 
But  the  sole  proof  which  is  ad- 
duced is  the  myth  of  the  Prota- 
goras, and  in  that  the  doctrine  has 
no  place.  Protagoras  says,  322  A, 
that  man  on  account  of  his  kinship 
with  the  Deity  early  learnt  the 
art  of  speech;  but  it  does  not 
follow  from  this  that  all  linguistic 
designations  are  accurate.  Lastly 
Schuster  (p.  324  sq.)  supposes 
that  Parmenides,  in  the  verses 
quoted  vol.  i.  604,  3,  alludes 
to  Heracleitus's  occupation  with 
descriptive  names;  but  this  con- 
jecture, as  it  appears  to  me,  is 
groundless. 

'  Schaarschmidt,  Samml,  d. 
Plat,  Sckr.  253  sq.  disputes  this, 
on  the  ground  that  a  natural  cor- 
rectness and  fixed  character  of 
words  would  be  incompatible  with 
the  flux  of  all  things ;  and  for  the 
same  reason,  Schuster  p.  321,  will 
only  admit  it,  if  his  interpretaUon 
of  vdifra  ^c<,  discussed  sup,  p.  12, 1, 


ETHICS. 


97 


elude  firom  the  plays  on  words  and  etymologies  ^  which 
occur  in  his  fragments  that  he  sought  to  justify  this  use  of 
nomenclature  theoretically  in  the  manner  of  later  writers. 
What  has  been  said  of  knowledge  applies  to  action. 
Heracleitus  does  not  yet  accurately  separate  the  two 
spheres,  and  has  the  same  law  for  both.  His  judgment 
as  to  the  conduct  of  men  in  the  one  case  is  not  more 
lenient  than  in  the  other.  Most  men  live  like  beasts ;  ^ 
they  revel  in  mud  and  feed  upon  earth  like  the  worm.' 
They  are  bom,  bring  forth  children,  and  die  without 
pursuing  any  higher  end  in  life.*  The  wise  man  will 
despise  that  for  which  the  masses  strive,  as  a  worthless 
and  perishable  thing.^  He  will  not  take  his  own  ca- 
prices, but  the  common  law,  for   his  standard;®  will 


hold  good.  Eat  the  flux  of  all 
things,  eyen  ftoeording  to  oar  ac- 
ceptatJOD,  does  not  exclude  the 
permanence  of  the  iiDirersal  law ; 
it  myolTea  it ;  and  as  this  is  ap- 
prehended by  Heracleitus  as  the 
Logos,  the  thought  that  the  human 
logos  (reason  and  speech  being 
both  included  in  this  conception) 
alio  has  troth,  as  part  of  the 
Dirine,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
hispoint  of  TJew. 

^  fiios  and  /Sibs,  supra,  p.  17*  4 ; 
where^  howeyer,  the  name  is  in 
opposition  to  the  thing;  lia^io€- 
oite  and  |v/<^cp€<r9ai,  p.  33, 2 ;  fU^i 
and  luitpaif  p.  86. 1 ;  ihv  v6^  and  {vy^, 
p.  sis,  3;  perhaps  also  Ztivht  and 
Qvt  p.  44, 1 ;  oJ^oioiiTiv  and  hfcuXi- 
oruru,  p.  1 03, 2 ;  on  the  other  hand, 
the  comparison  of  ir&fia  and  o^fui  is 
notHeradeitean,  cf.  84, 2.  Still  more 
onimnortant  is  the  use  of  6rofM  as  a 
periphrasis,  p.  88,  3 ;  98,  5. 

*  Supra,  p.  10,  1. 

>  Such  at  any  rate  may  be  the 

TOL.   II*  ] 


sense  and  connection  of  the  words 
quoted  in  Atben.  v.  178  sq.  and 
Arist.  De  Mundo,  c.  6,  end:  the 
first :  intrtM  "  fiop06p^  x«^p»«»'"  ««fl^ 
*KpdK\tnor ;  and  the  second :  "  irav 
ifnttrhv  riir  yriif  rdfurai,*'  BemavB* 
{HeracL  p.  25)  conjecture  that  m- 
stead  of  these  words  Uiere  was 
originally  something  quite  different 
in  the  text  I  cannot  agree  with. 

*  Fr.  73  aupra,  p.  87,  4.  On 
account  of  his  contemptuous  say- 
ings about  mankind  m  general, 
Timon,  ap.  Dioff.  ix.  6,  calls  Hera- 
cleitus KOKKvtrriit  ox^^i^opos. 

*  So  much  as  this  may  perhaps 
be  true  of  the  saying  which  Lucian 
V,  Auet,  14,  puts  into  his  mouth: 
^ioiuLL  rh  Mp^iva  tp^rfiuvra 
hXCvp^  KvX  JhKov^^ta  KoL  oMy 
ahriwv  5  t*  fij  hrue^piov.  The 
statement  that  he  wept  over  every- 
thing (supra,  p.  4, «.)  seems  to  show 
that  he  gave  utterance  to  senti- 
ments of  this  kind. 

*  ^.7,123,  *ttp.  p.  43,1;  88,  3, 


HEUACLEITUS, 


avoid  nothing  more  than  presumption,  the  over-stepping 
of  the  bounds  which  are  set  for  the  individual  and  for 
human  nature;^  and  in  thus  subjecting  himself  to 
the  order  of  the  whole,  he  will  reach  that  satis£Biction 
which  Heracleitus  is  said  to  have  declared  to  be  the 
highest  end  of  life.'  It  depends  only  upon  man  himself 
whether  he  is  happy.  The  world  is  always  as  it  ought 
to  be ;  *  it  must  be  our  part  to  accommodate  ourselves  to 
the  universal  order ;  the  character  of  a  man  is  his 
dsemon.^  As  it  is  with  individuals,  so  it  is  with  the 
community.  There  is  nothing  more  necessary  for  the 
state  than  the  dominion  of  law ;  human  laws  are  an 
emanation  of  the  Divine ;  on  them  society  is  founded, 
and  without  them  there  would  be  no  justice ;  *  a  nation 


cf.  Stob.  Floril  3,  S4;  tr^povuv 

\4ytir  ical  iroicZy  iroT&  ^iffip  imCt' 
orras, 

>  Fr,  126  Bp.  Biog.  ix.  2 :  fifipty 
Xph  <r^crF^ciy  fuiWop  9j  mtpxtdiir. 
Referenoes  to  a  particalar  kind  of 
Sfipts  will  be  found  in  Fr.  1 28  ap. 
Arist  PolU.  y.  11,  1315  a,  80; 
Eth,  N,  ii.  2,  1105  &,7;  Eih.  Eud. 
ii.  7,  1228  b,  22,  etc.:  xa^^^y 
Bvfi^  fidx^<r$aiy  i^px^'  7^  otydtreu. 
The  emendations  of  this  ap.  Pint. 
J)e  ira  9,  p.  457;  CorioL  22; 
Iambi.  CokorL  p.  334  K,  I  do  not 
consider  |;enuine.  In  regard  to 
the  meamng,  in  spite  of  Elk,  N, 
ii.  2,  it  seems  true,  from  the  addi- 
tion of  ^vx^s  yap  uvUrai,  to  refer 
not  to  a  conflict  with  one's  own 
psAsion,  but  with  that  of  others. 

«  Theod.  Cwr.  Gr.  Aff,  xi.  6, 
p.  152 :  Epicurus  regarded  pleasure 
as  the  highest  good;  Democritus 
substituted  iviBvfjda  (1.  Mvfda), 
Heracleitus  iirrl  rfis  ifiotnis  c^opc- 


ffTTi^ip  ri$€ucw,  Fr.  84  ap.  Stob. 
Floril.  8,  83:  iufBp^ois  ylmrBai 
6K6<ra  BiXjouciv,  oIk  Ikfuvov  (there 
would  be  no  happiness  if  aJl  the 
wishes  of  man  were  fulfilled). 

'  Cf.  the  words  quoted  on  p.  39, 3. 

*  ^.  92 ;  ap.  Alex.  Aphr.  De 
Fato,  c.  6,  p.  16,  Dr.;  Pint  ©k. 
Plat.  i.  1,  8,  p.  999 ;  Stob.  Floril. 
104,  23 :  ^os  iofOp^^  Zalfimw. 
This  only  expresses  the  sentiment 
of  the  corresponding  words  in  £pi- 
charmus  {sup.  vol.  i.  p.  531,  8),  that 
the  happiness  of  man  depends  upon 
his  internal  condition.  As  to  the 
question  of  necessity  and  freedom 
to  which  Schuster,  272,  2,  adverts, 
nothing  is  said. 

»  Fr.  123,  sup.  88,  8  ;  41, 1 ;  ^. 
121 ;  ap.  Clem.  Slrom.  iv.  478  B: 
^imis  6yofM  ohK  fty  ifZtirafy  ct  ravra 
(the  hiws)  nh  fy*  The  meaning  of 
the  sentence  is  not  clear ;  it  might 
possibly  contain  (as  Schuster  sup- 
poses) a  censure  of  the  masses,  who. 
without  positive  laws,  know  nothing 


ETHICS, 


must,  therefore,  fight  for  its  laws  as  for  its  wallsJ 
This  dominion  of  law  is  equally  infringed,  whether  the 
arbitrary  will  of  an  individual  rules,  or  that  of  the 
masses.  Heracleitus  is  indeed  a  friend  to  freedom,^ 
but  he  hates  and  despises  democracy,  which  does  not 
understand  how  to  obey  the  best,  and  cannot  endure  any 
pre-eminent  greatness.'    He  counsels  concord,  through 


of  right.  Teichmiiller's  ezplanik 
tioQ,  vhich  refers  rovra  to  the  un- 
just acts  of  men,  unthout  which 
there  vould  be  no  law  {N.  Stud,  i. 
131  sq.),  huA  a  yeiy  uncertain  sup- 
port in  the  use  of  Heracleitean 
words  by  Clemens,  whose  exegesis 
is  \ei7  arbitnuy ;  and  in  itself  it 
seems  to  me  improbable.  If,  bow- 
erer,  it  were  correct,  we  must  un- 
derstand bj  Sinn},  retributive  justice 
especially,  Zltai  woX^wowos. 

»  Fr.  126 ;  Biog.  ix.  2 :  fidx^ 
^x  XM  ^^^  8^M«y  (nr^p  y6fiov  Zkus 
inrip  rtix^os,  Cf.  also  the  sayings 
quoted  p.  S6,  1,  which,  however, 
primarily  relate  to  death  for  one's 
fatherland. 

'  Aoooiding  to  Clem.  Strom,  i. 
302  B,  he  moved  a  tyrant,  Melan- 
comas,  to  lay  down  his  authority, 
and  refused  an  invitation  of  Darius 
to  his  court.  How  much  may  be 
true  in  these  statements  we  cannot 
tell ;  the  letters  from  which  Diog. 
iz.  12  sqq.  takes  the  second,  show 
that  the  writer  of  the  letters  was 
acquainted  with  it,  but  nothing 
more.  The  discussion  of  Bernays, 
fferacl.  Brief e,  18  sqq.,  only  proves 
the  possitnlitf/  of  the  fact. 

•  FV.  40;  ap.  Strabo,  xiv.  1, 
25,  p.  642;  Diog.  ix.  2;  Cic  Tusc, 
V.  36,  106;  cf.  Iambi.  V.  Pyth, 
173,  Stob.  Floril.  40,  9  (ii.  73 
Mein.):  i^ioy  *t^€aiois  iifiiiZhtt 
krdyla/ffiku  (Diog.  evidently  a  mis- 


caxe ;  awoBay^iu)  vaeri  iceU  rciis  Ai^ 
fiois  r^v  96?up  KwraKivtiP  (that  is  to 
say,  they  should  hang  themselves 
and  leave  the  city  to  minors.  Cf. 
Bernays,  Heraclit.  Britfey  19,  129 
sq.^  ohwts  *Epfi69»poy  Sa^pa  ittvr&y 
hrdttrrow  ilifiaXov,  ^danfr  rifiittp 
firiZh  tU  6ttfitaros  forw,  tt  3i  fi^ 
(Diog. :  €l  W  Tij  TOiovros,  originally 
perhaps  c/  8^  alonej.  ttkxri  re  iccu 
/xer'  itKKmf,  Accoiding  to  lam- 
blichus  this  saying  was  an  answer 
to  the  request  of  the  Ephesians, 
that  he  would  give  them  laws ;  a 
request  which,  according  to  IHo- 
genes  (ix.  2)  also,  he  declined.  It 
is  not  probable,  considering  his 
pronounced  political  position,  that 
such  a  request  should  have  been 
preferred  to  him  by  the  democratic 
nuy'ority ;  and  those  words  were  to 
be  found  in  Heracleitus's  work. 
Concerning  Hermodorus,  cf.  my 
dissertation  I)e  Hemiodoro  (Marb. 
1S59).  As  to  his  judgment  on  de- 
mocracy, see  the  anecdote,  ap.  Diog. 
ix.  3,  which  can  only  b«  found«^ 
on  a  saying  of  this  philosopher, 
that  he  took  part  in  children's 
games,  telling  his  frllow-citizens 
that  this  was  wiser  than  to  engage 
in  politics  with  ihem\  also  Fr. 
127;  Clem.  Strom,  v.  604  A :  y6iioi 
Kol  /SovX^  v<^9c<r0cu  Ms,  p.  689,  3, 
and  Theodorides,  Anthol,  Gr,  vii. 
479,  who  calls  Heracleitus  Buos 
6\aicTi}r^s  8^/iOv  K^wy. 


h2 


100 


HERACLEITU8. 


which  alone  the  state  can  subsist.'  There  are  no  traces, 
however,  of  his  having  attempted  any  scientific  defini- 
tion of  ethics  and  politics. 

Many  of  the  notions  and  usages  of  the  popular 
religion  must  have  been  reckoned  by  Heracleitus  among 
human  errors  of  opinion  and  action.  A  formal  polemic 
against  these,  such  as  we  find  in  Xenophanes,  was  not, 
however,  his  purpose.  He  not  only  employs  the  name 
of  Zeus  ^  for  the  Divine  creative  essence,  but  is  generally 
addicted  to  mythological  designations.*  He  speaks  of 
Apollo  in  the  tone  of  a  believer,  and  recognises  in  the 
sayings  of  the  Sibyl  a  higher  inspiration.^  He  accounts 
for  soothsaying  generally  by  the  connection  of  the 
human  spirit  with  the  Divine.^  In  the  proposition  as 
to  the  identity  of  Hades  with  Dionysus,^  and  still  more 


»  Pint.  Gamd.  c.  17,  p.  571 
(also  Scbleiermacher,  p.  S2)  relates 
of  him  a  symbolical  act  which  had 
this  meaning. 

«  Cf.  p.  44,  1. 

*  For  example,  the  Erinnyes 
and  Dike,  p.  41,  2. 

*  In  the  sayings  before  mention- 
ed, p.  6,  n. ;  Fr.  38  (Pint.  Pyth.  Orac. 
21,  p.  404):  6  &ra{,  oZ  rh  fiearrfi6v 
itrri  rb  iv  AcX^oii,  olht  K^yti  oifrt 
Kp&irrti,  iiKkii  <nifudvtiy  and  Fr. 
Z9(ilnd.  e.  6,  p.  397) :  lifivXXa  9k 
fiaiyofiitftp  OTdfiari,  leaSt  'HpiicXcirov, 
iLy4\affra  irol  iiKaXX^urra  iral  &/a^- 
purra  ^BeyyofLiyti  x<^^w  ^^^^^  ^('~ 
iryf  rrcu  rp  ^pfi  8i&  rhv  BtSv. 

»  Chalcid.  in  Tim,  c.  249 :  He- 
raditus  vero  ootuentientibus  Stoicis 
rationem  noatram  cum  divina  ra- 
tione  eonnectii  regente  ae  moderante 
mundana,  propter  inseparabilem  co* 
mitaium  (on  account^  of  the  insepa- . 
rable  connection  between  them) 
caruciam  decreti  ratianMlis  factam 


quieaceniibus  animis  ope  eensuum 
futura  denuntiare,  ex  quo  fieri,  tU 
appareant  imagines  ignot&rum  ioco- 
rum  sfmulaeraque  Aominum  tam 
viventium  qnam  mortuorum  idemgue 
aeaerit  divinatumie  ueum  et  prtemo- 
neri  meritoe  inetrneniihus  ditfinis 
poteatatibue.  This  is  in  the  first 
instance  Stoical,  bnt  the  general 
thought  at  any  rate,  that  the  sonl 
by  virtue  of  its  kinship  to  God  can 
divine  the  future,  may  have  been 
enunciated  in  some  form  by  Hera- 
cleitus. From  the  Pseudo-Hippoc. 
IT.  8ia(T.  i.  12  (Schuster,  287  sq.)  no 
safe  conclusion  can  be  drawn,  on 
account  of  the  nature  of  the  work. 
•  Fr.  132  (in/*,  p.  103,  2)  :  Avrhs 
94  <Af8i}s  jcal  AUvwros.  As  one  of 
the  gods  of  the  lower  world  Diony- 
sus was  worshipped  in  the  mysteries, 
especially  the  Orphico-Dionysiac 
mysteries;  in  the  Orphic  legends 
he  it  called  sometimes  the  son  of 
Zeus  and  Persephone,  and  some- 


ETHICS. 


101 


in  his  utterances  about  immortality  and  the  daemons,^ 


times  the  son  of  Pluto  and  Perse- 
phone. The  idea,  howeyer,  that 
he  was  the  same  person  as  Pluto 
cannot  be  diseorered  in  the  more 
ancient  theoloj^,  and  it  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  Meradeitus  was  not 
the  inyentor  of  it.  With  him  birth 
and  decay  coincide,  as  every  birth 
is  a  fresh  destruction  of  what  pre- 
ceded it;  hence  arose  Dionysus  the 
^od  of  the  luxuriant  creatiye  flow- 
ing life  of  nature,  and  Hades,  the 
goS  of  death.  Teichmiiller  {N, 
Stud.  i.  25  sq.)  interprets  Dionysus 
as  the  sun,  which  is  identical  with 
Hades,  because  it  arises  out  of  the 
earth,  and  the  eaith  again  receives 
the  light  into  itsvlf.  But  against 
this  we  must  observe,  1,  that  Hades 
is  indeed  the  region  under  the 
earth,  bat  not  the  earth  itself.  2. 
That  Heradeitus  does  not  represent 
the  sun  as  arising  out  of  the  earth, 
but  from  moisture,  from  vapours, 
and  especially  those  of  the  sea  (cf. 
57,  2;  68,  1 ;  60,  1).  3.  That  the 
arising  of  the  sun  from  the  earth 
and  its  transition  into  the  earth  is 
something  other  than  the  identity 
of  the  sun  and  the  earth.  4.  That 
neither  in  Heradeitus  nor  in  the 
Orphics  of  his  time  is  there  any 
proof  that  Dionysus  meant  the  sun 
[sup.  vol.  i.  p.  63  sq.  98  aq^.  Teich- 
muller  moreover  makes  Hades  into 
M^Y  tdiovit  that  he  may  ultimately 
extract  this  singular  meaning  from 
our  fragment ;  the  feast  of  Dionysus 
would  be  shameless,  if  Dionysus 
were  not  the  son  of  shame  and  the 
shameless  and  the  befitting  the 
same ;  but  this  interpretation  is 
devoid  of  all  real  foundation. 
Teichmiiller  appeals  to  Pint  JDe  Is. 
29,  p.  362:  Ktti  yiip  UXdrctP  rhv 
*ABi|ir  &s  aI8ovf  v16p  rots  vap*  ainf 
ytvofiiirois  kqX  vpOiTi}!^  Bthw  iwfidtr- 


Bai  ^<r(.  It  is  difficult  to  see  what 
would  follow  in  regard  to  Heradei- 
tus if  Plato  had  said  this.  But 
Plato  said  nothing  of  the  kind.  Of 
the  (d9ovs  vihs^  there  is  not  a  word 
either  in  the  Crat.  403  A  sqq.  (the 
only  passage  which  Plutarch  can 
have  in  view),  nor  anywhere  else  in 
Plato*s  works.  And  even  in  Plu- 
tarch it  is  so  devoid  of  any  admissi- 
ble meaning,  that  one  cannot  help 
thinking  there  may  have  been  some 
scriptural  error  in  a  text  in  other 
respects  so  corrupt.  For  al9ovs 
vlhy  (according  to  an  emendation  of 
Hercher's,  kindly  communicated  to 
me,  we  should  doubtless  read  ir\o^ 
<rtoi»,  which  comes  very  near  to  it 
in  writing)  is  actually  to  be  found 
in  the  parallel  passage,  Plut  JDe 
Supertt  13,  p.  171,  and  refers  to 
Crat.  403  A,  £  («rar^  t^v  tov  ir\o6- 
Tov  Z6ffiv  .  .  .  iirwvofjidaBri  .  .  . 
Mbt(>y4rri5  r&v  Top*  ain^),  Teich- 
miUler  has  not  succeeded  any  better, 
p.  32  sq.,  in  establishing  the  theory 
that  Heracleitus  alludes  in  this 
fragment  to  the  coarse  Dionysiac 
mythus  in  Clem.  Cohort.  21  D  sqq., 
which  he  misapprehends  in  regard 
to  one  point  (22  A),  on  which  he 
Iflys  much  stress.  The  narrative 
of  Clemens  contains  no  reference  to 
Heracleitus :  the  Heradeitean  frag- 
ment is  in  no  way  related  to  the 
myth ;  and  if  Clemens,  at  the  end 
of  his  account,  couples  this  fragment 
with  the  mention  of  Phallic  wor- 
ship, it  does  not  follow  from  this 
that  Heracleitus,  in  choosing  his 
words,  was  thinking  of  this  par- 
ticular myth,  or  spoke  of  Dionysus 
in  Hades  in  a  manner  for  -which 
ev  n  the  myth  furnishes  no  pre- 
cedent. 

'  Supra,  p.  86  sq. 


102 


HERACLEITU8. 


he  shows  great  aflSnity  with  the  Orphic  doctrine^.'  Yet 
there  must  have  been  many  things  objectionable  to  him 
in  the  established  religion  and  in  the  writings  of  the 
poets  which  were  considered  as  its  sacred  records. 
The  opinion  which  is  so  consonant  with  the  ordinary 
point  of  view,  that  the  Deity  dispenses  happiness  or 
misery  to  men  as  he  wills,  was  not  compatible  with  the 
philosopher's  conception  of  the  regularity  of  the  course 
of  nature ;  ^  nor  was  this  consistent  with  the  distinction 


1  Lassalle  (i.  204-268)  tries  to 
proTo  that  there  existed  an  inti- 
mate relationship  betveen  Hera- 
deitns  and  the  Orphics,  and  that 
they  exercised  great  influence  oyer 
him.  But  the  passage  on  which 
he  chiefly  relies,  Plut  De  Ei.  c.  9, 
p.  388,  does  not  giye,  as  he  be- 
lieves, a  representation  of  Hera- 
cleitus's  theology,  but  a  Stoic  in- 
terpretation of  Orphic  mjths. 
Lassalle  thinks  that  Plutarch 
would  not  have  given  to  the  Stoics 
the  honourable  designations  of 
6coX^oc  and  <ro^^tpoi,  but  he 
has  overlooked,  flrstly,  that  by 
<ro^Ttpoi  («rhich  here  signifies 
ratiher  shrewd  than  wise)  are 
meant,  not  the  interpreters,  but 
the  inventors  of  the  mytJius,  conse- 
quently the  Orphics ;  secondly, 
that  $M\iyoi  is  no  title  of  honour, 
and  that  Plutarch  speaks  elsewhere 
of  the  Stoic  theology ;  and  thirdly, 
that  the  theory  expounded  in  e.  9 
is  afterwards,  c.  21,  called  mis- 
chievous. It  does  not  follow  in 
the  least  from  Philo,  De  Vtet, 
839  D  {supra,  p.  63,  ».)•  ^^^  ^^^ 
expressions  Kipos  and  xpf^ffiJuiivWn, 
which  Plutarch  uses,  were  foreign 
to  the  Stoics  (as  Lassalle  says). 
Even  were  the  points  of  contact  b^ 
tween  Hemcleitus  and  the  Orphic 


fragments  (which  Lassalle  seekit  to 
show,  246  sqq.)  much  more  nume- 
rous than  can  actually  be  admitted, 
we  could  only  conclude,  considering 
the  late  origin  of  the  poems  irom 
which  these  fragments  are  taken 
(vide  Vol.  I.  p.  104  sq.),  that  they 
were  under  the  influence  of  Stoic- 
Heracleitean  views,  not  that  He- 
racleitus  was  influenced  by  the 
Orphics. 

*  Lassalle,  ii.  455  sq.,  ingeni- 
ously refers  to  this  the  remark 
about  Homer  and  Archilochusi 
(quoted  supra,  p.  10,  3,  and  dis- 
cussed by  Schuster,  338  sq.).  He 
supposes  it  to  have  been  aimed  at 
the  two  verses  similar  in  meaning, 
Odyssey  xviii.  135,  and  Archil.  Fr. 
72  (Bergk.  Lyr.  Gr.  661,  701),  and 
connects  it  with  the  analogous  con- 
tradiction of  Hesiod,  vide  following 
note.  It  seems  to  me  less  probable 
that  Heracleitus  (vide  Schleier- 
macher,  22  sq. ;  Iass.  ii.  454) 
should  have  accused  Homer  of 
astrology,  and  consequently  repu- 
diated that  art.  The  scholia  on 
IL  xviii.  261  (p.  496  b,  6,  Bekk.) 
says,  indeed,  that  on  account  of 
this  verse,  and  II.  vi.  488,  Hera- 
cleitus named  Homer  iLarpoK6yos, 
which  in  this  connection  can  only 
mean  astrologer.  But  iarftokSyps  in 


ETHICS. 


108 


of  lucky  and  unlucky  days,  ao  widely  spread  in  the  old 
religions.^  Heracleitus  also  expresses  himself  strongly 
about  the  shamelessness  of  the  Dionysiac  orgies;'  he 
attacks,  in  the  veneration  paid  to  images,  one  of  the 
very  pillars  of  the  G-reek  religion;'  he  also  passes  severe 
judgment  on  the  existing  system  of  sacrifices.^  These 
criticisms  are  very  searching,  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
Heracleitus  wished  to  make  any  assault  upon  the  popular 
religion  as  a  whole,  or  in  its  general  constitution. 


the  older  language  was  never  nsed 
for  astrologer  in  our  sense  of  the 
word,  but  always  for  an  MtronoTMr, 
But  neither  of  these  verses  gave 
anj  opening  for  describing  Homer 
even  ironi<»llj  as  such.  Schuster 
(339,  1),  indeed,  thinks  that  as,  ac- 
cording to  Clemens  (vide  •»/*.  note 
2  ),  Heracleitus  was  acquainted  with 
the  Magi,  and  fiAiyoi^kar^Kiyoi, 
he  may  have  also  called  Homer  an 
aamloger.  But  even  if  Heracleitus 
reaUy  used  the  names  mtKrar^Kai^ 
fuirgoiy  &c.  (which  is  not  qnite  cer- 
tain), the  later  ase  of  the  words, 
which  made  magician  and  astro- 
loger synonymous,  cannot  prove 
that  Heracleitus  might  have  spoken 
of  astrologers  in  this  sense.  It 
aeema  to  me  more  likely,  either 
that  Heracleitus  called  Homer 
harpoKirfdt  in  the  sense  of  astro- 
nomer and  without  any  reference 
to  the  verses  quoted  above,  or  that 
some  later  writer  of  the  same 
name  (perhaps  the  author  of  the 
Homeric  allegories)  may  have  called 
him  har^iKorfQi  in  the  sense  of 
astrologer. 

*  According  to  Hut.  Cam,  19, 
c£  Seneca,  £d.  12,  7,  he  censured 
Hesiod  for  distinguishing  ^inipai 
&7a9al  and  ^wKai    As    irnwitwri 


«  Fr,  132,  ap.  Clem.  Cohort.  22, 
B.  Plut.  Is.  et  08.  28,  p.  862 :  ci 
/i^  7^  Atoy^ir^  irofiwiiw  iirotovrro 
KoX  HfUftoy  ifffM  eutoiourof  ianuZ4- 
ffrara  ctpyooTcu*  ct^hs  (wdr.)  9i 
*Aldfis  KM  Ai6pv<ros,  trvf  fudpomcu 
irol  KfipcitCowrur.  The  last  words, 
on  which  cf.  p.  100,  6,  are  intended 
probably  to  remind  men  of  their 
blindness  in  celebrating  their  wan- 
ton festival  to  the  god  of  death. 
Cf  Clemens,  Coh,  13  D:  rUn  Hi 
fuxyrc^rm  'HpdKXtnos  6  *E/^4ffios; 
y V KT iw 6 \o IS, fidyoiSf  fidicxoiSt 
K-tiyatSf  fi^vrais.  robots  &vc»- 
Xci  T&  /ACT^  Odtmroyf  ro^roa  fMu- 
rc^cToi  rb  vvp'  t&  yiip  yofitC6- 
fi^ya  Kar*  kyBpAitovs  fivtrr^i' 
pia  &viep»0'rl  fivci^i^Tai.  The 
spaced  words  seem  (as  Schuster 
337,  1,  thinks,  agreeinig  with  Ber- 
nays,  Heracl.  Br,  134)  to  be  taken 
from  Heracleitus.  But  Fr,  69 
(vide  su^ira^  p.  86,  1,  cf.  Schuster, 
p.  190)  can  scarcely  have  stood  in 
the  connection  with  this  passage  in 
which  Clemens  places  it. 

•  Fr.  129,  ap.  CJem.  Coh.  38 
B;  Grig.  c.  Cels.  vii.  62,  i.  6 :  Jral 
ityd\ftwri  rovriouri  ^^xoyrat  SKciioy 
ti  rts  96tioun  Xta'xyit'^'''rOf  o6rt 
ytyyAffK^ty  Bwin  ofh*  ffptmr  otrtyds 
•ioi, 

*  Fr.  131,  ap.  Elias  Cret.  Ad 


i' 


104  SERACLEITUS. 

4.  Historical  position  and  importance  of  Heradeitus. 

The  Hera^cleiteans. 

Hebaclbitus  was  regarded  even  in  ancient  times  as 
one  of  the  most  important  of  the  Physicists.^  Plato 
especially,  who  had  received  so  many  pregnant  sugges- 
tions from  his  school,  marks  him  out  as  the  author  of 
one  of  the  chief  possible  theories  respecting  the  world 
and  knowledge — the  theory  which  is  most  directly 
opposed  to  the  Eleatic.^  This  is,  in  fact,  the  point  in 
which  we  have  principally  to  seek  this  philosopher's 
importance.  In  regard  to  the  explanation  of  particular 
phenomena,  he  has  done  nothing  which  can  be  compared 
with  the  mathematical  and  astronomical  discoveries  of 
the  Pythagoreans,  or  with  the  physical  enquiries  of 
Democritus  and  Diogenes;  and  his  ethical  doctrines, 
though  they  are  logically  connected  with  his  whole 
theory  of  the  universe,  in  themselves  are  merely  va^ie 
general  principles,  such  as  we  often  find  apart  from 
any  philosophical  system.  His  peculiar  merit  does  not 
lie  in  particular  enquiries,  but  in  the  setting  up  of 

Greg.  Nag,  or.  xxiii.  p.  S86:  pur^  i.  ll,  end),  he  also  named  them 

ffOfUur  cum  erttore  potUtuntur  non  &icco,  this  must  be  intended  ironi- 

seoua  ae  si  guis  in  itUum  ingressus  cally. 

,luto  ae  abUuU ;    so  ap.   ApoUon.  '  He  is  often  called  ^vauc6s; 

Tyan.  Ep,  27 :   M^   «i|^   inty^Jbr  the  absurd  smtement  of  Diodotns, 

KoBalp^w.    That   this    censure   is  the  grammarian,  ap.  Diog.  ix.  15, 

directed  not  merely  against  trust  that  his  work  was  not  re^y  about 

in  the  opus  opsnUum  of  the  offer-  nature,  but  about  the  state,  and 

ing  is  obYious.    The  offering  itself  that  the  physical   was    only    an 

is  called  vi|X5f ,  which  harmonises  example  for  the  political,  stands 

completely  with  Heracleitus's  say-  quite  alone, 
ing  about  corpses  (supra,  p.  79,  1).  ^  Ct.  the  writings  quoted  supra, 

If,  therefore  (Iambi.  De  Myster,  p.  11,  1 ;  18,  2  ;  26,  1 ;  33,  2. 


HISTORICAL  POSITION.  105 

iiniTersal  points  of  view  for  the  study  of  nature  as  a 
whole.  Heracleitus  is  the  first  philosopher  who  em- 
phalically  proclaimed  the  absolute  life  of  nature,  the 
ceaseless  change  of  matter,  the  yariability  and  transi- 
toriness  of  everything  individual ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  unchangeable  equality  of  general  relations, 
the  thought  of  an  unconditioned,  rational  law  governing 
the  whole  course  of  nature.  He  cannot,  therefore,  as 
before  observed,  be  considered  simply  as  an  adherent  of 
the  ancient  Ionian  physics,  but  as  the  author  of  a 
particular  tendency,  which  we  have  reason  to  suppose 
was  not  in  its  origin  independent  of  the  Ionic  school. 
He  shares,  indeed,  with  that  school  the  hylozoistic 
theory  of  a  primitive  matter,  which,  transforming  itself 
by  its  own  power,  produces  derived  things.  He  shares 
with  Anaximander  and  Anaximenes  the  theory  of  a 
periodical  destruction  and  construction  of  the  world. 
In  his  whole  conception  of  the  world  it  is  impossible  to 
misdoubt  the  influence  of  Anaximander;  for  while 
Heracleitus  makes  every  individual,  as  a  fleeting  phe- 
nomenon in  the  stream  of  natural  life,  emerge  and 
again  disappear,  Anaximander  regards  aU  individual 
existence  as  a  wrong  which  things  must  expiate  by  their 
destniction.  But  the  most  characteristic  and  important 
theories  of  Heracleitus  are  precisely  those  which  he 
cannot  have  borrowed  from  the  earlier  Ionian  philo- 
sophers. Not  one  of  those  philosophers  asserted  that 
nothing  in  the  world  has  permanence,  and  that  all 
Btthstances  and  all  individuals  are  involved  in  ceaseless, 
restless  change ;  not  one  of  them  declared  that  the  law 
of  the  world's  course,  the  world-ruling  reason,  is  the 


106  HERACLEITUS. 

only  thing  that  remains  in  the  mutation  of  things ;  not 
one  has  reduced  this  law  to  the  sundering  and  ooalescin^ 
of  opposites,  nor   determined   the   three   elementary 
bases ;  not  one  has  derived  the  totality  of  phenomena 
from  the  opposite  course  of  the  two  ways,  the  way 
upward  and  the  way  downward.    But  in  proportion  as 
in  all  this  Heracleitus  is  removed  from  his  Ionic  pre- 
decessors, so  does  he  approach  the  Pythagoreans  and 
Xenophanes.    The  Pythagoreans  maintain,  as  he  does, 
that  all  things  consist  of  opposites,  and  that,  therefore, 
all  is  harmony.    And  as  Heracleitus  recognises  no  per- 
manence in   things  except  the  relation   of  their  in- 
gredients, the  Pythagoreans,  though  Ihr  from  denying  a 
permanent  element  in  substances,  regard  mathematical 
form  as  their  substantial  essence.     Xenophanes  is  the 
tirst  philosophical    representative  of   the  Pantheism, 
which  also  imderlies  the  system  of  Heracleitus ;  and  in 
connection  with  this  his  propositions  in  regard  to  the 
thinking  nature  of  Deity,  which  is  at  the  same  time 
uniform  natural  force,  prepared  the  way  for  the  Hera- 
cleitean  doctrine  of  the  reason  of  the  world.     We  are 
further  reminded  of  the  Pythagoreans  by  Heracleitus's 
theories  on  the  life  of  the  soul  apart  from  the  body, 
and  by  his  ethical  and  political  principles ;  his  opinion 
of  the  sun  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of 
Xenophanes  concerning  the  stars.    If  we  compare  him 
with  the  later  Eleatics,  as  well  as  with  Xenophanes,  we 
find  that  Heracleitus  and  Parmenides,  starting  from 
opposite  presuppositions,  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion 
respecting  the   unconditional   superiority  of   rational 
cognition  over  sensuous  perception.     SSeno  overthrows 


HISTORICAL  POSITION,  107 

with  his  dialectic  the  ordinary  opinions  about  things, 
in  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  of  unity,  and  Hera- 
eleitus  applies  the  same  dialectic  in  an  objective  manner 
and  more  completely  to  the  things  themselves ;  for  by 
the  restless  transmutation   of  substances  the  original 
unity  re-establishes  itself  out  of  plurality  as  unceasingly, 
as   it    is   constantly   separating  into  pliu-ality.^     Con- 
sidering that  Pythagoras  and   Xenophanes   were  not 
unknown  to  Heracleitus,^  whose  doctrine,  on  the  other 
baud,  seems  to  have  been  mentioned  by  Epicharmus,' 
and  that  if  the  usually  received  chronology  be  correct, 
Pannenides  may  likewise  have  been  acquainted  with  it, 
there  is  ground  for  the  conjecture  that  Heracleitus  may 
have  been  influenced  in  his  philosophical  theories  by 
Pythagoras  and  Xenophanes,  and  may  in  his  turn  have 
influenced   Parmenides  and  the  later  Eleatic   school. 
The  first  of  these  suggestions  is  not  indeed  improbable, 
despite  the   severe  judgments   of  Heracleitus   on   his 
predecessors;    but  his    special   principle,   it  is   clear, 
cannot  have  been  taken  from  them,  and  the  proposi- 
tions in  which  we  find  traces  of  their  influence  stand 
with  Heracleitus  either  in  quite  a  different  connection, 
or  else  are  not  distinctive  enough  to  prove  any  actual 
dependence  of  his  philosophy  on  theirs.     The  unity  of 
Being  which,  with  the  Eleatics,  excludes  all  multiplicity 
and  change,  maintains  itself,  according  to  Heracleitus, 
precisely  in  the  ceaseless  change  and  constant  formation 
of  the  many  out  of  the  one ;  *  the  divine  reason  coin- 

*  Cf.  with  the  above  the  obier-  tion  of  Heracleitus  to  the  Eleatics. 

rations  of  H^l,  Gesch,  d.  Phil,  >  j9upm,Vol.l.p.336,5;dl0,4. 

i.  300  eq.  and  Branifls,  Geach.  d,  *  Siqfra,  Vol.  I.  p.  631. 

P^l.  a.  Kant.  i.  184,  on  the  rela-  ^  Xenophanes  did  not  deny  the 


108 


HERACLEITU8. 


cides  with  the  ordering  of  the  changing  phenomena. 
The  opposites,  which,  with  the  Pythagoreans,  were  some- 
thing derived,  are  represented  by  Heracleitus  as  first 
arising  from  the  transformation  of  primitive  matter. 
Harmony,  which  unites  what  is  opposed,  has  not  with 
him  a  specifically  musical  signification,  as  with  the 
Pythagoreans ;  nor,  finally,  do  we  find  in  him  a  trace 
of  their  theory  of  numbers.  Whether  he  borrowed 
from  them  his  theories  as  to  the  future  state,  it  is  difiS- 
cult  to  decide,  for  the  Pythagoreans  themselves  in  these 
theories  showed  much  affinity  with  the  Orphic  doctrines ; 
and  if  he  resembles  them  in  the  tendency  of  his  ethics 
and  politics,  the  resemblance  is  confined  to  general 
points  which  are  to  be  found  elsewhere  among  the 
friends  of  an  aristocractic  and  conservative  government, 
and  are  not  distinctive  traits  of  Pythagoreanism.  His 
well-known  doctrine  of  the  daily  extinction  of  the  sim 
is  too  consistent  with  his  other  opinions  to  allow  of  our 
attaching  decisive  importance  to  its  affinity  with  the 


multiplicity  and  variability  of 
things,  but  he  decidedly  excluded 
both  conceptions  from  the  primi- 
tive essence  or  Deity ;  whereas 
Heracleitus  describes  the  Deity 
as  fire  which  restlessly  passes  into 
the  most  various  forms.  Schuster 
(p.  229, 1)  thinks  it  probable,  and 
Teichmiiller  {K  Stud,  i.  127  sq.) 
undeniable,  that  he  said  this  ex- 
pressly in  opposition  to  Xeno- 
phanes.  This  appears  to  me 
possible,  but  by  no  means  certain ; 
for  the  proposition,  *  God  is  day 
and  niffht,*  &c.  (p.  38,  1)  is  not 
such  aairect  and  self-evident  con- 
tradiction to  the  "eTj  tfebj"  of 
Xenophanes;    nor   the   statement 


that  God  changes  Himself  into  all 
things,  to  the  negation  of  the 
movement  of  the  Deity  in  regard 
to  place  (Vol.  1. 560, 3),  that  neither 
can  be  explained  except  in  relation 
to  the  other.  Still  less,  however, 
can  I  agree  with  Schuster  (229,  1) 
that  Xenophanes  spoke  of  iJie  bai^ 
mony  to  be  sought  in  the  invisible, 
and  that  Heracleitus  opposed  him 
with  the  proposition  about  the 
visible  harmony,  first  because  we 
do  not  know  whether  Xenophanes 
said  what  Schuster  supposes,  and 
secondly,  becauso  we  do  know  that 
Heracleitus  did  not  say  what  is 
here  ascribed  to  him. 


HISTORICAL  POSITION. 


100 


notion  of  Xenophanes ;  though  that  affinity  is  certainly 

remarkable.     While,  therefore,  the  historical  connection 

of  Heracleitus  with  Pythagoras  and  Xenophanes  seems 

probable  enough,  it  is  difficult  to  make  this  probability 

a   certainty.     Still  more  uncertain  is  the  conjecture^ 

that  Parmenides,  in  his  polemic  against  ^  the  fools  who 

bold  Being  and  non-Being  to  be  same  and  at  the  same 

time  not  the  same,' '  was  alluding  to  Heracleitus.     In 

this  case  there  are  considerable  difficulties  as  to  the 

chronology ;  ^  besides,  the  Being  of  the  non-existent  was 

first  expressly  enunciated,  so  far  as  we  know,  not  by 

Heracleitus,  but  by  the  Atomists;  Parmenides  must, 

therefore,   have   borrowed   the  identity   of  Being  and 


*  Bema^,  Hhein,  Mus.  vii.  1 1 4 
sq.  and  Steuhart,  Hall.  A.  Litera- 
turz.  1848,  NoTbT.  p.  892  sq. ; 
Plaitnes  Werke,  iii.  394,  8  ;  Kern, 
Xenoph.  14 ;  Schuster,  p.  34  sqq. 
236. 

«  V.  46  sqq.  supra.  Vol.  I.  689. 

*  It  has  been  shown,  p.  1,  2, 
that  Heracleittis*8  work  was  in  all 
probability  not  composed  before 
478  B.a  That  of  Parmeiiides  can 
searoely  be  later;  indeed,  it  is 
mrst  likely,  rather  earlier.  Even 
aceordiDg  to  Plato's  reckoning, 
Zeso,  who  in  464-2  b.c.  was  forty 
years  old,  had  in  his  youth  (there- 
fore probably  about  470-466  b.c.) 
defended  his  master  irpbf  rvhs  itri- 
X*tpovrrtu  €sbrhp  KWfi^7»;  the 
work  of  Parmenides  must  conse- 
quently be  placed  some  years 
earlier;  and  as  Plato  certainly 
does  not  represent  Parmenides  as 
older, and  most  likely  much  younger 
than  he  really  was  (cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  681 
■q.),  we  thus  approach  very  nearly 
the  date  of  Heracleitu8*s  work.  The 


same  inference  may  be  drawn  irom 
the  verses  of  Epicharmus,  ap.  Diog.  ' 
iii.  9(«fp.  VoL  I.  p.  630, 1),  in  which 
be  makes  the  representative  of  the 
Eleatic  philosophy  say :  iifjidxay6y 
y*  Air'  ofkivos  tlfuy  8  ti  vparoy 
fA6\oi.  This  argument  against  ab- 
solute Becoming  is  not  mentioned 
by  Xenophanes;  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  expressly  brought  for- 
ward by  Parmenides,  v.  62  sq.  {sup. 
Vol.  I.  p.  686, 8).  If,  then,  Epichar- 
mus borrowed  it  from  Parmenides, 
and  consequently  was  in  possession 
of  Parmenides'  poem,  it  is  not  ab- 
solutely impossible,  though  not 
venr  probable,  that  this  poem  it- 
self may  have  contained  allusions 
t-o  the  work  of  Heracleitus,  which 
Epicharmus  was  using  at  the  same 
time.  It  is  still  more  improbable, 
however,  that  Parmenides  should 
have  first  formed  his  theory,  the 
premises  of  which  had  been  fully 
given  him  by  Xenophsnes,  in  his 
maturity,  under  the  influence  of 
Heracleitus's  work. 


110 


HERACLEITUS. 


non-Being  from  his  opponents ;  his  description  of  these 
opponents,  however,  applies  rather  to  the  mass  of  man- 
kind with  their  uncritical  reliance  on  sensible  appear- 
ance, than  to  a  philosopher  who,  in  marked  opposition  to 
them,  denied  the  truth  of  sensuous  perceptions.'    If  it 


'  I  hare  retained  the  above 
from  the  previous  edition,  essen- 
tiallj  unaltered,  because  Schuster 
has  not  convinced  me  of  the  oppo- 
site theory  by  his  defence,  which 
has  meanwhile  appeared.  For  we 
find,  it  seems  to  me,  neither  in  the 
opinions  nor  expressions  of  Par- 
menides  such  points  of  contact 
with  Heracleitus  as  would  warrant 
our  supposing  that  he  refers  to 
this  latter  philosopher.  Parmeni- 
des  opposes  those  oTf  r^  ir^Xcty  re 
Kol  obK  cTmu  T9Jb76v  ¥w6tuffrtu.  But 
Heracleitus,  as  has  been  already 
shown,  never  said  that  Being  and 
Non-Being  were  the  same ;  even 
his  ^yiiy  re  koI  oIk  tJntv  has  not 
tiiis  sense  (cf.  p.  1 1 ,  2),  nor  is  it 
contained  in  the  Aristotelian  asser- 
tion that  he  held  good  and  evil  to 
be  the  same  (quoted  by  Schuster). 
Setting  aside  the  question  of  the 
accuracy  of  this  assertion  (cf.  p. 
36  sq.),  it  is  quite  different  whether 
we  say  good  and  evil  (both  of  which 
belong  to  Being)  are  the  same; 
and  Being  and  Non-Being  are  so. 
This  formula  was  first  introduced 
by  Parmenides  in  order  to  express 
the  contradiction  in  which  the  mode 
of  conception  he  was  combating 
resulted.  But  if  we  enquire  what 
this  mode  of  conception  was,  he 
points  himself  (v.  37,  45  sqq.,  75 
sq.,  cf.  wipra.  Vol.  1. 584. 1 ;  585, 4) 
to  those  who  held  (1)  a  Non-Being, 
and  (2)  a  genesis  and  decay.  Par- 
menides might  certainly  have  ex- 
tended his  censure  to  Heracleitus*s 
doctrine,  as,  on  the  other  hand,  he 


was  included  by  Heradeitus  among 
those  who  do  not  understand  what 
is  before  their  eyes  (mpra,  p.  7,  2), 
to  whom  the  ever-living  fire  has 
become  dead  and  rigid  (p.  89,  1), 
but  there  is  nothing  in  prove  that 
Parmenides,  in  what  he  said,  spe- 
cially alluded  to  Heracleitus.  He 
describes  his  adversaries  (A  c.)  as 
Hxpira  ^v\a,  as  people  who  lived  as 
if  they  were  blind  and  deaf;  and 
warns  them  against  trusting  more 
to  their  eyes  and  ears  than  to  the 
\6yof ;  a  description  which  indeed 
applies  to  the  sensualists,  among 
whom  Schuster  reckons  Herael«Htus, 
but  not  to  a  philosopher  who  so 
entirely  agrees  with  Parmenides  in 
his  depreciation  of  sense  compared 
with  reason,  and  even  expresses 
this  conviction  in  the  same  way  as 
Heracleitus  actually  did  {supra, 
p.  87  sq.  cf.  Vol.  L  585,  591). 
That  Parmenides  in  the  second 
part  of  his  poem  represented  '  fire 
and  night  on  earth  as  the  ultimate 
opposites  exactly  in  the  manner  of 
Heracleitus,'  I  cannot  discover. 
Parmenides  has  here  two  elemente, 
the  light  and  the  dark,  which  he 
also  named  fire  and  earth :  with 
Heracleitus  these  two  are  only  the 
'ultimate  opposites'  among  his 
three,  or,  according  to  Schuster, 
four  elemental  forms:  water,  as 
the  bond  between  them,  is  not 
less  essential.  When  Parmenides 
therefore,  in  his  exposition  of  the 
96^eu  ^p4$T€u>l  (supra,  Vol.  I.  592,  3  ; 
595,  2),  speaks  only  of  two  fiOf^^at, 
from  which  all  things  are  to  be  ex- 


HISTORICAL  POSITION. 


Ill 


be  supposed,  on  the  other  hand,  that  in  this  denial  of 
the  knowledge  derived  from  sense,  Parmenides  is  fol- 
lowing Heracleitus,  we  must  remember  that  the  polemic 
of  these  two  philosophers  had  an  entirely  different 
significance.  Parmenides  mistrusts  the  senses  because 
they  show  us  multiplicity  and  change;  Heracleitus 
mistrusts  them  because  they  show  us  permanence  in 
individual  things.  It  is  not  probable,  therefore,  that 
Parmenides  was  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  Hera- 


pLuned,  withont  ever  mendoniBg  a 
third ;  and  wheo,  moreoyer,  he  de- 
.signates  these  in  the  flrat  series,  not 
as  fire  and  earth,  but  as  light  and 
dark,  this  does  not  warrant  the 
snpposition  that  he  w&s  thinking 
espeetallj  of  Heracleitus's  three 
elemental  forms.  If  he  alladed 
to  any  particular  system,  it  is 
far  more  likely  to  have  been  that 
of  the  ^hagoreans,  traces  of 
which  (VoL  I.  p.  697,  2)  so  clearly 
appear  in  his  cosmology,  and  to 
wluch,  eTen  before  the  table  of 
the  ten  contradictions  was  framed, 
the  obTions  contrast  of  light  and 
darkness  was  not  unknown.  From 
this  system  alone  is  derived  the 
9aifjmp  ti  irdpra  Kvfitpif^  (cf.  Vol.  I.  p. 
595,  2 ;  000  sq.);  Schuster  reminds 
us  instead  of  Heradeitus's  yv^iiiiy 
^9  otn  Kvfiepiniffai  irdma  (swpra^  p. 
42,  2) ;  but  the  similarity  here  lies 
only  in  the  words  vdrra  Kv$€pvfw, 
and  proves  very  little,  as  we  find  the 
same  expression  in  Anazimander 
{9upra,Y6L  I.  248,  1),  and  later  in 
Diogenes  (Vol.  I.  287,  7),  whereas 
the  most  characteristic  trait  of  Fbr- 
menldes's  representation,  that  the 
Zaifuw^  like  the  Pytha^rean  ktrrla 
{supra,  VoL  I.  450,  l\  is  enthroned 
in  the  centre  of  all  the  spheres, 
has  no  parallel  in  Heracleitus. 
The  resemblance  also  between  the 


raXivrpowos  K4\fv$os  of  Parm.  (v. 
61,  Vol.  1. 584),  and  the  vdKlrrp(nr9S 
apfjMvla  of  Heracleitus  (supra,  p, 
33,  3),  even  if  the  true  reading  of 
the  latter  be  not  iraXivrovos,  de- 
pends merely  on  the  use  in  both 
cases  of  the  word  «a\£vT^oiros,  an 
expression  that  is  not  Teiy  uncom- 
mon. The  meaning,  however,  of 
the  expression  is  not  in  each  case 
the  same ;  with  Heracleitus  *  bent 
backwards  *  or  *  ttiming  again '  de- 
scribes that  which  returns  out  of 
Opposition  into  Unity;  with  Par- 
menides that  which  comes  into  op- 
position with  itself  in  passing  from 
Its  original  direction  into  the  con- 
trary. Still  less  results  from  the 
fact  that  Heracleitus  once  (p.  32, 1) 
says :  c28^ku  xph  f^*^  v6x§fioy,  &c. ; 
and  Parm.  (v.  37,  Vol.  I.  p.  684,  1) 
&s  xp^^v  ^^^*-  M  cl*^  (&iid V.  114, 
Vol.  I.  592,  3)  r&v  /dw  oif  xpcc^c 
iffri ;  for  the  assertion  that  there 
must  be  a  non-Being  is  not  iden- 
tical with  the  assertion  that  there 
must  be  strife;  what  Heracleitus 
says  is  not  alluded  to  in  the  turn 
given  to  the  thought  by  Parmenides, 
and  which  is  peculiar  to  himself; 
and  the  use  of  so  iuevitable  a  word 
as  xp^t  ^or  which  Parmenides  sub- 
stitutes XP^^"  ^^'''^  cannot  be  said 
to  prove  anything. 


112  HERACLEITU8, 

cleitus  or  took  account  of  it  in  the  establishment  of 
his  system. 

But  even  if  it  be  impossible  to  prove  with  certainty 
the  immediate  relation  of  Heracleitus  to  the  Pytha- 
gorean and  Eleatic  schools,  the  historical  position  and 
importance  of  his  doctrine  remain  unaltered,  whether 
he  was  moved  by  his  predecessors  to  oppose  their  theories, 
or  whether,  in  his  own  study  of  things,  he  chose  to 
adopt  the  pdint  of  view  which  they  least  regarded,  and 
which  in  the  later  development  of  the  Eleatic  system 
was  expressly  denied.  Whereas  in  the  Eleatic  doctrine 
of  the  One,  the  ancient  enquiry  directed  chiefly  to  the 
primitive  substantial  ground  of  things  reached  its 
climax,  in  Heracleitus  this  tendency  was  opposed  by 
the  decided  conviction  of  the  absolute  vitality  of  nature, 
and  the  continual  change  of  material  substance,  which, 
as  the  world-forming  power  and  the  law  of  formation 
inherent  in  it,  seems  to  constitute  the  only  permanent 
element  in  the  mutability  of  phenomena.  But  if  every- 
thing is  subject  to  Becoming,  philosophy  cannot  escape 
the  obligation  to  explain  Becoming  and  change.  Con- 
sequently, Heracleitus  proposes  a  new  problem  to  philo- 
sophy. Instead  of  the  question  concerning  the  substance 
of  which  things  consist,  prominence  is  given  to  the 
enquiry  as  to  the  causes  from  which  arise  generation, 
decay,  and  change,  and  in  devoting  supreme  attention 
to  this  enquiry,  the  pre-Socratic  physical  philosophy 
changes  its  whole  character.*     Heracleitus  himself  an- 

.  1  Striimpell,    Gesch.  d.    Tkeor.  that  the  transition  was  irom  him 

Phil,  dl  Gt.  p.  40,  inverts  this  re-  to  them.      The  changefnlness  of 

lation ;  he  makes  out  that  Hera-  nature  (he  remarks)  which    He- 

cleitus  preceded  the  Eleatics,  and  racleitus  had    taught,    compelled 


THE  HERACLEITEANS.  113 

si^ered   this  question   very   incompletely.     He   shows, 
indeed,  that  all  things  are  involved  in  perpetual  change; 
he  deBnes  this  change  more  accurately  as  a  development 
and  union  of  opposites;   he  describes  the  elemental 
forms  which  it  assumes ;  but  if  we  ask  why  everything 
is  subject  to  Becoming,  and  permanent  Being  is  nowhere- 
to  be  found,  his  only  answer  is:   because  all  is  fire. 
This,  however,  is  in  reality  only  another  expression  for 
the  absolute  mutability  of  things ;  it  does  not  explain 
how  it  happens  that  fire  changes  into  moisture,  and 
moisture  into  earth ;  why  the  primitive  matter  exchanges 
its  originally  fiery  nature  for  other  forms.     Even  the 
later  adherents  of  the  Heracleitean  doctrine  seem  to 
have  done  almost  nothing  in  this  direction,  or  for  the 
scientific  establishment   and  methodical  development 
of  their   views.     The  school   of   Heracleitus   appears, 
indeed,  to  have  maintained  its  existence  long  after  the 
death  of  its  founder.     Plato  tells  us  that  about  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourth  century  it  boasted  considerable 
numbers  in  Ionia,  and  especially  in  Ephesus ;  *  he  him- 
self had  been   instructed  in  Athens   by  Cratylus  the 
Heracleitean,^  and  a  generation  before,  Pythagoras  had 

tboaght  to  say  of  e^ery  individual  concerned  with  the  explanation  of 

thing  that  it  was  not ;  this  change-  Becoming»l  consider  this  exposition 

ful  nature  then  was  entirely  aban-  as  incorrect, 

dooed  by  the  Eleatics  as  an  object  *  Theat.  179  D  (with  reference 

of  knowledge,  and  knowledge  was  to  the  ^€pofi4ini  oMa  of  Heraclei- 

exclosirely   directed   to  the  exis-  tus):   fidxn  ^  oZv  trtpX  ahrr^s   ov 

tent    But  since  the  founder  of  the  ^aifAi}  o^5*  hKlyois  y4yovfy.0E.OA, 

Eleatic  school  is  older  than  He-  roXXov  koI  Se?  4>av\ri   tJyat,   &AA& 

raeleitus,  and  since  the  Eleatic  doc-  ircpl   fiiy  r^v  *luviay  koI  iirMBaa't 

trine  in  its  whole  tendency  appears  vct/AwoXu.   of  yhp    rod    'HpoKkfirov 

as  the  completion  of  the   earlier  iralpoi  x^p^ovo'c  ro6rov  rov  \6yov 

phjrsics,  and  the  doctrine  oi  He*  fiaXa  ifpafitvus,    Cf.  inf.  p.  114,  3. 

nu!leitus  as  the  commencement  of  '  Arist.  Metaph,  i.  6 ;  cf.  Part 

the  latex  physics,  which  was  chiefly  n.  a,  344,  5.    According  to  Plato, 

TOL.  II.  I 


114  THE  HERACLE1TEAN8, 

supported  his  sceptical  theories  by  propositions  from 
Heracleitus.'  To  Gratylus  we  may  perhaps  refer  those 
traces  of  Heracleitean  influences  which  are  evident  in 
the  writings  erroneously  ascribed  to  Hippocrates.'  But 
the  little  that  we  know  of  these  later  Heracleiteans  is 
not  calculated  to  give  us  a  very  high  idea  of  their 
scientific  attainments.  Plato,  indeed,  cannot  find  words 
to  describe  their  fanatical  unmethodical  procedure,  and 
the  restless  haste  vnih  which  they  hurried  from  one 
thing  to  another ;  their  self-satisfaction  with  their 
oracular  sayings,  the  vain  confidence  in  their  own 
teaching  and  contempt  for  aU  others,  which  were 
characteristic  of  this  school.'  He  makes  merry  in  the 
Cratylus  over  the  groundless  nature  of  the  etymologies 
in  which  the  disciples  of  Heracleitus  exaggerated  the 
practice  of  playing  upon  words;  and  Aristotle  relates 

Crat.  440  D,  429  D,  Cratylus  was  cvyypdfifiara  ^ipovrax,  rh  8*  iwifUi- 

rnuch  younger  than  Socrates ;  he  yai  M  X^Ty  ica2  iptrrfifwrt  ical  ^tfv- 

is  described  {ibid.  429  E ;  cf.  440  x^"*    ^^    M^P**     hwoKpivturBojL    kvI 

£)  as  an  Atheniao,  and  liis  father's  ipMu  lirroy  ctt/rois  tvi  ^  rh  fitfiir 

naniA  is  said  to  have  been  Smik-  fuiKXov  8i  ^rcpiSdXXct  rh  ohK  ohZU 

rion.    Another  Heracleitean,  calif d  irphs  rh  it,tfi\  a/iiiephw  ^ycu«i  roTs 

Antisthenes,    is    also    mentioned  dySpio-tr  riavxica'  &XA.*  &r  ripd  n 

(Diog.  vi.  10);  who,  as  it  would  fpp^  Atnc^p  ix  ^apirgns  ^tupriciua 

seem,  and  not  the  Cynic,  was  the  aXvtyiiMrd^  hvwnruvr^s  AtptoIc^v- 

person  who  commentated  on  Hera-  irt,  fc&r  roirov  (nrft  \6yotf  Xa^«iK, 

cleitus'swork(Diog.ix.  15);  butwe  ri  rfpijwK,  Wpy  ireirX^(ci  xtuyus 

know  nothing  further  about  him.  fi,truyofuurti4»^,  irtpav^is  8^  ovSctotc 

*  Inf,  chapter  on  the  Sophistic  ov8^y  rphs  obB4va  ainAir  oM  y* 

theory  of  knowledge.  ^kcTkoi  aindi  irpbs  &A.X^A.ovs,  &XA'  €? 

'  Besides  the  treatise  t.  Hicdrris  irimi  (fivKdrrowri  rh  foiikv  fiifiaiov 

spoken  of,  sup.  p.  69  sq. ;  15,   I,  i^v  tlvai  fiirr'  iif  Kiy^  fi'fr^  ip  reus 

we  should  mention  irepl  rpo^s,  cf.  a^&y  ^vxais.     And  again :    ov8^ 

Bernays,  Heraclit.  Br,  145  sq.  ylyrtreu  rmv  roio^wv  mpos  kripov 

"  ThMt,  179  E:  ical  y^  .  .  .  ^lo^^f,  &A A' a&T^/iaroi  iyo^vorroi 

ircpl  ro^frm^  rm  *HpaicXciTe(«K  .  .  .  &ir6$sy  &y  r^x?  ^ko^tos  air»¥  iv- 

tUnois  fi^y  ro7s  irepl   r^y  "l^tvoy  Bowridtras   iral  rhy  h-tpoy   6  Srcpas 

8<roi    Tpoawoiovvrat    ffiwtipoi    ttyai  oi9^y    ^ycrroi    clScfcu.      Cf.    Crai' 

ob^^y  fiSiWov  oT6y  rt  8ia\rx^>'cu  ^  S84  A :  r^y  Kpar^Kov  fjMfrtlay, 
rtus  •lffrp&<riy,  &TCxW»r  yitp  Kordt  rck 


HERACLEITUS  AND  ZOROASTER.  116 

that  Cratylus  blamed  Heracleitus  for  not  having  ex- 
pressed with  sufficient  clearness  the  changeableness  of 
things ;  at  last  indeed,  he  did  not  venture  to  express 
an  opinion  on  any  subject,  because  every  proposition 
contains  an  assertion  concerning  a  Being.*  If,  never- 
theless, the  school  of  Heracleitus  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century  not  only  had  adherents  in  its  original 
home,  but  also  in  other  places,  this  is  certainly  a  sign  of 
its  historical  importance ;  but  the  Heracleitean  doctrine 
itself  does  not  seem  to  have  been  further  developed  in 
the  school.  The  philosophers  who  had  also  learned 
something  from  his  contemporary,  Parmenides,  were  the 
first  to  attempt  a  more  accurate  explanation  of  Be- 
coming, which  Heracleitus  had  made  the  ground  idea 
of  his  system.  Those  who  must  next  be  mentioned  in 
this  connection  are,  as  before  observed,  Empedocles  and 
the  Atomists.' 

>  Ariiit.  Mdaph,  ir.  5,  1010  a,  1840),  that  Heracleitus  was  a  dis- 

10:  ^K  T^p  Tovn^f  t^s  ^hroX^ifrcvs  eiple  of  the  Zoroastrian  doctrine. 

^Invhivtv  ii  iMpordrn  i6^a  rmv  cipii-  In  my  criticism  I  must  confine  my 

/Uftwr,  ^  T&y  ^affK6vrm¥  ^pakKtirir-  self  to  the  principal  points.     Gla- 

Ccu',  iral  oTov  Kpar^Xof  cTxc*',  ^i  "rh  disch  believes  (Heract.  u.  Zar,  Eel, 

TtKtvToioy  ov6^v  tpero  Zuv  \iy€iu,  u.  PhU.  p.  139  sqq. ;  cf.  23  sqq.) 

iXXa  rhy  S^bcrvAoy  ixlifti  fUvov,  Kal  that  the  systems  of  Heracleitus  and 

'Hp«uc\c{Ty  hrtjifia  tMrri  trt  81}  r^  Zoroaster  are  one  and  the  same. 

ovry  Torofi^   oitK   iffriv    ifififi¥af  But  even  in  their  fundamental  con- 

writ  yiip  qtero    ovS*  Sira(.     The  ceptions  they  are   very  different. 

same  is  repeated  -without  any  ad-  The  one  is  pure  daalism,  the  other 

dition  in  Alex,  in  h.  L  ;   Philop.  hylozoistic  Pantheism ;  the  Persian 

^hol.  w  At.  35,  a,  33 ;  Olympio-  doctrine  has  two  original  beings, 

dortis,  ibid,  one  good  and  the  other  evil ;  and 

'  We  can  only  mention  by  way  that  this    dualism  arose  at  first 

of  appendix  (for  it  is  scarcely  in-  through  a  metamorphosis  of  the 

eluded  in  the  subject  matter  of  our  primitive  essence  ^m  its  primitive 

history)  the  opinion  recently  ex-  Being  into  the  Being  of  another 

pressed  by  Gladisch  {sup.  Vol.  I.  34  (*  eine  Umwandlung  de$   Urweaetu 

9f{(\.\  and  previously  by  Greuzer  aus  snnem  Uraem  in  Jndensein ') 

(SpiboUk  und  Mifthol.  ii.  196,  198  is  an    assumption  which    contra- 

Bq.  2  ed.  p.  695  sqq.,  601  sqq.  ed.  dict«  the  most  authentic  accounts, 

I  % 


116 


HERACLEITUS  AND  ZOROASTER, 


and  can  only  be  supported,  and 
that  but  imperfectly,  by  some  later 
and  nntmstworthy  indications. 
Heradeitus,  on  the  oontrazy,  main- 
rains  the  nnity  of  the  world,  and 
the  power  that  mores  the  world, 
as  strongly  as  any  of  the  philoso- 
phers ;  the  opposites  with  him 
are  not  original  and  permanent, 
bnt  the  original  element  is  the 
uniform  essence  which,  in  its  de- 
velopment, puts  forth  the  most  op- 
posite forms  of  Being,  and  again 
receives  them  into  itself.  The 
Persian  system  remains  fixed,  even 
in  the  opposition  of  good  and  evil, 
of  light  and  darkness,  as  a  final 
and  absolute  opposition  ;  Ahriman 
and  his  kingdom  are  simply  that 
which  ought  not  to  be,  and  which 
(cf.  Schuster,  225,  3)  has  only  in 
the  process  of  time  intermeddled 
with  the  world :  wherens  with 
Heradeitus  strife  is  the  necessary 
condition  of  existence ;  even  evil  is 
a  good  for  the  Deity,  and  a  world 
of  light  alone,  without  shadows, 
such  as  forms  the  beginning  and 
end  of  the  Zoroastrian  cosmology, 
is  entirely  unthinkable;  for  this 
very  reason,  however,  the  opposi- 
tion is  continually  resolving  itself 
into  the  harmony  of  the  universal 
whole.  There  is  much  more  re- 
semblance to  the  Persian  dualism 
in  that  of  Empedocles  and  the  Py- 
thagoreans than  in  the  system  of 
Heracleitus.  Heracleitu8*s  chief 
doctrine  of  the  flux  of  all  things  is 
entirely  absent  from  the  Zoroas- 
trian theology ;  and,  therefore,  the 
worship  of  fire  common  to  both  has 
in  each  case  a  different  import. 
The  Persian  religion  in  regard  to 
light  and  warmth  dwells'mostly  on 
their  happy  and  beneficent  influ- 
ence on  man;  with  Heracleitus, 
fire  is  the  cause  and  symbol  of  the 
universal  life   of  nature— of   the 


change  to  which  all  things  an  sub- 
ject ;  it  is  the  natural  force  which 
produces  what  is  destructive,  ss 
well  as  what  is  beneficial  to  man. 
The  Persian  doctrine  contains  no- 
thing of  the  transmutation  of  the 
elements,  nor  of  the  alternate  for- 
mation and  destmction  of  the 
world;  for  what  Gladisch  quotes 
{Rel  ti.  Phil.  27;  Her,  «.  Zor.  38 
sq.)  from  Dio  Ghrysoet.  Or.  xxxvi. 
p.  02  sqq.  R.  is  evidently  a  later 
interpretation,  by  which  an  in- 
sipid allegorical  representation  of 
the  Stoic  cosmology  is  made  out 
of  the  ancient  Persian  chariot  of 
Ormusd  (on  which  cf.  Herod,  vii. 
40),  and  the  steed  of  the  sun. 
Neither  is  there  any  mention  of 
Heracleitus*s  theory  of  the  sun, 
which,  though  so  characteristic  of 
him,  would  be  absolutely  out  of 
place ;  nor  of  the  Heracleitean  an- 
thropology, for  the  belief  in  the 
Fravashis,  to  which  Gladisch  refers, 
has  hardly  even  a  distant  analogy 
with  it.  It  has  already  been  sairt, 
p.  6,  that  tbere  is  no  reason  for  bring- 
ing the  Logos  of  Heracleitus  into 
connection  with  the  word  Honover. 
as  Lassalle  does.  That  Heradei- 
tus, '  as  to  his  political  opinions,  was 
a  Zoroastrian  monarchist'  is  a  more 
than  hazardous  assertion :  his  own 
utterances  show  him  to  have  been 
aristocratic  and  conservative,  but 
at  the  same  time  thoroughly  Greek 
in  his  temperament,  and  he  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  have  declined  an 
invitation  to  the  Persian  court. 
Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  of 
no  avail  to  prove  that  Heracleitn^t 
called  strife  the  ffither  of  all 
things,  when  we  know  that  strife 
with  him  had  quite  another  mean- 
ing from  the  confiict  of  good  and 
evil  in  the  Zoroastrian  religion ; 
that  he  made  fire  the  primitive 
essence,  when  by  fire  he  did  not 


EMPED0CLE8. 


117 


I.  EMPEDOCLES  AND   THE  ATOMISTS. 


A.   EMFEDOGIiGS. 


1 .  His  universal  hoses  of  the  Physics  ofEmpedocles — Oeneraiion 
and  Decay — Primitive  Substances  and  Moving  Forces. 

Hebacleitus  had  deprived  substance  of  all  permanence; 
Pannenides,  on  the  contrary,  had  denied  generation  and 


intend  to  express  vh&t  the  Persians 
did  in  ascribing  the  nature  of  light 
to  pore  spirits ;  that  he  had  a  horror 
of  corpses  (a  feeling  very  natural 
to  man) ;  that  he  is  said  by  a  tra- 
dition to  hare  been  torn  to  pieces 
b^  dogs,  which  is  something  quite 
difltoent  from  having  a  Persian 
fnneral  assigoed  to  him.  which  could 
nerer  have  been  carried  out  in  a 
man's  lifetime ;  that  he  blames  the 
adoration  of  images,  which  is  cen- 
sored by  Xenophanes  and  others, 
and  was  unknown  to  the  ancient 
Bomans  and  to  the  Germans; 
chat  he  demanded  knowledge  of 
truth,  and  was  an  enemy  oi  false- 
hood, which  a  philosopher  certainly 
did  noc  require  to  learn  from  fo- 
reign priests.  Even  supposing  there 
existed  many  more  uf  such  simi- 
larities, we  could  not  infer  from 
them  any  real  historical  interde- 
pendencv ;  and  if  Heracleitus  was 
acquainted  with  the  religious  doc- 
trine of  the  Persians  (which  in  it- 
belf  is  quite  credible)*  there  are  no 
signs  of  its  having  exercised  any 
decisire  influence  on  his  system. 

.  *  On  the  life,  writings,  and 
doctrine  of  Empedodes,  cf.  be- 
sides the  more  comprehensive 
works : —  Sturz,  EmpedocUs  Agrig. 
LpK.  1805,  where  the  materials  are 
very  carefully  collected ;  Earsten, 

Kmpedoclis  Agr.  Carm.  Bel.  Amst. 


1838 ;  Stein,  Empedoclu  Agr.  Frag- 
menta,  Bonn,  1842;  Steinhart,  in 
Erseh  und  GrUbers  Alig.  EneyJd. 
sect.  i.  vol  34,  p.  83  sqq.  Eitter, 
on  the  philosophy  of  Einpedocles, 
in  Wolfs  Liierar.  Analekten,  B.  ii. 
(1820),  H.  4,  p.  411  sqq. ;  Krische, 
Forach.  i.  116  sqq.;  Panzerbieter. 
Beitrdge  s.  Kritik  u.  Erldut.  d. 
Emp.  Mein.  1844;  Zeitsckr.  f. 
AUerthumsw,  1845,  883  sqq.; 
Beigk,  Be  Prooem.  Empedoiflis, 
Berl.  1839;  Mulhich,  Be  Emp. 
Proomio,  Berl.  1860 ;  Quasi.  En^ 
pedoclearum  Spec.  Secund  Jhid. 
1862;  Philosoph.  Gr.  Fragm.  i. 
xiv.  sqq.,  16  sqq. :  Lommatzsch,  Bie 
WeisheU  d  En^.  Berl.  1830.  The 
last  must  be  U6ed  with  great  cau- 
tion :  Baynaud,  Be  Empedocle^ 
Strassb.  1848,  only  gives  what  is 
well  known ;  even  the  work  of 
Gladisch  mentioned  Vol.  I.  p.  34,  in 
regard  to  Empedocles,  keeps  almost 
entirely  to  Karsten.  There  are 
also  some  dissertations  in  Ueber- 
weg,  Gru7idr.  i.  §  23. 

Agrigentum,  according  to  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  cur  au- 
thorities, was  the  native  city  of 
Empedocles.  The  period  of  his 
activity  coincides  almost  exactly 
with  the  second  year  of  the  fifth 
caniuiy,  but  the  more  particular 
statements  are  uncertain  and 
various.    Diog.  viii.  74,  places  his 


118 


EMPEDOCLES, 


decay,  motion  and  change;  Empedocles  strikes  out  a 
middle  course.     He  maintains,  on  the  one  hand  with 


prime  (flocordinflT  to  Apollodorus) 
in  the  S4th  Olympiad  (444-440 
B.C.).  Euseb.  Chrcn.  in  01.  81,  and 
also  in  01.  86,  therefore,  either 
456-452  B.C.  or  486-482  b.c.  Syn- 
cellua,  p.  254  G,  adopts  the  earlier 
date;  Gellius.  zvii.  21,  13  sq., 
mentioDfi  the  date  of  the  Roman 
Decemviri  (460  B.C.),  but,  at  the 
same  time,  that  of  the  battle  of 
Cremera  (476  B.C.).  The  state- 
ment of  l)iogene8  is  doubtless 
based  (as  Diels  sho-ws,  Rkein,  Mus, 
zxxi.  37  sq.)  on  that  of  Qlaucus, 
which  he  quotes,  viii.  52,  from 
Apollodorus,  viz.,  that  Empedocles 
\nsited  Thurii  immediately  after 
the  founding  of  that  city  (01.  83-4), 
which,  however,  leaves  a  wide 
margin,  as  it  is  not  stated  how  old 
he  was  at  the  time.  According  to 
Arist.  Metaph,  i.  3,  984  a,  11,  ho 
was  yoonger  than  Anaxagoras; 
but  on  the  other  hand,  Simplicius 
says  in  Phi/s.  6  b,  he  was  oh  voX^ 
KorAwty  rod  'Ayaiay6pov  y^yovAi. 
The  statement  that  he  joined  in 
the  war  of  the  Syracusans  against 
Athens  (415  b.c.)  is  contradicted 
by  Apoll.  loc  cit.  (Steinhart,  p.  86, 
and  i)iels  thinks  it  must  be  the 
war  of  425  b.c,  to  which,  however, 
according  to  Apollodoru8*s  calcula- 
tion, the  objection  that  he  must 
then  have  been  dead,  or  Iw^pytyn- 
fwcift,  is  less  applicable).  His  age 
at  his  death  is  given  by  Aristotle 
av.  Diog.  viii.  52,  78  (and  perhaps 
also  by  Heradeides,  cf.  p.  3,  fi.),  as 
60 ;  Favorinus  ap.  Bioff,  viii.  73, 
who  gives  it  as  77,  is  a  much 
less  trustworthy  testimony.  The 
Aatement  (ibid.  74)  that  he  lived 
to  the  age  of  109,  confVtses  him 
with  Gorgias.      His    life    would, 


thnrefore,  fall  between  484  and 
424  B.C.  if,  with  Diels,  we  follow 
Apollodorus.  But  it  seems  to  me 
safer  to  place  the  beginning  and 
end  of  his  existence  8  or  10  years 
earlier,  first  because  Empedocles, 
according  to  Alcidamas  ap.  Diog. 
viii.  56,  attended  the  instructions 
of  Farmenides  contemporaneously 
with  2ieno;  next,  because  the  ov 
woKb  of  Simplicius  can  hardly 
mean  so  long  a  period  as  16  years ; 
and  lastly  (cf.  vol.  i.  636  and  nt/. 
Anax.),  because  Empedocles  seems 
to  have  been  already  referred  to 
by  Melissus  and  Anaxagoras.  We 
have  little  more  certain  informa- 
tion concerning  him.  He  came  of 
a  rich  and  noble  family  (cf.  Diog. 
viii.  51-53;  also  Karsten,  p.  5 
sqq).  His  grandfather  of  the 
same  name  in  the  71st  Olympia^l 
had  gained  the  prize  at  Olympia 
with  a  foup-horse  chariot  (Diog. 
I.  c.  after  Apollodorus,  as  Diels 
shows),  which  is  attributed  to  the 
philosopher  by  Athen.  i.  3  e,  fol- 
lowing Favorinus  (ap.  Diog.  I.  c), 
and  according  to  Diogenes,  also  by 
Satyrus  and  his  epitomiser,  Hera- 
deides. His  father  Meton  (so 
almost  all  the  accounts  call  him — 
for  other  statements  vide  Kareten, 
p.  3  sq.)  seems  to  have  assisted  in 
the  ejection  of  the  tyrant  Thrasi- 
dseus  and  the  introduction  of  a 
democratic  government,  in  the 
year  470  b.c.  (Diod.  xi.  63).  and  to 
have  been  subsequently  one  of  the 
most  influential  men  in  the  city 
(vide  Diog.  viii.  72).  After  Meton's 
death,  when  the  ancient  aristocratic 
institutions  had  been  restored,  and 
there  were  attempts  at  a  tyranny, 
Empedocles,  not  without  severity, 


HIS  LIFE, 


119 


Parmenides,  that  Becoming  and   Decay  in  the  strict 
sense,  and  therefore  qualitative  change  in  the  original 


aj«isti>d  the  democnej  to  gain  the 
victoiy,  showing  himself  in  word 
and  deed  a  warm  friend  to  the 
peofde.  The  throne  was  offered  to 
him,  hut  he  refused  it,  as  we  are 
told  in  Diog.  riii.  63-67,  72  sq. ; 
Pint  Ad€,  Col.  S2,  4,  p.  1 126.  He 
vas  destined,  however,  to  experi- 
ence the  fickleness  of  popular  fa- 
roor,  and  left  Agrigentum  probably 
against  his  will  (Steinhart,  8d, 
thinks  it  was  because  he  had  parti- 
cipated in  the  war  between  Syracuse 
and  Athens,  but  that  participation, 
as  we  h&re  seen,  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered historical)  for  the  Pelo- 
ponnesus. His  enemies  succeeded 
in  preventing  his  return,  and  he 
consequently  died  there  (Timeus 
ap.  Diog.  71  eq.,  ibid,  67,  where  the 
true  reading  for  oiKi(ofi4vov  is 
•heTi(ofiiwov,  and  not,  as  Steinhart 
thinks,  p.  84,  alKi(oii4wov),  The 
statement  that  he  died  in  Sicily 
from  the  efiects  of  a  fall  from  a 
chariot  (FaTorin.  ap.  Diog.  73)  is 
not  so  well  authenticated.  The 
story  of  his  disappearance  after  a 
sseriflcial  feast  (Heracleides  ap. 
Diop;.  67  sq.)  is  no  doabt,  like  the 
similar  story  about  Romulus,  a 
myth  invented  for  the  apotheosis 
of  the  philosopher  without  any 
definite  foundation  in  history.  A 
naturalistic  interpretation  of  this 
myth  for  the  opposite  purpose  of 
representing  him  as  a  boasting  im- 
poster  is  the  well>kttown  anecdote 
of  his  leap  into  JEUia  (Hippobotus 
sod  Diodorus  ap.  Diog.  69  sq. ; 
Horace,  Ep,  ad.  Pis.  404  sq.,  and 
many  others,  cf.  Sturz,  p.  123  sq. 
and  Karsten,  p.  86),  and  also  the 
assertion  of  Demetrius  ap.  Diog. 
74,  that  he  hanged  himself.     Per- 


haps in  order  to  contradict  this 
evil  report  the  so-called  Telauges 
ap.  Diog.  74,  cf.  53,  asserts  that  he 
fell  into  the  sea  from  the  weakness 
of  old  age,  and  was  drowned.  The 
personality  of  Empedocles  plays 
an  important  part  in  all  the  tradi* 
tiops  respecting  him.  His  tera- 
p«>rament  was  grave  (Arist.  Probl. 
xxxi.  953  a,  26,  describes  him  as 
melancholic) ;  his  activity  was  noble 
and  all-embracing.  His  political 
efficiency  has  already  been  men- 
tioned. His  power  of  language  to 
which  he  owed  these  successes 
(Timon  ap.  Diog:.  ^iii*  ^7,  calls  him 
ayopaitiv  Knmtr^s  Mw;  Satyrus, 
ibid.  58,  ^^p  ipitrros),  and  which 
is  still  perceptible  in  the  richness 
of  imagery  and  the  elevated  ex- 
pressions of  his  poems,  he  is  said 
to  have  strengthened  by  technical 
study.  Aristotle  designates  him 
as  the  person  who  first  cultivated 
rhetoric  (Sext.  Math,  vii.  6^  Diog. 
viii.  67,  cf.  Quintilian  iii.  1,  2),  and 
Gorgias  is  said  to  have  been  his 
disciple  in  the  art  (Quintil.  /.  c. 
Satyrus  ap.  Diog.  68).  His  own 
vocation,  however,  he  seems  to 
have  sought,  like  Pytbagora», 
Epimenides,  and  others,  in  the 
functions  of  a  priest  and  prophet. 
He  himself,  v.  24  sq.  (422,  462 
Mull.),  declares  that  he  possesses 
the  power  to  heal  old  age  and  sick- 
ness, to  raise  and  calm  the  winds, 
to  summon  rain  and  drought,  and 
to  recall  the  dead  to  life.  In  the 
introduction  to  the  icaBapfiol,  he 
boasts  that  he  is  honoured  by  all 
men  as  »  god,  and  that  when  he 
enters  a  city  adorned  with  fillets 
and  flowers,  he  is  immediately  sur- 
rounded by  those  in  need  of  help, 


120 


EMPEDOCLES. 


substance,  are  unthinkable  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
does  not  absolutely  abandon  this  point  of  view;  he  allows 


some  solicidng  prophecies,  and 
some  healing  of  diseases.  This 
element  comes  out  strongly  in  his 
doctrines  on  anthropology  and 
ethics.  Ancient  writers  speak  not 
only  of  the  solemn  state  and  dig- 
nity with  which  he  surroiindcKl 
himself  (Diog.  yiii.  66,  70,  73; 
JElian.  V.  H,  xii.  32  ;  TertuU.  De 
PalL  C  4;  Suid.  'Ziit^ZomK.)  Kar- 
sten,  p.  30  sq.),  and  of  the  great 
reverence  which  was  paid  him 
(Diog.  yiii.  66,  70),  but  also  of 
many  wonders  which,  like  another 
Pythagoras,  he  wrought.  He  for- 
bade injurious  winds  to  enter 
Agrigentum  (Timseus  ap.  Diog. 
yiii.  60 ;  Plut.  Ourios.  i.  p.  616  ; 
Adv,  Col  82,  4,  p.  1126 ;  Clemens, 
Strom,  vi.  630  C;  Suid.  'E/at«8. 
ZopA.]  Hesych.  fCMXua-avc/Aas ;  cf. 
Karsten,  p.  21  ;  cf.  Philostr.  V, 
ApoVim,  viii.  7,  28),  the  circum- 
btnnce  is  differently  related  by 
Timsus  and  Plutarch;  the  origin 
of  it  is^  no  doubt  the  mimculous 
account  of  Tim»us,  according  to 
which  the  winds  are  imprisoned 
by  mugic,  in  pipes  like  those  of  the 
Homeric  .£olus.  Plutarch  gives  a 
naturalistic  interpretation  of  the 
miracle,  which  is  even  more  absurd 
than  the  suggestion  of  Lommatzsch, 
p.  25,  and  Karsten,  p.  21 — that 
Empedocles  stopped  up  the  hollow 
through  which  the  winds  passed 
by  stretching  asses'  skins  across 
it.  We  hear  further  that  he  de- 
lirered  the  Selinuntians  from 
pestilences  by  altering  the  course 
of  their  river  (Diog.  viii.  70,  and 
Karscen,  21  sq.),  brought  an  ap- 
parently dead  man  to  life  after  he 
had  long  been  stiff  (Heracleid.  ap. 
Diog.  viii.  61,  67i  and  others  ;  the 


statement  of  Hermippus,  ibid.  69, 
sounds  simpler.  Further  detniU 
ap.  Karsten,  p.  23  sqq. ;  on  the 
work  of  Heracleid.  vide  Stein,  p. 
10);  and  restrained  a  madman 
from  suicide  by  means  of  music 
(Iambi.  V.  Pyth,  113,  and  others, 
ap.  Karsten,  p.  26).  How  muoh 
historical  foundation  exists  for 
these  stories  it  is  now,  of  conise, 
impossible  to  discover.  Th«  first 
and  third  are  suspicious,  and  seem 
only  to  have  emanated  from  the 
verses  of  Empedocles ;  what  is  said 
in  the  second,  of  the  improvement 
of  the  river,  may  possibly  be  an 
allusinn  to  the  coin  described  by 
Karsten,  on  which  the  river-god  in 
that  case  would  merely  represent 
the  city  of  Selinus.  That  Empe- 
docles believed  himself  capable  of 
magical  powers  is  proved  by  his 
own  writings ;  According  t4>  Satyrus, 
ap.  Diog.  viii.  69,  Qorgias  asserts 
that  he  had  been  present  when 
Empedocles  was  practising  them. 
That  he  also  practised  medi- 
cine, which  was  then  commonly 
connected  with  magic  and  priest- 
craft, is  clear  from  his  own  wordis, 
quoted  by  Piin.  H.  N.  xxxvi.  27. 
202;  Oalen.  7'htrap,  Meih,  c.  1. 
B.  X.  6,  Kuhn  and  others.  Th^ 
traditions  as  to  the  teachers  of 
Empedocles  will  be  mentioned 
later  on.  The  writings  attributed 
to  him  are  very  various  in  content, 
but  it  is  questionable  in  regard  to 
many  whether  they  really  belong 
to  him.  The  statement  ap.  Diog. 
viii.  67  sq.,  that  he  wrote  tragedies, 
and  no  fewer  than  43,  is  doubt- 
less founded  on  the  evidence  of 
Hieronymus  and  Neanthes,  and 
not  on  that  of  Aristotle.     Hera- 


LIFE  AND   WRITINGS, 


V£i 


not  only  that  particular  things  as  such  arise,  decay  and 
change,  but  also  that  the  conditions  of  the  world  are  sub- 
ject to  perpetual  change.  Consequently  he  is  obliged  to 
reduce  these  phenomena  to  movement  in  space,  to  the 
combination  and  separation  of  underived,  imperishable, 
and  qualitatively  unchangeable  substances,  of  whiph  there 
must,  in  that  case,  necessarily  be  several,  variously  con- 
stituted, in  order  to  explain  the  multiplicity  of  things. 
These  are  the  fundamental  thoughts  underlying  the 


deides  thinks  the  tragedies  were 
the  vork  of  another  person,  who, 
ftcoording  to  Suid.  'E|iirc8.  was, 
perhaps,  bis  grandfather  of  the 
same  name;  and  this  conjecture 
has  great  probability,  ride  Steiu, 
p.  6  sq.,  a^inst  Karsten,  63  sqq. 
519.  He  justly  considers  that  the 
two  epigrams,  ap.  Diog.  viii.  61, 
6o,  are  spurious,  and  the  same 
most  be  said  of  the  verse  or  poem 
from  which  Diogenes  quotes  an 
liddress  to  Telauges,  son  of  Pytha- 
goras {ibid,  p.  17).  The  woXiruch, 
which  Diog.  57  ascribes  to  him, 
together  with  the  tragedies,  pro- 
bably refer,  not  to  any  independent 
work,  ahhough  Diogenes  seemj)  to 
presuppose  Uiis,  but  to  smaller 
portions  of  other  writings;  they 
cannot,  therefore,  be  genuine,  but 
most  be  placed  in  the  same  cate- 
gory as  the  so-calied  political  part 
of  Heiacleitus's  work.  The  state- 
ment (Diog.  77,  Suid.  Diog.  60,  is 
not  connected  with  this)  that  Em- 
pedodes  wrote  larptKk,  in  prose, 
according  to  Suidas  (Korakoydhiy)^ 
Diay  probably  be  accounted  for 
either  by  the  existence  of  some 
forged  work,  or  by  a  misapprehen- 
noQ  of  a  notice  which  originally 
referred  to  the  medical  portion  of 
the  Physics,  vide  Stein,  p.  7  aqq. 


(For  another  opinion  videMuUach, 
he  Emped,  Proctmio,  p.  21  sq. 
Fragm.  i.  xxv.)  Two  poems,  one 
a  hymn  to  Apollo,  and  the  other  on 
the  army  of  Xerxes,  are  said 
by  Diog.  viii.  57,  following 
Hierunymus  or  Aristotle,  to  have 
been  destroyed  soon  after  his 
death.  That  Empedocles  wrote 
down  speeches  or  rhetorical  in- 
structions, the  ancient  accounts  of 
him  give  us  no  reason  to  suppose, 
vide  Stein,  8,  Karsten,  61  sq. 
There  remain,  therefore,  but  two 
undoubtedly  genuine  works  which 
have  come  down  to  modern  times, 
the  ^uaucii  and  the  KoBapftol ;  that 
these  are  separate  worlcM,  as  Kar- 
sten (p.  70)  and  others  suppose, 
has  been  conclusively  proved  by 
Stein.  The  ^u^ik^  were  at  a  later 
period  divided  into  three  books 
(vide  Karsten,  p.  73),  but  the 
author  seems  to  have  contemplated 
no  such  division.  On  the  testi 
monies  and  opinions  of  the  ancients 
on  the  poems  of  Empedocles,  vide 
Karsten,  p.  74  sqq.,  67  »q-  Stnrz, 
Karsten,  Mullach  and  Stein  have 
collected  the  fragments,  and  the 
three  first  have  commented  on 
them.  (I  quote  from  Stdn,  but 
add  the  numbers  of  the  verses  as 
given  by  Karsten  and  Mullach.) 


122  EMPED0CLE8. 

doctrine  of  Empedocles  on  the  primitive  causes,  as  we 
gather  partly  from  his  own  utterances  and  partly  from 
the  statements  of  ancient  writers. 

If  we  see  a  being  enter  upon  life,  we  generally  ihmk 
it  is  something  which  did  not  previously  exist ;  if  we 
see  it  destroyed,  we  think  that  something  which  was, 
has  ceased  to  be.^  Empedocles,  following  Parmenides 
in  this  respect,  considers  this  notion  as  contradictory. 
That  a  thing  should  come  from  nothing,  and  that  it 
should  become  nothing,  appear  to  him  alike  impossible. 
From  whence,  he  asks  with  his  predecessor,  could  any- 
thing be  added  to  the  totality  of  the  Eeal,  and  what 
should  become  of  that  which  is?  There  is  nowhere 
any  void  in  which  it  might  be  cancelled,  and  whatever 
it  may  become,  something  will  always  come  out  of  it 
again.'  What,  therefore,  appears  to  us  as  generation 
and   decay  cannot   really  be.  so;   it   is  in  truth  only 

»  V.  40  (842,  108  M)  eq.;  cf.  V.  91  (119  K;  166, 94  M):- 

especially  V.  45  8qq.:—  ovU  n    rod  rcanhs   Ktrthw  WAci 

€l(7i  M W' «  (they  have  no  far-    ""^•^^  L  ^f  i^/*"  "^^  '«"  *^^  «  *"^ 
reaching  thoughts)    -  .  «'  i  i   \  r  -.     .    ^    -^ 

of  9h  ylyytffBoi  xdpos  ovk  thy  iXicU     *'  '•  «•  '^f  ^'^oXolat'  ;  <»fl  twS" 


(oMTir, 


ovSiy  ifirifUfw* 


a  T«  KaraBlhirruy  t«  ical  i^SWiHrOcu  *^*   «'^'    '•'^«'  "^"r"  ^^^^  ^^ 

hTrdvrn  themselres,  remain  what  th(»y 

are)-  Si'  AXA^X«y  8i  Beopra 

*  V.  48  (81,  102  M):—  yiyt^rat  &AXo6(y  &AAa  Sitjirciccf ,  olcr 

4k  tow  yiu>  fiii  i6mos  iuiiixavSy  itm  ^ 

y^vMai  V.61  (350,116M):— 
T<j  r*  ^^1^  4^6}iXvo$at  iLy^werov  jcol  ovk  &y  &i^p  roiaOra  ifo^s  ^p«ri 

itTftuKTOv  (sc.  iffri).  fjMvrt^atrOj 

Old  yiip  (TT^iffoyrtu  (sc.  Uvra)  tm)  &i  H^pa  /liv  re  fiiowri,  rh  8^>  fiicrrov 

k4  ris  alky  iptlhp.  froA^ovo-i, 

V.90(117.93M):-  ^""n^U .tv^'A""'  '""^ 

«Tt€  7^^   ipBtlpovTo  ttafiTtphj  ob-  vply   8^  irdyty  Tf  $poTo\  Kol  iwtl 

K4r*  &¥  ^acuf.  Xv0cy,  oifBhy  &p'  thiy. 


DENIAL  OF  BECOMING, 


123 


mingling  and  separation.^  What  we  call  generation 
is  the  combination  of  substances ;  what  we  call  decay 
is  the  separation  of  substances,^  though  in  ordinary 


»  V.  86(77,  9SM):— 
&AAo  Zi  rot    4p4w   <^i<rts    ovZty6s 

^njft&v,  ovJii  ris  ovkofjJpov  Baydroio 

aA\a  fi6ifoy  fu^is  re    8t<i\Xo{U  t« 

fuy4yrwv 
hrif  ^iffis  8'   ^irl  rots  hvoudiercu 

ayOp^oiatp,  Cf.-  Arist.  Me- 
tapk.i.  3,  984  a,  8:  'E/ttir(8oK\^s 
8c  rh  rh-rapa  .  .  .  ravra  yhp  &(2 
iiofUvtiy  jcal  ov  ylyy§ffBat  olAA.*  ^ 
irkififi  Kid  6\iy67TfTi  <rvyKpiv6iJL€ya 
xoi  Suwcpiw^iAcva  els  cv  re  kc^  ^(  iv6s. 
Ik  Gen.  it  Corr,  ii.  8  ;  ibid.  c.  7f 
334  a,  26:  The  mixture  of  the 
elements  irith  Empedocles  is  a 
viiSwis  KOBdirtp  il  vKlvBwy  Ktd 
M$vy  TOtXOJ. 

*  That  *  birth  *  is  nothing  else 
than  the  combination,  and  decease 
than  the  separation  of  the  sub- 
Btances  of  vhich  each  thing  con- 
sists, is  often  asserted,  not  only  by 
Empedocles  himself,  but  by  many 
of  oar  authorities.  Cf.  V.  69  (96, 
70  M):— 
ovrwf  f  fihy  ty  ix  rK^ytov  pi€fid&rjK« 

48f  vdXiy  bta^^PTOS    Ms    rK4oy* 

4lCT9\4$OUffl, 

r^  pj^ir  yiyyovral  rr  Jcol  ob  ff^lffty 
l/tvffdof  €bUiy  (  =  Kol  iLirSKXvy' 

TO*)' 

S4  riJf  iLWdaaoyra  Ziapixtph  ov- 

nbrp  aikv  (aaiv  iuuyTtrl  ttarh,  k6' 
icXoy(&Kcvi)T2 1  retain,  agreeinff 
vith  Panzerlneter ;  others  read  i/rU 
^ra,  which  is  a  greater  departure 
from  the  MS3. ;  or  &«£nrror,  which 
for  many  reasonsseems  lessprobable; 
it  is  a  question  whether  oJc/ioTTot, 


the  reading  which  stands  in  all  the 
MSS.  of  Aristotle  and  Simplicius, 
is  not  the  true  reading,  ana  whe- 
ther the  masculine  ol  BvtitoI  is  not 
to  be  supplied  as  subject  of  the 
proposition,  and  corresponding  to 
fipoTolinY.di).  This  is  confirmed 
by  the  doctnne  of  Love  and  Hate 
(vide  infra),  for  Empedocles  de- 
rives birth  or  origination  from 
Love,  the  essential  operation  of 
which  consists  in  uniting  matter ; 
while  from  Hate  he  derives  the 
destruction  of  all  things ;  as  Aris- 
totle-also  says,  Metaph.  iii.  4, 1000, 
a,  24  sqq.  It  can  scarcely  be 
doubted,  therefore,  that  Empedo- 
cles simply  identified  origination 
with  fii^iSy  and  decease  or  passing 
away,  with  ZtdXXa^is.  In  one  pas»- 
sage,  however,  he  seems  to  derive 
both,  y4y€tns  and  &ir<$Xfi4'<s,  from 
each  of  these  causes — from  separa- 
tion as  well  as  from  combination. 
V.  61  (87,  62  M)  sqq.  :— 

9lv\*  ip4<u'  rorh  fi^y  yitp  tv  rivliiBrj 
fi6yop  §Tytu 

4k  'ir\€6ywy,  tot4  S*  .aZ  Bi4^v  ir\4ov 
4^  hhs  (Zyai.  (The  verses  are 
repeated  in  V.  76  sq.) 

ioi^  8i  BvtfT&y  ytytffiSf  8a«^  8*  iir<J- 

\€1}^IS. 

r^v  fihv  ykp  irdyTuy  aivoZos  tIktu 

t'  6k4Ktl  T€, 

65.  4  Si  xd\iy  9ia^vofi4yuy   Bp*^' 

Btiffa  Zi4irn^. 
KoX  ravT*  iLWdffffoyra  HMfiirtpks  ov- 

8afUt  X^ci, 
i\KoT€  jjihy  fl>i\6'njTi  trvytpx^i^^v  e*y 

%y  fiiroKTO, 
iXKore  V  aZ  8/x*  ciratrra  ^pt^fitya. 

ytUtos  fx^ci    Then  follows  V. 
69  sqq.  vide  supra.    1  cannot  agree 


124 


EMPEDOCLES. 


language  it  may  bear  the  other  name.^     Everything, 
therefore,  is  subject  to  Becoming  and  Decay,  only  so 


with  Karsten  who,  in  V.  63,  snbsti* 
taten  for  hoi^  8i,  '*  roiifi* ;  **  for  ^X^icffi, 
"  at^Mi ;  *'  and  fur  Bpt^ifra, "  Bpv^u- 
<ra**  in  accordance  with  our  t«xt  of 
Simplicius,  for  the  changes  are  then 
too  great,  and  the  pregnant  mean- 
ing of  the  whole  Terse  is  weakened. 
But  Fanzerbieter,  Beiir.  7  sq.; 
Steinhart,  p.  94 ;  and  Stein,  ad  h.  L, 
are  scarcely  justified  in  explaining 
the  words  as  they  do :  things  arise, 
not  merely  from  the  union  of  mat- 
ters, but  also  from  their  separation, 
for  in  consequence  of  separation, 
new  combinations  appear;  and  simi- 
larly things  pass  away,  not  merely 
through  uieir  separation,  but  also 
through  their  union ;  because  every 
new  combination  of  substances  is 
the  destruction  of  the  preceding 
combination.  This  in  itself  would 
not  be  inconceiTable,  but  it  would 
contradict  the  opinion  of  Empedo- 
cles  (so  far  as  it  has  been  hitberto 
ascertained), who  explains  birth  only 
from  the  mixture  of  substances, 
and  decay  only  from  their  separa- 
tion. He  would,  in  the  other  case, 
assert  that  every  union  is,  at  the 
same  time,  a  division,  and  rice 
versA ;  the  Ztwpip6tu¥0¥  ahr^  ^vfi- 
^4p9Taif  which,  according  to  Plato, 
Soph.  242  D  sq.  (supra,  p.  33,  2), 
constituted  the  peculiarity  of  He- 
racleitus^s  doctrine  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  Empedodes,  would 
belong  just  as  much  to  Empedo- 
des; and  the  contradiction  with 
which  Aristotle  reproaches  him  (ir^. 
139,  1),  that  love  while  it  unites, 
also  separates,  and  that  hate  which 
separates  also  unites,  would  not 
exist ;  for  this  would  be  in  accor- 
dance with  the  nature  of  love  and 
bate.     The  context  of  the  verse 


appears  to  demand  some  other 
view;  for  as  verses  60-62  and 
66-68  do  not  immediately  refer  to 
individuals,  but  to  the  universe  and 
its  conditions,  the  intermediate 
verses  must  have  the  same  refer- 
ence. The  expression  irdrrmw  vinf- 
hot  is  likewise  in  favour  of  this 
rendering;  for  it  corresponds  too 
closely  with  o'VMpx^M^''*  ««»  *' 
^jroKra,  V.  67,  cvwtpx&P^i^  «s  «»« 
k6<tiu»v,  V.  116  (142, 15lM),r<(rra 
0'iv^pX*tai  %v  fidirop  fTMu,  V.  173 
(169. 103  M),  to  allow  of  its  being 
interpreted  in  any  other  way. 
The  meaning  of  V.  63  sqq.  is, 
therefore  :  *  The  mortal  is  pro- 
duced from  immortal  elementt 
(vide  infra,  V.  182),  partly  in  the 
issuing  of  things  from  the  sphairos. 
partly  in  their  return  to  it;  in 
both  cases,  however,  it  is  again 
destroyed,  here  by  the  succeeding 
union,  and  there  by  the  succeeding 
separation.'  Cf.  Sturz,  p.  260  sqq , 
and  Karsten,  403  sqq.,  for  the  re- 
marks of  later  writers  on  Empe- 
docles*s  doctrine  of  mingling  and 
separation,  which,  however,  tell 
us  nothing  new. 

»  Vide  p.  123, 1,  and  V.  40  (342. 
108  M) :  o/  r  5rff  /ikr  xeerk  ^a 
puy^p  ^os  oXBipot  ticp  (I  follow 
the  emendation  of  the  text  in  Pint 
Adv,  (Jol.ii.  7,  p.  1118;  Panz^r- 
bieter,  Beitr.  p.  16,  and  explain,  if 
a  mixture  appears  in  the  form  of  a 
man) : — 
^i  Kar'  iLKpoT4pco¥  9iip»v  y4pos  ♦ 

jceir^  0dfiv»p 
^^i  jcar*  oimvStw,  r6r9  filv  r^Jf  (Panz. 

r6y€)  ^otf"!  ywiaBai' 
c^rc  V  iaroKpivB&ffi,  rh  9*  aJ6  ivatd- 

fiopa  w^/ior, 
f  e4ius  oC  (so  Wyttenb. :  for  other 


COMBIXATION  AND  SEPARATION  OF  MATTER.    125 


far  as  it  becomes  many  out  of  one,  or  one  out  of  many ; 
so  fiar,  on  the  contrary,  as  it  maintains  itself  in  this 
change  of  place,  in  its  existence  and  ite  own  particular 
nature,  so  far  does  it  remain,  even  in  the  alternation, 
unchanged.^ 

There   are  four  different  substances   of  which   all 
things  are  composed :  earth,  water,  air,  and  fire.*    Em- 


emendatioDfl  of  the  corrnpt  text, 
cf.  the  editions)  KoKiowri,  w6fjL^  S* 

>  V.69  8qq.p.  123,2.  InV.72 
the  words  admit  of  a  double  inter- 
pretation. Either:  'how  far  this 
alternation  never  eyases/  or  *  how 
far  this  never  ceases  to  be  in  alter- 
nation.' The  sense  and  context 
seem  to  me  in  favour  of  the  first 
view.  On  account  of  this  un- 
changeableness  of  the  primitive 
matters,  Aristotle,  De  Cvlo,  iii.  7, 
init.  associates  Empedocles  wi^h 
Democritus  in  the  censure :  ol  fi^v 

\n9i»ownv  ahroX  abrohi  ob  y4v€<ri» 
i^  kKXiiKu¥  trotovyrts  (bc.  rS»v  ffroi- 
X*^)i  4aaA  ^ivofiinjw  yivtvar 
imnti^X^*  T^P  ^Ka(rroif  iKxplyttrOal 
^(uriy,  &inrfp  i^  kyytiovrris  yevdfftws 
ofoijs  oAA'  obK  iK  Tivos  ffXijj,  ovSk 
yfyvtaBai  furafidWoyros.  Cf.  also 
De  Md,  c.  2,  076  a,  36  sqq.,  and 
the  quotations,  sup.  p.  1 2 3, 1 .  When 
therefore.  Simp.  De  Catlo,  68  b, 
Aid.  attributes  to  Empedocles 
the  Heracleitean  proposition :  rhy 
KiviAoy  rovrov  ofhn  rts  Otav  olht 
Tit  ayepdnroov  hcoiniffty^  &AA*  ^y  dc), 
the  true  text  (first  ap.  Peyron, 
Emp.  et  Parm.  Fragm. ;  now  p.  132 
b,  28  K. ;  8choL  in  ArUt.  487  b, 
43)  shows  that  in  the  re-translation 
from  the  Latin,  which  we  get  in 
the  text  of  Aldus,  the  names  have 
been  confased. 


«  V.  83(55,  159  Mj):— 

Toy  HKOVf 

Ztbs&fry^s  "Hfnj  rt  iptpdtrBtos  ii^ 

Hrjffris  0*  f)  Scucpvois  r4yyn  Kpo^yafia 
0p6ruoy. 
Many  conjectures  respecting 
the  text  and  meaning  of  this  verse 
are  to  be  found  in  Karsten  and 
Mullach  in  h.  I. ;  Schneidewin.PAifo- 
logus,  vi.  155  sqq. ;  Van  Ten  Brink, 
iWi.  731  sqq.  Fire  is  also  called 
"H^fl-Toj;  Nestis  is  said  to  have 
been  a  Sicilian  water  deity,  believed 
by  Van  Ten  Brink,  according  to 
Heyne,  to  be  identical  with  Pro- 
serpine (cf.  however  Krische, 
FoTBch.  i.  128).  It  is  clear  that 
Here  does  not  mean  the  earth,  as 
(probably  on  account  of  <ptp4arfiios) 
is  supposed  by  Diog.  viii.  76  ;  He- 
racl.,  Pont.  Alleg.  Horn.  24,  p.  62  ; 
Probus  in  Virg.  Eel.  vi.  3 ;  Athen- 
agoras,  Suppl.  c.  22  ;  Hippol. 
Jiefut.  vii.  79,  p.  384  (Stob.  i.  288, 
and  Krische,  i.  126,  might  have 
escaped  this  error  by  a  slight 
change  of  the  words).  It  means  of 
course  the  air ;  and  it  is  not  even 
necessary,  with  Schneidewin  to 
refer  ip€p4(r$io5  to  'AiJwfdj,  as  it 
is  perfectly  applicable  to  air.  Be- 
sides the  mythical  designations  wo 
find  the  following,  V.  78  (105,  60 
M),  333  (321,  378  M)  irCp,  S8«p, 
777,  amp;  V.  211   (151,  278  M) 


126  EMPEDOCLES. 

pedocles  is  expressly  desi^ated  as  the  first  who  admitted 
these  four  elements,*  and  all  that  we  know  of  his  pre- 
decessors tends  to  confirm  the  statement.  The  earlier 
philosophers,  indeed,  admitted  primitive  suhstances 
from  which  all  things  arose,  but  these  primitive  sub- 
stances were  wanting  in  the  characteristic  by  which 
alone  they  could  become  elements  in  the  Empedoclean 
sense  of  the  term ;  viz.,  the  qualitative  unchangeable- 
ness,  which  leaves  only  the  possibility  of  a  division 
and  combination  in  space.  Similarly  the  earlier  philo- 
sophers are  acquainted  with  all  the  substances  which 
Empedocles  regards  as  elements,  but  they  do  not  class 
them  together  as  fundamental  substances  and  apart 
from  all  others ;  the  primitive  substance  is  with  most  of 
them  One.  Parmenides  alone  in  the  second  part  of  his 
poem  has  two  primitive  substances,  but  none  of  these 
philosophers  has  four ;  and  in  respect  to  the  first  derived 
substances,  we  find,  besides  the  unmethodical  enumera- 

08a'p,   7^,   al9^py    IfXioj;    V.    216  and  this  matter  neither  increases 

(209,  282  M),   197  (270,  273  M),  nor  diminishes,  leol  xpis  rots  oh' 

X^^y,   oMiSpof,   eUe^p,  Kvp ;   V.   96  iAXo  t«  (so  MuU.,  but  the  text  is 

(124,  120  M)  soq.  probably  fiXioy,  corrupt,  and   its  restoration  very 

a(0^p,  ififipos,  ata;  V.  377  (16,  32  uncertain)  ylyvereu  qifS'  iLvokhy^i, 
M)  oieiip,  vStnos,  x^^y  ^^ws  ;  V.  »  Arist.   Metaph.  i.  4,  985  a, 

187  (327,  268  M)  ^Xitcrtap,  xBA>v.  31,  of.  c.  7,  988  n,,  20  :  De  Gen.  ft 

ovpai>hs,   edKMTffa;    V.    198    (211,  Corr.    ii.   1,  828    b,  33  sqq.     Cf. 

211  M)  x^^*'*  VTiffrts,  "Htpaitrros ;  Karsten,334.     The  word  <rTOiX€«)K 

y.  203  (215,  206  M)  x^'^''^  'H<^ai-  is  moreover  not  Empedoclean.  as 

<rros,  6fifipoSf  od^p.    I  cannot  agree  it  is  almost  needless  to  observe, 

with  Steinhart's  conjecture  (I.  e.  Plato  is  cited  as  the  teacher  who 

93)  that  Empedocles  by  the  variety  first  introduced  it  into   scientific 

of  names  wished  to  mark  th.e  dif-  language     (Eudemus    ap.    Simpl. 

ference    between     the    primitive  Phys.  2,  a,  Favorin.  ap.  Biog.  iii. 

elements  and  those  perceptible  to  24).     Aristotle  found    it  already 

sense.    Y.  89  (116,  92  M),  says  in  vogue,  as  we  see  from  the  ex- 

that  the  four  primitive  elements  pression    r&    icaXov/Acra    aToix«« 

contain  in  themselves  all  matter;  (cf.  Part  ir.  b,  336,  2nd  ed.) 


THE  FOUR  ELEMENTS.  127 

tion  of  Pherecydes  and  Anaximenes,  only  the  triple 
division  of  Heracleitus,  the  five-fold  division  of  Philo- 
laus  (probably  already  connected  with  Empedocles), 
and  Anaximander's  two  opposite  categories  of  warm  and 
cold.  Why  Empedocles  fixed  the  number  of  his 
elements  at  four,  we  cannot  discover,  either  from  his 
own  fragments,  or  from  the  accounts  of  the  ancients. 
At  first  sight  it  might  seem  that  he  arrived  at  his 
theories  in  the  same  manner  as  other  philosophers 
arrived  at  theirs,  viz.,  through  observation  and  the 
belief  that  phenomena  were  most  easily  to  be  explained 
by  this  means.  But  in  that  case  his  doctrine  was 
anticipated  in  the  previous  philosophy.  The  high  esti- 
mation in  which  the  number  four  was  held  by  the  Pytha- 
goreans is*  well  known.  Yet  we  must  not  exaggerate 
the  influence  this  may  have  had  on  Empedocles,  for  in 
bis  physics  he  adopted  little  from  Pythagoreanism,  and 
the  Pythagorean  school,  even  in  its  doctrine  of  elemen- 
tary bodies,  followed  other  points  of  view.  Of  the 
elements  of  Empedocles  we  find  three  in  the  primitive 
substances  of'Thales,  Anaxiraenes,  and  Heracleitus,  and 
the  fourth  in  another  connection,  with  Xenophanes  and 
Parmenides.  Heracleitus  speaks  of  three  elementary 
bodies ;  and  the  importance  of  this  philosopher  in  re- 
gard to  Empedocles  will  presently  be  shown.  The  three 
ground-forms  of  the  corporeal  admitted  by  Heracleitus 
might  easily  be  developed  into  the  elements  of  Empe- 
docles; if  the  liquid  fluid  and  the  vaporous  element, 
water  and  air,  were  distinguished  from  each  other  in 
the  customary  manner,  and  if  the  dry  vapours,  which 
Heracleitus  had  reckoned  as   part    of   the    supreme 


128  EMPED0CLE8. 

element,  were  considered  as  air.*  The  three  elements 
of  Heracleitus  seem  to  have  arisen  from  the  doctrine 
propounded  by  Anaximander  and  afterwards  maintained 
by  Parmenides,  viz.,  the  fundamental  opposition  of  the 
warm  and  the  cold,  by  the  introduction  of  an  inter- 
mediate stage  between  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
five  elementary  bodies  of  Philolaus  represent  a  develop- 
ment, based  on  geometrical  and  cosmological  concep- 
tions, of  the  four  elements  of  Empedocles.  This  doctrine, 
therefore,  appears  to  have  been  in  a  state  of  constant 
progression,from  Anaximander  to  Philolaus,  and  the  num- 
ber of  the  elements  to  have  been  always  on  the  increase. 
But  though  Empedocles  declared  the  four  elements  to 
be  equally  original,  he,  in  fact,  as  Aristotle  says,  reduces 
them  to  two ;  for  he  sets  fire  on  one  side,  and  the  three 
remaining  elements  together  on  the  other ;  so  that  his 
four-fold  division  is  seen  to  originate  in  the  two-fold 
division  of  Parmenides.*  When,  however,  later  writers 
assert  that  his  starting-point  was  the  opposition  of  the 

*  Aristotle  also  mentions  the  flnd  nir.     Ion  may  have  borrowed 

theory  of  three  elements,  fire,  air,  hi«   three    elements    from    Hera- 

and  earth  {Gen.  et  Corr.  ii.  1,  329  cleitus;    he  can  hardly  hare  in- 

a,  1).  Philop.  in  h.  h  p.  46  b,  flnenced  Empedocles,  as  he  seems 
refers  this  statement  to  the  poet  to  have  been  young«»r. 

Ion :  and   in   fact  Isocrates  does  *  Mftaph.  i.  4,  985  a,  31 :  fn 

say  of  him  (ir.  Avri W<r.  268)  "Itov  8*  8i   tA   «y  ir  v\rii   ei$ci  Xtyifura 

ov   irXc(o0   rpiwv   [f4^i}<rci/   tlvcu   rh,  arroixfM  r4rrapa  irpwTOt  ttirfp'  »u 

Svra],     Similarly  Harpocrat.  "Iwv.  uhv  XP'?'*"*^  7*  rirrapniy,  AXX*  Sn 

This  statement  maybe  true  of  Ion,  8wrlr  oS^rt  fiSvoiSf  irvpi  fi^v  ica9*  avrh 

even  if  (as  Bonitz,  Ind.  Arist.  821  ro7s  8*  i,vrtKtifiiyoix  &s  fu^  ^^crc<. 

b,  40  and  Prantl.  Arist  Werkey  ii.  yf  rt  koL  a4pi  koI  9lhri.  Xdfioi  8* 
505  remark)  the  passage  in  Aris-  iv  rts  abrh  Bttopuy  ix  rwv  irur. 
totle  may  relate,  not  to  Ion,  but  Be  Grn.  ef  Corr.  ii.  3.  330  b.  19: 
to  the  Platonic  '  divisions  '  (Part  tvioi  8*  thehs  Tirrapa  \4yov<rip,  olov 
II,  a,  380,  4,  3rd  edition),  in  which  *E/ATc8oK\fi;.  ffw^yti  II  icol  ovro; 
an  intermediary  is  at  fi^^t  dis-  tls  rh,  8^'  ry  yhp  Ti/pl  rSx.Xa  irai^o 
tinguished    from  fire   and    earth,  i.irnrlBri*Ttv. 

and   is   then    divided  into   water 


THE  FOUR  ELEMENTS. 


129 


warm  and  the  cold,  or  that  of  the  rare  and  the  dense, 
or  even  of  the  dry  and  the  moist,^  this  is  doubtless  an 
inference  of  their  own,  uncountenanced  by  Empedocles, 
either  in  these  expressions  or  elsewhere  with  such  dis- 
tinctness in  his  writings;  and  the  statement  that  in 
the  formation  of  the  universe  the  two  lower  elements 
are  the  matter,  and  the  two  higher  the  efficient  instru- 
ments,^ is  still  &rther  from  his  opinion. 

The  four  fundamental  substances  then,  being  ele- 
ments, are  necessarily  primitive ;  they  are  all  underived 
and  imperishable.  Each  consists  of  qualitatively  homo- 
geneous parts,  and  without  changing  their  nature  they 
pass  through  the  various  combinations  into  which  they 
are  brought  by  means  of  the  variability  of  things.' 


'  Of.  the  passages  from  Alex- 
ander, ThemisUtis,  Philoponos, 
Simplieins  and  dlobeus,  ap.  Kars< 
ten,  340  sqq. 

*  HippoL  RrftU,  vii.  29,  p.  384. 
Empedocles  assumed  fonr  elements 

Spyam  o[s  rk  &Xi4c&  KoafA^trat  koX 
futrafidfiXtratf  wvp  koL  i.ipeit  ^^ 
Vk  rk  ipyaCi/utfa  .  .  .  rciKOf  koX 
^Odtv,  which  is  repeated  after- 
wards. The  doctrine  of  this  phiio- 
80(^er  is  still  more  decidedly  mis- 
represented by  the  same  author 
i.  4  (repeated  ap.  Cedren.  Synops, 
i.  167  fi).  in  the  statement,  prob- 
ably taken  from  a  8toic  or  Neo- 
Pythagorean  source):  r^v  toO 
manht  ipx^y  mTkos  koI  ^i\Uw  1^' 
Koi  rh  r%s  itavJiZos  vo^pbv  vvp  rhv 
Mif  xol  avptin-Jvat  4k  irvpht  rk 
vitna  iral  c2f  wvp  i»€i\u$'fi<rt<r$€u. 
Oq  the  other  hand  Earsten,  p. 
343,  is  incorrect  in  saying  that 
Empedocles,  according  to  Hippo- 
Ijtus,  opposed  Are  and  water  one 

TOL.  n.  ] 


to  the  other,  as  the  active  and  the 
passive  principle. 

•  V.  87(114,  88  M):— 
ravra  ykp  Vrd  re  wciyra  ical  4^(Ka 

yimnuf  loiri, 
Tiiois  V  &AXi}s   JSlKKo   fU9€i  vdpa 

V.  89,  vide  tvpra,  p.  126,  2 ;  V. 
104(132,128):— 

tffa  r*   l<rrai   hTUffrtt.      Text 

uncertain. 
3<V8p«<i  T*  ifiKdffTTia't  Koi  Mpts  ^3^ 

yvrcuKtr, 
Ofip4s  T*  oUivoi  Tc  Kol  &9aro$p4fi/iow9s 

Kcd  TC  $w\  SoXixo^i'cf  rififffi  ^4pi- 

(TTOl, 

aira  ykp  ttrrw  ravra  Si*  kKK^hMW 

3^  Bhma 

ylyvrreu    iiKKou^wir   ZtJatrv^is  ykp 

kfitifiu, 

Cf.  p.  122,  2.    Alao  V.  90  sqq., 

69  sqq.  {supra,  p.  122,  2;  128,  2); 

Arist.  Metaph,  i.  8  (Mpro,  p.  1 23, 1), 


180 


EMPED0CLE8. 


They  are  also  equal  as  to  mass,^  though  they  are 
mingled  in  paiticular  things  in  the  most  various  pro- 
portions, and  are  not  all  contained  in  each  particular 
thing.*  The  peculiar  traits,  however,  by  which  they 
are  distinguished  from  one  another,  and  their  place  in 
the  structure  of  the  universe,  Empedocles  does  not  seem 
to  have  precisely  determined.  He  describes  fire  as  warm 
and  glittering;  air  as  fluid  and  transparent;  water  as 
dark  and  cold  ;  earth  as  heavy  and  hard.^  He  some- 
times attributes  to  earth  a  natural  motion  downwards, 
and  to  fire  a  similar  motion  upwards ;  ^  but  his  utterances 
on  the  subject  are  not  always  consistent.^     In  this,  how- 


iii.  4,  1000  b,  17  ;  Qm,  et  Carr.  ii, 
1 ;  ii.  6,  ibid,  i.  1,  314  a,  24  (cf. 
De  Calo,  iii.  3,  302  a,  28,  and 
Simpl.  De  Cctlo,  269  b,  38  ;  8chol 
613  b);  De  Catlo,  iii.  7  {supra^  p. 
126,  1);  De  Melieao,  c.  2,  975  a, 
and  other  passages  ap.  Stniz,  162 
sqq.,  176  sqq.,  186  sqq.,  and  Kar- 
sten,  336,  403,  406  sq. 

*  This  at  any  rate  seems  to  be 
asserted  by  the  lara  irdtrra  in  the 
verses  just  quoted,  which  gram- 
matically may  with  ^Mica  also 
relate  to  t^vtok  (of  like  origin). 
Arist.  Gen  et  Corr.  ii.  6  sub  init. 
enquires  whether  this  equality  \» 
an  equality  of  magnitude  or  of 
power  ?  Empedod.es  doubtless 
made  no  distinction  between  them. 
He  connects  the  word  as  little 
with  yiwwav  as  Simplicius  does, 
Pkye.  34  a. 

•  Cf.  (besides  what  will  pre- 
sently be  said  as  to  the  proportions 
of  the  primitive  elements  in  this 
admixture)  V.  119  (164,  134  M) 
sqq.,  where  the  mixture  of  matter 
in  various  things  is  compared  with 
the  mixing  of  colours  by  which 
the  painter  reproduces  these  things 


in  a  picture:  kpfutplp  pSfyan^  ra 
fU9  ir\4»  (kKXa  8*  i\dcom.  Bran- 
dis,  p.  227,  has  been  led,  by  an 
error  in  the  punctuation  in  V.  129, 
corrected  by  later  editors,  to  dis- 
cover in  these  verses  a  meaning 
alien  alike  to  the  works  and  the 
standpoint  of  Empedocles,  viz.,  that 
all  the  perishable  has  its  cause  in 
the  Deity,  as  the  work  of  art  has 
in  the  mind  of  the  artist. 

«  V.  96  (124,  120  M)  sqq., 
which,  however,  are  very  corrupt 
in  the  traditional  texts!  V.  99, 
which  has  been  restored,  though 
not  satisfactorily,  perhaps  began 
thus:  at04pa  (f  &s  x^"^"^^-  From 
this  passage  the  statement  of  Aris- 
totle is  taken.  Gen,  et  Corr.  i.  31d 
b,  20 ;  Plut.  Prim,  Fria,  9,  1,  p. 
948 ;  but,  on  the  other  nand,  Aris- 
totle seems  to  refer  in  another 
place,  De  JReapir.  c.  14,  477  b,  4 
(Btpfihp  yhp  etreu  rh  iyphr  ^rroftov 
a4pos),  to  some  subsequent  passage 
now  lost  from  the  poem. 

•  Cf.  p.  144.  1. 

*  We  shall  find  later  examples 
of  this.  Cf.  Plut.  Plac.  ii.  7.  «; 
and  Ach.  Tat.  in  Arat,  c.  4,  end; 


MIXTURE  OF  THE  FOUR  ELEMENTS.        LSI 


ever,  there  is  nothing  that  transcends  the  simplest 
observation.  Plato  and  Aristotle  Tvere  the  first  to 
reduce  the  qualities  of  elements  to  fixed  fundamental 
determinations,  and  to  assign  each  element  to  it^ 
natural  place. 

Even  without  the  testimony  of  Aistotle  ^  it  would 


thefie,  following  perhaps  the  same 
!k)uice,  aasert  that  Empedoclee  as- 
signed DO  definite  place  to  the  ele- 
ments, bat  supposed  each  element 
<^pable  of  oocapjing  the  place  of 
the  rest  Aristotle  says,  I>e  CotlOj 
ir.  2,  309  a,  19 :  Empedocles,  like 
ADAxagoras.  gave  no  explanation 
ufthe  heaviness  and  lightness  of 
liodies. 

»  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8,  826  b,  19 : 
'EfCTtSoKAci  8i  T&  ti^¥  iWa  ^av€phv 

yinaw  col  t^w  ^apiof,  abrQv  8i 
ro6nn^  r&s  yivrrax  Kal  ^efpcrat  rh 

oht  hUx^Toi  \4ynp  aAr^  fiii  \4- 
>orT»  jcal  rod  itvpihs  ttrat  vroix^lw^ 
ifuims  i^  Kai  rmw  $\Kuv  awdyr^v, 
(lo  De  Caloy  iii.  6,  305  a,  and  Lu- 
cretias,!.  746  sqq.,  it  is  denied  that 
Gtnpedocles  held  the  theory  of 
atoms.)  These  distinct  assertions 
vould  be  in  direct  opposition  to 
Aristotle  himself,  if  he  really  said 
»hn  Hitter  {Ge9ch.  d.  Phil.  i.  633 
"<).)  finds  in  him,  namely  that  h11 
foar  elements  are  properly  derived 
from  one  natare,  which  underlies 
:ill  differences,  and  is,  more  exactly, 
^A/o,  This,  however,  is  incorrect 
Aristotle  says  (Gen,  et  Corr.  i.  1, 
315  a,  3),  that  Empedocles  contra- 
dicted himself:  ofia  fjAw  y&p  oH 
^ffur  frcpor  ^4  Mpov  yit^McBati  r&y 
'TMxffW  oMiy,  &X\&  T&XAa  vdyra 
^K  roOrmVf  &fia  9*  ^rav  €if  li'  o'vro- 
"Mtp  tV  Sarturaif  ^iffiv  v\^v  rov 
**f«»w,  U  TOW  M%  ylyvta-Bcu  irdXiv 


fKaarroy.  But  it  is  clear  that  this 
only  means:  Empedocles  himself 
altogether  denied  that  the  four  ele- 
ments arose  out  of  one  another; 
nevertheless  in  his  doctrine  of  the 
Sphairos,  he  indirectly  admits, 
without  perceiving  it,  that  they  have 
such  an  origin ;  for  if  the  unity  of 
all  things  in  the  Sphairos  be  taken 
in  its  strict  acceptation,  the  quali- 
tative differences  of  the  elements 
must  disappear ;  and  the  elements 
consequently,  when  they  issue  from 
the  Sphairos,  must  form  themselves 
anew  out  of  a  homogeneous  sub- 
stance. It  is  not  that  a  statement 
is  here  attributed  by  Aristotle  to 
Empedocles  which  contradicts  the 
rent  of  his  theory ;  Empedocles  is 
refuted  by  an  inference  not  derived 
from  himself.  Nor  can  it  be  proved 
from  Metaph.  iii.  1,  4,  that  Aris- 
totle designated  the  uniform  na- 
ture, from  which  the  elements  are 
said  to  proceed,  as  ^i\la.  In  Afe- 
taph.  iii.  1,  996  a,  4,  he  nsks  the 
question  :  v6r9pov  rb  ^v  «ra}  rh  %y, 
KoBdiefp  oi  TlvBaySptioi  km  UXdray 
?A«7«v,  ohx  irtpip  rl  itrriv  AAA* 
ohffia  r&y  ovrwy^  ^  ot,  oAA'  %r9p6it 
Ti  rh  ^TTOKflfitvoyy  &<rr«p  'E^iredoirX^r 
^<ri  ^iX(aK,  AWos  94  ris  irGp,  6  8^ 
fiiup,  6  81  kipa.  Here  he  does  not 
speak  of  the  primary  matter  of  the 
four  elements  in  reference  to  the 
^tA{a,but  the  <^iXia  (which  Aristotle, 
as  the  uniting  principle,  calls  the 
One,  in  the  same  manner  as,  e.g., 
the  principle  of  limitation  is  called 


X  2 


VS'2 


EMPEDOCLE&, 


be  obvious  that  the  four  elements  of  Empedocles  could 
not  be  derived  from  any  other  more  primitive  element. 
It  is  plainly,  therefore,  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding* 
when  later  writers  assert  that  he  made  atoms  as  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  elements  precede  the  elements 
themselves.^  Ye€  on  one  side  his  doctrine  might  have 
given  rise  to  this  opinion.  For  as,  according  to  him, 
the  primitive  substances  are  subject  to  no  qualitative 
change,  they  can  only  be  connected  together  mechani- 
cally ;  and  even  their  chemical  combinations  must  be 
reduced  to  such  as  are  mechanical.  The  mixture  of 
substances  is  only  brought  about  by  the  entrance  of 
the  particles  of  one  body  into  the  interstices  between 
the  parts  of  another.     The  most  perfect  combination, 


v^paf,  and  the  fonnative  principle 
iltos)  serves  merely  as  an  exAmple, 
to  show  that  the  concept  of  the 
One  is  employed,  not  only  as  sub- 
ject, as  by  Plato  and  the  Pythago- 
reans, but  also  as  predicate ;  what 
the  passage  asserts  of  the  ^iXia  is 
merely  this :  the  ^iXia  is  not  Unity, 
conceived  as  a  eubject ;  but  a  sub- 
ject  to  which  Unity,  as  predicate, 
belongs.  This  likewise  holds  good 
of  c.  4,  where  it  is  said  in  the  same 
sense  and  connection :  Plato  and 
the  Pythagoreans  consider  Unity 
as  the  essence  of  the  One,  and 
Being  as  the  essence  of  the  ex- 
istent ;  so  that  the  existent  is  not 
distinct  from  Being,  nor  the  One 


ler,  and  Bonghi  in  h.  I.  adopt  from 
Cod,  Ah,  5  ri  vorc  rh  Ip  4aruf)  S^ck 
yiip  tuf  K4y§uf  rovro  rV  ^(^^ 
cImu.  The  statements,  thereforet 
of  Aristotle  on  this  point  do  not 
contradict  each  other;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  most  of  the  rensures 
which  Bitter  passes  on  his  state- 
ments respecting  Empedocles,  on 
closer  examination,  appear  to  b? 
gronndless. 

>  Plut  Plae,  i,  IS :  'E.  t/A  tw 
rtavdpur  trrotx^f^  BpaCtrfiara  M- 
Xitrra,  oiop*\  oroixcia  9p6  ffrotx^^f^t 
ifioiofitfni,  Sircp  ^orl  ffrpoyY^Xa, 
The  same,  with  the  exception  of  the 
last  words  (on  which  cf.  Stun,  153 
sq.)  in  Stob.  Eel.  i.  341.  Similarly 


from  Unity :  ol  8i  vcpl  ^^(tcms  oTop    Plac.  i.  17  (Stob.  368  ;  Galen,  c 
'EfiirfSoicXiif    its    c2f  yyatpifx^tpoy     10,  p.  258  K). 


iurdymp  A^ffi  5  ri  t^  %if  hv  itrrlp  tp 
Ip  (so  it  must  be  written,  if  Iv  hp 
be  considered  as  one  conception — 
*  that  which  is  One  ; '  or  else  it 
most  be  read  as  by  Karsten  Emp. 
p.  318;  Brandis,  JBonitz,  Schweg- 


It  is  equally  improper,  ac- 
cording to  what  we  have  just  been 
saying,  to  suppose  with  Petersen, 
Philol'Hist,  Stud,  26,  tbat  the 
Sphairos  as  Unity  was  first,  and 
that  the  four  elements  arose  firom  it. 


INTERMINGLING  OF  SUBSTANCES.         183 

therefore,  of  several  substaiices  is  only  an  assemblage 
of  atoms,  the  elementary  nature  of  which  is  not  altered 
in  this  process :  it  is  not  an  actual  fusing  of  the  atoms 
into  a  new  substance  J  And  when  one  body  arises  out 
of  another,  one  is  not  changed  into  the  other,  but  the 
matters  which  already  existed  as  these  definite  sub- 
stances merely  cease  to  be  intermingled  with  others.^ 
But  as  all  changes  consist  in  mingling  and  unmingling, 
so  when  two  bodies  are  apparently  separated  by  the 
different  nature  of  their  substance,  the  operation  of  one 
upon  the  other  can  only  be  explained  on  the  hypothesis 
that  invisible  particles  s^regate  themselves  from  the 
one  and  penetrate  into  the  apertures  of  the  other.  The 
more  complete  is  the  correspondence  between  the  aper- 
ture in  one  body  and  the  emanations  and  small 
particles  of  another,  the  more  susceptible  is  the  former 
to  the  influence  of  the  latter^  and  the  more  capable  of 
mixture  with  it.'     According  to  the  theory  of  Empedo- 

'  According    to    later   use    of  rk  Hia^atni  fauXKop,  ol  fiJ^v  otv  M 

voids  (ride  Pbrt  m.  a,  115.  2,  2nd  fumv  oUrm  ZiAptaw^  iartp  *E^Tf- 

ed.)y  all  mixture    is  a  vapdBtffis ;  SojcA^y  oi  fi6vop  M  r&y  woioivrtitf 

there  is  no   «^xv0'*'i   »dj   more  xoi  «vurx^f^o»y  &AA.&  jcal  fiiyyvoBal 

than  a  upoffis  Zi  SX«r.  ^iieuf  (in  God.  L,  ^ticiy  is  substi- 

'  Arist  De  Calo^  iii.  7  (supra,  tnted  for  (paalv)  iowv  ol  -rSpoi  <rOy^' 

p.  125, 1),  to  which  the  oommenta-  iierpoi  ^hriv   o9^  8i  fuUurra  koI 

ton  (ap.  Karsten,   404   sq.)  add  Ttpl    xdyrut^    M    \iy^    itwpiKotn 

nothing  of  importance.  AeiKiirwos     koI     ArifjL6Kpiros    (for 

'  Arist  Gen.  et  Corr,  i.  8:  rots  they,    as     is    afterwards      said, 

pkv  ohw  ioK9i  wdfrx^^*^  9Kturrov  Zid  explained    not    merely  individual 

TiPMir  wipmf  tiffiAvTOs  Tov  icoiowno^  phenomena,  but  the  formation  and 

^rxdrov  iroi  Kvpmti^rov,  noL  rovrop  change  of  bodies  by  reference  to 

rhf  Tpiruw  ical   hp^¥    tud  &icov«ir  empty   interspaces).      Fhilop.    in 

hiULS  ^\  col  rhs  ftAXar  ala^<r%is  h.  i.  sq.  35  b,  and  Gen.  Anim.  59 

tuVAdbwftu  "wiffai.  In  8^  6paff$ai  a  (both  passages  in  Sturz,  p.  344 

M  Tc  iJpos  jcol   Him-os  iral  r&v  sq.),  gives  nothing  more,  for  the 

Sra^ow  Zik  rh  T6povs  fx^ir  iopd-  statement  in  Gen.  Anim.  that  £m- 

robt  fiikw  Ztii  lUKp&rnra,  irvHwohs  M  pedocles  called  'the  full'  voujrh,. 

Ml  K«rjk  ffTOixoy,  Kol  /ioAAoy  fx<<<'  confuses  this  philosopher  with  De- 


134 


EMPED0CLE8. 


cles,  this  is  pre-eminently  the  case  when  two  bodies  are 
alike ;  therefore,  he  says,  the  like  in  kind  and  easily 
mingled  are  friendly  to  each  other ;  like  desires  like ; 
whereas  those  which  will  not  intermingle  are  hostile  to 
each  other.^     This  whole  theory  is  closely  allied  to  that 

•  V.  186(826,  262  M.):— 

^XiKTttp  re  x^^  ^'  '^  o^pav^r  ^c 

Zc<ra  yu»  iv  BmtToiffivkworKoyx^ivTa. 

tbs    V    aSrus   8<ra   Kpaauf   htof/rU 

fjMhXov  louriy, 
dAA^Xoif  loTcpurot,  bitouSM  'A- 

iX^P^  '*  ^''^  aXXiiKmv  irhuarw  hi- 
XowTLV  iSfurro,  ete. 


mocritiui  (vide  i^frat  the  AtomisU). 
On  the  other  hand,  Aristotle's  ac- 
count is  confirmed  in  a  remarkable 
manner  by  Plato,  Meno^  76  C: 
OvKoCv  A^rrc  iarofipodt  riffos  r&v 
6ifTup  KOT*  'E/ATtSoAAta ;  —  B^o9pa 
7c. — Kol  v6povs,  ctr  otts  kuI  9i*  &>r 
cd  hvo^^oaL  iroptiovrajt ;  —  Udw  y§. 
— Kal  r&y  hiro^^oAv  rks  fi^y  kpyL&r- 
TCiy  iviois  Twp  v6^y,  rds  9h  ixdr- 
Toi/t  ^  /Acinous  §JyM ;  — *E<rTi  TaDro. 
Colour  is  then  defined  in  accord- 
ance with  this :  iwofpo^  <rxi7fi^T«v 
o^ti  er{ffm€Tpos  KOI  oitr^qr^f.  Cf. 
Theophr.  Jk  Seiisu,  12 :  HhMS  yhp 
votci  r^v  fii^tv  rp  {rvfifierplff  t&v 
ir6ptiv'  ZtAictp  (Xcuoy  yJ^w  roI  08«tfp 
•V  filyvvtrScu,  rkV  &k\a  iyph  leal 
Tfpi  8(rwv  8^  KaTOp^Ofiurcu  tiis  tS(ttt 
Kpde^is.  Of  our  fragments,  v.  189 
relates  to  this  subject ;  also  espe- 
cially ▼.  281  (267,  837  M):— 
71  m9*  tri  irdrrwy  €la\y  ii.woffo€df  Zaa^ 
iyivovro. 

V.  267  (263,  323  M)  :— 
rohi  fikw  xvp  iuf^ntfiir*  4B4Xov  wpbs 
ifunoy  UdirBcu, 

V.  282  (268,  338)  :— 

As  yXvxb  fihy  yXvxb  fidpirrtf  wucp6y 

8*  M  TTiKphy  6powT€y, 
^b  8*  iv*  o^b  i^%  ZaXxpby,  9a\€p^  8* 

Mx^vty, 

V.  284  (272,  340  M)  :— 

oXyt^    tSUvp    fihy   fiaXXoy   iydpBfAioyt 
atnitp  iXai^  oIk  iB4A€i, 

V.  286(274,  342  M):— 

fiva-ff^  ik  yKuui^  k6kkov  Kwaidayt' 
rat  iyBos, 


Arist.  Eth,  N.  viii.  2,  1165  b,  7; 
cf.  preceding  notf>:  rh  yitp  ipow 
rod  ifiolov  i^UvBoL  ('Efiv.  ^ftfit). 
Eth.  End.  vii.  1,  1236  a,  9  (M. 
Mor,  ii.  11,  1208  b,  11):  <A  a« 
^wnoK6yoi  xoi  r^y  SAi|y  ^19 
tiOKOfffiovtriy  iipx^y  Kafi6yTts  rh 
Hfioioy  i4yeu  irphs  rh  8/uMor,  9i^ 
'£/iiirc8oirX^5  Kot  r^y  ic6y'  f^  KaB^- 
aBcu  M  Tfis  mpofuiot  81^  t^  fx*"' 
vKtleroy  Hftaioy,  Plato,  L^$.  214 
B :  In  the  writings  of  the  natuml 
philosophers  we  z^ead  Sri  rh  8/Mioy 
r%  6fwi^  MkyKp  iid  ^\oy  eZru. 
£inpedocles  found  an  example  of 
this  elective  affinity  in  the  attrac- 
tion of  iron  to  the  magnet.  He 
supposed  that  after  the  emanatioofi 
of  the  magnet  haye  penetrated  into 
the  pores  of  the  i^n,  and  the  air 
which  choked  them  had  been  ex- 
pelled, powerful  emamitions  from 
the  iron  pass  into  the  symmetri- 
cal pores  of  the  magnet,  which 
draw  the  iron  itself  and  hold  it 
fast.  Alex.  Aphr.  Qiuut.  HiU.  ii. 
23. 


TORES  AND  EMANATIONS, 


135 


of  the  Atomists.  The  small  invisihle  particles  take 
the  place  of  the  atoms*  and  pores  the  place-  of  the 
void.  The  Atomists  see  in  bodies  a  mass  of  atoms 
separated  by  empty  interspaces;  Empedocles  sees  in 
them  a  mass  of  particles  which  have  certain  openings 
between  them.^  The  Atomists  reduce  the  chemical 
changes  in  bodies  to  the  alternation  of  the  atoms ;  Em- 
pedocles reduces  them  to  the  alternation  of  particles  of 
matter  which  in  their  various  combinations  remain,  as 
to  quality,  as  unchanged  as  the  atoms.*  Empedocles 
himself,  however,  admitted  neither  an  empty  space' 


*  Whether  these  opeoiogs  are 
themselvM  entirely  empty,  or  are 
filled  with  certain  SHbstanoes,  espe- 
cially with  air,  Empedocles  never 
seems  to haTeenqnireid.  Philoponus, 
Gen.  et  Corr.  40  a,  b,  who  ascribes 
to  him  the  second  of  these  opinions, 
incootradiBtiuction  to  the  Atomists, 
is  not  a  trustworthy  authority. 
According  to  Arist.  Gen.  et  Corr. 
i.  8,  326  b,  6, 1 5,  we  most  ooDclude 
(in  spite  of  whnt  is  quoted  above 
as  to  the  magnet)  that  Empedocles 
never  ajrived  at  any  general  defl* 
iiition  on  this  point ;  for  he  refutes 
the  hypothesis  of  the  pores  on  both 
presuppositions. 

*  Arist.  Gen,  et  Corr.  ii.  7, 
334  a,  26 :  Ik^Ivois  yiip  rois  \4yov- 
etp'itrtp  'EfiircSoicA^s  rts  tartu 
rfim%t  (Tijt  ywi€%mt  rAv  cuiiirmv) ; 
Mrpcn  T^p  ajSpBuriP  cIku  icaBdwp 

fuy/ta  Si  toDto  ^ic  tr»{ofA4pMp  fi^p 
(vrtu  rSr  tfToixs^^i  tcark  fUKpit 
3)  ny*  SXAnAa  ffvyKttfidvmr.  Be 
CtUo,  iii.  7  (mpra,  p.  126,  1); 
Galen  m  Hijtpocr.  De  Nat.  Horn. 
i.  2,  end,  T.  xv.  82  K. :  'Kfiir.  rf| 
kik»re$iJiiTm9  rch  rerrdptiw  0YO1- 
X(W  i^Ttrro  ytYVHF$at    r^f    t&p 


Tt»Pf  its  tt  Tir  Aci^of  iu(pi$&s  ical 
Xy^^V  Toiiiatu  top  Koi .  XA^^'V'ii' 
Kol  KtuB/i^Uuf  ical  fuffh  fti^u€P  &$ 
fATiihp  i^  atn&p  dvPcurBtu  /irrctx^H^^' 
caff&ai  x^P^'  Mpov.  Ibid,  c 
12,  sub  init.  49:  Aocording  to 
Empedocles,  all  things  are  formed 
from  the  four  elements,  ob  ijtiip 
K9Kpa^4pwp  yt  8('  iXX-fiKmp,  iXKk 
Korit  fwcpit  fA6pta  irap<uc€iti4pup 
Tff  ica2  ipau6pTMp.  Hippocrates 
first  taught  the  mixing  of 
the  elements.  Aristotle,  there- 
fore, Gen.  et  Corr.^  uses  this  ex- 
pression for  the  several  elemental 
bodies :  abr&p  rvint^p  rh  ffMpw6fi9' 
POP  fiiytBos,  and  in  Plut.  Plac.  i.  24 
fSU>h»  i.  414),  it  is  said  of  Empe- 
doeles,  Anaangoras,  Democritus, 
and  Epicoras  together :  ovyKpiff^is 
IfJkp  KM  8iaic/»la'cis  eUrdyowrt^  ytpi^ 
attt  Zh  Kol  tpBopiu  oh  Kvpictt.  oh  yiip 
Ktnk  rh  voihp  4^  iWoiActtts, 
Kctrii  M  rb  voirhp  4k  <rvpa$poh- 
fffiov  raOras  yiypwBeu. 

•  Cf.  V.  91,  eupra,  p.  122,  2; 
Arist.  Ih  QbIo,  iv.  2,  809  a,  19: 
lyioi  liXp  oIp  r&p  /i^  ^arit6pr»p 
cTmu    Kcvfty    oh9kp    IvApirap    letpX 


138  EMTED0CLE8. 

nor  atoms,'  though  his  doctrine  must  logically  lead  to 
both.*  Nor  can  we  certainly  attribute  to  him  the  con- 
ception that  the  primitive  substances  are  composed  of 
very  small  particles^  which  in  themselvea  are  capable  of 
farther  subdivision,  but  are  never  really  divided.'  This 
definition  seems,  indeed,  to  be  required  by  what  is  said 
of  the  symmetry  of  the  pores ;  for  if  these  substances 
are  infinitely  divisible,  there  can  be  no  pores  too  small 
to  allow  a  given  substance  to  enter.  All  substances, 
therefore,  must  be  able  to  mingle  with  all.  But,  as 
Empedocles  was  inconsistent  in  regard  to  the  void,  he 
may  likewise  have  been  so  in  regard  to  the  smallest 
particles.  Aristotle  himself  gives  us  to  understand  that 
he  knew  of  no  express  utterance  of  this  philosopher  on 
this  point.  We  may  therefore  conjecture  that  he  never 
turned  his  attention  to  it,  but  was  content  with  the 
indeterminate  notion  of  the  pores,  and  the  entrance  of 
substances  into  them,  without  any  further  investigation 
of  the  causes  in  which  the  elective  aflBnity  of  bodies 
originates.  • 

But  it  is  only  on  one  side  that  things  can  be  ex- 
plained by  corporeal  elemen  ts.  These  definite  phenomena 
are  produced  when  substances  combine  in  this  particular 
manner  and  in  this  particular  proportion ;  but  whence 

ico^ov  Koi  fiap4os  otov  'Aya{ay({pas  Ac^K(«nrtfi   ^ncriy.   c7ku    yhp    trra 

Kol    ^EfiwtioKKris.      Theophr.    De  artpta,  iZttdprra  di,  tl  fiii  rimi 

SenaUf  §  13  ;  LncretioB,  i.  742,  not  n6poi  awtx^is  daip.    Jbid,  326  b,  6 

to  mention  other  later  -writers,  sach  sqq. 

as  Flut.  Plae.  i.  18,  who  repeat  *  Arist.  De  Calo,  iii.  6,  305  a, 

that  verse.  1 :  c2  il  er^trcd  irov  ii  HUXvcis 

'  Cf.   the   passages  quoted  p.  [ribp  ff^fAdrctp],  ^ot  irofiov  Ur^ 

188,  2.  rh  a&fUL  ip  f  ttrrorcu,  ^  Zudprrov 

'  Cf.  Arist.   Gen.  et  Corr,  i.  1,  ft^y  oi  fUrroi  ^uup^<r6f»/t9w  oMf- 

325  b,  6 :  oxtthv  Z\  ical  *Efiir«8o-  ikvt^^  KoBdvp    foucw  'E^irf8oic\itf 


LOVE  AND  HATE.  137 

comes  it  that  they  combine  and  separate?     What  is^ 
in  other  words,  the  moving  cause  ?    Empedocles  cannot 
evade  this  question,  for  his  chief  object  is  to  make 
Becoming  and  Change  comprehensible.     On  the  other 
hand,  he  cannot  seek  the  cause  of  motion  in  matter ; 
for  having  transferred  the  Parmenidean  conception  of ' 
Being  to  the  primary  elements,  he  can  only  regard 
these  as  unchangeable  substances,  which  do  not,  like 
the  primitive  matter  of  Heracleitus  and  Anaximenes, 
change    their    form    by    their    own    inherent    force. 
Though  he  must  necessarily  allow  to  them  movement 
in  space,  in  order  not  to  make  all  change  in  things 
impossible,  yet  the  impulse  cannot  lie  in  themselves 
to  move  and   to   enter   into   combinations  by  which 
they,  in  their  being  and  nature,  are  untouched.     Em- 
pedocles never  taught  that  the  elements  liave  souls, 
though  this  doctrine  has  been  ascribed  to  him.^     There 

'  Arist.  says,  De  An.  i.  2,  404  no  ri^ht  to  suppose  that  Empedo- 

b,  S :  So^oi  8*  M  fh  ywAvKtiv  icai  rh  cles  himself  drew  the  inference,  or 

aiffMrc9^cu  r&v  tvrttp  (ikfr4fi\tilfav\  to  credit  him  with  a  theory  which 

o5tw  Si  Xiyouffi  liiy   y^vx^y    ras  would  alter  the  whole  character  of 

ifX^f  ol  fUp  wKtiovs  woiovvrts  ol  his  system,  and  make  his  two  effi- 

Ih  fdtof  ra&rny,  Affrtp  *£/uir«$offA^f  cient  causes  superfluous.    Still  less 

M^  ix  rdv  aroix^imy  vdyrnp,  thai  can  be  gathered  from  Gen.  et  Corr, 

hi  MoltKturropinfx^pToh'vp.  What  ii.  6,  «n(2,  where  Aristotle  merely 

he  here  says  of  Empedocles,  how-  observes  in  opposition  to  Empedo- 

erer,  is  merely  his  own  inference  cles:  Arorroy  H koL  «i  4  ^'''X^  ^'^  "^^^ 

from  the  well-known  verses ;  and  croix^Uar  ^  tv  ri  aJtnw  ,  .  .  c2  u\y 

this  Aristotle  gives  us  clearly  to  vCp  ^  ^X^j  ^^  ^^  incip^^i  airrp 

understand  in  me  words  which  fol-  ^va  irvpl  f  irvp*  tl   9h  fjuierhy,   ri 

low,  \4ytty   offrv  **  yuifi  fiiy  ykp  trvfrnrued.     Nor    can    the    quota- 

yaiay  ar^rwofuy"    These  verses,  it  lion,  sup.  p.  135,  1,  prove  anything 

is  dear,  do  not  assert  that  the  respecting  the  animate  nature  of 

various  substances  are  themsfclves  the  elements.    The  fact  that  they 

animate,  but  only  that  they  be-  were  also  called  gods  (Arist.  Gen. 

come,  in  man,  the  cause  of  psychic  et  Corr.  ii.  6,  883  b,  21:  Stob.  Ed. 

activity.    If  even,  on  closer  en-  i.  60,  m^.  Vol.1.  612,  n.;  Cic^.Z^. 

Qoiry,  the  former  opinion  be  de-  i.  12,  sub  init.)  is  unimportant;  as 

audble  from  the  latter,  we  have  the  statement  is  no  doubt  .founded 


138  EMPEDOCLES. 

remains  then  nothing  but  to  separate  moving  forces 
from  matter,  and  Empedocles  was  the  first  among  the 
philosophers  to  adopt  this  course.'  A  single  moving 
force,  however,  does  not  suffice  for  him ;  he  feels  obliged 
to  reduce  the  two  moments  of  Becoming— combina- 
tion and  separation,  birth  and  decay — ^to  two  diflferent 
forces.^  Here  again,  as  in  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
substances,  he  derives  the  various  qualities  and  con- 
ditions of  things  from  so  many  substances  originally 
distinct,  of  which  each  one,  according  to  the  Parmenidean 
concept  of  Being,  has  one  and  the  same  invariable 
nature.  In  his  representation,  Empedocles  personifies 
these  two  forces  as  Love  and  Hate ;  on  the  other  hand, 
he  treats  them  as  corporeal  substances  which  are 
mingled  in  things :  they  do  not  belong  merely  to  the 
form  of  his  exposition,  but  the  iAea  of  force  is  as  yet 
not  clear  to  him ;  he  discriminates  it  neither  irom  the 
personal  beings  of  mythology,  nor  from  the  corporeal 
elements.  Its  specific  import  lies  only  in  explaining 
the  cause  of  the  changes  to  which  things  are  subject 
Love  is  that  which  efi^ects  the  mingling  and  combina- 
tion of  substances.  Hate  is  that  which  causes  their 
separation.*    In  reality,  as  Aristotle  rightly  objects,  the 

merely  on  their  mythical  desigoa-  taught  the  duality  of  the  efficient 

tioQS  {sup*  p.  125,  2)f  and  the  same  causes    is    noticed    by    Aristotle, 

may  be  said  of  the  laiymv,  y.  254  Metaph,  \.  4,  985  a,  29. 
(239,  810  M).  «  V.  78  (105,  79  M)  :— 

account  the  mythical  figures  of  the  '^  m^^^^  ^^. 

ancient^smogonies  and    of   the  Ne7K«J»  r'  o^6tuvop  Wx«  rfii.,  W- 

poem  of  Parmenides,  and  suppose  Xovroy  4jc<£^tv 

Anaxagdras  with  his  conception  of  ^^  ^^^^^             ^^  ^^.       ^  ^.^, 

vovs  to  have  been  later  than  Em-  ^^  itxieros  r* 

pedodes. 

*  That  he  wbs  the  first  who  Of  the  last  he  goes  on  to  say  that 


LOVE  AND  HATE. 


lao 


two  forces  cannot  be  divided,^  since  every  new  combina- 
tion of  substances  is  the  dissolution  of  a  previous 
combination ;  and  every  separation  of  substances  is  the 
introduction  to  a  new  combination.  But  it  is  certain 
that  Empedocles  did  not  remark  this,  and  that  he 
regarded  Love  exclusively  as  the  cause  of  union,  and 
Hate  as  the  cause  of  division.  So  far,  then,  as  the 
unity  of  the  elements  seemed  to  Empedocles  the  better 

it  is  tliat  which  UDites  men  in  love, 
and  it  is  c&lled  yitfio<rlfrti  and  *A^po- 
tint.  (Empedocles  himself  calls  it 
iodifferentlj  ^iX^nif,  ottopt^,  *A- 
^po^ini,  Kifwpis,  opfMtflii.)  V.  66  sq. 
j»p,p.r24.   V.  102 (130, 126  M):— 

itf  6k  K6r^  iidfiop^  acal    Mixa 
vdma  wdXoyrat 

V.  110  sqq.  (»»/.  p.  146)  169  (166, 
189  M)  sq.  (Mi/m,  p.  162)  333 
(321,  378  M)  sq.  {in/,  p.  166,  3). 
With  this  the  acconntfl  of  our 
other  authorities  agree;  here  we 
shall  only  quote  the  two  olde8t  and 
best.  Plato,  Soph.  242  D  (after 
what  is  printed  sup.  p.  33,  2^: 
ol  8i  fiofiOK^tptu  (£mp.)  rh  fitp 
i«  roStt  otrats  fx^w  ixdkaffw,  €> 
lUptt  5i  Tori  fikif  |y  thai  ^wri  rh 
w  ffol  ^Aov  if*  *A^po9irTis,  tot* 
8^  voAA^  Kol  wokiiuop  ainh  abr^ 
W  wtm&s  Ti.  Arist.  Gen.  et  Corr. 
ii.  6,  333  b,  1 1 :  ri  olv  To{nvv  (the 
ragnlaritj  of  nacoml  phenomena) 
fSrnov ;  oii  ykp  971  wvp  y  l|  yjj.  &AAii 
mV  0^  ^  fUda  Kol  rh  yuKOS- 
rvyicpifftt$s  yip  iaSwov^  rh  Ik  6uucpl' 
atms  adfrioy  (tfi/m,  note  1).  On 
account  of  its  uniting  nature,  Aris- 
totle eyeu  calls  the  ^lA/a  of  Em- 
pedocles, the  One,  Metaph.  iii.  1, 
4;  cf.  nm.  p.  181  (Gen.  et  Corr.  i. 
1,  end,  has  nothing  to  do  with 


this;  for  in  that  passage  the  li^ 
means  not  the  tpi\la  but  the  Spbai- 
roe.  Karsten's  objection  to  the 
identification  of  the  %y  and  the 
ovaia  lyoKOihSf  /.  c.  p.  318,  is 
founded  on  a  misconception  of 
Aristotle's  views).  Metaph.  zii. 
10,  1076  b,  1:  i.rSirwt  84  ical 
'E^*c3oirA.^S'  rj}y  yiip  ^tXlaif  votci 
ih  i,yaB6v  atint  8*  ipx^  ical  its  ki- 
yovffa  (avydyu  yitp)  koL  &s  vKri' 
/i6pioy  yitp  rod  filyfwros  ,  .  .  &ro' 
iroy  Sh  iral  rh  At^Baproy  tlyai  rh 
ytiKos.  The  utterances  of  later 
writers  collected  by  Karsten,  346 
sqq.,  and  Sturz,  139  sqq.,  214  sqq., 
are  merely  repetitions  and  expla- 
nations of  Aristotl&*s  words.  Thb 
unanimity  of  all  our  witnesses  and 
the  clearness  with  which  Empedo- 
cles expresses  himself,  make  it 
impossiUe  to  suppose  that  Aris- 
totle (as  well  as  Plato  and  all 
•mbsequent  authors)  misunderstood 
his  real  doctrine,  and  that  love 
and  strife  were  not,  in  his  opinion, 
the  causes  of  mixing  and  separar 
tion,  but  were  merely  used  in  the 
passages  we  have  quoted  to  describe 
poetically  the  conditions  of  mixture 
and  separation  (Thilo,  Gesch.  d. 
Phil.  i.  46). 

*  Metaj^h.  i.  4,  £86  a,  21 :  ical 
*E/iTc8oicAi}s  ^irl  itKioy  pAy  rovrov 
{*Ayalary6pov)  XP^^  ^^^  alrlois, 
oi  pAiy  oW  Ikw&s  oth*  iy  robots 


140 


EMPELOCLES. 


and  more  perfect  state,'  Aristotle  is  justified  in  saying 
that  be  makes,  in  a  certain  way,  the  Crood  and  the  Evil 
into  principles.^  Aristotle,  however,  does  not  conceal 
that  this  is  merely  an  inference,  never  explicitly  drawn 
by  Empedocles,  whose  original  design  extended  no 
£eurther  than  to  represent  Love  and  Hate  as  the  moving 
causes.'  Later  writers  assert,  in  contradiction  to  the 
most  authentic  ancient  testimony  and  the  whole  doctrine 
of  Empedocles,  that  the  opposition  of  Love  and  Hate 


ffi;p(<rKffi  rh  6fio\oyo^fiwoy,  irokXaxov 
yow  abr^  4  M^''  ^iXla  ZioKplvti,  rb 
Si  i^cticof  ffvyttplvn,  Stok  ii^v  yhp 
CIS  r&  irrofxcta  Zitffrrirtu  rh  ww  tirh 
rov  ptltcovSf  r6  rt  rvp  th  ly  trvy^ 
ieplv€T€u  Kal  r&y  iXXuy  ffrotx^i^tf 
tKcurroy.  Sroy  6k  wdKiV  irirra  6irb 
r^9  ^iXias  vwUaciv  ctr  rh  If,  kycey^ 
Koioy  4^  iiedarov  rii  lUpia  Huueplyt' 
aBat  irikiv,  (Similarly  the  oom- 
mentaton,  cf.Stnrz,  219  ff.)  Ibid. 
iii.  4,  1000  a,  24:  koX  yhp  Si^cp 
olii$tlfi  K4y*w  &y  rts  fiaXlffra  hyuoXO" 
yovii4ytt$  adr^,  'E^ircSoicXijf,  ical 
oSror  rainhy  wiwowBw  *  rlOTitri  fihv 
yiip  kpx^y  Tiva  oXrlw  ri}*  <p$opSis 
rh  ytTKoSf  66^tt€  S'  hv  obBky  ^rov 
Kai  rovTO  ytyy&y  l(«  rov  iy6r  ixay- 
ra  yap  ix  roirov  r^iwd  4<m  irK^y 
6  $§6s,  ibid,  b,  10 :  avfjificdyu  abr^ 
•rh  yuieos  fiifihy  fioXXoy  i^Bopas  ^  rod 
tlyau  aUrioy,  iftolus  8'  ohV  ^  fpiXSntf 
rov  tJyai'  ffvydyovca  yiip  tit  rh  Ir 
^9f/pet  rSxXa.  For  the  criticism 
of  EmpedoeWs  doctrine  of  Be- 
coming, cf.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1  ;  ii.  6. 
*  This  18  evident  from  the  pre- 
dicates assigned  to  Love  and  Strife ; 
^t6ippu»y{V.  181)  to  LoTe;  ob\^ 
fi€yo¥{y.  79);  \uyphy  (886);  fuu- 
y6fMyoy  (882)  to  Strife;  and  will 
appear  still  more  clearly  from  what 
will  be  said  later  on  of  the  Sphai- 
ro8  and  the  origin  of  the  world. 


2  Meiaph.  i.  4,  984  b,  32 :  W 
8i  T&vayTia  toij  kyaSois  ty^vra 
iyt^yrro  4y  rf  ^u<rci,  mU  oi  pimv 
riiis  KoL  rh  KoXhy  kKXk  iral  iro^k 
KoX  rh  tdirxpby  .  .  .  offrws  j(X\ostis 
^iXiay  titHiytyKc  jcol  rcixos  Mrtpw 
kKoripmy  aXriov  rovrvy.  tl  yap  rit 
iutoKovBolri  koX  Xa/i/ScEyoi  irp!hs  t^v 
Zidyotay  Koi  t*^h  vp^s  &  ifrc\Xi(cTcu 
\4yny  'EfAwtB^KTJs,  f dp^ffci  r^r  /tcy 
^iXioK  alrlay  oZffay  r&y  hyoBw,  rh 
tk  yuKos  r&y  Kott&y  ficrr'  «f  rts 
^71  rp6iroy  riyk  iral  \«y*iy  ««} 
wp&roy  \4y€iy  rh  Koxhy  ica2  hyoSlhp 
iipX^t  'E^irfSojcX^a,  t^x*  ^  ^^* 
KoXwr,  etc.,  ibid.  xii.  1 0 ;  sup.  p.  138, 
3  ;  cf.  Pint.  De  Is.  48,  p.  370. 

■  Vide  previous  note,  and  Me- 
taph.  i.  7,  988  b,  6 :  ri  «'  o5  ^ytica 
ol  wpd^w  Kol  al  /iCTo/SoXed  Kol  at 
Ktvii<r€is  rp&roy  fi4y  riya  Xiyowar 
ciriov,  o{Jr«  (so  expressly  and  de- 
cidedly) 8i  oh  \4yowriy^  ohV  tyrtp 
W^uKcy.  ol  fiky  yhp  yovy  \4yoyrt5  ^ 
^iXlav  &s  ayaBhy  fi4y  rt  rabras  ras 
airias  riB4curiy  oh  /i^k  &s  crcicdl  yt 
robruy  ^  hy  fj  ytyy6fA€y6y  ti  rw 
6yrwy,  iXX*  its  iwb  ro6rwy  rks  luw^ 
fffis  oSaas  X4yowrty  .  .  .  Scrr*  x4yfiv 
Tc  Ka2  fi^  X4y§iyirws  trvfifialytt  aino'is 
rkyaBhy  oirioy  oh  yhp  arXwr,  kXhk 
Karh  ffVfififfiriKhs  X4yowraf.  Similar 
utterances  of  later  writers,  ap. 
Sturz,  282  sqq. 


LOVE  AND  HATE. 


141 


coincides  with  the  material  distinction  of  the  elements: ' 
that  by  Hate  we  must  understand  the  fiery,  and  by 
Liove  the  moist  element.^  Modem  writers,'  with  more 
probability,  assign  fire  to  Love,  and  the  other  elements 
for  the  most  part  to  Hate,  but  do  not  identify  Hate  and 
LiOTe  with  the  elements.  This  again  is  scarcely  admis- 
sible/ Still  further  departing  from  the  real  opinion  of 
Empedocles,  Karsten  supposes  the  six  first  principles  to 
have  been  merely  phenomenal  forms  of  one  uniform 
primitive  force,  conceived  pantheistically ;  *  and  other 


'  SimpL  Pkya.  33  a :  *E^t. 
fovp^  mairoi  8vo  if  rots  ffroixf^^f 
iwairri^Mis  6vo$4fitfos,  Bfpftou  xol 

vvrcacop^^cM'c  r^y  tov  vtUcovs  c«d  rrjs 

rifw  T?f  iutAyxfis. 

«  Plut  Prim.  Frig.  0.  16,  S.  p. 
952,  an  utterance  which  Brandis 
iRkein.  Mus.  iii.  129;  Gr,  Ram. 
Phil.  i.  204)  should  not  have  treated 
as  historical  evideDce. 

*  Tennemann,  Gesch.  d.  Phil. 
i.  250  ;  Bitter,  in  Wolfe's  Analek- 
ten,  n.  429  sq. ;  cf.  Gtsch.  d.  Phil. 
i.  550,  with  which  also  our  first 
edition,  p.  182,  agre«d.  Wendt  zu 
Tennemann,  i.  286. 

*  Ritter*s  reasons  for  this  the- 
ory are  the  following:  Fizst,  be- 
cause Empedocles,  according  to 
Aristotle  (Mfp.  p.  1 28,  2),  opposed 
fire  to  the  three  other  elements  in 
common,  and  in  so  doing  appears 
to  hare  regarded  it  as  superior  to 
them;  for  he  considers  the  male 
sex  as  the  warmer,  refers  want 
of  intelligence  to  coldness  of  blood, 
and  represents  death  and  sleep  as 
caused  by  the  wasting  of  the  fire 
(ride  infra).  Secondly,  because 
Empedocles,  aocoiding  to  Hippoly- 


tus,  Refut.  \.  8,  held  fire  to  be  the 
divine  essence  of  things.  Thirdly, 
because  Empedocles  himself  ▼.  215 
(209,  282  M),  says  that  Gypris 
gave  fire  the  dominion.  This  iaf>t 
statement  is  based  on  an  oversight; 
the  words  are  xB6va  $0^  vvpi  Sd/tc 
Kpardyou,  *  she  gave  over  earth  to 
fire  to  harden  it.'  The  statement 
of  Hippolytus  we  shall  refute  later 
on.  In  regard  to  Ritter's  first  and 
principal  reason,  Empedocles  may 
very  well  have  considered  fire  as 
more  excellent  than  the  other  ele- 
ments, and  Love  as  preferable  to 
Hate,  without  therefore  making 
the  former  element  the  substratum 
of  the  latter.  He  places  Love  and 
Hate  as  two  independent  principles 
beside  the  four  elements,  and  this 
is  required  by  his  whole  point  of 
view ;  every  combination  of  matter, 
even  if  no  fire  contributes  to  it,  is 
the  work  of  Love,  and  eveiy  sepa- 
ration, even  if  it  be  effected  by  fire, 
is  the  work  of  Hate. 

'  P.  388 :  Si  vero  his  iitvolvcris 
Empedoclis  rationem  entamus,  ten- 
tentia  hue  fere  redU:  unam  esse 
vim,  eamque  divinam  mundum  con- 
tinentem;  hanc  per  quatuor  ele- 
ment a  gwui  Dei  membra,  ut  rpae 


142 


EMPEDOCLES. 


modern  writers  represent  Love  as  the  sole  basis  of  all 
things  and  the  sole  reality;  and  Hate  as  something 
which  lies  only  in  the  imagination  of  mortal  beings : ' 
whereas  the  whole  procedure  of  Empedocles  shows  that 
he  never  attempted  to  reduce  the  various  primitive 
forces  and  primitive  substances  to  one  primitive  essence.* 
The  reasons  for  this  phenomenon  have  been  already  in- 
dicated, and  will  appear  more  clearly  later  on. 


ea  appfllatt  sparsam  esse,  eamqiie 
cemi  potiasimum  in  dnplici  actionet 
distractione  et  oontractione, 
quarum  hone  canjnnctumis,  ordinis, 
omnia  denique  honu  illam  pugna, 
perturbationis  omniaque  mali  prin- 
cipium  ease:  harum  mutua  vi  et 
ordinfm  mundi  et  mttf  of  tones  effici, 
omnesque  res  tam  divinaa  quam 
kumanas  perpetwt  generari,  ali, 
variari.     Cf.  Rimpl.  p.  700.  1. 

»  Ritter,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  i.  644, 
558.  The  statement  just  quoted 
hardly  agrees  with  this.  The  re- 
futation of  his  theory,  as  weU  as 
that  of  Karsten,  is  involved  in  the 
whole  of  this  exposition.  Ritter 
urges  in  defence  of  his  view  (1), 
the  utterance  of  Aristotle,  Metaph. 
iii.  1  and  2 ;  and  (2)  that  the  power 
of  Hat«  only  extends  over  that 
part  of  existence  which,  through 
its  own  fault,  violently  separates 
itself  from  the  whole,  and  only 
lasts  as  long  as  the  fault  continues. 
The  first  argument  has  already 
been  refuted  (p.  181,  1),  and  the 
second  is  based  on  an  improper 
combination  of  two  doctrines,  which 
Empedocles  himself  did  not  com- 
bine. He  refers  the  dividing  of 
the  Sphairos,  through  Hate,  to  a 
universal  necessity,  and  not  to  the 
guilt  of  individuals  (vide  infra) ; 
and  it  is  impossible    he   should 


refer  it  to  individuals  ;  for  before 
Hate  has  separated  the  elements, 
which  were  mingled  together  in 
this  primitive  state,  there  were  no 
individual  existences  that  could  be 
in  fault.  It  is  also  quite  incorrect 
to  say  that  Hate  in  the  end 
perishes,  and  is  at  last  nothing 
more  than  the  limit  of  the  whole ; 
for  even  if  it  is  excluded  from  the 
Sphairos,  it  has  not  therefore 
ceas<)d  to  exist ;  it  still  continues, 
but  so  long  as  the  time  of  peace 
lasts,  it  cannot  act,  because  its 
union  with  the  other  elements  is 
interrupted.  (Empedodes's  concep- 
tion of  Hate  during  this  period  is 
similnr  to  that  of  Christianity  in 
regard  to  the  devil  after  the  last 
judgment,  existing,  but  inactive.) 
Later  indeed  it  again  attains  to 
power,  and  becomes  strong  enouffh 
to  de«?troy  the  unity  of  the  Sphairos 
as  it  did  in  the  beginning  of  the 
world's  development.  This  it 
could  not  have  done,  if  in  the 
opinion  of  Empedocles  it  were 
something  unreal.  .  Cf.  also  Bran- 
di^  Rhein.  Mus.  (edition  of  Niebuhr 
and  Brandis),  iii.  125  sqq. 

«  The  duality  of  the  forces 
acting  in  the  universe  is  therefore 
specified  by  Aristotle  as  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrine  of  Empedocles. 
Metaph.  i.  4,  sttp.  p.  140, 2;  138,  2. 


LOVE  AM)  HATR 


143 


Such  statements  then  as  the  foregoing  are  certainly 
br  from  satis&ctory.  These  determinate  things,  formed 
and  changed  with  fixed  regularity,  could  never  result 
from  the  combination  and  separation  of  substances  unless 
this  alternation  of  matter  proceeded  according  to  fixed 
laws  to  that  eflfect.*  Empedocles  did  so  little  to  supply 
this  want  that  we  can  only  suppose  he  was  not  conscious 
of  it.  He  calls,  indeed,  the  uniting  force  harmony ;  * 
but  this  does  not  imply*  that  the  admixture  of  sub- 
stances takes  place  according  to  a  definite  measure,  but 
only  that  the  substances  are  combined  by  Love.  He 
gives,  in  regard  to  certain  objects,  the  proportions  in 
which  the  different  substances  of  which  they  are  com- 
posed are  mingled  in  them.*     Aristotle  believes  *  that 

K&irpi9os     SpfinrBncra    jtKtlois    iif 

efr*  6\lyov  fitl(uy  tlrt  ir\4ov  itrrly 

iXdatrwy. 
iK  Twv  cJfii  T€   y4yT0  Koi   iWris 

ct^ca  <rapK6s. 

•  Part,  Anim.  i.  1,  642  a,  17: 

*Efiirc8oKA^r  ircpiirlirrei,  iy6fityos 
inr*  ain-ris  rrjs  iL\ri$tiaSf  Koi  rV 
ovffiay  fcal  t^v  ^vtriy  iLyayKd(rrai 
^>dyat  rhy  x6yov  thaif  oXoy  6crovv 
kwoZi^ohs  ri  iarw '  o6rt  yitp  cv  rt 
rw¥  <rroix*l»y  \^7fi  ahrh  ofht  S^o 
9j  Tpia  odrt  irdyrtiy  &AA&  \6yoy  rrji 
/J|e»s  nuT&y.  De  An.  i.  4,  408  a, 
1 9  :  tKmaroy  yap  abr&y  [rwy  fitX&y] 
\<J7y  Ttyl  ^aw  cTi^  [6  'Emit.]. 
Metaph,  i.  10.  The  earlier  philo- 
sophem  had  indeed  derived  all 
tbiDgs  from  four  kinds  of  causes, 
but  only  in  an  obscure  and  imper- 
fect manner:  ^thXtiofiirff  ykp  hutty 
ri  vp^rn\  ^tXoaopla  xtpl  jrdyrwyy 
fire  yia  rt  Koi  kvt^  &PX^'  '^^^^  "^^ 
xpvroyf  iirtl  Koi  'EfiircffoKX^s  itrrovy 


*  As  Aristotle  shows,  Gen.  et 
Con.  ii.  6  {wpra,  p.  139  ».)• 

«  V.  202,  137,  394  (214  sq., 
25,  ap.  MulL  214,  175,  23). 

"  As  Porphyry  infers,  doubtless 
from  V.  202,*  ap.  Simpl.  Cnteg. 
Sekd.  w  Arvi.  69  b,  46 :  *Efiir*- 
8o«\c7  .  .  .  iiwh  rris  iyapfu>ylov  rwy 
rreixciW  /J^«c»r  ris  iroidrrrras  kya- 
^ywri. 

«  V.  .198  (211),  on  the  forma- 
tioQ  of  the  bones : 

^  8«   x^iity  Myipos    iy    9btrr4pyois 

Xoiyoitn 
huif  riy  ^fcrib  iitpivy  X^x*  N^^tx^os 

Tttrffopa  8'  'H^al^rroio'  ri  8'  6<rr4a 

Xwrncii  yivovTO 
kpftoyijis  K^W-paur   kprrip^a  0t<nr€- 

V.  203(215): 
If  8i  x!^ify  TO^TOurty  Xffri  cvviitvpiTt 

puyuaa 
'H^aUrr^  r"  6fifip^  tc    Ka\   cuB4pi 

9af»/pay6»yrtj 


144 


EMPED0CLE8. 


this  involves  the  thought  that  the  essence  of  things 
lies  in  their  fonn.  If  so,  that  thought,  as  even  Aris- 
totle admits,  is  not  actually  expressed  by  Empedocles: 
it  seems  rather  like  an  involuntary  confession.  He 
appears  never  to  have  regarded  it  in  the  light  of  a  uni- 
versal principle,  as  is  clear  from  the  evidence  adduced 
by  Aristotle,  for  in  the  various  passages  in  which  the 
subject  is  mentioned,  he  refers  solely  to  the  verse  on 
the  formation  of  the  bones.  He  can  have  found  in 
Empedocles  nothing  approaching  to  any  universal  law 
such  as  Heracleitus  enunciates  in  his  propositions  con- 
cerning the  Reason  of  the  world  and  the  gradations  of 
the  elementary  changes.  Empedocles  further  derives 
much  from  a  movement  of  the  elements,  which  is  not 
farther  explained,  and  is  so  far  fortuitous.  He  had  not 
arrived  at  the  doctrine  that  all  natural  phenomena  are 
regulated  by  law.* 


T&  \6y<f  ^rt^Xv  ttifait  rovro  8*  itrrt 
rh  ri  ^y  ttvtu  koI  ^  obaia  rod  Tpdy- 
fiaros. 

*  Ariat.  Gen,  et  Corr.  6,  after 
the  words  quoted,  p.  138,  3  :  rovro 
d*  i^rlp  ^  obffla  ii  cici<rrov,  &AA*  oh 
fi6vo¥,  "  /J|»s  T€  8idXXa((s  t€  ynyiv- 
roav^  &orw9p  iKU»6s  ^riffiv  rixv  8* 
^irl  ro&rtav  6yond(9rai  (cf.  E/np.  v. 
39,  supra),  iXA'  ob  X^oi"  i<rri  yiip 
fux^vvo*  &s  irvxw.  Ibid,  p.  334 
a,  1,  sup.  p.  123, 1  (to  which  noth- 
ing new  is  added  by  Philop.  in  h.  I. 
59  b) :  ^UKpiVM  fihp  yitp  rh  ytucos, 
^Wx^il  '*  2^*^  ^  tMip  obx  bwh  rod 
y^licovs,  &AA'  M  iiiv  ^iiauf  &a"tr€p 
kwh  Ti^x^'y  *^  otrm  ykp  <rvp4Kvp(rt 
$4vy  r6r€,  iXXoBi  V  &AX«s,"  6rk  94 
^eri  w9ipvK4yai  rh  wvp  Aytt  ^4ptffBai 
(cf.  De  An.  ii.  4,  416  b,  28:  Em- 
pedocles  says  plants  grow  xdrw  fiky 


.  ,  .  9ih  rh  r^y  71J1'  o^m  ^pwBat 
Karii  <p^iy^  Avm  8i  Sm  rh  rvp  c^tfo^- 
T«r)  6  V  alB^p,  ^•ncit  **fuucpffitn  itari 
X96ya  96€ro  H(ais,'*  (The  two 
verses  are  t.  166  sq.,  St.  203  sq.  K, 
259  sq.  M.)  Phys.  ii.  4,  196  a.  19: 
Empedocles  says :  ovk  i^l  rhy  i4pa 
kytarifT»  iiwoKpiyttrBai,  &XX'  Srofr  hy 
T^XP— for  which  the  words  oSrm 
ffvy4Kvpcrt,  etc.,  are  then  quoted. 
Phys.  viii.  1,  252  a,  5  (agHinst 
Plato) :  xoi  ykp  locicc  rh  oStw  \iytir 
irXAfffiari  fxaWoy,  6fioit»s  8^  col  rh 
y4ytur  8rt  iri^vKw  olht$s  xol  ro^r 
Set  yofii(tiy  cTkcu  ^x^"*  ^^^P  ^mccv 
*E/AT»8o(r\^f  Ky  circilr,  its  ih  Kparfty 
fcal  Kiytty  4y  lUp^i  r^y  ^iXivy  m] 
T^  yuKos  birdpx^i  rots  trpAyftoffuf 
4^  iydyKfis,  ^p€fiuy  8^  rhy  ftera^h 
Xp^yoy.  Similarly  1.  19  sqq.  C^. 
Plato,  Laws,  x.  889.     What  Bitter 


CHANGER  IN  THE  UNIVERSE. 


145 


IL—THE  WORLD  AND  ITS  FARTS, 

The  four  elements  are  underived  and  imperishable. 
The  efficient  forces  are  also  eternal.  Their  relation, 
however,  is  constantly  altering,  and  so  the  universe  is 
subject  to  change,  and  our  present  world  to  generation 
and  destruction.     Love  and  Hate  are  equally  original 


Mja  in  Wolf  *s  Analektm,  ii.  4, 438 
sq.,  in  order  to  justify  Etnpedocles 
against  the  censure  of  Aristotle,  is 
Dot  sufficient  for  this  purpose. 
Th&t  Empedocles,  V.  369  (1), 
describes  Transmigration  as  an 
ordinance  of  necessity  and  as  an 
sneieot  decree  of  the  gods,  is  of 
liuie  importance ;  as  also  that  he 
represented,  V.  139  (66, 177  M),  the 
alternating  periods  of  Love  and  Hate 
lis  determined  by  an  irreyersible 
OMth  or  covenant  {vXafrhs  tpKos). 
That,  no  doubt,  involves  that  every 
period  must  follow  an  unchanging 
order,  but  this  order  still  appears 
ss  an  incomprehensible  positive 
ordinaoce,  and  as  such  is  only 
maiDtained  in  regard  to  these  indi- 
ridoal  cases,  not  in  the  form  of  a 
uoiversal  law  of  the  world,  as  with 
H^iacleitus.  Cicero,  De  fato^  c. 
17,  sub  ioit.,  says  that  Empedocles 
and  others  taught :  Omnia  itafato 
fim^  ^  id  fatum  vim  necessitatis 
affemt.  Simplicius,  Pkys.  106  a, 
reckons  hfdyicn  with  Love  and  Hate 
among  his  efficient  causes.  Sto- 
l>wu,  Eel.  i.  60  (sMp.  vol.  i.  612  ».)» 
t^J9  that  according  to  the  most  pro- 
Uble  rsading  and  opinion,  he  held 
afdyni  to  be  the  uniform  primi- 
tive base  which,  in  regard  to  sub- 
stance, divides  itself  into  the  four 
elements,  and  according  to  its  form, 
iato  Love  and  Hate.    Stobaeus  (i. 

YOL.  II.  ] 


160  ;  Pint.  Plac.  i.  26)  accordingly 
defines  the  Empedoclean  iifdyiai  as 
the  essence  which  makes  use  of 
the  (material)  elements  and  of  the 
(moving)  causes.  Plutarch,  An. 
Procr.  27,  2,  p.  1026,  sees  in  Love 
and  Hate  what  is  elsewhere  called 
destiny ;  and  Simplicius  (sup,  p. 
141,  1)  maintains  more  explicitly 
that  Empedocles  reduced  itie  ele- 
mental opposites  to  Love  and  Hate, 
and  TiOve  and  Hate  to  AvcCym}. 
Themist  Phi/s.  27  b,  p.  191  sq. 
includes  Empedocles  among  those 
philosophers  who  spoke  of  iufdyKii 
in  the  sense  of  matter.  These  are 
all  later  interpretations  which  can 
tell  us  nothing  concerning  what  he 
really  taught,  and  which,  therefore, 
ought  not  to  have  found  credence 
with  Hitter,  Gesch,  d,  Phil,  i.  644. 
They  no  doubt  proceed  either  from 
V.  369  (1)  sqq.,  or  from  the  analogy 
of  Stoic,  Platonic,  and  Pythagorean 
doctrines,  or  stiU  more  likely  firom 
a  desire  to  find  in  Empedocles  a 
uniform  principle.  Perhaps,  in- 
deed, Aristotle  in  the  passage 
quoted  above,  Phys,  viii.  1,  may 
have  given  occasion  to  them.  This 
passage,  however,  only  refers,  as  is 
clear,  to  Emp.  V.  139  sqq.  (vide 
infra),  Aristotle's  cautious  lan- 
guage shows  that  he  cannot  be 
alluding  to  any  more  definite  ex- 
planation. 


146 


:empedocles. 


and  equally  powerful ;  but  they  are  not  always  equally 
balanced :  each  has  dominion  alternately.^  At  one  time 
the  elements  are  brought  together  by  Love,  and  at 
another  they  are  torn  asunder  *  by  Hate.'  Now  the  world 
is  combined  into  a  unity,  and  again  it  is  split  up  into 
plurality  and  oppositions.  Each  process,  according  to 
Empedocles,  goes  on  until  on  the  one  hand  complete 
union,  or  on  the  other  complete  separation,  of  the  ele- 
ments is  effected ;  and  equally  long  does  the  moTement 
of  natural  life  continue,  and  individual  existences  arise 
and  pass  away ;  but  as  soon  as  the  goal  is  reached  this 

KctKcos  fx^^^t 

Text  and  interpretation  are  here 
equally  uncertain ;  we  might  eon- 
jecture  Zicup^rra  or  Sio^^'  M 
way,  but  this  would  only  pBrtiallj 
mend  the  matter.  Hnllach  tran»- 
lates  the  text  as  it  stands :  Dtmec 
qua  concreta  fuerurU  penitut  sue- 
cubuermt ;  but  I  cannot  think  that 
Empedocles  could  have  expressed 
this  in  so  far-fetched  a  manner. 

«  Plato,  I.  c. ;  sup.  p.  138,  3; 
Arist.  I.  c. :  'EMircSocAnr  ip  ti4fitt 
Kiyfiff&ai  Koi  xiXip  ^p€fi€tp  (sc  t& 
6yra),  KiyuffBou  fi^y^  Sroy  ii  fiAia 
ix  ToW&p  iroi^  rh  Ir  fl  rh  vtkos 
iroXX^  i^  iyhs,  iiptfxwtv  V  iv  rw 
fierc^b  xP^^^^^t  A^wv  offrvf  (V. 
69-73);  ibid.  p.  252  a,  5  {tup. 
144. 1) ;  ibid.  i.  4, 187  a,  24 :  A<nr(p 
*EfiirtZoK\ijs  iral  'Ai^o^dfNtf*  U  rev 
fiiyfiaros  yhp  ical  otrot  iKKpivwHfi 
r&XAa.  Zia^4pov(ri  8*  oXX'^Xtfr  ry 
rhy  /iky  vcpfoSor  wottiy  ro^mv  rhp 
V  &wa^.  Be  Ccdo,  i.  10 ;  ffuo.  p.  66, 
1.  Later  testimony,  ap.  Stun,  p. 
256  sqq. 


»  V.  110(138.  146  M):— 
jcol  7^^  jcal  xdpos  fjy  re  koI  (afferat, 

oiZi  TTOT^f  ofotf, 

ro^wy  iLfuportpuy  Ktiy^ctrai  &(nr€- 

ros  My. 
4y  M  fidp^t  Kparfwai  ir^pnrKofiiyoio 

jcol  ^0iy*t  €h  &XAijXa  koi  a(>|erai  4y 

fi4p€i  df0i}f . 
The  subject,  as  is  clear  from  i^i'to- 
rdprny,  is  LoYe  and  Hate,  cf.  V.  89 
sq. ;  wpra,  p.  125,  2  end. 

«  V;  61  sqq. ;  sup.  p.  128,  n., 
where  I  give  my  reasons  for  dis- 
agreeing with  Karsten,  p.  196  sq., 
and  for  altering  my  own  previous 
opinion  in  regard  to  this  verse.  I 
nowrefer  it,  not  to  individual  things, 
but  with  Plato.  Soph.  242  D  sq.; 
Arist.  Phys.  viii.  1,  250  b.  26,  and 
his  commentators  (vide  Karsten, 
197,  366  sq.)  to  the  alternating 
conditions  of  the  world.  V.  69 
sqq.  («ep.p.  123;  125,  n.  V.  114 
(140,  149  M):— 
aJ^ii  yap  tcriy  Tai>ra(the  elements), 

ytyyorr^   AyBpoffroi    t€    xal    &XXwv 

fBy^a  0ynT&yt 
ttXAorc  fi^y    ^uKArijri   ffvytpx^f'^i^ 

els  iya  K6<rfioyf 


CHANGES  IN  THE  UNIVERSE.  147 

movement  stops,  the  elements  cease  to  combine  and  to 
separate,  because  they  are  absolutely  intermingled  or 
separated;  and  they  will  remain  in  this  condition  nntil 
it  is  changed  by  a  new  impulse  in  an  opposite  direction. 
Thus  the  life  of  the  world  describes  a  circle  r  the  abso- 
lute unity  of  substances,  the  transition  from  this- to  their 
separation,  absolute  separation,  and  return  to  unity,  are 
the  four  stages  through  which  it  is  constantly  passing 
in  endless  reiteration.    In  the  second  and  fourth  stages, 
it  manifests  itself  in  the  separate  existence  of  compo- 
site beings :  here  alone  is  natural  life  possibte  ;  in  the 
first  stage,  on  the  other  band,  which  admits  of  no  sepa- 
ration of  the  elementary  substances,  and  in  the  third, 
which  does  not  admit  of  their  combination^  individual 
existence  is  excluded.     The  periods  of  movement  and 
of  natural  life  therefore  alternate  regularly  with  those 
of  rest  and  the  cessation  of  natural  life.^    But  how  long 
each  of  these  periods  is  supposed  to  last,  and  whether 

'  So  Aristotle  says  in  the  pas-  tuerh  r^v  ff^tupow  M^x^roi,  ^Tci5&y 
»ges  quoted  from  Phi/s.  viii.  1;  &ircana  trvympiB^ — Brandis's  coi:jec- 
umI  the  statement  is  coollrmed  by  ture,  i.  207,  that  we  should  read 
y.  60  sqq.  of  Empedocles,  accord*  *Zfiwt^oKKrjs  for  'E.lfififjMs  seems  to 
ing  to  the  sense  given  to  this  verse  me  erroneous),  this  must  be  con- 
npra,  p.  124;  not  to  mention  later  sideied  one-sided;  though  Empe- 
'niters  dependent  on  Aristotle,  as  docles  may  himself  have  given 
Themist,  PAvff.  18  a,  58  a  (124,  occasion  to  such  a  view  by  having 
409  Sp.),  and  Simpl.  Pkys,  258  b,  described  the  Sphairos  alone  with 
2*2  b.  Logical  consistency  besides  any  exactitude,  and  having  passed 
vonld  seem  to  require  that  £mpe-  over  without  mention,  or  witn  very 
docles  should  admit  on  the  one  cursory  mention,  the  opposite  con- 
tide  a  complete  separation,  if  he  dition  of  absolute  separation.  Rit- 
admitted  on  the  other  a  complete  ter*s  doubt  (i.  561)  whether  Em- 
intermixture,  of  substances.  When,  pedodes  was  in  earnest  as  to  the 
tberefore,  Eademus,  Pkt/s,  viii.  1,  doctrine  of  the  changing  cosmical 
refers  the  time  of  rest  only  to  the  periods  is  sanctioned  as  little  by 
j  onion  of  the  elements  in  the  Sphai-  his  own  utterances  as  by  the  tea- 
I  T08  (Simpl.  27  b :  El^/iof  84  r^r  timony  of  others. 
Wifdoir  h  Tp  liis  ^iXiof  iwuepartia 

l2 


148 


EMPEDOCLES. 


their  duration  was  ever  precisely  determined  b;  Em- 
pedocles,  there  is  no  certain  evidence  to  show.^ 

In  the  intermixture  of  all  substances,  with  the 
description  of  which  the  cosmogony  of  our  philosopher 
began,*  none  of  the  four  elements  appeared  separately. 
This  medley  is  afterwards  described  as  spherical 
and  unmoved ; '  and  since  perfect  union  excludes  all 
influence  of  the  dividing  principle,  Empedocles  says 
that  Hate  was  not  present  in  it/    He  calls  the  world 


■  The  only  bint  we  haye  on  the 
subject  is  the  statement,  V.  369 
(1)  eqq.,  presently  to  be  mentioned, 
that  sinM  demons  are  to  wander 
abo\}t  in  the  world  for  30,000  &pai. 
But  it  is  a  question  whether  we 
should  infer  (with  Fanzerbieter, 
Beitr,  p.  2)  from  this  a  similar  du- 
ration of  the  cosmical  periods; 
since  the  demons  must  have  lived 
before  the  commencement  of  their 
wanderings,  and  were  to  live  after- 
wards :  and  the  connection  of  this 
doctrine  with  the  Empododean 
physics  is  very  slight.  It  is  of 
little  consequence  whether  by  the 
Tpis  yMpiai  &pai  we  understand, 
with  Mullach  {Bmp,  Proam.  13 
sq(}.)  30,000  years,  or  with  Bak- 
huuen  van  den  Brink,  Var,  Led, 
31  sqq.,  and  Krische,  in  Plat. 
Pktsd,  p.  66,  30,000  seasons,  i.e. 
10,000  years.  The  latter  opinion 
is  supported  partly  by  the  lan- 
guage and  partly  by  the  analogy 
of  the  Platonic  doctrine.  Cf.  Part 
n.  a,  684,  694  sq..  third  edition. 

«  Cf.  w/.  p.  160  sq. 

»  V.  184  sqq.  (64,  72  sq.,  59 
sq.  K.    170  sqq.  M):  o^^cupoi'lrjir. 

KWTfu)  kyXahv  ciSos, 
M^  lijk¥  oW  ckris  kdffto¥  lUvot  ov5t 


oSrws  hipfuovlfii  rwciy^  k^€i  (Stein. 
K:  Kp^,  Simpl.  PAyt.  272, 
b :  icp^^a)  ^oT^porrflu, 
ff^aipos    kvkKot^p^s    ftavip    T«pn^ 
y4T  (the  repose  which  spread 
throughout  the  whole  orde) 
yaiww. 
The  Sphairos  is  described  as  at 
rest  by  Aristotle  and  Eudemns, 
/.  c.    Philop.  Gem.  ei  Corr,  5  a, 
calls  it  &roios,  in  reference  to  the 
verse  quoted  above. 

*  V.  176(171,  162  M):  rmi^U 
ffvytpxofi4pt9tf  i^  iaxoTow  trraro 
Ncijcoi.  This  verse  relates  imme- 
diately indeed,  not  to  the  state  of 
imity  as  completed,  but  only  as 
commencing ;  but  it  may  easily  be 
applied  to  the  former ;  if  the  pro- 
cess of  combination  begins  with  the 
dispossession  of  ELate,  when  unity 
is  completed  Hate  must  be  wholly 
cast  out.  Aristotle,  therefonj 
{Meiaph  iii.  4;  vide  Mtp.  139,  I), 
may  have  quoted  this  verse  to 
prove  that  Hate  has  part  m  every- 
thing outside  the  Sphairos :  &waana 
yap  4k  Toirov  rSxxi  4im  vK^w  6 
$*6s'  Ktyti  yovy  (Y.  104  sqq. ;  ««p. 
130,  1)  .  .  .  KCU  x^P^'  '<  TO^WI" 
8^\oy'  cl  ykp  fi^  ^v  rh  ycocoY  ivrots 
irpdyfJMffiyf  ly  tw  ^v  fiirorro,  in  ^' 
alir  thap  yhp  (rwAOp,  rrfre  8*,  *'  fo- 
X»rov  tararo  j^cuos*'*  8ii  koI,  con- 


TEE  SPEAIROS. 


149 


in  this  state  of  intennixture,  because  of  its  spherical 
form,  Sphairos,  its  usual  designation  among  later 
writers.  Aristotle  uses  instead  the  expressions  fuyfui ' 
and  ivJ^  It  is  also  called  Deity,'  but  not  in  a  manner 
that  justifies  our  considering  it  as  a  personal  being. 
Empedocles  gave  this  name  to  the  elements  also,  and 
Plato  to  the  visible  world.^  Later  writers  adopt  various 
interpretations  of  the  Sphairos :  formless  matter,^ 
efficient    cause,*   the    primeval    fire    of    the    Stoics,^ 


tinues    Aristotle,   <rvfifialvti  ahr^ 

M/tor  thai  Tuy  iWutr  oh  yitp  ywwpl- 
Qh  rk  (TTOixcMi  ir<irra*  rh  yhp  ytiitos 
oinc  Ix^i,  ri  Si  '^rAais  rov  Afiolov  r^ 
^ftoiif.  Of.  ziv.  5,  1092  b,  6; 
Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1  {sup.  p.  131,  1). 
The  theory  of  Simpl.  De  CcUo,  236 
b.  22;  Sckol.  in  Arist,  607  a,  2; 
d.  Pkys.  7  b,  that  Hate  also  has 
part  in  the  Sphairos,  is  founded  on 
a  vroiig  interpretation.  Cf.  on 
this  point  and  with  Brandis,  RAein, 
Mu9.  iii.  131 ;  Bitter,  Geach.  d. 
Pkil.  i.  546. 

>  Metaph,  xii.  2,  1069  b,  21 
f,  10, 1075  b,  4 ;  xiv.  5,  1092  b, 
6;  Pfys.lA,  187  a,  22. 

*  Mttaph.  i.  4,  985  a,  27 ;  iii. 
i  1000  a,  28  b,  11 ;  Gm.  et  Corr. 
i- 1,  315  a,  6,  20 ;  Phys.  i.  4,  sab 
init, 

'  Vide  sup.  148,  4,  and  Emp.  v, 
142  (70,  180  M) :  wdana  yhp  ^ittris 
vcXcftiCcro  Twia  Oeocb. 

*  It  is,  therefore,  strange  that 
Oladiech  should  say  {Emped,  u.  d, 
Atg.  33;  cf.  Anaxag.  v,  d.  Isr. 
uiL) : '  Empedocles  could  not  have 
called  a  mere  mixture  of  the  ele- 
mente  the  Deity.'  The  whole 
vorld  is,  according  to  Empedocles, 
a  mere  mixture  of  the  elements, 
•nd  so  also  are  human  souls  and 


the  gods.  Besides,  Empedocles 
never  characterised  the  Sphairos 
as  '  the  Deity,'  but  only  as  Deity. 
The  well-known  verses  on  the 
spirituality  of  God,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  do  not  refer  to  the 
Sphairos.  Aristotle  first  called  the 
Sphairos  6  Ms,  but  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  Empedocles  called  it  so. 

•  Philop.  Gen,  et  Corr.  p.  5  a ; 
but  this  is  only,  strictly  speaking, 
a  development  of  the  consequences 
by  means  of  which  Arist.  Gen,  et 
Corr.  i.  1,  316  a,  had  already  re- 
fated  Empedocles.  In  Phys,  H. 
13  (ap.  Karsten,  323  ;  Sturz,  374 
sq.)  he  acknowledges  that  the  sub- 
stances are  actually  mingled  in  the 
Sphairos.  A  similar  inference  is 
deduced  by  Arist.  Metaph.  xii.  6, 
1072  a,  4,  and  subsequently  by 
Alex,  in  h.  I,  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  efficient  forces,  viz.,  that  Em- 
pedocles supposed  the  Actual  to 
hare  preceded  the  Possible. 

•  Themist.  Phys,  18  a,  124  sq. 
probably  a  careless  use  of  the  in- 
terpretation mentioned  by  Simpl. 
Ptifs,  83  a. 

»  Hippol.  Refut.  Til.  29  (sup. 
129,  2).  This  statement,  to  which 
Brandis  attaches  far  too  much  im- 
portance (i.  295),  and  which  betrays 
great  ignorance  of  the  Empedodean 


150 


EMPED0CLE8, 


the  intelligible  world  of  Plato,^  are  all  misapprehen- 
sions,  which  we  may  spare  ourselves  the  trouble  of  re- 
futing. The  opinion  that  the  Sphairos  has  only  an 
ideal  existence,  and  is  merely  a  figurative  expression 
for  the  unity  and  harmony  underlying  the  changeful 
phenomenon,^  is  equally  erroneous.  This  theory  is 
contradicted  by  the  explicit  declarations  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  and  by  the  explanations  of  Empedocles  him- 
self.' Moreover,  such  a  discrimination  between  the 
ideal  essence  of  things  and  their  phenomenon  tran- 
scends  the  general  standpoint  of  the  pre-Socratic 
physics. 

A  world  ^  could  only  arise  when  the  primitive  sub- 
stances separated,  or,  in  the  language  of  Empedocles, 
when  the  Sphairos  became  divided  by  Hate.*    He  tells 


doctrine,  cannot  be  considered  as 
historical  evidence.  Its  only  foun- 
dation is  probably  the  analogy  be- 
tween the  doctrines  of  Empedocles 
and  Heracleitns  on  the  changing 
conditions  of  the  oos;mo8,  on  the 
strength  of  which,  Clemens,  Strojn, 
T.  599  B,  attributes  to  Empedocles 
the  opinion  that  the  world  wiU  be 
destroyed  by  fire. 

'  The  Neo-Plaionists  concern- 
ing whom  Karsten.  p.  369  sqq., 
cf.  326,  gives  us  many  particulars ; 
cf.  inf.  note  4.  We  read  in  TheoU 
Arithm.  p.  8  sq.,  that  Empedocles, 
Farmenides,  &c,  taught  like  the 
Pythagoreans  :  r^v  ^lowoJ^^i^v  ^{mtiv 
'EoY^as  rp&KOv  ht  /i4ff^  ISp^Bai  icoi 

oMiv  tBpatf ;  but  this  seems  to  re- 
fer, not  to  the  Sphairos,  but  to 
Love,  which  is  in  ^ne  centre  of  the 
rotating  cosmical  matter  (V.  172 ; 
'  Tide  ipf.  p.  162,  1. 


«  Steinhart,   /.  c.  p.  91  sqq. ; 
similarly  Fries,  i.  188. 
«  Cf.  inf.  161.  1. 

*  A  K6a'fUis^  in  contradistinction 
to  the  (T^ipor— a  distinction  which, 
according  to  Simplicius,  Empedo- 
cles himself  had  explicitly  intro- 
duced. Cf.  De  CiOo,  139  b.  16 
(SehoL  in  Ar.  489  b,  221:  'E/i». 
itd/^pa  rw¥  vap'  tAr^  KMFfunr  rk 
Mn  (<2^a,  note  1)  ^Ar/fc,  ^f  mu 
MiMffi  xpn<f^fu  ^ta^pois,  rhv  fi^v 
v^eupow  rhy  5^  icScfunf  icvpl»s  jroXwr. 

*  Plato  imp.  p.  1 88, 3)  therefore 
derives  the  multiplicity  of  things 
from  Hate,  and  Anstotle  still  more 
decidedly  characterises  the  present 
period  of  the  world  as  the  one  in 
which  Hate  reigns.  Gen.  et  Corr, 
ii.  6,  334  a,  6 :  Sfia  5^  koI  r&y  «(<r- 
fAov  AfioUas  Ixeii'  ^irlv  iwi  tc  tov 
vtUcovs  vvv  icatl  itpArtpov  M  t^^ 
fiKlas.  Be  Cceh,  iii.  2,  301  a,  14 : 
if  we  wish  to  expound  the  origin  of 


FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 


161 


w,  therefore,  that  in  course  of  time  Hate  grew  up  in 
the  Sphairos  and  sundered  the  elements ; '  when  the 
^paration  was  fully  accomplished.  Love  came  in  among 


the  world,  we  must  begin  with  that 
state  which  preceded  the  division 
ADd  8e|Miration  of  matter — its  pre- 
sent state:  iK  Sicorc^wf  Zk  md 
cvovficrwr  abn  €$Kayov  «lrac  r^v 
'yipffip ;  because  in  this  case,  jiB  it 
is  said  on  p.  300  b,  19,  there 
would  hare  been  a  world  antece- 
dent to  the  world :  ith  kclL  'E^v«- 
SmcA^  wapaX^iwti  riitf  M  rqs 
^tkinrros  (sc  7^c<riy)'  oi  yap  tu^ 
ilirwro  irvffr^oai  rhy  oupoy^i^,  iK 
«rxiif((rfi^ra*r  ftAy  KaT<urK*vi(ap 
oiyKptffuf  ik  iroivK  S/A  t  V  tfnX6Tifra' 
is SiovcKpifi^iwr  yiip  ffwiffrfiKtv 
h  tiff  not  rinf  trroix^iwy^  &(rT*  iytiy 
nmoryitftcBai  4^  Mt  irol  cvyM- 
Kfiifuvoo.  Following  this  precedent, 
Aleiander  regards  Hate  absolutely 
as  the  author  of  the  world  [SimpL 
Be  Cctlo,  236  b,  9,  20 ;  Schol.  in 
Aritt.  507  a,  1),  or  at  any  rate  of 
the  present  world.  In  Philop.  Gen^ 
It  Coir.  59  b,  he  observes  on  Arist. 
Om.  tt  Corr.  ii.  6 :  if  by  the  ic^<r- 
fwt  we  understand  the  condixion 
io  which  the  elements  were  septii- 
rated  by  Hate,  or  were  again 
brought  together  by  Lore,  Hate 
and  Lore  would  be  the  only  moving 
forces  in  ihe  K6a'fios ;  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  understand  by  the 
KicftBt  the  corporeal  mass  which 
underlies  the  Sphairos  as  well  as 
the  present  world,  we  must  attri- 
bata  to  it  a  movement  of  its  own : 
^  i/to(«f,  ^ffi,  ic6afias  icai  rain6y 
^vrt  Kol  lupurai  4wi  tc  rod  ytUovt 
ywu^  M  r%s  ^iA.(a5  wpSrtpov  h 
^  roit  fifra(v  8iaXff(/i/uuri  rwv  ihr* 
i^tintv  ywofUvw  KiiHi<r€ti»v,  wp&ro- 
p^»  Tf  >Tf  4k  rov  iffUovs  4T€Kpdrri- 
ot9  ^  ^OSti^  fcol   ¥VP  %T%  4ic   r^s 


tpiXias rh  rtocos,  KSfffios  4irr\v,&WiiP 
riyii  tttvo^lMvos  idvnaw  ««2  ohx  &f 
il  ^iXia  KoX  rh  vukos  Ktwowriv,  This 
interpretation  is  found  even  earlier, 
for  Hermias,  who  certainly  must 
have  taken  it  from  others,  repre- 
sents {Irris,  c.  4)  Empedocles  as 
saying:  rh  pukos  woit7 ledrra.  With 
the  later  Neo-Flatonists,  according 
to  Simp.  Pkys.  7  b,  the  prevailing 
opinion  was  that  the  Sphairos  was 
produced  by  Love  alone,  and  this 
world  by  Hate  alone.  More  pre- 
cisely, Simpl.  Do  Cctlot  I.  o»  (cf. 
ibii.  268  b,  7;  Schol,  512  b,  14): 
fiifnoro  2i,  Ktiv  4iriKparj  4v  ro6i^ 
rh  ¥§ucos  &(nr€p  4v  r^  trpaipff  ^ 
^iXfo,  &AA*  HfJL^ot  uv*  aitifpow  \4yov» 
rai  ylp€<r$cu ;  this  is  only  untrue  in 
respect  to  the  Sphairos.  Theodor. 
Prodr.  J)e  Amic.  v.  52,  calls  Hate 
the  creator  of  the  terrestrial  world 
in  contradistinction  to  the  Sphu* 
rofi,  but  this  is  unimportant. 
»  V.  139(66,  177  M):— 

airrilp  Iwti  f^iya  Sukos  4p\  fuXUv" 

vw  4$pi^Bri 
4t  Tifidt  r*  iuf6pov<ro  rcXcto^^yoie 

Xp^foiOf 
8r  ffi^y  &/tet3a7or  ir\ar4os  'rdp*  4X'fh 

Xoroi  (al.  -to)  UpKOw 

vdp*  iK.  instead  of  frap§K4iXaTai 
seems  to  me  necessary  in  spite  of 
Mullach  8  contradiction,  Emp.  Pr. 
p.  7  ;  Fragm.  i.  43 ;  cf.  Bonitz  and 
Schwegler,  in  Metaph.  iii.  4,  who 
also  defend  this  emendation.  V.  1 42 
{sup.  p.  149. 3);  Plut.  Foe.  Lun.  12, 
5  sq.,  p.  926,  where  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  the  words  x^P^^  ^^  ^^ 
way  KoX  x^P^^  """^  Kouipop  may  con- 
tain Empedodean  ezpressious. 


162 


JEMPBDOCLES. 


the  divided  masses,  and  produced  at  one  point  a  whirl-' 
ing  motion,  by  which  part  of  the  substances  wa? 
mingled,  and  Hate  (this  is  merely  another  expression 
for  the  same  process)  was  excluded  from  the  circle  that 
was  forming  itself.  As  this  motion  extended  more  and 
more,  and  Hate  was  forced  further  and  further  away, 
the  substances  yet  unmingled  were  drawn  into  the 
mass,  and  irom  their  combination  sprang  the  pr^ent 
world  and  mortal  creatures.*  But  as  the  world  had 
a  beginning,  so  it  will  also  have  an  end,  when  all 
things,  through  continued  unity,  shall  have  returned 
to  the  primitive  condition  of  the  Sphairos.'  The  as- 
sertion that  this  destruction  of  the  world  would  be  by 

(upd  Tc  rh,  Jtfftv  JSMfftfra  diaXAdt^arra 

rStv  94  re  fit<Tyofi4y»y  x**^  '^'^ 
fwpla  Bvrrr&»t 

186.  xam-olps  Ui4ii(ruf  itp/tipSrOf  9av- 
fia  lh4aBai. 

The  Omrrh,  are  not.  only  living  crea- 
tureA,  but,  generally  speaking,  all 
that  is  subject  to  generation  and 
decay. 

'  Authorities  fop  this  have  al- 
ready been  given  at  the  commence- 
ment of  this  section.  Cf.  also 
Arist.  Metaph.  iii.  4,  1000  b,  17: 
k\\'  9fjMs  roaovrSv  yt  \4y€i  6fUi\»- 
yovfA4ws  (6  '^M'-)  ob  ykp  rk  pj^ 
IpBaprk  tA  Si  &^9apra  iroiei  Twr 
tvrw,  biKXh  ir6.vra  <^aprrk  vXJ^r  t»v 
ffToix^lvy.  Eropedocles,  therefore, 
as  Karsten,  p.  378,  rightly  obserrei, 
never  calls  the  gods  al^p  Uvrts,  as 
Homer  does,  bnt  only  doXtxalwy^i 
V.  107.  126,  373  (135,  161.  4  K; 
131,  141,  5  M).  The  destruction 
of  all  things  puts  an  end  even  to 
the  existence  of  the  gods. 


*  Thns  we  must  understand  the 
following  verses,  171  (167,  191 
M):- 

^irel   VuKot    fi^y    iv4prorov    Xxtro 

fi4v9os 
9tv7is,  4v  t\  fi4ffii  ^t\6rfis  ffrpo^- 

\iyyi  y4infiTcu, 
M^  ffSt}  rdSc  wdvra  ffw4px(trm.  %v 

fl6v09  ttfCUf 

o(nt  tuf^apf  kXJC  49t\fifiit,  irvyuTrAfitp' 

&XAo6cir  axKa. 
175.  'T&y  84  avy€pxofi4jmv  4^  tf<rxa- 

rop  XtrrwTO  Nciicof . 
iroXX&  8*  &/iiX^*  tifniK^  tKpouofUvoi" 

ffiv  4vcLKKd^y 
Scrff*  In  tiuKos  IfpvKt  fitrdptrioy  oh 

yhp  iLfi9iJup4tfis 
irdvrws  4^4<rTHKty  #»'  IcxoTa  r4p- 

fxara  k6k\ov, 
&XA&  T^  fi4y  r*  4y4fitfty€  fji€\4vyf  rk 

94  T*  ^IciSc/S^Kci. 
180.  Hffffoy  8*  al^y  tir€Hirpo94oiy  rScoy 

aihy  hrjti 
IjTiS^pvy  ^i\inis  Tf  fcal  Knirttrw 

ififiporos  ^pfi^i' 
aJi^  84  By^*  4^{>ovro  r&  rrpXv  yMov 


FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD.  15S 

fire  ^  18  doubtless  founded  on  a  confusion  of  the  doctrine 
of  Empedocles  with  that  of  Heracleitus.* 

In  this  cosmogony  there  is  a  striking  lacuna.  If 
all  individual  existence  depends  upon  a  partial  luiion  of 
the  elements,  and  ceases  when  they  are  wholly  mingled 
or  wholly  separated,  particular  existences  must  come 
into  being  as  much  when  the  Sphairos  dissolves  into 
the  elements  as  when  the  separated  elements  return  to 
nnity.  In  the  one  case  a  world  is  formed  by  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  mingled,  on  the  other  by  the  union  of 
the  separated.  Aristotle  •  actually  ascribes  this  opinion 
to  Empedocles,  as  has  been  shown,  and  that  philosopher 
expresses  himself,  generally  speaking,  in  the  same  sense. 
In  the  more  precise  development  of  the  cosmogony, 
however,  he  seems  to  speak  only  of  that  formation  of  the 
world  which  follows  the  division  of  the  elements  through 
Hate.  To  this  all  the  fra^fments  and  accounts  which  we 
possess  relate;*  and  the  verses  quoted  above  (V.  171 
sqq.)  appear  to  leave  no  room  for  a  more  detailed  expo- 
sition of  what  occurred  and  resulted  when  the  elements 

*  Vide  supra,  149,  7.  deriyed  the  formation  of  the  greater 

'  Such  endence  m  we  possess  masses,  as  the  sky  and  the  sea, 

is  Tery  inadequate :  the  most  trast-  primarily  from  the  operation  of 

worthy  writers  are  entirely  silent  Strife ;  and  that  of  organic  beings 

on  this  point.    Besides,  it  seems  from  the  operation  of  Lore.    This 

incoDceirable  that  the  nnity  of  all  view  mnst  be  greatly  modified  by 

elements  should  be  brought  aboijt  the    eridence    quoted   abore    (cf. 

bj  their  conflagration,  in  whiCAi  Arist.  De  Cotlo^  iii.  2),  and  by  the 

oitpedodes  could  only  have  seen  nature  of  the  case.     I/ove  forms 

a  tnnsformation  into  one  element,  both  ;  but  in  combining  the  e)e- 

vhicb,  according  to  bis  principles,  ments  which  had  been  separated 

▼as  impossible.  by  strilb,  it  necessarily  fint  pro- 

'  Similarly    Aleiztfnder,    Tide  duced    the    great    masses,    com- 

fi9>ra,  p.  160,  5.  pounded  19  a  simpler  manner,  and 

^  Brandis,  I,  e,  201,  remarks  organic  bsings  only  in  the  sequel. 

I^t  Empedocles  seems  to  haye  , 


154 


JEMPJED0CLJS8. 


were  separated  out  of  the  midst  of  the  Sphairoe.  It 
would  seem  that  Empedocles  did  not  himself  notice 
this  deficiency  in  his  exposition. 

The  process  of  the  world's  formation  he  conceived 
as  follows.^  Out  of  the  whirling  mass  in  which  all  the 
elements  had  been  shaken  together  by  Love,  the  air  first 
separated  itself,  and  condensing  on  the  outermost  rim, 
surrounded  the  whole  like  a  hollow  sphere.^  After  this 
fire  broke  forth,  and  occupied  the  upper  space,  next  to 
the  outermost  concave,  while  the  air  was  forced  under 


>  Of.  Plut  ap.  Ens.  Prop,  i.  8, 

10  :    ^K  WpdfTJIt  ^ffl    Tiff   Ttȴ   ffTOl' 

X^iv  KpJurtus  ^TPOKpiOivra  rhv  iiifM 
%9ptxv9ritfat  x^cXy*  firrk  Si  rhp  iJpa 
rhirvp  Mpofihp  Koi  ouk  tx"*'^  ^"''^P*'" 
X<ipar,  ikvto  itcTpix^w  (nrh  tov  ircpl 
rhv  iiipa  irdyov.  PUc,  ii.  6,  4 :  'E. 
rbr  tJikv  at04pa  rpAror  Siaicpf0^rai, 
Sff^cpov  8i  rh  rvpf  i^*  f  rifp  ytiv^ 
4^  fs  Aycof  wtpur<ptyyfi4nis  rf  ^ifi^ 
rrjs  irept^fMs  hpc^Xiacu  rh  SSwp,  4^ 
oS  BufJuaSrji'ou  rhy  hApa'  Kcd  ywi<rBtu 
rhv  fihv  oifpatfhw  iic  rov  al04pQSt  f^^ 
^^  ^\ioy  4k  rov  trvphsy  TiXiytf^yoi  8'  4k 
rSȴ  $XKmp  rk  wtplytia,  Arist. 
Gen.  et  Corr.  ii.  6  («fp.  p.  144,  1). 
Emp.  V.  130  (182,  233  M)  :— 

ei  8*  &7C  pup  TOi  4yi9  Xe|»  wp&6^ 

ilKlov  ifiX^p, 
i^  Sp  8^  dytpopro  rh,  pvp  4aopAiupa 

irdvra, 
ycSd  T€  icol  v6rrot  woKwcifiup  i^8* 

Ityphs  &V 
TtriiP  ^8*  cuB^p  a^lyywp  ir€p\  (L  w4pi) 

kvkXop  &Tcarra, 

rtrkp,  the  ontspread,  is  here  most 
likely  not  a  designation  of  the  sun, 
but  a  name  for  the  Aether;  and 
aldiip,  elsewhere  with  Empedocles 
synonymous  with  &Vi  means  the 
upper  air,  without  implying  any 
•ktmentary  difference  between  the 


upper  air  and  the  lower.  Accord- 
ing to  Eustath.  in  Od,  i.  320,  Em- 
pedocles called  fire  xa^vXiiJms  hf4- 
%at0Pf  the  swiftly  aspiring,  perhaps 
in  the  connection  spoken  of  by 
Aristotle,  loc.  eit. 

*  According  to  Stob.  Eel  i. 
506,  egg-shaped,  or  rather  lentil- 
shaped.  His  words  are :  'E/at.  rod 
Oi^ows  rov  &w^  r%s  yris  9»s  obpopov 
.  .  .  irKtioptt  cTyoi  r^p  KariLrhwkir 
ros  Sidffratrip,  Kwrh  rovro  rod  ofr- 
popou  fiSiXXop  iumir€wrafi4pov,  Htk  t^ 
&^  iraparKTiffUts  rhp  xSa-fi/op  KfurOai. 
This  opinion  might  commend  itself 
to  sensible  observation ;  and  there 
would  be  no  proof  against  it  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  unnoticed  both  by 
Aristotle,  De  Calo,  ii.  4,  and  hu 
commentators,  for  Aristotle  is  not 
alluding  in  that  place  to  the  riews 
of  his  predecessors.  But  as  Eoip. 
(vide  p.  155,  2)  represents  that  at 
night  the  light  hemisphere  goes 
under  the  earth,  and  not  that  the 
sky  mo7es  sideways  round  the 
earth,  there  arises  this  difficulty : 
that  the  space  taken  up  by  the  sky 
is  not  sufficient  for  the  sky  to  turn 
round  in,  a  point  to  which  Aris- 
totle afterwards  attaches  some  im- 
portance. 


SYSTEM  OF  THE  WORLD. 


155 


the  earth.^  Thus  there  arose  two  hemispheres,  which 
together  form  the  concave  sphere  of  heaven :  the  one 
is  bright,  and  consists  entirely  of  fire ;  the  other  is 
dark,  and  consists  of  air  with  isolated  masses  of  fire 
sprinkled  in  it.  Through  the  pressure  of  the  fire  the 
sphere  of  the  heavens  acquires  a  rotatory  motion  ; 
when  its  fiery  half  is  over  us  we  have  day ;  when  the 
dark  half  is  over  us,  and  the  fiery  half  is  hidden  by  the 
body  of  the  earth,  we  have  night.*  The  earth*  was 
formed  firom  the  remaining  elements  and  was  at  first 
moist  and  miry.  The  force  of  the  rotation  drove  ouc 
the  water  from  it ;  and  the  evaporations  of  the  water 


*  Arist.  and  Flat.  I.  c. 

*  Pint.  &p.  £u8. 1,  c.  continues : 
flroi  Si  kvkXj^  ircp2  rifp  y^v  ^ep6' 
fun  8^  iifuff^pta,  rh  fjukv  KaB6\ov 
nip&f,  T^  8i  luitrhv  i^  kipos  icai 
Ikirfif  vvp^f y  8irtp  cdferai  'nnv  y6ieTa 
tlnL  Empedoclofi  himself,  V.  160 
(197,  251  M),  explains  night  as 
the  interposition  of  the  earth, 
which  may  be  connected  with  Plu- 
tarch's statement  in  the  manner  in- 
dicated aboTe :  rV  '^  VxV  '>^' 
Ku^ffCMf  ffvfifivivat  KOfrii  -rhy  iiBpoi' 
9fuk»  hnfipiatufros  rov  wvp6s.  The 
Ust  sentence,  the  text  of  which, 
however,  is  somewhat  uncertain, 
must  not  be  referred  (as  bj  Ear- 
tten,  p.  331,  and  Steinhart,  p.  95, 
to  the  first  separation  of  the  ele- 
ments from  the  Sphairoe).  Plac. 
ii.  11  (Stob.  i.  500)  :  'E^v.  crrcp^- 
IVMP  cTyoi  rhw  g^pwhp  i^  kipos 
Wfittrfirros  iirb  wvphs  KpvtrraWott' 
8«t  (this  is  confirmed  b  j  Biog.  yiii. 
77 ;  Ach.  Tat.  in  AnU,  c.  6,  p.  128 
Pet.;  Lact.  Opif.  Dei,  c.  17)  rh 
np«8ct  KoX  htp»Sn  iy  livor^p^  r&y 
lUuff^aiplmf  Tttpirxmna,  In  PluU 
Pbic.  iii.  8,  jNira2/.,  the  altemation 


of  the  seasons,  as  well  as  that  of 
day  and  night,  is  explained  in 
reference  to  the  relation  of  the  two 
hemispheres. 

"  Vide  8up,  p.  164,  1.  Accord- 
ing to  this  it  is  quite  legitimate  to 
reckon  Empedodes  among  those 
who  held  one  world  only  of  limited 
extent  (Simpl.  Vhya.  38  b;  -Da  Calo, 
229  a,  12;  Schol.  in  Arist.  505  a, 
15;  Stob.  Eel.  i.  494,  496;  But. 
Plac  i.  5,  2) ;  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  himself  definitely  expressed 
such  an  opinion.  (V.  173,  supra, 
1 52, 1 ,  has  nothinpr  to  do  with  this.) 
The  assertion  (Plac.  I.  e.parall.) 
that  he  regarded  tJie  world  as  only 
a  small  part  of  the  whole  (iroi'), 
and  tlie  rest  as  formless  matter,  js'^ 
doubtless  merely  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  verses  176  sq.  (jmp.  L  c.)  re- 
latinflT  to  an  earlier  stage  of  the 
world.  At  any  rate  it  furnishes 
no  ground  for  supposing  (Bitted  in 
Wolfs  Anal,  ii.  445  eqq. ;  Geach. 
d.  PhiL  i.  556  sq. ;  cf.  Brandis, 
Bh.  Muf,  iii.  130;  Gr.  Bom,  PhU. 
i.  209)  that  the  Sphairos,  or  a  part 
of  it,  continues  nide  by  side  with 


156 


EMPELOCLES. 


immediately  filled  the  lower  aerial  spaoe.^  He  earih 
is  able  to  maintain  itself  in  supension  upon  the  air, 
because  of  the  rapid  revolution  of  the  heavens,  which 
hinders  it  &om  falling  ;  *'  and  it  is  for  the  same  reason, 
Empedocles  tells  us,  that  the  whole  universe  remains 
in  its  place.*  He  agreed  with  the  Pythagoreans  *  in 
supposing  the  sun  to  be  a  body  of  a  vitreous  nature,  pro- 
bably as  large  as  the  earth,  which,  like  a  burning  glass, 
collects  and  reflects  the  rays  of  fire  from  the  bright 
hemisphere  surrounding  it :  ^  the  moon,  he  thought!,  is 
made  of  hardened  crystalline  air ;  ^  its  shape  is  that 
of  a  disc,^  its  light  is  derived  from  the  sun,®  and  its 


the  present  world ;  for  the  blessed 
Sphairos  could  not  be  described  as 
^7^  0Xf?.  Nor  does  this  follow, 
as  we  shall  presently  show,  from 
his  doctrine  of  the  life  after  death, 
for  the  abode  of  the  blessed  cannot 
be  identified  with  the  Sphairos  in 
which  no  individual  life  is  possible. 
Bitter  believes  that  beside  the 
world  of  strife  there  must  be  ano- 
ther sphere  in  which  Lore  roles 
alone :  but  this  is  incorrect :  accor- 
ding to  Kmpedodes  they  rale,  not 
side  by  side,  but  after  one  another. 
Even  in  the  present  world,  Love 
works  together  with  Hate. 

*  Vide  supra,  p.  154,  1. 

«  Arist  De  Calo,  ii.  13,  296  a. 
16;  Simpl.  o^  A.  2.  236  b,  40. 
>  Arist.  L  e.  ii.  1,  284  a,*  24. 
<  Vide  vol  i.  466.  1. 

*  Plut.  ap.  Eus.  /.  c.  b  ik  1i\Lot 
T^r  ^^ffiv  ovK  tfo'Ti  wvp  iwk  rod 
mtphs  i,rret»dK\a&iSj  Sfioia  rp  &^' 
S^ros  yirofiiyp,  Pyth,  orac,  c.  12, 
p.  400:  *Zfiirt9oKk4ovi  .  .  .  ^dff- 
Korrot  rbw  l}Xcdy  ircpiavy^  hvoKXiffti 
^otrhs  ovpayiov  y€w6fittmy,  aJbBts 
**  iu^ravytip  vpibt  "OKvftroy  ira^fi^" 


Touri  vpoff^ots**  (V,  151  St  188 
K,  242  M).  This  may  be  connected 
with  the  statement  of  Diog.  viii. 
77f  that  the  sun,  according  to  Em- 
pedocles, was  %vphs  Mpoitr/JM  ftuiy^ 
supposing  that  Diogenes,  or  his 
authority,  meant  by  this  expression 
the  assembling  of  rays  into  one 
focus.  On  the  other  hand  it  is 
manifestly  a  mistake  {Plae.  u.  20, 
8;  Stob.  i.  680  parall.)  to  attri- 
bute to  Empedocles  two  suns— a 
primitive  sun  in  the  hemispbers 
beyond,  and  a  visible  one  in  oar 
hemisphere.  Vide  Korsten,  428  sq. 
and  supra,  Vol  I.  460,  1.  For  the 
statement  as  to  the  size  of  the  bqd, 
cf  .  Stob.  L  c, 

'  Flut.  ap.  Eos.  I.  c.  De  Fae, 
Lun,  6,  6,  p.  922  ;  Stob.  Eel  i.  652. 
It  seems  strange  that  this  conden- 
sation of  the  air  should  be  eflVcted 
by  fire,  while  at  the  same  time  the 
moon  is  compared  to  hail  or  a 
frozen  doud. 

»  Stob.  I  e, ;  Rut.  Qu.  Bom.  101, 
end,  p.  288 ;  Plao,  ii.  27  paraU. ; 
Diog.  I.  0. 

•  V.  162.166  (189  sq.,  243  sqq. 


THE  HEAVENLY  BODIES. 


167 


distance  from  the  earth  amounts  to  a  third  of  its  dis- 
tance from  the  sun.'  The  space  beneath  the  moon,  in 
opposition  to  the  upper  region,  Empedocles  is  said  to 
have  r^arded,  like  the  Pythagoreans,  as  the  theatre 
of  all  evil.'  The  fixed  stars,  he  thought,  are  fastened 
to  the  vault  of  the  sky ;  the  planets,  on  the  contrary, 
move  freely :  in  respect  to  their  substance,  he  believed 
that  they  were  fires  which  have  separated  themselves 
from  the  air.*  Solar  eclipses  are  caused  by  the  interposi- 
tion of  the  body  of  the  moon ;  ^  the  inclination  of  the 
earth's  axis  towards  the  path  of  the  sun  is  the  result  of 
the  pressure  of  the  air,  which  is  forced  by  the  sun  to- 
wards the  north.*  The  course  of  the  sun  itself  Em- 
pedocles seems  to  have  conceived  as  confined  within 
fixed  limits.^    The  daily  revolution  of  the  sun  was 


M);  Plut.  Foe,  Lun,  IS,  13,  p.  929 ; 
Acb.Tat.  inArat,  c.  16,21,  p.  135; 
£,  141  A.  When  the  latter  says 
that  Empedocles  calls  the  moon  an 
iM6ncurt»a  h^ov  be  merely  meaDS^ 
HS  the  quotation  from  £mpedneie8, 
v.  154,  shows,  that  her  light  is  an 
emanation  of  the  solar  light. 

»  PlutPiflc.  ii.  31.  According 
tD  this,  the  text  ap.  Stob.  i.  666 
thoold  bo  corrected ;  but  it  seems 
unoeeessaiy  to  introduce  into  the 
passage  of  the  PlacUa^  as  Karsten 
propodes,fitvX^tor  iarix^a^  Thyfi?<io¥ 
M  TTJs  yfjs  Ijrrtp  tV  o*\^|vv^^  Ac- 
cording to  Phc.  ii.  1,  paralL  Em- 
pedocles supposed  the  sun's  course 
to  be  the  limit  of  the  tmiverse, 
whidi  howerer  must  not  be  taken 
too  literallj.  In  out  fragments  it 
is  only  said,  V.  150, 154  sq.  (187. 
169  K,  241,  245  M),  that  the  sun 
tnrerses  the  sky  and  the  moon  re- 
ToWes  nearer  the  earth. 


*  Hippd.  Befttt.  i.  4.  He 
howeyer,  is  probably  alluding  only 
to  the  complaints  of  Empedocles 
about  the  terrestrial  life,  which 
will  be  noticed  later  on ;  the  notion 
that  the  terrestrial  region  extends 
to  the  moon,  he  seems  to  have 
adopted  himself,  merely  from  its 
similarity  with  kindred  doctrines. 

*  Plae,  ii.  13, 2,  b.parall. ;  Ach. 
Tat.  in  At.  c.  ii. ;  cf.  my.  p.  155,  2. 

*  V.  157  (194,  248  M)  sqq.; 
Stob.  i.  530. 

*  Plut.  TUc,  ii.  8  foraU,  and 
Karsten  425,  who  places  in  con- 
nection with  this  the  observation, 
Tlac.  ii.  10  'par  ^  that  Empedocles, 
in  accordance  with  the  common 
usage  of  antiquity,  called  the  north 
side  of  the  world  the  right.  It  is 
not  clear,  howerer,  what  was  his 
theory  in  regard  to  this. 

*  Viae.  ii.  28  Tpar. :  'E/iir,  ihr^ 


158 


EMPBDOCLES. 


much  slower  at  first  than  it  is  now, — ^a  day  was  origin- 
ally nine  months,  and  afterwards  seven.*  He  explained 
the  light  of  the  heavenly  bodies  by  his  theory  of  ema- 
nations,^ and  accordingly  maintained  that  light  requires 
a  certain  time  to  traverse  the  space  between  the  sun 
and  the  earth.'  In  the  very  scanty  details  known  to 
us  of  his  opinions  respecting  meteorological  phenomena, 
traces  can  also  be  found  of  his  peculiar  doctrine,^  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  his  ideas  respecting  the  inor- 
ganic productions  of  the  earth.* 


Mxnroptiw   tad   (nth  rttw   rpowiKwy 

>  P;ac.T.18,l;cf.StDn,p.328. 

«  Philop.  De  An.  K,  16 :  'Ef**. 
ts  %\iy^Vy  it,rofp4oy  rh  ^s  ffufM 
%¥  iK  Tov  i^iioyros  a^fiairos,  &c. ; 
cf.  p.  133,  2. 

»  Arise.  Be  An,  il  6,  418  b, 
20;  De  Sensu,  c.  6,  446  a,  26,  who 
combats  this  opinion ;  Fhilop.  L  c, 
and  other  commentators  of  Arist.; 
Tide  Karsten,  481. 

*  How  Empedocles  explained 
the  change  of  the  seasons  has 
already  been  showDi  tupra,  p.  155, 
2,  from  Ens.  PrcBv.  i.  8,  10.  He 
thought  hail  was  Mozen  air  (frozen 
Tapours),  sup,  p.  156,  6.  He  spoke 
of  the  origin  of  winds :  their  ob- 
lique direction  from  the  north-east 
and  south-west  he  ascribed,  ac- 
cording to  OWmpiodoms  in  "Meteor, 
22  b,  i.  245  Id. ;  ct  21  b,  i.  239  Id., 
to  the  circamstance  that  the  as- 
cending vapours  are  partly  of  a 
fiery,  and  partly  of  a  terrestrial, 
nature,  and  that  their  opposite 
motion  finds  its  adjustment  in  an 
oblique  tendency.  His  theory  of 
rain  and  lightning,  according  to 
Philop.  Phya.  c.  2  (ap.  Earsten, 
404),  cf.  Arist  Be  (Mo,  iii.  7  («up. 


p.  125, 1),  was  that,  in  the  conden- 
sation of  the  air,  the  water  eon- 
uined  in  it  wa«  pressed  forth,  and 
that  in  its  rarefiiction  fire  obtained 
room  to  get  out.  According  to 
Arist.  Meteor,  ii.  9, 369  b,  1 1 ;  Alex. 
ad  A.  I,  p.  Ill  b;  cf.  Stob.  Ed,  L 
592,  fire  entered  by  means  of  the 
sun's  rays  into  the  clouds,  and  was 
then  struck  out  with  a  crash. 
This  was  probably  based  upon  the 
observation  that  thunder  clouds 
generally  arise  at  times  when  the 
sun  is  very  powerful. 

*  Especially  the  sea,  which  he 
supposed  to  be  exuded  from  the 
eartn  by  means  of  solar  heat. 
(Arist.  Meteor,  ii.  8,  857  a,  24; 
Alex.  Meteor.  91  b,  i.  268  Id.  26 
a ;  Flut.  Piae.  iii.  16,  8,  where  Eos. 
Prop.  XV.  59,  2,  has  the  right  read- 
ing.i  From  this  origin  of  tbe  sea 
he  derived  its  salt  taste  (Arist  I.  e, 
c.  i.  853  b,  11 ;  Alex.  L  c);  Mlt, 
he  thinks,  is  eveirwhere  formed  hy 
the  sun's  heat  (Emp.  v.  164,  206 
K,  257  M) ;  but  sweet  wat<>r  most 
also  have  been  mingled  with  it,  by 
which  the  fish  live  (£lian.  Hitt. 
An,  ix.  64).  Fire,  the  presence  of 
which  in  the  subterranean  parts  of 
the  earth  seems  especially  to  have 
attracted  his  attention,  he  supposed 


PLANTS  AND  ANIMALS. 


169 


Among  organic  beings,  on  which  he  seems  to  have 
bestowed  special  attention,^  plants  *  appear  to  have  first 
come  forth  from  the  earth,  before  it  was  enlightened  by 
the  sun,'  and  afterwards  animals.     Both    are   nearly 
allied  in  their  nature ;  and  we  shall  presently  find  that 
Empedocles  not  only  considered  that  plants  had  souls, 
but  souls  of  the  same  kind  as  animals  and  men/     He 
also  observed  that  the  fructification  of  plants  corresponds 
with  the  generation  of  animals,  though  the  sexes  are 
not  separated  in  them  :^  he  compares  the  leaves  of  trees 
with  the  hair,  feathers  and  scales  of  animals.^    Their 
growth  is  explained  by  the  warmth  of  the  earth,  which 
drives  the  branches  upward,  while  their  terrestrial  ingre- 
dients impel  the  roots  downward,^    In  accordance  with 
his  general  theory  of  the  combination  of  the  elements, 

not  only  to  haTe  heated  the  warm 
springs,  but  also  to  have  hardened 
stones.  (£mp.  ▼.  162,  207  K,  255 
M;  Artst.  Probl.  xxir.  11;  Sen. 
Qtuut.  Nat,  lii.  24.)  The  same 
Are,  sniging  in  the  interior  of  the 
ewth,  keeps  the  rocks  and  moun- 
tains npnght  (Rnt.  Prim.  Fria, 
19,  4,  p.  963).  We  hare  alreadjr 
spoken  of  the  magnet,  p.  134,  1. 

*  Cf.  Hippocr.  Apx-  ^'^9-  c*  20, 
i  620  Littrd :  KoBduMp  ^Efiw^oKkfis 
i)  IaAoi  ot  ircpl  ^vatos  yeypd^turw  i^ 
i^f  8  Ti  iirrhf  Mfwwos  ical  8rwf 
tfiptTQ  vpfStrw  «al  twms  ^w^ndyn. 

'  The  Empedoelean  doctrine  of 
plants  is  discussed  by  Meyer,  Getch, 
d,  Botanik,  i.  46  sq.;  but,  as  he 

X himself,  only  according  to  the 
Bocee  given  by  Stnrz. 
»  PlutP/a:,T.26, 4;  c£  Psendo- 
Arist  Jk  Plant,  i.  2»  317  b,  35; 
Locret.  NtU.  Ber,  t.  780  sqq.; 
Kaxsten,  441  sq. ;  Piac,  y.  19,  5. 
There  it  is  expressly  said  that 
plants,  like  animals,  first  came  forth 


from  the  earth  part  by  part. 

«  The  P/act^a,  therefore,  rightly 
call  them  iiT'*  Ps.-Arist.  De  PL 
i.  1,  815  a,  15  b,  16,  says  that 
Anazagoras,  Democritus,  and  Em- 
pedocles attributed  to  them  sensa- 
tion, desire,  perception,  and  intel- 
ligence ;  and  Simpl.  De  An,  lo  b, 
observes  that  he  endowed  even 
plants  with  rational  souls. 

*  Arist.  Gen,  Anim,  i.  23,  in 
reference  to  Emp.  v.  219  (245, 
286  M) :  odrw  9*  &otok9i  fuacpn  Ziv- 
8p«a  wpvToy  4Xcdas,  De  Plant,  i. 
2,  817  a,  1,  36,  c  1,  815  a,  20, 
where,  however,  the  doctrine  of 
Empedocles  is  not  accurately  re- 
presented. Plae,  Y,  26,  4. 

•  236  (223,  216  M)  sq. 

«  Arist.  De  An.  ii.  4,  415  b, 
28,  and  his  commentators  tn  h,  I, 
According  to  Theophrastus,  Cans, 
Plant,  i.  12,  5,  the  roots  of  plants 
(probably  only  for  the  most  part) 
consist  of  earth,  and  the  leaves  of 
Kther  ^L^ft). 


100 


BMPJSDOCLS& 


he  supposed  that  their  nourishment  was  conditioned 
by  the  attraction  of  kindred  substances,  and  effected  by 
means  of  the  pores,^  He  explained  the  fact  of  some 
plants  remaining  always  green  by  reference  to  the  sym- 
metry of  their  pores,  together  with  their  material  com- 
position,* The  elements  which  are  superfluous  for  the 
nourishment  of  plants  go  to  form  the  fruit ;  the  taste  of 
which  is  therefore  regulated  according  to  the  sustenance 
of  each  plant.* 

In  the  first  beginning  of  animals  and  men,  their 
different  parts,  Empedocles  supposed,  grew  up  separately 
from  the  ground,^  and  were  then  brought  together  by 
the  action  of  Love.  But  since  pure  chance  ruled  in 
this  process,  there  resulted  at  first  all  kinds  of  strange 
forms,  which  were  soon  again  destroyed,  until  at  last 
things  were  so  ordered  as  to  produce  beings  harmoni- 
ously shaped  and  capable  of  life.*^     Mankind  also  sprang 

1  V.  282  (268,  388)  sqq. ;  cf.  Aristotle  says,  De  Cmlo,  iii.  2.  300 

Flat.    Qu,     Com,    iv.    1,   3,    12,  b,  29  (where  he  qnotes  this  pa»- 

vhere  it  is  immaterial    whether  sage),  that  this  happened  M  r^s 

the  words  primarily  refer  to  the  ^iK6r^os ;  but  that  does  not  mean 


nourishment  of  animals  or  not, 
since  the  same  holds  good  of 
plants :  ef.  next  note  and  Plut.  I.  c, 
wi.  2,  2.  6. 


in  the  kingdom  of  Love,  in  theSphai- 
ros,  but  under  tlie  influence  of  Lore. 
(Similarly  ibid,  401  a,  15:  riiv 
M  riis  f  (A^itros  yiytctp.)    It  is 


'  Plut.  Qu.   Com.  iii.  2,  2,  8,    more    clearly    expressed   in   Gen. 
through  which  the  statement  in  the    Anim.  i.  1 8,  722  b,  1 9 :  KoBdrtp  'Efur. 
Plac.  y,  26,  5,  receives   its  more    yci^f ,  4r\  riis  ^Osj&rnros  Kiymv. 
precise  determination. 

"  PUic.  Y,  26,  5  sq. ;  Galen  c. 
38,  p  341;  £mp.  v.  221  (247, 
288  M). 

^  V.  244  (232,  307  M):— 
^    iroAAai    fikv    Kdpatu   kifOMxip^s 

yvnyol    8*  irrXdCoitro  fipaxtoif^t  fH- 
ri9€s  &fxot¥j 


*  Arist.  De  An.  iii.  6.  sub  init.: 
KaHrtp  'EfAir,  l^if  **j7  woKKup"  etc., 
¥ir«cra  avvri$wd«u  rp  piXi^  Pkys. 
ii.  8,  198  b,  29  (cf.  Karsten,  p. 
244),  is  it  not  possible  that  that 
which  seems  to  us  to  be  formed 
according  to  design  may  have  hap- 
pened by  chance?  drov  ftiv  ow 
irama  crvydfiri  Sunttp  lAv  tl  tpvd 
tfifMTa  8*  oV  iwktt^arQ  ittmir^^oma    tov  iylutro,  ravra  fi^v  4atl^  irh 


luvrintttnf. 


toy  oirofKirov  irvardtrra  iwinfitUs' 


LIVING   CREATURES. 


ICl 


from  the  earth.  First,  shapeless  lumps,  formed  of  earth 
and  water,  were  thrown  up  by  the  subterranean  fire, 
and  these  afterwards  shaped  themselves  into  human 
members,^     In  this  Empedocles  only  developes  what 


Xirroi,  KaBdvtp  *E^«-.  X4y€t  rk  /Soia- 
7«in|  iofipivfwpa.  Ibid,  ii.  4,  296 
SL  23. 

Emp.  V.  264  (235.  310  M)  :— 

mrrhp  iirtl  Kark  fiuCov  ifilayvro 
laiiMPi  Zaifitov  (the  elements), 

Tovri  Tc  aiffiwitrrttrKOVf  8irij  avyi- 
Kvfurtw  ^Kotrra^ 

iXXa  It  vpbs  ro7f  voWa  9trivtKji 
(-if)  d^^yivoirro. 

Ad  example  of  the  way  in  which 
Empedocles  explained  the  origin 
of  the  present  organic  beings  from 
these  first  productions,  is  giren  by 
Arist.  Part.  Anim.  i.  1,  640  a,  19  : 
h6v§p  *EfLiFf9oK\ris  oIk  6p0ws  ^fniK% 
Kiy«y  ^dffx^^^  ^oX\dt  rois  (^ois  Zidt 
rh  (Tvufirinu  olir»$  iv  tg  y*v4<r^i^ 
olow  Kol  riir  ^ytv  roiairriv  ^x^iy, 
Sti  frrpa/pimos  Korax^W^  ffvyifiii, 
(The  verses  to  which  this  reft-rs, 
wifh  some  others  on  the  formHtion 
of  the  stomach  and  the  organs 
of  respiration,  have  been  identified 
by  Stein,  Pkilol,  xv.  143  sq.  ap. 
Cramer,  Anecd.  Oxon.  iii.  184. 
V.  257  (238,  313  M):  - 
roAXA  ik\¥  hiJupixp6ffwKa  koL  &/&</>/- 

fiouyty^  avSporpotpa,  rk  9*  i/xwaXiy 

^po^vri   fio^Kpaya,   fA9tuyn4ya    rg 

fikv  &t'  i.v9pwv, 
rf  8i  ywouKo^urj,  iupols  iiamjfjiha 

yvlou. 

In  this  manner  no  doubt  Empedo- 
cles interpreted  the  myths  of  the 
Centaurs,  Chimeras,  Hermaphro- 
dites, &c    Philop.  Phys,  H,   13, 

TOL,  II.  1 


says  that  these  deformities  arose 
iw  T^  irp^^  Bieucplfftt  rov  tr^aSpov 
Koi  rp  &PXP  ''^^  Kotr/jLonoitaSt  rrpiv 
rb  vfiKos  T€\tl»s  i.v*  iiWiikcoy  8i- 
OKpiyai  rd  eXhj.  From  the  verses 
quoted,  however,  it  appears  that 
Empedocles  rather  derived  them 
from  the  union  of  the  elements 
that  had  been  separated  by  Hate  ; 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  texts 
quoted  fupra,  p.  l60,  o ;  160, 4  from 
Aristotle. 

»  Cf.  V.  267  (251,  321  M)  on 
the  origin  of  human  beings : — 

ohXo^vu^  fi\y  xp&ra  rhroi  (in  re- 
gard to  this  expression  cf. 
Sturz  370,  Kiirsten  and  Mul- 
lach  in  h.    I.)  x^o»'^»  iiayi- 

hfKfmTepofy    fK8aT($5    re   kcu    ot/Htos 

cJffoy  Hx^^^^f- 
robs  fA^y  irvp  aWircjuir*  idiKov  irphs 

Sfjunov  iKforOaif 
oUrt   ri  vw   fitKiwy   iparhy   Btfias 

ifupaiyovras 
ofk*  ivoit^y  oih'  aZ  ivix^pioy  av- 

Bpdfft  yvToy. 

Censorin.  Di  Nat.  4,  8,  improperly 
connects  this  representation  with 
the  one  pi'eviously  referred  to,  and 
gives  the  doctrine  of  Empedocles 
thus :  prima  memffra  singula  ex 
terra  quciai pragiiante  passim  rdifa 
deinde  coisse  et  efecisse  solidi  hn- 
minis  mater iam  igni  simul  et  uuiore 
permixtam.  Thereal opinion  of  tlie 
philosopher  is  also  misrepresented 
in  the  Plac.  v.  19,  5,  through  the 
wrong  connection  into  which  liis 
vnrious  utterances  on  the  origin 
of  living  beings  are  brought. 


162  EMPEDOCLES, 

Parmenides,*  in  connection  with  the  ancient  myths  of 
the  Autochthones  and  giants,*  had  already  taught  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  men.  He  likewise  follows  Par- 
menides  in  the  theory  that  the  sexes  are  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  their  greater  or  lesp.  warmth ;  but 
whereas  Parmenides  ascribes  the  warmer  nature  to 
women,  Empedocles  ascribes  it  to  men,'  and  accordingly 
supposes  (herein  again  differing  from  Parmenides)  that 
in  the  first  creation  of  the  human  race  men  arose  in  the 
southern  regions  and  women  in  the  north ;  *  and  that  in 
the  ordinary  process  of  generation,  males  are  formed  in 
the  warmer  part  of  the  uterus,  and  females  in  the  colder.* 
He  further  supposed,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  that  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  body  of  the  child  are  derived  from  the 
father  and  certain  parts  from  the  mother,  and  that  the 
generative  impulse  arises  from  the  striving  towards  each 
other  of  these  divided  elements.®    His  conjectures  as  to 

>  Supra^  Vol.  I.  601.  assigning  bovs  to  the  right  side; 

'  Giants  also  seem   to  be  al-  but  this  verse  is  the  only  authority 

luded  to  in  th§  Plac.  v.  27,  where  it  given  for  the  statement).    Aris- 

is  said  that  the  present  races  of  men  totle  gives  qnite  another  exphma- 

are,  as  compared  with  the  earlier,  tion  of   the>  difference  of  sexes. 

as  little  children ;    but  this  may  The   assertion  of  Censorimis,  Di 

possibly  refer  only  to  the  golden  Nat..  6,  7.  that  male  children  pio- 

age  (vide  infra).  ceed  from  the  right  side  of  the  male 

'  Arist.  Part  Anim,  ii.  2,  618  organs  and  females  from  the  left 

a,  25  sqq.  contradicts  what  he  afterwards  ssjs 

*  Plut.  Plcic.  V.  7.  of  the  manner  in  which  Empedocles 

»  Emp.  V.  273-278  (259,  329  explained  sexual  differenc«'S  and  the 

M)  sqq.;    Arist.   Gen,  Anim.  iv.  likenessofchildren  to  their  parents. 

1,764  a,  1;  cf.  i.  18,  723  a,  23;  But  we  cannot  rely  much  upon  this: 

Galen  in  Hippocr.  Epidem.  vi.  2,  vide  Karsten,  472. 

t.  xvii.  a,  1002,   Kiihn.     The  ac-  "  Arist.  I.  c.  i.  18, 722  b,  8;  ir. 

counts  are    not   quite  consistent  1,764  b,  15;  Galen,  i)^  ^m.  ii.  3, 

linpedocles  himself  speaks  of  dif-  t.  iv.  616,  with  reference  to  Emp. 

ferent    localities     in    the    nterus  v.  270  (227,  326  M).    His  more 

(Galen  says   still  more  distinctly  definite  notions  on  this  subject,  if 

that  he  agreed  with  Parmenides  in  he  formed  any,  cannot  be  asce^ 


LIVING   CliEATURES, 


163 


Uie  development  of  the  foetus  were  various.^  In  some 
cases  he  sought  to  explain  the  origin  and  material 
composition  of  corporeal  parts'  by  an  uncertain  and 
arbitrary  arrangement.'     The  abode  and  manner  of  life 


tained.  What  Philop.  Ik  Gen.  An, 
16  A,  81  b  (ap.  StuTZ,  392  Bq., 
Karsten,  466  aq.)  says  is  contra- 
dictoiy,  aod  eTidentlj  a  mere  con^ 
jeetnre,  ef.  p.  17  a.  What  is  said 
ap.  Pint  Qv.  Nat  21,  3.  p.  917 
(Emp.  T.  272.  256,  828  M) ;  Plao. 
T.  19,  5;  12,  2;  10,  1 ;  Cens.  6,  10, 
we  maj  here  pass  over.  Vide 
Karsten,  464,  471  sq.;  Sturz,  401 
sq.  In  sccordaoce  with  his  gene- 
ral principle  of  the  combination  of 
QMtter,  Empedocles  supposed  that 
for  fruitful  seminal  combination 
there  must  be  a  certain  sjrmmetrj 
of  pores  in  the  male  and  female. 
When,  however,  tJiis  is  excessive, 
it  may  have  an  opposite  result,  as 
in  the  case  of  mules.  Vide  Arist. 
Gen.  An.  ii.  8 ;  cf.  Philop.  in  h.l. 
p.  59,  a  (ap.  Karsten,  p.  468,  where 
the  statement  of  the  Plaoita,  v.  14, 
on  this  subject  is  corrected). 

'  The  foetus  is  formed  during 
the  first  seven  weeks,  or  more  ac- 
curately, in  the  sixth  and  seventh 
veeks  (Pint.  Plac.  v.  21,  1  ;  Theo. 
Math,  p.  162);  birth  takes  place 
betveen  the  seventh  and  tenth 
month  (Plac.  v.  18,  1 ;  Censorin, 
7,  5) :  first  the  heart  is  formed 
(Cens.  6,  1),  and  the  nails  last; 
thej  consist  of  hardened  sinews 
(Arist.  De  8pir,  c.  6,  484  a,  38 ; 
Plac.  V.  22,  and  Karsten,  476). 
The  comparison  with  the  curdling  of 
milk  in  the  manufacture  of  cheese, 
T.  279  (265  K,  215  M)  may  relate 
to  the  first  beginnings  of  the  em- 
bryo, cf.  Arist.  Gen.  An.  iv.  4, 771  b, 
18  sqq.  Perhaps,  however,  it  may 
also  refer  to  the  separation  of  tears 


from  the  blood,  of  which  Empedo- 
cles, according  to  Pint.  Qn.  Nat, 
20,  2,  said:  &<rwtp  ydXeucros  b^fihv 
rov  alfiarot  rapaxBivros  (fermented) 
iKxpo^toBai  th  9dKpvoif.  Empedo- 
cles also  treated  of  abortions ;  vide 
Plac.  V.  8,  and  Sturz,  378. 

*  In  the  bones  two  parts  of 
water  and  four  parts  of  fire  are 
added  to  two  parts  cf  earth;  in 
flesh  and  blood  the  four  elemen^« 
are  mingled  in  eqnal  or  nearly 
equal  parts,  v.  198  sqq.,  vide  8Up. 
143.  4 ;  in  the  sinews,  according  to 
Plac.  V.  22,  there  are  two  parts  of 
water  to  one  part  of  earth  and 
one  of  fire.  lu  the  PlacUa  the 
composition  of  the  bones  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  given  by  Empedo- 
cles himself;  and  in  Philop.  De 
An,  E,  16,  and  Simpl.  De  An.  p.  18 
b,  one  part  of  water  and  one  of  air 
are  substituted  for  the  two  parts 
of  water;  but  these  divei^gences 
are  not  worth  considering.  Kar- 
sten's  attempt  to  reconcile  them 
contradicts  the  tenor  of  the  verses 
quoted. 

■  Thtts  he  supposed  (vide  Plac. 
l.  c.  according  to  the  more  perfect 
text  ap.  Galen,  H.  Phil.  o.  36,  p. 
838  Kiihn;  Plut.  Qu.  Nat.  cL 
note  1)  that  tears  and  perspira- 
tion arise  from  a  dissolution  (r^- 
KtaBcu)  of  the  blood,  and  according 
to  V.  280  (266,  336  M)  he  seems  to 
have  similarly  regarded  the  milk 
of  females,  the  appearance  of 
which,  in  his  usual  manner,  he  as- 
signed to  a  given  day.  In  v.  215 
(209,  282  M)  he  describes  more 
particularly  the  forming  of  a  part 


M  2 


164 


EMPEDOCLE& 


of  the  different  animals  were  determined,  he  thought, 
by  the  substances  of  which  the  animals  consist ;  for  each 
substance,  according  to  the  universal  law,  seeks  its  like.^ 
From  the  same  cause  he  derived  the  position  of  the 
various  parts  in  the  body.^  Animals,  like  plants,  are 
nourished  bjthe  assimilation  of  kindred  substances;^ 
growth  he  deduces  from,  warmth,  sleep  and  the  decay  of 
old  age  from  the  decrease  of  warmth,  death  from  its 
entire  cessation.* 

As  to  the  opinions  of  Empedocles  about  the  other 
bodily  activities,  the  points  on  which  tradition  tells  us 
most  are  the  process  of  respiration  and  the  sensuous 
perception.     The  expiration  and  inspiration  of  the  air 


of  the  body  (we  do  not  know  exactly 
which  part  is  meant),  comparing  it, 
as  it  feems,  with  the  preparation  of 
pottery. 

»  Plac.  T.  19,  6  (where,  how- 
ever, the  text  is  corrupt.  Instead 
of  cts  hipa  iLvcarvtiy  should  be  read 
cts  a4pa  &KW  0k4r€ip,  &c.  The 
concluding  words,  however,  rraai 
rois  B^pa^i  ire^«VT)X€Vai,  I  know  not 
how  to  emend.  Karsten  is  per- 
haps right  in  his  suggestion  of 
irtipvKheu  for  ve^niicfVox,  but 
hardly  in  that  of  »cpl  for  watrt; 
and  he  is  wrong  in  referring  the 
passafse  to  particular  members). 
Empedocles  was  not  always  true 
to  this  principle;  for  he  says  that 
aquatic  animals  seek  the  moist 
element  because  of  their  warm 
nature,  Arist.  De  Rcspir,  c.  14; 
Theophr.  Caus,  Plant,  i.  21,  5. 
The  previous  quotations  from  v. 
233-230  (220  sqq.,  300  sqq.  M) 
and  V.  168  (205,  256  M)  seem  to 
show  that  he  treated  minutely  of 
the  different   species  of   animals. 


»  Philop.  Gen.  An.  49  a.  Rir- 
sten,  448  sq.,  conjectur<^  that  this 
is  merely  an  arbitrary  extensioD  of 
what  he  says  (vide  9up.  p.  159,  7) 
about  plants.  The  verses,  how- 
ever, which  are  quoted  by  Plut  ^». 
Com.  i.  2,  6,  6  (233  sqq.,  220  E, 
300  M),  prove  nothing  against  it, 
and  Arist.  Gen.'" An.  ii.  4,  740  b. 
12,  is  in  its  favour. 

"  Plut.  Qu.  Conv.  iv.  1,  3, 12, 
which  appeals  to  v.  282  (268,  338 
M)  sqq. ;  Plac.  v.  27. 

*  Plac.  v.  27,  23,  2,  25,  5; 
Karsten,  500  sq.  It  has  alreadj 
been  remarked,  and  Empedocles 
himself  repeats  it,  in  y.  247  (335. 
182  M)  sqq.  respdcting  living  crea- 
tures, that  all  destruction  consist* 
in  the  separation  of  the  substances 
of  which  a  thing  is  composed. 
This  may  be  brought  into  connec- 
tion with  the  statements  in  the 
PlacUa  through  the  theory  that 
Empedocles  regarded  the  decay  of 
the  body  as  a  consequence  of  the 
feilure  of  vital  heat. 


LIVING   CREATURES,  166 

takes  place,  on  his  theory,  not  merely  through  the 
windpipe,  but  through  the  whole  body,  in  consequence 
of  the  movement  of  the  bloods.  When  the  blood,  in 
its  backward  and  forward  course,  withdraws  from  the 
external  parts,  the  air  penetrates  through  the  fine  pores 
of  the  skin ;  when  the  blood  again  flows  into  those  parts, 
the  air  is  expelled.*  He  explained  sensation  also  by 
reference  to  the  pores  and  emanations.  To  produce 
sensation,  it  is  necessary  that  the  particles  detaching, 
themselves  from  the  objects  should  be  in  contact  with 
the  homogeneous  elements  of  the  organs  of  sense,  either 
by  the  entrance  of  the  particles  of  the  object  through 
the  pores,  or  (as  in  the  case  of  sight)  by  the  exit  of 
the  elements  of  the  organ  in  the  same  manner.'  For, 
according  to  the  doctrine  first  enunciated  as  a  principle 
by  Empedocles,  things  are  known  to  us  only  through  the 
elements  of  like  kind  in  us :  earth  through  earth,  water 
through  water,'  &c.  This  theory  is  most  easily  carried 
out  in  regard  to  the  senses  of  taste  and  smell.  Both, 
according  to  Empedocles,  result  from  the  taking  up  of 
minute  particles  of  nuitter  into  the  nose  or  mouth,  in 

*  V.  287  (275, 343  M)  sqq. ;  cf.  through  without  producing  a  sen- 
KaiBten,  Arist.  Respir.  c.  7 ;  Scho-  sation.  Similarly  Plac,  iy.  9,  3  ; 
\iittisinh.l.{onSimv\.DeAnimdt\>.  cf.  Hoper,  Zur  Lehre  von  der 
167  b.  sq.);  Plac,  iv.  22,  v.  16,  3.  Sinneswahimchmung     d,     Lucrez, 

*  Vide  stqtra,  p.  132  sq. ;  Theo-  Stendal,  1872,  p.  5. 

phrast  De  Sensu,  |  7 :  'E/mt.  <>ij<rl,  "  V.  333  (321,  378  M,):— 

ry  inpiUrrfip  [r&s   hwo/i^ohs]   tis  ycdy  fuv^itp  yaTay  hw^ojjLMv,  Sdari 

roirs  ^6^99  robs   ixdimis  [aiffB^-  9*  ^^p9 

vhm]  aiodiiytoBtu,  the  diTersitj  of  ai04pi  8*  cd64pa  Zhv,  &T&p  irupi  wvp 

the  pores    occasions  the  specific  &fSi}Xoy, 

differences    of    sensations :    each  ffroprfg  9h    trropy^y,  ytucos  94  rt 

wnse  perceives  that  which  is  so  ytUtiXvypf' 

fljmmetrical  with  its  pores  that  it  ix    ro&rtov  yip  wdm-a    wfrfiywrtp 

penetrates  into  them,  and  so  affects  ap/M(rd4yTa 

the  organ ;  while  everything  else  koI  robots  ^pov4owri  koX  ^9ovr*  ^V 

either  does  not  enter  it,  or  passes  hvi&vrai. 


166 


EMPEDOCLES. 


the  one  case  from  the  air,  in  the  other  fix>m  the  moisture 
with  which  they  are  mingled.*  In  the  sense  of  hearing 
he  thought  the  sounds  were  formed  by  the  entrance  and 
agitation  of  the  air  in  the  passage  of  the  ear  as  in  a 
trumpet.*  In  the  sense  of  sight,  on  the  contrary,  the 
seeing  body  was  supposed  to  issue  forth  from  the  eye 
in  order  to  come  in.  contact  with  the  emanations  of  the 
object.  Empedocles  thus  conceived  the  eye  as  a  kind 
of  lantern :  in  the  apple  of  the  eye  fire  and  water  are 
enclosed  in  skins,  the  pores  of  which,  arranged  in  alter- 
nate rows  for  each  substance,  allow  passage  to  the  emana- 
tions of  each  :  fire  causes  the  perception  of  that  which 
is  bright,  and  water  of  that  which  is  dark.  When, 
therefore,  emanations  of  visible  things  reach  the  eye, 
the  emanations  of  the  internal  fire  and  water  pass  out 
of  the  eye  through  the  pores,  and  from  the  meeting  of 
these  two  arises  vision.' 


*  Plac,  iv.  17  ;  Arist.  De  SenaUy 
c.  4,  441  a,  4;  Alex.  De  8ensu, 
105  b  ;  cf.  Empedocles,  v.  312  (800, 
466)  f. 

*  Theoph.  De  Sermi,  9 ;  Flat. 
Plac,  ir.  16,  where,  however,  the 
K^^uv  with  which  Empedocles  (also 
aocording  to  Theophrastus)  had 
compared  the  interior  of  the  ears 
is  improperly  taken  to  mean  a  bell 
instead  of  a  trumpet. 

»  V.  316(302,220M)8qQ.;  cf. 
240  (227, 218  M)  sq. ;  Theoph.  I.  c. 
§  8  sq. ;  Arist.  De  Sensu,  c  2,  437 
b,  1 0  sqq.,  23  sqq. ;  Alex,  in  h.  I.  p. 
43,  48;  Thnrot.  Philop.  Gen. 
Anim,  105  b  (ap.  Sturz,  419; 
Karsten,  486);  Pint.  Plac,  W.  13, 
2 ;  Joh.  Damaac.  Parall.  p.  i.  17, 
11  (Stob.  F/(yrU,  ed.  Mein.  iv.  173). 
According  to  Theophr.  and  Philop. 


l,c.;  Arist.  Probl,  xiv.  14;  Gen. 
Anim.  v,  1.  779  b,  15,  Empedocles 
thought  that  light  eyes  were  fi^ry 
and  dark  eyes  moist;  that  light 
eyes  see  more  clearly  by  night, 
and  dark  eyes  by  day  (the  reason 
of  this  is  characteristically  ex- 
plained in  Theophrastus) ;  bat  the 
best  ejes  are  those  in  which  fireaDd 
water  are  mingled  in  equal  parts. 
Hofer,  /.  c,  opposes  the  notion  that 
Empedocles  supposed  the  inner  fir^ 
to  issue  forth  firom  the  eyes ;  bathe 
has  not  considered  Empedocles's 
own  declarations  concerning  the 
^&s  ^u  BteuBp&fficorf  nor  Aristotle's 
repeated  expression,  i^iivros  rov 
0cirrbf,  in  reference  to  this;  nor 
Alexander's  comments  on  the  Terse 
of  Empedocles,  which  are  entirely 
on  the  same  side.    Plato  gives  thi 


TEE  SENSES  AND   THOUGHT. 


167 


Thought  has  a  similar  origin.  Intelligence  and  the 
power  of  thought  are  ascribed  by  Empedocles  to  all 
things,^  without  distinction  of  corporeal  and  spiritual ; 
thought  therefore,  like  all  other  vital  activities,  arises 
and  depends  upon  the  admixture  of  substances  in  the 
body.*  We  form  a  conception  of  each  element  by 
means  of  the  corresponding  element  in  our  body.  It 
is  in  the  blood  especially,  because  there  the  elements 
are  most  completely  mingled,  that  thought  and  con- 
sciousness have  their  chief  seat  (this  was  a  common 
opinion  among  the  ancients),  and  particularly  the  blood 
of  the  heart.*    But  Empedocles,  in  accordance  with 


BAine  explanation  of  sight.  Cf. 
Part  II.  a,  727,  3  (English  Trans- 
lation, p.  428).  In  agreement 
with  the  above  quotations,  we  have 
also  the  definition  of  colour  as 
&T<i^ia  (Arist.  De  8enm,  c.  3,  440 
a,  15;  iStob.  Ed.  i.  364,  where 
four  principal  colours  are  named, 
eorresponding  to  the  four  elements ; 
cf.  wp.  p.  133.  2 ;  158,  2) ;  and  the 
theory  of  Empedocles  on  transparent 
bodies  (Arist.  9up,  p.  133,  2),  and 
the  images  of  the  mirror.  These 
last  he  explained  on  the  theory  th^t 
the  effluences  of  objects  cleaving 
to  the  surface  of  the  mirror  were 
sent  back  bj  the  fire  streaming 
oat  At  its  pores. 

»  V.  231  (313,  298  M):  mima 

oZiray.  Sext.  ^aM.  viii.  286 ;  Stob. 
Ed.  i.  790;  Simpl.  Ve  An.  19  b. 

*  V.  333  sqq.  sup.  p.  165,  3. 
Arist  De  An.  i.  2,  404  b,  8  sqq. 
concludes  in  his  usual  manneri 
from  this  verse,  that  according  to 
Empedocles  the  soul  is  composed 
of  all  the  four  elements,  an  asser- 
tion which  is  then  repeated  by  his 


commentators.  Vide  Sturz,  443 
Bqq.,  205  eq. ;  Karsten,  494.  It  is, 
however,  incorrect.  Empedocles 
did  not  hold  that  the  soul  is  com- 
posed of  the  elements;  but  what 
we  call  the  activity  of  the  soul  he 
explained  by  the  elementary  com- 
position of  the  body ;  a  soul  distinct 
from  the  body  he  did  not  assume. 
Theodoretus*s  assertion  {Cur.  Gr, 
Aff.  v.  18,  p.  72),  that  Empedocles 
regarded  the  soul  as  a  fuyfia  i^ 
aidtp^liovf  ical  iitp^Hovs  obalas^  is 
stiil  more  incorrect ;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  inference  of  Seztus, 
Math.  vii.  115,  120,  that  £mpedo> 
cles  believed  there  were  six  criteria 
of  truth  belongs  only  to  himself 
and  his  authorities. 

'  Thephr.  De  Sensu,  §  10,  after 
stating  Empedocles's  doctrine  of 
the  senses:  &iraAreas  Si  \iyu  Koi 
tctpi  ^porfi<r§«ts  Kal  hyyoias'  rh  fily 
yhp  ^fwptiy  elyat  rois  Sfxoiots,  rh  8* 
kyvotTy  rots  iufo/jLototSf  its  ^  ravrbv 
^  rafmr\^aio9f  tp  Tp  cuffOifau  r^y 
^p6yri<ny.  9tapi0firi<rdfityos  y^  as 
tKoerrov  iKdffr^  ywplCofitPf  iir\ 
r^Aci  wpoffiOfiKW  its   'Wic  Toirwy^* 


108 


EMPEDOCLES. 


his  own  theories,  could  not  and  did  not  exclude  other 
parts  of  the  body  from  participation  in  thought.^  The 
more  homogeneous  is  the  mixture  of  the  elements,  the 
more  acute  are  the  senses  and  intelligence  generally; 
when  the  elementary  particles  are  combined  with  each 
other  in  a  loose  and  slack  manner,'  the  mental  faculty 
moves  more  slowly ;  when  they  are  small  and  tightly 
compressed,  it  moves  more  quickly;  in  the  one  case 
there  is  permanence,  in  the  other  instability.*  If  the 
right  admixture  of  the  elements  is  limited  to  certain 
parts  of  the  body,  it  produces  the  corresponding  special 
endowment/    Empedoeles  therefore  supposes,  like  Par- 


fee,  (r.  836  sq.  sup.  p.  S5.  1).  Sik 
KoX  T^  oTjuaTi  iJuiKiirra  ^povtip'  ii* 
ro6T^  yhp  fidXicra  KtKpaaOad  itrri 
rit  aroix^Ta  tSov  fi^pSv.  Kmp.  v. 
327  (315,  372  M):- 
tdfjMTos    iff   7r9Kiyt<nri   'rtBpafifi4yri 

ikrrtdop6trros, 
Tp   re  v&niM  fjidXitrra  iruic\/(r«ccrat 

itfBpi&irouriP' 
(j^fia  yhp  kifBpdneois  W9ptKdpJii6tf  itrri 

This  verse  is  to  be  received  as 
Empedoclean :  though  it  seems,  ac- 
cordiDg  to  Tert.  De  An.  16,  to  have 
been  found  in  an  Orphic  poem,  it 
doubtless  came  in  the  first  instance 
from  Empedocle*.  Philop.  De  An, 
C,  a,  ascribes  it  to  Critias;  bnt 
this  is  evidently  a  mistake.  Later 
writers  repeat  or  misinterpret  this 
definition  sometimes  in  the  sense 
of  subsequent  enquiries  concerning 
the  seat  of  the  ny9fjMvtK6tf :  vide 
Cic.  Ttiw.  i.  9,  19;  17,  41;  Plat, 
ap.  Eos.  Prop.  i.  8,  10;  Galen, 
De  Hipp,  et  Mai,  u.  exit,  T.  V. 
283  K ;  Stnrs,  439  sqq. ;  Karsten, 
495,  498.  Cf.  also  p.  163,  1,  and 
Plato^  Phiedo,  96  B. 


*  Notice  the  yAKivra,  v.  328,  and 
the  conclusion  of  the  passage  in 
Theophmstus  to  be  quoted  imme- 
diately. 

*  Or  according  to  the  Intcrpr 
Cruqu.  on  Horace,  Rp.  ad  Pis.  465 
(ap.  Stttrz  447,  Karsten  496), 
where  the  blood  is  cold :  this,  how- 
ever, was  probably  regarded  by 
Empedoeles  as  a  consequence  of 
the  loose  combination  of  its  parts. 

*  This  is  the  first  germ  of  the 
doctrine  of  temperaments. 

*  Theophr.  i.  c.  §  1 1 :  Bifois  ffh 
o^y  Xaa  icol  irap«wK4iata  fiiuutrai,  ini 
fi^  ii^L  wo^Xov  [here  the  text  seems 
corrupt.  I  should  conjecture  Xlor 
iroAAa]  firiV  ad  lUKp^  fiifV  ^tpfidX- 
Aoyia  r^  iirfiBUf  rodrovs  ^- 
ri/JMrdrov9  cTmu  vol  Korh.  rh  «• 
aBftffus  ixpifitardrovs  *  Kara  xiyw 
8i  Koi  rohs  iyyxnd.m  ro(nȴ,  tcwi 
3*  4va»rlt»Sf  A^/N»rc<rr<£rou5.  icai  iv 
pilv  fjLttvh  itdi  kpma  Kwru  rk  (rroix^a, 
vwQpohs  iced  hrnrdvovs,  &v  Z\  m»(^ 
ffol  icoT^  iiucpk  r^Bpaucyiiva^  rain  5i 
roto^ovi  6^4»s  (so  Wimmer  reads 
for  6^tis  Kol)  <l>tpo/i4povSy  fro!  ««XA& 
iirifiaXXo/A4¥Ovs  6\lya  ^vircAcir  0ii 


THE  SENSES  AND   THOUGHT, 


1» 


menides,'  that  the  quality  of  thought  is  regulated  ac- 
cording to  the  constitution  of  the  body,  and  changes 
with  it.*  Aristotle  infers  from  this  that  he  must  have 
sought  truth  in  the  sensible-phenomenon ;  *  but  such  a 
conclusion  Empedocles  would  have  repudiated,  as  much 
as  his  Eleatic  predecessor,*  whether  rightly  or  wrongly 
it  is  not  our  purpose  to  enquire.  For  he  is  so  far  from 
placing  absolute  trust  in  perception,  that  he  exhorts  us 
to  give  no  credence  to  it  at  all,  but  to  acquaint  our- 
selves instead  with  the  nature  of  things  by  reflection  ;  * 


015  N  Kolf  {y  Ti  fi6ptoy  Ti  fidffri 
KpSurls  iiTTi,  raCrp  ffo^hs  Ikdirrous 
cljFai.  81^  robs  yJkv  pihropas  iyoBovs^ 
To^s  8f  rtx^lras'  &s  rots  fi^y  iv  reus 
Xtfxrt  Toif  y  tr  tJ  yh^rrji  r^v 
Kpavtp  oZffoty.  6fioi»$  8*  Hx*^"  '^^ 
tark  ris  &XAas  9vydfif  is.  This  last 
is  thus  expressed  in  Pint.  ap.  Eib. 
Pnep,  i.  8,  10:  rh  8i  iiy^f^ovuchp 

if  clfiOfTf  Z9tp  Half  5  TI  ay  ^cpof 
Tov  v^iMTOs  v\%toyf  irap€inrapfUyoy 
rh  Jrif^fiayatiWf  oXtrtu  Kttr*  iKuvo 
rpoTfptTy  rovs  iufOp<&irovs» 

'  5i^>ra,  Tol.  i.  602. 

«  V.  330  (318,  876  M):  irphs 
VB^f&v  T^p  pajris  iid^frou  &yOpti- 
votffiv.  In  support  of  this  propo- 
nuon  Empedocles  also  adduces  the 
phenomenon  of  dreaming.  Aecord« 
ing  to  Philop.  Be  An,  P,  S,  and 
Simp.  De  An,  56  b,  the  words  in 
T.  331  (319,  376  M)  likewise 
relate  to  it :  ttriroy  t*  &AAo<<m  iitri- 
^w,  ricov  ip  a^nriy  cu«l  Kol  ^po- 
vc«iv  iXAoia  vapiararo.  He  also 
remarked  that  madness  arises  from 
corporeal  causes,  though  he  after- 
mdi  speaks  of  a  madness  pro- 
duced bj  guilt,  and,  side  by  side 
with  this  leased  madness,  of  the 


higher  madness  of  religious  en- 
thusiasm. Col.  Aurel.  De  Morb. 
Chron.  i.  6,  145. 

»  Metaph,  iv.  5,  1009  b,  12, 
where  it  is  said  of  Democritus  and 
Empedocles  (of  the  latter  on  the 
strength  of  the  verse  just  quoted): 
Sawx  5h  8ia  rh  vvoAo/x/Sdvcty  ^p6-' 
V7)(riy  fihy  r^y  oliff9ifi<riv^  raurriy  8* 
cTi^oi  iiXKolwriVy  rh  ^auy6fi€yoy  Karh, 
r^y  cC[<r$riaiy  ^|  iLydyiens  iiKrjBhs 
tlyai  ^anTiy,  The  words  i^  iiydyKris 
are  to  be  connected  with  ^aaty: 
they  are  couHtrained  to  maintain. 

♦  For  Bitter's  suggestion  (cf. 
Wolfs  Anal.  ii.  468  sq. ;  cf.  Gesch, 
d.  Phil,  i.  541 )  that,  according  to 
Empedocles,  the  Sphairos  can  only 
be  known  by  reason^and  the  present 
world  by  the  senses,  has  no  war- 
rant in  his  own  utterances:  the 
Terses  quoted  below  (19  sqq.)  are 
of  universal  application :  there  is 
no  trace  of  any  restriction  to  the 
Sphairos,  cf.  note  4. 

•  V.  19(49,  53  M):— 

&X\*   6r/   A0p€t  irdtrp  iraXdfi'Pt   rrp 

8^\oy  IwourToy, 
pL'hrt  riu*  6^iy  Ix^''  vlffrti  v\4o»f  ^ 

jcar'  dirou^y, 
fjJir^   &ffoV   ipiiovwoy  Mp  rpay^- 

fiara  yhAffffus^ 


170 


EMPEDOCLES, 


and  though  he  keenly  deplores,  with  Xenophanes,  tbe 
limitations  of  human  knowledge,*  yet  in  regard  to  the 
knowledge  granted  to  mortals,  he  expects  far  more  from 
reason  than  from  the  senses.  It  need  hardly  be  tsaid, 
however,  that  he  set  up  no  theory  of  knowledge  in  the 
later  sense  of  tl^e  term ;  *  nor  ought  we  on  account  of  the 
common  accusations  from  men  of  all  parties  to  consider 
him  an  ally  of  the  sceptics.*    What  made  him  mis- 


fire Ti  rmp  iXK^fv,  ifw6vw  vSpos 

iirrl  worjirai. 
yvlcȴ    wiffriif    fpvirc,    w6ti   8'   f 

9ri\ov  licoo'ror. 

V.  81  (108,  82  M)  of  the  tfukSrjis: 
T^y  ffh  v6^  8^p«t«v  ^i}8'  ofifuurtv  if<ro 
rtBtfT^i.  Later  writHW,  suRh  as 
Lact.  Inst.  iii.  28 ;  Tert.  De  An, 
1 7,  I  paes  over. 

»  V.  2  (32.  36  M)  :— 

yvia  K4x»vrai' 
wowk  84  ScU*  tfuraut,  rd  r*  &/</3Av- 

roMTi  fitpifivas, 
mvpov   hk  ^o^t  i^iov  iiipoi  ii0p4i-' 

0'ayTct. 
«5.  &KVfi6poi  Kavpino  %iicr{v  ikfjbiirts 

&Wirray, 
altrh  lUvov  ir9urd4vr€Sj  8ry   Tpotr- 

iKvpatv  tKOffroi 
irwnM  iAMup6ft§p0St  rh  8*  iKov  fiiii^ 

«i;XCTCu  €upuy 
oHfroff   otfr*  iirittpierii  r4X  kvhpdjiv 

o0t'  ivoKOvark 
o9r€   »6<p   TfpiXtiVT^.       ffh   8'    ohVf 

«-c^(rcai  ob  v\4ov  ifh  fiporflji  /JLfjru 
tpAp^v. 

This  paasage,  the  strongest  which 
is  found  in  Empedocles,  in  truth 
only  a<*8erts  this:  considering  the 
limitations  of  human  knowledge 
and  the  shortness!  of  human  life, 
tre  cannot  suppose  we  hare  em- 
braced the  whole  with  a  fortuitous 


and  one-sided  experienee :  it  is  im- 
possible in  this  way  to  attain  to  a 
real  knowledge  of  the  truth  (▼.  8 
sq.);  we  must  therefore  content 
ourselves  with  that  which  man  is 
in  a  position  to  attain.  Similarly, 
V.  11  (41,  45  M)  sq.,  £mpedocle« 
entreata  the  gods  to  pres<>rT6  him 
from  the  presumptuous  spirit  which 
would  utter  more  than  is  per- 
mitted to  mortals,  and  to  reveal  to 
him  Ar  94ius  4<rr\v  4^fifitplo0ir 
ifco^ir.  A  third  passage,  v.  So 
(112,  86  M)  sq.,  does  not  belong 
to  this  connection ;  for  when  h« 
there  says  of  love,— t-ijr  olkis  pt*^ 
tKoaty  (as  Panserbieter  and  S'ein 
rightly  read)  kKiffvoiiirnp  8<8di«( 
Bvrrrbs  Mipt  this  according  to  the 
context  only  means ;  in  its  appear- 
ance as  sexual  love,  this  force 
indeed  is  known  to  everyone ;  bat 
its  universal  cosmical  import  has 
been  us  yet  unknown,  and  is  to  be 
first  revealed  by  him  (aif  8'  fcw« 
X^«y  crr6\oy  ovk  &TarqA<$y). 

*  The  following  is  attributed 
to  him  by  Sextus,  Ma/h.  vi  i.  1 22,  bat 
evidently  with  no  other  founda- 
tion than  the  verse  first  quoted: 
not  the  senses,  but  the  6p^s  aoyot 
is  the  criterion  of  truth ;  this  is 
partly  divine  and  partly  human; 
the  human  part  only  can  be  com- 
municated in  speech. 

*  Tbe  sceptics  ap.  Diog.  ix.  73 ; 


SENSE  AND  THOUOHT.  171 

trustful  of  the  senses  our  fragments  do  not  expressly 
state ;  but  a  comparison  of  the  analogous  opinions  of 
Parmenides,  Democritus  and  other  physicists  leaves 
Uttle  doubt  that  the  cause,  in  his  case  as  in  theirs,  lay 
in  the  contradiction  between  the  sensible  phenomenon 
and  his  physical  theory,  and  more  especially  in  the  diffi- 
culties with  which  the  conceptions  of  Becoming,  Decay 
and  qualitative  Change  are  beset ;  so  that  here  also  the 
propositions  of  the  theory  of  knowledge  appear  not  as 
the  basis,  but  as  the  fruit  of  objective  enquiry. 

Feelings  too,  according  to  Empedocles,  originate  in 
the  same  manner  and  under  the  same  conditions  as 
opinions.  Tinat  which  is  akin  to  the  constituent  parts 
of  each  human  being  begets  in  him,  together  with  the 
knowledge  of  it,  the  sensation  of  pleasure ;  that  which 
is  opposed  to  those  constituents  begets  the  feeling  of 
aversion.*  Desire  consists  in  the  striving  after  kindred 
elements,  of  which  each  individual  is  in  want ;  and  it 
is  ultimately  the  result  of  a  mixture  of  substances 
adapted  to  the  nature  of  the  individual.' 

m.—THE  BELIGI0U8  DOCTRINES  OF  EMPEDOCLES, 
Hitherto  we  have  been   occupied  with  the  physical 
theories  of  Empedocles.     All  the  doctrines  connected 
with  these  start  from  the  same  presuppositions,  and 

Oic.  Aoad.  i.  12, 44.    In  Aoad,  pri.  1i8c<r0at  fi^r  voi&v  tots  Sfioiois  Xw«7- 

ii.,  5,  14,  this  statement  is  contra-  <r0ai  8i  rots  ivaarriou.  Job.  Damasc. 

dieted.  Parall.  S.   ii.   25,    80,  35   (Stob. 

'  £mp.v.  336tq.,  lS9  8qq.(«(jp.  Floril.  edi.  Mein.  iv.  235  sq.) ;  cf. 

p.  166,  3;  134,  1).     Theophr.  De  Plut.  Plac,  v.  28  and    Karaten, 

Senmt,  16,  with  inference  to  this  461. 

Terse:  &aM  ^v  e^i  r^y  ifioi^y  *  Plat.  Piac,  I.  c;  cf.  Quasi, 

Kal\iTfnr6fu}\oyQviiiP9nkito^iiwnVt  Conv.  vi.  2,  6. 


172  EMPEDOCLES. 

though,  in  regard  to  particular  details,  we  may  dis- 
cover much  that  is  arbitrary,  yet  on  the  whole  there 
is  evidently  an  attempt  to  explain  all  things  in  reference 
to  the  same  principles  and  the  same  primitive  causes. 
The  physical  conceptions  of  Empedocles  appear,  there- 
fore, as  parts  of  a  system  of  natural  philosophy  which, 
though  not  complete  on  all  sides,  is  yet  carried  out  in 
accordance  with  one  plan.  It  is  otherwise  with  his 
religious  doctrines  and  prescripts,  which  are  taken 
partly  from  the  the  third  book  of  the  poem  on  physics, 
but  especially  from  the  Kadapfiol^  and  apparently  have 
no  connection  with  his  scientific  principles.  In  these 
propositions  we  see  only  articles  of  faith  which  were 
superadded  to  his  philosophic  system  from  quite  another 
quarter.  We  cannot,  however,  entirely  pass  them  over. 
We  will  take  first  the  conceptions  of  Transmigra- 
tion and  life  after  death.  Empedocles  tells  us  that  it 
is  the  immutable  decree  of  fate  that  the  dsamons  who 
have  sinned  by  murder  or  perjury  should  be  banished 
for  30,000  seasons  from  among  the  Blessed,  and  tra- 
verse the  painful  paths  of  life  in  the  various  forms  of 
mortal  existence.'  He  presupposes,  therefore,  a  prim- 
eval state  of  bliss,  the  theatre  of  which  must  have  heen 

'  V.  869  (1) : —  rpls  yuv  fwplas  Spas  &irb  fioic^r 

lUrny  kydyiens  XP^H^  ^^**^  i^^arfia  iA.oXij(r6oi, 

•KoKcuhy  ^v6fi€yop  wavrota  Bia  Xf^^  ^'^ 

ZpKoit  *  i(>yaX4iu  fiiAroio  /uToX}J4rffom 
€ 5t^    t«   ifiwXoKfiKrt    4>6yov    ^fXo  KcXe^eows. 

yvTa  fwfivTp  The  statemonts  of  later  authorities 

eXfutros,  ^  hriopitop  ofiapriiirca  iwo-  I  pass  over  here,  and  in  -what  fol- 

fn6<r<rp  lows,  as   thej  only  reiter&ta  ir^ 

iaifiMVf   dirt  fuucpoimyos  XtKdxcun  distort  what  Empedocles  himself 

filoiOf  says.  They  are  to  be  found  io 
Stun,  448  sqq. 


TRANSMIGRATION  OF  SOULS. 


173 


heaven;  for  he  complains  that  he  has  been  cast  out 
firom  the  abode  of  the  gods  upon  the  earth,  into  this 
cavern,*  and  a  return  to  the  gods  is  promised  to  the 
pious.'  The  poet  describes  in  forcible  verses,  ostensibly 
from  his  own  recollection,'  the  wretchedness  of  guilt- 
laden  spirits  who  are  tossed  about  in  restless  flight 
through  all  parts  of  the  world ;  *  the  pain  and  sorrow  of 
the  soul  which,  having  entered  the  place  of  oppositions 
and  of  strife,  of  sickness  and  of  transitoriness,*  finds 
itself  clothed  in  the  garment  of  the  flesh,®  and  trans- 
ferred from  life  into  the   kingdom  of  death.^      The 


•  V.  381(7,  9  M):— 

TwF  Kot  ^7^  yvv  cifil,  4>vyhs  e§6eev 

niKfJ  ftatyofi4y^  iriffwos. 

V.  390  (11,  ISM)-— 

ii  ufns  rtfiiis  Tf  Kol  8<r<row  fiiiKtos 

S8c  vfffibv  Korii  ytuatf  kywrrp4^itai 
furii  emrrois.  (Text  of  this 
Terse  is  very  uncertain.) 

392  (31,  29  M)  :— 

h\^oiuv  rSSi'  W  tvrpO¥  fnt6ffrtyov, 

*  V.  449  sq. ;  vide  wf.  p.  174,  6. 
>  V.  383(380,  11  M):— 

<5t|  7«£p  itot'  ^7^  ytpSfiriP  KovpSs  re 

K6fni  re 
Ufi^t    r'   oU0v6s  Tc   jcol  «lv    aXl 

«  V.  377  (16,32  M):- 
Mpioy  Illy  ydp  <r^€  fiiyos  v6yroy9€ 

v6yros  V  is  x'^^^  ®^'»»  iir^irrwr*, 

ytua  V  is  oirydLS 
^Xioviucdfuurros,  i  5*  aie4ffOs  l/i^aAc 

tlvats  * 
iXXos  8*  i^  4A.A0W  9tx^rai  ffrvyi- 

V.  400  (14,  30  M)  seems  to  refer 


to  the  same  condition. 

»  V.  386(13,  17  M):— 
K\av<rd  TC  koI  Kt&Kvo-o,  Id^y  curvyii' 

Oca  x'^P^^i 
386  (21, 19  M)  i^ea  *6yos  re  K6tos 

TC  Kol  &AA»j/  iOfta  Hvp&yf 
avxM^pB^  TC  y6iT0i  Kcd  <r^\f'ics  4pya 

TC  l^€v<rrd.  Cf.  v.  393  (24, 
22  M)  for  the  description  of  the 
opposites  in  the  terrestrial  -world, 
of  XOoyiri  and  'HKiSirr)  (earth  and 
fire),  of  Aripis  and  'Apfiovlri  (hate 
and  love),  *i/<ri)  and  *9ifi4yri  (birth 
and  deca^),  beauty  and  ugliness, 
greatness  and  littleness,  sleep  and 
vaking,  &c.  (We  need  not,  with 
Plul.  Tranqu,  An.^  16,  p.  474,  in- 
terpret this  to  mean  that  Empedo- 
cles  assigned  to  everyone  through 
life  a  good  and  an  evil  genius.) 
Cf.  167,  2. 

•  V.  402(379,  414  M):— 
<rapK&y    iJ<.\oyy&Tt    ^tpurriXXovaa 

Xtrupt. 

According  to  Stob.  Eel.  i.  1048, 
the  subject  of  the  proposition  is  ri 
Baifitoy. 

»  V.  404  (378.  416  M):— 
in   fxhy  ykp   (<^y   irldti  y9Kpo€iZ€ 
iifi^lfidey. 


174  EMPEDOCLES. 

exiled  dsemons  in  the  course  of  their  wanderings  enter 
not  only  into  human  and  animal  bodies,  but  also  into 
the  forms  of  plants ;  ^  but  in  each  of  these  classes  the 
noblest  dwellings  are  appropriated  to  the  worthiest  of  the 
daemons.*  The  intermediate  state,  after  the  departure 
of  the  soul  from  the  body,  seems  to  have  been  con- 
ceived by  Empedocles  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing 
notions  of  Hades.'  Whether  he  supposed  that  the 
term  of  wandering  was  the  same  for  all  souls,  and  what 
duration  he  assigned  to  it,  we  cannot  be  certain.^  The 
best  rise  at  last  to  the  dignity  of  soothsayers,  poets, 
physicians,  and  princes,  and  from  thence  return  as  gods 
to  the  gods.* 

This  belief  is  connected  by  Empedocles  with  certain 
purifications  of  which  we  find  traces  in  his  writings,' 
and  also  with  the  prohibition  of  flesh  ^  and  the  slaying 

I  Cf.  p.  173,  2;  159,  3.  ical  vp6tioi  h^pAvouruf  inxBovioici 

'  V.  438  (382,  448  M) :—  WAoktw, 

iy  Hptfftri  \iovr9S  6p€i\9x4*s  x«-  *^''^*''    iumfiXaurrovvt     6col    timJ^' 

/uutvyeu  ^ptaroif 

ylyrorrcu   Zd^wcu   V   ivl   Ziy^pttrtv  i^Oeufdrois  AkXoiirttf  6fi4ffrtot,  aim- 

>  This  is  alluded  to  in  v.  389  •'^''**»    A^^pc^w"    Ax^«»'.    MKnpm, 

(23,  21  M) ;  the  immediate  refe-  ,       ^^JVf**-  ,pf-  J"^^^  "  ^^^^^^ 

fence  is  unknown :  &Tnt  Jki^  AtififiKo  J™™  ^^^^^j  Vol.  I.  p.  70,  note  4. 

marii  CK&roi  h^^icownv.  ^^  ^^he  introduction  to  the  ica««p^(, 

^  The  rpxcTM^pioi  Spoi,  V.   374,  ^-  ^^^  i^^?'  ^^O  JM),  Empedocl« 

are  of   uncertain    meaning  (vide  ;»y»  of  his  present  life.  #7^ « 

sup.  p.  148.  1),  and  we  find  on  the  ^^^'^  ^'^'  Sm^potot,  ouwti  6rrt^f. 
other  hand,  in  v.  446  (420,  466  *  V.  442  (422,  452  M):— 

M)  sq.  a  threat,  which  doubtless  i,ieofpiwr€ff$9  Kprivduy  iwo  v4rr' 
refers  to  transmigration  : —  itufuorrts  drci/Ml  x^^f  • 

rotydproi  xoXcufo'iy  iA^yrts  jtok^  »  V.  430  (410,  442  M) : — 

V     "^"^^i^  ^   erf        .       /  fUfP^p^r  «•  hX^A^ayra  war^p  ^IXof 

othroT€  Uikcddty  tx^t^v    Xuxpfifftrt  vlhy  Mpas 

^^1^^'  trrdCfi   iirtvx6ti€yos.  uiya  yipnos' 
•  V.  447  (387,  457  M) :-  U  3*  wop^vrai, 

tls  91  r4\09  iJuivTtis  rt  koL  bmyo'  Kt(rff6fi9vos  Ovorros*    6   V  inftro^ 
ir^A.01  Kid  irrrpol  (miff%¥  ^fioK\4»y 


TRANSMIGRATION  OF  SOULS.  175 

of  animals.  Both  necessarily  appear  to  him  in  the 
light  of  crimes,  as  flagrant  as  the  murder  of  human 
heings  and  cannihalism.  In  the  bodies  of  animals  are 
human  souls ;  why  then  should  not  the  same  general 
law  apply  t.o  animals  as  to  our  fellow-creatures  ?  *  In 
order  to  be  quite  consistent,  Empedocles  should  have 
extended  these  principles  to  the  vegetable  world ; '  but 
this  was,  of  course,  impossible :  so  he  contented  himself 
with  prohibiting  the  use  or  abuse  of  a  few  plants,'  on 
account  of  their  religious  significance. 

However  important  this  doctrine  and  these  pre- 
scripts may  have  been  to  him  personally,*  they  have 
only  a  partial  connection  with  his  system,  and  on  one 
side,  indeed,  are  unmistakeably  opposed  to  it.  When 
Empedocles  looks  back  with  longing  from  the  world 
of  strife  and  of  oppositions  towards  the  blessedness  of 
a  primeval  state  in  which  all  was  peace  and  harmony, 
we  recognise  in  this  the  same  temper  and  point  of  view 
as  applied  to  human  life,  which  asserts  itself  in  regard 
to  the  universe  in  the  doctrine  of  the  vicissitude  of  its 

r^as  y  tw  fuydpouri  ffoar^y  dXf-  iXXi  rh  /ih  irhrrw  vSfUfiov  Sid  t' 

yiwro  Scuro.  t^pvyAZovros 

In  8*  oSrvf   wvrip*  v&s   iXitv  Kal  alBipos  ^ytn^ws  r4rarat  Bid  r'  &«-- 

farripa  ircu5cr  \irav  abyrjs  (V.  425,  403  K, 

9vfiJ^  iaro^^aiirarrt  ^IXaf  Kwri^  ffdp-  437  M). 

Kof  Howriv. 

V.  436  (9.  13  M) :—  -        ^  Karsten  well  observes,  p. 

o^wi,  St*    oh   irp6ff9€V  fu   8t«$Xc(rc  1  ^u     i         i        j  ^^     , 

niXfh  ^fiop  ^^«  ^*"^^  *»<1  tho  ^an*  ▼• 

TfAvfx^rKC^py^fiopafirtp\x€i^^<ri  J*®  (418,  460  M)  pq-,  if  indeed 

l^vrUfo^rL.    V:  428  (416.  440  the  second  of  these  verses  («ciXol 

;Ari8t.i?^«f.i.  13, 1378^14  -     ^^-^  Bignification ;  for  it  may  pos- 
•*  Turl  fitv  BiKtuov  Tiffl  cr  ov    ^  ^^4  yjj     Y,  173 


176  EMPED0CLE8. 

conditions.  In  both  cases  the  state  of  unity  is  con- 
sidered the  better  and  the  earlier ;  division,  opposition, 
and  the  strife  of  particular  existences  is  looked  on  as  a 
misfortune,  as  something  which  arose  through  a  distur- 
bance of  the  original  order,  through  the  abandonment 
of  the  blessed  primitive  state.  But  if  his  religious 
and  his  physical  theories  lie  in  the  same  direction, 
Empedocles  never  attempted  to  connect  them  scientifi- 
cally, or  even  to  prove  their  compatibility.  For  though 
mental  life  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  combination 
of  corporeal  substances,  yet  as  individual  life  it  is  con- 
ditioned by  this  definite  combination ;  the  soul,  there- 
fore, can  neither  have  existed  before  the  formation  of 
the  body,  nor  can  it  outlast  the  body.  This  difficulty 
seems  to  have  been  so  completely  overlooked  by  Em- 
pedocles, that,  as  far  as  we  know,  he  made  not  the 
slightest  attempt  to  solve  it,  or  to  combine  the  doctrine 
of  transmigration  with  his  other  theories.  What  he 
says  of  the  movement  of  the  primitive  elements,  which 
wander  through  all  forms  in  changing  combinations,^ 
has  only  a  distant  analogy  and  no  actual  connection  ^ 
with  the  wandering  of  daemons  through  terrestrial 
bodies ;  and  though  the  elements  themselves  are  desig- 
nated by  the  names  of  gods,'  and  called  daemocs,*  it 

>  Vide  fitfpra,  p.  1 30, 1  ;  122,3.  ing  to    Empedocles,   first   spring 

Karsten.p.Sll.andGladisch.&w/?.  from  the  combination  of  elemen- 

«.  d.  Aeg.  61,  suppose  that  verses  Ury  substances,  and  perish  when 

61  sqq.  (quoted  swp.  p.  122,  3)  refer  this  combination  ceases.     Thepe^ 

tothepre-existence  and  immortality  mauence   of    the    primitire   8n^>- 

of  this  soul.    This  is  an  error ;  the  stances  is  therefore  quite  different 

reference  is  to  the  imperishablft-  from  the  continuance  of  the  indi- 

ness  of  the  primitive  elements  of  viduals — of   that  which    is  com- 

whichthe  perishable  beings  (/BpoTol)  pounded  of  those  substanceo. 
consist.  ■  Vide  sitpra,  p.  126,  2;  187, 1 

»  All     individual     existences,  *  V.  254,  vide  tiiprUt  160.  6. 

even  the  gods  and  daemons,  accord- 


TRANSMIGRATION  OF  SOULS,  177 

does  not  follow  that  Empedocles  really  identified  two 
such  distinct  things  as  the  transmigration  of  souls  and 
the  circulation  of  the  elements ;  or  intended  what  he 
said  of  the  first  to  apply  to  the  second.*  Nor  are  we 
justified  in  thinking  that  Metempsychosis  is  with  him 
a  mere  symbol  for  the  vitality  of  nature,  and  the  gra- 
duated development  of  natural  life.*  He  himself  ad- 
vanced this  doctrine  in  its  literal  sense  with  the  greatest 
earnestness  and  precision,  and  founded  on  it  prescripts 
which  may  perhaps  appear  to  us  trivial,  but  which 
possessed  in  his  eyes  undeniable  importance.  There 
remains,  therefore,  only  the  supposition  that  he  adopted 
the  doctrine  of  Metempsychosis  and  all  depending  on 
it,  from  the  Orphico-Pythagorean  tradition,  without 
combining  it  scientifically  with  his  philosophic  coA- 
victioDs  advanced  in  another  place  and  in  another 
connection.* 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  mythus  of  the  golden 
age,  which  Empedocles  sets  forth  in  a  special  manner,* 

*  Aa  is  maintained  by  Stuiz,  *  That  it  is  qnite  possible  fo 

471  sqq. ;  Ritter  (Wolf's  Anal,  ii.  entertain  ideas  that  are  mutually 

453  sq.,  Getch.  d.  PML  i.  563  sq.) ;  incompatible  is  shown  in  numerous 

Schleiermacher,  Gtsch.  d.  PhiL  41  instances.    How  many  theological 

sq. ;  Wendt  on  Tennemann,  i.  312,  doctrines,  for  example,  have  been 

&c.,  after  the  precedent  of  Irhov,  believed  by  Christian  philosophers 

Jk  Pialingenesia    Veterum    (Am-  whose  philosophy  would  logically 

Bteid,  1783),  p.  233  sqq.  &c.  (yide  contradict  them  ! 
Sturz,  I.  c),  *  In  the  verses  which  seem  to 

'  Steinhart,  L  e,  p.   103    sq.  be  alluded  to  by  Arist.  G^m.e^  C%>rr. 

Sext  Math.  ix.  127  sqq.  cannot  be  ii.  6,  334  a,  6,  viz.  V.  406  (368, 

quoted  in  support  of  this ;  for  he,  417  M)  sqq. : — 
or  rather  the  Stoic  whom  he  tran- 

acribes,  attributes  tx>  Empedocles  ohli  ra  ^v  Mivowiv'' kffi\%  tfcbs  o&8i 
and  the  Pythagorpans  Metempsy-  Ku8otM^f 

chosis  in  the    literal    sense,   and  od84  Zci^t  /SfluriXfirf  oilh\  Kp6vos  oM 
founds  it  upon  the  Stoical  doctrine  Tloafii&y 

of  the  world  spirit.  &X\&  Kdrpis  jScurrXcia.     Cf.  V.  421 

TOL.  II,  N 


178  EMPEDOCLES. 

though  we  cannot  find  any  point  of  connection  in 
it  with  his  other  doctrines.  It  cannot  have  belonged 
to  the  imagery  of  the  Sphairos,^  for  in  the  Sphairos 
were  no  individual  existences ;  nor  to  the  description  of 
the  heavenly  primeval  state,  for  those  who  lived  in  the 
golden  age  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  human 
beings,  and  all  their  surroundings  appear  to  be  terres- 
trial. Some  would  conclude  from  the  passages  jost 
quoted  from  Aristotle,  that  the  golden  age  must  be 
assigned  to  the  period  in  which  the  separation  of  the 
different  elements  from  the  Sphairos  first  began.  But 
this  view  has  little  to  urge  in  its  behalf,  for,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  Empedocles  gives  no  particulars  about 
that  form  of  the  universe,  which  contrasted  so  entirely 
with  the  present.'  It  seems,  then,  that  he  employed 
the  myths  of  the  golden  age  to  enforce  his  principles 
respecting  the  sacredness  of  animal  life,  without  trou- 
bling himsef  to  consider  whether  there  was  room  in  his 
system  for  such  a  theory. 

Side  by  side  with  these  myths  and  doctrines  the 
theological  opinions   of   Empedocles  now  claim  our 

(364, 433  M)  sqq.   In  the  foUowing  offered  in  the  place  of  real  ani- 

venee  we  are  then  told  how  these  mals :  just  as  the  offering  of  a  bull 

gods  were  worshipped  by  the  former  of  baked  flour  was  ascribed  to  the 

race  of  men  with  unbloody  sacrifices  philosopher  himself  by  FaTorinos 

and  gifts,  for  all  animals  lived  in  ap.  Diog.  viii.  63,  and  to  Pjrthagoiss 

friendship  with  men,  and  the  plants  by  Forph.  V.  P.  36.)  Cf.  svp,  p.  162, 

furnished  fruits  in  abundance.   (As  2.  The  notion  of  Stein  and  Mullaeh, 

to  this  interpretation  of  fiyoAfto,  cf.  that  the  verses  ^VoL  I.  51 1, 1)  attri- 

Bemays,  Theophr.  v.  d,  Frommigkeii,  buted  i n  antiquity  to  Pythagoras  oi 

179.    Bemays  coi\jectures,  in  the  Parmenides  really  belonged  to  this 

preceding  verses,  ffroKTois  C^pota-t  section  seems  to  me  doubtful 
instead  of  ypoirrots  (4*^ia-i,    This  >  To  which  they  are  referred 

does  not  commend  itself  to  me.  by  Hitter,  Gesch,  d,  Phil,  i.  643, 

Empedocles  may  very  well  have  546,  and  Krische,  Fonoh,  i.  123. 
maintained  that  painted  Cvc>  were  '  Su]^^  p.  153. 


THEOLOGY.  179 

attention.     He  speaks  of  the  Grods  in  many  different 
ways    In  the  first  place,  he  mentions  among  the  beings 
who  arose  out  of  the  combination  of  primitive  substances^ 
the  gods,  the  long-living,  the  revered  of  all.*     These 
gods  are  manifestly  not  distinct  from  the  divinities  of 
the  polytheistic  popular  fiedth,  except  that,  according  to 
the  cosmology  of  Empedocles,  their  existence  is  limited 
to  a  particular  space  of  time.*     The  daemons  also,  some 
of  whom  maintain  themselves  from  the  beginning  in 
the  abodes  of  the  Blest,  while  others  return  thither 
after  the  wanderings  of  Metempsychosis,'  belong  to  the 
popular  faith.    Secondly,  Empedocles  allies  himself  with 
the  same  popular  faith  when  he  calls  the  elements  and 
the  moving  forces  daemons,  and  gives  them  the  names 
of  gods ;  *  but  the  mythical  veil  is  here  so  transparent 
that  we  may  consider  this  use  of  the  divine  names  as 
purely  allegorical.   According  to  his  own  opinion,  the  six 
primitive  essences  are  indeed  absolute  and  eternal  exis- 
tences, to  whom,  therefore,  the  predicate  divine  belongs 
in  a  more  original  sense  than  to  the  created  gods,  but 
the  poet  only  occasionally  ascribes  a  personality  to  these 
essences.    Thirdly,  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Sphairos.    This  mixture  of  all  substances  is  di- 
vine only  in  the  sense  in  which  antiquity  regarded  the 
world  as  the  totality  of  divine  forces  and  essences.' 

*  V.  104  sqq.  {swp.  130,  1);  cf.  is  Baid  of  the  divinity  of  the 
119  (154,  134  M)  sqq.  Sphairos  (vide  9up,  p.  141,  4)  with 

*  Vide  tup,  p.  162,  2.  the  doctrine  of  Love,  and  both  with 
'  Vide  8up,  p.  172,  1 ;  172  sq.      the  Empedoclean  verses  immedi- 

*  %».137,l,end;r2d,2;  138,3.    atelj  to  be  qaoted,  and  so  attoins 

*  The  contrary  is  maintained  this  conception :  God  is  an  intelli- 
by  Wirth,  d.  Idee  Gotiea,  172  sqq.  gent  subject,  his  essence  is  ^i\ia, 
(cf.  Gladisch,  Emp.  u.  d,  Aeg.  31  his  primitive  existence  the  Spbai- 
sq.,  69  eqq.}.    He  connects  what  ros,  which  is  therefore  itself  de- 

X  2 


180 


EMPEDOCLES. 


Laatly,  we  possess  verses  of  Empedocles  in  which  he 

describes  the  Deity  in  the  manner  and  almost  in  the  very 

■cribed  in  verae  138  {mp,  147,  1) 
as  something  personal.  This  com- 
bination, however,  cannot  be  es- 
tablished on  historical  testimony, 
nor  is  it  compatible  with  the  most 
certain  definitions  of  Empedocles's 
doctrine.  Wirth's  main  argument 
is  the  obserTation  of  Aristotle 
{sup,  p.  1 48,  4),  that  the  *hUuiMv4- 
trraros  BAs  of  Empedocles  is  more 
ignorant  than  any  other  creatnre ; 
for  it  has  no  Hate  in  itself,  and 
consequently  cannot  know  it.  But 
it  shows  little  acquaintance  with 
Aristotle's  usual  manner  of  literally 
interpreting  his  predecessors,  to 
infer  from  this  tnat  Empedocles 
considered  the  Spbairos  as  an  in- 
telligent subject,  exempt  from  the 
process  of  the  Finite.  His  obser- 
vation is  perfectly  explicable,  sup- 
posing he  was  merely  alluding  to 
verses  138, 142  (sup.  p.  147, 1 ;  149, 
3),  where  the  Sphairos  is  described 
as  god  and  as  a  blessed  Being. 
Aristotle  seisBes  on  these  defi- 
nitions, and  combining  them  with 
the  farther  proposition  that  like  is 
known  by  like,  is  able  to  convict 
Empedocles  of  an  absurdity.  But 
as  it  does  not  follow  that  Empedo- 
cles himself  said  the  Sphairos  does 
not  know  Hate,  neither  does  it  fol- 
low that  he  spoke  of  it  as  possess- 
ing any  faculty  of  knowledge.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  this  assertion 
is  only  an  inference  drawn  by 
Aristotle;  even  the  superlative 
McufjLov4(rr»ros  Bths  need  not  ne- 
cessarily have  been  found  in  Em- 
pedocles (who  on  metrical  grounds 
could  not  have  emploved  it  as  it 
stands).  Aristotle  himself  may 
havd  originated  it,  either  ironically, 
or  because  he  concluded  that  Unity 
being  the  most  desirable  condition, 


and  Strife  the  most  banefnl  (Enp. 
T.  79  sqq.,  406  sqq. ;  St.  106  sqq., 
368  sqq.,  K.  80  sqq.,  416  sqq.; 
M,  &c.),  the  most  blessed  existence 
must  he  that  in  which  there  is  do 
strife  but  only  Unity  and  Lore. 
All  that  can  be  proved  is  that  the 
Sphairos  of  Empedocles  is  de- 
scribed as  Divinity  and  a  blessed 
essence.  But  (as  Aristotle  himself 
remarks.  Gen.  et  Corr.  ii.  6,  3S3  b, 
20)  he  also  calls  the  elements  and 
the  beings  derived  from  the  ele- 
ments—men as  well  as  dsmoos— 
gods ;  and  he  had  the  same  right 
to  describe  his  Sphairos  as  bles»d, 
that  Plato  had  to  apply  the  irord 
to  our  visible  world,  even  if  he 
did  not  conceive  it  as  a  perBonal 
being.  Supposing,  however,  he 
did  conceive  it  as  such,  or  in  the 
dubious  manner  of  the  eariy  phi- 
losophers, in  spite  of  its  impo- 
sonal  nature,  ascribed  to  it  certain 
personal  attributes,  for  example 
knowledge — this  would  by  do 
means  prove  that  it  was  ^  in 
the  monotheistic  sense,  the  highest 
existence,  not  subject  to  the  pro- 
cess of  the  Finite.  In  the  first 
place  we  do  not  know  that  Em- 
pedocles entertained  the  mono- 
theifitic  idea  of  God;  since  the 
verse  in  which  it  is  supposed  to  be 
found  refers,  Ammonius  thinks,  to 
Apollo;  and  in  the  second  plsce. 
if  he  did  entertain  it,  he  could 
not  possibly  have  identified  this 
rapreme  Ood  with  the  Sphairos. 
For  according  to  Wirth,  the  su- 
preme God  is  withdrawn  from  the 
process  of  the  Finite;  but  the 
Sphairos  is  so  completely  invoked 
in  this  process  that  it  is  itself  in 
its  whole  integrity  (vide  sup.  p- 
149,  3)  split  up  by  Hate,  and  re- 


THEOLOGY. 


181 


words  of  Xenophanes,  as  invisible  and  unapproachable, 
and  exalted  above  human  form  and  limitation,  as  pure 
spirit  ruling  the  whole  world.  ^  This  utterance  indeed 
immediately  relates  to  one  of  the  popular  deities,'  and 


aolTed  into  the  divided  world ;  in 
these  Teraee  the  Deity  is  described 
as  pore  spirit ;  the  Sphairos,  on 
the  euntrary,  as  the  mixture  of  all 
corporeal  substances.  To  prove 
the  computibility  of  these  concep- 
tions, it  is  not  enough  to  observe 
that,  from  the  realistic  point  of 
view  of  the  aneients,  God  might 
be  conceived  as  the  unity  of  the 
elements;  and  that  a  conception 
of  Deity  similar  to  this  was  held 
by  Diogenes  and  the  Eleatics.  The 
qnestion  is  not  whether  the  Deity 
might  be  conceived  as  the  unity  of 
the  elements  (this  we  find  among 
the  earlier  Ionian  hylozoistic  phi- 
losophers and  others),  nor  whedier, 
in  that  case^  reason  and  thought 
could  be  ascribed  to  a  primitive 
essence  materially  conceived  (this 
is  done  by  many  philosophers — 
Diogenes  and  Heiacleitus  for  in- 
stsQce— and  by  all  the  Stoics) ; 
bat  whether  one  and  the  same 
philosopher  has  ever  conceived  the 
Divinity  simultaneously  as  pure 
spirit  {^ph*^  Ifpii  KuX  iBdc^aros 
fvAcTo  fiowoy)  and  as  a  mixture  of 
all  corporeal  elements.  For  this 
there  is  no  analogy.  Wirth's 
theories  are  altogether  opposed  to 
the  fundamental  conceptions  of 
£mpedocIes*s  system.  According 
to  his  representation,  and  also  ac- 
cording to  GUdisch,  I.  c,  the  first 
to  exist  was  the  unity  of  all  Being, 
the  Divinity,  which  is  at  the  same 
time  all  elementary  matter;  and 
^m  this  uniform  essence  only, 
eould  particular  substances  have 
developed   themselves.    Thus  we 


should  arrive  at  a  theory  of  the 
world  resembling  Heradeitean  pan- 
theism. But  Empedocles  himself 
declares  the  four  elements,  and  the 
two  moving  forces,  to  be  the  First 
and  uncreated.  The  mixture  of 
these  elements,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Sphairos,  he  repeatedly  and 
explicitly  describes  as  something 
derived,  and  arising  out  of  the 
combination  of  the  original  prin- 
ciples. The  Sphairos,  therefore 
(notwithstanding  the  Aristotelian 
6  Ocbs),  cannot  possibly  have  been 
considered  by  him  as  the  Divinity 
in  the  absolute  sense,  but  only  as 
a  divinity;  cf.  p.  149,  4. 
*  V.  344  (366,  389  M)  :— 

ovK   iarof  W€\daa4r$'    olh*   ^^9aX- 
rifitT4pois  fl  x^P^^  Aei/3c7r,  ffirfp  tc 

ir€tOovs    iufOp^ouruf    afia^irhs    els 

tppipa  iriwrti, 
oi  fi^y  yhp  fipordif  (al.  olrre   yi^> 

hfUpo/xiii)   Kt^aX^  Karit    yvTa 

ic4Kcurraif 
ov  ftky  &«-a2  y^roio  8^  K\dioi  iA<r» 

coyrcu^ 
oi  iri$8«r,  ov   $oit  yoW  ol  /i^9ca 

Aoxi^fKTO, 
oAAcb    ^f^v    Up^     fcol     dBic^aros 

IWXcro  fiovvoyt 
^poyriai    ic6<riioy    thrayra    jcaroto-- 

aovira  Bo^viy, 

'  Ammon.  De  Interpret  199, 
ap.  Schol,  in  Arist.  135  a,  21  : 
8t<9k  Twha  fik  6  ^AKpoyayriyos  <ro^hs 
i'riffiaMi(aȴ  rovs  irtpl  Ot&y  &s  &y- 
$ponroeiS&y  6vruv  vopcb  rots  voiifrouf 
Kvfoiiiyovs   /jl^Bovs   Miyayt   vpcvi* 


182  EMPEDOCLES. 

even  were  it  otherwise,  we  could  not  imagine  that  Em- 
pedocles,  who  everywhere  presupposes  a  plurality  of  gods, 
and  whose  whole  character  is  that  of  priest  and  prophet, 
would  have  assumed  so  hostile  an  attitude  towards  the 
popular  religion  as  his  Eleatic  predecessors.  To  con- 
sider these  verses,  therefore,  as  is  often  done,  a  confession 
of  pure  monotheism  is  a  mistake ;  nor  ought  they  to  be 
interpreted  in  the  sense  of  a  philosophic  pantheism; 
for  of  this  there  is  no  trace  in  Empedocles :  ^  indeed,  it 
would  be  wholly  incompatible  with  one  fundamental 
principle  of  his  system,  the  original  plurality  of  the 
elements  and  efficient  forces.  But  the  design  of  a 
purification  of  the  popular  faith  is  notwithstanding 
discernible  in  it,  and  he  himself  clearly  avows  this  de- 
sign when,  in  the  introduction  to  the  third  book  of  his 
physical  poem,  he  extols  the  value  of  the  true  know- 
ledge of  God,  deplores  the  false  notions  concerning  the 
gods,*  and  calls  on  the  muse  to  help '  him  to  make  a 
good  discourse  about  the  blessed  gods.  Even  this  purer 
faith,  however,  stands  in  no  scientific  connection  with 
his  philosophic  theories.     An  indirect  connection  there 

yovfi^ws  l»Jkp  iTfpl  *Air<$\A»vos,  ircpl  *  V.  342  (354,  387  M)  :— 

ol  ^v  ahr^  vpofftx^s  i  \6yos,  Kora     ^Ja/Sioj  hs  Btlvv  Tpaarl9m'  iKr^turo 

8i  rhv  abrhy  rp6T0V  ifol  ir«pl   rov  irXovrov, 

*•  o(rr€  7^."  &c.  According  to  Diog.  j^i^  fi4fAri\w. 

riii.  87  (ridejup.  121, ».)  Empedo-         .  ^  „ 

Awya,  which,  however,  was  burned  tl  yi^>    i^fA^plwp    tv^icip   rt  «■«, 

after  his  death.    Is  it  likely  that  it  Afifipore  Nomtc^ 

survived  in  a  txanscript  ?  iifirrtpris  f/icXcy  ft€\4ras  Bth  ^p- 

» ■  We  have  already  (Vol.  I.  446  ri^os  i\$€7p, 

sq.)  noticed  the  passage  of  Sextns  wbxofi^v^  vvv  aSrc  'waplffrturo^  KoA- 
which  ascribes  to  him,  as  well  as  AK^rcto, 

to  the  Pythagoreans,   the  Stoical  aiJ^X  0««v  fuucdpvw  dyaBhv  x6yov 
doctrine  of  the  world-spirit.  ift^vovn. 


THEOLOGY.  183 

certainly  is:  the  anthropomorphism  of  the  popular 
religion  could  not  be  altogether  congenial  to  a  philoso- 
pher in  whom  a  taste  for  the  knowledge  of  natural 
causes  was  so  highly  developed.  But  these  theological 
conceptions  themselves  belong  neither  to  the  foundation^ 
nor  to  the  development,  of  Empedocles's  system.  The 
god  who  pervades  the  universe  with  his  thought  is 
neither  its  creator  nor  its  former,  for  the  cause  of  the 
world  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  four  elements  and  the 
two  motive  forces.  Nor,  according  to  the  presupposi- 
tions of  the  system,  can  the  government  of  the  universe 
belong  to  him ;  for  the  course  of  the  world,  as  far  as  we 
can  learn  from  the  fragmentary  utterances'  of  Empedo- 
cles,  is  dependent  equally  upon  the  admixture  of  the 
elements  and  the  alternate  action  of  Hate  and  Love, 
which  again  follow  an  irreversible  law  of  nature.  No 
room  is  left  in  his  doctrine  for  the  personal  activity  of 
God :  even  Necessity,  in  which  Bitter  *  recognises  the 
one  efficient  cause,  the  Unity  of  Love  and  Hate,  has  not 
this  meaning  with  Empedocles.*  Nor  can  we  suppose 
that  the  Deity  to  which  the  above  description  relates  is 
conceived  as  Love ;  for  Love  is  only  one  of  the  two 
efficient  powers  to  which  the  other  is  diametrically 
opposed;  and  it  is  treated  by  Empedocles,  not  as  a 
spirit  ruling  absolutely  over  the  world,  but  as  one  of 
the  six  elements  bound  up  in  all  things.*  The  more 
spiritual  notion  of  God  which  we  find  in  his  writings 
is,  therefore,  as  little  in  harmony  with  his  philosophic 
theories  as  the  popular  religion,  to  which  it  is  primarily 

»  Gtich.  d.  Phil.  I  544.  »  Vide  supra,  p.  138,  3. 

'  Vide  9upraf  p.  142,  1. 


184  EMPEDOCLES. 

related ;  we  cannot  in  consequence  derive  it  immediately 
from  those  theories,  but  must  trace  it  to  some  other 
antecedents,  such  a?,  on  the  one  hand,  the  precedent 
of  Xenophanes,  whose  influence  is  so  clearly  betrayed  ^ 
in  the  language  of  the  passage  quoted  from  Empedocles; 
and  on  the  other,  the  moral  and  religious  interest,  which 
we  recognise  in  his  reforming  attitude  in  regard  to  the 
bloody  sacrifices  of  the  ruling  faith.  But  though  these 
traits  are  very  important  if  our  object  is  to  attain  a 
complete  picture  of  the  personality  and  influence  of 
Empedocles,  or  to  determine  his  actual  position  in 
regard  to  religion  in  its  details,  their  connection  with 
his  philosopHic  convictions  is  too  slight  to  allow  of  our 
attaching  any  great  importance  to  them  in  the  history 
of  philosophy, 

TV.— THE  SCIENTIFIC  CHARACTER  AND  HISTORICAL 
POSITION  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  EMPEDOCLES. 

Even  in  antiquity  philosophers  were  greatly  divided  in 
respect  to  the  value  of  the  doctrine  of  Empedocles  and 
its  relation  to  earlier  and  contemporaneous  systems; 
and  this  dissimilarity  of  opinion  has  since  rather 
increased  than  diminished.  While,  among  his  con- 
temporaries^ Empedocles  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of 
veneration,  which,  however,  seems  to  have  been  accorded 
to  him  less  as  a  philosopher  than  as  a  prophet  and  man 
of  the  people ;  ^  and  while  later  writers  from  the  most 
opposite  points  of  view  mention  him  with  the  greatest 

*  Cf.    with  the  yerses  quoted    560  sq. 
what  IB  said  of  Xenophanes,  Vol.  I.  '  Vide  sitprut  p.  119. 


CHAEACTER  AND  POSITION  OF  HIS  DOCTRINE.  185 


respect,*  Plato  *  and  Aristotle  *  seem  to  rank  his  philo- 
sophic merit  less  highly ;  and  in  modem  times  the 
enthusiastic  praise  given  to  him  by  -some  writers  *  is 
counterbalanced  by  more  than  one  depreciatory  judg- 
ment/ Still  greater  is  the  diflference  of  opinion  respect- 
ing the  relation  of  Empedocles  to  the  earlier  schools. 
Plato  (Z.  c.)  places  him  with  Heracleitus,  Aristotle  usually 

*  On  the  one  hand,  aa  is  well  lean  doctrinea  (e.g.  MetapK  i.  4, 
knovn,  the  neo-Platonists,  whose 
d»toitionof  Empedocles's  doctrines 
has  been  already  spoken  of;  and 
OQ  the  other,  Lucretius,  on  account 
of  his  greatness  as  a  poet,  and  his 
physical  tendencies,  which  were 
Atomistic  Lucret.  N,  /?.  I,  716 
sqq.:— 


qwomm  Jeraaantinus  eum  primia 

Empedocles  est, 
insula  q%tem    triquetria    terrarum 

gasU  in  oris,  .  .  . 
$v«  cum  magna  modia  multia  mi- 

randa  vtdetur,  .  .  . 
nil  tamen  hoc  habuisae  viro  preecla- 

riua  in  ae 
nee  aanetum  magia  et  vUrum  ea- 

rumque  videtw, 
carinina  quiu  etiam  divini  pecioria 

ejus 
v>ciferaniur  et  exponunt  praclara 

reperta, 
^   vix  humana    videatur   atirpe 

ereeUna, 

•  Soph.  242  E,  where  Empedo- 
cles, as  compared  with  Heradeitus, 
is  charactensed  as  tutXanArtpos, 

'  Aristotle,  indeed,  neyer  passes 
formal  judgment  on  Empedocles ; 
bat  the  remarks  he  lata  fall  upon 
occasions  would  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  he  does  not  consider  him 
^ual,  as  a  naturalist,  toDemocritus, 
or  as  a  philosopher  to  Farmenides 
and  Anaxagoras.  The  manner  in 
vhich  he  refutes  many  Empedoc- 


985  a,  21;  iii.  4, 1000  a,  24  sqq. 
xii.  10,  1075  b;  the  definitions  of 
Love  and  Hate,  ibid.  i.  8,  989  b, 
19  ;  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1,  314  b,  16 
sqq. ;  ii.  6,  the  doctrine  of  the 
elements,  Ph^a.  tHi.  1,  252;  the 
theories  on  the  cosmical  periods, 
Meteor,  ii.  9,  369  b,  11  sqq. ;  the 
explanation  of  lightning)  is  not 
more  severe  than  is  usual  with 
Aristotle.  In  Meteor,  ii.  3,  357  a, 
24,  the  conception  of  the  sea  as 
exuded  from  the  earth  is  spoken 
of  as  absurd :  but  that  is  not  of 
much  importance ;  and  the  censure 
as  to  the  expression  and  poetry  of 
Empedocles  {Rhet.  iii.  5,  1407  a, 
34;  Poet.  i.  1447  b,  17),  which, 
however,  is  counterbakmced  by 
some  praise  (ap.  Diog.  yiii.  57), 
does  not  affect  his  philosophy  as 
such.  But  the  comparison  with 
Anaxagoras  (Metaph.  i.  3,  984  a, 
11)  is  decidedly  unfavourable  to 
Empedocles,  and  the  word  ^*\- 
Xii'ccrtfai,  ibid.  4,  985  a,  4,  if  even 
it  be  extended  {ibid.  i.  10)  to  the 
whole  of  the  earlier  philosophy, 
gives  us  the  impression  that  Em- 
pedocles was  especially  wanting  in 
clear  conceptions. 

*  Lommatzsch  in  the  treatise 
mentioned,  p.  117,  1. 

»  Cf>  Hegel.  Gesch.  d.  PhU.  i. 
337;  Marbach,  Gesch.  d.  Phil.  i. 
75 ;  Fries,  Geach.  d.  PhU.  i.  188« 


188  EMFED0CLE8. 

with  Anazagoras,  Leucippus  and  Democritus,  and  even 
with  the  earlier  lonians ;'  since  the  epoch  of  the  Alexan- 
drians, however,  he  has  generally  been  classed  with  the 
Pythagoreans.  Modem  writers  have  almost  without  ex- 
ception departed  from  this  tradition,'  without  airiving 
in  other  respects  at  any  unanimous  theory.  Some  reckon 
him  among  the  lonians,  and  admit,  side  by  side  with 
the  Ionic  nucleus  of  his  doctrine,  only  a  small  admixture 
of  Pythagorean  and  Eleatic  elements.'  Others,  on  the 
contrary,  consider  him  an  Eleatic,*  and  a  third  party* 
peaces  him  as  a  dualist  beside  x\naxagoras.  The  ma- 
jority, however,  seem  more  and  more  inclined  to  agree 
that  in  the  doctrine  of  Empedocles  there  is  a  mixture 
of  various  elements — Pythagorean,  Eleatic,  and  Ionic, 
but  especially  Eleatic  and  Ionic :  ^  in  what  relation,  and 
according  to  what  points  of  view  they  are  combined,  or 
whether  they  are  ranged  side  by  side  in  a  merely  eclectic 
fashion,  is  still  a  matter  of  controversy. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  decision,  it  would  seem  the 

1  Metaph.  i.  3,  9Si  a,  8,  c,  4,  PhU.  i.  188;  Bhcui.  Mus.  iii.  123 

c,  6  end,  c,  7,  988  a,  32;   Phyi.  sq. ;  Marbach,  /.  c. 
i.  4  ;  viii.  1 ;  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1,  8 ;  *  Ritter,  I.  c. ;  Bran iss,  mp.  Vol. 

Be  Catlo,  iii.  7  et  pass.  I.  p.  166  sq. ;  Petersen,  sup.  p.  194 

*  LoromatKsch  alone  follows  it  sq. ;  Gladisch,  in  Noaci^e  Jahrh.f. 

unconditionally.     Wirth  (Idee  der  epek,  Phil.  1847,  697  sq. 
Gotth.  176)  says  that  the  whole  »  Striimpell,  Gesch.  d.  theorH. 

system  of  Empedocles  was  pene-  Phil.  d.  Griechen,  56  sq. 
trated  with  the  spirit  of  Pytha-  •  Hegel,  I,  c.  321 ;   Wendt  zu 

goreanism.     Ast.  Gesch,  d.  PhU,  Tennsman,  i.  277  sq. ;  K.  F.  Her- 

1  A,  p.  86,  restricts  the  Pythago-  mann,    Gesch.  u,  Syst  d.  PUU.  i. 

rean    element  to  the  speculative  150  ;  Karsten,  p.  54,517;  Kriscfae, 

philosophy  of  Empedocles,  while  Forschungen,\.  \\%  \  Steinhart,/.<r. 

his  natural  philosophy  is  referred  p.  105 ;  cf.  92  ;  Schwegler,  Gexk 

to  the  lonians.  d.  Phil  p.  15  ;  Haym.  All^.  &tc. 

'  Tennemann,  Gesch,  d.  PhU.  i.  Zte.  Sect,  zxiv.  36  sq. ;  Sigwait^ 

241  sq. ;  Schleiermacher,  ^«s<?A.  d.  Gesch.  d,  Phil.  1.  75;    Ueberweg, 

Phil,   37  sq. ;  Brandis,    Gr,-rbm,  Grund,  i.  {  22. 


HIS  TEACHERS,  187 

most  obvious  course  to  consult  the  statements  of  the 
ancients  as  to  the  teachers  of  Empedocles.     But  they 
afford  us  no  certain   foothold.     Alcidamas  is  said  to 
have  described  him  as  a  disciple  of  Parmenides,  who 
afterwards  separated  himself  from  his  master  to  follow 
Anaxagoras  and  Pythagoras."    The  last  assertion  sounds 
so  strange  that  we  can  hardly  believe  it  was  ever  made 
by  the  celebrated  disciple  of  Gorgias.    Either  some  later 
namesake  of  his  must  have  said  so,  or  his  real  words 
most  have  been  misunderstood  by  the  superficial  com- 
piler from  whom  we  have  received  them.*     Supposing, 
however,  that  Alcidamas   did   make   the  assertion,  it 
would  only  prove  that  he  inferred  a  personal  relation 
between  these  philosophers  from  the  similarity  of  their 
doctrines,  without  himself  having  any  knowledge  of  the 
matter.    TimsBus  likewise  says  that  Empedocles  was  a 
disciple  of  Pythagoras.'    He  adds  that  this  philosopher 
was  excluded  from  the  Pythagorean  school  for  stealing 
speeches  {\jo^oicK(yirsla) ;  and  the  same  is  said  by  Nean- 
thes,*  whose  testimony  does  not   strengthen  the  cre- 
dibility of  the  story.     On  the  other  hand,  we  must 

'  Diog.  Tiii.  56 :  *AM((8«Ifiaf  8*  reans,  whose  disciple  Empedocles 

h  T^  pvffuc^  ^ci  itarit  robs  abrobs  became  ;  or  merely  of  an  affinity 

Xpiwvs   Z4i»»ya    iral    'Efiirc9oK\^a  with  the  doctrine  of  Pythagoras  and 

Utwui    UapiMviZaVf    cf9'   tartpou  Anaxagoras,  without  any  personal 

'^oxm^ffai  KoL    rhv    ftir  Z^wva  disci pleship.     In  the  one  case,  the 

Kor'  DliMr  piKoffo^irat,  rhy  V  'Ara-  expression   ol  &/ia^1  UvdarfSpav^  in 

irf6pw  ttoKowrai   KotL   nu$ay6i>ov  the  other  &«ro\ot^civ,  or  Rome  simi* 

lot  Tov  nk¥  r^v  <r9fuf6rrira  (iiKAacu  lar  word,  may  have  given  rise  to 

rov  re  $tw  not  rod  ffxhfutroSf  rod  the  misonderstanding. 
W  r^y  ^wrioKoyioif.  ■  Biog.  yiii.  64.    Later  writers. 

'  So  Karsten  suggests  (p.  49),  sneh  as  Tzetzes  and  Hippolytus,  I 

and  to  me  also  it  seems  the  most  pass  over.    Cf.  Storz,  p.  14,  and 

probable.   Whether  Aleidamns,  as  ICarsteo,  p.  50. 
Karsten    conjectures,    may    haye  *  Ap.    Diog.  yiii.    55.     Vide 

ipoken  only  of  certain  Pythago-  Vol.  I.  315, ». 


188  EMPED0CLE8. 

remember  that  these  statements  are  based  on  unhistorical 
presuppositions  as  to  the  esoteric  school  of  the  Pytha- 
goreans. Others  prefer  tiO  consider  Empedocles  as  an 
indirect  follower  of  Pythagoras ;  *  their  assertions,  how- 
ever, are  so  contradictory,  many  of  them  so  manifestly 
false,  and  all  so  meagrely  attested,  that  we  cannot  rely 
upon  them.  Lastly,  Empedocles  is  by  many  writers 
generally  described  as  a  Pythagorean,'  without  aoy 
further  particulars  about  his  doctrines  or  his  relation  to 
the  Pythagorean  school ;  but  whether  this  description  is 
founded  on  some  definite  historical  tradition,  or  only  on 
conjecture,  we  cannot  tell.  He  is  also  said  to  have  been 
personally  connected  with  the  Eleatic  school,  and  this 
would  seem  more  probable ;  for  though  it  may  have 
been  impossible  for  him  to  have  known  Xenophanes, 
whose  disciple  Hermippus  calls  him,'  yet  there  is  no 
historical  probability  against  the  theory  that  he  may 
have  had  personal  intercourse  with  Parmenides.*    Dio- 

*  In  a  letter  to  Pythngoras'B  X^ras)  even  mentions  Arcbjtas  as 

Bon  Telauges,  the  authenticity  of  the  teacher  of  Empedocles. 
iv'hich  is  suspected  bj  Neanthes,  '  Examples  are  giTen  by  Starz, 

and  on  which  Diog.  viii.  63,  74,  18  sq. ;  Karsten,  p.  68.    Cf.  also 

also  seems  to  throw  doubt,  Em-  the   following  note,   and  Pfaiiop. 

pedocles  was  described  as  a  dis-  Le  An.  C,  i.  (where  'E*iir«««cX^$  is 

ciple  of  Hippasns  and  Brontinus  to  be  substituted  for  Tiftaios),  ibid, 

(Diog.  viii.  66).    From  this  letter,  D,  16. 

no  doubt,  comes  the  verse  with  ■  Diog.  viii.   66 :  *Ep/uno5  8* 

the  address  to  Telauges,  which  is  ov  TlopntpiBw,  Utvo^tdpovs  S4  7C70- 

quoted  in  Diog.  viii.  43,  after  Hip-  Wvcu  Cn^Mriiy,  f  ical   <rvir8iarptif«t 

pobotus ;    and   it   may  also  have  r^y  iwowoitav  •  tffr*po¥  tk  iws  Uv- 

given  occasion  to  the  idea  (rirh  0ayopiKois  iprvxw,    Cf.  in  Diog. 

ap.  Diog.  I.  0. ;  Ens.  Prop.  x.  14,  ix.  20,  the  supposed  reply  of  Xeno- 

9.   and,    after  him,   Thcodoretus,  phanes  to  Empedocles. 
Cur.  Gr,  Aff.  ii.  23,  p.  24  ;  Suid.  *  Simpl.  Pkyi.  6  b:  njp/iwSoK 

'£/ivcSoKX^f)  that  Telauges  him-  itK'nvkofft^i  ical  Xiikmh^^    icol   rri 

self  (or,  as  Tzetz.   Chil,  iii.  902,  ftaAAoy  ni/6a7opc/»y.     Olympiodo- 

says,   Pjrthagoras    and   Telauges)  rus,  in  Gorg.  Proctm.  end  (Jahn's 

had  instructed  him.    Soidas  (A/>-  Jahrb,   Supplementb.  ziv.    112); 


HIS  SUPPOSED  TEACHERS. 


18» 


genes  does  not  distinctly  say  *  whether  Theophrastus 
represents  him  as  a  personal  disciple  of  Parmenides,  or 
only  asserts  that  he  was  acquainted  with  Parmenides's 
work.  We  mnst,  therefore,  consider  it  as  an  unsettled 
point  whether  Empedocles  was  actually  instructed  by 
Parmenides,  or  merely  used  his  poems.  He  has  also 
been  called  a  disciple  of  Anaxagoras,^  but  this  is  highly 
improbable  on  historical  and  chronological  grounds;* 
Karsten's  attempt  to  prove  the  external  possibility  of 
their  relation  by  conjectures,  which  in  themselves  are 
most  hazardous,  must  therefore  be  considered  a  failure.^ 
It  is  still  more  unwarrantable  to  ascribe  to  him  journeys 
in  the  East,*  which  were  unknown  even  to  Diogenes : 
the  sole  foundation  for  this  statement  lies  doubtless  in 
Empedocles's  reputation  for  magic,  as  clearly  appears 
from  our  authorities  themselves.®     Thus,  while  part  of 


Snidas,  'E^tcBokXi^s,  and  Porphr. 
•6W.  Porphyry  no  donbt^  however, 
confoMs  him  with  Zeno  when  he 
uys  he  wu  beloved  by  Parmenides. 
Alcidamas,  vide  wp.  p.  188,  8. 
^  Diog.   55:   6  5«  9t6^pacros 

YcWtffoi  ical  fUfitrriiy  ir  rots  irovh' 
lioffi  jco)  TJkft  imuyov  iw  lirc<rt  rhr 

'  Vide  tup.  p.  188,  3. 

*  This  will  be  shown  in  the 
leetioD  on  Anazagoras. 

*  Kanten  (p.  49)  supposes 
that  Empedocles  may  have  come 
to  Athens  eoDtempozaneonsly  with 
Ptfmenides,  abont  01.  81,  and 
may  here  have  heard  Anaxagoras. 
But  all  that  we  are  told  of  his  first 
journey  to  Greece  points  to  a  time 
when  Empedocles  was  already  at 
the  highest  point  of  his  fame,  and 
had  doabtlfM  long  ago  attained 


his  philosophic  standpoint.  Cf. 
Diog.  viii.  66,  63,  63.  Athen.  I.  3, 
e.  xiv.  620  d.  Snidas,  "Axfrny. 

»  Pliny, H. Nat.xxr.  1.9, speaks 
indeed  of  distant  jonmeys  which 
had  been  undertaken  by  Empedo- 
cles, as  by  Pythagoras,  Democritns 
and  Plato,  to  learn  magic.  He  can 
only,  however,  be  thinking  of  travels 
in  the  East  (which  snem  to  be  as- 
cribed to  him  also  by  Philostr.  V, 
ApoU,  i.  2,  p.  8)  when  he  classes 
him  among  those  who  had  had  in- 
tercourse with  the  Magi. 

'  This  alone  would  make  it 
very  improbable  that  the  system 
of  Empedocles  should  have  stood 
in  such  a  relation  to  the  E^;yptian 
theology  as  Gladisch  (JBhnpedoel.  u, 
d.  Aeff.  and  other  works  of  his 
mentioned,  Vol.  1.  p.  35,  I)  sup- 
poses. For  such  accurate  know- 
ledge and  complete  appropriation 


190 


EMPED0CLB8. 


what  we  know  respecting  the  teachers  of  Empedocles 
is  manifestly  legendary,  we  have  no  security  that  the 


of  Egyptian  ideas  would  be  iDCon- 
ceirable,  unless  Empedocles  had 
long  resided  in  Egypt  That  no 
tradition  of  such  a  residence 
should  have  been  presenred,  either 
by  lyiogenes,  vho  relates  so  much 
concerning  him  from  Alexandrian 
sources,  and  who  has  carefully 
collected  all  information  respecting 
his  teachers,  nor  by  any  other 
writer,  seems  the  more  incredible 
if  we  consider  how  zealously  the 
Greeks,  after  the  time  of  Herodo- 
tus, sought  out  and  propagated 
everything,  even  the  most  fabulous 
statements,  tending  to  connect 
their  wise  men  with  the  East,  and 
especially  with  Egypt  The  in- 
ternal affinity,  therefore,  between 
the  system  of  Empedocles  and  the 
E^ptian  doctrines  must  be  very 
clearly  manifested  to  justify  the 
conjecture  of  any  historical  con- 
nection. Of  this  Gladiscb,  in 
spite  of  all  the  labour  and  acute* 
ness  he  has  devoted  to  the  subject, 
has  failed  to  convince  me.  If  we 
put  aside  the  doctrine  of  Metem- 
psychosis and  the  asceticism  bound 
up  in  it,  which  were  naturalised 
in  Greece  long  before  the  time  of 
Empedocles,  and  which  he  brings 
forward  in  an  essentially  different 
form  from  the  Egyptian ;  if  we 
Airther  put  aside  all  that  is  as- 
cribed to  the  Egyptians  solely  on 
the  authority  of  the  Hermetic 
writings  and  other  untrustworthy 
sources,  or  that  is  in  itself  too 
little  characteristic  to  allow  of  our 
deducing  any  inference  from  it, 
there  still  remain,  among  tbe  pa- 
rallels drawn  by  Gladisch,  three  im- 
portant points  of  comparison,  viz., 
the  Empddoclean  doctrines  of  the 


Sphairos,  the  Elements,  and  Lore 
and  Hate.  As  to  the  Sphsiros.  it 
has  already  been  shown  (p.  179 
sq.)  that  it  is  not  the  primitive 
essence  out  of  which  all  thiogv 
are  developed,  but  something  de- 
rived and  compounded  of  the  ori- 
ginal essences ;  if,  therefore,  it  is 
true  (in  regard  to  the  ancient 
Egyptian  and  pre-Aleizandrisn  |^i- 
losophy,  this  must  be  grentij 
qualified)  that  the  E^iyptians  re- 
garded the  Supreme  Deity  as  one 
with  the  world,  and  the  world  as 
the  body  of  the  Deity ;  even  if  it 
can  be  proved  that  they  held  the 
development  of  the  world  from 
the  Deity,  the  affinity  of  their 
system  with  that  of  Empedocles 
would  not  be  established,  because 
these  theories  are  absent  in  the 
latter.  As  to  the  four  elements 
not  only  is  it  evident  that  £m- 
pedodes's  conception  of  the  ele- 
ments is  derived  from  the  physics 
of  Parmenides ;  but  the  doctriDe 
of  these  four  primitive  Bubetanees 
(which  would  not  of  itself  be  de- 
cisive) Gladisch  hss  only  been 
able  to  find  in  Manetho  and  Uter 
accounts  for  the  most  part  taken 
from  him  ;  in  the  Egyptian  expo- 
sitions, as  Lepsius  has  proved 
(  Ueber  die  GotUr  d,  vier  ^msnte 
bei  d.  Aefff/ptem,  Abh,  d,  BeH. 
AkadenUe,  1866.  Hiai,  PhU.  Kl. 
p.  181  sqq.),  and  Brugsch  (ap. 
Gladisch,  JSmp,  u,  d.  Aeg,  144)  has 
confirmed,  the  four  pairs  of  ele- 
mental gods  are  not  found  prior 
to  the  Ptolemies,  and  for  the  first 
time  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  IV. 
(222-204  B.C.).  The  four  elements 
consequently  must  have  come,  not 
from  the  Egyptians  to  the  Greeks, 


EIS  TEACHERS  AND  TRAVELS,  191 

more  piobable  statement  really  comes  from  historical 
tradition.  We  therefore  get  from  this  source  no  in- 
formation respecting  his  relations  to  his  predecessors, 
which  the  study  of  his  doctrine  could  not  more  satis- 
&ctorily  and  certainly  afford. 

We  can  distinguish  in  this  doctrine  constituent 
elements  of  three  kinds,  connected  respectively  with  the 
Pythagorean,  Eleatic,  and  Heracleitean  points  of  view. 
These  different  elements,  however,  have  not  an  equal 
importance  in  regard  to  the  philosophic  system  of 
Empedocies.  The  influence  of  Pythagoreanism  appears 
decidedly  only  in  the  mythical  part  of  his  doctrine,  in 
the  statements  concerning  Transmigration  and  the 
dsmons,  and  in  the  practical  prescripts  connected  there- 
with ;  in  his  physics  it  is  either  not  felt  at  all,  or  only 
in  reference  to  particular  and  secondary  points.  In 
regard  to  these  doctrines  there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt 
that  Empedocies  primarily  derived  them  from  the 
PTthagoreans ;  though  the  Pythagoreans  may  have 
originally  adopted  them  from  the  Orphic  mysteries,  and 
Empedocies,  in  his  ordinances  respecting  the  slaying  of 
animals  and  the  eating  of  flesh,  may  have  given  them  a 
more  strict  application  than  the  early  Pythagoreans. 

bnt  from  the  Greeks  to  th(«  £^7P~  ^^^  is  clearlj  erident.    If,  lastly, 

tians.    Manetbo  himself  has  un-  Isis  and  Typhon  are  the  prototypes 

mistakeably  borrowed   them  from  of  ^iXia  and  vukos,  the  parallel  is 

the  Greeks ;    as    he    eveiywhere,  so  far-fetched,  and  the  import  of 

with  the    same    freedom  as  the  these  Egyptian    dirinities    is    so 

later    writers,    iatrodnces    Greek  different  m>m   that  of   the    two 

conceptions    into    the    Egyptian  natural  forces  of  Empedocies,  that 

philosophy.      Even    in     what    is  we    might    as    reasonably  derive 

quoted,  Ens.  Pr.  Ev.  III.  2,  8,  and  them  from  many  other  mythologi- 

fiiog.'Proctm.  10,  from  him  and  his  cal  forms,   and   from  some   (e.g. 

contemporary  Hecataus    concern-  Ormuzd  and  Ahriman)  far  more 

ing  the  elements,  the  Stoical  doc-  reasonably. 


193  EMPBD0CLE8. 

It  is  likewise  probable  that,  in  bis  personal  bearing,  he 
may  have  kept  in  view  the  example  of  Pythagoras,  He 
may  also  have  adopted  here  and  there  certain  religious 
notions  from  the  Pythagoreans,  but  we  have  now  no 
means  of  proving  this,  for  it  is  very  uncertain  whether 
or  not  the  prohibition  of  beans  emanated  from  the  early 
Pythagoreans.*  Whatever  he  may  have  borrowed  from 
them  on  this  side  of  his  doctrine,  it  would  be  rash  to 
infer  that  he  was  in  all  respects  a  Pythagorean,  or 
belonged,  to  the  Pythagorean  Society.  His  political 
character  would  of  itself  reftite  such  an  inference.  As 
a  Pythagorean,  he  must  have  been  an  adherent  of  the 
ancient  Doric  aristocracy,  whereas  be  occupies  a  position 
diametrically  opposite,  at  the  head  of  the  Agrigentine 
democracy.  Thus,  in  spite  of  the  Pythagorean  tendency 
of  his  theology,  in  his  politics  he  diflfers  entirely  from 
the  Pythagoreans,  and  so  it  may  have  been  in  regard  to 
his  philosophy.  The  religious  doctrines  and  prescripts 
which  he  took  from  the  Pythagoreans  are  not  only,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  devoid  of  any  internal  connection 
with  his  physical  theories,  but  are  actually  opposed  to 
them.  To  place  him,  on  the  strength  of  those  doctrine?, 
among  the  Pythagorean  philosophers,  would  be  as  great 
a  mistake  as  to  place  Descartes,  because  of  his  Catho- 
licism, among  the  Scholastics.  In  his  philosophy  itself, 
in  his  physics,  Pythagoreanism  is  little  apparent 
There  is  no  trace  of  the  fundamental  conception  of  the 
system — viz.,  that  numbers  are  the  essence  of  things ; 
the  arithmetical  construction  of  figures  and  of  bodies, 

>  Cf.  Vol.  I.  346,  5.    It  has    that  this  is  also  uncertaiD  in  ngard 
already  been  obserred,  p.  176,  3,    to  Empedodes. 


TRANSMIGRATION  OF  SOULS.  193 

and  the  geometrical  derivation  of  the  elements  lie  quite 
out  of  his  path;  the  Pythagorean  number-symbolism 
is  wholly  unknown  to  him,  in  spite  of  his  usual  pre- 
dilection for  figurative  and  symbolical  expression.  In 
particular  cases  he  does  indeed  attempt  to  determine 
according  to  numbers  the  proportion  in  which  the  ele- 
ments are  mixed ;  but  this  is  something  quite  different 
from  the  procedure  of  the  Pythagoreans,  who  directly 
declared  things  to  be  numbers.  In  regard  to  his  doc- 
trine of  the  elements  also,  we  have  already  seen  *  that 
it  is  improbable  that  it  should  have  been  influenced  to 
any  considerable  extent  by  Pythagoreanism.  Moreover, 
the  more  precise  conception  of  an  element,  according 
to  which  it  is  a  particular  substance,  unchangeable  in 
its  qualitative  determinateness,  was  entirely  unknown 
to  the  Pythagoreans,  and  was  first  introduced  by  Em^ 
pedodes.  Before  him  it  could  not  have  existed,  because 
it  is  wholly  based  upon  the  enquiries  of  Parmenides 
concerning  Becoming.  The  influence  of  the  Pythagorean 
number-theory  upon  the  Empedoolean  system,  if  there 
were  any  such  influence  at  all,  cannot  be  considered 
very  important.  Similarly  we  are  superficially  reminded 
of  the  Pythagorean  musical  theory  which  was  so  closely 
connected  with  their  theory  of  numbers,  by  the  name 
of  Harmony,  which  Empedocles  ascribes,  among  other 
names,  to  Love ;  but  in  no  place  where  he  speaks  of  the 
operation  of  this  Harmony  do  we  find  it  compared  with 
the  concord  of  tones ;  nowhere  is  there  a  trace  of  any 
knowledge  of  the  harmonical  system,  or  a  mention  of 
the  harmonic  fundamental  proportions,  so  familiar  to 

<  Vide  Mfpa,  p.  125  ;  cf.  Vol  I.  p.  436  sq. 
TOL.  II.  0 


IH  EMPEDOCLES. 

the  Pythagoreans  :  and  since  Empedocles  expressly 
maintains  that  none  of  bis  predecessors  were  acquainted 
with  Love  as  a  universal  force  of  nature,'  it  seems  very 
doubtful  whether  he  calls  Love  Harmony  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  Pythagoreans  said  all  is  Harmony,  and 
whether  like  them  he  used  the  expression  in  a  musical, 
and  not  rather  in  an  ethical  sense.  Again,  the  Pytha- 
goreans brought  their  astronomical  system  into  connec- 
tion with  their  arithmetical  and  musical  theory,  and 
this  is  also  alien  to  Empedocles.  He  knows  nothing  of 
the  central  fire  and  of  the  movement  of  the  earth,  of 
the  harmony  of  the  spheres,  of  the  distinction  of  Uranus, 
Kosmos,  and  Olympus,^  of  the  Unlimited  outside  the 
universe,  and  of  empty  space  within  it.  The  only  thing 
that  he  has  here  borrowed  from  the  Pythagoreans  is  the 
opinion  that  the  sun  and  moon  are  bodies  like  glass, 
and  that  even  the  sun  reflects  fire  not  his  own.  He  is 
said  to  have  considered  the  north  as  the  right  side ;  but 
that  is  of  no  importance,  since  the  theory  did  not  exclu- 
sively belong  to  the  Pythagoreans.  These  few  analogies 
are  all  that  can  be  traced  between  the  Empedocleanand 
Pythagorean  physics ;  and  they  do  not  prove  that  the 
former  were  influenced  by  the  latter  to  any  considerable 
extent.  Although  Empedocles  may  have  borrowed  the 
dogma  of  Transmigmtion  and  the  propositions  connected 

1  Vide«uj)ra,  p.  170,  1.  opposition   of    the    earthly  and 

'  The    only  statement   which  heavenly,  the  boundaiy  of  vbich 

might  contain  a  reminiscence  of  is  the  moon — the  lowest  beaTenly 

this,  viz.,  that  the  sphere  beneath  body — ^is  patent  to  ordinaiy  obee^ 

the  moon  was  considered  by  Em-  nation ;  the  definite  discrimiDstion 

pedodes  as  the  theatre  of  evil,  is  of  the  three  regions  is  wanting  in 

'  nncertain  (vide  ^pra,  p.  167,  2),  Empedocles,  v.  160  (187,  241  M) 

and  would,  even  if  proved,  show  a  sq. ;  he  uses  cl^whs  and  ISA-i^ms 

very  distant .  similarity  ;  for  the  synonymously. 


RELATION  TO   THE  ELEATIC8.  106 

with  it  mainly  from   the  Pythagoreans,  his   scientific 
theory  of  the  world  was  formed,  in  all  its  chief  points, 
independently  of  them :  a  few  statements  of  minor  im* 
portanoe  constituted  his  whole  debt  to  Pjrthagoreanism. 
The  philosophy  of  Empedocles  owes  far  more  to  the 
Eleatics,  and  partictdarly  to  Parmenides.     From  Par- 
menides  it  derives  its  first  principle,  which  determined 
its  whole  subsequent  development :  viz,,  the  denial  of 
Becoming  and  Decay.     Empedocles  removes  all  doubts 
as  to  the  origin  of  this  principle  by  proving  it  with 
the  same  arguments,  and  in  part  even  with  the  same 
words,  as  his  predecessor.^     Parmenides  disputes  the 
truth  of  the  sensuous  perception  on  the  ground  that  it 
shows  us  a  non-Being  in  origination  and  decay ;  Empe- 
docles does  the  same,  and  the  expressions  he  uses  are  the 
same  as  those  of  Parmenides.^    Parmenides  concludes 
that  because  all  is  Being,  therefore  all  is  One,  and  the 
plurality  of  things  is  merely  a  delusion  of  the  senses. 
Empedocles   cannot    admit   this   in  reference  to   the 
present  state  of  the  world,  yet  he  cannot  altogether 
avoid  the   conclusion   of  Parmenides.      He   therefore 
adopts  another  expedient :  he  regards  the  two  worlds  of 
the  Parmenidean  poem,  the  world  of  truth  and  that  of 
opinion,  as  two  different  states  of  the  world,  attributes 
full  reality  to  both,  but  limits  their  duration  to  definite 
periods.     In  the  description  of  the  two  worlds  also  he 
follows  the  precedent  of  Parmenides.     The  Sphairos  is 

*  Cf.  with  y.  48  sqq.  90,  92  aq.  the  f0os  ToKinctipow  of  Pann.  y.  54 

1     of  Empedocles  {mpra,  p.  122, 1,  2) ;  (Vol.  I.  p.  686). 

Pirm-T.  47,  62-64,  67,  69  8q.  76  «  Cf.  Emp.  v.  46  sqq.  19  sqq. 

(Vol  I.  p.  686) ;  and  with  the  i^^mv  81  (p.  122,  1) ;  Farm.  v.  46  sqq., 

of  Empedocles.  y.  44  (p.  124,  1).  63  sqq.  (Vol  I.  p.  686). 

o  2 


196  EMPEDOCLES, 

spherical,  homogeneous  and  unmoved,  like  the  Being  of 
Parmenides ;  *  the  present  world,  like  Parmenides'  world 
of  delusive  opinion,  is  compounded  of  opposite  elements. 
The  fourfold  number  of  these  elements  Empedodes 
ultimately  derived  from  the  duality  of  Parmenides;' 
and  things  arise  from  them  because  Love  (corresponding 
with  Eros  and  the  world-ruling  goddess  *  of  Parmenides) 
combines  what  is  different  in  kind.  Tn  his  cosmology 
Empedocles  approximates  to  his  predecessor,  both  in 
his  conception  of  the  shape  of  the  universe,  and  in  the 
statement  that  there  is  no  empty  space/  For  the  rest, 
it  is  rather  in  his  organic  physics  that  he  adopts  the 
opinions  of  Parmenides.  What  Empedocles  says  of  the 
genesis  of  man  from  terrestrial  slime,  of  the  origin  of 
the  sexes,  of  the  influence  of  heat  and  cold  on  deta*- 
mining  sex,  in  spite  of  many  additions  and  divergences, 
is  mqist  closely  related  to  him/  The  most  striking  point 
of  similarity,  however,  between  the  two  philosophers  is 

*  To  conTince  onrselTOS  of  the  '  Wlio  like  the  ^cJUa  in  the 
similarity  of  the  two  descriptions,  formation  of  the  world  has  her 
even  in  expreesion,  we  have  only  seat  in  the  centre  of  the  whole, 
to  compare  Emp.  y.  134  sqq.,  esp^  and  is  also  called— at  any  rate  b; 
cially  ▼.  136  {mpra,  p.  148, 3),  with  Plutarch— Aphrodite  {tvpra,  Vol 
Firm.  ▼.  102  sqq.  (Vol.  I.  p.  687,  2).  .  I.  p.  696,  1 ;  600). 

"We  need  not  attach  mncn  weight  *  Vide  supra ^  p.  135,  8,  Vol.  I. 

to  the  &ct  that  Aristotle  ealled  686, 1.    Concerning  the  moon,  cf. 

the  Sphairos  the  One  {supra,  p.  149,  Farm.  y.  144,  with  Emped.  v.  154 

2),  for  this  designation  certainly  (190  E,  246  M).    Apelt,  Parm,  d 

does  not  originate  with  Empedo-  Emp,  Doetrinade  Mundi  Stru^ura 

des;  nor  to  the  diyinity  (p.  707,  (Jena,   1857),  p.    10    sqq.,  Aids 

1,    4)   ascribed    to   it;    for    the  mnch  harmony  between  the  astro- 

Sphairos  of  Empedocles  was  not  nomical  systems  of  Parmenides  and 

in  any  case  named  God  in  the  Empedocles.     To  me  this  is  not 

ahflolnte  sense  in  which  the  One  so  apparent, 
nniyerse    was    thus    named    by  *  Vide  p.  160  sqq.;  cf.  VoL  L 

Xenophanes.  p.  601  sq. 

*  Supra,  p.  128,  2. 


RELATION  TO   THE  ELEATIC8.  .    197 

their  theory  of  the  intellectual  fiiculty,  which  they  both 
derive  from  the  mixture  of  corporeal  constituents :  each 
element,  according  to  this  theory,  perceives  which  is 
akin  to  it.^  Here  Empedocles,  irrespectively  of  his 
different  definition  of  the  elements,  is  only  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Eleatic  philosopher  by  his  more 
precise  development  of  their  comnion  presuppositions. 

There  is  a  reminiscence  of  Xenophanes  in  his  com* 
plaints  of  the  limitations  of  human  knowledge,^  and 
especially  in  the  verses  in  which  Empedocles  attempts 
a  purification  of  the  anthropomorphic  notion  of  God.' 
But  even  this  purer  idea  of  God  stands  in  no  scientific 
connection  with  his  philosophic  theories. 

But,  however  undeniable  and  important  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Eleatics  upon  Empedocles  may  have  been, 
I  cannot  agree  with  Bitter  in  classing  him  altogether 
among  the  Eleatics.  Bitter  thinks  that  Empedocles 
places  physics  in  the  same  relation  to  true  knowledge  as 
Parmenides  did,  and  that  he  too  is  inclined  to  consider 
much  of  our  supposed  knowledge  as  delusion  of  the 
senses,  nay,  even  to  treat  the  whole  doctrine  of  nature  in 
that  Ught.  If,  notwithstanding  he  applied  himself  chiefly 
to  this  subject,  and  spoke  of  the  One  Being  in  a  merely 
mythical  manner  in  his  description  of  the  Sphairos — 
the  reason  of  this  may  lie  partly  in  the  negative  cha- 
racter of  the  Eleatic  metaphysics,  and  partly  in  his 
conviction,  that  divine  truth  is  unspeakable  and  unat* 
tainable  for  human  intelligence.^     Empedocles  himself, 

»  Vide  Vol.  I.  602;  sup.  p.  164.  «  In  Wolf's  Analekten,  ii.  423 

'  Supra,  p.  1 70, 1 ;  cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  sqq. ;  468  aqq. ;  Gesch.  d,  Phil,  i. ; 

^"5,  2.  614 sqq.;  661  sqq. 
*  Supra,  p.  181,  1. 


198  EMPED0CLE8. 

however,  so  far  from  betraying  by  a  single  word  that  his 
purpose  in  his  physics  is  to  report  uncertain  opinions 
expressly  repudiates   such  a  view.     He  distinguisbes 
indeed  the  sensible  from  the  rational  perception;  but 
other   physicists  do    this,   for    example,   Heracleitus, 
Democritus  and  Anaxagoras ;  he  contrasts  the  perfect 
divine   wisdom  with'  imperfect    human   wisdom,  but 
herein    Xenophanes    and    Heracleitus   preceded  bim, 
although  they  did  not  therefore  deny  the  truth  of 
divided  and  changing  Being,  nor  did  they,  on  the  other 
hand,  limit  their  investigations  to   the   illusive  phe- 
nomenon.'    The  physics  of  Empedoeles  could  only  he 
regarded  from  the  same  point  of  view  as  those  of  Par- 
menides  if  he  had  explicitly  declared  that  in  them  he 
intended  to  set  forth  only  the  erroneous  opinions  of 
mankind.     Far  from  doing  so,  he  assures  us  (with  an 
unmistakeable  reference  to  this  interpretation  of  Par- 
menides)  that  his  representation  is  7u>t  to  contain  de- 
ceiving words.^    We  have  no  right  then  to  doubt  that 
his  physical  doctrines  are  seriously  meant,  and  we  can 
only  regard  what  he  says  of  the  original  plurality  of 
matter  and  of  moving  forces,  of  the  alternation  of  cos- 
mical  periods,  of  the  Becoming  and  passing  away  of 
individuals — as  his  own  conviction.'   It  would  be  against 
all  internal  probability  and  all  historical  analogy  that  a 

>  Vide  stjpjyra.  Vol.  L  676  ;  Vol.  doctrine  of  Love,  bat  as  that  doc 

II.  91.  trine  is  intimately  connected  vit^i 

«  V.   86  (118,  87  M):    ah  V  his   other  physical  theories,  and 

tKOW  \6rftay  <rr6Kov  oiic  iironjX^y,  especially  with    the    doctrine  of 

cf.  Farm.  V.  Ill:  W|otf  5*  dwb  toG8«  Hate  and   of  the  elements,  the 

fipoTfias  ndyBoufff  KSa-fxop  ifi&w  Mwy  words  must  apply  to  his  Pbysiw 

dvar/jKhy    iucoiwy.      Vide    supra,  generally. 
Vol.  1. 605, 3.    Empedoeles  asserts  ■  Cf.  p.  147,  1. 

^his  in  immediate  reference  to  the 


RELATION  TO  THE  ELEATIC8,  199 

philosopher  should  have  applied  his  whole  activity  not 
only  to  expound  opinions  that  he  held  to  be  false  from 
their  foundation,  side  by  side  with  the  true  view,  and 
in  contrast  with  it;  but  actually  to  develope  these 
opinions  in  complete  detail,  in  his  own  name  and  with- 
out an  allusion  to  the  right  standpoint.  The  physical 
doctriaes  of  Empedocles  are,  however,  far  removed  from 
the  Eleatic  doctrine  of  Being.  Parmenides  recognises 
only  One  Being,  without  movement,  change  or  division : 
Empedocles  has  six  original  essences  which  do  not 
indeed  change  qualitatively,  but  are  divided  and  moved 
in  space,  enter  into  the  most  various  proportions  of  ad- 
mixture, combine  and  separate  in  endless  alternation,, 
become  united  in  individuals,  and  again  issue  from 
them;  form  a  moved  and  divided  world,  and  again 
cancel  it.  To  reduce  this  Empedoclean  theory  of 
the  universe  to  the  Parmenidean  theory,  by  asserting 
that  the  principle  of  separation  and  movement  in  the 
foraier  is  something  unreal  and  existing  only  in  imagi- 
nation, is  an  unwarrantable  attempt,  as  we  have 
previously  seen.*  The  truth  probably  is  that  Empedo- 
cles really  borrowed  a  good  deal  from  the  Eleatics,  and 
that  in  his  principles  as  well  in  the  development  of  his 
system  he  was  especially  influenced  by  Parmenides; 
but  that  the  main  tendency  of  his  thought  nevertheless- 
pursues  another  direction.  Whatever  else  he  may  con- 
cede to  Parmenides,  he  disagrees  with  him  on  the  chief 
point :  the  reality  of  motion  and  of  divided  Being  i» 
as  decidedly  presupposed  by  him  as  it  is  denied  by 
Parmenides.  Parmenides  cancels  the  whole  multiplicity 
»  P.  142,  1. 


200  EMPED0CLE8, 

of  phenomena  in  the  thought  of  the  One  substanoe; 
Empedocles  seeks  to  show  how  this  multiplicity  was  de- 
veloped from  the  original  unity :  all  his  eflForts  are 
directed  to  the  explanation  of  that  which  Parmenides 
had  declared  to  be  unthinkable,  viz.,  multiplicity  and 
change.  These  two,  in  the  theories  of  all  the  early 
philosophers,  are  connected  in  the  closest  manner; 
and  as  the  Eleatics  were  compelled  by  their  doctrine  of 
the  unity  of  all  Being  to  deny  Becoming  and  motion, 
so,  on  the  opposite  side,  both  were  simidtaneously  main- 
tained ;  whether,  as  in  the  case  of  Heracleitus,  the 
multiplicity  of  things  was  supposed  to  be  developed  b; 
the  eternal  movement  of  the  primitive  essence,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  Becoming  and  change  were  supposed  to 
be  conditioned  by  the  multiplicity  of  the  original  sub- 
stances and  forces.  The  system  of  Empedocles  is  only 
comprehensible  as  a  design  to  save  the  reality  of  phe- 
nomena which  Parmenides  had  called  in  question.  He 
knows  not  how  to  contradict  the  assertion  that  no 
absolute  Becoming  and  Decay  are  possible ;  at  the  same 
time  he  cannot  resolve  to  renounce  the  pluraUty  of 
things,  the  genesis,  mutation,  and  destruction  of  in- 
dividuals. He,  therefore,  adopts  the  expedient  of  re- 
ducing all  these  phenomena  to  the  combination  and 
separation  of  qualitatively  unchangeable  substances,  of 
which,  however,  several  must  be  of  an  opposite  nature 
if  the  multiplicity  of  things  is  in  this  way  to  be  ex- 
plained. But  if  the  primitive  elements  were  in  them- 
selves unchangeable,  they  would  not  strive  to  quit  the 
condition  in  which  they  are  originally  found ;  the  cause 
of  their  movement  cannot  therefore  lie  in  themselves, 


RELATION  TO  PAIIMENIBES,  201 

but  in  the  motive  forces  which  must,  as  particular  sub- 
stances, be  discriminated  from  them  :  and  as  all  change 
and  motion,  according  to  Empedocles,  consists  in  the 
combination  and  separation  of  matter,  and  as,  on  the 
other  hand,  according  to  the  general  principlesnrespect- 
ing  the  impossibility  of  Becoming,  it  might  seem  inad-* 
mistiible  to  suppose  that  the  combining  force  was  also 
at  another  time  the  separating  force,  and  vice  versa,^  it 
is  necessary  to  admit,  so  Empedocles  believes,  two  motive 
forces  of  contrary  nature  and  influence.  Love  and  Hate. 
In  the  operation  of  the  primitive  forces  and  primitive 
substances.  Unity  and  Multiplicity,  Eest  and  Motion 
are  apportioned  to  different  conditions  of  the  universe : 
the  complete  union  and  complete  separation  of  sub- 
stances are  the  two  poles  between  which  the  life  of  the 
worid  circulates  ;  at  these  poles  its  motion  ceases,  under 
the  exclusive  dominion  of  Love  or  Hate ;  between  them 
lie  conditions  of  partial  union  and  partial  separation,  of 
individual  existence  and  of  change,  of  origination  and 
decay.  Although  the  unity  of  things  is  here  recog- 
nised as  the  higher  and  happier  state,  it  is  at  the  same 
time  ac'knowledged  that  opposition  and  division  are 
equally  original  with  unity,  and  that  in  the  world  as  it 
is,  Hate  and  Love,  Plurality  and  Unity,  Motion  and  Eest, 
counterbalance  one  another ;  indeed,  the  present  \mi- 
verse  in  comparison  with  the  Sphairos  is  considered  as 
pre-eminently  the  world  of  oppositions  and  of  change, 
the  earth  as  the  theatre  of  conflict  and  of  suffering, 
and  terrestrial  life  as  the  period  of  a  restless  motion, 
of  a  miserable  wandering  for  fallen  spirits.  The  Unity 
»  Supra,  p.  138. 


902  JSMPBD0CLB8. 

of  all  BeiDg,  which  the  Eleatics  maintained  as  present 
and  actual,  lies  for  Empedocles  in  the  past ;  and,  hoir- 
ever  much  he  may  long  for  that  Unity,  our  world  in 
his  opinion  is  wholly  subject  to  the  change  and  division 
which  Parmenides  had  declared  to  be  a  mere  delusion 
of  the  senses. 

In  all  these  traits  we  recognise  a  mode  of  thought 
which,  in  proportion  as  it  diverges  from  that  of  Parme- 
nides, approximates  to  that  of  Heracleitus ;  and  the 
affinity  is  really  so  great  that  we  are  compelled  to  sup- 
pose that  the  doctrine  of  Heracleitus  had  a  decided 
influence  on  Empedocles  and  his  system.  The  whole 
tendency  of  the  Empedoclean  physics  reminds  ns  of 
the  Ephesian  philosopher.  As  he  sees  in  the  universe 
everywhere  opposition  and  change,  so  Empedocles, 
however  earnestly  he  deplores  it,  -finds  on  all  sides  in 
the  present  world  strife  and  alternation,  and  his  whole 
system  aims  at  the  explanation  of  this  phenomenon. 
The  unmoved  Unity  of  all  Being  is  indeed  the  presup- 
position from  which  he  starts,  and  the  ideal  which  is 
before  him  in  the  distance,  but  the  essential  interest  of 
his  enquiry  is  bestowed  upon  the  moved  and  divided 
world,  and  its  leading  thought  lies  in  the  attempt  to 
gain  a  view  of  existence  which  shall  render  comprehen- 
sible the  multiplicity  and  change  of  phenomena.  In 
resorting  for  this  purpose  to  his  four  elements,  and  the 
two  motive  forces,  he  is  guided  on  the  one  hand  indeed 
by  the  enquiries  of  Parmenides,  but  on  two  points  the 
influence  of  Heracleitus  is  clearly  to  be  traced :  the  four 
elements  are  an  extension  of  the  Heracleitean  three ;  * 

*  Ct  p.  126  sq.    Empedocles  resembles  Heracleitus  in  his  very 


:relation  to  heracleitvs.  203 

and  tlie  two  moving  forces  correspond  still  more  exactly 
with  the  two  principles  in  which  Heracleitus  recognises 
the  essential  moments  of  Becoming,  and  which,  as 
Empedocles  did  subsequently,  he  designated  as  Strife 
and  Harmony.  Both  philosophers  see  in  the  separation 
of  the  combined,  and  the  combination  of  the  separated, 
the  two  poles  of  natural  life ;  both  suppose  opposition 
and  separation  to  be  the  primal  conditions.  Empedocles, 
indeed,  detests  strife  which  Heracleitus  had  extolled  as 
the  father  of  all  things ;  but  the  genesis  of  individual 
existences  he  can  only  derive  from  the  entrance  of  Strife 
into  the  Sphairos,  and  he  does  so,  for  the  same  reason 
essentially,  as  Heracleitus.  It  would  be  impossible  that 
specific  and  separate  phenomena  should  emanate  from 
Heracleitus's  one  primitive  matter,  if  this  did  not 
change  into  opposite  elements ;  and  it  would  be  equally 
impossible  that  they  should  emanate  from  the  four  ele- 
ments of  Empedocles,  if  these  elements  remained  in  a  con- 
dition of  complete  admixture.  Empedocles  differs  from 
his  predecessor,  as  Plato  correctly  observes,^  only  herein 
that  he  separates  the  moments,  which  Heracleitus  had 
conceived  as  contemporaneous,  into  two  distinct  trans- 
actions ;  and,  in  connection  with  this,  derives  from  two 
motive  forces  what  Heracleitus  had  regarded  merely  as 
the  two  sides  of  one  and  the  same  influence,  inherent 
in  the  living  primitive  matter.  The  theories  of  Herac- 
leitus on  the  alternate  formation  and  destruction  of  the 
world,  are  also  modified  by  Empedocles,  for  he  supposes 
the  flux  of  Becoming  which,  according  to  Heracleitus, 

words;  for  he  calls  the  ciBptos  Z«^s    p.  125,  2  ;  46,  1. 

of  Heradeitus  Z«i»  Vy^»-    9wjpra^         »  Vide  awpm,  p.  38, 2 ;  p.  138, 3, 


204  EMPEDOCLES. 

never  stands  still,  to  be  interrupted  by  periods  of  rest;* 
but  this  doctrine  he  probably  owes,  notwithstanding,  to 
the  Ephesian  philosopher.  The  relative  ages  of  the  two 
men  favour  the  supposition  that  Empedocles  was  ac- 
quainted with  Heracleitus's  work ;  even  before  the  date 
of  Empedocles,  his  compatriot  Epicharmus  had  alluded 
to  the  Heracleitean  doctrines ; '  we  have,  therefore,  the 
less  reason  to  doubt  that  there  existed  between  the  views 
of  the  two  philosophers,  not  only  an  internal  affinity,  but 
an  external  connection :  that  he  reached  all  those  impor- 
tant doctrines  in  which  he  agrees  with  Heracleitus,^  Dot 
through  Parmenides  merely,  but  probably  borrowed  that 
side  of  his  system  actually  from  his  Ephesian  predecessor. 
Whether  he  was  acquainted  with  the  earlier  lonians,  and 
if  so,  to  what  extent,  cannot  be  ascertained. 

The  result,  then,  of  our  discussion  is  as  follows :  the 
philosophic  system  of  Empedocles,  in  its  general  ten- 
dency, is  an  attempt  to  explain  the  plurality  and  muta- 
bility of  things  from  the  original  constitution  of  Being; 
all  the  fundamental  ideas  of  this  system  arose  from  a 
combination  of  Parmenidean  and  Heracleitean  theories, 
but  in  this  combination  the  Eleatic  element  is  subordi- 
nate to  the  Heracleitean,  and  the  essential  interest  of 
the  system  is  concerned,  not  with  the  metaphysical 
enquiry  into  the  concept  of  Being,  but  with  the  phy- 
sical investigation  of  natural  phenomena  and  their 
causes.  The  leading  point  of  view  is  to  be  found  in 
the  proposition  that  the  fundamental  constituents  of 
things  are  as  little  capable  of  qualitative  change  as  of 

*  Vide  supra,  145  sqq.  *  As  Gladisch  thinks,  Ewfsi, 

»  Vide*itprfl,Vol.L630,632,3,    und  die  Aeg,  19  sq. 


CHARACTER  OF  HIS  DOCTRINE.  205 

generation  and  decay ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they 
may  be  combined  and  separated  in  the  most  various 
ways,  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this,  that  which 
is  compounded  from  the  primitive  elements  arises  and 
decays,  sind  changes  its  form  and  its  constituents. 
From  this  point  of  view,  Empedocles  has  attempted  a 
Ic^cal  explanation  of  natural  phenomena  as  a  whole, 
having  defined  his  primitive  substances  and  set  beside 
them  the  moving  cause  in  the  double  form  of  a  com- 
bining and  a  separating  force ;  all  else  is  derived  from 
the  working  of  these  forces  upon  the  primitive  sub- 
stances— from  the  mixture  and  separation  of  the  ele- 
ments ;  and  Empedocles,  like  Diogenes  and  Democritus 
after  him,  aimed  at  reaching  the  particular  of  phe- 
nomena, without  losing  sight  of  his  imiversal  princi- 
ples. If,  therefore,  we  understand  by  Eclecticism  a 
method  by  which  heterogeneous  elements  are  combined 
without  fixed  scientific  points  of  view,  according  to 
subjective  temper  and  inclination,  Empedocles  in  regard 
to  the  essential  content  of  his  physical  doctrine  cannot 
be  considered  as  an  Eclectic,  and  we  must  be  careful 
not  to  underrate  his  scientific  merit.  While  he  used 
the  definitions  of  Parmenides  concerning  Being  for  the 
explanation  of-  Becoming,  he  struck  out  a  path  on 
which  physics  has  ever  since  followed  him ;  he  not  only 
fixed  the  number  of  the  elements  at  four,  which  for  so 
long  almost  passed  for  an  axiom,  but  introduced  the 
very  conception  of  the  elements  into  natural  science, 
and  thus  became  with  Leucippus  the  founder  of  the 
mechanical  explanation  of  nature.  Lastly,  from  the 
standpoint  of  his  own  presuppositions,  he  made  an 


fiOe  EMPEDOCLES. 

attempt  which,  considering  the  then  state  of  knowledge, 
was  most  praiseworthy,  to  explain  the  actnal  in  the  ) 
individual ;  for  us  it  is  specially  interesting  to  observe 
the  manner  in  which  he,  the  earliest  precursor  of  Darwin, 
tries  to  make  comprehensible  the  origin  of  organisms  \ 
framed  teleologically,  and  capable  of  life.'  His  system,  \ 
however,  even  irrespectively  of  such  ikilings  as  it  shares 
with  its  whole  epoch,  is  not  without  lacunae.  The 
theory  of  unchangeable  primitive  elements  is  indeed 
established  scientifically,  but  their  fourfold  number  is 
not  further  accounted  for.  The  moving  forces  ap- 
proach the  substances  from  without,  and  no  sufficient 
reason  is  given  why  they  are  not  inherent  in  them,  and 
why  one  and  the  same  force  should  not  be  at  work, 
combining  and  separating;  for  the  qualitative  un- 
changeableness  of  substances  did  not  exclude  a  natural 
striving  after  change  of  place,  to  which  even  Empe- 
docles  represents  them  as  subject ;  and  he  himself  can- 
not stringently  carry  out  the  distinction  between  the 
combining  and  dividing  force.'  Accordingly,  the  opera- 
tion of  these  forces,  as  Aristotle  remarked,'  appears 
to  be  more  or  less  fortuitous ;  and  it  is  not  explained 
why  their  simultaneous  operation  in  the  present  world 
should  be  preceded  and  followed  by  conditions  in  which 
they  separately  produce,  in  the  one  case  a  complete 
mixture,  in  the  other  a  complete  division  of  the  elements.^ 
Lastly,  in  his  doctrine  of  transmigration  and  pre-exist- 
ence,  and  the  prohibition  of  animal  food  founded  upon 

»  Cf.  p.  160.  *  Cf.   the  judgment  of  Plato 

«  Vide  p.  138.  quoted  p.  33,  2. 

>  Vide  p.  144,  1. 


THE  AT0MI8TS.  207 

the  latter,  Empedocles  has  combined  with  his  physical 
system  elements  which  not  only  have  no  scientific  con- 
nection with  that  system,  but  absolutely  contradict  it. 
However  great,  therefore,  may  be  his  importance  in 
the  history  of  Greek  physics,  in  regard  to  science  his 
philosophy  has  unmistakeable  defects,  and  even  in  the 
ground-work  of  his  system,  the  mechanical  explanation 
of  natore,  which  is  its  purpose,  is  confused  by  mythical 
forms  and  the  unaccountable  workings  of  Love  and  Hate. 
This  mechanical  explanation  of  natm-e,  based  upon 
the  same  general  presuppositions,  is  carried  out  more 
strictly  and  logically  in  the  Atomistic  philosophy. 


B.    THIS   ATOMISTS. 

1.  Physiccd  hoses  of  their  system.     Atoms  aiid  the  void. 

The  foimder  of  the  Atomistic  philosophy  is  Leucippus.^ 

*  The  personal  history  of  Leu-  founded  upon  historical  tradition, 

fippns  is  almost  unknown  to  us.  Simpl.  /.  c,  doubtless  after  Theo- 

As  to  his  date,  ve  can  only  say  phrastus,   names    Parmenides    as 

that  he  must   have    been    older  the  teacher  of  Leucippus,  but  most 

than  hb  disciple  Bemocritus,  and  writers,  that  they  may  retain  the 

younger  than  Parmenides,  whom  accustomed  order  of   succession, 

he  himself  follows;  he  must  there-  name  Zeno  (Diog,  Proam.  16,  ix. 

fore  have   been   a   contemporary  30 ;  Galen,  and  Suid.  I.  o.  Clem, 

of  Anazagoras  and  Empedocles:  Strom,  i.  301  D;  Hippol.  Hefia. 

other  conjectures    will    be    con-  i.  12),  or  Melissus  (Tzetz.   ChU. 

sidered  later  on.      His  home  is  ii.  980;  also  Epiph.  I.  o.  places 

sometimes  stated  to    have    been  him  after  Zeno  and  Melissus,  but 

wmetimes  in  Abdera,  sometimes  in  describes    him    generally   as    an 

Miletus,  sometimes  in  Elea  (Diog.  Eristic,  t.  e,  an  Eleatic).     Iambi, 

ix.   80,  where  for    M^Aiot    read  V,    Pyth.    104,  has    Pythngoras. 

MiA^acor,  Simpl.  Phya.  7  a,  Clem.  Nor   are    we   certainly  informed 

Proir.  43  D ;  Galen.  H.  Ph.  c.  2,  whether  Leucippus  committed  his 

S229 ;  Epiph.   Exp.  Fid.   1087  doctrines  to  writing,  nor  of  what 

);  but  it  IS  a  question  whether  kind    these    writings    were.     In 

any  one  of  these  statements  is  Aristotle,  Ik  Melia$o,  c  6,  980  a» 


208 


LEUCIPPU8.    DEM0CRITU8. 


His  opinions,  however,  in  their  details,  have  heen  so 
imperfectly  transmitted  to  us,  that  it  is  impossible  in 
our  exposition  to  separate  them  from  those  of  his 
celebrated  disciple  Democritus.^     Yet  we  shall  find,  as 


7,  we  And  the  expression,  <r  toij 
A«vic(«-irov  KaKovfkivois  \6yois,  which 
seems  to  point  to  some  writing  of 
uncertain  origin,  or  some  exposi- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  Leucippus 
l)y  a  third  person.  It  is  question- 
nble,  however,  what  may  be  in- 
ferred from  this:  the  anthor  of 
the  book,  De  MclisaOf  maj  have 
used  a  secondary  source,  even  if 
an  original  source  existed.  Stob. 
Eel.  i.  160,  quotes  some  words 
from  a  treatise  wtpl  yov ;  but  there 
may  be  some  confusion  here  (as 
MuUach,  Demoer.  357,  after  Heeren 
in  h.  I.  supposes)  with  Democritus. 
Theophrastus,  foUowing  Diog.  ix. 
46,  attributes  the  work  fi4yas  ^tdr 
Kotr/tas,  which  is  found  among 
Democritus's  writings,  to  Leucip- 
pus ;  his  statement,  however,  could 
only  have  related  originally  to  the 
opinions  contained  in  this  work. 
But  if  these  statements  are  not 
absolutely  certain,  the  language  of 
Aristotle  and  of  others  concerning 
Leucippus  proves  that  some  work 
of  this  philosopher  was  known  to 
later  writers.  The  passage  quoted 
(infra,  p.  215,  1)  ^m  Aristotle, 
Gen.  €t  Con.  i.  8,  shows,  by  the 
word  ^vXv,  that  it  was  taken  from 
a  work  of  Leucippus.  It  will  here- 
after be  shown  oy  many  references 
that  Aristotle,  Theophrastus,  Dio- 
genes and  Hippolytus  also  employ 
the  present  tense  in  their  quota- 
tions. Gf.  likewise  what  is  said 
(Vol.  I.  p.  293, 4)  on  the  use  made 
of  Leucippus  by  Diogenes  of  Apol- 
lonia.  But  the  work,  and  even  the 
name  of  Leucippus,  seems  to  have 


been  pretty  early  forgotten  by  most 
writers  in  comparison  with  tht 
riper  and  more  exhaustire  achieve- 
ments of  his  disciple.  The  persis- 
tence with  which  he  is  ignored  bj 
Epicurus,  the  reviverof  the  Atomis- 
tic philosophy,  and  by  most  of  the 
Epicureans,  may  have  eontriboted 
to  this  (see  chap,  i  v.  of  this  section). 

*  For  the  life,  writings,  and 
doctrine  of  Democritus  cf.  Mnl- 
lach,  Democriti  AbderiUt  Operum 
Fragmenta,&c.,'BeT\.,lS^Z{Frogm. 
PhUos.  Gr.  i.  330  sqq.).  In  ad- 
dition to  other  more  general  woik^ 
vide  also  Bitter,  in  Er$ch.  vnd 
6ru6er*s  EneykL  Art.  J>mx.\ 
Geffors,  Qtuutiimes  Democriiufj 
Gott.  1829;  Papencordt,  Ifeitom- 
corum  Doctrvna  Spec,  u,  BerL  1832; 
Burchard  in  his  valuable  treatises, 
Democriti  PhilomkuB  de  SentUm 
Froffmenta,  Mind.,  1830;  Fra^ 
mente  d.  Moral,  d.  DemocrUue,  ihd. 
1834;  Heimsoth,  DemocriU  di 
anima  Doctrina,  Bonn,  1835 ;  B.  "^ 
Ten.  Brinck.  Jnecdota  Ej^/ckarwi, 
Democrati  Rel.  in  Schneidevin's 
PkUoloffus,  vi,  577  sqq. ;  DemoeriH 
de  se  ipeo  TeaHmoiUa,  ibid.  589 
sqq. ;  yii.  354  sqa. ;  Democrid 
liber,  ir.  hvBpArov  ^imus,  ^rid.  riii. 
414  sqq. ;  Johnson,  Der  Senmeiih 
muB  a.  Demokr.,  &c.,  Plauen,  1868 ; 
LortEing,  Ueh.  die  Etkiaeken  f^- 
mente  Demokrife,  Berlin,  187S; 
JjongetGeechiekte  d.  MaterialitmeM, 
i.  9  sqq. 

According  to  the  almost  uoaai- 
mous  testimony  of  antiquity  (vide 
MuUach  p.  1  sq.),  Democritns'i 
native  city  was  Abden,  a  cdooy 


LITE  OF  DEMOCRITUS,  209 

we  proceed,  that  the  main  features  of  the  system  belong 
to  its  fouDder. 


of  Thrace,  at  that  time  remark- 
able for  its  prosperity  and  culture, 
but  which  afterwards  (vide  Mul- 
iach,  82  sqq.)  acquired  a  reputa- 
tion for  stupidity.  According  to 
Diog.  ix.  84,  Miletus  is  substituted 
bjeome  writers;  and  the  scholiast 
of  Jurenal  on  Sat.  x.  60  substi- 
tutes Megara ;  but  neither  sugges- 
tion merits  any  attention.  His 
fether  is  sometimes  called  Hegesis- 
tratus,  sometimes  Damasippus, 
sometimes  Athenocritus  (JDiog. 
I  c).  For  further  details,  cf. 
Mullacb,  /.  e.  The  year  of  his 
birth  can  onlj-  be  ascertained  with 
approximate  certainty.  He  him- 
seUP,  according  to  IHog.  ix.  41, 
says  he  was  forty  years  younger 
than  Anaxagoras,  and  as  Anaxa- 
goras  was  bom  about  600  b.c., 
those  who  place  his  birth  in  the 
80th  Olympiad  (460  sqq.  ApoU. 
ap.  Diog.  toe,  eit.)  cannot  be  far 
wrong.  This  agrees  with  the 
assertion  that  Democritus  (ap. 
Diog.  /.  ft)  counted  730  years  ftom 
the  conquest  of  Troy  to  the  com- 
position of  his  fuKphs  ^itdKotffiof, 
if  his  Trojan  era  (as  B.Teo  Brinck, 
Pha.  Ti.  68Q  sq.,  and  Diels,  Rk. 
Siui.xai.  30,  suppose)  dates  from 
1150  {Miller,  Fr.  Hut.  ii.  24; 
1164-1144),  but  this  is  not  quite 
eertain.  When  Thrasyllus,  ap. 
Diog.  41,  places  his  birth  in  01. 
77,  3  and  says  that  he  was  a  year 
older  than  Socrates,  and  Eusebius 
wcopdingly  in  his  chronicle  as- 
signs 01.  86  as  the  period  of  his 
flourishing,  they  were  perhaps  in- 
fluenced, as  Diels  conjectures,  by 
this  Trojan  era,  which  is  clearly  in- 
applicable here,  and  differs  by  ten 
Jean  from  the  usual  one  given  by 

TOL.  n.  I 


Eratosthenes.  Eusebius,  it  is  true, 
places  the  acme  of  Democritus  in 
01.  69  and  again  in  01.  69,  3,  and, 
in  seeming  agreement  with  this, 
asserts  that  the  philosopher  died 
in  01.  94,  4  (or  94,  2),  in  his  100th 
year;-Diodorus  xiv.  11  says  that 
he  died  at  the  age  of  90,  in  01.  94, 
1  (401-3  B.a);  Cyril  c.  JulianA.  13 
A,  states  in  one  breath  that  he  was 
bom  in  the  70lh  and  in  the  86th 
Olympiad;  the  Passah  Chronicle 
(p.  274,  Dind.)  places  his  acme 
in  01. 67,  while  the  same  chronicle 
(p.  317)  afterwards,  following 
ApoUodorus,  says  that  he  died, 
being  100  years  old,  in  01.  104,  4 
(ap.  Died.  105,  2);  but  these  are 


ap. 
mly 


only  so  many  proofs  of  the  uncer- 
tainty and  carelessness  of  later 
writers  in  their  computations. 
Purther  details  in  the  next  sec- 
tion (on  Anaxagoras).  Statements 
like  that  of  Gellius,  N,  A.  xvii.  21, 
18  and  Pliny,  H.  N.  xxx.  1,  10, 
that  Democritus  flourished  during 
the  first  part  of  the  Peloponnesian 
war,  give  no  definite  information, 
nor  can  we  gather  any  from  the 
fact  that  he  never  mentions 
Anaxagoras,  Archelaus,  (Enopides, 
Parmenides,  Zeno,  or  Protagoras 
in  his  writings  (Diog.  ix.  41,  &c.). 
When  Gellius  says  that  Socrates 
was  considerably  younger  than 
Democritus,  he  is  referring  to  the 
calculation  which  Diodorus  fol- 
lows and  which  will  presently  be 
discussed ;  on  the  other  hand,  we 
must  not  conclude  from  Arist., 
Part.  Anim,  i.  1  (sup.  Vol.  I.  p. 
186,  3),  that  Democritus  was  older 
than  Socrates,  but  only  that  he 
came  forward  as  an  author  before 
Socrates  had  commenced  his  career 


^10 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


The  origin  and  general  standpoint  of  the  Atomistic 
doctrine  ifl  described   by   Aristotle   as  follows.     The 


as  a  philosopher.  Socrates,  no 
doubt,  however,  was  chiefly  known 
to  Aristotle,  as  he  is  to  us,  in  con- 
nection with  the  last  decade  of 
his  life,  as  the  teacher  of  Plato 
and  Xenophon  and  of  the  phi- 
losophers who  propagated  his  phi- 
losophy in  the  Socratic  schools. 
The  birth  of  Democritus  must 
therefore  l>e  placed  about  460  b.c. 
or  perhaps  even  earlier;  we  cannot 
At  it  with  certainty.  Still  more 
uncertainty  is  there  with  respect 
to  his  age  and  the  year  of  his 
death.  That  he  had  reached  a  great 
age  (matura  vetustas,  Lucret.  iii. 
1037)  W6  are  constantly  assured, 
but  the  more  detailed  statements 
vary  considerably.  Diodorus  I.  c. 
has  90  years,  Eusebius  and  the 
Passah  Chronicle  I.  c.  100,  Antis- 
thenes  (who.  however,  is  erro- 
n«H)usly  considered  by  Mullach,  p, 
20.  40,  47,  to  be  older  than  Aris- 
totle, cf.  the  Hst  of  authors 
and  their  works)  ap.  Diog.  iz  39, 
more  than  100;  Lucian,  Macrch. 
1 8,  and  Phlegon,  Longavi,  c.  2, 104 ; 
Hipparchus  ap.  Diog.  ix.  43,  109.; 
Ceosorin.  Di,  Nat,  15,  10  says  he 
was  nearly  as  old  as  Gorgias, 
whose  life  extended  to  108  years. 
(The  statements  of  the  pseudo- 
Soranus  in  the  life  of  Hippocrates, 
Hippocr,  0pp.  t  ed.  Kiihn,  iii.  850, 
that  Hippocrates  was  bom  in  01. 
80,  1,  and  according  to  some  was 
90  years  old,  according  to  others, 
95,  104,  and  109  years  old,  are 
very  similar ;  and  B.  Ten  Brinck 
Philol.  vi.  591  is  probably  right  in 
conjecturing  that  they  were  trans- 
ferred to  him  firom  Democritus.) 
As  to  the  year  of  Democritus' 
death,  vide  mpra. 


That  our  philosopher  displayed 
remarkable  zeal  for  knowledge 
will  readily  be  believed  even  in*- 
spectively  of  the  anecdote  in  Diog. 
ix.  36.  But  what  we  are  told 
about  the  instructions  which  eren 
as  a  boy  he  had  received  £roin  the 
Magi,  not  to  mention  the  fable  in 
Valer.  Max.  viii.  7,  exL  4,  that 
the  father  of  Democritus  eDte^ 
tained  as  a  host  the  army  of 
Xerxes,  has  little  evidence  in  itd 
favour  (Diog.  ix.  34,  appealing  tc 
Herodotus,  who  neither  in  vii. 
109,  nor  viii.  120,  nor  anyirhew 
else,  ever  mentions  such  a  thing). 
and  is  chronologically  impassible. 
Lange,  however,  Gesck  a.  Mater. 
i.  128,  endeavours  to  save  the  in- 
credible tradition  by  reducing  the 
regular  instruction  in  the  cmk^ 
of  which  Democritus,  according  to 
Diogene.1,  had  learned  rd  n  T«f>l 
6to\oylas  iccU  iurrpoKar^as  to  an 
exciting  influence  upon  the  mind 
of  an  intelligent  boy ;  and  Leves 
{Hist,  of  PkU.  i.  96  sq.)  relate  in 
one  breath  that  Democritus  ▼»'' 
bom  in  460  b.c,  and  that  Xerxes 
(twenty  years  before)  had  left 
some  Magi  in  Abdera  as  his  in- 
structors. This  whole  corabinn- 
tion  probably  dates  from  the  epooh 
in  which  Democritus  was  regarded 
by  the  Greeks  as  a  sorcerer  and 
father  of  magic.  Philostr.  v.  Soph, 
X.  p.  494,  relates  the  same  of 
Protagoras.  The  acquaintanee  of 
Democritus  with  Greek  philoso- 
phers is  far  better  attested.  Plot. 
adv.  Col.  29,  3,  p.  1 124,  says  in  & 
general  manner,  that  he  contra- 
dicted his  predecessors;  among 
those  whom  he  mentioned  some- 
times to  praise,  and  sometimes  to 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND  GENERAL  BASIS,      211 


Eleatics,  he  says,  denied  the  multiplicity  of  things  and 
motion,  because   these  are  inconceivable  without  the 


oppose  them,  ve  fiod  the  names  of 
I^rmeDides  and  Zeno  (Diog.  ix. 
42),  vhose  in^nence  notwithstand- 
ing upon  the  Atomistic  philosophy 
i?  UDmifitakeable ;  Pythagoras 
{ibid.  38,  46),  Anazagoras  {ibid. 
34  sq. ;  Sezt.  Math.  Tii.  140),  and 
Protagoras  (Diog.  ix.  42;  Sext. 
Math.  Tii.  389;  Pint.  Col.  4,  2, 
p.  1109).  In  all  probability  his 
only  teacher  was  Lencippus :  bnt 
eren  this  is  not  quite  certain,  for 
the  evidence  of  writers  like  Diog. 
ix.  34;  Clem.  Strom,  i.  301  D; 
Hippol.  BeffU.  12,  taken  alone,  is 
Dol  conclnsive ;  and  thongh  Aris- 
totle (Metaph.  i.  4,  985  b,  4,  and 
after  him,  Simpl.  Thys.  7  a)  calls 
Demoeritus  the  comrade  {iratpos) 
of  Leacippus,  it  is  not  clear 
whether  a  personal  relation  be- 
tween the  two  men  (irarpos  ofVen 
stands  for  a  disciple,  vide  Mul- 
lach,  p.  9,  etc.),  or  only  a  simi- 
larity of  theirdoctrines  i^  intended. 
The  former,  however,  is  the  most 
likely  interpretation.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  assertion  (ap. 
Diog.  I.  c,  and  after  him  Said.) 
that  Democritns  had  personal  in- 
tercourse with  Anaxagoras  is  qnite 
untrustworthy,  even  if  the  state- 
ment of  Favorinus  thatDemocritus 
was  hostile  to  Anaxagoras  because 
he  would  not  admit  him  among 
his  disciples  be  considered  too  self- 
erident  an  invention  to  be  worth 
quoting  as  an  argument  against 
it.  (Cf.  also  Sext.  Math.  vii.  140.) 
Moreover,  Diog.  ii.  14,  says  that 
it  was  Anaxagoras  who  was  hostile 
to  Democritns ;  but  this  we  must 
set  down  to  the  thoughtless  care- 
leesness  of  this  author.  We  are 
also  frequently  told  that  he  was 


connected  with  the  Pythagoreans ; 
not  only  does  Thrasyllus  ap.  Diog. 
ix.  38,  call  him  Cn^etHis  r&y  Tlvea- 
yopue&y,  but,  according  to  the  same 
text,  Glaucus  the  contemporary  of 
Democritns  had  already  main- 
tained: wdpTws  T»y  livBarfopiK&v 
TWOS  iucovirai  a3irr6¥ ;  and  according 
to  Porph.  V.  P.  3,  Duris  had 
named  Arimnestus,  son  of  Pytha- 
goras, as  the  teacher  of  Democritus. 
He  himself,  according  to  Thra- 
syllus ap.  Di(jg.  I.  c,  had  entitled 
one  of  his  writings  '  Pythagoras,* 
and  had  spoken  in  it  with  admira- 
tion of  the  Samian  philosopher  ; 
according  to  Apollodorus  ap.  Diog. 
/.  <?.,  he  also  came  in  contact  with 
Philolaus.  But  the  authenticity 
of  the  Democritean  TlvBay6p^s  is 
(as  Lortzing,  p.  4,  rightly  observes) 
very  questionable,  and  he  could 
have  adopted  nothing  from  the 
Pythagorean  science,  excepting  in 
regard  to  mathematics;  his  own 
philosophy  having  no  affinity  with 
that  of  the  Pythagoreans.  In 
order  to  accumulate  wisdom,  De- 
mocritus visited  the  countries  of 
the  east  and  south.  He  himself  in 
the  fragment  ap.  Clemens,  Strom,  i. 
304  A  (on  which  cf.  Goffers,  p.  23  ; 
Mullach,  p.  3  sqq.,  18  sqq. ;  B.  Ten 
Brinck,  PhUol.  vii.  355  sqq.),  cf. 
Theophrast.  ap.  JElian,  V.  H.  iv. 
20,  boastE  of  having  taken  more 
distant  journeys  than  any  of  his 
contemporaries ;  he  particularly 
mentions  Egypt  as  a  country  where 
he  had  remained  some  time.  As 
to  the  duration  of  these  jour- 
neys, we  can  only  form  conjec- 
tures, as  the  eighty  years  spoken 
of  by  Clemens  must  clearly  be 
based  on  some  gross  misapprehen- 


F  2 


212 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


Void,  and  the  Void  is  nothing.     Leucippus  conceded  to 
them  that  without  the  Void  no  motion  is  possible,  and 


■ion  or  clerical  error.  (Papen* 
cordt,  Atom,  Doctr,  10,  and  Mul- 
lach.  Democr,  19,  Fr.  Phil.  i.  380, 
suppose  that  v,  which  signifies 
ir^i^c,  may  have  been  mistaken  for 
w',  the  cipher  for  80 ;  and  Biod. 
i.  98,  doeft  in  flnct  say  that  Bemo- 
critus  remained  five  years  in 
Egypt.)  Later  writers  relate  more 
particularly  that  he  spent  the 
whole  of  his  large  inheritance  in 
travelling,  that  he  visited  the 
Egyptian  priests,  the  Chaldeans, 
the  Persians,  some  say  even  the 
Indians  and  Ethiopians  (Diog.  iz. 
15;  after  him  fciuidas  AtifUKp. 
Hesych.  Arifi6Kp.  from  the  same 
source,  ^ian,  L  c. ;  Clemens,  I.  c. 
speaks  only  of  Babylon,  Persia  and 
Egypt ;  Diodorus,  i.  98,  of  five  years* 
sojourn  in  Egypt ;  Strabo,  xv.  1, 38, 
p.  703,  of  journeys  through  a  great 
part  of  Asia;  Cic.  Fin,  v.  19,  50, 
more  generally,  of  distant  journeys 
for  the  acquisition  of  knowledge). 
How  much  of  all  this  is  true,  we  can 
only  partially  discover.  Democri  tus 
certainly  went  to  Egypt,  Hither 
Asia  and  Persia ;  but  not  to  India, 
as  asserted  by  Strabo  and  Clemens, 
I  0. ;  cf.  Geffers,  22  sqq.  The  aim 
and  result  of  these  journeys,  how- 
ever, must  be  sought,  not  so  much 
in  the  scientific  instruction  he  re- 
ceived from  the  Orientals,  as  in 
his  own  observation  of  men  and 
of  nature.  The  assertion  of  Be- 
mocritus  ap.  Clem.,  that  no  one, 
not  even  the  Egyptian  mathe- 
maticians, excelled  him  in  geo- 
metry (concerning  his  mathema- 
tical knowledge,  d*.  also  Cic.  Fin. 
i.  6,  20 ;  Pint  e,  not.  39,  3,  p. 
1079),  implies  scientific  inter- 
course,  but   at    the    same    time 


favours  the  conjecture  that  Demo- 
cri tus  could  not  have  learned  mndi 
in  this  respect  from  foreignen. 
What  Pliny  say»  (H.  N.  xxv.  2. 
13;  XXX.  1.  9  sq.;  x.  49.  137; 
xxix.  4,  72;  xxviii.  8,  112  eqq.; 
cf.  Philostr.  V.  A^IL  i.  l)of  th« 
magic  arts  which  Bemoeiitiis 
learned  on  his  travels  is  besed 
upon  forged  writings,  acknow- 
ledged as  such  even  by  Gellins, 
K  A.X.12;  cf.  Burchard,  Froffm. 
d.  Mor.  d.  Dem.  17  ;  Mollach,  72 
sqq.,  156  sqq.  What  is  said  of 
his  connection  with  Darius  (Julian, 
Epi»i.  37,  p.  413,  Spanh. ;  cf.  Bin. 
H.  K  vii.  55, 189;  further  detail 
infra^  chap,  iii.,  and  ap.  Mulladi, 
45,  49),  though  it  sounds  more 
natural,  is  quite  as  legeodanr. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
statement  (Posidonias  ap.  Stnbo 
xvi.  2,  25,  p.  757,  and  SezL  Mail 
xi.  363),  that  Bemocritus  darirad 
his  doctrine  of  the  atoms  from 
Mochus,  a  veiy  ancient  PhtBoicisn 
philosopher.  That  there  existed 
a  work  under  the  name  of  thi« 
Hochus  is  proved  by  Joseph. 
AniimtU.  i.  3,  9 ;  Athen.  iii  126 
a;  Bamasc  De  Prine.  p.  S85. 
Kopp.;  cf.  Iambi.  V.  Pr^.  14; 
Biog.  Procnn.  1 ;  but  if  it  con- 
tained an  atomistic  theory  simil&r 
to  that  of  Bemocritus,  this  would 
only  prove  that  the  author  bad 
copied  the  philosopher  of  Abdeia, 
not  that  the  philosopher  of  Abdera 
had  copied  him;  and  not  only 
Bemocritus,  but  Leucippu.s  al» 
must  in  that  case  have  done  so. 
The  germs  of  the  Atomistic  theory 
are  too  apparent  in  the  earlier 
Greek  philosophy  to  leave  room 
for  supposing  it  to  have  had  a 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND  GENERAL  BASIS.      218 


that  the  Void  must  be  regarded  as  non-existent ;  but  he 
thought  he  could  nevertheless  retain  the  reality  of  phe- 


foreign  origin.  That  the  work  of 
Mochus  was  not  in  existence  in 
the  time  of  Eudemus  seems  prob- 
able from  the  passage  in  Bamascius. 
After  his  return,  Democritus  ap- 
pears to  have  remained  in  his 
natire  city ;  bnt  a  visit  to  Athens 
(Diog.  ix.  36  sq. ;  Cic.  Tusc.  v.  36. 
104;  Valer.  Max.  Tiii.  7,  ext  4) 
maj  perhaps  be  assigned  to  this 
later  epoch,  in  regard  to  which 
we  possess  hardly  any  trustworthy 
information.  Having  impoverished 
himself  by  his  journeys,  he  is  said 
to  have  avoided  the  fate  of  the 
improvident  by  giving  readings  of 
some  of  his  own  works  (Philo, 
Prond,  ii.  13,  p.  52,  Auch. ;  Diog. 
ix.  39  sq. ;  Dio  Chrys.  Or.  64,  2,  p. 
280  R;  Athen.  iv.  168  b;  Interpr. 
Herat,  on  Epist.  i.  12,  12);  others 
relate  that  he  neglected  his  pro- 
perty (a  stoiy  which  is  also  told  of 
.^n^xagoras  and  Thales);  but  si- 
lenced those  who  censured  him  by 
his  speculations  with  oil  presses 
(ac.Fifi.v.29, 87;  Horat.  Ep.  i.  12, 
12.  and  the  scholia  on  these  texts, 
Plin.  H.  N.  xviii.  28,  273  ;  Philo. 
yu.  ConUmpl.  891  G,  Hosch.  and 
after  him  Lactant,  Imt.  iii.  23). 
^  aler.  /.  c.  says  he  gave  the  greater 
part  of  his  countless  riches  to  the 
state,  that  he  might  live  more 
UDdistorbedly  for  wisdom.  It  is 
<}uestioDable,  however,  whether 
there  is  any  foundation  even  for 
the  first  of  these  assertions;  or 
for  the  statement  (Antisth.  ap. 
Diog.  ix.  38,  where  the  suggestion 
of  Mollach,  p.  64,  to  substitute 
T^P^iri  for  t6^u  seems  to  me  a 
mistake;  Lucian,  Philopaeud,  c. 
32)  that  he  lived  among  tombs 
and  desert  places ;  not  to  mention 


the  story  of  his  voluntary  blind- 
ness (Gell.  N.  A,X.n  ;  Cic.  Fm. 
I.  c,  Tusc.  T.  39,  114;  Tertull. 
Apologet.  c.  46.  Cf.  on  the  other 
hand  Plut.  CuriosU,  c.  12,  p.  621 
sq.),  which  was  perhaps  occasioned 
by  his  observations  on  the  untrust- 
worthiness  of  the  senses  (cf.  Cic. 
Acad.  ii.  23,  74,  where  the  expres- 
sion excacare,  sensibus  orbare  is 
employed  for  this  view).  The 
assertion  of  Fetronius,  Sat.  c.  88, 
p.  424,  Burm.,  that  he  spent  his 
life  in  enquiries  into  natural 
science,  sounds  more  credible ; 
with  this  is  connected  the  anecdote 
ap.  Plut.  Qu.  Canv.  i.  10, 2,  2.  It 
may  also  be  true  that  he  was  re- 
garded with  great  veneration  by 
his  countrymen,  and  received  from 
them  the  surname  of  vo^ia  (Clem. 
Slrom.  vi.  631  D ;  JElmn,  V.  H. 
iv.  20);  that  the  dominion  over 
his  native  city  was  given  to  him 
is.  on  the  contrary,  most  improbable 
(Suid.  Ai)fu$«cp.).  Whether  he  was 
married  we  do  not  know;  one 
anecdote,  which  seems  to  imply 
that  he  was  so,  has  little  evidence 
in  its  favour  (Antonius,  Mel.  609 ; 
Mullach,i?y.  Mor.  180);  but  the 
contrary  is  certainly  not  deducible 
from  his  utterances  about  marriage 
(vide  infra).  The  widespread 
statement  that  he  laughed-  at 
everything (Sotion  ap.Stob.  Floril. 
20,63;  Hor.  Ep.  ii.  1,  194  sqq. ; 
Juvenal,  Sat.  x.  33  sqq. ;  Sen.  De 
Irdf  ii.  10 ;  Lucian,  Vit.  Auct.  c. 
13;  Hippol.  RefiU.  I  12;  Ailian, 
V.  H.  iv.  20,  29 ;  Suid.  aWkp-  ; 
see,  on  the  contrary,  Democr.  Fr. 
Mor.  167)  pro<^>laims  itself  at  once 
as  an  idle  fabrication ;  what  we 
are  told  of  the  magic  and  prognos- 


214 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


nomena,  of  birth  and  decay,  of  motion  and  multiplicity,      ] 
by  admitting  that  side  by  side  with  Being,  or  the  Plenum, 


tieatioDS  of  this  philosopher,  is 
equally  absurd  (vide  supra,  and 
Pliu,  H.  N.  xviii.  28,  273. 36,  341 ; 
Clem.  Strom,  ri.  631  D;  Diog.  ix. 
42;  Philostr.  Apoll.  viii.  7,  28). 
His  supposed  connection  with 
Hippocrates  has  likewise  given 
rise  to  many  inventions ;  accord- 
ing to  Cels.  De  Medio.  Praf.  Pg.- 
Soran. ;  t;.  Htppocr.  ( 0pp.  ed. 
Kiihn,  iii.  850),  Hi  ppocrates  was  re- 
presented by  many  as  his  disciple. 
Already  even  in  Diog.  iz.  42 ;  ^lian, 
V.  H.  iv.  20 ;  Athenag.  Suppl.  c.  27 
—  we  can  trace  the  beginning  of 
the  legend  which  subsequently,  in 
the  supposed  letters  of  the  two 
men,  was  carried  out  into  the 
wildest  extravagances:  vide  Mul- 
lach,  74  sqq.  L*iBtly,  the  various 
statements  as  to  the  end  of  Demo- 
critus — ap.  Diog.  ix.  43  ;  Athen.  ii. 
46  e;  Lucian,  Alacrob.  c.  18;  M. 
Aurel.  iii.  3,  &c.  (vide  Mullach, 
89  sq-j.)— are  also  untrustworthy. 
Even  the  more  general  assertion  of 
Lucretius,  iii.  1037  sqq.,  that  feel- 
ins?  the  weakness  of  old  age.  he 
voluntarily  put  an  end  to  his  life, 
is  far  from  certain. 

Surpassing  all  his  predecessors 
and  contemporaries  in  wealth  of 
knowledge,  and  most  of  them  in 
acute ness  and  consecutiveness  of 
thought,  Democritus,  by  the  com- 
bination of  these  excellences,  be- 
came the  direct  precursor  of  Aris- 
totle, who  frequently  quotes  and 
makes  use  of  him,  and  speaks  of 
him  with  unmistakeable  approval. 
(Authorities  will  be  given  later  on. 
Theophrastus  and  Eudemus  like- 
wise paid  much  attention  to  De- 
mocritus, as  Papencordt  shows,  I, 
c.  p.  21.)    His  multifarious  writ- 


ings, judging  from  the  titles  and 
fragments  that  have  come  dovo  to 
us,   must  have  embraced  omtbe- 
matical,    physical,   ethical,  ^m- 
matical    and    technical    subjects. 
Diogenes,  i.  16,  mentions  hiin  as 
one  of  the  most  prolific  of  philo- 
sophic authors ;  and  we  have  do 
right  to  substitu^  for  his  nam«.         "^ 
in  this  text,  the  name  of  DemetriBS         ] 
(Phalerpus),  as  Nietzsche,  RkMui.         j 
XXV.  220  sq.,  does;  for  the  same 
Diogenes,  ix.  45  sqq.,  after  Thn- 
syllus,  specific's  no  fewer  than  fif- 
teen  Tetralogies  of  Democrilns's 
writings,   among   which    physical 
subjects  occupy  the  lai^gesi  spmx. 
Besides  these,  a  number  of  spnrioos 
writings  are  mentioned;  and  most 
likely  there  are  many  such,  even 
among  those  reputed  genuine  (Said. 
ArifjJKp,  only  allows   the  anthtn- 
ticity  of  two).     At  any  rate,  the 
name  of  Thrasyllus  is  no  more  a 
guar.int6e  for  the  contrary,  in  the 
ease  of  Democritus,  than  in  that 
of  Plato.     Cf  Burchard,  Froffm.  d. 
Mbr.  d.  Bern.  1 6  sq .    Rose,  Be  Ariii. 
lib.  ord.  6  sq.,  believes  that  forgeries 
of  writings  under  the  name  of  De^ 
mocritus  began  at  a  very  early  date, 
and  declares  the  whole  of  the  ethi- 
cal writings  to  be  spurioas.   Lorta- 
ing,  I.  c.y  more  Ciiutiously,  decides 
that  two  ethical  tTeatisea,«'.€v^/t^5 
and  droO^Kcu,  are  genuine,  and  rhe 
source  of  most  of  our  moral  frag- 
ments; the  rest  he  either  rejeers 
or  mistrusts.    The  statements  of 
the  ancients  as  to  particular  works 
will  be  found  in  Heimsoth.  p.  41 
sq. ;  Mullach,  03  sqq.  \  concerning 
the    catalogue    of    Diogenes,  cf. 
also  Schleiermacher*8  Abhandlitnp 
V.  J.  1816 ;  Werke,  3te.  Abth.  iii 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND  GENERAL  BASIS.      216 


there  was  also  the  non-Being  or  the  Void.  Being  i& 
fact  on  this  theory  is  not  merely  one,  but  consists  of 
an  infinite  number  of  small  invisible  bodies  which  move 
in  the  Void.  On  the  combination  and  separation  of 
these  bodies^  are  founded  Becoming  and  Decay,  change, 
and  the  reciprocal  action  of  things.^     Leucippus  and. 


193  aqq.  The  fragments- of  these 
works  (of  which  the  greater  num^ 
ber,  many  of  them  doubtful  or 
sporioas,  belong  to  the  ethical 
writings)  are  to  be  found  ap.  Mol- 
Ucb.  Of.  Burchard  and  Lortzing 
ia  the  works  quoted ;  B.  Ten  Brinck 
in  the  VhiloL  vl.  577  sqq. ;  riii.  414 
sqq.  On  account  of  his  elevated 
and  often  poetical  langUKge,  Demo* 
critus  is  compared  by  Cicero,  Orat, 
20,  67;  De  Orat,  i.  11,  49,  with 
Plato.  He  also,  Divin,  ii.  64,  133, 
praises  the  clearness  of  his  exposi- 
tion; while  Plut.  Qh.  Conv.  v.  7,  6, 
2.  admires  its  lofty  flight.  Even 
Timon.  np.  Diog.  ix.  40,  speaka  of 
blm  with  respect ;  and  Dion^.  De 
OnTijtas.  Verb.  c.  24,  places  him  be- 
Mde  Plato  and  Aristotle  as  a  pat- 
tern philosophical  writer  (cf.  also 
Papencordt,  p.  19  sq. ;  Bnrchard, 
Fragm.  d.  Moral,  d.  3em.  6  sqq.). 
His  writings,  which  Seztus  still 
poseessed,  were  no  longer  in  exist- 
ence when  Simplicius  wrote  (vide 
Papencordt,  p.  22).  The  extracts 
of  Stobsens  are  certainly  taken 
from  older  collections. 

*  De  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8  {suprUt  p. 
133,  3),  M^  8^  fjuiXivra  ica2  ir^pX 
tdrrw  ivl  \Ay^  UMpiKacri  Ac<;«rir- 
fos  Kol  ArifiSitpiTos  (this,  however, 
does  Dot  mean  that  Leucippus  and 
Democritus  agree  in  every  respect 
with  each  other,  but  that  they  ex- 
plained  all  phenomena  in  a  strictly 
s<Mentiflc  manner  firom  the  same 
principles)  hpxh^  iroiiiadfityot  Korii 


ipdffiv  IJTTtp  iarii^  Mots  yhp  r&y 
ikpx'aiw  ^8o|c  rh  %v  i^  iLvdyKris  ty  ■ 
civou  Kol  kKlvTiTor  etc.  (Vol.  1. 
632,  2)  .  .  .  Ac^Mwirof  8*  ^x^iv 
ffi^OTi  X^ovs  oT  Tirfs  wpbs  T^y  oX" 
aBn<riy  6fu>KoyovfMya  Xiyovr^s  ovic 
&vcupfioov<riv  olJre  yivwiv  oifre 
^Oopky  oCrt  Klyiiaiy  xal  t^  wXrjBos- 
r&y  6yruy.  dfioXoyfiaas  8i  ravra 
fi^y  rois  ^yofiiyois;  rots  H  rb  %y 
KaraffMvd(o\friVf  &s  oSrt  tty  Kiv7i<nv- 
ol<ray  iytv  K€yov  r6  re  Ktvhy 
M^  ^Vi  ical  rov  6vros  ohBhy  (xii 
6y  ^niaiy  eTyai*  t^  7&p  Kupioos  hy 
wofiirXiidh  6y'  iAX'  tlyou  rh  roiovroy 
o^X  ^''i  ^^^  Aweifxi  rh  wKriBos  koX 
h6pvra  8ta  afUKp^rrfra-  ray  JayKttv, 
ravra  8'  iv  r^  K§y^  ^4pt<r0eu  (Ktyhy 
ykp  flyai),  jcal  (rwiardfifya  luv 
yiywiy  woictv,  ^idkv6ii.iva  Zh  <p$opdy. 
irouly  8i  koL  irdffx*^'^  S  rvyxAyovaiy 
airr6fi*ya  •  raiirp  yhp  otx  i^  «Ti'eu. 
KoX  (rvyriB4fjk€ya  hh  koX  irtpiirKtK6fA€ya 
y^vv^y  in  8i  rov  icor'  kKi^B^iay  iyhs 
oIk  tiy  ytvtaBou  irX^Bos,  olB'  iK  r&v 
ik\7\Bioi  TtoKKSov  Im,  iXA'  eTvoi  rowr* 
ii,Z{)yaroyy  AXA'  fi<nrcp  'EfAWc5oicXi}s 
Kcd  r&y  &XA09V  riyis  ^aan  wdUrxctv 
8i&  w6pofy,  olhu  waaay  iXXoIoxriy 
Kol  way  rh  vdax^i'^  rovroy  yiyfcBoh 
rhy  rp&ftoVf  Zih  rov  kwov  yiyofi4yviS' 
rris  8iaAi/<rc«r  ical  rris  ipBopaSt  ^fiolws 
8^  Kcd  rrjs  aib^iiatus  6wturivofi4ywy 
artpt&v.  Instead  of  the  words  in< 
spaced  type,  I  formerly  conjectured 
Mai  rov  bvroi  1\^vov  rh  fx^  6y  <^i}<rty 
e7nu.  Although  we  might  appeal  in 
support  of  this  reading  to  the  pro- 
bable sense,  and  to  Uie  paaeages- 


216 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


Democritus  therefore  agree  with  Parmenides  and  Em- 
pedocles,  that  iieither  Becoming  nor  Decay,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  words,  is  possible ;  *  they  also  allow 
(what  indeed  is  the  direct  consequence  of  this),*  that 
many  cannot  arise  from  One,  nor  One  from  many;' 
and  tliat  things  can  only  be  many  if  Being  is  divided 
by  means  of  the  non-existent  or  the  Void :  *  finally, 
they  assert  that  motion  would  be  inconceivable  *  with- 


quotedni/ra,p.217,l»froinAristotle 
and  Simplicius,  jet  the  traditional 
reading  appears  to  me  equally  ad- 
missible if  we  interpret  the  words 
Kol— cfyw,  'he  allows  that  nothing 
existent  can  be  non-existent.'  It 
is  still  simpler  to  read  (witii  Codex 
E),  in  the  immediately  precediog 
context,  &i  ohK  iv  kIv.  ooj,  &c.,  then 
the  apoclosis  begins  with  t<J  t€  K^vhv^ 
and  the  explanation  presents  no 
difficulty.  Prantl,  in  his  edition, 
introduces  voict  Kwhv  firi  hv  after 
**t6  tc  Myhv  fiii  hy"  which  seems 
to  me  too  great  a  departure  from 
the  MS.,  and  also  to  have  little 
resemblance  with  the  style  of 
Aristotle.  Cf.  Simpl.  I.  c,  who  in 
his  account  probably  follows  Theo- 
phrastus.  Philop.  in  h.  I,  p.  35  b 
sq.,  gives  us  nothing  new. 

1  Arist.  Ph^8.  iii.  4,  203  a,  33 : 
AiifUKpiros  8*  ou?ikv  cTcpoy  4^  kripov 
yiyytaBat  r&v  irp^uv  ^nfflv,  Alex, 
in  Metaph,  iv.  6,  1009  a,  2G,  p. 
260, 24,  Bon.  of  Democritus :  ^o<5- 
IJLtvos  8i  nifi^v  yivtcBoi  ix  rov  fi^ 
Hyros.  Diog.  ix.  44 :  firiBtv  r*  ix 
rov  /A^  tfvTos  yiycffSau  Ka\  cts  rh  fi^ 
hif  4>0€fpc(rdax.  Stob.  Eel.  i.  414 : 
Ari^6KptroSf  &c.,  <rvyKpi<rus  juiv  icol 
9taKpl<r€is  tlffdyowrtf  ytv4afis  h%  Ked 
pdopia  ov  KvpUos,  ol  yhp  icarct  rh 
iroihvi^iiKKoi6<rtM$fKarh  ttrh  voffhif 
ix  <rvya$poiafiov  ra^as  ylyv€(rOai. 

«  Cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  656,  2;  687,  2. 


■  Vide  p.  215.  1,  and  Aiist. 
De  Cctlo,  iii.  4,  303  a,  5 :  poffX  f^ 
(Ac^K.  Kol  Anfjt6Kp.)  cTmu  ra  vpvra 
fuy^Ori  wkiiOti  fiiy  iirtipa  ftef^i  it 
&8ia(pcra,  Koi  oSr*  i^  hhs  voXAa 
ylyytffBai  o6t€  4k  iroXXwr  Ir,  &Ma 
Tp  roirotr  trvfirKoKp  Ktd  mpttki^ti 
wdvra  ytmfaoSai,  Meteqtk.  Tii.  1S| 
1039  a,  9  :  iui^vwrov  y^  thai  ^ifi*' 
(Democritus)  4k  9io  ty  il  4^  €f^s  5w» 
ytyiarBcu'  tA  y^Lp  /**y^  ri6rofU 
rba  obfflas  iroici.  Pseudo-Alex,  in 
h.  I,  495.  4  Bon.:  6  AnpiKprrm 
f\€y€y  Zri  iZiparoy  4k  8^  iriptfr 
fiiay  y€y4<r0ai  (dtwaldtts  yiip  tofrh 
^erletro)  1^  4k  fiias  9^9  (ir/a^bw* 
yhp  abrks  HXvyty).  Simil&rly. 
Simpl.  De  Cado,  271  a,  43  f,  183  a, 
18  f  (Schol,  514  a,  4,  488  a,  26). 

*  Arist.  6r«i.  €t  Corr.  I  c: 
Phys.  i.  3,  vide  sup.  Vol  I.  p.  618, 1 ; 
Phya.  iv.  6,  213  a,  31  (against  the 
attempts  made  by  Anaxagoras  to 
confute  the  theory  of  empty  spart): 
otfKovy  TovTo  5€i  Ztucyvycu,  5ti  e<m  Tt 
6  aiip,  iAA'  Zrt  ovk  t<m  Jrtumjtf 
%Tfpo»  rSty  avftdrwy^  otrt  x'^P^^' 
oifTc  4yepytia  1»y,  h  8iaXovi)Siyci  ^^ 
tray  ff&ixa  &(rr  Avtu  /x^  avytx^s,  koH- 
irtp  \4yovai  Ariti&Kpiros  Ktd  A*vKtr' 
vos  KoX  Ircpot  iroXAol  rw  ^ufftoko- 
yoty.  Compare  what  i s  quoted  from 
Parmenides,  Vol.  I.  p.  586, 1 ;  587, 2. 

*  Arist  Gen,  et  Corr,  I  c; 
Phya,  I.  c.  213  b,  4:  XtyovtriVU 
fily  (in  the  first  place)  5ti  Kunfin 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND  GENERAL  BASIS.      217 


out  the  supposition  of  an  empty  space.  £ut  instead  of 
inferring  from  thence,  like  the  Eleatics,  that  multiplicity 
and  change  are  merely  appearance,  they  draw  this 
opposite  conclusion  :  as  there  are  in  truth  many  things 
which  arise  and  decay,  change  and  move,  and  as  all 
this  would  be  impossible  without  the  supposition  of  the 
non-existent,  a  Being  must  likewise  belong  to  the  non- 
existent. They  oppose  the  main  principle  of  Parme- 
nides  that  *  Non-Being  is  not,'  with  the  bold  statement 
that '  Being  is  in  no  respect  more  real  than  Non- Being,'  ^ 
that  something  {to  Biv),  as  Democritus  says,  is  in  no- 
wise more  real  than  nothing.*  Being  is  conceived  by 
them  as  by  the  Eleatics,^  as  the  Plenum,  Non-Being 
as  the  Void.*     This  proposition  therefore  asserts  that 


icr\  popa  Kcd  ai?|i)(rif)*  ot  yhp  tkv 
Soiccir  c^oi  xirriiTiv^  ci  fil)  eft}  Key6y. 
('  It  appears  that  no  m'^tion  -would 
b«  possible ; '  not  as  Grote,  Plafo  i. 
70,  understands  it :  *  motion  could 
not  aeem  to  be  present.')  Demo- 
critDs's  argument  for  this  proposi- 
tion will  immediately  be  examined ; 
and  the  relation  of  the  Atomistic 
theories  of  the  Void  to  those  of 
Melisfius  later  on. 

>  Arist.  Metaph.  i.  4,  986  b,  4 : 
AfdicMTros   8i    ical  b  kratftos   ahrov 

«al  ri  Kt^»  tjyai  ^wrt^  \4yoyT*s  rh 
fth  hvf  rh  ik  /i^  iv,  rovrtcv  8i  rh 
luir  vX^pf s  Hal  crrcpc^y  rh  hy^  rh  8i 
Kw4y  yf  «(i2  fAoyhy  rh  fiii  ly  (Sib  «ra} 
oii6^y  fuiXXoy  rh  hy  rod  fih  6yros 
(W  pww  trt  oifik  rh  tctvhy  rod 
ffAfueroi)y  [Schwegler  in  h,  I.  sug- 
gests rov  it^yov  rh  awfta,  or  rk 
ff^iuera,  which  perhaps  is  better] 
«Itio  8c  r&v  6yro»y  ravra  &i  fiKriy. 
SimpL  Pki/t,  7  a  (no  doubt  after 


Theophrast.)  :  r^v  yiip  rvv  irofiuv 
ovaiay  vaar^y  Ktd  irA^pTj  xrKoriBifi.^- 
yos  "by  ^Aeyey  tJyai  ica2  iy  r^  K€v^  ' 
<^4p€(r$atf  Sircp  fih  hy  ^k<£aci  Kcd  ovk 
ixarroy  rov  6vros  tlycu  tptitrl, 
Leucippus  is  the  subject  of  the 
sentence. 

*  Pint.  Adv,  Col.  4,  2,  p.  1 109  : 
{ArifjL6KpiTOs)  Biopl(trcu  /i^  fiaWoy 
rh  Biy  fj  rh  firitky  ttvcu  '  B^y  fi^y 
oyofu&Cay  rh  trufia  firiB^y  B^  rh 
Kfyhvy  &s  Ka)  roirov  ipixriy  ru  h  koX 
{nr6<rra(riy  iBiav  lxo«^«y.  The  word 
BlVf  which  subsequently  became 
obsolete  (as  the  German  Ichts  is 
now),  is  also  found  in  Alcfeus,  Fr. 
76,  Bergk.  In  Galen*s  account, 
De  Elem.  Sec,  Hipp.  i.  2,  t.  i.  418 
Kiihn,  it  is  supposed,  with  some 
probability,  that  %y  should  be  re- 
placed by  B4y. 

»  Svpra,  Vol.  I.  688  sq. 

*  Sup.  notes  1  and  2  and  p.  2 1 6, 
1;  Arist.  Phys.  i.  6  init. :  iritvT€f 
84  r&yavrla  &px^  woiovaiy  .  .  .  koX 
LmUKpkroi  rh  ffrtpthy  Koi  K^vhv^  &v 


218 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


all  things  consist  of  the  matter  which  fills  space,  and 
empty  space  itself.*  These  two  cannot,  however,  be 
merely  side  by  side,  if  phenomena  are  to  be  explained 
by  reference  to  them ;  they  are  necessarily  in  ODe 
another,  so  that  the  Plenimi  is  divided  by  the  Vacuum, 
and  Being^  by  non-Being,  and  through  the  changing 
relation  of  their  parts,  the  multiplicity  and  change  of 
things  is  made  possible.^  That  this  division  cannot  go 
on  to  infinity,  and  that  consequently  indivisible  atoms 
mast  be  supposed  to  be  the  ultimate  constituents  of 
all.  things,   Democritus   proved   with   the   observation 


rb  iikv  &s  t>y,  rb  8*  &s  ottK  hp  §Tycd 
tpriaiv,  Mefapk.  iv.  6, 1009  a,  2B :  «ol 
*fi»a^ay6pas  fjL€fjL7x^<^  *««'  ^^  wami 
<pri(n  fcat  Ari^6Kpiros  *  Ka\  ykp  otros 
rh  Ktvbv  Kott  rh  vKrjpts  Sfioius  xa^ 
Ariovy  inrdpx^iy  f-^pos,  Koiroi  rh  fiiy 
hv  roiruv  tlvai  rh  8i  /a9)  6y,  not  U> 
mention  later  writers.  Acxcording 
to  Theophrastue  (sup.  p.  217,  1), 
Leucippus  used  the  word  yturrhy 
(rssffrtpthp)  for  the  Void.  Simpl. 
De  Caelo,  133  a,  8,  Schol.  488  a,  18, 
asserts  this  stiU  more  distinctly  of 
Democritus:  /^rifi6Kp.  Tiyurcu  r^y 
rwv  hXZiav  <p6ffiy  fJpai  fAUCphs  oiKrias^ 
wKrjBos  inrtlpovT,  ra6rais  8^  n'lroy 
AWoy  bvoTidr}<riy  Airctpov  r^  ficy^tfct, 
wpocrayoptvii  Z^  rhy  fily  rSvoy  To7<rSc 
Tois  6v6fia(ny  Ty  T6  K^y<S  «al  t^J  oifBtyi 
Koi  r^  avtiptp,  r&y  84  oif<ri6oy  inda  T7\y 
r^  T^8e  Kol  T^  yarr^  kou  t^  6yrt» 
3id,  271  a,  43;  Schol.  514  a,  4, 
and  inf,  p.  220, 3 ;  Alex,  ad  Metaph. 
985  b,  4,  p.  27,  3  Bon. :  vKijpts  Bh 
I^Keyoy  rh  ffufjuL  rh  ray  iLr6fJMy  8t^ 
ycurr6rrird  re  ical  iLfxi^iay  rov  K^yov. 
According  to  Theod.  Cur.  Gr.  Aff. 
iv.  9,  p.  67,  Democritus  usud  vaarh 
to  express  the  atoms,  Motrodonis 
a8ia(pcra,  Epicurus  Urofta;  we 
shall  find,  however,  t;»/ra,  p.  219, 


3,  that  irofia  is  used  likewise  bj 
Democritus.  Stobsus,  Ed.  i.  306: 
Arifji6Kp.  rh,  yxurrk  kcCl  Keyi,\  similsrly 
i.  348.     Cf.  Mullach,  p.  142. 

'  According  to  Arist,  Pkys.  iv. 
6,  213  b,  the  arguments  of  Demo- 
critus in  favour  of  empty  space 
were  as  foUbws :  (11  Movement 
can  take  place  only  in  the  Void;  for 
the  Full  cannot  admit  anything  else 
into  itself  (this  is  further  supported 
by  the  observation  that  if  two 
bodies  could  be  in  the  same  space, 
innumerable  bodies  would  neoes' 
sarily  be  there,  and  the  smallest 
body  would  be  able  to  include  tbe 
greatest);  (2)  .Rarefaction  and 
condensation  can  only  be  explained 
by  empty  space  (cf.  c.  9  init) ;  (3) 
The  only  explanation  of  growth  is 
that  nourishment  penetrates  into 
the  empty  spaces  of  the  body ;  (4) 
Lastly,  Democritus  thought  he  had 
observed  that  a  vessel  filled  with 
ashes  holds  as  much  water  as  when 
it  is  empty,  so  that  the  ashes  mast 
disappear  into  the  empty  inter- 
spaces of  the  water. 

*  Cf.  Arist.  Metaph.  iv.  5  («*p. 
21 7, 4) ;  Phys.  iv.  6 ;  Themist  !%«• 
40  b,  p.  284  Sp. 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND   GENERAL  BASIS.      219 


already  supplied  to  him  by  Zeno,*  that  an  absolute 
divisioiL  would  leave  no  magnitude  remaining,  and 
therefore  nothing  at  all.^  Irrespectively  of  this,  how- 
ever, the  hypothesis  was  required  by  the  concept  of 
Being  which  the  Atomists  had  borrowed  fr(Mn  the 
Eleatics;  for,  according  to  this  concept.  Being  can 
only  be  defined  as  indivisible  unity.  Leucippus  and 
Democritus  accordingly  suppose  the  corporeal  to  be 
c  jmposed  of  parts  incapable  of  further  division ;  all 
consists,  they  say,  of  Atoms  and  the  Void.^ 

All  the  properties  which  the  Eleatics  ascribed  to 
Being  are  then  transferred  to  the  Atoms.     They  are 


>  Supra,  Vol.  I.  p.  614  sq. 

«  Arist.  Phys.  i.  3  (cf.  Vol.  I. 
618,  1);  Gen.  et  Corr,  i.  2,  316  a, 
13  sqq. ;  -where  the  fundamental 
thought  of  the  argument  given 
in  the  text  undoubtedly  belongs  to 
Bemocritus,  even  if  the  dialectical 
development  of  it  may  partly  ori- 
ginate with  Aristotle.  In  the 
previous  context  Aristotle  says, 
and  this  deserves  to  be  quoted 
in  proof  of  his  respect  for  Demo- 
oitus,  that  the  Atomistic  doctrine 
of  Democritus  and  Leucippus  has 
mach  more  in  its  farour  than  that 
of  the  Timteus  of  Plato:  aXnov  8i 
Toi)  ^  JXarroy  ZitvacrQai  rh  byuoKo' 
y^u*va  ffvvop^p  (so.  Thv  nXeCrcpva) 
^  arcip/a.  Jiih  iffoi  ivtpicfiKoun  /xoA Aoy 
iff  TO(f  ^vaucois  fiaWov  8</yairrai 
^oriBtffdai  roiovras  iipx^s  at  iw\ 
^oXhhCvcanai  (rvvtip^iy  oi  8^  ixruy 
voAA«K  \Aywy  iBt^pfi-roi  ruv  vTraf>r 
"X^PTw  i$>7€Sj  irphs  6jdya  fi\i<^a»r^s 
wo^wovrou  P^v.  Vioi  8'  6jf  rts  koH  ix 
TO^Wj  Urop  Zuiipipownv  ol  ^wTMat 
wi  AoyucMs  CKoxowres*  ircpl  ykft  too 
irofUL  HvQi  fity4Bii  ol  fUv  ^eunv  trirh 
^orpiywov  iroAX^  JfoTou,  Arffji^Kpi- 
Tos  V  y  ^wtlri  ocjccfois  not  ^virtKOLS 


\6yois  ir€ir6?<r0oi.  Fhilop.  Gen.  et 
Corr.  7  a,  8  b,  seems  to  have  no 
other  authority  than  Aristotle. 

•  Democr.  Fr.  Phys.  1  (ap.  Sext. 
Math.  vii.  136;  Pyrrh.  i.  213  sq.; 
Hut.  Adv,  Col.  8,  2;  Galen,  Be 
Elm.  Sec.  HvpTp.  i.  2  ;  i.  417  K) : 
i/<J/xy  yXvKh'KoL  {koX  should  no  doubt 
be  omitted)  v6iip  intcpi>Pf  v6fitp 
etpfihy,  v6fjup  y^vxp6v.  v6^itp  Xpo^'h ' 
irep  hh  &TOfia  koX  K^phv.  fiirep  pofii- 
(trai  fikp  tlpcu  Ka\  Zo^d(€TCU  7  it 
aiffBrir^t  ovk  Utrri  5i  Kar^  &X^0ciav 
ravra,  iiXXik  r&  &rofui  fi6pop  ical 
Kfp6p.  Further  references  are  un- 
necessary. That  the  term  &To/ia 
or  irofio*  {phiriak)  was  us^ni  by  De- 
mocritus, and  even  by  Leucippus, 
is  clear  from  this  fragment,  and 
also  from  Sim  pi.  Pkys,  7  a,  8  a ; 
C3ic.  Fin.  y.  6,  17;  Plut.  Adv.  CoL 
8,  4  sq.  (vide  p.  220,  4).  Else- 
where they  are  also  called  i^iai  or 
(Tx^ifjuara  (vide  inf.  220,  4),  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Void,  poark  (p  223,  3  X 
and  as  the  primitive  substances, 
according  to  Simp.  Phys.  310  a, 
apparently  also  ^wns  ;  the  latter, 
however,  seems  to  be  a  miscoQ** 
ception. 


220  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

underived  and  imperishable,  for  the  primitive  con- 
stituents of  all  things  cannot  have  arisen  from  anything 
else,  and  nothing  can  resolve  itself  into  nothing.*  They 
are  compleiely  filled,  and  contain  no  empty  space  ;^ 
and  are  consequently  indivisible ;  for  division  and 
plurality  are  only  possible  where  Being  or  the  Plenum 
is  divided  by  Non-Being  or  the  Vacuum ;  in  a  body 
which  has  absolutely  no  empty  space,  nothing  can  pene- 
trate by  which  its  parts  can  be  divided.'  For  the  same 
reason  in  their  internal  constitution  and  nature  they 
are  subject  to  no  change,  for  Being  as  such  is  unchange- 
able ;  that  which  contains  no  kind  of  Non-Being  must 
therefore  remain  always  the  same.  Where  there  are  no 
parts,  and  no  empty  interspaces,  no  displacement  of 
parts  can  occur;  that  which  allows  nothing  to  penetrate 
into  it  can  be  eflFected  by  no  external  influence  and 
experience  no  change  of  substance.*     The  Atoms  are 

»  Vide  p.  2 1 6, 1 ;  Plut  Plac,  i.  3,  Tide  previous  note.     His  statemeDt, 

28.     To  prore  that  all  things  are  however,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 

not  derived,  Democritus  appeals  to  independent  historical  evidence,  but 

the  fact  that  time  is  without  begin-  merely  as  his  own  emendation  of 

ning,  Arist.  Phys.  viii.  1,  251  b,  16.  that  of  Aristotle  (vide  Vol.  I-  P- 

«  Arist  Gen.  et  Corr,  i.  8  {sup.  632, 2).    Simpl.  De  Cah,  109  b,43; 

p.  216, 1):  rb  -yip  Kvpints  hy  ira/xxXn-  Schol.  in  Arist.  484  a,  24  :  ^X^yor 

6i$  6».     Philop.  in  h.  I.  36  a :  the  7^  oZrot  (Leucipp.  and  Democrit) 

indivisibility  of  the  atoms  was  thus  inrtlpovs  elyai  r^  irA^Oct  ras  Vx"* 

proved  by  Leucippus  :  UKocrrow  r&v  hs  koI  ar6fious  koI  iLBuupiroin  ^rrftfx- 

Dvray  ^cri  Kvplws  Sv   iv  8i  ry  tvTi  (op  ical  kiroBiii  8ii  rk  «i»Tif  «lw 

oviiv  iffTiv  ouK  I^Vy  &<rr«  ou5i  Ktv6»,  <cal  ikfioipovs  rov  ircvov.     Cic.  /^t<i.  !• 

ti  8i  oMp  K€vhy  iy  owrots,  T^i'  8i  6, 1 7 :  corpora  individua  propter toU- 

^Mipwiv  (lv9v  K^yov  iiZvvaToy  y§v4-  (2tYa^(?m,cf.p.216,4;217,l.  Asiodi- 

ffBai^  ii^vvarov  tpa  avrii  JiiaiptBijvcu,  visible  magnitude  unbroken  by  do 

■Arist.  Metaph.   vii.    13;   De  interspace,  every  atom  is  I*  {w<X"' 

Coelo,  iii.  4;  sup.  p.  216,3;  Gen,  as  the  Being  of  the  £leatie8,the 

et  Corr.  i.  8,  825  b,  6 :  ax^y  W  indivisibility  of  which  Pkrmesides 

Ka\    *ZtixthoKK€i    h,vayKouov   Xiytiy  had  also  proved  from  its  abeolate 

&vw€p  Kol   Ac^jrnnr^r   ^ijo-iy*    cTvat  homogeneousness,  ride  Vol  L  ^86, 

Tctp  irra  artptaf  hZialprra  5i,  ci  fi^  1 ;  685,  2. 
virrnTr6poi(rvy^X^'is^iaiv,  Philop.;  *  Vide  9up.  p.  216,  1;  216,3; 


ITS  PRINCIPLE  AND   GENERAL  BASIS,      221 


lastly,  according  to  their  substance,  absolutely  simple 
and  homogeneous ;  ^  for,  in  the  first  place,  on  this 
condition  only,  as  Democritus  believes,  could  they  work 
upon  each  other ;  ^   and  secondly,  as  Parmenides  had 


Arist.  De  Calo,  iii.  7  {sup.  p.  125, 
1);  Gm,  et  Corr.  i.  8,  325  a,  36: 
hvyiauov  &ra0^s  re  tKomrov  Xiy^iv 
rip  iiuupirtyy  oh  yhp  oT6v  re  irdt- 
^eur  iikK*  4  Hih  rov  icerov.  Flut. 
Adv.  Col.  8,  4  :  ri  yhp  Xryci  ArifjJ- 
cpcTOf;  oialas  kwflpQvs  rh  irXriBos 
MjAinn  re  jroi  ikSitu^povs  fri  8* 
kinlevt  Ktd  inraBus  iv  rf  iccv^ 
p4ftw9ai  9tt<nrapfA4yas'  trw  3e 
wfkiffttaw  kKkhXMSy  ^  ffvvLfiffwriv 
9  TfpiirXa««4n,  <^{vca-0<u  rwy  &9- 
potfoiUrmw  rh  fihy  08a>p,  rb  8i  irvp, 
T^  si  ^vrbr,  rh  8*  AyBpcgTov  tlvai  5i 
vdlrrarAi  &r^/Aovs  iS^os  (al.  28(a>s^ 
inr*  dnov  KaXovfi4vatf  Irepov  8e 
fn|8«r  ^«  fiJr  7Ap  rov  fiij  tmos  oIk 
*hmi  yhftffofy  ix  dl  rwf  6yruy  fifiHip 

MCTo/SdXActy  r&s  &r<(/LU>vs  dirb  artfpS' 
nrrot,  8^  oi^c  XP^<>*'  ^(  axp(«>(rrwy, 

[io^w]  ^dpxtiy  (and,  therefore, 
Bioee  they  are  colonrleBS,  no  colour 
can  arise  from  them,  and  since  they 
sre  vithout  properties  and  without 
life,  DO  ^iffis  or  sonl ;  so  far,  that 
ia,  as  we  have  respect  to  the  essence 
of  things,  and  not  merely  to  the 
phenomenon).  Galen.  De  Klem.  Sec. 
i%.  f.  2,  t.  i.  418  sq.  K  :  Airofiij 
V  imoriBtrrai  r&  irAfJuvra  ttvax  rhi 
Tpvra  .  .  .  oiS*  kKXoiowrdai  Korr^ 
Ti  8»Fc(^ieya  To^of  8^  r^f  &AXoi(6- 
'«if,  &f  Ivarres  Mptnroi  irewMrre*;- 
«w  c7nu  .  .  .  olov  oih^  B^p/xaiv^- 
ffAoi  rl  ^Qffiv  ix^iytap  oCrt  y^^x^^^t 
«.T.A.  (wp.  p.  220,  1)  fiin"  &X\riy 
ro^  9Xms  iwiB4xfff9at  iroi6ri^a 
nmk  iafi§iUtt»  furafioKfiy.  Biog. 
ix  44:  ^{  MfjLur  .  .  .  &irep 
<&au  ivotf^  Kol  &yaAAo(o^a  8i&  r^y 


ar§fp6nrra,    Simpl. ;  vide  previons 
note. 

*  Arist.  Phya.  iii.  4;  Philop.  n. 
Simpl.  in  h.  I.  cf.  infraj  p.  224,  2 : 
Arist.  2>tf  Ofo,  i.  7,  275  b,  29 :  ci 
8i  Ati)  (Twex^s  rh  irov,  iAA'  &ffwep 
\^ii  ^rifjiSKpiros  fcal  Acvjcnnros 
9iupi<rti4va  r^  «rcv^,  /ufay  &ya7Ka4oii' 
eTvoi  ir<£vrwv  rhv  Klyriniy.  ^u&piarcu 
fiiv  ykp  rots  ffxtlfUKrik'  r^v  8i  ^^iv 
ejyai  ipatriy  avr&y  fiiay,  &tnr€p  \y  ti 
Xpwrhs  ZKourroy  tiri  Kex^P^<^f^^yoy, 
Aristotle  consequently  calls  the 
Atoms  {Ph^a.  i.  2,  184  b,  21):  t8 
y4yos  ly,  axhy^ofri  8i  ^  el8ei  8ia^c- 
po^as  ^  Kol  iycanlas.  Simpl.  in 
h.l.  10  a,  1  :  dfioyty^h  koI  4k  rijs 
ainris  oiHrlas.  Id.  ibid.  35  b,  m: 
rh  ttSos  aifr&y  Koi  riiy  oMay  %y  koX 
&purfjL4yov,  Id.  De  Calo,  111  a,  5 ; 
Schol.  in  Arist.  484  a,  34 :  i,r6fiov5 
hfiolas  r^y  ^wtiy  (d/ioto^vcis  Karst.). 

*  Arist.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  7,  323 
b,  10:  Aiiifi6KpiTos  9h  waph  robs 
iWovs  Ibloos  fAe|e  fi6yos  (on  the 
woitiv  and  irdurx^iv)-  ^<rl  y^  rh 
abrh  jral  Zfiotoy  ttyeu  r6  re  woiovy 
Kol  irdirxoy'  oh  yhp  4yxo»p9ty  rA 
Irepa  «ra2  9M^4pcyra  wdtrxtiy  (nr* 
&AA^\a»y,  hWh.  ktty  mpa  6»ra  wotfi 
rt  6i£  AWriXOf  olx  i  €t»/>o,  iXX'  jj 
rain6y  ri  hrdpxtt,  ravrp  rovro 
cvfifittiytty  avrois.  Theophf.  De 
SenaUf  49  :  iiB6yaroyi4iprjffi  [Ai^/i^- 
Kp."]  rh  [1.  rij  fxh  raitrik  vd(rxctv, 
iAX&  Kol  lr€pa  6yra  voiuy  obx  irtpa 
[1.  olx  i  ^.],  AAA'  i)  [1.  J]  To6r<Jy 
ri  T(i0-x»  rois  hyLoiois,  Hiat  De- 
mocritus applied  this  principle  in 
the  manner  mentioned  above  is  not 
stated  expressly,  but  is  in  itself 
probable.    We  found  the  same  with 


222  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

already  shown,'  this  dissimilarity  of  one  from  another  is 
a  consequence  of  Non-Being ;  where  pure  Being  with- 
out Non-Being  is,  there  only  one  and  the  same  consti- 
tution of  this  Being  is  possible.  Our  senses  alone  show 
us  things  qualitatively  defined  and  distinct;  to  the 
primitive  bodies  themselves,  the  atoms,  we  must  not 
ascribe  any  of  these  particular  qualities,  but  merely 
that  without  which  an  existence,  or  a  body,  would  sot 
be  thinkable.*  In  other  words.  Being  is  only  the  sub- 
stance that  fills  space,  matter  as  such,  not  matter  de- 
fined in  any  particular  manner ;  for  all  definition  is 
exclusion,  each  determinate  substance  is  not  that  which 
others  are  :  it  is,  therefore,  not  merely  a  Being  but  a 
Non-Being.  The  Atomistic  doctrine  of  Being  in  all  these 
respects  differs  only  from  the  Eleatic  in  transferring  to 
the  many  particular  substances  that  which  Parmenides 
had  said  of  the  one  universal  substance  or  the  universe. 
But  the  homogeneousness  and  unchangeableness 
of  the  atoms  must  not  be  carried  so  far  as  to  render 
the  multiplicity  and  change  of  derived  things  impos- 
sible. If,  therefore,  our  philosophers  can  admit  no 
qualitative  differences  among  the  atoms,  they  must  all 
the  more  insist  that  quantitatively,  in  regard  to  their 
form,  their  magnitude,  and  their  reciprocal  relations 

Diogenes  (Vol.  I.  286,  2)  ;  and  as  terial  alone  as  a  real  Itk  rb  pf^ 

Diogenes  (according  to  Vol.  I.  300,  inroKutr^tu  ^uo-ci  olvBirrhwy  rir  «i 

2)  borrowed  from  Leucippns,  it  is  wdirra  ovyKpivowrw  &T6fmp  tiav 

certainly  possible  that  this  weighty  aUrBririis  iroi^nfrof  Ipij/ioy  tx^vfif 

observation  may  have    originally  ip^ffty,     Plutarch  and  Galen,  I  c- 

belonged  to  Leucippus.  with     less    exactitude,   calls  the 

>  Vide  Vol.  I.  p.  686,  1 ;   cf.  atoms  &iroia.     Further  details  will 

mipraj  216,  4.  presently  be  given  as  to  the  quali' 

<  Cf.  p.  219,  3 ;  Sext«  Math,  viii.  ties  predicated  or  denied  in  Rg&i^ 

6.    Democritus  regards  the  imma-  to  them. 


THE  ATOMS:   THEIR  FORM  AND  SIZE.      223 


in  space,  these  atoms  must  be  conceived  as  infinitely 
various.  Democritus  therefore  declared  that  the  atoms 
are  distinguished  from  each  other  in  regard  to  their 
shape,  their  order  and  their  position :  *  diflFerences  of 
size  and  weight  are  likewise  mentioned.  The  main 
distinction  is  that  of  shape,  which,  on  that  account,  is 
often  brought  forward  alone*  and  from  which  the 
atoms  themselves  are  named  forms.'  The  Atomistic 
philosophy  goes  on  to  maintain  that  not  only  the  atoms 
but  the  differences  of  shape  among  the  atoms  must  be 
infinite  in  number,  partly  because  there  is  no  reason 
why  one  shape  should  belong  to  them  more  than 
another ;  and  partly  because  only  on  this  supposition 


*  Arist.  Metaph.  i.  4,  after  the 
¥ordB  quoted,  p.  217, 1:  Jro«iir«p  ol 
U  voiovvTcs  rifv  ^oKUfitrriy  ohaiay 
riAXa  rots  Trd$€<rw  avrris  ywv&ffi 
.  .  .  rh9  uinhv  rpiwov  ko^  otroi  r^s 
^unpoflks  oirias  rw  JSlKKw  tlvcti  <par 
cv.  ravrus fAimoirptiSMJycuhdyowru 
vy^lid  Tf  Kol  rd^w  jrol  Bt<riy.  tut^- 
p€w  ydp  ^001  rh  hv  ^vc/jl^  «ral  9iaBiy^ 
wJ  Tp9w$  liivov  roinw  8i  6  fi^y 
h^f^s  ffX^fid  ^(TTiK,  ^  84  9ia0iyii 
r^is,  4  si  Tpowii  9i<nr  Zia^ip^i  T^p 
ri  fiky  A  rov  N  vxh^Joeri,  rh  84  AN 
Tov  NA  TdE^ci,  rh  54  Z  rov  N  OcVci. 
The  same  is  stated  more  briefly, 
ihii.  Tiii.  2,  init.  The  same  differ- 
ences amoDg  the  atoms  are  men- 
tionei  by  Arist.  PAy».  i.  5,  init; 
Gtn.  tt  Corr,  i.  1.  314  a,  21  c,  2, 
315  b,  33  c,  9,  327  a,  18.  These 
Btatements  are  then  repeated  by  his 
commoDtators :  Alex.  Metaph.  538 
b.  15  Bekk.  27,  7  Bon.;  Simpl. 
%«.  7  a,  8  a,  68  b  (8cM.  488  a, 
18 ;  Pbilop.  De  An,  B,  14 ;  Phyt.  C, 
14;  Gm.  ei  Corr,  3  b,  7  a.  'Pwr/Abs, 
ehancterised  by  Philop.  and  Suid. 
as  an  exprcssion  peculiar  to  Abdera, 


is  only  another  pronunciation  of 
PvOfiSs.  Diop.  ix.  47  speaks  of 
'writings  w.  r&v  9iaif>tp6vri0»  pvafA&y 
and  IT.  &fui}lftfpv<rfnay. 

*  For  example,  by  Aristotle, 
Pht/8,  i.  2;  De  Cah,  i.  7  (vide  p. 
221,  I);  Gen.  et  d/rr.  i.  8,  326  b, 
17  :  rots  fily  ydp  itrriy  iZiaipera  to 
irpSrra  r&v  ffoffidray^  <Tx(ifJ^<iri  Bicul>4' 
povra  fi6yoy,  and  afterwards,  326  a, 
14:  iAX^  fiV  drowoy  ica2  cl  firie^y 
{ncipx^i  AAA*  fi  fi6yoy  (rx^/to. 

•  Pint.  Adv.  Col,  I.  c.  ;  Arist. 
Phi/8,  iii.  4, 203  a,  21  :  {/^vp^Kpiros) 
iK  T^s  vayawtpfi'ms  r&y  Cxtiijuinroov 
(&ircfpa  iroi€»  rh.  arotxua)  ;  Gen.  et 
Carr.  i.  2,  see  following  note,  and 
inf,  p.  229.  4 ;  Ik  An.  I  2;  cf.  p. 
226,  n. ;  Ve  Bespir.  c.  4,  472  a,  4,  16 ; 
Simpl.  Phi/8.  •  7  a,  vide  p.  224,  1 . 
Democritus  had  himself  composed 
a  work  irepl  t^t&y  (Sext.  Math.  vii. 
137\  which,  no  doubt,  treated  of  the 
form  of  the  atom,  or  of  the  atoms 

generally.  Hesychius  says  194a,  no 
oubt  after  Democritus,  and  that  it 
meant  also  rh  ixdxurroy  a&fia^  cf. 
Mullach,  135. 


224 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


can  it  be  explained  that  things  are  so  infinitely  diverse, 
are  subject  to  so  many  changes  and  appear  so  differentlj 
to  diflFerent  people.*  Further,  the  atoms  are  distin- 
guished from  each  other  as  to  size,'  but  it  is  not  cleai 


»  Ariflt.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  2,  315 

b.  9 :  ^T«l  8*  4orT9  ritXyidh  fv  ry 
(^edytffBcu,  ivavrla  9^  ira2  &ireipa  r^ 

ffov,  fiffTc  Tots  fi^rafioKcus  too  <ruy- 
Kttfihovrb  avrh  iyaarriov  doKuv  SX\«f 
KoX  &\X^  fcol  firraKireTfrBcu  fUKpov  4fi» 
fjuyvvfiivov  KoH  i\c»s  trtpov  <palv§ffOcu 
Ms  fi€TaKiyri64yT05'  iic  r&y  ahr&v 
yhp  rpaytfi^ia  koL  Kt»vuf^ia  ylwerau 
ypafifidroor.  Ibid,  c,  1,  314  a,  21  : 
^7ifi6Kptros  8i  iced  AtvKiirxos  iK 
crufidrcoy  iJiieupirtov  r^iXXa  cuyKtT' 
(rBod  <pa(rt,  ravra  8*  &irrtpa  Kal  rh 
wKrjBos  theu  Kol  r^s  fiopfits,  abrk  Hi 
itphs  airrh,  Hia^4p€ir  (here  r2x\a  is 
again  the  subject)  To^rott  ^|  Sytltn 
(the  atoms  of  "which  they  consist) 
Koi  d4<rtt  Ka\  rd^Mi  rovrotv.     Ibid. 

c,  8,  326  b,  27 :  (Atiifiwroj)  &ir«(pois 
SipiffBcu  ifx^I'Mn  r&»  i^icuperuw 
irrept&v  fKBUTTor.  De  Cceto,  iii.  4, 
303  a.  5,  p.  21 6,  3 ;  ibid,  line  10 :  Jral 
wphs  Tovrots  ^cl  Sicu^^pci  rk  tnltfAa- 
ra  <rxhf"'^^^(^^^^  ^s  repeated  at  line 
30).  Kircipa  tl  r&  ax^f"*''''^  ftircipa 
KcU  rh  aw\a  aAfiard  ^atriy  tlvcu, 
De  An.  i.  2,  404  a,  1.  The  infinite 
number  of  the  atoms  is  very  often 
mentioned,  e.q.  Arist.  Phi/s,  iii.  4, 
203  a,  19  ;  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8,  326 
a,  30;  Simpl.  Pkys.  7  a;  Pint. 
Adv.  Col,  8,  4 ;  Diojt.  ix.  44  (who, 
however,  clumsily  adds  that  the 
atoms  are  also  unlimited  in  siee). 
Concerning  their  innumerable  and 
manifold  forms,  ffKoXiivk^  kyKwrp^- 
8i},  KoTXo,  Kvprk,  &e.,  cf.  Theophr. 
De  Sensu,  66  sq. ;  Id.  Metaph. 
{Fr.  34)  12,  where  he  censures  I)e- 
mocritus  for  the  irregularity  of  the 
forms  of  his  atoms ;  Oio.  N,  D.  i. 


24,  66 ;  Alexander,  ap.  Pfailopi 
Gen.  et  Corr.  3  b ;  Plat  Plae.  I  S,  '. 
30  (the  two  last  also  remark  the  ' 
divergence  of  Epicurus  on  Uii<  | 
point) ;  cf.  Prtrt  in.  a,  376,  second  i 
edition;  Themist.  Pkys.  32  a (22*2  \ 
sp.)  ;  Philop.  i>«  ^n.  B,  14;  SimpL 
Phy$.  7  a,  who  gives  as  a  ressoB 
for  this  definition,  appealing  to  the 
utterances  of  the  Atomists  thean- 
selves:  r&v  4v  tout  ^t^^is  trxv^ 
T»v  JiKtipov  rh  7rXriB6^  ^avi  Htk  r^ 
Htfikv  yMKKov  roiovTOv  %  rvalirt 
cTvoi  (cf.  Plut.  Crf.  4,  1  :  according 
to  Colotes,  Deraocritus  maintained : 
r&v  wpayfidrwf  I^Keurrov  ob  /iaA.\or 
TMor  9l  rotor  tlveu)^  and  previously, 
with  Aristotle :  rwp  ayim^^tn^  «■■ 
<rror  c2s  Mpaw  iKKOfffAodfjitwoif  <r^- 
xpuriv  &^X1yy  ToiffZy  HtiB^rv  Sen 
€h\6yvs  iiirtlpwp  obtrAw  rStw  3if>x**' 
itJarrarkiriBfi  icol  rkt  oboiashx^^ 
(reir  hnfiyyiWovro  ^  oS  re  yvnrm 
ical  ir»s.  hih  Koi  ^an  /t^MU  rms 
&irfipa  TTOtowri  rh  <rroixc<a  wirra 
<n/fL$aiv4trKe[rdi\6yop.  Id,  DeCalo, 
133  a,  24,  271  a,  43  {Sekd.  438  a, 
32,  614  a,  4)  ;  cf.  infra,  p.  232sq.; 
246,  1. 

■  Arist.  Phvs.  iii.  4,  203  a,  33 : 
/^7ifi6Kpirot  8*  ovBky  tr^por  i^  ^r^» 
ylyiftirBai  r&v  irpArmw  ^naiv  ^' 
ifjMS  7c  abrh  rh  miphr  o'&fM  itirrmr 
iorlv  hpx^,  fi€y4Bu  Korh,  fUp»  m^ 
tFX^fiart  ita^4pov,  which  is  repeated 
by  Philoponus,  Simplicius,  in  h.  I., 
and  others  (SchoL  m  Arist.  862  b, 
22  sq.) ;  Simpl.  De  Ccelo,  110  a,  1 ; 
133  a,  13  (ibid,  484  a,  27;  488  a, 
22) ;  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8  (inf.  p.  227, 
1 ).  Theophr.  De  Sensu,  60 :  A  ^cipc 
T0»  .  .  .  ri  pJ^p  rois  luy^oru,  rk  ^ 


THE  ATOMS:    THEIR  FORM  AND  SIZE. 


how  this  distinction  is  related  to  the  distinction  of  form.^ 
For  as  the  atoms  are  indivisible  only  because  there  is 
no  vacuom  in  them,  they  are  not  mathematical  points, 
but  bodies  of  a  certain  magnitude,^  and  in  this  respect 
they  may  be  as  different  as  they  are  in  form.  Demo- 
critos,  however,  supposed  that  all  atoms  are  too  small 
to  be  perceived  by  our  senses ; '  this  he  was  compelled  to 


SioplCci.  Rid,  61,  Tide  is^ra  226, 
1.    Pliit.i>toc.i.  8,  29;  4,1. 

1  On  the  one  hand,  as  has  just 
been  shown,  the  fonn  only  is  usually 
meotioned  as  that  by  which  the 
atoms  are  distinguished  from  one 
another,  and  so  we  might  suppose 
that  a  certain  size  was  connected 
with  each  form  (thus  Philop.  De 
An.  c  6,  conjectures  that  Demo- 
critna  regarded  the  spherical  atoms 
as  the  smallest;  because,  among 
bodies  of  equal  mass,  those  that 
are  spherical  have  the  smallest  ex- 
tent). On  the  other  hand,  among 
the  atoms  of  like  form,  greater 
and  smaller  are  distinguished,  as 
we  shall  presently  And,  in  respect 
to  the  roQud  atoms ;  and  conversely . 
atoms  of  various  forms  are,  on 
aecoont  of  their  agreement  in  sise, 
indnded  in  one  element.  Arist. 
Be  Casio,  iii.  4,  303  a,  12  (after  the 
qootation  on  p.  224, 1 ) :  -rotov  8i  icol 
W  ixdirrou  rb  crx^/Mt  r&y  iproix^iup 

rvpi  T^ir  ff^atpop  iatdBcMcay*  ikipa 
^  nd  fUmp  icfld  r2\A.a  fityidti  icol 
iuKfinfri  8tc<Xoy,  its  ottrw  ainw 
'*'^v  ^wrur  oTor  weannr€pfiia»  rcianwv 
Tw  0Toixci«i^;  for  they  suppose 
that  in  them  atoms  of  the  most 
TBiious  forms  are  mingled. 

'  Galen  (J>e  Elem,  sec.  Hipp,  i. 
2  T.  L  418  K)  says  that  Epicurus 
ngarded  the  atoms  as  ABpQv^ra 

VOL.  IL  Q 


dw6  <rK\rip6rrrroSt  Leucippus  as 
iXtaiptra  ^h  afUKp6T'n70s.  Sim- 
plicius,  Phys,  216  a,  says  that 
Leucippus  and  Democritus  con- 
sidered that  the  indivisibility  of 
primitive  bodies  arose  not  merely 
from  their  iardStM,  but  also  from 
the  VfUKfAp  ical  iLfuph ;  Epicurus,  on 
the  contraiy,  did  not  hold  them  to 
be  ikfA^pvi^  but  tvroita  8i&  r^»  &xcfc- 
0ctay.  Similarly,  in  De  OobIo,  271 
b,  1,  Sohol.  514  a,  14,  they  are 
spoken  of  as  8i&  aiuKp6rirra  ical 
vaffr6'ntTa  i,ro/u>t.  This  is  a  mis- 
take (perhaps  of  the  Epicureans) ; 
Aristotle's  polemic  against  the 
atoms  is  directed  against  the  ma- 
thematical atom  as  well  (De  CcbIo, 
iii.  4,  303  a,  20),  but  Democritus 
and  Leucippus,  as  Simpl.  Pkys.  18 
a,  acknowledges,  supposf^,  not 
that  the  atoms  were  mathematically 
indivisible,  but,  like  Epicurus,  that 
they  were  physically  indivisible. 

*  Sezt.  Math.  vii.  139:  \^u 
9k  Hark  \4^w '  "  yv(&firis  91 9^o  cltrlv 
li4<Ut  ^  fihy  yyii<rtri  ^  8i  ffKorlri  - 
Koi  ckotItis  pXv  rdSc  (vfivayra,  ^i, 
&ffoi^,  d8fi^,  ytwris,  ^vo-is'  ^  9k 
ytnrialri  kiroK€Koufifi4ni  [&iroiccKp<- 
jjJyri]  9k  (?)  Twryis."  ttra  irpoKpU 
vctvrris  CKorlfis  r^yyyiiirlnv  iirup4pti 
\(ywp  •  "  trcof  ii  ffKorlri  ftiyx^i 
9^yriTM  fi-ftrt  6pgy  h^  fKarrov  (see 
what  is  still  smaller),  fifrr*  &icoiW, 
ft^e  69fiSUr$m,  fiitr*  7c^<r0cu,  fiiyrt 
iy  tI  tlmOc9i  alffB^awrBaif  &A\'  M 


236 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


assume  because  every  substance  perceptible  to  sense  is 
divisible,  changeable,  and  of  determinate  quality.  Bat 
magnitude  directly  involves  weight,  for  weight  belongs 
to  every  body  as  such,  and  as  all  matter  is  homogeneous, 
it  must  equally  belong  to  all  bodies ;  so  that  all  bodies 
of  the  same  mass  are  of  the  same  weight :  the  propor- 
tion of  weight  of  particular  bodies  is  therefore  exclu- 
sively conditioned  by  the  proportion  of  their  masses, 
and  corresponds  entirely  with  this,  and  when  a  larger 
body  appears  to  be  lighter  than  a  smaller  one,  this  is 
only  because  it  contains  in  it  more  empty  space,  and 
therefore  its  mass  is  really  less  than  that  of  the  other.' 


X«irr^«par,"  there  (the  mesniog 
mast  be)  true  luowiedge  enters: 
Arist.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8  («*p.  p. 
215, 1) ;  Simpl.  De  Cmlo,  183  a,  18 
(&Ao/.  488  a,  22),&c.  The  atoms 
there  are  rightly  called,  in  Plut. 
Plae.  i.  8,  28,  Stob,  Eel.  i.  796. 
\6y^  (hmfnrrii,  though  the  expree- 
sion  may  originally  belong  to  Epi- 
enrus ;  and  AristoUe,  Gen,  et  Corr. 
i.  8,  326  a,  24,  censnres  the  Ato- 
mietic  doctrine  thus :  irowor  jral  rh 
fiucpa  fjAv  iJiitdpera  ^lyai  fuy^a  8^ 
f/iil.  When  Dionysine  ap.  Ems.  Pr. 
Ev.  ziv.  23,  3,  says  that  Epicuros 
believed  all  atoms  to  be  absolutely 
small  and  imperceptible  to  sense ; 
whereas  Democritus  supposed  some 
to  be  laige;  and  Stob.  Eel.  i.  848, 
asserts  that  Democritus  thought  it 
possible  that  an  atom  maybe  as 
large  as  a  world — ^this  is  certainly 
erroneous.  It  would  .be  more 
reasonable  to  infer  from  Arist.  De 
An,  i.  2,  404  a,  1,  that  the  atoms 
were  under  certain  circumstances 
Tisible.  Aristotle  here  says  of 
Democritus:  &ircfp«y  7^  iirrmv 
<rxi?/uiT»y  jrol  kr6}A»y  r&  <r^aipotiJMi 


iv  reus  h*k  rmv  BvpOktr  kiertinw,  lod 
these  words  are  too  ezplidt  to 
justify  Philoponus  (De  An»  B  U 
Gem.  et  Corr,  9  b)  in  citini;  the 
motes  of  the  sunbeam  as  an  ex- 
ample of  bodies  which  usuallj 
escape  our  senses.  Bat  if  Demo- 
critus, in  connection  with  a  Pythi* 
gorean  theory  {emp*  Vol.  L  p.  476i 
2),  supposed  that  these  mocM  con- 
sisted of  similar  atoms  to  the  soul 
he  might  still  consider  them  v 
aggregations  of  those  atoms,  th^ 
particular  constituents  of  yf^ 
we  cannot  distinguish. 

^  These  propositions,  so  impo^ 
tant  in  rei^ard  to  the  subseqwot 
theory  of  Nature,  are  an  immediate 
consequence  of  the  qualitstire 
homogeneousness  of  all  matter. 
The  Atomists  were  aware  of  these 
consequences,  as  Aristotle  shovs 
{De  Ceslo,  ir.  2,  308  b,  36) :  rk  J< 
wp&ra  ital  &rof»a  rots  fi^p  Mt^ 
Xiyowtv  4^  £y  <rvif4ffr7iKt  rk  fiipoi 
Ixoi^a  f^t^  ff^fidruv  (Plato)  Aroror 
rh   ^dyatf   rots  8i   <rrc^a  ^loAAw 


THE  ATOMS:   THEIR  SIZE  AND  WEIGHT,    227 


Thus  the  Atoms  must  have  weight,  and  the  same  speci- 
fic weight ;  but  at  the  same  time  they  must  differ  in 
weight  quite  as  much  as  in  magnitude.^  This  doctrine 
is  of  great  importance  for  the  Atomistic  system :  texts 
which  maintain  the   contrary  ^  are   to  be   considered 


fiapvTfpoir  obrAr'  (Democritus  does 
DOC  My  this,  Tide  following  note)  : 

WTo*  TovTow  fx^iv  Hkottov  rhp 
rp6ww,  iXX^  ToAX^  jSopvrcpa  SpA- 
IMF  ikArrm  rhr  tyianf  tma,  KoBdirtp 
ipiov  xa^^v'f  tr^pov  rh  driov 
oforrof  Tf  jcal  X^wruf  ivtoi  (Ato- 
mists,  DO  doubt  Democritus)  rh 
7^  ny&y  ifjL'weptkofifiaifdfAtroy  kov- 
^i(€Uf  rh  tni/iard  ^affi  jrol  irouuf 
Itrnw  in  rh  fitiCsi  Kov^^tpa,  irXuov 
ihp  ix^iv  K€r6y,  9A  rovro  yhp  Kcd 
T^r  ijKop  iUnu.  fA*lC«f  (TvyKtifttva 
vWdxif  i^  Iffwp  a'r€ptur  ^  icol 
AttTT^ycM'.  SAws  8i  jcoi  wcarrhs 
bI'tuw  cTrou  rov  Kov^tnipov  rh 
rXHȴ  iwvrdpxfty  kw6p  .  .  .  8iA 
7^  Tovro  jcoil  rb  vvp  cTvof  ^acri 
Mvf^oroy,  8ti  irXtiffrov  lx«*  icw6v, 
Theophr.  Ih  Sensu,  61 :  ^apb  fihp 
oh  Koi  Kov^p  r^  fjLrY4$«t  Hicuptt 
A^rutUptros,  ci  yhp  ^uucptBtiii  %p 
txarrw  (the  indiTidual  atoms),  d 
Kol  cord  vxyifJM  dta^4poi  (so  Uiat 
thej  cannot  therefore  be  measured 
by  one  another),  <rra$fjAp  hp  4wl 
Hty4$n  riip  KpWtw  [so  I  read  with 
fteller,  B.  Phil,  Ch-.-rtm.  §  84  for 
P^ai]  Ix**'-  o*  mV  4X\'  ifi'  76  rots 
futrroU  Kov^€pov  &y  tlpeu  rh  itXiop 
hop  Ktvhp,  ^afi6r€pop  8i  rh  IfKar- 
row.  h  ip{oiS  fijkp  otrvs  ttpriKtp' 
h  iXXotf  8i  Kov^p  ttpcd  ^irip 
wASi  rh  \€wr6p.  The  words  el 
7^  8uucpi0.  ~<rra9/A^y  are  partly 
based  on  my  own  conjecture,  and 
partly  on  MnlUch,  p.  214,  346  sq. 
Various  conjectural  readings  have 
been  suggested  to  complete  the 


text,  by  Schneider  and  Wimmer  in 
their  editions ;  Burchard,  Demoer. 
Phil  de  Sens,  15;  Philippson,  "TAij 
iofBpvitirti,  136 ;  Fapencordt,  Atom, 
Doctr,  63 ;  and  PreUer,  I,  e.  The 
text  itself  stands  thus:  ftl  yhp 
9ieucpi9f  Mtv  %Kwrropf  cl  leal  Kcerk 
irxyifJM  9ieb^4poij  9M^4p4t  ffraSfihy, 
etc.  Of.  also  Simpl.  J)e  Ccdo,  302 
b.  36  {SehoL  616  b,  1) ;  Alex.  ap. 
Simpl.  ibid,  306  b,  28  sq.  {Schol, 
617  a,  3). 

'  Vide  previous  note  and  Arist. 
Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8,  626  a,  9  :  ttairoi 
fia{*iTtp6p  7ff  Karh  r^p  Irt^poxhy 
^<riP  cTvai  ATifA6icpiros  tKcurrov  rSn 
idieup4r»p,  Simpl.  De  CobIo,  251 
b.  27 ;  'S^^^.  in  Arist.  610  b,  30 ; 
vide  infra.  Further  details,  p.  241 . 

*  So  Plut.  Plac.  i.  3,  29.  Epi- 
curus ascribed  form,  magnitude, 
and  weight  to  the  atoms:  AnuS- 
Kpiros  fi^p  yhp  IXcTc  8^,  fi4y€$6s 
Tc  Kot  (rxi?tia'  ^  8*  *Ex(jcoi^f  ro^ 
rois  Koi  rpirop,  rh  fidpof,  4ir4(ht- 
K9P,  Stob.  i.  348  (cf.  p.  226,  3): 
hJiiiAKp.  rh  TcpSerd  pii<n  trAfuvra, 
ravra  S*  ^p  rh  paerrhf  fidpos  ft^p  ovk 
iTxcii'i  iriPtiiffBeu  5^  Kor*  hWifKorvKltuf 
4p  r^  hwtlp^.  Cic.  De  Fato,  20, 
46.  Epicurus  represented  the 
atoms  as  moved  by  their  weight, 
Democritus  by  impact.  Alex,  on 
Metaph,  i.  4,  986  b,  4:  oM*  yhp 
ir68fp  ^  fiap^nis  4p  rait  h'-6fiois 
\4yowrr  rhyhp  hfup'fi  rh  4xiPoo6' 
fttpa  rout  kriiAOts  ical  ii.4pii  6pra 
ahrSop  h^ap%  ^atrip  ffyia.  Alexan- 
der here  appeals  to  the  third  book 
of  Aristotle.  V.  obpapov ;  but  seems 
to  refer  what  is  said  in  the  first 


Q  2 


228 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


erroneous.  ConcemiDg  the  differences  of  the  atoms  as 
to  place  and  order,  Democritus  seems  to  have  given  no 
farther  or  more  general  definitions ;  at  any  rate,  tradition 
has  preserved  nothing  beyond  what  we  have  already 
quoted.* 

The  Void  was  conceived  by  the  Atomists  as  un- 
limited ;  this  was  required,  not  only  by  the  infinite 
number  of  the  atoms,  but  also  by  the  idea  of  empty 
space.^  The  atoms  are  comprehended  by  the  Void,* 
and  by  it  are  separated  from  each  other ;  ^  wherever 
therefore  there  is  a  combination  of  atoms,  there  neces- 
sarily is  the  Void ;  it  is,  like  the  Plenum,  in  all  things.' 
This  definition,  however,  was  not  so  rigorously  carried 
out  by  the  founders  of  the  Atomistic  philosophy  that 
they  admitted  no  direct  contact  of  the  atoms  with 


chapter  againfit  the  Platonic  con- 
fitraction  of  the  elements,  wrongly, 
to  LencippuB  and  DemocrituB,  who 
admitted  no  parts  in  the  atoms. 

'  The  diflerenc4»  of  place  and 
form,  which  Aristotle  enumerates 
(Phy9,  i.  b\  he  gires  not  in  the 
name  of  Democritns,  but  in  his 
own. 

*  Arist.  De  Calo,  iii.  2,  300  b, 
8 :  tatvKhrwtp  teal  AiiiiokpIt^  rots 
Xiyovffiv  kA    KivuirBai  ra    irpwra 

AffjcTtov  riifa  KltniffUf  ical  ris  4i  Kark 
^6ffiv  wbr&r  Klvti<^is,  Cic.  Fin.  i.  6 
(V.);  Simpl.  Phys,  144  b;  De 
CcOo,  91  b,  86,  300  b,  1  {Sehol. 
480  a.  38,  616  a,  37) ;  Stob.  Eel  i. 
380;  Pint.  Plae,  i.  3,  28.  Ac- 
cording to  Simpl.  Phi/s.  133  a,  De- 
mocritus distinguished  from  the 
Void,  Space  (t^toj),  by  which,  like 
Epicurus  after  him  (Part  ni.  a, 
373,  second  edition),  he  understood 


the  distance  between  the  ends  of 
what  surrounds  a  body  {th  idtrniU' 
rh  firrtifff  rdv  ^axirmv  rw  ttpU- 
Xomos),  a  distance  which  is  Bome- 
times  fiUed  with  a  body  spd 
sometimes  empty.  But  it  is  quite 
possible  that  Democritus,  vhoM 
definitions  are  coupled  by  Siip* 
plicius  with  those  of  Bpicnras,  did 
not  formulate  his  theory  so  exactly. 
Phys.  124  a.  SimpliciuB  Bays:  ▼« 
yhp  Ktvhtt  r^0¥  cTircy  6  Aiifi^KftTos. 
Similarly  89  b. 

'  Vide  previous  note,  and  P* 
215,  1. 

*  Arist.  De  Calo,  i.  7,  275  b, 
29  :  #2  9h  fiii  <rvyexb  rh  irar,  &XX' 
&a'w§p  \^€i  AfifjAKptros  tcaU  hwat*- 
wos,  tmpurfxivar^  iccr^.  Phut,  iv- 
6  (cf.  p.  216,  4)  where  there  w  iJ» 
an  allusion  to  the  similar  doetzioe 
of  the  Pythagoreans. 

'  Arist.  MetapK  ir.  6;  ff|p.  P- 
217,  4,  &c. 


THE  VOID. 


each  other ;  *  it  was  only  the  actual  uniting  of  the 
atoms  which  they  denied.' 

According  to  these  presuppositions,  all  qualities  of 
things  must  be  reduced  to  the  amount,  magnitude,  form 
and  relations  in  space,  of  the  atoms  of  which  they 
consist,  and  all  change  in  things  must  be  reduced  to 
an  altered  combination  of  atoms.'  A  thing  arises  when 
a  complex  of  atoms  is  formed ;  it  passes  away,  when 
such  a  complex  is  dissolved  ;  it  changes  when  the  place 
and  position  of  the  atoms  is  changed,  or  a  portion  of 
them  is  displaced  by  others ;  it  augments  when  new 
atoms  are  added  to  the  complex ;  it  decreases  when 
some  atoms  are  separated  from  it.^     Similarly  all  in- 


1  Cf.  Arist.  Phys,  iii.  4,  203  a, 
19 :  &roi  8*  ftircipa  itoiovin  rh  aroi- 
XcTo,  KiMwtp  ^Awa^CBy6pas  icat  Ai)/i^- 
Kpnot  ,  ,  ,  rf  k^  crwex^  t^ 
ircipor  cZral  ^oo'iv.  Gen.  et  Corr. 
i.  8  {mp.p.  216,  1)1  iroiw  Z\  iral 
'siaxwf  f  TvyxSannHnv  airr6fitvaf 
ihid.  326  b,  29.  Plato,  as  well  as 
Leucippofl,  Bapposed  the  atoms  to 
hare  a  definite  form  :  4k  8^  roiruw 
«i  ywiffus  mX  al  9taKpl<r€U,  Acvicfir- 
9f  ^9  Z6o  rpiwoi  iL¥  §Uv  [sc.  r^s 
Tfi^Ms  col  9taKpl<rtws\  M  re  rov 
cfw  ml  8t&  T^»  a^ff  (ra^  7^^ 

T^r  k^p  nAwov,  Ibid.  326  a,  81, 
»  directed  against  the  Atomis:8  : 
fi  fihf  yiip  yia  ^icis  iirrlr  awdrrwif 
ri  rh  x«p(<ray ;  ^  81^  rl  od  yiyytrat 
^fitwa  Ir,  6(nrcp  08«/»  SSoros  Stok 
9ty^;  Simpl  De  Cctlo,  133  a,  IS ; 
SM.  488  a,  26.  There  is  no  con- 
tradiction here  with  the  passage 
quoted  above,  note  2,  which  asserts 
that  the  world  is  not  trw^x^s ;  for 
that  vhich  merely  touches  can  form 
indeed  a  connected  mass  in  space, 
and  80  far  may  be  called  vwtx^s  rp 


k^ ;  bat  it  is  still  withont  internal 
connection,  and,  therefore,  not  in 
the  strict  sense  <rw*x^s.  Vide  Phya. 
Tiii.  4,  266  a,  13;  Simpl.  Phys. 
106  b,  where  this  expression  is  thus 
amended :  r$  a^  <rvrcxiC'^/i<i'a  iAX' 
ohx^  'if  h4f9u,  cf.  inf.  p.  246,  1. 
We  have,  therefore,  no  right  to 
understand  contact  in  the  Aristo- 
telian passages  as  referring  merely 
to  close  proximity,  as  is  done  by 
Fhilop.  Gen,  et  Corr.  36  a. 

*  Cf.previous  note,  and  p.  21 6, 3. 

*  Cf.  Simpl.  De  Calo,  262  b,  40 
{8ehol.  blQ  tL,  41):  Ai^fitficpirof  8^, 
its  BtS^patrros  4w  ro7s  ^wrucois  loro- 
pet,  &s  IZiuruuit  itxo9i96yTU9  r&v 
Kark  rh  Btpfihr  itaki  nh  t^vxp^y  KaH  rii 
roioSra    {drioKoyo^yrwyf    M     riis 

*  Anst  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  2,  316 
b,  6 :  AiifASicpnos  8i  icol  Ac^«ci«irof 
iroiii<rayT€s  r&  (rx^t/uera  r^v  &XXof<0- 
criv  Ktd  7^y  y4w€fftp  iic  roirwp  woiowri 
9iaKpl<r€i  fxtv  koI  <TvyKpi<rti  yivwiw 
Kal  ^ophv,  rifyi  U  Kal  Bicu  &X- 
Xolwriv,  &c. ;  ibid.  c.  8  (p.  216.  1). 
Ibid.  c.  9,  327,  16:  6piifU9  ih  rh 


230 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


duence  of  one  thing  upon  another  is  of  a  mechanical 
kind,  and  consists  in  pressure  and  percussion ;  if,  there- 
fore, a  merely  dynamical  influence  seems  to  be  produced 
from  a  distance,  we  must  suppose  that  it  is  in  reality 
mechanical,  and  as  such  brought  about  by  contact 
The  Atomists,  therefore,  seek  to  explain  all  such  phe- 
nomena, as  Empedocles  did,  by  the  doctrine  of  emana- 
tions.^ If,  lastly,  many  and  various  physical  properties 
appear  to  belong  to  things,  these  also  must  be  explained 
mechanically  by  the  quantitative  relations  of  the  atoms. 
According  to  their  substance,  all  things  are  alike ;  only 
the  form,  size,  and  combination  of  their  original  con- 
stituents are  dififerent.  But  among  these  derived 
qualities  themselves  there  is   an  essential  difference. 


ahrh  ff&fJM  (Twtx^s  %¥  M  fikv  tyf^v 

avMcrti  rovTO  iroD^y,  oM  rpov^ 
Kcu  9iaBiy^,  KoBdirtp  \4y€i  AiUJuiKpi' 
tos,  Metaph,  i.  4,  p.  223,  1.  Phys. 
viii.  9,  265  b,  24 :  the  Atomists 
ascribe  movement  in  space  only  to 
the  primitive  bodies,  and  all  other 
movements  to  derived  bodies :  Qib(,d- 
vtffBai  yhp  kcU  ^$lv€t¥  koH  AaAoiov- 
<rOai  (TvyKpivofUvmfKai  ^uucpirofidwup 
T&v  h,r6ijmv  trciffidroty  ^flurtV,  which 
Simpl.  in  A.  /.  310  a,  constantly  re- 
peats ;  De  Ccelo,  iii.  4,  7  (««p.  p. 
216, 3;  125,  7);  Simpl.  Categ.  Schcl, 
in  Ar.  91  a,  36;  Galen,  De  Elem, 
sec.  Hipp,  i.  9,  T.  I.  483  K,  &c. 

>  Cf.  Arist.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  8 
{mp.  p.  215,  1).  Leucippus  and 
Democritus  derive  all  action  and 
suffering  from  contact.  One  thing 
suffers  from  another,  if  parts  of  the 
latter  penetrate  the  empty  inter- 
spaces of  the  former.  Alex.  Aphr. 
( Qtf .  Nat,  ii.  23,  p.  137  Sp.)  mentions 
the  emanations  more  distinctly ;  he 


telU  us  that  Democritus,  like  Em- 
pedocles {8tgp.  p.  134, 1),  sought  to 
explain  the  attractive  power  of  the 
millet  (on  which,  according  to 
Dioff.  ix.  47,  he  wrote  a  treatise) 
on  this  theory.  He  thought  that 
the  magnet  and  the  ircm  consist  of 
atoms  of  similar  nature,  but  vhich 
are  less  closely  packed  together  in 
the  magnet.  As  on  the  one  hand^ 
like  draws  to  like,  and  on  the  other, 
all  moves  in  the  Void,  the  anana- 
tions  of  the  magnet  penetrate  the 
iron,  and  press  out  a  part  of  its 
atoms,  which,  on  their  side,  strain 
towards  the  magnet,  and  penetrate 
its  empty  interspaces.  The  iron 
itself  follows  this  movement^  while 
the  magnet  does  not  move  towards 
the  iron,  because  the  iron  has 
fewer  spaces  for  receiving  its  effln- 
ences.  Another  and  a  more  im- 
portant application  of  this  doctrine, 
in  which  Democritus  also  agreed 
with  Empedocles,  will  be  fonod  in 
the  section  on  sense-peioeptioDS. 


QUALITIES  OF  THINGS. 


231 


Some  of  them  follow  immediately  from  tbe  relative 
proportion  of  the  atoms  in  combination,  irrespectively 
of  the  manner  in  which  we  perceive  them ;  they  there- 
fore belong  to  the  things  themselves.  Others,  on  the 
contrary,  result  indirectly  from  our  perception  of  those 
proportions  and  combinations;  they,  therefore,  primarily 
belong  not  to  the  nature  of  things,  but  to  the  sensations 
caused  by  things.^  These  consist  in  weight,  density, 
and  hardness,  to  which  Democritus  adds  heat  and  cold, 
taste  and  colour.'  That  these  qualities  do  not  present 
the  objective  constitution  of  the  thing  purely,  he  showed 
from  the  different  impression  produced  by  the  same 
objects,  in  the  above-mentioned  respects,  upon  different 
persons  and  in  different  circumstances.'     But  they  are 


*  Here  we  ftnt  meet  with  the 
distinction  of  primaiy  and  secon- 
darj  qtialitiee,  afterwards  intro- 
daeed  b  j  Locke,  and  of  such  great 
importanoe  fox  the  theory  of  know- 


'  Democrit.  mp.  p.  219, 3 ;  Theo- 
phr.  De  Smuu,  63  (cf.  68  sq.)  on 
Demociit. :  vcp)  /iir  o2r  fiaptos  icaL 
uv^v  Ka2  <rK\ripw  ictH  fxaXeucov 
h  Toirou  it^plCti'  tw  d*  iWu9 
nahfrmv  oM«v^t  «7ycu  0^iv,  &XA.& 
vArra  ndBn  T^t  iuo-^crc»f  &AAoiov- 

0^8)  yiip  rov  i^vxpov  Kol  rod  0€pfjLOv 
^a  intipx^ip,  iJOsjk  rh^XTi/UL  [sc 
Twr  kr6fU9u]  fjLsrctwl'grov  ipydiwBai 
td  t^v  iifuripay  AWoiotcuf'  8  ri 
yip  Ir  6$pow  J  toCt*  4n<rx^tw 
inirr^,  rh  8*  c2f  fwcpii  Ztav^finiiAvov 
iimiffiirmf  •hoi.  Gf .  Arist.  J>e  An, 
iii.  2,  426  a,  20;  Simpl.  Phya.  119 
h;  De  Jn.  64  a;  Sext.  Math. 
Tiii.  6,  etc  The  words  of  Dioge- 
nes, iz.  46,  belong  no  doubt  to 
this  oonnectioii;  in  our  text  they 


make  nonsense:  woinrd  Si  y6fufia 

According  to  Democrit.  /.  e,,  it 
should  stand  thus:  iroi^nrras  9k 
p6iup  €lyatf  etc. 

'  Theophrastns  continues:  fni- 
lulov  th^  is  obic  flal  ^^ei,  rh  fiii 
Toibrh  waai  ^aiv€a'$ai  rois  C^ois, 
&XX'  t  ^/uy  yXwcb  TovT*  ((XXois 
wucphPf  irai  Mpois  o^h  iccti  6XKoif 
fyifthf  rots  tk  erpv^v6p'  jca)  t&  J(AAa 
9i  &ffa;6rwSj  In  8*  ainobs  (the  per- 
ceiving subject)  flerafid^^,€^p  rf 
KpJurti  (the  mixture  of  their  cor- 
poreal ingredient  changes ;  others, 
however,  read  tcplirti)  nal  [1.  icor^J 
rd  irdBri  icaX  rdf  ^XikUu*  f  ical  ^ayc- 
php  &s  ii  5fd9c<rif  alrla  t^s  ^ayra- 
alaSf  ibid.  §  67.  The  same  reasons 
for  the  uncertainty  of  the  sense- 
perceptions  are  mentioned  by  Aris- 
totle, Meia^h,  iv.  5,  1009  b,  1,  as 
belonging,  it  would  seem,  to  Demo- 
critus. Cf.  Democrit.  ap.  Sext. 
Math.  vii.  136:  V^«j  8i  r^  fi^hv 
i6m  oMp  ArpcK^f  ^vpU/up,  fAcro- 


232  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 

of  couTBe  based  upon  something  objective,  and  the 
philosopher's  task  is  to  point  out  what  this  is,  by  de- 
fining the  form  and  relations  of  the  atoms  by  which 
the  sensations  of  heat,  colour,  &c.,  are  brought  about 

Of  the  primary  qualities  of  things,  their  weight  is 
reduced  by  Democritus  simply  to  their  mass:  the 
greater  the  mass  of  a  body,  after  subtracting  the 
void  interspaces,  the  heavier  it  is ;  if  the  extent  be 
equal,  the  weight  must  therefore  correspond  with  the 
density.^  Similarly  hardness  must  be  conditioned  by 
the  proportion  of  the  empty  and  the  full  in  bodies ; 
yet  it  depends  not  merely  on  the  number  and  size  of 
the  empty  interspaces,  but  also  on  the  manner  of  their 
distribution:  a  body  which  is  intersected  equally  at 
many  points  by  the  Void,  may  possibly  be  less  hard 
than  another  body  which  has  larger  interspaces,  but 
also  larger  unbroken  portions ;  even  though  the  former, 
taken  as  a  whole,  contains  in  an  equal  space  less  of  the 
Void.  Lead  is  denser  and  heavier,  but  softer  than 
iron.* 

The  secondary  qualities  were  generally  derived  hy 
Democritus  from  the  form,  the  size  and  the  order  of 
the  atoms;  for  he  supposed  that  a  body  produces 
different  sensations  according  as  it  touches  our  senses 
with  atoms  of  such  or  such  form  or  magnitude  arranged 
in  closer  or  looser,  equal  or  unequal,  order ; '  and  that, 

wivrov  8^  Kord  re  cr^fiaros  itoBiy^p  Gen,  et  Corr,  39  b  ;  cf.  Aiist  G^- 

[«T(i{iy,  cf.  p.  223, 1]  jcoi  rw  itrti-  et  Corr,  i.  8, 326  a,  23. 

vi6vrtiv  KoX  T«r  iivrnmipi{6rrwv.  *  Theophrastus,  /.  c,  62. 

*  Vide  sup.  p.  226  on  the  den-  '  This  Tosalts  also  irom  whftt 

fiity  of  the  atoms  as  a  consequence  is  said  of  particular  ooloors  An<i 

of  their  close  juxtaposition.  Simpl.  tastes,  Arist.  Gen,  et  Con.  i.  2, 

Catc-^.  (Basil.  1551)68  7;  PhUop.  316  a,   1:    x^ih^  otf  ^^cr  *\^ 


QUALITIES  OF  THINGS, 


2da 


therefore,  one  and  the  same  object  appears  to  us  dif- 
ferently {e.g.  iraxmer  or  colder),  according  as  the  atoms 
of  one  or  other  kind  of  which  it  is  composed,  impinge 
upon  our  organs  of  sense  in  sufficient  mass  to  produce 
a  perceptible  impression.^  His  more  precise  definitions 
relate  chiefly,  as  Theophrastus  says,^  to  colours  and  to 
the  qualities  perceptible  to  taste.  What  Theophrastus 
tells  us  on  both  subjects  '  is  a  further  proof  of  the  care 
with  which  Democritus  sought  to  explain  natural 
phenomena  by  means  of  his  general  presuppositions ; 
but  this  is  not  the  place  to  follow  up  such  details. 
We  have  still  to  notice  the  opinion  of  Democritus 

[Aj|/i^jcp.],  Tpotrgyiift  xp*'tMTi(ttrBat. 
Theophr.  I.  c.  63  (««p.  p.  231,  2); 
and  and.  64 :  oh  fiify  &AAcl  &<nr€p 
ical  rh  &AAa  ical  raXira  (Heat,  Taste, 
Colour)  iLyari0rj4ri  rols  trxfl/Juuri, 
ilrid.  67,  72.  Caus.  Plant,  vi.  2,  3  : 
irowow  8c  Kiuctiyo  rois  t&  ax^ftara 
X^vo-iy  [ec  oXtco  r&y  x^f^^^]  ^ 
rfir  ifulwp  itcbpopA  Korcl  ftocpdrirra 
Kol  fi/ty9$os  c{ff   T^   fiif  T^y  oMiy 

*  Vide  the  concluding  words  of 
the  passage,  quoted  p.  231,  2,  and 
Theophrastus,  Be  Sensu,  67  :  &ara^ 
T»f  3«  ntl  rdf  iWoa  iKdarov  Svydfitit 
oToSitwinyy  Mrfwv  tU  rd  axi^fictra" 
iatditrmf  Z^  rSv  trxnfJuiTonf  o{f9hv 
iiciptuoy  thai  icflU  i^ityks  rciis  HXKois, 
4XA*  iy  iKdffriff  (SC.  X^^V)  iroXA-i 
<Zku  jBol  rhy  ainhy  tx"'^  A«^ov  koX 
Tpax^os  ffol  irepi^cfwvs  xal  h^ios  KctL 
TMr  Xonrvv*  h  if  t»  ivf  iF\€iaroy, 
rovTo  fi4\t4rTa  ivicxOuv  irp6s  re  t^v 
tMhiffiy  Ktu  riiv  i^yafitv,  (Similarly 
Anazagoras,  vide  infra,)  Cf.  also 
ArisL  Mdaph.  iv.  6 ;  mp.  p.  217,  4 ; 
Be  Gen,  et  Can,  i.  2,  316  b,  9; 
Pblop.  ad  k.  I.  6  a,  and  the  sec- 
ion  on  the  senses. 

*  Ik    8enau,  64;    Fr.  4    {Be 


Odor.)f  64.  Theophr.  also  remarks 
on  the  want  of  exact  definitions 
respecting  colours,  and  the  form  of 
the  atoms  corresponding  to  each 
colour. 

'  On  tastes,  which  must  be 
regulated  by  the  form  of  the  atoms 
touching  the  tongue,  I,  c.  65-72 ; 
De  Caua.  Plant,  vi.  1,  2,  6,  c.  6, 
1,  7,  2;  Fr,  4,  De  Odor.  64;  cf. 
Alex.  De  Sensu,  106  b  (which 
Arist.  De  Sensu,  c.  4,  441  a,  6, 
refers  to  Democritus),  J  09  a.  On 
colours,  among  which  Democritus 
regards  white,  black,  red  and  green 
as  the  four  primitive  colours,  De 
Sensu,  73-82,  cf.  Stob.  Eel  i. 
364;  Arist.  De  Sensu,  c.  4,  442 
b,  1 1  :  rb  yitp  Kwkby  xai  rh  fi4\ay 
rh  fiky  'rpaxjb  pri<riy  tlvcu  [ArifiSKp.) 
rh  9i  Xcfoy,  tis  3^  T&  (TxhtMra 
iiydyu  rohs  x^fto^s.  Ibid.  c.  3, 
440  a,  15  sq. ;  Alex.  I.  c,  103  a, 
109  a.  The  emanations  to  which 
light  and  colours  are  reduced  have 
been  partly  considered,  supra,  p. 
230,  1.  Further  details  hereafter. 
Cf.  also  Burchard,  DeTnocr.  Phil, 
de  Sens.  16;  Prantl,  Arist.  vh.  d, 
Farbcn,  48  sqq. 


384  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

on  the  four  elements.  He  could  not  of  course  regard 
these  substances  as  elements  in  the  proper  sense,  for  the 
atoms  are  in  his  system  the  first  of  all  things.  Nor  ooold 
he,  as  Plato  afterwards  did,  regard  them,  in  spite  of  their 
being  composed  of  atoms,  as  the  primitive  substances 
of  all  other  visible  bodies ;  for  more  than  four  visible 
elements  must  then  have  resulted  from  the  innumeiable 
forms  of  the  atoms.*  As  soon,  however,  as  the  four  ele- 
ments had  been  established  by  another  philosopher,  he 
may,  nevertheless,  have  bestowed  upon  them  special 
attention,  and  may  have  sought  to  explain  their  quali- 
ties by  reference  to  their  atomistic  constituents,  fiut 
fire  alone  had  for  him  any  very  great  importance ;  he 
considered  it,  as  wa  shall  see,  to  be  the  moving  and 
living  principle  throughout  nature,  the  spiritual  element 
proper.  On  account  of  its  mobility  he  supposed  it  to 
consist  of  round  and  small  atoms,  whereas,  in  the  other 
elements,  there  is  a  mixture  of  heterogeneous  atoms, 
and  they  are  distinguished  from  one  another  only  by 
the  magnitude  of  their  parts.^ 

'  It  is  consequently  a  mistake  apocryphal.    Even  supposing  (and 

to  include  (vide  Simpl.  Phy8,  S)  this    is    not    probable)    that  air 

Leucippus  and  Democritus    with  originally  stood    in  the   text,  it 

the  pseudo-Timeus,  in  the  assertion  would  still  be  fiilse.    Democritus 

that  they  all  recognised  the  four  may  certainly  have  spoken  of  earth, 

elementsas  the  primitive  substances  fire  and  water  in  the  work  to  which 

of  composite  bodies,  but  tried  to  the  author  appeals  in  support  of 

reduce  these  elements  themselves  this    statement    (the    li^vrw^ 

to  more  original  and  more  simple  which   is    wanting    in    Mullachs 

causes.    The  statement  of  Diog.  list);  but  if  the  work  were  genuine, 

ix.  44,  that  Democritus  believed  not  in  such  a  manner  as  to  de- 

the  four  elements  to  be  combina-  signate  them  the  elements  of  all 

tions  of  atoms  is  more  plausible  ;  bodies. 

on  the  other  hand,  the  assertion  ^  Arist.  De  CoUOf  iiL  4 ;  supra, 

ap.  Galen,  H.  PhUoa.  c.  5,  p.  243,  p.  226,  1.    As  observed,  ibid,  SOS 

that  he  made  earth,  air,  fire  and  a,  28,  water,  air,  and  earth  arise 

water   principles  sounds  entirely  by  separation  out  of  one  another; 


MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ATOMS, 


335 


How  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  atoms  in  general 
enter  into  these  definite  combinations,  and  how  the 
origin  of  composite  things  and  the  formation  of  a  world 
is  to  be  explained,  we  must  consider  in  the  following 
section. 


2.  The  movement  of  the  Atoms ;  the  formation  and  system 
of  the  Universe  ;  Inorganic  Nature, 

The  atoms,  as  they  circulate  in  infinite  space,'  are  in 


cone«rning  this  process,  cf.  also  c. 
7  (fttpro,  p.  125,  1).  In  regard  to 
the  warm  or  fire,  ibid,  and  -De  An, 
i.  2.  406  a,  8  sqq.  c.  3,  406  b,  20 ; 
Jk  Ccelo,  iii.  8,  306  b,  32 ;  Gen,  et 
Con,  i.  8,  326  a,  8 ;  cf.  MetttpK 
xiii.  4,  1078  b,  19.  As  a  reason 
for  the  above  theory,  in  many  of 
these  passages  motion,  De  GalOy 
iii.  8,  perhape  only  as  an  arbitrary 
coDJectore,  and  also  the  burning 
and  penetrating  force  of  fire,  is 
assomed.  Tbeophr.  De  SensUy  75 : 
red  consists  of  similar  atoms  to  the 
warm,  only  that  they  are  larger ; 
the  more,  and  the  finer  the  fire  con- 
tained in  a  thing,  the  greater  its 
brilliancy  (e.p,  in  red-hot  iron): 
^^pi^  Tip  rh  \9nr6p,  Cf.  ^  68: 
<«1  Tovre  wokKducis  Xiyorra  ^ti6rt 
Tov  xtfiMV  [1.  9(p/A0v]  t6  cxiifM 
e^tupotiUs.  Simpl.  I.  c. :  ol  Si  ircp) 
Aff^cnnrw  koI  AritUKpirotr  .  .  . 
r^  fihf  B^pfjiii  ylptaihu  ical  it6p€ia 
▼»v  vttfidrmtf  8<ra  <|  h^vrifwp  Kai 
^nTOfup9<rT4fH0r  §cai  xarii  dfioiay 
947W  KUfUronf  tr^K^vrai  rStv  wpArotr 

«tai  flrxorciMi.  The  pyramidal  form 
of  fiames,  Democntns,  according 
to  Theophr.  Fr,  3,  De  Igru,  62, 
explains  by  the  increasing  coolness 


of  their  internal  parts.  Further 
details  will  be  fonnd  in  the  section 
on  the  soul,  infra, 

*  Aristotle  compares  this  pri- 
meval state  with  the  byMv  itirra 
of  Anazagoras,  Metaph.  xii.  2, 
1069  b,  22:  iral  &s  AnfJi^KpirSs 
^cof  ^y  6fioti  vdyra  Zwifiu^ 
if'ffpyclf  8'  ofi.  But  we  cannot  of 
course  consider  the  words  ^i* — oh 
rwith  P8.-Alez.  ad  h,  I  p.  646,  21 ; 
Bon.  Philop.  ap.  Bonitz,  ad  k.  L; 
Trendelenburg  on  Arist.  De  Ah, 
318 ;  Heimsoth.  p.  43  ;  MulUch, 
p.  209,  837;  Fraffm.  i.  358,  and 
Lange,  (resch,  d.  Mater,  i.  131,  26) 
as  a  verbal  quotation  from  Demo- 
critus,  and  on  the  strength  of  them 
ascribe  to  him  the  distinction  of 
3tfi^ci  and  iy9py§l^,  and  therewith 
the  fundamental  conceptions  of  the 
Aristotelian  system.  The  passage 
must  be  construed  thns :  '  Also  ac- 
cording to  the  exposition  of  Demo- 
critus  all  things  were  together  not 
actually,  but  potentially : '  because 
in  the  original  mixture  of  atoms, 
all  things  were  contained  according 
to  their  substance,  but  were  not 
as  y^t  formed  and  defined.  Cf. 
Bonitz  and  Schwegler,  ad  h.  I,  The 
Atomists  themselves,  moreover, 
could  only  have  believed  in  this 
primeval  state  to  a  very  limited 


236 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


ceaseless  movement.^  This  movement  appeared  to  our 
philosopher  so  directly  necessitated  by  the  nature  of 
things,'  that  he  expressly  declared  it  to  be  without 
beginning,^  and  on  this  ground  he  refused  to  assign  to 
it  any  cause,  since  that  which  is  infinite  and  has  no 
beginning  cannot  be  derived  from  another/     Bat  if 


extent,  since combinatioiifl  of  atoms, 
worlds,  had  always  existed. 

>  Vide  p.  286,8;  228,  2;  216. 1. 
Arist.  Metaph,  xii.  6,  1071  b,  81 : 
Zih  Irioi  itoiowriv  &cl  Mpytuuf,  dtow 
AwKtwwos  Koi  nxdrwir  &el  yiip  ^Iral 
^curi  KiyjiatM,  iXXA  9id  rl  ical  riva 
ob  \iyowruf,  oM  M\,  obih  H)y  tdrlay. 
Jbid,  1072  a,  6:  o/  itl  \4yorrts 
kIvticiv  cTyoi  &irw§p  Ac^irinror. 
Galen,  De  Elem,  see,  Hipp.  i.  2,  T.  I. 
4  LB  K :  T^  8^  Ktvhp  x^P^  I'lr  4»  f 
pfp6fA€ya  tovtI  tc^  et^fuira  fti^oi  re 
jcol  Kdrct  cifiwama  8i^  ittunhi  rod 
al&vos  ^  irtptirk4ictral  wus  &\X^\oif , 
%  wpoffKpo^tf  ica2  itwowdWrraif  ical 
iuucply€i  r*«Tai]  8i  icol  ovyitply§i 
[-rrtu]  wakw  us  iXXriXa  Kara  rdi 
roitUrat  6fju\ia$t  xiuc  ro^ou  rd  re 
AWa  avyKplftara  wdyra  iroie<  icol  rd 
flfiir^pa  (f^kfuna  koI  rd  waB^fuvra 
ttOr&y  Koi  rds  aUrO^fftis. 

«  Arist.  Phys,  ii.  4,  196  a,  24 : 
^tcrl  94  Ttrcf  ot  xal  robpa»ov  rov9^ 
Kol  r&y  Ko<rfitK&¥  wdrrw  alri&rrat 
rh  airr6fiaT09'  itwh  rainofidrov  ydp 
ylyytareai  t^  8(iojr  jcal  riiy  Klrnatr 
riiy  liuucplywrcaf  koL  KareuT'Hia'euray 
tls  ravrriy  T^y  rd^ty  rh  tSk.  Sim- 
plicius  rightly  refers  this  passage 
to  the  Atomists,  as  they,  and  they 
alone,  believed  the  universe  to  have 
been  formed  by  a  rapid  whirling 
motion  without  deriving  this  mo- 
tion from  a  special  motive  force. 
Pht/8,  74  a,  b :  ol  irtpl  ArifiSKpiroy 
.  .  .  T&v  K6<rfivy  avdyrwy  .  .  . 
tuTt^fuyoi  rh  airr6fMroy  (jkwh  ravro- 


fAdrou  ydp  ^turi  rrip  Zbnfw  icol  r^ 
mivncatt  etc.)   tpms  o4  Ktyovai  t( 

'  Cf.  previous  note,  Cic  Fm.  i. 
6,  17:  Ute  (Democrihu)  atomu 
guas  appellate  i.e.  corpora  tM&nisa 
propter  eoUditatem,  eenset  m  m/miie 
inanif  in  quo  nihil  nee  ntmmttm  nee 
ii\/imum  nee  medium  nee  mUimum 
nee  extremum  sit,  ita  ferri,  vi  cm- 
cursionibus  inter  se  cokaenseoJU; 
ex  quo  efficiantur  ea  quae  tint  qwe- 
que  cemantur  omnia  ;  eumquemotun 
atomorum  nullo  a  principio  sed  a 
aetemo  tempore  iiUeiligi  eoMesin. 
Cf.  p.  228,  2 ;  Hippol.  Refvi.  i. 
18  :  IXfyf  8^  [Aiifi^Kp.]  its  id  nf»v- 
fi4ywy  r&p  tyrwy  4v  r&  «cry. 

•  Arist.  l-hys.  viii.  1.  end :  8x«s 
8i  rb  yof/ii(uy  dpx^''  c^****  Tovrfv 
/icai^r,  8ri  &cl  1^  lirriy  otrvs  ^ 
ylyyercu,  ohx  hpB&s  lx<'  hm^kafi^, 
4^*  8  Amiu&Kpvros  hiiyti  ris  ^ 
pitfftns  tdrUiSj  its  cXirtt  tea)  t^  vp^- 
Tf/wr  4y(y€ro'  rov  9h  &cl  ate  o{m* 
^Xhy  CnT««'.  Oen.  Anim,  ii.  6, 
742  b  17:  o6  xoXAs  8^  Xhwffv 
oM  rod  itd  ri  r^r  kydyKifff  ifoi 
\4yownyf  tri  o0r«f  &fl  yiyerat,  wl 
raOmy  ttyai  vopJiioveiy  it^}^  ^' 
ahroTSf  &int€p  ArifUKpiros  6  *A$h' 
pirns,  8ti  rod  fi^y  &ffi  iral  i»ei^» 
oifK  hmy  &px^,  rh  8i  8id  ri  ^X^. 
rh  8'  &ci  iirupoy,  Affr^  rh  4ptn^ 
rh  8td  ri  wtpi  r&y  roto^wy  rahs  w 
(rirfiy  eirof  ^rfoi  rov  iirtipov  4^4^ 
Cf.  note  1. 


CHANCE  AND  NECESSITY. 


237 


Aristotle  ma;  justly  censure  the  Atomists  for  not 
having  duly  sought  the  cause  of  motion,^  it  is  imtrue  to 
say  that  they  derived  motion  from  chance.^  Motion 
can  only  be  called  fortuitous,  if  by  fortuitous  we  under- 
Btand  all  that  does  not  proceed  from  design ; '  but  if  this 
expression  be  taken  to  mean  that  which  happens  with- 
oat  natural  causes,  the  Atomists  are  far  from  making 
such  a  statement.  On  the  contrary,  they  expressly 
declare  that  nothing  in  the  world  happens  by  chance, 
bat  all  follows  of  necessity  from  definite  causes ;  ^  that 


1  Arist  Be  OoUo,  iii.  2,  cf.  p. 
228,  2;  Metaph.  i.  4«  end:  rtpit  M 
KiHlTMif,  S0W  ^  wws  ^dpxu  rois 
oieif  nd  otroi  wapmtX.fia'ittt  rots 
iXXots  f^fims  hpuiray.  Cf.  Diog. 
ix.  83,  who  Bays  of  Leucippns:  cTrai 

abatis  Koi  *p6iir€it  xal  ^opcb 
Mori  Tira  dM^yiniy,  V  6vola  irrlv 
o6  hoffuptt  Similarly  Hippol.  i. 
12,  which  is  taken  from  the  same 
aoarce. 

'  Aristotle  gaye  occasion  to  this 
miflondentanding  when  in  Phvs, 
ii.  4,  he  made  nseof  the  expression 
cdfT6iuero¥f  -which  in  this  place,  and 
always  with  him,  is  synonymous 
with  r^xyi;  whereas  Democritns 
most  have  used  the  word  in  quite 
a  different  sense,  if  indeed  he  used 
it  at  aU.  It  is  Cicero,  however, 
especially  who  put  this  opinion  in 
circulation.  Cf.  N,  2>.  i.  24,  66  : 
iiia  enifn  floffUia  Dejnocriii,  Hoe 
etiam  ante  Leucipjn,  esse  corpuscula 
quadam  hevia,  atta  as/pera^  rotunda 
aliOf  partim  aniem  angtdata,  cur- 
tfoia  guadam  et  quasi  adunca;  tx 
hueffedum  esse  eodumatque  ierram, 
nulla  cogmie  natwra  sea  eancursu 
quodam  fortuito.  We  find  the 
same  amoursus  fortuitus  also  in 


C.  37,  93;  TVmc.  i.  11,  22,  18,  42 ; 
Acad,  i.  2,  6 ;  Cicero  speaks  more 
truly  (Fin.  i.  6,  20)  of  a  concursio 
turbtdtnta.  The  same  conception 
is  to  be  met  with  in  the  Plaeita 
ascribed  to  Plutarch,  i.  4, 1 ;  Fhilop . 
Gen.  et  Corr.  29  b;  Phys.  G,  9; 
Simpl.  Phys.  73  b,  74  a;  Eus.  Pr. 
Eo.  xiy.  23,  2;  Lactant.  Insi.  i.  2  ; 
and  perhaps  also  in  Eudemus,  vide 
Sfupra,  p.  236,  2. 

*  Aj  Aristotle  does,  Phys.  ii.  5, 
196  b,  17  sqq.,  who,  so  far,  can 
truly  maintain  from  his  own  stand- 
point, that  the  Atomists  supposed 
the  world  to  have  come  into  being 
by  chance. 

*  Stob.  Edt.  \.  160  (Democr.  FV. 
Phys.  41)  :   Ac^iciinrot  wdrra  itar* 

tlfutpfidrfip'  X4y€t  7^  iy  ry  wtpl 
vov'  **  o&ffiy  XP^M^  i»ifni¥  yiyywai^ 
iiKXk  wAyra  i§c  Kiyov  re  koX  6w* 
iLydymis"  That Leucippus  has  not, 
without  show  of  probability,  been 
denied  to  be  the  author  of  the 
treatise  wcpl  yovf  and  that  this 
fra^nnent  has  been  ascribed  to 
Democritus,  we  have  already  seen, 
p.  207,  1;  but  this  is  of  no  im- 
portance in  regard  to  the  present 
question. 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PMILOSOPHT. 


fortune  has  little  power  over  men,  and  chance  is  merely 
a  name  used  as  an  excuse  for  our  own  feiults.'  Aristotie 
and  the  later  writers  admit  that  the  Atomistic  philo- 
sophy strongly  maintained  the  unconditional  necessity 
of  all  that  happens,'  reduced  even  what  is  apparently 
fortuitous  to    its  natural  causes,'  and  started  more 


1  DetnoerU,  Fr,  Mar,  14  ap. 
Stob.  Ed,  ii.  844;  Eus.  iV.  Ev. 
xiv.  27,  4  :  Mpctitoi  rixH^  •t^wXow 
irKdffmfTO  wp6^<urir  liiris  itfiovkiji? 
(or   iufolns),     fiatii   yiip    ^porfi<riX 

*  Ariflt.  Cr&n,  Anim.  ▼.  8,  789 
b,  2:  Arifi6Kptros  Si  rh  oZ  Ircica  A^ds 
Xf)reiy  (Aristotle  again  censures 
him  for  this,  De  Re^.  c.  4  iniL'i 

il  <t>^is,  Cic.  De  FtUo,  10,  23: 
bemoeritus  .  .  .  docipere  fnaluit, 
necessitate  omnia  fieri,  quam  a  cor- 
poribus  individuis  natwrales  motus 
avellere.  Similarly,  ibid,  17,  89; 
Plut.  ap.  Ens.  Pr,  Ev.  i.  8,  7 :  H 
iar^ipov  xpSvov  wpoKardxttrBai  r^ 
Mepcp  vM*  airX£s  rh  yrfw&ra 
Kol  tma  Kal  MyLtwa,  Sext.  Math, 
ix.  113:  KOT*  hvayKfiv  /ihp  Kot  ^h 
8(n}9,  its  f^Xtyow  o2  ir«pl  rhif  AtifiAxpi' 
rwy  o6ic  tty  KiroiTO  b  K6<rfios,  Diog. 
ix.  45  :  wdrra  t«  icar'  kifdyitfiw  yly^- 
0'Oflu,  rijs  ilyris  alrlas  oihrrif  r^s 
ywitrt^s  wdrrwyy  ^y  i»dyKnP  X^ci. 
Oenomans  ap.  Theod.  Cur,  Gr,  Aff, 
▼i.  15.  Nr.  8,  11,  p.  86  and  Theodo- 
retns  himself  sajs :  Democritus 
denied  freewill,  and  gare  over  the 
whole  course  of  the  world  to  the 
necessity  of  fate.  Plat.  "Plojo,  i. 
25,  26 :  napficW8i}f  koI  Aif/i^icptrot 
vdrra  jcot*  &M(7fn|y*  t^v  a&r^i^ 
8*  c7ya/  vol  tluapfi^mir  Kol  Hicfip  koI 
'wp6roiaif  Kol  KOfff»aieoi6y  (this  is  only 
partially  tme  in  respect  to  Demo* 


critns);  Bemoeritus  placed  the  es- 
sence of  ia^ini  in  the  ^trvr^ 
Koi  ^oph  Kol  irXi|7^  r^s  ffAi|S.  Cf. 
abop.  287,  1,  4. 

»  Arist»  Pkys.  iy.  2,  195  b,  36 : 
fvioi  yiip  jral  cl  ItfTiy  [^  Tix>^  rl 
airrbfuxrotf]  ^  fiii  iwopovcw  oiVh 
yi^>  ylm^Bai  &irk  rifxus  ^«vlr,  IXhk 
wwrmr  drai  ri  cdFrior  itptafihw.  In 

X^OfACir   &«'  O^Ofl^OV  Y^TlMMftu  I 

cZf  r^r  &70p^  koI  «rr«Va3iir  W 
ifioikrro  ii^¥  ohK  f  cro  8i,  efritr  rk 
i3ol^Xccr0ai  Ayopdb'cu  ^Atfdrra*  hfiSMn 
8^  Kol  M  Twy  AxX«y  rw  kwh  rixnt 
keyofUvutf  h^l  rt  ttmu  Xajkir  r^ 
ofriov,  &XX'  od  T^x^v.  SimpL  Vh^- 
74  a  (on  the  words  which  n»fer  to 
what  has  jast  been  quoted,  nsM- 
ircp  6  mcXoibs  X^tos  elWcv  h  iumpmf 
riirHtXyiv):  irphs  A9itM4KpiT»  Um 

KOtTfioroii^  ii6itu  rf  rix9  XP^*^ 
&XX'  ^1^  Tot9  ficptKin-^pmy  •Uci^s 
^iTiv  thtu  Tiiv  r^xyi^  orrloy,  4iwf  «• 
p«r  iff  &XXaf  airCar,  oloy  rm^  99«»^ 
ffdp«ir  rb  ffKdvr^tp  ^  rV  ^vrefoy  riiY 
iXalaSf  rov  8c  warcoyiinu  rov^oAo- 
Kpov  rh  Kpauyio¥  rhv  k&rhf  A^fvTC 
r)\¥  xtX^n}y  Svwr  rk  xc^*^***^  Mrf  • 
ofxM  7&P  8  E08i|;aos  larropt*.  Simi* 
larly  76  a,  73  b.  The  same  is  as- 
serted, only  in  Stoical  langnsge,  in 
the  statement  of  Theodoretos  /.  c 
p.  87,  that  Demo<*ritas  declared  the 
r^XV  to  be  an  ft8i|Xos  airla  Mpit- 
wiy^  Kh^.  Cf.  Pkrt  III.  a,  161, 
3,  2nd  ed.  But  if  Democritns  did 
not  admit  chance  in  regard  to  the 


CHANCE  AND  NECESSITY.     OJRAVITY.        239 

logically  than  either  of  the  earlier  systems,  from  a 
strictly  physical  explanation  of  nature.^  The  Atomists 
could  not  of  course  explain  natural  phenomena  by 
reference  to  design  :  ^  natural  necessity  was  to  them  a 
blindly  working  force ;  their  system  knew  nothing  of 
any  spirit  that  had  formed  the  world,  or  of  a  Providence 
in  the  later  meaning  of  the  word ; '  the  reason  of  this, 
however,  was  not  that  they  believed  the  world  to  be 
ordered  by  chance,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  would 
in  no  respect  relinquish  the  idea  of  its  necessity.  The 
original  movement  of  the  atoms,  also,  they  must  have 
regarded  as  the  necessary  effect  of  a  natural  cause,  and 
this  cause  can  only  be  sought  in  gravitation.  Nothing 
else  can  be  thought  of,  when  we  are  told  that  the 
smallest  bodies  must  necessarily  be  set  in  motion  (vide 
supra)  in  empty  space,  that  the  Void  is  the  cause  of 
motion ;  ^  sometimes  the  Atomists  conceived  weight  as 
an  essential  property  of  all  bodies,  and  consequently,  as 
corresponding  to  the  corporeal  mass  of  the  atoms.'     It 

particular,  we  may  be  snre  that  so  i)roached  with  this,  yide  Gic.  Aoad. 

logical  a  thinker  would  never  have  ii.  40,  126  ;    Plat.  ap.  Eos.  /.  c. 

sapposed  the  whole  nniyene  to  be  Plac.  ii.  3  (Stob.  i.  442) ;  Names, 

the  work  of  chance.  Nat.  Horn.  c.  44,  p.  168 ;  Lactantius 

'  Cf.  what  is  said  bj  Aristotle  /.  c.    According  to  Favonius.  ap. 

OD  this  point  (besides  the  quota-  Diog.  ix.  34  sq.,  Democritns   ex- 

t)OQp.219,2;  216,1),  Gen,  ei  Corr.  presslj  opposed  the  Anazagorean 

i.  2, 316  a,  34  (he  is  speaking  of  the  doctrine  of  the  forming  of  the  world 

explanation  of   becoming,   decay,  by  roSr.    flow  far,  however,  he  was 

&c.) :  tKms  tk  mpk  th  IriiroX^s  able  to  speak  of  a  universal  reason 

rcpl  9^€vh5  o^th  Mtrrn^w  ^w  we  shall  enquire  later  on. 
AtifUKplrov,    oItos  8'  loiKc  ftir  irepl        *  As  Aristotle  says  (Phi/s.  viti. 

ftvdbrwr  ^pmnloai,  ffSi?   8^  Ip  r^  9,  266  b,  23)  when  he  describes  the 

ritt  8io^p«i.      De  An.  i.  2,  406  Atomists  as  those  who  admit  no 

a,  8 :  ArifiiKp.  3i  iccU  yXa^vfwrtfws  particular  moving  cause,  8i^  8^  t^ 

cljpiliciir,  iwo^pd/jMwos  8i^  rl  rodrwv  mwhv  KamtrBai  ^nriv.    Similarly, 

4xctrcpoy.  Eudemus  ap.  Simpl.  Phyt.  124  a. 
«  P.  237,  8.  »  P.  226,  1,  and  also  Theophi\ 

*  Democritns  is  commonly  re-  Dei&nau,  71 :  icalrtn  r6  7c  $aph  teal 


240  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

is  also  clear  that  the  velocity  of  this  motion  corresponds 
to  the  mass  of  each  atom;  the  large  and  heavier 
must  fall  more  quickly  than  the  smaller  and  lighter; ' 
moreover,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  Democritus,  like 
Empedocles,  represented  all  the  atoms  as  having  been 
originally  moved  by  their  weight ;  and  that  he  explained 
the  upward  motion  of  many  bodies  by  the  pressure 
which  drives  up  the  lighter  atoms  when  the  heavier 
sink  down.'  Accordingly  the  famous  theory  of  Epicu- 
rus on  the  deflection  of  the  atoms  is  characterised  as  a 
contradiction  of  Democritus,  whose  fatalism  Epicuros 
thus  sought  to  evade ; '  in  reality,  however,  his  polemic 
and  that  of  his  followers  against  the  absolutely  vertical 
fall  of  the  atoois  ^  only  applies  to  the  older  Atomistic 
philosophy:  not  to  mention  that  Epicurus  was  certainly 
not  the  discoverer  of  the  purely  physical  derivation  of 

Kov^op  trm'  Siop^Cp  '^^'^^  fuyiBtViV,  r&ror  KUfuoBai .  .  .  iral  o&   fUrw 

opdyicfi  T&   &irXa  wdma  r^y  adr^r  trpArnv  dXAc^  koI  yuinip  ra^nir  o^m 

tx^^*  ^PmV  ^'  ^pas,  Klimiatp  rois   aroix^iott  iar^iiSan. 

*  Gf.  inf.  p.  241.  Cic.  Tide  following  note. 

«  Simpl.  De  Calo,  254  b,  27,  »  Cic.  If.  D.  i.  26.  69  :  Epieum 

Schol.  in  Arist,  510  b,  80:  ol  yhp  cum  videret^  si  atomi  ferrentwr  w 

irtpl  Aiifi^KptTov  Kol  toTtpop  'EviKov-  locwn  inferior&m.    tuopte  ponden, 

pos    riis    krSfiavs    wdffas    dfjMpvfif  nihil  fore  in  nostra  potestaU,  qfiod 

oUffos  ^os  $x*^  ^^f  T^  Si  that  esset  sarum  motus  certus  et  fuexs- 

Tiwa  fiapintpa  i^wBoOyAva  rh  kov^  sarins,  invsnit  qnomodo  neeestitatem 

T6po  6t'  ain&p  ^i(ap6pT9n'  M  rh  effitgeret,  quod  videlicet  Democritus 

ip»  p4p€ir0cu'   Koi  oCh-w   \4yov<nv  fiigerat :  ait  atomum^cumpondere 

ovroi  Soicciy  rk  fi^v  kov^  ^Ipoirii  et  gravitate  directadeorsumferatur, 

5i  fiap4a.    (What  follows  is  not  decUnare  paululum.    It  is  evident 

concerned  with  the  exposition  of  the  the  presupposition    here  is,  that 

theories  of  Democritus.)  Similarly,  Democritus  came  to  his  oonclanons 

ibid.  814  b,  37 ;  121  b,  42 ;  Schol,  517  through  admitting  that  the  atomfl 

b/21;  486a,21;  iZ^.PAy^.  310  a:  exclusively  followed    the  law  of 

olv9p\Aiin6Kpirop  ,  .  .HXrfOPtKark  gravitation. 

T^  4p  ahrois  /Sapvrirro,  KiPo^9pa  *  Epicurus  ap.  Diog.  x.  43, 61 ; 

tavra   [rd  &ro/ia]    8uk    rod   k§p0v  Lncr.  ii.  225  sqq. 
dkorrof  ical  fi^  kprnvwovpros  Kord 


MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ATOMS. 


241 


motion  and  of  the  universe  which  he  himself  violates 
by  his  arbitrary  theories  on  the  deviation  of  the  atoms. 
We  must,  therefore,  consider  the  movement  of  the 
atoms,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Leucippus  and 
Democritus,  simply  as  a  result  of  their  weight,  and 
consequently  the  earliest  kind  of  motion  must  have 
been  downward  and  perpendicular^  The  difficulty  that 
in  infinite  space  there  is  no  above  and  below  '  does  not 
seem  to  have  forced  itself  upon  the  Atomists.' 


*  The  opposite  theoiy  of  Lewes 
{Wat,  of  PkU,  i.  101)  that  Demo- 
eritiu  ascribed  do  weight,  but  oulj 
force,  to  the  atoms,  and  supposed 
▼eight  to  arise  from  the  shock 
giTen  by  means  of  a  greater  force, 
cannot  be  supported  even  by  the 
siatements  quoted,  p.  227,  2,  and 
contradicts  the  most  trustworthy 
eridence. 

*  Cic  Fin,  i.  6,  vide  sup,  p.  236, 
3 ;  Simpl.  De  Code,  800 a,  45  {SchoL 
516  a.  37)  *  &KriAey€i  /Acra|ir  wphs 
To^y  ii^  pofii(orra.s  clycu  ft^¥  &y»  rh 
Jt  Kdrtt.     radnis  5i  ytydpcurt  rrfs 

fipiros  Bik  rh  JSartipov  {ncoriBwBcu  th 
"f^.  Aristotle  does  not  seem  to 
hare  the  Atomists  in  view  in  the 
pasBage  De  Ctxio,  iv.  1,  30S  a,  17 ; 
but  on  the  other  hand  in  Phys.  \y. 
8, 214  b,  28  sqq. ;  De  Ccelo,  i.  7,  et 
P<us.,  he  applies  the  abore  censure 
to  them.  Cf.  Part  ii.  b,  210  sq. 
312.  2nd  ed. 

*  Epicurus,  indeed,  ap.  Diog.  x. 
60,  defends  the  theory  that  even 
in  infinite  space  there  may  be  a 
jDorement  upward  and  downward 
in  the  following  observation.  If, 
he  8ay»,  no  al^olute  Above  and 
Below  (no  iu^urdrw  andi(aro^(irw) 
be  possible  in  infinite  space,  still  a 
motion  in  the  direction  of  our  feet 

TOL.  II. 


from  our  head  is  always  contrary 
to  a  motion  from  our  feet  towards 
our  head,  even  should  both  lines  be 
produced  to  infinity.  LajigB,  Geseh, 
d.  Mat,  i.  130,  approves  of  this  ar- 
gument, and  tlunks  it  may  be 
referred  to  Democritns.  But  De- 
mocritus not  only  said  that  the 
atoms  aetwdly  moved  in  the  direc- 
tion which  we  are  accustomed  to 
designate  as  downwards,  he  main- 
tained that  they  must  follow  this 
direction;  he  placed  the  cause  of 
their  motion  in  their  weight,  and 
it  was  solely  on  this  ground  that 
he  could  determine  anything  as  to 
its  direction,  for  we  cannot  perceive 
the  movement  in  the  least.  But  if 
the  atoms  are  led  downwards  by 
their  weight,  this  below  is  not 
merely  the  place  which,  from  our 
position  on  the  earth,  appears  as 
lower,  but  the  place  whidi  for  each 
atom,  wherever  it  may  be  in  infinite 
space,  is  the  lower,  the  goal  of  its 
natural  motion.  But  tliere  cannot 
be  a  below  in  this  sense  in  infinite 
Bpace.  If  Epicurus  overlooked  this 
fact  and  sought  to  defend  the  doc- 
trine handed  down  to  him  of  the  fall 
of  the  atoms  against  the  censures 
of  Aristotle,  by  an  expedient  so 
little  in  harmony  with  the  presup- 
positions of  that  doctrine,  we  need 


242 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


In  and  for  themselves,  the  atoms  in  their  movement 
would  all  follow  the  same  direction.  But  as  thef  are 
unequal  in  size  and  weight,  they  iall  (so  the  AtomigU 
think)  with  unequal  velocity ;  they  therefore  impinge 
upon  one  another,  the  lighter  are  forced  upwards  by 
the  heavier,^  and  from  the  collision  of  these  two 
motions,  and  the  concussion  and  recoil  of  the  atoms, 
there  arises  a  circular  or  whirling  movement  ^  in  which 


not  be  mach  surprised.  But  it  is  in- 
credible that  A  natiinl  philosopher 
like  Demoeritns  should  not  haye 
remarked  the  contradiction  ;  it  is 
far  more  likely  that  both  he  and 
Lencippos  regarded  the  fall  of 
bodies  in  the  void  as  self-evident ; 
and  never  proceeded  to  reflect  that 
the  case  was  that  of  a  natural  mo- 
tion downward,  and  that  sQch  a 
motion  in  unlimited  space  was 
impossible. 

>  According  to  Arist.  i>«  Catlo, 
iv.  6,  313  b,  4,  Democritns  called 
this  upward  motion  <rovs, 

'  This  conception  of  the  ori^n 
of  the  circular  motion  from  which 
the  Atomists  derived  the  universe 
(vide  infra\  is  not  only  necessitated 
by  the  interconnection  of  their 
doctrine,  which  cannot  be  satis&c- 
torily  established  in  any  other 
way,  bnt  is  fully  confirmed  by  all 
historical  testimony.  That  the 
original  motion  of  the  atoms  was 
in  a  downward  direction,  and  that 
only  in  consequence  of  this  motion 
a  portion  of  the  atoms  was  driven 
upward,  is  expressly  stated  by 
Simplicius,  vide  p.  240, 2.  Lucre- 
tius contradicts  this  opinion  in  a 
passage  which,  according  to  our 
previous  remarks,  can  only  refer  to 
Bemocritus,  ii.  225:  Gramorapo- 
tease  corporay  quo  citins  rectum  per 
inane  feruntur,  incidere  ex  eupero 


levioriinis  atgue  Ua  plagea  (rXiryif, 
vide  inf.)gignere,  qu^'pouint gem- 
talis  reddere  mottu ;  like  j^ieorv 
(vide  Part  m.  a,  378,  eecoDd 
edition)  he  opposes  to  it  AristoUf  s 
proposition  {ibid,  ii.  b,  211,  1; 
312,  3),  that  all  bodies  fsll  with 
equal  velocity  in  empty  sps«e. 
Further,  although  the  PHooto,  i.  4 
(Galen,  c.  7),  primarily  repcodnw 
the  Epicurean  theory  moreIj(cf. 
Fart  III.  a,  380,  second  editioo). 
yet  this  theory  itself  indicates  tir« 
doctrine  of  Democri  tus  as  i  ts  «mrc« ; 
and  Diogenes  and  Hippoljtu5. 
moreover,  make  precisely  similar 
statements  as  to  Leucippns.  Biog. 
ix.  31 :  ylwtadeu  3i  rohs  i^^vf 
olhtt'  ^4p9v9€u  jcerr'  ibtoroiJ^Urv 
&irc(pov  iroXAJk  ^c&fiara  van-o<a  rwf 
trxflt^iuriv  €lr  fiiya  Kwhr^  4«pi*- 
pot€r$4rra  8£i^y  i,ir9frf^§c9iu  ^W, 
«ra0*  ^r  itfoCKpoiiovra  mil  Torr^Savvs 
iCMtXo^/MMi  3tajrpfrc<r0ai  xtt^\  ^ 
Sfioia  irphs  r&  tpuota,  bro^^itwv  U 
9(&  rh  *\^dos  /ii)JC€Ti  hvtnfUM* 
ir€pt^4p9a'Bai,  tA  fi^r  \arrk  x»^ 
els  rh  £^c»  JCffi^i',  fitf^ep  Siorr^/tcSi 

K6fitva  <rvyKafr<trpix€iP  &AA^A0it 
KoX  voictr  irpiir6y  re  tr&ani/M  9^- 
pofi^is.  Hippol.  Rtfut,  i.  12: 
K6(rfJMvs  9h  [offrw]  ytr4ir9m  XfJ^'' 
Jtof  cjf  tierdKOirov  [^fuya  wcrir]  '* 
rod  wtpidxomos  &9poi<r0^  toXAo 
ff^fiarjL  KoL    avfi^vp,    wpovKpovvrrt 


MOVEMENT  OF  THE  ATOMS. 


243 


all  parts  of  the  congeries  of  atoms  are  thenceforward 
involved.^ 


x4fMM  Kol  wapawXiftna  rh,s  fiop^St 
•col  w€pnr\€x!^4rrwp  fis  trtpa  (in- 
stead of  <jf  ^cpa  we  should  proba- 
bly rend  tr  c^^rnfAo)  yivtcrBai. 
Aristotle  doubtless  is  referring  to 
the  Atomistic  philosophy  in  De 
CalOy  I.  8.  277  b.  1 :  Fire,  he  says, 
takes  the  upward  direction  by 
Tirtne  of  its  own  nature,  not  in 
consequence  of  force  employed  by 
another,  &cir§p  rivis  ^wri  rf  Mxi- 
^t ;  and  perhaps  Plato  also  refers 
toit,rtm.62C.  HowtheAtomists 
supposed  the  circuLtr  motion  ori- 
ginated from  the  two  rectilinear 
motioos  upward  and  downward,  we 
are  not  told.  Epicurus,  ap.  Diog. 
X.  61, 43  sq.  speaks  (without  refer- 
eoce  to  the  Atomists)  of  a  lateral 
motion  caused  by  collision  and  a 
reboond  of  the  atoms;  the  latter 
is  also  ascribed  to  Bemocritus  in 
the  Mae.  i.  26  (sup.  p.  238,  2),  as 
well  as  by  Oalen  {sup.  p.  236,  1), 
and  Simplicius,  De  CcbIo,  110  a,  1 
{SeM,  484  a,  27):  rks  ier6fiovs 
.  .  .  ^^pcortfoi  ir  ry  jccy^  koI  iniKo- 
raAaftiSarouo-flW  AXX'^Aaf  avyKpc^ttr- 
Au,  vol  tilt  fi^¥  iarowdX\€ff$ai,  trp 
ttr  Y^XflNri,   T&t    Zk    ir€piw\iiLw9ai 

ml  iuy9$rv  Koi  04<r9VP  ical  rd^tvy 
vvftturplv,  Kol  irvfjLfial9€Uf  Koi  o9m 
r^  rw¥  irvp$4rmtf  yivwip  Aitotc- 
Xc(o^.  Epicurus's  remark,  ap. 
Diog.  X.  00,  that  this  exposition 
leqoires  to  be  completed,  refers  to 
the  doctrine  of  Democritos  of  the 
formation  of  the  world  by  means 
of  the  circular  motion:  ot  yhp 
iiBftotfffihv  8c(  ft6pcp  y€r4ir0at  oM 
Kvor  iw  f  M4x^tu  K69fior  ylytc0ai 
irci^  nrii  rh  io^a(6fuyov  4^  Mry- 
nff,  aH^fffBai  ff  hos  t»  4r4p^  xpotr- 


fviruc&y  ^nici  rts.  Further  details 
in  the  next  note.  Augustine's  as- 
sertion, Epist.  118,  28  :  inesse  con^ 
eursioni  aiomorum  vim  qwmdam 
animalem  et  tptrabUem,  is  rightly 
referred  by  Krische,  Forsch.  i.  161, 
to  a  misapprehension  of  Cicero, 
Tu9C,  i.  18,  42.  Lange's  conjec- 
ture {Gc9ek,  d.  Mat,  i.  130,  22} 
that  Democritus  supposed  the  cir- 
cular motion  to  take  place  after  the 
formation  of  the  complex  of  atoms, 
out  of  which  the  world  originated, 
finds  no  support  in  the  tradition ; 
on  the  other  hand,  Diog.  ix.  31, 
represents  the  a^vnifia  a^po^t^ks 
as  arising  first  from  the  8lvi}.  Simi- 
larly Epicurus,  I,  c,  speaks  of  a 
STvof  in  the  Void,  4w  f  &4x^vu 
K6ffyMv  yiy^rBtu. 

*  This  idea,  in  connection  with 
what  has  been  remarked,  p.  236, 4, 
explains  why  the  doctrine  of  De- 
mocritus is  sometimes  represented 
as  if  the  mutual  concussion  and 
rotation  of  the  atoms  were  main- 
tained to  be  their  only  motion,  of 
which  he  sought  no  fuither  deriva- 
tion, cf.  Diog.  ix.  44 :  0cpc<r9cu 
8*  iv  r^  8Xy  9iyovfi4ras  {ras  iriuovs). 
Id.  §  45,  p.  238,  2 ;  Sext.  MathAx. 
113  ;  ap.  Stob.  Ed.  i.  394  {Plac.  i. 
23,  3) :  Arift6Kp.  Iy  y4pos  Kurffatws 
rh  icoT^  voX/i^ir  [if  the  wKdeyioy  of 
the  text  ought  not  to  be  replaced 
by  wXriyiiy]  &irc^rero.  (Ibid. 
348,  where  the  concussion  of  the 
atoms  is  even  stated  to  be  their 
only  motion,  and  their  weight  is 
denied,  mp,  p.  227, 2.)  Alexander, 
ad  Metaph.  i.  4,  p.  27,  20  Bon.  otroi 
yhp  (Leucippus  and  Democritus) 
\4ymnriv  kKXtiKorvKO^as  koI  Kpovo- 
fi4ycu  wphs  dXA^Aovf  KiytiffBeu  riit 
At J/Aous,  vMtv  ^i4vroi  ti  ipx^  t^s 
Kir^tf'CfltfS  rois  [i^t]  irarA  p^trty^  oh 


B  2 


244 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHIL080PHT. 


Through  this  tnovement  of  the  atoms,  in  the  first 
place  the  homogeneous  particles  are  brought  togetha  ; 
for  that  vhich  is  alike  in  weight  and  form  must  for  tlus 
very  reason  sink  or  be  driven  to  the  same  place.'  It 
follows,  however,  from  the  nature  of  things  that  not 
loose  concatenations  merely,  but  firm  combinations  of 
atoms  must  be  produced ;  for  as  the  variously  shaped 
particles  are  shaken  together,  many  must  necessarily 
adhere  and  become  entangled  one  with  another,  must 


^^irtv.  0^9^  yap,  etc,  Mip.  p.  227, 2. 
Gic  De  Faio,  20,  46 :  aliam  enim 
quondam  vim  motus  habeant 
[atofiu]  a  Demooriio  imjnUgUmiSt 
quam  plagam  (vide  previous  note) 
ille  appellate  a  te^  E)pieure,  gravi- 
taiis  et  ponderU.  Simpl.  De  CcbIo, 
260  b,  17  (Schol.  511  b.  15):  f\«- 
701'  M  KtvturBcu  r^  wp&ra  ,  .  ,  ir 
r^  &ircfpy  K9y^  fit^.  (Mullach,  p. 
364,  quotes  from  Phys.  96 :  Ai)/a^- 
Kpvros  ^^ci  iuciniTa  \4y«t¥  rd  irofM 
wXiryp  KivwrBal  ^aty;  but  ^e 
words  are  not  in  our  present  pas- 
sage.) For  the  same  reason  Aris- 
totle, Ik  Calo,  iii.  2,  300  b,  8  sqq.  { 
ii.  13,  294  b,  30  sqq.,  asks  the 
Atomists  what  was  toe  original 
and  natural  motion  of  the  atoms, 
since  this  forcible  motion  presup- 
poses a  natural  one  ?  It  is  quite 
conceivable  that  the  downward  mo- 
tion in  empty  space,  which  seemed 
possible  to  the  Atomists,  though 
not  to  Aristotle,  may  have  been 
left  without  notice,  because  Be- 
mocritus  presupposed,  without  ex- 
plicitly stating,  that  this  was  the 
natural  motion  of  the  atoms. 

*  Gf.  the  passages  quoted,  p. 
242,  2.  Democritus  himself  re- 
marks in  the  fragment  ap.  Sext. 


Math.  vii.  116  sqq.  (cf.  Hut  PUe. 
iv.  19,  3,  and  Arist.  Eth.  N,  viii.  2), 
that  it  is  a  universal  law  that  ]\ke 
consorts  with  like:   md  yip  C<pi 

(erai,  &s  vtpurr^paX  wtptmf^in  ad 
y4paMoi  y§pdin>i9'i  mat  M  rwiXXm 
6\6ymr.  But  he  considered  that 
the  cause  of  this  lay  not  in  a 
tendency  inherent  in  the  primitif e 
substances,  but  in  the  mecbsnicsl 
motion,  the  size  and  form  of  the 
Atoms,  as  we  see  from  what  follows : 
inroubrmt  tk  ical  irtpl  rm  k^t^, 
Kordiw^p  6pijv  vdipf 0Tt  M  re  rir 
KOfficw^voiLivwf  air^pitdrmw  «al  hi 
r&v  wapk  rgo'i  Kv/uprwy^ffi  i^i^iSiir* 
Zkov  fiky  T^tp  irin^  rhv  rov  toffidfn 
Jiiyov  9icucpiriKms  ^mucoI  lurii  0w«r 
rda-o'oyTeu.  icol  r/mOoI  fitr^  npSwt 
Kol  irvpoX  fierh  wp&v,  Skpv  tk  xori 
r^v  TOW  K^futros  tciw^w  «l  f^* 
hrtfi'fiKt€S  ^^'^c*  *^'  ^^  ^^ 
r6wov  tfa-i  Urifi'fiKtin  ASiornt,  « 
8^  V9pi^«p4«s  r^tri  w€pi/^p4irL  (The 
rest  appears  to  be  added  bySextitf 
himself.)  Cf.  Alex.  Qm,  Nci.  ii. 
23,  p.  137  Sp.:  6  Anft^Kptrh  n 
Kol  aibrhs  kwop^oUu  Tf  yine^ 
rlBtrai  leal  rk  tfiota  ^4p9a4mrf^ 
rk  Sfioia '  &XX&  koI  elf  rh  kou^  [I. 
jrcp^r]  wdrra  ^4p«r9aL  Simpl. 
Phys.  7  a :  Tc^ufceroi  7^  rh  <^ 
Mt  rod  Sfioiov  KiwturBai  «al  ^^pctf^ 
rk  0V77«ri}  wphs  &XXi|Aa. 


FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 


246 


embrace  and  impede  one  another  in  their  course,^  so 
that  some  will  even  be  retained'  in  a  place  which  is  not 
suited  to  their  nature ;  *  and  thus  from  the  combination 
of  atoms  compound  bodies  are  formed.  Each  of  these 
complexes  separating  itself  from  the  mass  of  primitive 
bodies  is  the  germ  of  a  world.  These  worlds,  according 
to  the  Atomists,  are  innimierable ;  for  the  number  of 
atoms  being  infinite,  and  empty  space  being  unlimited^ 
atoms  will  be  found  in  the  most  various  places.  As 
moreover  the  atoms  are  infinitely  various  in  size  and 


'  Arigt  De  Calo,  iii.  4  {sup.  p. 
216,  2) ;  Gen.  et  Con.  (sup.  p.  216, 
1)  jcal  ffvm$4fuvaik  kcu  TcpiirAcxtf- 
fupa  7«n^y.  Philop.  ad.  h.  1. 86  a, 
seems  to  be  only  inventing ;  Hip- 
pol.  Btfut.  i.  12,  vide  p.  242,  2; 
Galen  vide  p.  243,  n ;  StTabo  in  Cic. 
Aead.  ii.  88,  121 :  Simpl.  De  Ooelo, 
138  a,  18;  8chol.  488  a,  26: 
rrtvutfccr  8i  [t^  ierSfiovs]  ical 
fiptoBai  iv  r^  K§y^  8t(£  t«  r^v  Aw- 
Mtinira  ical  rks  AxXat  r&f  flp7ifi4$'as 

^€par\4Ktc9ai  w€ptw\oi^v  rowbnuv 
S  vvftj^tuf  11^9  aJtnh  Ktd  w\fi<rlop 
c2rai  vote?,  ^6<rtw  fi4irroi  idc»  4\ 
Uuwmw  oW  ^myoovy  7«yyf  .  .  . 
Tov  8i  cviifUi^Uf  rits  abeias  fif^ 
iAA^Awr  fi4xpi  rirhs  alriBrai  riis 

VfiArwf,  rit  /Uy  yiip  eUrr&y  cTvcu 
rmXip^  rA  M  hrfKiCTpdtiffi  {ci. 
▼ith  thia  p.  224,  \)  rh  tk  iXXas 

fwrovTOv  tfSy  XP^^^^  ffipwr  airrw 
^4X9v^t  rofd(€i  Koi  <rvfifi4y«iVf 
H»s  iirxvpoT4pa  ns  4k  rod  ir9pi4xov- 
Tof  iirdTHcii  wapay9vofi4ni  koI  9ta- 

Ifnd.  271  b,  2  iSchol.  514  a,  6)  on 
the  passage  quoted  from  Aristotle : 
Tttirtts    8i    [rhs    irSfiovs]    /i6vas 


fAc7oy(LeacipDnBand  Democritns) 
0'vycx€7s  *  tA  Tap  AXXa  rd  Sovovyra 
aw^xyi  &^9  wpoff€yyl(uy  iAA^Xots 
9ih  Kal  T^v  rofi^p  kvipovv,  iar6\vat¥ 
T»y  StTrrofi4y»y  x4yoyT€s  rijy  ioKov- 
trcof  To/i^y*  JccU  Zik  toSto  ohV  i^ 
kvhi  vohXh  yivwBai  t\tyoy  .  .  . 
oirre  4ic  woXXmy  ty  icot*  iA^tfciay 
<rwtx4s,  AvxA  rf  arvfiwKoK^  rwy 
inSfimy  titcurroy  %y  SoKcty  yly€<r$at, 
T^y  94  (Tvfi'rXoK^y  ^A09fip7rai  ixdX- 
Xo^iy  4Kd\ouy  &trw^p  ArifUicptros, 
(Mao  some  of  the  MSS.  have 
irffp(irX^|ci  instead  of  4irdXKdl^u  in 
the  passage  from  Aristotle.) 

•  According  to  Aristotle  (De 
Coelo,  iv.  6,  313  a,  21  ;  cf.  Simpl. 
ad.  A.  I.  322  b,  21 ;  Schol  518  a, 
1),  Democritns  explained  the  phe- 
nomenon that  flat  bodies  of  a  sub- 
stance specifically  heavier  than 
water  can  yet  float  upon  water  in 
this  way.  The  warm  substances, 
he  said,  arising  out  of  the  water 
would  not  allow  them  to  sink ;  and 
in  the  same  manner  he  conceived 
the  earth  as  a  flat  disc  borne  up 
by  the  air.  He  therefore  supposed 
that,  by  rotation,  that  which  is 
lighter  might  easily  come  into  a 
lower  place,  and  the  heavier  into  a 
higher  place. 


246 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


shape,  the  worlds  formed  from  them  will  display  the 
greatest  diversity ;  yet  it  miay  also  happen  that  some  of 
them  are  absolutely  alike.  Lastly,  since  these,  worlds 
had  a  beginning,  so  are  they  subject  to  increase  and 
diminution,  and  finally  to  destruction ;  they  increase 
as  long  as  other  substances  from  without  unite  with 
them;  they  diminish  when  the  contrary  is  the  case; 
they  are  annihilated  if  two  come  into  collision,  and 
the  smaller  is  crushed  by  the  greater ;  *  and  in  their 
internal  construction  likewise  they  are  subject  to  per- 
petual change.* 


*  Aristotle  doabtless  has  the 
AtomiBtic  philosophy  in  view  when 
(Phys.  Tiii.  I,  250  b.  IS)  he  says: 
hifOi  fjAy  i,ir9lfi0ut  re  KSfffiOvs  cfyo^ 
^curi  KOi  rohs  fily  ylyvtvBai  rohs  8i 

clival  y4ywiy;  for  the  words  robs 
fi^v  yir.  can  only  be  understood  of 
co-existent  worlds  like  those  of  the 
Atomists,  and  not  of  successive 
worlds,  as  heldbyAnaximander  and 
Heracleitus.  The  refutation  of  the 
opinion  that  there  may  be  several 
worlds  (De  Colo,  i.  8)  must  also 
refer  to  co-existent  worlds.  Later 
writers  are  more  explicit :  ol  fi^¥ 
yiip  itvtipovs  79?  w\4i$€i  rohs  K6a'fiovs 
ivoB4fMrot,  &t  ol  wtpl  *Aya{(/Miv8poir 
(that  this  is  a  misunderstanding 
has  already  been  shown,  Vol.  I. 
257  sq.)  ical  Ae^Kimrov  koI  Aq/i^- 
KpiroVy  .  .  .  yivofkivous  ojtnohs  koX 
<f>$€ipofi4yovs  6ir^0cyro  ^*  &irftpi.v, 
&X\»y  fjikp  &cl  yi¥OfUvm¥,  &XAwy 
9i  ^e€ipofi4iwy.  Id.  D«  CcUo, 
91  b,  36,  139  b,  5;  Schol  in 
Arist.  480  a,  38,  469  b,  13  ;  Cic. 
Joad.  ii.  17,  55:  ais  Detnocritum 
dioere,  innum&rabiUs  esse  mwidoSj 
et  quidem  sic  quosdam  inter  se  non 


9olum  simileBf  sed  undiqu€  perfeeU 
et  abaolute  Ha  pares,  ut  vUer  tot 
nihil  proraue  intersit,  et  toe  qmdem 
innumerabilee :  itemqne  A^tso. 
Diog.  ix.  31  of  Leucippas:  kb2 
aroix^id  ^tri,  K6(rnovs  t*  Ac  rvirmr 
&iretpous  cIku  Kcik  9ta\^€ir$at  tis  rev- 
TO.  Ibid.  44  of  Democritus :  knipmn 
r*  clroi  KScfjMvs  jcal  yertnirohf  mi 
^Oopro^f .  IM.  38,  supra  236,  3 : 
Hippol.  Refut.  i.  18 :  &irc(fwvs  8| 
etyai  K69'fimn  (IXcytf  6  Aiiftikp.)  nl 
fieyiOtt  Zta^4poyraSt  tw  rici  t^  t^k 
thai  IjKiov  /mh^  ffeX'^rtiw,  Ir  rm  i^ 
fi€i(t»  [-ovs]  rwv  vap*  iifur  mi  Ir 
run  wXtln  [-ovs].  cTmu  Si  rif 
K6fffjMv  ipitra  T&  Suurr^funa,  xoi  ff 
fiky  wKtlous  rg  9k  iKdrrevSt  «nl 
robs  fi^y  atf|c(r0cu  rohs  8i  dx^C*^ 
robs  92  ^iyuw,  Jcd  rp  phf  ylineBai 
rp  ik  Xelw€t¥^  ^BeiptvBai  5c  ovtovs 
^*  dW4iKofV  wpoffirlwroinas.  tlm 
82  iyiovs  K6cfiovs  4p4ifi^  (^  col 
^vr&v  icol  wamhs  vypov  ...  ok- 
fidgety  hi  K6afM9  l»s  &y  m^k^Vi 
dvnirai  %l«t94p  ri  irpoekafifidHaf. 
Stob.  Eel.  i.  418  :  AnpuiKpires  ii6*i' 
ptaOai  rhw  KStrfiop  rov  p*i(»« 
vucmmos. 

«  Cf.  p.  248,  3, 


FORMATION  OF  THE  WORLD,  247 

The  way  in  which  our  world  originated  is  thus  more 
particularly  described.^  When  by  the  concussion  of 
many  atoms  of  different  kinds,  one  mass  of  atoms  had 
been  separated  in  which  the  b'ghter  portion  had  been 
driven  upwards,  and  the  whole  had  been  set  in  rotation 
by  the  encounter  of  the  opposite  movements,'  the  bodies 
pressed  outwards  placed  themselves  in  a  circle  outside 
of  the  whole,  and  so  formed  around  it  a  kind  of  husk.^ 
This  covering  grew  thinner  and  thinner,  as  parts  of  it 
were  gradually  carried  by  the  motion  into  the  centre, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mass  of  the  incipient 
world  was  gradually  increasing  by  the  atoms  continu- 
ally added  to  it.  The  earth  was  formed  from  the 
substances  which  had  sunk  down  into  the  centre  ;  and 
the  sky,  fire,  and  air  from  ^  those  which  went  upwards.  A 
portion  of  these  shaped  themselves  into  baUs  of  denser 
mass,  which  at  first  were  in  a  damp  and  miry  state ; 
but  as  the  air  which  carried  them  round  with  it  was 

*  Biog.  ix.  32,  after  the  quota-  agreement  with  this,  yide  the  ex- 

tioD  on  p.  242, 2 :  tovro  8*  oJo¥  iti4fa  position  ap.  Pint.  P/oe.  1,  4,  con- 

v^iffraffBai,    vcpi^x^rr*    iy    iaur^  cerning  which  see  p.  242,  2. 
rarroU  ff^fMra.  •  £r  tcark  riiy  tov  *  Cf.  p.  248,  2. 

M»<r«v    kin4ptiffw     vtpJiiyoufitvoiy,  *  This  is  also  to  be  foxmd  in 

^nrhy  yiy€C$ai   rhy  w4pi^   vfiiyOy  Stob.  Eol.  i.  490.     Stob«as  adds 

^v^*6rrmy  &cl  rwy  avy^Ay  Kor*  that  the  crust  is  formed  (chiefly) 

^T^oiMTir  rris  Blyjis '  iral  ofirv  fUy  of  hook-shaped  atoms.     Cf.  Galen, 

ytytcdcu  riiy  t^v,  <runfA*y6yrmy  rwy  c.  11,  p.  267  K. 

iptXfiirrmy  M  rh  fUaoy,    Qhr6y  rt  '      ^  In  reference  to  this,  Metro- 

fiXuf  rly    wtpiixorra  oloy  ifi4ya  dorus  the  Bemocritean  is  censured 

oi^tffBai  KOT^  T^r  hriKpwny  r&y  ap.  Plat.  Fao.  Lun.  15,  3,  p.  928, 

i^ty  ffmfidrwy '  Blyp  tc  ^€p6fuyoy  for  representing  the  earth  as  sink- 

ourhif  iy  &K  #iri^«^  ravra  4nuc'  ing    into    its    place    by  its   own 

roaHai,    to^wy  94  riya  avit!w\w6'  weight ;  the  sun,  on  the  contrary, 

M«ya  voiciy  vifimuM  rh  fiky  wp&roy  as  pressed  upward  like  a  sheath 

ff^Bvypoy  ml  vi|Xm<€S,   ^ripay04yrtt  by  its  own  lightness,  and  the  stars 

[S^]  Kal  w€pi^9p6iuya  ffiy  rg  rov  as   moving  like  the  scales  of  a 

^Kov  8(rp  cFt^  i*wvp»$4yra  r^r  r&y  balance. 
iffripoty    &iror«X^<rai    ^^ffiy.      In 


248 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


forced  through  the  ascending  masses,  and  set  in  stoimj 
whirling  motion,  they  gradually  dried,  and  the  swift 
motion  kindled  them,  and  so  the  stars  arose.'  In  a 
similar  manner  by  the  pressure  of  the  winds  and  the 
influence  of  the  stars  the  smaller  particles  were  forced 
out  of  the  earth  ;  these  ran  together  as  water  into  the 
hollows,  and  so  the  earth  condensed  into  a  firm  m^ 
a  process  which,  according  to  the  theory  of  Democritos, 
is  still  continually  going  on.'  In  consequence  of  the 
earth's  increasing  mass  and  density,  it  attained  its 
fixed  place  in  the  centre  of  the  world,  whereas  in  the 
beginning,  when  it  was  still  small  and  light,  it  had 
moved  hither  and  thither.^ 

The  notions  of  the  Atomisis  respecting  the  universe 
are  therefore  tolerably  in  harmony  with  the  ordinary 


>  Cf.  OD  this  point,  besides  the 
quotations  just  g^ven,  and  i^f,  note 
4,  Hippol.  i.  13:  roS  Si  vap*  iiiiXp 
K6fffAov  irp6r9po¥  r^r  yriy  r&v  Atrrpvy 
ytyMnt.  Diog.  ix.  30:  rods  re 
K6afAovs  ylytcOai  armfidrmy  els  rh 
it€yby  4tiirnr6yT9fy  icd  &XX'^A4>ii 
ir€piw\€KOfi4y9»p  *  fx  re  r^i  Ktrfifftms 
Kork  r^y  aS^ffiy  abr&y  yly€a$at 
r^y  rmy  iurr4p»y  ^6ffiy,  Ibid.  33 : 
icol  wiLyra  ii^y  t&  turrpa  8i^  rh  rdxos 
rfjs  ^opof,  rhy  8*  Ijkioy  iwh  ruy 
haripvy  iiewvoovffBm,  r^y  Si  (rcX^Kijv 
Tov  wvphs  ixlyoy  fxrroKciftfidyety, 
Theod.  Cttr.  Gr,  Aff.  iv.  17,  p.  59. 
Bemocritus,  like  Anaxagoras,  re- 
garded the  sttirs  as  masses  of  stone, 
which  have  been  kindled  by  the 
revolution  of  the  heavens. 

•  P^.  i.  4:  ToAX^f  l\  HXris 
Irt  Wfpiti\rififi4yns  iy  if  7p,  miicvou- 
fiiyris  Tff  rwhris  icarA  ris  inh  r&y 
iry^vfidTwy  xKifyiLS  Kol  rks  kwh  r&y 
a<rr4puy  alfpas  (solar  heat  and  the 


like),  vpofftBKifitro  vat  i  fuxpofit- 
p^s  O'XifMOTKrft^f  ra^nfs  mu  tV 
(typhy  ^iciy  iydyya*  ^cv<rriicM  Sc 
aSrfi  iiaietifUyii  irart^^pcro  vjp^s 
robs  KoiXQVs  r6fW0vs  ical  Iwap/hmys 
X^fpfi^cd  Tff  ical  irr4^at  1^  Ka0  a^h 
rh  08wp  6woirriuf  IkoIXom  to^  ^' 
KtifUyovs  r&trovs.  This  expositioD, 
though  primarilj  Epicurean,  maj. 
perhaps,  in  the  last  resort  be 
referred  to  Democritns.  This  is 
probable,  both  on  internal  evi<leDce 
and  from  a  comparison  with  the 
theories  about  to  be  quoted. 

'  According  to  Arist.  Mdeor. 
ii.  3,  365  b,  9 ;  Alex,  in  k,  i.  9d  & 
b  ;  Olympiod.  in  h.  L  i.  278  sq.  IL 
he  supposed  that  the  sea  would  io 
time  dry  up  through  evaponitioD. 

*  Plac.  iii  13,  4:  «xt*  ipx*» 
fihy  irXd(€<r$ai  riiy  yiiy  ^iiffty  6  A^t- 
lUnpiros  8u£  re  fwepinrra  ical  m^ 
rrrroy  wweymButray  5i  ry  XP^^  *« 
fiapvyOuaay  Kormrr^rai. 


THE  VNIVERSE. 


249 


opinion.  Surrounded  by  a  circular  layer  of  tightly 
compressed  atoms,  it  swims  in  the  infinite  Void  ;  ^  its 
centre  is  the  earth ;  the  space  between  the  centre  and 
the  fixed  external  envelope  is  filled  with  air  in  which 
the  stars  move.*  The  earth,  they  agreed  with  the 
ancient  physicists  in  supposing  to  be  an  exceedingly 
flat  cylinder,  which  supports  itself  on  the  air  by  means 
of  its  breadth.  The  stars  are,  as  already  stated,  bodies 
of  a  terrestrial  nature,  which  have  become  heated  by 
the  revolution  of  the  sky :  like  Anaxagoras,  Democritus 
asserted  this  particularly  of  the  sun  and  moon :  he  also 
agreed  with  his  predecessor  in  representing  them  both 
as  of  a  considerable  size ;  and  the  moon  as  a  kind  of 
earth,  for  he  recognised  in  its  face  the  shadow  of  moun- 
tains.' The  statement  that  these  two  heavenly  bodies 
had  originally  been,  like  the  earth,  the  nucleus  of  other 


'  At  anj  inte  we  are  told  no- 
thing of  a  moTement  of  the  entire 
uuTene;  the  Atomists  seem  to 
hare  been  of  opinion  that,  through 
its  eircalar  motion,  the  tendency  of 
veight  in  a  downward  direction 
voold  be  overcome. 

'  Plao,  iii.  10 :  Ac^xiviroT  rv/i- 

T^  )tiow.  The  last  clause  does  not 
mean,  as  I  formerly  supposed,  that 
the  eutli  is  hollow,  but  that  it  is 
depressed  in  the  centre,  and  ele- 
Tated  towards  the  edge,  cf  Schaefer, 
Attron.  Geogr.  d,  Gr.,  Flencb.  1873, 
p.  14;  Arist  De  Calo,  ii.  13,  294 
b,  13 :  *Aya(i/A^in7f  8i  m^  *Ay«t^ciy6' 
pai  Knt  AiifUKptrot  rh  wAdrot  ciriov 
^nl^an  rod  /i4v€tv  a&r^y.    06  0^ 

f^9  KkTtt9^v  .  .  .  rhv  V  oIk  IxoKra 
MfTarriiMU  r^oy  Ixavhy  a0p6ov  r^ 


Kdr»$ty  ^ptfituff  &aT^p  rh  iv  rais 
K\v^9pais  08«p,  cf.  p.  245,  2. 

»  Cic.  Fin.  i.  6,  20 :  sol  Demo- 
crito  magnus  videiur.  Stob.  Eel,  i. 
532 :  [riv  IjKtoy']  ArifiSKpiros  ft/fBpw 
fl  xirpov  Zidtrvpoy^  Tpoie^y  ji  yiy*" 
aSat  iit  T^f  wtpt^poiHTtis  aitrhy  Btyfi' 
ffuos.  Ibid,  660:  [tV  V9\i\vny'\ 
*Aya^ay6pas  ical  Aif/i6«c^iruf  <rr*p^fl»- 
fia  Btdirvpoy,  fx'^  ^^  kaur^  wi^ia 
Kol  hpn  KoX  ^ipoTfyus  (and  in  the 
same  words,  Theodor.  Cwr.  Gr.  Aff. 
W.  21,  23).  Ibid.  664,  concerning 
the  face  of  the  moon.  Cf.  follow- 
ing note  ;  and  as  to  the  light  of  the 
moon,  pp.  250,  3,  and  248, 1.  When 
it  is  said  in  Diog.  ix.  44,  that  the 
sun  and  moon  consist,  like  souls, 
of  smooth  and  round  atoms,  i.e,  of 
fire,  this  can  only  refer  to  the  fire 
which  was  afterwards  added  to 
their  earthly  nucleus. 


250 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


universes,  and  that  the  sun  only  subsequently  became 
filled  with  fire,*  when  its  circle  grew  larger,  may  be 
brought  into  connection  with  the  rest  of  the  Atomistic 
cosmology  through  the  theory  that  the  sun  and  moon, 
at  an  earlier  stage  of  their  formation,  had  been  taken 
hold  of  by  the  masses  circulating  about  the  earth's 
nucleus,  and  so  had  become  part  of  our  universe.*  The 
opinion  of  Leucippus  and  Democritus  concerning  the 
order  of  the  stars  is  variously  given.'    Their  orbits, 


>  Plut.  ap.  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  i.  8, 
7:  riXlov  W  Kol  trcX^n}!  y4wmj'ly 
^trif  Kor'  Ulay  ^4pur9ai  ravra 
(namely  at  the  time  of  their  ge- 
nesis) firi^dvm  Towapdway  fx<"^A 
B^pii^v  ^6ffiy,  fuffih  p.^if  iea$6Kov 
KofAWfwrdTfiVj  Tohtfomlop  Z\  4^e9- 
fAowfi4tfriv  r^  wtpl  r^¥  yrjv  ^6ffw 
y€yov4tfCu  yip  iKdrtpoM  rovruy  'irp6- 
rcpor  Uri  xar*  Uiiaif  (nrofioKt\v  riya 
Kdfffiov,  6<rT9pop  8^  fuytBirtrou>ufi4yov 
rov  irtpl  rhv  ^\to¥  k^kKov  ^rairoAi)- 
i^Brivai  4v  ain^  nh  itvp. 

'  That  the  BUD  and  moon  should 
have  originated  in  a  different 
manner  £rom  the  other  heavenly 
bodies,  might  appear  necessary  on 
account  of  their  size.  The  state- 
ment of  Diogenes,  that  the  sun,  ac- 
cording to  Leucippus,  was  kindled 
by  the  stars,  quoted  p.  2«8,  1, 
and  no  doubt  connected  with  what 
has  just  been  cited  from  Plutarch, 
seems  also  to  show  that  the  case 
of  the  sun  and  moon  was  peculiar. 

'  According  to  Diog.  ix.  33 
(concerning  Leucippus),  the  moon 
was  nearest,  and  the  sun  farthest 
from  the  earth,  the  other  stars 
being  intermediate  between  them  ; 
this  reminds  us  of  the  statementa 
quoted,  Vol.  I.  p.  699,  2,  concerning 
Parmenides.  According  to  Plu- 
tarch, Plac,  ii.   15,   3,  reckoning 


from  the  earth,  the  moon  came 
first,  then  Venus,  the  Sun,  the 
other  planets,  the  fixed  stars.  Ac- 
cording to  Galen,  H.  Pk  11,  p. 
272  (also  less  fully,  ap.  Stob.  Ed. 
i.  508),  they  came  in  the  follow- 
ing order :  moon,  sun,  planets, 
fixed  stars;  according  to  fiippol. 
StfiU,  i.  13,  thus:  moon,  tan, 
fixed  stars;  the  planets,  the  dis- 
tance of  whica,  as  before  nodeed. 
was  difierently  given  by  Demo- 
critus, seem  to  have  been  omitted 
through  the  negligence  of  the 
transcriber.  According  to  Lucre- 
tius, V.  619  sqq.  Democritus  ex- 
plained the  deviation  of  the  sun's 
course  at  the  solstices  by  sajii^ 
that  each  heavenly  body  foUoved 
the  movement  of  the  sky  with  lees 
and  less  velocity,  the  nearer  it 
approached  the  earth :  ideogue  re- 
Unqui  patUatim  solem  cum  potterio- 
ribus  gignis  inferior  mu^  q»d 
aity  ouam  fervida  si^na  (the  sigos 
of  the  Zodiac  in  which  the  son  is 
in  summer,  cf.  v.  640)  et  magis  koe 
lunam.  So  that  the  sun  is  passed 
by  the  fixed  stars,  and  the  mooa 
by  all  the  heavenly  bodies,  and 
again  overtaken ;  which  gires  the 
appearance  of  the  sun  and  moon 
going  in  an  opposite  direction  from 
Uie  rest.      The  words  ap.  But. 


THE  UNIVERSE, 


261 


those  philosophers  thought,  were  originally  (before  the 
inclination  of  the  earth's  axis"^  parallel  to  the  earth's 
surface ;  their  motion  consequently  was  a  lateral  revo- 
lution,' the  direction  being  in  all  cases  from  east  to 
west ;  *  their  velocity  increased  with  the  distance  of  the 
stars  from  the  circumference  of  the  universe,  and  there- 
fore the  fixed  stars  outstrip  the  sun  and  the  planets, 
and  these  again  are  swifter  than  the  moon.'  The  fire 
of  the  stars,  other  writers  say,  they  believed  to  be 
nourished  by  the  vapours  of  the  earth.^  The  theories 
of  the  Atomists  on  the  inclination  of  the  earth's  axis,^ 


Foe,  tun.  16,  10,  p.  929 :  "  Kara 
Tri%fkn9^  pna\  ^•nyu&Kptros,  UrrafUrn 
run  ^mriforros  [^  o'cX^i^]  {hroXafi* 
fidifti  Koi  94x^fu  rhy  IjXioy"  do  not 
affect  the  present  question ;  for 
mrk  oriBfirir  does  not  mean  '  dose 
by,'  but  'directly  opposite;' 
properly, '  lying  in  a  straight  line,* 
as  we  find  ap.  Simpl.  De  Calo,  226 
A,  20{Schol.  502  b,  29);  Seneca, 
Qm.  Nat,  Tii.  3,  says :  Demoeriiw 
gwque  .  .  .  tuspicari  ae  ait  plwre» 
tut  ttellas^  qua  ctarant,  aed  nee 
•ttflwrvm  illarufnpo6uitnecnomina, 
n^mdum  comprehenns  quinqtte  nde- 
mm  cunibuf ;  but  it  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  Democritns  did  not 
allow  the  nnmber  of  the  planets 
to  ha?e  been  five.  Seneca's  mean- 
ing appears  to  have  been  this :  '  At 
that  time  the  fire  planets  had  not 
only  been  long  nniversally  known 
in  the  eastern  lands  visited  by  our 
philosopher,  but  they  had  also 
been  admitted  into  the  astronomi- 
cal system  of  the  Pythagoreans/ 
MoreoTer  the  title  of  a  treatise : 
vcp)  rwr  vKwnrAv  (Dipg.  ix.  46) 
is  against  the  supposition.  What 
Bemoeritiis  really  said  was  proba- 
bly this,    that    besides    the  fire 


known  planets,  there  might  be 
others;  which  Seneca  heard  at 
third  hand,  and  misunderstood. 

*  This  seems  probable,  fh>m 
their  theoiy,  shortly  to  be  men- 
tioned, of  the  inclination  of  the 
earth,  and  from  the  corresponding 
statements  of  Anaximenes,  Anaxa- 
goras  and  Diogenes,  with  whom  the 
Atomists  in  their  ideas  about  the 
form  and  position  of  the  earth  are 
entirely  agreed. 

»  Plut.  Plac.  ii.  16,  1. 

»  Locr.  I.  c.  p.  260,  3. 

^  According  to  Eustath.  in  Od. 
xii.  p.  1713,  14  Hom.  Democritns 
explained  Ambrosia  the  food  of  the 
Gods,  in  reference  to  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  sun  by  vapours. 

*  According  to  Plutarch,  Phw, 
iii.  12,  they  supposed  that  the 
earth  inclined  towards  the  south, 
which  Leucippus  explained  by  the 
lesser  density  of  the  warmer  regions, 
a&d  Democritns  by  the  weakness 
of  the  southern  part  of  the  wcpt- 
ix^^v '  the  opinion  of  both  philoso- 
phers is  no  doubt  the  same:  the 
warmer  part  of  the  universe'  filled 
with  lighter  and  more  movable 
atoms  offers  less  resistance  to  the 


252 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


on  Bolar  and  lunar  eclipBes,'  on  the  light  of  the  stars 
and  the  milky  way,'  on  comets,'  and  on  the  great 
coBmical  year/  can  be  only  briefly  mentioned  in  this 
place.  Democritus  in  regard  to  most  of  these  points 
agrees  with  Anaxagoras.  Some  other  astronomical 
observations  which  are  ascribed  to  this  philosophy' ^  we 
may  be  allowed  to  pass  over  in  silence,  and  in  respect 
to  the  few  further  theories  be  is  said  to  have  bdd 


pressure  of  the  euth's  disc,  and 
therefore  it  iDclines  to  that  side. 
Id  that  case  it  is  difficult  to  see 
why  the  water  does  not  all  run 
towards  the  south,  and  overflow 
the  southern  countries.  Gf.  the 
theories  of  Anaxagoras  and  Dio- 
genes on  the  same  subject  (Vol.  I. 
p.  298, 4) ;  also  the  following  note. 
*  According  to  Diog.  ix.  33, 
LeucippuB  had    taught    iKX^lwtiv 

yriv  vp6s  fiMVfi/Ji$plw,  which  is  mean- 
ingless. The  words,  ry  K^KXioBaif 
&c.,  as  is  shown  by  what  follows, 
must  originally  have  stood  in  the 
same  connection  as  the  passage 
just  quoted  from  the  Placita ;  and 
other  reasons  must  hare  been  as- 
signed for  the  solar  and  lunar 
eclipses.  But  it  is  possible  that 
Diogenes  may  himself  be  responsi- 
ble for  the  confusion. 

^  Democritus  thought  the  milky 
way  was  composed  of  many  smaU 
Stan  in  close  proximity ;  in  regard 
to  its  peculiar  light,  he  supposed 
with  Anaxagoras  that  the  other 
stars  were  enlightened  by  the  sun, 
and  that  we  see  in  them,  not  their 
own,  but  the  sun's  light  reflected ; 
whereas  the  stars  of  the  milky 
way  lie  in  the  shadow  of  the  earth, 
and  consequently  shine  by  their 


own  light.  Arist.  MetKr,  i.  8, 
345  a,  26,  and  his  exprossioDS  ire 
repeated  by  Alex,  in  h,  /.81b; 
Olympiodoms,  in  h.  I.  p.  15a;  L 
200  Id.;  Stob.  Eel.  i.  576:  Plat 
Plac,  iii.  1, 8 ;  Macrob.  Somn,  Seif, 
i.  15 ;  see  also  Ideler,  ad  MeteonL 
I  410,  414. 

'  Democritus,  like  Anaxsgoiss, 
supposed  the  comets  to  be  a  ool- 
lection  of  seyeral  planets,  so  near 
to  one  another,  that  their  light 
was  united.  Arist.  Meteor,  i.  6, 
842  b,  27,  343  b,  25 ;  Alex.  inU. 
p.  78  a,  79  b;  Olympiodoms,  ts 
A.  I.  i.  177  Td.;  Pint.  Plac\\\.  2, 
3 ;  cf.  Sen.  Qtt.  Nat.  rii.  11 ;  SckoL 
in  Arat.  Dioeem.  1091  (359). 

*  Democritus  assigned  to  this 
great  year,  82  ordinary  years  and 
28  intercalary  months  (Cens.  DL 
Nat.  18,  8);  that  is,  he  supposed 
that  in  this  time  the  diiferenoe  be- 
tween the  solar  and  lunar  year  yas 
equalised;  82  solar  years  beiug 
equal  to  1012  («  12  x  82  4-  28), 
which  gives  nearly  29^  days  for 
each  lunar  month,  if  the  solar  year 
be  reckoned  at  365  days. 

•  Cf.  Mullach,  231-236;  ihii, 
142  sqq.  on  Democritas*s  astrono- 
mical, mathematical,  and  geogra- 
phical writings,  of  which,  howerer, 
we  know  little  except  the  titles. 


MAN.    ANIMALS.    PLANTS. 


263 


relating   to   the   sphere   of  inorganic   nature,  a   bare 
enumeration  must  suffice.' 


HI.  Orgcmic  Nature.     Man :  his  knowledge  and  his  actions. 

The  enquiries  of  Democritus  in  regard  to  organic 
beings  included  not  only  animals,  but  plants ;  he  was, 
however,  chiefly  occupied  with  mankind.*  From  a  philo- 
sophic point  of  view,  his  anthropology  alone  is  worthy 


*  He  supposed  that  earthqnakM 
vere  caused  by  the  action  of  sub- 
terranean water  and  currents  of  air 
(Arist.  Meteor.  \\.  7,  365  b,  1 ;  this 
is  repeated  bj  Alex,  in  h.  I.  Sen. 
Sat.  Qu.  vi.  20) ;  thunder,  light- 
ning, and  hot  blasts  (Tp^irr^p)  he 
tries,  ingeniously  enough  (ap.  Stob. 
i.  694),  to  explain  by  means  of  the 
nature  of  the  clouds  which  engen- 
der them ;  and  the  rarions  enects 
of  tightning,  ap.  Plut.  Qu.  Conv. 
\v,  2,  4.  8  (Democr.  Fr.  Phys.  11), 
he  accounts  for  by  saying  that  some 
bodies  offer  resistance  to  it,  while 
others  allow  it  to  pass  through. 
Wind  arises  when  many  atoms  are 
pressed  together  in  the  air  into  a 
small  space :  when  they  have  room 
to  spread,  there  is  a  ^alm.  The 
overflowings  of  the  Nile  he  explains 
thus :  When  the  snow  melts  in  the 
Qorthem  mountains,  the  evapora- 
tions  are  carried  by  the  north  wind 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  summer 
towards  the  south,  and  ikll  in  the 
Ethiopian  mountains  (Diod.  t.  39 ; 
Athen.ii.  86  d;  Plut.  Plae.  \y.  1, 
4 ;  Schol.  Apotlon.  Shod,  in  Argon. 
ir.  269).  Sea-water,  he  supposed, 
like  Empedocles,  to  contain  sweet 
water  as  well  as  salt,  and  that  the 
fishes  were  nourished  by  it  (^iian. 
ff.  Jnim.  ix.  64).  Of  the  magnet 
we  have  already  spoken,  p.  230,  1. 


The  rules  about  the  weather  must 
also  be  referred  to  Democritus,  ap. 
Mullach.  231  sqq.  288  (Fragm. 
Philos.  i.  368  sq.),  so  far  as  they 
may  be  considered  at  all  genuine ; 
on  the  other  hand,  what  is  ascribed 
to  him.  ibid.  238,  289  sq.  (Fragm, 
i.  372  sq.),  concerning  the  finding 
of  springs,  out  of  the  Geoponica, 
cannot  belong  to  him  ;  as  the  De- 
mocritean  G-eoponica  (on  which,  cf. 
Meyer.  Geaeh.  d.  Botanik.  i.  16  sq.) 
are  wholly  spurious. 

*  The  list  of  his  writings,  ap. 
Diog.  ix.  46  sq.,  mentions :  alriai 
wepl  (nrtpfidrw  icol  ^vrmw  iral 
KOffwWf  oItIcu  wtpl  (^if  y*.  wcpl 
Mp^ov  ^^loi  ^  wrpl  aa^hs  ff^ 
w€p\  yov,  w.  oia-tHiffiwv;  also  the 
books  irtpi  x^f^^  &13<1  v<P^  xf^wy 
partly  belong  to  the  same  category. 
Backhuisen  T.Brinck,  in  Philologus, 
Tiii.  414  sqq.,  has  collected  from 
the  spurious  letter  of  Democritus 
to  Hippocrates  wcpl  ^6<rioi  hvSpA- 
•woVf  and  other  sources,  the  pro- 
bable fragments  of  the  treatise 
wtpl  i^vSpdtwov  ^(tffios.  In  this  trea- 
tise perhaps  the  words  may  have 
stood  which  are  censured  by  Sext. 
Math.  vii.  265 ;  Pyrrh.  ii.  23,  but 
which  cannot  of  course  have  been 
intended  as  an  actual  definition: 
iff$pctir6s  iarof  h  wiUrrts  Xifiti^. 


254 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


of  attention ;  such  of  his  observations  on  plants  ^  and 
animals '  as  have  been  handed  down  to  us  consist  merel; 
of  isolated  remarks  and  conjectures.  Even  his  theories 
on  generation  and  the  development  of  the  fcetus,'  ob 


>  Plants,  the  empty  ehannelB  of 
-which  run  straight,  grow  more 
quickly,  but  last  a  shorter  time, 
because  the  nutritive  substances, 
though  circulating  more  swiftly 
through  all  their  parts,  are  also 
carried  off  more  swiftly,  Theophr. 
Caus, Plant,  i.8,2;  ii.  11, 17.  What 
is  quoted  by  Mullach,  p.  248  sqq. 
(F)yiffm.  i.  376  sq.),  from  the  Geo- 
ponica  concerning  various  agricul 
tural  growths,  cannot  be  certainly 
traced  to  Democritus.  Cf.  previous 
note.  Concerning  the  soul  of  plants, 
vide  if^fra. 

*  The  passages  collected  by 
Mullach,  226  sqq.  {Fragm,  i. 
366  sq.)  from  Julian* s  History  of 
Animals  relate  to  the  following 
subjects:  that  the  lion  does  not 
come  into  the  world  bliod,  like 
other  animals;  that  fishes  feed 
upon  the  sweet  portions  of  the  sea- 
water  ;  concerning  the  productive- 
ness of  dogs  and  swine,  the  un- 
fruitfulness  of  mules  (cf.  also  Arist. 
Gen,  Anim.  ii.  8,  747  a,  25,  para- 
phrased in  his  usual  manner  by 
Philop.  ad  h.  I  68  b),  and  the 
origin  of  these  hvbrids;  on  the 
formation  of  stags  horns ;  on  the 
differences  of  bodily  structure  be- 
tween oxen  and  bulls ;  on  the  ab- 
sence of  horns  in  bulls.  To 
Democritus  may  likewise  be  re- 
ferred the  observations,  ap.  Arist. 
Part.  Anim.  iii.  4,  666  a,  31  on  the 
entrails  of  bloodless  animals ;  Gen. 
Anim.  v.  788  b,  9  (Philop.  ad  h.  I. 
119  a),  on  the  structure  of  teeth  ; 
Hist.  Anim.  ix.  39,  623  a,  30,  on 
the  webs  of  spiders.  The  statement 


about  hares  in  Mullach,  254,  103 
{Fragm.  Philos.  i.  377,  18  from 
Geapon.  xix.  4)  is  clearly  not  his. 

•  According  to  Plutarch's  ila* 
cita,  he  suppOMd  that  the  seed  is 
secreted  from  all  parts  of  the  bodj 
(v.  3,  6,  cf.  Arist.  Gen.  Anim.  ir,  i. 
764  a,  6 ;  i.  17,  721  b.  11 ;  Philop, 
Gen.  Anim.  81b;  Censor.  DL  JVaf. 
c.  6,  2),  and  that  it  is  fbuad  io 
women,  and  also  an  organ  con- 
nected with  it :  he  seems  to  hsn 
distinguished  its  visible  consti- 
tuents from  the  atoms  of  fire  or 
soul  concealed  in  them.  {Plat.  t. 
4,  1,3:  further  particulars  rssiilt 
from  his  doctrine  of  the  soul) 
The  continuance  of  the  fbetna  in 
the  maternal  body  causes  its  body 
to  resemble  that  of  the  mother 
(Arist.  Gen.  Anim.  ii  4,  740  a,  35. 
whose  statement  is  amplified  bj 
Philoponus,  ad  h.  I.  48  b,  obvionsl; 
on  his  own  authority  and  not  on 
that  of  Democritus).  The  process  of 
formation  begins  with  Uie  nsTel, 
which  retains  the  foetus  in  the 
uterus  (Fr.  Pkys.  10,  vide  ti^): 
at  the  same  time,  however,  the 
coldness  of  the  air  assists  in  dosiog 
the  maternal  body  more  firmlji 
and  in  keeping  the  foetus  in  repose 
(iElian,  H.  Amm.  xii.  17).  The 
external  parts  of  the  body,  espe- 
cially (according  to  Cens.  2>i.  3'st 
6, 1 )  the  head  and  the  stomach,  sn 
formed  previously  to  the  inteznal 
(Arist  I.  c.  740  a,  18.  Philopo- 
nus asserts,  no  doubt  quite  arbi- 
trarily, and  on  no  other  evideoce 
than  this  passage,  that,  according 
to    Democritus,  fi^  h  r^  m^'? 


MAN.  255 

which  the  ancient  physicists  were  ho  prone  to  speculate, 
are  not  of  a  kind  to  demand  our  particular  attention. 
We  may  mention,  however,  that  in  agreement  with 
several  of  his  predecessors  he  represented  men  and 
animals  as  arising  from  terrestrial  slimeJ 

Man,  on  account  of  his  bodily  structure  and  form,  is 
to  Democritus  an  object  of  the  highest  admiration.* 
In  his  description  of  the  human  body  '  he  not  merely 
attempts  to  describe  its  parts  according  to  their  position 
and  nature  with  as  much  exactitude  as  the  then  state 
of  these  enquiries  allowed,  but  he  praises  their  utility 
and  importance  for  the  life  of  man  with  such  fervour 
that,  is  spite  of  his  general  tendency  to  a  purely  me- 
chanical explanation  of  nature,  he  approaches  the  tele- 
ology which  has  always  been  chiefly  connected  with  the 
study  of  organic  life,  and  which  even  then,  in  the  person 
of  Socrates,  had  begun  a  successful  conflict  with  the 

thmi  r^r  epewruciiy  Kot  troixfTiKijtf  and  Diogenes,  indicates  enquiries 

ZvntuPf  &\X'  iKr6s).    The  sex  of  about  animals ;  for  it  refers  to  the 

the  child  depends  on  the  relative  cotyledons  which  are  absent  in  the 

proportions  of    the   paternal  and  human  bod^. 
maternal  seed,  emanating  from  the  *  This  is  primarily  asserted  of 

aexnal  organs  (Arist.  I.  c.  764  a,  6,  men  bj  Censorinus,  IH.  Nat.  4,  9  ; 

whose  observations  are   enlarged  and  his  statement  is  placed  beyond 

upon  by  Philoponus,  81  b,  doubt-  question  by  the    analogy  of  the 

less  more  accurately  than  by  Cen-  Epicurean    doctrine.      The    same 

sorinns,  JH.  Nai.  6,  5;  similarly  appears    to    be    intended  in  the 

Parmenides,  vide  Vol.  I.  p.  601, 4).  mutilated  and  imperfect  notice  in 

Abortions  are    caused  by  super-  Ghilen,  HisL  Phil.  c.  3d,  p.  385. 
fostation  (Arist.  I.  c,  iv.  4,  769  b,  '  According     to      Fulgentius, 

and  following  him,  Philo^.  90  b).  Myth.  iii.  7*  he  praised  the  ancients, 

The  child  gets    its   nourishment  referring  to  Homer,  II.  ii.  478,  for 

throngh  the  mouth,  even  in  the  assigning  the  various  parts  of  the 

womb,  by  sucking  a  part  of  the  human  body  to  different  gods — ^the 

ntfTiu  corresponding  with  the  teats  head  to  Zeus,  the  eyes  to  P^las, 

{Viae.  V.  16,  1 ;  cf.  Arist  Gen.  An,  &c.    According  to  David,  8chol.  m 

ij.  7,  746  a,  19).    The  last-noien-  Arist.  14  b,  12,  he  called  man  a 

tioned   theory,  which  Censorinus  fuKphs  K6a'fios» 
(I.  c.  6,  3)  also  attributes  to  Hippo  ■  Cf.  B.  Ten  Brinck,  I.  c. 


256  TEE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

naturalism  of  the  ancient  physics.  The  fortress  of  the 
body  is  given  in  charge  to  the  brain,  which  is  the  lord  of 
the  whole,  to  whom  the  power  of  thought  is  entrusted; 
the  heart  is  called  the  queen,  the  nurse  of  anger,  and  is 
armed  with  a  coat  of  mail  against  attacks ; '  in  r^;ard 
to  the  organs  of  the  senses  and  of  speech,  it  is  shown 
how  suitable  they  are  for  their  functions,  &c.'  Demo- 
critus,  indeed,  never  says  that  they  are  so  fashioned  for 
definite  ends  with  design  and  set  purpose;*  he  does 
not  actually  proceed  teleologically,  but  as  he  traces  the 
result  not  to  a  fortuitous  concurrence  of  circiimstanoes 
but  to  nature  as  Unity,*  which  does  nothing  without 
reason  and  necessity,^  he  approaches  as  nearly  to  the 
teleology  which  he  despises  as  is  possible  firom  his  own 
point  of  view,® 

The  soul  on  the  hypotheses  of  the  Atomistic  doc- 
trine can  only  be  conceived  as  corporeal,  but  its  material 
substance  must  be  of  a  kind  to  explain  its  peculiar  na- 
ture.   This,  according  to  Democritus,  lies  in  animating 

\Cf.  p.  258,  2.  9c^/iio^f»Yirrai. 

^  Cf.  in  respect  to  the  organs  *  Vide  sapra^  p.  237  sq. 

of  sense  the  woiob  which  are  quoted  '  This  is  not,  nowever,  carried 

by  Heracleides  (ap.  Porph.  in  Ptol»  to  such  an  extent   that  we  need 

Harm,  (in  WalliaU  0pp.  Math,  T.)  doubt  his  being  the  author  of  the 

ii.  p.  215  :  (^  iico^)  ^itSoxciov /i^Owr  above  description.      We  find  the 

oilffa  ii,iv*i  r^v  ^wy^v  kyy^iov  }iiKy\v'  same  theory  in  Plutarch*s  qnota- 

IJ5e  T^p  tiifrKplvvrcu  ical  ivp*t,  tion,  Be  Am.  Prol.  c.  3,  p.  496 ;  cf. 

•  Cf.  Aiiat.  De  Re^ir.  4  {infra,  Fort.  Som.  c  2,  p.  817:  i  7^ 
p.  250,  2).  In  the  words  x.  ^i<r.  6/A^a\hs  wp»TO¥  iy  M^^PlHn  {&s 
kvBp.  I,  c.  No.  28 :  h  8i  ha^fuuroi  ^<n      ArujtdKfUTos)     ijKvpiifitKitf 

fiop4>a  ffw?idyxy»y  yhta,  it  is  pos-  koSl  icXif/iia  r^  yiyoyiiv^  icapt^  ml 

sible  that  iff^fxaros  may  belong  to  fidKkom.      We   shaU  see  in  the 

the  supreme  worker  ;  if  indeed  we  course  of  this  chapt-er  that  Bemo- 

ought  not  to  substitute  iSparos.  critus  had  no  difficulty  in  combin- 

*  Vide  previous  note,  and  No.  ing  with  his  materialism  the  re- 
26  :  ^dvTfToy  cnrh  ^Xc/9c»r  re  ical  cognition  of  the  spiritual  in  nature 
vtipvv  vkiyfta   .    .    .    fp^trios  5iro  and  in  man. 


MAN.     THE  HUMAN  BODY. 


267 


and  motive  force:  the  soul  is  that  which  effects  the 
movement  of  living  beings.  But  this  it  can  only  do 
if  it  is  itself  in  constant  motion,  for  the  mechanical 
motion,  which  alone  is  recognised  by  the  Atomists,  can 
only  be  produced  by  what  is  moved.  The  soul  must 
therefore  consist  of  the  most  movable  substance — of 
fine,  smooth,  and  round  atoms — in  other  words,  of  fire.* 
And  the  same  results  from  the  second  chief  quality  of 
the  soul,  which  appears  side  by  side  with  its  vivifying 
force — ^the  power  of  thought,  for  thought  likewise  is  a 
motion.*  These  fiery  particles  were  consistently  supposed 
by  Democritus  to  be  diffused  throughout  the  whole 
body;  the  body  is  animated  in  all  its  parts  because 


»  P.  234. 

»  Ari8t.JD»^».i.  2,408  b,  29: 
^wX  yitp  Kvtoi  icol  Tpirut  ^vx^v 
eZfcu  T^  KUfOvr,     o2i|0f ktcs  ft^  rh  fi^ 

hikafioy  ttyat.  t$w  ArifA6icptros 
fifr  vvp  TI  jrol  BtpfiSy  ^f^aw  %Mfy 
cirai*  avtiptty  yitp  tyrwp  (rxntidrmy 
Kol  ir6itmy  r&  c^aupotiZ^  nvp  koX 
ivxhy  K4y€t,  otov  iy  r^  cUpi  rk 
tttXoifitya  l^/utro,  etc.  (yide  p. 
225)  6fuio»s  d\  Kol  Ac^iwot. 
ro6Tt$y  Si  t&  o^mpoctSi)  ^pvxh''*  Stct 
T^  fidXurra  9ul  waarrhs  B^yaoBcu  ^ta- 
Smur  robs  roia^ous  Pvcftohs  (this 
^xpreisioD,  with  which  cf.  p.  223, 
1,  seems  to  show  that  Aristotle 
18  not  merely  advanciDg  his  own 
opinions,  but  quoting  from  Demo- 
critns)  irol  Kivny  rek  koiw^  itiyo^fuya 
vol  a^A,  ^oXofifidyorrn  r^y  ^^^X^^ 
flwu  rh  wap4xoy  rois  i4^a  t^k 
fffnitfir.  /H(2.405a,8:  AiifidKpiTos 
3^  «al  yXwpvpmriows  djfniffer  cliro<^- 
n^cMt  Si&  ri  roirwy  [sc.  rov  kiki}- 
Tiic«D  ml  yrwpiffYiJcov]  iicdntpoy  [sc. 

VOL.  TI. 


^  'h'xfi]'  ^I^V  M*>'  T^p  flwu  rabrh 
Koi  yavy,  rovro  8*  tJyai  rmy  wp^wy 
Ktd  iidiaupirwy  trcofidrwVf  niptiruchy 
di  8i^  fAiKpofi4pttay  icat  rh  trj^fjuf 
Tuy  9k  (rxi)AuiT«r  thittyiirdraroy  rh 
o^potiih  Xiyw  roiovroy  [scii. 
wicirfir6raroy]  V  c7rai  t^i^  youy  koL 
rh  wup.     Cf.  Ibid,  c.  4,  6,  409  a,  10 

b,  7,  aikd  the  following  notes,  espe- 
cially p.  259,  2.  That  Democritus 
regarded  the  soul  as  composed  of 
warm  and  fleiy  substances,  and  of 
smooth  and  round  atoms,  is  as- 
serted by  many  writers,  e.g.  Cic. 
Tiuc,  i.  11,  22;  18,  42;  Diog.  ix. 
44 ;  Plat.  Plac.  iv.  3,  4  (Stob.  i. 
796,  the  same  thing  is  asserted  of 
Leudppus).    NemesTus,  Nat.  Ham. 

c.  2,  p.  28,  explains  the  round 
atoms  which  form  the  soul  as  '  fire 
and  air,'  and  Macrobius,  Somn.  i. 
14,  as  '  Spirittts ; '  but  these  are  in- 
accuracies, resulting  perhaps  from 
a  confiuion  with  JSpicurus's  doc- 
trine of  the  soul,  or  from  Demo- 
critus's  theory  of  the  breath,  men- 
tioned if{fira. 

S 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


there  are  atoms  in  all,  which,  according  to  their  nature, 
are  involved  in  perpetual  motion  and  also  move  that 
which  surrounds  them :  ^  indeed,  he  goes  so  &r  as  to  say 
that  there  is  a  soul-atom  between  every  pair  of  bodj- 
atoms.'  But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  movement  of 
the  atoms  must  be  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the  body: 
on  the  contrary,  according  to  Democritus,  the  various 
faculties  of  the  soul  have  their  seat  in  different  parts 
of  the  body :  thought  in  the  brain,  anger  in  the  heart, 
desire  in  the  liver.'  When,  therefore,  later  authors 
assert  that  he  assigned  the  whole  body  to  the  irrational 
part  of  the  soul  as  its  abode,^  and  the  brain  or  the  heart 
to  the  rational  part,  the  statement,  though  not  wholly 
to  be  discarded,  is  only  partially  correct.*     On  accoimt 


I  Arist.  De  An.  i.  3,  406  b,  16 : 
tvioi  tk  jccd  Kivu¥  ^aff\  T^y  ^'^X^'' 
T^  cmiM  iv  f  iariy  its  ain^  KiycTreu, 
oToi'  ArifiSKpnos  .  .  .  Kwoufiivas  ydp 
^il<ri  riis  i^ieupirovs  ffipaipas  8(&  rh 

^4\Kuy  Kcd  Kiytiv  rh  tr&fia  way^ 
which  Aristotle  compares  to  the 
fancy  of  Philippus  the  comic  poet, 
that  Dsedalus  gave  motion  to  his 
statues  by  pouring  quicksilver 
into  them.  Hence  at  the  beginninfi: 
of  c.  5  he  says :  cfrcp  jAp  l*m¥  ^ 
^vx^  ^y  TfurrX  r^  alcBayofiiyip  <r^ 
fueri.  We  find  the  same,  probably 
quoted  from  Aristotle,  in  Iambi, 
ap.  Stob.  i.  024,  and  mor«>  concisely 
in  Sezt.  Math,  vii.  349;  cf.Macrob. 
Z.C. 

•  Lucret.  iii.  870  : — 

Ulttd  in  his  rebus  nequaquam  sumers 

possis, 
Democriti  quodsancia  viri  sententia 

ponitf 
Corporis  atque  animi  prime  rdia^  sin- 

gtda  privis 


Adpasita,  aUemis  variare  ae  me^irt 
metiWrn, 

Lucretius  thought  that  the  atoms 
of  the  body  were  much  more  na- 
merous  than  those  of  the  mul ;  and 
that  the  latter  were  therefore  dis- 
tributed at  wider  intervals  tiun 
Democritus  supposed. 

'  In  this  sense  Democritus,  r. 
kySp^wov  ^^loSf  Fr,  6,  calls  the 
brain  ^vXaxa  iiayohis ;  Fr.  15  the 
heart  fioffiXls  ipyris  Tiftjrrfi;  />. 
17  the  liver,  iwi$vftlfis  cdPrior. 

<  Pint  Plac.  iv.  4.  3 :  aW- 
Kpirof,  'Evdcovpos,  9ifupin  r^f  ♦^^ 
X^r,  rh  fiky  XoytKby  ifxovffev  if  Tf 
B^poKt  K9Bt^pvft4yw,  a  i*  iXajo9 
Kvff  tXsiy  T^y  ffvyKpurty  rw  <r4fittTof 
9ieaTapfi4yoy.  Theod.  Cur.  Gr.  Af. 
v.  22,  p.  73 :  'Iinroirpdnif  ph  7*P 
Kol  A'nfA6Kptros  KcU  nxdrtP  h  iy^*' 
^tdk^f  TOVTO  [rh  rrytfioytitby]  /Jpwrf« 
ttp^Koiriy, 

•  The  Placita  manifestly  eon- 
fuse  the  doctrine  of  Democritus 
with  that  of  Epicurus  (on  which, 


THE  SOUL. 


260 


of  the  fineness  and  mobiKty  of  the  soul's  atoms,  there 
is  danger  lest  they  should  be  forced  out  of  the  body 
by  the  air  that  surrounds  us.  Against  this  danger 
Democritus  says  we  are  protected  by  our  inspiration, 
the  importance  of  which  lies  in  its  constantly  intro- 
ducing new  fiery  and  vital  matter  into  the  body ;  this 
in  part  replaces  the  soul-atoms  that  pass  off; '  and  also 
and  chiefly  hinders  by  its  counter  current  those  which 
are  in  the  body  from  gaining  egress;  thus  enabling 
them  to  resist  the  pressure  of  the  outer  air.  If  the 
breath  is  impeded,  and  if  this  resistance  is  in  conse- 
quence overcome  by  the  force  of  the  air,  the  internal 
fire  wastes  away  and  death  is  the  result.*    As,  however. 


cf.  Part  m.  8,  386,  second  edition). 
In  Theodorotns  the  conception  of 
th<»  irr^iMviKhv,  at  any  rate,  is  inter- 
polated. 

'  That  expiration  also  helps 
tovHzds  this  purpose  is  clear  from 
Arist.  Be  An.  i.  2  (following  note) ; 
for  the  exit  of  older  fiery  particles 
corresponds  to  the  entrance  of  new. 
This  is  said  more  definitely,  but 
no  doubt  only  on  the  authority  of 
the  pttsage  in  Aristotle,  by  Philop. 
I>eAn,li,\b\  Simpl.  De  An.  6  a, 
and  the  scholia  on  ir.  kvoirvorit ; 
SimpL  De  An.  166  b. 

'  Aristotle,  De  An.  i.  2,  con- 
tinues :  9i^  «co2  rov  Qv  Zpov  ttifou 
riiy  ivawvo^tr  trvydyopros  yhp  rov 
»ep<^0KTOf  tA  tr^fAora  (Philop.  ad. 
A.  L  B^  15,  in  agreement  with  the 
Atomistic  presuppositions,  assigns 
&8  a  reason  for  this,  the  coldness 
of  the  wtpUxop ;  cf.  also  Arist.  De 
Btspir.  c.  4,  472  a,  30)  :  koX  iK»\i- 
fimnos  r&w  trxyifi^'roov  rh  •wapix^^^^ 
fois  {^ois  riiv  Kivnatv  9i&  th  fitit^ 
oiri  iiptfuw  fifi94voT9f  fio-fiBfuuf  yl- 


8  2 


roioxrrcov  iy  r^  iwcatvtiir  K«\iuv 
y^  avrh  koX  tA  iyvw&pxotrra  iv  roTs 
C<lfots  4KKpiv€ir0ai,  ffwayttpyovra  rh 
trvvdyov  nai  vrryv^v  icol  QvHi  tus 
hv  9vyuvTcu  rovTo  trotuu.  Similarly 
De  Reapir.  c.  4  :  Afifidxpiros  8*  Bn 
fiiy  4k  tiJs  itymtvoris  trvfifiaivti  ri 
rots  iyairWovo-i  \4yu,  i^Knv  kv- 
\itiy  iKB\i$€ir$ai  r^y  MnC^v*  oh 
fUyroi  y*  &s  ro<nov  y*  tvtKa  irofffaa- 
ffcat  ravTO  r^v  ^triv  ob^\v  tXpriK^y  • 
ZXus  yhp  &a"irtp  Koi  ol  4aaoi  ^wriKoi 
Kal  oZtos  oMy&wrtrai  rf}s  rotaOrrn 
airias.  \4yu  8*  &s  ^  rf^vxh  tal  rh 
Btpfthy  rainhy  rh  wpwra  ffxhiMra 
r&y  ff^oupotiZ&y.  <rvyKpiyofi4ytioy  oly 
auT&y  6wh  rod  v€pi4xoyros  4x0x1  fioy- 
ros  fio^iBuay  ylywBai  r)iv  &vairvo^y 
^i)<rtv  4v  yhp  ry  h.4pi  iroXvy  hpi- 
Bfihy  cTvcu  r&y  roio6r<ioy,  ft  KaKti 
4K€iyo5  vovy  Ktd  ^vx'flir  &vairy4oyro' 
ody  Kol  ti(rt6yros  rov  h4pot  (rvyuciSv^ 
ra  ravra  xal  iy^lpyovra  r)iy  BXlyjftv 
Ku\{t€iy  r)iy  4yowr<uf  4y  ro7s  fy'oij 
6iX4yM  iffWX^K-  iral  Bih  rovro  4y  r^ 
hyatryety  koX  4iatv9iy  ttyai  rh  (gv  koI 
hvoBrturKfiy.  Bray  yhp  uparf  rh  ire- 
pi4xoy  iruyB\7fiov  koX  fvrjK4rt  B^padtv 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


the  fire  is  Dot  extinguished  instaDtaneously,  it  may  abo 
happen  that  vital  action  may  be  restored  when  part  of 
the  soul's  substance  has  been  lost.  In  this  way  sleep  is 
explained ;  in  that  case  only  a  few  fiery  particles  have 
left  the  body.'  The  same  process  more  completely  car- 
ried out  produces  the  phenomenon  of  apparent  death.' 


yov  &yaiiv«i>,  r6T€  avfifialwMiP  rhv 
tfdroroy  TO«t  (^w  tfMu  7^  t&f 
dijfarov  r^p  r&if  TOto6r»w  o'XQA^Ttfy 
^jc  ToS  aAfueros  i^oiop  itc  riis  rod 
ircpccxoi^os  MKl^tvt.  Why  all 
creatures  die  however,  and  what  is 
the  cause  of  respiration,  Demoori- 
tus  did  not  saj. 

1  Thus  much  seems  to  result 
from  the  theories  of  the  Epicu- 
reans concerning  sleep  {Lucret,  iy. 
913  sqq.). 

*  Of.  on  this  point  the  fragment 
of  Froclus*s  commentary  on  the 
tenth  book  of  the  RepitbliCf  which 
was  first  communicated  by  Alex. 
Moms  on  Ev,  Joh,  11,  89,  p.  341 ; 
and  first  corrected  by  Wyttenbach 
ad  Plut.  de  9,  Num.  Find.  663  B 
(Animadverss.  ii.  1,  201  sq.);  and 
Mullach,  Demoer,  115  sqq.  De- 
mocritus  had  written  a  treatise  on 
the  apparently  dead,  a  subject 
much  discussed  in  antiquity  (vide 
the  writers  just  mentioned,  and 
what  is  quoted,  p.  120,  n.,  on  the 
person  brought  to  life  by  Empedo- 
cles  when  apparently  dead) ;  and 
also  a  treatise,  ircpl  r&v  iv  fSov, 
in  which,  as  Proclus  says,  he  en- 
quired vAs  rhv  ikwo$ap6pra  vdKip 
irafii&ytu  9mwr6p;  but  the  only 
answer  is  that  it  is  possible  the 
person  was  not  really  dead.  To 
these  enquiries  about  the  resusci- 
tation of  the  dead,  the  graceful 
fable  seems  to  refer  which  Julian 
(ESpiat.  37,  p.  413  Spanh.,  printed 


in  MuUach,  46)  relates,  of  eonne 
from  older  writers;  namely,  tliat 
Democritus,  to  comfort  King  Dams 
for  the  death  of  his  wife,  tcdd  him 
that,  in  order  to  recall  her  to  bfe. 
it  was  only  necessary  to  write  vpoo 
her  graye  the  names  of  three  men 
who  were  tne  ^m  sorrow  (LacisB. 
Demon,  26,  relates  the  same  thing 
of  Demonaz).  Pliny  may  periu^ 
haye  been  thinking  of  this  ttoir 
when  he  says  (ff,  N,  yii.  55,  189)': 
revivUeendi  promista  a  Demoerito 
vanitas,  qui  non  revixU  nw ;  but  it 
is  also  possible  that  these  mids 
may  allude  to  a  passage  in  Demo- 
critus*8  treatises  on  magic,  from 
which  Pliny,  ignorant  of  criticism 
as  he  is,  quotes  only  this  much ; 
and  that  Julianas  anecdote,  which 
giyes  a  moral  tnm  to  the  supposed 
magic,  may  likewise  haye  refemn 
to  a  statement  that  Democrititf 
could  raise  the  dead,  or  hsd  left 
instructions  how  to  do  it  Kt  any 
rate,  the  passage  in  Pliny  is  con- 
cerned only  with  magical  arts, 
which  the  imagination  of  later 
fabricators  has  ascribed  to  the 
naturalist  of  Abdera ;  and  not  with 
the  doctrine  of  immortality,  iriiich 
IS  altogether  irreconcileable  with 
his  point  of  yiew.  Eyen  the  word?. 
qui  non  revisit  ipse,  nhJA  would 
be  meaningless  as  applied  to  ano- 
ther life,  show  this :  Koth  is,  there- 
fore, entirely  mistaken  ((reKiL  d. 
Abendl.  Phil,  I  362,  438),  and  so  i« 
Brucker  {Hist.  Crit,  Pkil  1 1195), 


THE  SOUL,  261 

If,  however,  death  has  really  taken  place,  and  the  atoms 
of  which  the  soul  is  composed  are  completely  separated 
from  the  body,  it  is  impossible  that  they  can  ever 
return  to  it,  or  that  they  can  maintain  themselves  in 
combination  outside  the  body.^ 

Democritus,  therefore,  does  not  deny  that  there  is  a 
difference  between  soul  and  body,  nor  that  the  soul  is 
superior  to  the  body.  The  soul  with  him  is  the  essen- 
tial in  man,  the  body  is  only  the  vessel  of  the  soul,'  and 
he  admonishes  us  for  this  reason  to  bestow  more  care  on 
the  latter  than  on  the  former ; '  he  declares  corporeal 
beauty  apart  from  understanding  to  be  something 
animal;^  he  says  the  glory  of  animals  consists  in 
bodily  excellences,^  that  of  man  in  moral;  he  seeks 
the  abode  of  happiness  in  the  soul,  the  highest  good  in 
a  right  disposition ;  ^  he  makes  the  soul  answerable  for 

whom  he  follows,  in  his  inference  Floril.  120,  20  :  htoi  $inrnis  ^iwios 

that  Democritos  was  an  adherent  Bid\wriv  oIk  «i8^«f  At^ponroif  ^wti- 

of  the  Persian    doctrine    of    the  S^o-i  8^  r^s  4v  r^  /3iy  Kwowpvytio- 

resorrection.  ainms^   rhy  rrjs  fiioTTJs  XP^*^^  ^^ 

'  This  lies  so  entirely  in  the  na-  rapaj(ga'i  koX  ^Sfiourt    ra\iufr»p4- 

tnreof  the  snbject  that  we  scarcely  ov<ri,  ^c^Sca  xtpl  rod  /<«tA  tV  tc- 

reqnire  the  testimony  of  lambli-  A.cvr^v     fivBowKturriovrts    xp^*^^* 

chus  ap.  Stob.  Eel.  i.  924 ;  Lactan-  The    obscure     statement    in    the 

tius,   Inst.  yii.    7;    Theodoretus,  Placita,  t.  26,  4,  that  Leucippns 

Cur.Gr.AffiT.  24,  p.  73  ;  and  the  referred  death   to  the  body  only, 

PlacUa^  It.  7,  3,  to  disprove  the  cannot  be  taken  into  account, 
belief  of  Democritus  in  immor-  *  Xc^rof  is  a  common  designa- 

tality ;  more   especially  as   it   is  tion  for  the  body  with  Democritus, 

nowhere  stated  that  Epicurus  dif-  Fr.  Mor.  6,  22,  127.  128,  210. 
fend  irom  him  in  this  respect;  *  Fr.  Mor.  128:  Mp^wouri  op- 

and,  considering  the  great  import-  fi6liiov  ^vxrji  /foXXoy    ^    c^fAoros 

ance  ascribed  by  Epicurus  to  the  voUtaOtu    Xiyov    4^x^    /iiv    7ap 

denial  of  immortality,  the  venera-  T«X««»TdTi|  trtchvtos  fAox^ripiw  hpBol^ 

tion  with  which  he  and  his  school  CK^xfoj    tk    Urx^s  i»9v  Xoyiciiov 

regarded  Democritus  seems  to  ex-  ^x^''  ol^iv  ri  hfitlyu  riOrio-i. 
dude  any  disagreement  between  *  Ibid.  129. 

tbm  OD  this  subject.     Democritus  *  Ibid.  127. 

thus  eipresses  himself,  ap.  Stob.  •  i'V.  l,&c.  Further  details «?/. 


202  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

the  injury  it  causes  to  the  body ;  ^  he  contrasts  the 
endowments  of  the  soul  as  divine  with  those  of  the 
body  which  are  merely  human;  ^  he  is  even  said  to  have 
reckoned  the  intellect  of  man  among  the  divinities.' 
This,  however,  presents  no  contradiction  to  the  mate- 
rialism of  the  Atomistic  philosophy,  if  we  place  our- 
selves at  its  own  point  of  view.  The  soul  is  something 
corporeal,  like  all  other  things ;  but  since  the  corporeal 
substances  are  as  various  as  the  form  and  composition 
of  the  atoms  of  which  they  consist,  it  is  also  possible 
that  one  substance  may  have  qualities  which  belong  \xs 
no  other ;  and  if  the  sphere  be  regarded  as  the  most 
perfect  shape,  Democritus  may  also  have  held  that  that 
which  is  composed  of  the  finest  spherical  atoms,  fire,  or 
the  soul,  exceeds  all  else  in  worth.  Spirit  is  to  him,  as 
to  other  materialists,^  the  most  perfect  body. 

From  this  connection  of  ideas,  we  can  now  see  in 
what  sense  Democritus  could  assert  that  soul  or  spirit 
dwells  in  all  things,  and  that  this  soul,  distributed 
throughout  the  whole  universe,  is  the  Deity.  As  he 
identifies  reason  with  the  soul,  and  the  soul  with  the 

*  Plut.  Utr.  An,  an  Corp.  s.  lib,  for  thongh  PhilodemuB,  whom 
(TliU.  Froffm,  1),  c.  2,  p.  696  W.,  Cicero  hew  follows,  is  apt  to  dis- 
Democritus  says  that  if  the  body  tort  the  opinions  of  the  SDcieot 
arraigned  the  soul  for  abuse  and  thinkers,  yet  there  is  genemlly 
ill-treatment,  the  soul  would  be  some  basis  of  &ct  underlying  hU 
condemned.  assertions:  he  reckons  among  the 

^  Ibid,  6:  6  rh  ^XV^  iyoBk  gods  of  a  philosopher  all  that  thai 

ipf6fA9vos    rh    BuSrtpci,    6    9i    ri  philosopher    describes    as  dirioe, 

o-K^vcof,  rMpwr^ila.  even  in  the  widest  sense.    Demo- 

*  Cic.  N,  D,  i.  12,  29:  Ikmio-  critus,    however,  may  well  hare 
critva  qui  turn  imagines  .  .  .  tn  called  wovs  0c<bf ,  and  in  a  cerisiQ 
Deorum  numero  r^rt   ,  .  .    turn  sense  $ths  also. 
scientiaminteUiffetUiamqftenostram.  *  For    example,     HeradeiUis, 
We  are  justified  in  regarding  this  the  Stoics,  &c 

statement  as  historical  eyidence ; 


SOUL  AND  BODY, 


warm  and  fiery  substance,  he  must  necessarily  find  in 
all  things  exactly  as  much  soul  and  reason  as  he  finds 
light  and  warmth.  He  therefore  considers  that  in  the 
air  much  soul  and  reason  is  distributed :  how  other- 
wise could  we  inhale  firom  it  soul  and  reason  ? '  He 
also  ascribed  life  to  plants,^  and  even  in  corpses  he 
probably  thought  there  remained  a  portion  of  vital  beat 
and  sensation.'  This  warm  and  animate  element  he 
seems  to  have  described  as  the  Divine  in  things/  and 
so  it  may  well  have  been  said  in  the  later  form  of  ex- 
pression that  he  regarded  the  Deity  as  the  World-soul 
and  Season,  formed  out  of  round  atoms  of  fire.^     Such 


'  Aristotle,  in  the  passage 
quoted,  De  Retpir,  c.  4  :  iv  yhp  ry 
^fn  woXhp  iipiSfjAv  ^hnu  rS»9  roio6' 
rw,  &  KoXc?  iK€iyos  vow  ical  ^^X^''* 
Theophr.  De  Sensu,  53:  80-49  ifi- 
infxirtpos  6  &^0. 
^  »  Plut.  Qu,  Nat,  1,  1,  p.  911: 
f^r  yap  lyyciox  rh  ^urhy  tlwu  ol 
*tpi  Tlxdrmva  Kol  *AMa^ay6p<uf  koH 
^Hp6Kpno9  ^orrtu.  Ps.-Arist.  De 
Plant,  c.  1,  S15  b,  16 :  6  9i  'Aya^a- 
y^pas  Ml  6  AmUnpiTOS  Kol  6  *Efi- 
VfioKk^s  md  yovv  Koi  yp&cip  ttwov 

»  Plut.  PUtc.  ir.   4,  4:    i  W 

t^vxvf  imas  iced  rh  vtKph  r&r  cotpui- 
Twy  81^1  &(l  Zieupaims  Tir«r  BtppLOv 
nl  tua^ifTiKov  furdx^h  rod  irKtloyos 
itarniiiwv.  Job.  Damasc.  Para//. 
B.  ii.  25,40.  Stob.  Floril.  ed.  Mein. 
IT.  236:  Aiifi^Kp.  T^  wtKpk  r&y 
vmpirmv  aia$dy9<r0ai.  Similarlj, 
Alexander  in  Toipica,  13  (also  Par- 
menides,  vide  Vol.  I.  p.  602).  In 
accordance  with  this  last  passage, 
Philippson  changes  "  /uicpov "  into 
"rcKpow,"  ap.  Theophr.  De  Sensu. 
71:  (^i}0-i  [Aii/A^Kp.]  yiyoBai  pikv 
Uwrroy  col  «yai  Kcin^  kkffitiw^  l^ims 


8c  ^1  fiiKpov  fioTpay  iTxcir  (rw4<rt»s). 
The  thing,  however,  is  not  quite 
beyond  question:  Cicero  says,  Tkisc. 
i.  34,  82 :  num  igitw  aliquia  dolor 
aut  omnino  post  mortem  sensus  in 
corpore  est  f  nemo  id  auidem  dicit^ 
etsi  Democritum  insimutat  Epicurus : 
Democritici  neganL  According  to 
this  passage  it  would  seem  that  the 
statement  of  Democritns  was  either 
limited  to  the  time  before  the  corpse 
becomes  completely  cold,  or  that  he 
ascribed  to  the  dead  an  infinitesimal 
portion  of  soul,  but  neither  con- 
sciousness nor  feeling. 

*  Cic.  N.  D.  i.  43,  120:  turn 
principia  mentis  qua  sunt  in  eodem 
universoDeosessedicU,  These  prtn- 
cipia  mentis  are  manifestly  what 
Aristotle  means  in  the  passage  just 
quoted — the  fine  and  round  atoms. 
Of.  on  this  point,  p.  262,  2; 
263,  1. 

*  Stob.  Eel  i.  66 ;  Plut.  Tlac, 
i.  7,  13,  ap.  Eus.  Pr,  Eo,  xir.  16, 
6  :  Galen,  H.  Ph,  c.  8,  p.  261,  whose 
imperfect  text  Erische  {Forsch.  i. 
167)  rightly  refers  to  the  more 
complete  passage,  ap.  Oyrill.  0.  Jul, 
i.  4:    yow  fxky  yhp  fZm  rhy  Bthw 


264  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

language  is,  however,  inaccurate  and  misleading,  for 
when  Democritus  speaks  of  the  Divine,  he  means  not  only 
no  personal  being,  but  no  one  being  at  all ;  not  a  sool, 
but  merely  the  aiihataTice  of  souls,^  fiery  atoms,  which 
produce  life  and  motion,  and  where  they  are  congr^ted 
in  larger  masses,  reason  also ;  this  is  very  different  from 
the  one  force  that  moves  the  Universe,  in  the  sense  of 
Anaxagoras's  vov9  or  Plato's  world-soul.*  Other  writers 
^  therefore,  who  deny  that  he  held  the  theory  of  a  spirit 
forming  the  world  and  a  Divinity  ruling  it,  are  more  in 
accordance  with  the  truth.  The  spiritual  from  his  point 
of  view  is  not  the  power  above  matter  collectively ;  it  is 
a  part  of  matter ;  the  only  motive  force  is  gravity  and 
the  sole  reason  why  the  soul  is  the  most  movable  of  aD 
things,  and  the  cause  of  motion,  is  that  the  substances 
of  which  it  consists  are  on  account  of  their  size  and 
shape  the  most  easily  moved  by  pressure  and  impact. 
The  doctrine  of  spirit  did  not  result  from  the  general 
necessity  of  a  deeper  principle  for  the  explanation  of 
nature ;  it  primarily  refers  only  to  the  activity  of  hu- 
man souls ;  and  though  analogues  of  these  are  sought 
in  nature,  yet  the  statements  of  Democritus  concerning 
spirit  differ  from  the  corresponding  statements  of  Anaxa- 
goras  and  Heracleitus  and  even  of  Diogenes.  The  point 
of  difference  is  this :  that  he  considers  spirit,  not  as  the 
power  forming  the  world,  but  only  as  one  substance  side 
by  side  with  others ;  here  his  doctrine  is  less  advanced 
tjian  that  of  Empedocles,  which  in  many  respects  it 
much  resembles ;  for  Empedocles  maintains  the  ration- 

iffXvpiCwai  KcX  oinhs^  irK^v  4r  wupi  »  Prindpia   mentis,  as  Cieew 

(r^po«i8c(,  icol  a^^i'  cTi^oi  r^y  rov    rightly  says,  ^x^  potpai, 
K6<rfMv  ^xhv,  ^  Vide  teup,  p.  239,  8. 


FACULTIES  OF  THE  SOUL.  266 

ality  which  he  attributes  to  all  things  to  be  an  internal 
quality  of  the  elements;  Democritus  on  the  contrary 
represents  it  as  a  phenomenon  resulting  from  the  mathe- 
matical construction  of  certain  atoms  in  their  relation 
to  the  others ;  ^  sensation  and  consciousness  are  merely 
a  consequence  of  the  mobility  of  those  atoms.* 

Of  the  faculties  of  the  soul  Democritus  seems  to 
have  bestowed  most  attention  on  those  of  cognition; 
at  any  rate,  tradition  tells  us  of  his  attempts  to  explain 
these  and  no  others.  According  to  what  we  have  seen 
of  his  theories,  he  could  only  start,  generally  speaking, 
from  the  presupposition  that  all  presentations  consist  of 
corporeal  processes.'  In  particular  he  explained  the 
perceptions  of  sense  as  well  as  thought.  The  former  he 
derived  from  the  changes  which  are  produced  in  us  by 
means  of  external  impressions ;  *  and  since  every  opera- 

*  Whether  this  is  a  defect  or,  spirit,  and  are  only  to  be  under- 

u  Lange,  Gesch.  d.  Mat.  i.  20,  be-  stood  in  this  connection, 
lieves,  a  merit  in  the  theory  of         '  Stob.  Exc,  e  Joh.  Damasc.  ii. 

DemocrituB,    or  whether   it  may  25,  12  (Stob.  Floril,  ed.  Mein.  iv. 

perhaps  be  both,  the  logical  de-  2ZS):A€^KiwwoSfAnfioicpdrris{-6Kpi- 

velopment  of  a  one-sided  point  of  los)  rhs  cutrBiiaeis  xal  riis  voijircfs. 

viev,  I  Deed  not  here  enquire.     It  irtpoi^tis  that  rov  trAiiaros. 
is  all  the  less  necessary  since  Lange  *  Arist.  Metaph,  iv.  5,  1009  b, 

has  acknowledged  the  substantial  12,  of  Democritus  and  others:  9i& 

eurreetness  of  my  representation ;  rh  ^oXo/i/Sivciy  ipp6vii(nr  fihv  tV 

I'Qt  he  at  the  same  time  remarks :  eCtaOrifftv,  raOrjiv  9*  tlvat  itWoiuaiy, 

'  The  want  in  all  materialism  is  rh  ^€uy6fifroy  Karii  rijv  civBiictv  i^ 

this:  that  it  ends  with  its  expla-  iivdyKiis iO<.ii$hs  ttval <pcurty.  Tbeoph. 

nation  of  phenomena  where  the  De  Senmi,  49:   ATifi6KfHTos  9i  .  .  . 

highest   problems    of   philosophy  t^  iiWoiovaOeu  xoiti  rh  alaBdytirBou, 

begin/  Theophmstus  goes  on  to  observe,  in 

'  This  may  also  explain  why  reference  to  the  unanswered  ques- 

the  theories  of  Democritus  on  the  tion  of  Democritus — whether  each 

spiritoal  in  nature  are  here  men-  sense  perceives  what  is  like  itself 

tioned  for  the  first  time:  his  inter-  or  what  is  unlike,  that  this  may 

pretation  of  nature  did  not  require  admit  of  a  double  answer :   so  far 

these  theories;  they  resulted  from  as  the  sense-perception  is  a  change, 

his  contemplation  of  the  human  it  must  proceed  from  what  is  hete- 


266  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

tion  of  one  body  upon  another  is  conditioned  by  touch, 
it  may  be  said  that  he  represented  all  sensation  as  con- 
tact,^ and  all  the  senses  as  various  kinds  of  touch.*  This 
contact,  however,  is  not  merely  direct  contact,  it  is  more 
or  less  the  result  of  the  emanations  without  which  the 
interaction  of  things  on  each  other  would  be  inexpUcable. 
As  these  emanations  penetrate  through  the  organs  of 
sense  into  the  body,  and  spread  through  all  its  parts, 
there  arises  the  presentation  of  things,  sensible  percep- 
tion.^ But  in  order  that  this  result  should  be  attained, 
on  the  one  hand  there  must  be  a  certain  strength  in 
the  impression,  a  certain  amount  of  permeating  atoms-/ 
and  on  the  other,  their  material  constitution  must  cor- 

rogeneous,  so  fur  as  like  can  only  koL  Zra»  wriXBp  S«A  r^j  hmfi  810- 

a&ctlike(»»p.p.  221,2),from'what  x«<<'^»   **t^  *«'»   Scnrcp  oi  tm 

is  homogeneous.    Cf.  p.  267,  2.  ixoais  &AA'    SXy    r^  ffiiucri  7^ 

'  Vide  9up.  p.  230.  ciCffBriiriv  olcay.  ob  yhp  c2  xol  vvft- 

•  Arist.  De  Sensu,  c  4,  442  a,  »4<rxe»  t»  rp  Aicop,  Zik  t«St«  id 
20 :  Arifi6KpiTos  9i  koI  ol  ir\tt(rroi  0i<r$diftTai.  "rda-cus  yiip  [sc  toIs 
r&v  ^<nok6yvy,  8<roi  \4yowrL  W9p)  aiV^<rco'i]  rovT6  7c  6fioims  voict' 
tdaBiitrtvs,  droird^TaTitv  n  ^roiowriw  koL  06  fiSvoy  reus  aUrO^tcurj  AAAA 
vdfnay6.p  rkcuffOriTkiifrTkiroiovtriv,  §cai  rp  i>vjCP'  ^*  opinion  in  re- 
Kalroi  tl  ofirv  toGt*  ^x'^  8i)Xov  &s  gard  to  the  other  senses  has  not 
Kcd  rQv  &KKKV  alffd^fftwp  Ijcdo-ri}  been  transmitted  to  ns,  bnt  it  ii 
o^^  ns  iariv.  clear  from    the    aboTe   quotstioD 

*  Theophr.  De  Senaut  54 :  &to-  that  he  assumed,  not  merely  in 
voy  84  fcai  rh  fiii  fiSyop  rois  tiifuuriy  smell  and  taste,  bnt  also  in  the 
hKKh  KcX  T<^  &AAy  ffAfiari  fieraitHS-  perceptions  of  touch,  the  entnnee 
vai  rris  cUortf^o'cwf.  ^<rl  7^^  9ih  of  emanations  into  the  body ;  since 
rovro  KtySrn^a  Koi  ^pSrirra  Ix*"'  he  could  only  explain  sensation  as 
Utty  rhy  6<^daXfihyf  V  4-wtTr\4oy  a  contact  of  the  whole  sonl  with 
d^X^Toi  Kol  T^  &A.\y  <r«6jMiri  vot^-  outer  things.  For  the  sensation  of 
6ib^.  §  56 :  in  hearing,  the  agi-  warmth  seems  aUo  to  result  from 
tated  air  penetrates  tlm>ugh  the  the  nature  of  this  contact 
whole  body,  but  especially  through  *  Vide  supra,  p.  281, 2 ;  2Z3, 1  •' 
the  ear,  ira»  W  iyrhs  ydyjircUf  Theophr.  De  Setuu,  66.  The  tones 
(TKlZyatrOcu  9ih.  rh  rdxos.  This  is  penetrate  indeed  through  the  whole 
further  explained  by  what  follows,  body,  but  in  greatest  nunben 
§  67 :  Aroiroy  Sk  kcu  81*  &y  (&t.  9k  through  the  ears,  Btb  ical  mra  /(^f 
rh  liioy^  better:  &r.  9i  Koi  TSioy)  t^  &AXo  avfia  o&jc  aia^di^tff^tt, 
icarh  Tay  rh  a&fjM  rhy  ^6^y  tl(n4ym  rvbrg  84  fUyoy, 


THE  SENSES. 


267 


respond  to  that  of  the  organs  of  sense ;  for  as  like  can 
only  work  upon  like,'  so  our  senses  can  only  be  con- 
cerned with  what  is  like  them ;  we  perceive  each  thing, 
as  Empedocles  taught,  with  that  part  of  our  nature 
which  is  akin  to  it.^  If,  therefore,  Democritus  believed 
that  much  is  perceptible  which  is  not  perceived  by  us, 
because  it  is  not  adapted  to  our  senses,'  and  admitted 
the  possibility  that  other  beings  might  have  senses 
which  are  wanting  to  us,^  it  was  quite  consistent  with 
his  other  presuppositions. 


>  Vide  mp.,  p.  221,  2. 

«  Theophr.  De  Sensu,  60.  We 
see  when  the  eyes  are  damp,  the 
cornea  thin  and  firm,  the  internal 
tissues  poroas,  the  channela  of  the 
eyes  straight  and  dry :  iced  biioio- 
^X'^^'t^i'  [sc  ol  d^aXfioll  TOis 
kwTvwovfUyois.  Sezt.  Math,  vii. 
116:  ToXcu^  ydp  ru,  &s  irpotTwov^ 
ym9€wwapii  rott  ^Mrucoit  KvKifrai 
S^  vfpt  rov  rk  tfioia  xw  SftoUty 
thui  yimpurrucd.  koX  ra^nys  f^^9 
fi^wKoi  AnfiiKpiros  MKOfWcdpcu  rhs 
npafu/Bias,  namely  in  the  passage 
giren  on  p.  244,  1.  That  the  pas- 
Mge  really  stood  in  this  connection 
is  established  by  Plut.  Plac.  iv. 
19,  3,  where  an  extract  from  it  in 
introdaced  with  the  words :  ArifU- 
Kperos  Kol  thy  kipa  ^a\v  *U  dfioio- 
vxfifiawa  $pi6irT9<r0u  a^fwra  Kai  cuy- 
n\ipMr9at  rois  ix  r^f  ^vns 
BpoiviuuFv  (cf.  inf.  p.  269)  "  KoKoihs 
7&P  «ap^  KoKaihv  iyiyci,"  etc.  On 
the  principle  that  like  is  known 
by  hke,  vide  Arist.  De  An,  i.  2, 
405  b,  12 :  those  who  define  the 
nature  of  the  soul  by  its  intellec- 
tual faculty,  make  it  one  of  the 
elements,  or  something  composed 
of  several  elements :  A^yrct  ira- 


(Anaxagoras)*  ^wr\  yhp  yiwStricf- 
cr$m  rh  Bfioiov  r^  dfioi^, 

*  Stob.  Exc.  6  Joh.  Damasc.  ii. 
25,  16  (Stob.  Flaril.  ed.  Mein.  iv. 
233) :  Atiti6Kpiros  wXtiovs  /iky  thai 

fi^  ikPoXoyiCtuf  rik  atffBrtrii  r^  irX^- 
0ti  AcM^ivcty.  That  this  state- 
ment, which  in  its  present  form 
is  so  strange,  originally  had  the 
meaning  assumed  in  the  text,  is  of 
course  merely  a  conjecture. 

*  Plut.  Plac.  iv.  10,  3  (Galen, 
6.  24,  s.  303) :  AfifJi6itptrot  irActovf 
cfycu  aiff&ti<r€is  irtpl  rh  (k\oya  (^a 
Koi  (1.  ^,  as  Gal.  has)  ircpl  robs 
Btobs  Kol  (To^^s,  This,  as  it  stands, 
can  only  be  an  inference  drawn  by 
some  opponent,  and  not  Democri- 
tus's  own  assertion ;  but  it  clearly 
shows  us  what  Democritus  really 
said.  He  must  have  asserted  that 
animals  might  have  senses  which 
were  wanting  in  other  creatures, 
and  from  this  an  adyersary,  pro- 
bably a  Stoic,  deduces  the  conse- 
quence, which  seems  to  him  ridicu- 
lous, that  a  knowledge  is  ascribed 
to  irrational  natures,  which  is  not 
possessed  by  the  highest  intellec- 
tual natures— gods  and  wise  men. 


268  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHr. 

As  to  the  several  senses,  we  hear  of  no  peculiar 
views  as  held  by  Democritus  except  in  regard  to  sight 
.and  hearing.  The  rest  are  discussed  by  him  indeed, 
but  beyond  the  general  theories  noticed  above,  he  does 
not  appear  to  have  advanced  anything  essentially  new 
with  respect  to  them.^  He  explained  the  perceptions 
of  sight,  as  Empedocles  did,  by  the  hypothesis  that 
emanations  fly  off  from  visible  things  which  retain  the 
form  of  the  things ;  these  images  are  reflected  in  the 
eye,  and  are  thence  diffused  throughout  the  whole 
body ;  thus  arises  vision.  But  as  the  space  between  the 
objects  and  our  eyes  is  filled  with  air,  the  images  that 
fly  off  from  things  *  cannot  themselves  reach  our  eyes ; 
what  does  so  is  the  air  which  is  moved  by  the  images 
as  they  stream  forth,  and  receives  an  impression  of 
them.  Therefore  it  is  that  the  clearness  of  the  percep- 
tion decreases  with  distance,  but  as  at  the  same  time 
emanations  are  going  out  from  our  eyes,  the  image  of 
the  object  is  also  modified  by  these.*     Thus  it  is  very 

*  Theophr.  De  Sensu,  49 :  ir«pi  8f ty,  instead  of  "  ^fni,"  as  Mullach 

iKdffTTis  8*  4jJij  rwv  iv  fi4pei  [aUrdifi-  thinks  (and  with  this  oirA  agref«), 

(r§otw]  wtipwru  \4yti¥.     §  67  :  «cal  in  Simpl.  Phys.  73  b  {Demoer.  Ft, 

ircpl    i»^v    l&i^ens   Ktd   iiKoris  o8t«s  Phys,  6) :  ArifidKptros  i¥  off  pnri 

iiiro^lBoKn,     rhs  8*  A^Xas  aifrB^iacis  **6eip    hrh    wnmhs    iamcpirfff^ 

(TXcS^r  6fioias  irotci  rois  wKtltrrois.  vayroiwv  tHwv,**  ws  Si  koI  M 

The  short  statements  on  the  sense  rlyot  alrlas  fi^   A-^ci,  louccr  krh 

of  smell,  I.  0.  I  82,  and  De  Odor,  rabrofidrov  koI  rvxn^  ywv^  wtL 

64  contain  notJiing  particular.    Cf.  *  The  above  is  deduced  from 

p.  232,  3.  Arist.  De  Setutu,  c  2,  438  a,  5: 

'  El8«Xa,  as  they  are  usually  Arifi6KpiTos  8*   Srf  /i^if  08«p  cfyo^ 

called  (Biog.   ix.   47   mentions   a  ^o-i  [r^y  6ipiv']  A.^ci  koXvs,  5ri  8* 

treatise  by  Democritus  irepl  cidii-  ofcrai  rh  6p^p  clyeu  rV  lA^^ 

\»v).    According  to  the  Etymol,  (the  reflection  of  objects  in  the 

Magn.^  sub  voee  ffcficcXa,  Demoer i-  eye),  ob  koX&s  *  rovro  /iky  yitp  ffvfi- 

tus  himself  made  use  of  this  word,  fialyttf  Uri  rh  6fifia  Actor,  etc.    r^ 

and  in   that    case  we  ought,   no  fi^y  oZy  r^v  $}^iy  tjyai  IfBaros  &Xi)0if 

doubt,  to  substitute  "  ScuccXa "  for  fihy,  ob  iiivroi  ffvfifiab^ti  rh  bp^v  { 


THE  SENSES, 


209 


eTident  that  our  sight  does  not  represent  things  as  they 
are  in  themselves.*  The  explanation  of  hearing  and 
sounds  is  the  same.'  Sound  is  a  stream  of  atoms  pass- 
ing from  the  resonant  body,  which  sets  in  motion  the 
air  that  lies  before  it*  In  this  stream  of  atoms,  and  in 
the  air  which  is  moved  by  it,  atoms  of  like  form,  ac- 
cording to  a  law  noticed  above,  come  together.*  When 
these  reach  the  atoms  of  the  soid^  sensations  of  hearing 


S5«»p,  ^iXX*  $  Zuup<uf4s,  Alex,  in  h, 
I.  97  a;  Theophr.  De  Sensu,  50: 
ipfy  fdv  oSv  voicf  T^  i/A^fdffH  *  raO- 
TUP  t  Hitn  \iytt  •  T^y  yhp  ffi^offiv 

rhwhiparhtr  fitra^h  ri)s5ifr«ars  vol  rov 
ifrnfUvou  rvirowr$ai,  ffvcrtWifi^mtv 
vwb  vov  ipufiirov  Ko)  rod  6p&vros  ' 
(Svarros  7^^  &«)  7(1  €ir0ed  ruta  iatof- 
Po4iw')  Iv-ctra  rovroy  (rr^pthy  ima 
nl  ikK6xptfr  ifi^ytffStu  To7t  6/1- 
fioffv  iypois  *  KcU  rh  fikf  mficyhv  ov 
8^X*<r^^^  ^  ^P^^  9iUpai,  Theo- 
phnstQB  repeats  the  same  state- 
ments Afterwards  (in  §  51,  where, 
howeTer,  "  rwro^fif wr  **  is  to  be 
read  for  "wwcvo^/ifi'oir"),  in  his  dis- 
cussion of  this  theory,  and  adds  to 
them  what  is  quoted  on  p.  266,  &c. 
In  support  of  his  theory  on  images, 
Democritns  appeals  to  the  visible 
image  of  the  object  in  the  eye 
(AJez.  I.  c.)  :  the  fact  that  we  can- 
not see  in  the  dark  he  explains, 
aocor^ng  to  Theopbrastus,  §  55, 
by  the  supposition  that  the  sun 
most  condense  the  air  before  it 
can  retain  the  imagea.  Why  he 
did  not  imagine  that  these  images 
tbemselyes  entered  the  eye,  instead 
of  their  impression  on  the  air,  we 
can  see  from  the  notice,  ap.  AnBt. 
De  An.  i.  7.  419  a,  15:  od  7^ 
KoXwr  rovTo  Kiywi  ArifUKfHTOs^  0I6- 
Mtrof,  cl  yhoiro  fccyby  rh  fitra^b, 
ipiffiiat  &y  iueptfi&s  Jcoi  cl  ^^/>Mi}|  ^y 


rf  ovpayf  cfi}.'  We  find  a  less 
exact  statement  in  Pint.  PUtc.  iv. 
13,  1  (cf.  MulUch,  p.  402) :  seeing 
arises,  according  to  Lencippofi, 
Democritns  and  Epicurus:  kot* 
c2S(6A»y  tltTKpitrtis  Jral  imri  nvttv 
iuKrivw  ^ffKpuriv  lurh  r^v  wplhs  rh 
iwoKtifiwoy  %vfrr<unv  irdtAiv  inco' 
ffrpt^va&y  wphs  rifv  tn^w.  How 
the  eye,  in  the  opinion  of  Demo- 
critns, ought  to  be  formed  in  order 
to  see  well  we  hare  already  found, 
p.  267. 2.  We  are  told  that  he  also 
explained  the  reflections  of  mirrors 
on  the  theory  of  cX8«Aa ;  yide  Pint. 
Plac.  iv.  14,  2,  parall.  Cf.  Lncret. 
iv.  141  sqq. 

»  Vide  p.  281. 

«  Theophr.  L  c.  55-57;  cf.  § 
58;  Pint.  Plac.  iv.  19;  Gell.  N. 
^.  V.  15,  8;  Mnlhich,  342  sqq.; 
Bnrchard,  Demoor,  Phil,  de  SeM. 
12 ;  cf.  p.  266,  3  ;  267,  2. 

*  Vide  p.  244,  1.  By  means  of 
this  conception  Democritns,  as  it 
seems,  sought  to  explain  the  rela- 
tions and  musical  properties  of 
tones  which  he  discusses  in  the 
treatise  ^.  ^vOfi&w  Koi  kpiutviris 
(Diog.  ix.  48).  A  tone,  he  might 
say,  is  so  much  the  purer  the  more 
homogeneous  are  the  atoms  in  the 
flux  of  which  it  consists,  and  the 
smaller  these  atoms  are,  the  more 
acute  is  the  tone. 


270 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


are  the  result.  But  although  sounds  enter  through 
the  whole  body,  we  only  hear  with  our  ears,  for  this 
organ  is  so  constructed  that  it  absorbs  the  largest  mass 
of  sounds  and  affords  it  the  quickest  passage,  whereas 
the  other  parts  of  the  body  admit  too  few  to  be  per- 
ceptible to  us.* 

Thought  has  the  same  origin  as  perception.  That 
which  perceives,  and  that  which  thinks,  is  one  and  the 
same.*  Perception  and  thought  are  both  material 
changes  of  the  soul's  body,*  and  both  are  occasioned,  like 
every  other  change,  by  external  impressions.^     If  this 


*  From  this  point  of  view,  the 
physiological  conditions  of  an  acute 
sense  of  hearing  are  inrestigated 
ap.  Theophr.  §  66. 

*  Arist.  De  An,  i.  2,  404  a,  27  : 
4k(7vos  [ A77/i^icpirot]  h^p  yhp  airKws 
raxnhp  ^f^wxV  Koi  yovv  rh  yiip 
iXfiBh  that  rh  ^ySfitvov  (cf.  p. 
272)  9ih  KoX&s  voi^aat  rhv 
"Ofiripov  (in  whom,  however,  this 
is  not  to  be  found  concerning 
Hector;  vide  the  commentators 
on  this  passage,  and  on  Metaph,  iv. 
6,  and  Mullach,  346) :  As  1E.KTup 
Kclr*  iXXoippoyiuv.  ob  Mi  XPV^eu  r^ 
y^  &s  ^vydjjiti  rii'l  ir«pl  r^y  &X^0ci(U', 
iXXA  TO^T^  \4yti  tf'vx^r  ical  yovy. 
Ibid.  405  a,  8,  snp.  267,  2  ;  Metaph. 
iv.  5.  1009  b,  28  (infra,  271,  1); 
Philop.  I>e  An.  A,  16  o,  B,  16 ; 
Iambi,  ap.  Stob.  Ekl.  I  880 :  ol  W 
ir«pl  ArifMKpiToy  wdyra  rh  tliri  r&y 
Bvydfitaty  tis  r^y  oinrieof  a6ri)r  [rijs 
i^X^^l  (Tvydyowriy.  To  this  belong 
what  IS  ascribed  to  Democritus  in 
the  traditional  rext  of  Stob.  Floril. 
1 1 6, 45  :  bnt  instead  of  Democri tus 
we  should  doubtless  read  Aiifxoicii' 
9ovs  (yide  Heimsoth.  Democr,  de 
An.  Doctr.  p.  3),  for  the  words  are 
in  Herod,  iii.  184,  who  pnts  them 


into  the  mouth  of  Atosaa,  and  in- 
directly of  Democedes. 

»  Stob.  cf.  inf.  p.  271, 1 ;  Arist 
Metaph.  iv.  6  ;  Theophr.  De  Smu, 
72:  hXKh,  ircpl  pikv  r^inwy  Utxt 
[At7/ju$«p.]  <rvrriKo\ov$nK49iu  roii 
irotoviTiy  SKus  rh  ^povtof  tcarkr^ 
iiXXoiwffiy^  9iw€p  iffrlw  AfX'"*'^'^ 
9^(a.  wdyr9S  yhp  ol  waXauA  xol  tt 
iroiirrol  Ko)  <ro^ol  xarii  r^w  hidtffv 
itiro9ii6a(ri  rh  ^poy^ty.  Gf.  Arisu 
De  An.  iii.  3,  427  a,  21 :  oX  yt 
ipXtuoi  rh  ^pf>yu¥  koI  rh  aia^amrBet 
rainhy  ttyed  ipeuriy^  for  which,  to- 
gether with  Empedocles'  rerses 
quoted  p.  1 69,  2,  Homer,  Od.  xriii. 
135,  is  quoted,  perhaps  from  De- 
mocritns,  with  the  obeervatioD : 
irdyrts  y^Lp  oZrot  rh  yo*7y  ampatrtA* 
&airtp  rh  €Uff6dyt<r$€u  vroKapfiir 
yovaiy,     Cf.  the  following  note. 

*  Cic.  Fin.  i.  6,  21 :  {Democriti 
sunt)  atomi,  inane,  imagine^  fita 
idola  nominant,  quorum  ineurtume 
non  solum  videamus,  sed  etiam 
cogitemus.  Pint.  Flae.  iv.  8,  3: 
Slob.  FUyrU,  iv.  283  Mein. ;  Ao. 
18,  Leucippns,  Democritos  and 
Epicurus :  r^v  eSlaBiitriy  ical  t^»' 
y&nffiy  ylyw0ai  nhixttv  H^' 
irpoffi6yrvy,  /Ai}5cyl  y^  iirtPdXXM 


THE  SENSES  AND   THGUOHT. 


Wl 


movement  is  of  such  a  kind  that  the  soul  is  placed  by 
it  in  the  proper  temperature,  it  will  apprehend  objects 
rightly,  and  thought  is  healthy ;  but  if,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  unduly  heated  or  chilled  by  the  movement  im- 
parted to  it,  it  imagines  false  things,  and  thought  is 
diseased.^  Though  it  is  difficult  to  see,  upon  this 
theory,  how  thought  is  distinguished  from  sensible 
perception,*  Democritus  is  very  far  from  ascribing  the 
same  value  to  them.     He  calls  sensible  perception  the 

ftifSer^fMir  X^P^'  '''^^  'fpoinrl'rrovros 
ciS^Xov.  Cf.  Democr.  ap.  Sezt. 
Math.  Tii.  136  (iupra,  p.  231.  3). 

>  Theophr.  h  c.  58 :  ir^pX  Zk  roS 
^oOFciy  hn  roaovrow  Ap^Ktv^  tri 
yiwrrcu.  avftfiirpcfs  ixolnnii  rijs 
"^fvxhs  firrh  'Hjv  KiytHruf  ikir  Hi 
irtfilBfpitSs  Tis  ^  w€pi^xp^5  y^prp-eUf 
HeraWdrrtiy  ^nol,  tit6ri  koX  robs 
raXauAs  koX&s  toW  ^oXafiuv^  iri 
hrXv  kXXtHppovtiv,  &ffr*  <fKxy€phy 
8ti  Tj  Kpiffti  rov  fff&fJMTos  iroiu  rh 
^poww.  Instead  of  the  words 
M«Ti  T.  Kintffiv,  Bitter,  i.  620, 
would  snbstitnte  "  Korii  r^yitpwriy" 
I  bad  mjself  thought  of  icar^  riiy 
icinifftp.  But  it  now  appears  to  me 
that  the  traditional  text,  also  re- 
tained by  Wimmer,  is  in  order, 
and  that  Theophrastns  intends  to 
saj :  the  ^pwftlv  (the  rif^ht  judg- 
ment of  things,  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  iXXo^povM)  gains  entrance 
when  the  condition  of  the  soul  pro- 
duced by  the  movement  in  the 
oi^ganB  of  sense  is  a  symmetrical 
condition.  This  statement  of  Theo- 
phniatus  is  elucidated  by  the  cita- 
tions on  p.  270,  2,  and  also  by 
Arist  Metaph,  \t.  5,  1009  b,  28 : 
^\  S^  Kol  fhr  'Ofiripov  Ta&riiy 
^Xo^A  ^ywBoA  t)\v  8^|ay  (that 
lUl  presentations  are  equally  true), 
trri  Huh^a^  fhv  "Ixropa,  its  i^4<mi 
inrh  Till  ir\ir/ris,  K€urO<u  kWo^po- 


v4ovra,  &s  ^pcvovyras  fiky  koI  robs 
-wapa^poyovyr as f  &XA*  ob  rabrd, 

•  Brandis  {Rhein.  Mus.  v, 
Niebukr  und  Brandis,  iii.  139,  Gr.- 
Rom.  Phil.  i.  334)  supposes  an 
*  unmUtelbares  Innetcirden  der 
Afome  und  des  Leeren*  (a  direct 
intnition  of  the  atoms  and  the 
void),  bnt  it  is  difficult  to  see  how, 
according  to  Democritns's  presup- 
positions, the  atoms  and  the  void 
conld  act  upon  our  souls  otherwise 
than  in  the  things  compounded 
of  them,  nor  how  these  things 
could  act  upon  our  souls  except 
through  the  senses.  Nor  does 
Johnson's  attempted  explanation 
(p.  18  Rq.  of  the  treatise  mentioned 
p.  208,  1)  enlighten  me.  Hitter's 
proposal  (Gesch.  d.  PhzL  i.  620)  is 
better:  viz.  to  identify  clear  or 
rational  knowledge  with  the  sym- 
metrical state  of  the  soul  (vide 
previous  note);  only  in  that  case  we 
must  assume  what  is  never  ascribed 
to  Democritus,  and  in  itself  seems 
highly  unlikely,  that  in  his  opinion 
every  sensible  perception  disturbed 
the  symmetry  of  the  soul.  It 
seems  to  me  most  probable  that 
Democritus  never  tried  to  establish 
psychologically  the  superiority  of 
thought  to  sensible  perception. 
Vide  Brandis,  Gesch,  d.  Entw. 
i.  145. 


272  THE  ATOMISTIC  PfflZOSOPHT. 

dark,  and  the  rational  perception  alone  the  true ;  the 
real  constitution  of  things  is  hidden  firom  our  senses: 
all  that  they  show  us  belongs  to  the  uncertain  phe- 
nomenon; our  intellect  only  discovers,  what  is  too 
subtle  for  the  senses,  the  true  essence  of  things,  atoms 
and  the  void.^  Though  we  must  start  from  what  is 
manifest  in  order  .to  know  what  is  hidden,  it  is  thought 
alone  which  can  really  unfold  to  us  this  knowledge.* 
If,  therefore,  Aristotle  attributes  to  Demociitus  the 
opinion  that  the  sensible  perception  as  such  is  true,' 
the  statement  is  founded  merely  on  his  own  inferences :  * 
because  the  Atomistic  philosophy  did  not  distinguish 
between  the  faculty  of  perception  and  that  of  thought, 
therefore  Aristotle  concludes  that  it  can  have  made  no 

distinction  between  them  in  respect  of  their  truth,*    It 

• 

^  Authorities  have  already  been  iX'fiBtiw  seems  to  belong  to  this 

given,  p.  219,  3  ;  225,  8.     See  also  connection,  only  no  donbt  the  text 

Cic.  Aoad.  ii.  23,  73.    Later  writers  is  cormpt:    yiwra-Bai  ftkv  periups 

have  BO  expressed  this  as  to  assert  arose  ont  of  {rh)  ^¥6iuww,  and 

that  Democritus  ascribed  reality  to  haarow    may  be    a    mistake  to 

the  intellinble  alone  (Sext.  Maih,  ''  U^urr»" 
Till.  6)  and  denied  sen^ble  pheno-  ^  As  he  himself  indicates  in  the 

mena,  which  he  maintained  existed  passafe    from    the    MetapJMs*: 

not  in  actuality  but  only  in  our  ii  Myicns  is  to  be  connected  not 

opinion  (Ibid.  Tii.  136).  with  clyou  but  with  ^turl,  so  that 

'  Sext.  Math,  vii.  140 :  AiSrifios  the  meaning  is :  '  because  they  hold 

Si  Tpla  iraT*  atnhv  IlKtyw  cTvcu  Kpi-  thought  to  be  the  same  as  i 


riipta'   TTis  fJily  r&y  iS^XMy  kotcip  tion,  they  must  necessarily  declare 

A^^fcwf    rh,    ^y6fJMva,   &s    ^viv  the    sensible    phenomenon   to  be 

*Kvafyrf6pas^%v  M  ro{npf  ArifiSKpens  true.' 

^iroiKci*    C^r^crcttt  Si  riiv  iwoitat'  ^  That  such  procedure  is  not 

alp4fftws  Si  Koi  ^vyi^f  rh  vdBi^.  The  unusual  with  Aristotle  may  be  seen 

*  criteria '  must  here  be  laid,  as  well  from    numerous    examples.     The 

as  the  whole  exposition,  to  the  ac-  very    passage    in   Metapk.  iy.  5 

.  count  of  the  narrator.  contains  only  inferences  of  this 

*  Gen.et  C<>rr.\.2(8up.2l9,2);  kind  upon  which  he  founds  his 

De  An.  i.  2  {mp.  270,  2) ;  Metaph.  complaint    against    some   of  the 

iv.   5    (sup.    265,    4).      Likewise  natural    philosophers,    thst    thej 

Theophr.  De  Sefuu,  7 1  (sup.  263, 8).  deny  the  law  of  contradiction.  We 

ylvtaiai  flip  tKcurroy  Kol  cTycu  icar*  have,  therefore,  no  ground  for  the 


TWB  SBNBJBS  AND  TBOUQIfT^  273 

is  impoesible,  however,  that  Detnocritus  could  arrive 
at  that  coxkclufidos  without  contradicting  the  fundameui- 
tal  conceptions  of  hi^  system ;  for  if  things  in  reality 
consist  only  of  atoms  which  our  senses  do  not  perceive, 
the  senses  plainly  do  not  instruct  us  concerning  the 
true  nature  of  things ;  and  if  Democritus,  like  Parme* 
nides  and  Empedocles,  declared  Becoming  and  Decay 
to  he  unthinkable,  he  could  not  escape  the  conclusion  of 
those  philosophers,  that  perception  deceives  us  with 
the  appearance  of  Becoming  and  Decay,  nor  could  be 
maintain  the  opposite  assertions  attributed  to  him  by 
Aristotle.  He  himself  tells  us  indeed  quite  distinctly 
how  far  he  is  from  so  doing.  It  would  have  been  no 
less  impossible  for  him  to  admit  these  further  conclu- 
sions :  vis.,  that  if  sensation  as  such  be  true,  all  sensations 
must  be  true ;  ^  consequently  if  the  senses  in  different 

tbeoij  (Papencordt    60,  HuUaoh  themselves  {rh  hXridlks^  De  An.  and 

415)  that  DemocritiM  altered  hia  Gw,  et  Corr.)  even  moie  decidedly 

optmon  on  this  point,  and  discazd«)d  than  by  the  iotercoonection  of  the 

the  evidence  of  the  senses  which  at  plissages  qnoted.  The  theory  which, 

fint  he  had  adnutted.    Thongh  he  aooording  to  Johnson,  Aristotle  at- 

mgj  with  time  have  modified  his  tvibntaa  to  Pemocritns  could  not 

views  in  regard  to  certain  parti-  haye  been  charged  upon  him  aa  an 

cnlars  (Pint.   Viri,  Mar,  c.  7,  p.  erroaeons  opinion  afising  from  a 

448  A),  it  does  not  follow  that  he  oonirisioQ  of  thought  with  sensation, 

could  entertain  at  different  times  ^  Fhilop.     himself    attributes 

opposite  coBvictions  on  a  subject  this  proposition  to  him,  36  An.  B, 

like  the  one  we  are   considering,  16:  h^rm^  yap  tJwty  [6  ArifUupi' 

with  which  the  yery  foundations  ros]  8ri  rh  ii\.ii$ks  ««!  rh  ^oiwifuvoy 

of  the  Atomistic  system  are  inter-  ra^6¥  i^vi^  nol  Mhy  SuM^cpciir  TJ^r 

V07en.  As  little  can  we  allow  (with  Ax^^fioy  Koi  rh  rp  tua^au  ptuvi- 

Johnson,  L  c.  24  sq.^  that  Aristotle's  fwroy,  kMJk  rh  pm¥6fU¥w  indffr^ 

language  bears  this  constmction :  aol  rh  9okovv  revrB  aol  cImu  &\i|- 

'  Democritns    supposed    that    the  04s,  Aavtp  col  Jipttruyiptu  Ixcyfy. 

{^enonenal  is  actually  present  ob-  But  Fhilopoaus  has  probably  no 

lectirely,  though  it  may  not  be  in  other  authority  ^an  the  passages 

hanumy  with  our  preseiMitttiou  of  in    Aristotle*   iiom    whiqh   soeh 


it  to  onrseWea.'    This  intorpvatar    a  theory  oannot  be  dedaoed.    Nw 
tioQ  is  contradicted  by  tha  woada    can  we  lake  wmk  aocpunt  of  the 

VOL,  n. 


274 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOFHY. 


persons  or  at  different  times  declare  the  contrary  con- 
cerning the  same  object,  these  opposite  declaratioDS 
must  be  equally  true,  and  therefore  also  equally  false; 
and  thus  we  can  never  know  how  in  truth  things  are 
constituted.^  He  says  no  doubt  that  every  thing  oon- 
tains  atoms  of  the  most  diverse  forms,  and  that  this  i$ 
the  reason  why  things  appear  so  differently ;  *  but  it 
does  not  follow  from  thence  that  the  Real  itself,  the 
atom,  has  simultaneously  opposite  qualities.  He  also 
complains  of  the  narrowness  of  human  knowledge;  he 
declares  that  truth  lies  in  the  depth  ;  how  things 
really  are  constituted  we  know  not ;  our  opinions  change 
with   external   impressions  and   corporeal   conditions.' 


assertion  of  Epiphanius,  Exp.  Fid, 
]087  D,  that  LeudppuB  taught: 
Kork  ^canwrlav  kcIX  Z6tciiffi¥  rh 
irdtrra  yiy^trOai  xol  /uffSij'  irar&  &X^- 

'  Of.Arist  Metaph.  iv.  6,  1009 
a,  38  :  6fioUos  8i  «ccd  ^  v€p\  t&  ^eu- 
v6/it»a  ikiiBtta  (for  the  theory  that 
all  phenomena  and  presentadons 
are  true,  cf.  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter)  iyio^s  ix  r&y  edcdiir&p 
4Kfi\^tv,  rh  ftky  ykp  kKiiBh  ob 
irX^tfci  Kpiv^ffBoi  oXomai  wpo<rfiKei¥ 
oi8*  6\iy&nirtf  rh  8*  abrh  rots  fikv 
y\vKb  ytvofietfois  9oku¥  cTyoi  rots 
8^  trucpSv.  &ffr*  cl  wdtn-ts  Uxofivoy 
fi  irdyrts  irap€^p6yow,  8vo  8'  ^  rptts 
(fylaufov  4)  vow  ^^XoVt  Bokup  &y 
ro^Tovs  KdfAy€iy  itai  irapa^poyuv, 
roi^s  8*  &XXovf  o0.  fri  8i  woWois 
rwv  IkKhMV  i4^v  rkvaarria  w€pl  rwv 
CLitT&y  ^¥€<r0<u  ical  ^/iiv,  icoi  aln^ 
Bk  ixiirrip  irphs  aOrhv  oh  ralrh  Rar^ 
riiv  tdtrBfiffty  &el  BoKuy,  iro7a  o8f 
rovrotv  &\if0^  ^  ^tv9ri  iBriXoy  oM^p 
yiip  /ioAXoy  ^dBt  ^  t48c  itXriOri,  &XX' 
ifioiws  (essentially  the  reasons 
given  by  Democritus  against  the 


truth  of  sensible  perceptions,  ride 
sup.  p.  231,  3)  Bth  AiifiUptT9S  Y 
^<riy  ffroi  olBlv  cTmu  ^rfiks  %  ^ 
y*  iSnK9v.  Pint.  Adv.  Col.  4, 1.  p. 
1108:  iyKoX^T  8*  eebr^  [sc  Aitfio- 
Kplr^  6  Ko\At7Is]  itp&ror,  9ri  rvr 
irpayfiAruv  ejcoaror  clv^r  o*  fiiXXaf 
roioy  1^  roTor  ^Jyai,  ctrytctxy^  ^^ 
filoy.  Sext  Pyrrh.  i.  213.  Also 
the  doctrine  of  Democritus  is  akic 
to  that  of  the  sceptics :  iarh  y^  rw 
roTs  ft^y  yKwch  ^aiymrBai  rh  fit^ 
ro7s  8i  viKp^y,  rhy  Aiffitfi^trar  ^<* 
Xoyl(€<rBai  ^Kurt  rh  fj4r€  ykwcv  ovri 
cTmu  lA^ire  riKplhyf  Kot  8t^  rwro  ht- 
^4yy€<rBat  r^y  **  o(f  AtoAAor  "  ^tf^- 
ffKfwriK^y  o^av ;  an  opinion  ▼hieh 
Johnson  2>.  SmswU.  d  Dmokr.  it 
ought  not  to  treat  as  historical  evi- 
dence without  further  examinatioD. 

*  Vide  previous  note,  and  p. 
224,  1. 

«  Ap.  Sext.  Math.  vii.  185  sqq., 
besides  the  quotation,  p.  22d,  3: 
"  Ircp  luiy  yvy  8t»  oW  Unffriykra 
^  oIk  iorty  o6  ^vyUfuPt  wAAffX^ 
BtB^Kurai.'*  ^'yty^mctty  rt  XP} 
iyOpmwoy  rf  8c  7^  icardM,  tn  irt^i 


SUPPOSJSn  SCEPTICISM. 


276 


Lastly,  he  admits  that  the  names  of  things  are  arbi- 
trarily chosen ;  ^  which  might  have  been  made  use  of 
in  a  sceptical  sense.  But  that  he  meant  by  this  to 
declare  all  knowledge  impossible,  is  not  credible.  Had 
such  been  his  conviction,  he  could  not  have  set  up  a 
scientific  system,  or  discriminated  true  knowledge  from 
obscure  and  confused  opinion.  Moreover  we  are  told 
that  he  expressly  and  fully  contradicted  the  scepticism 
of  Protagoras,'  which,  according  to  the  above  statements, 
he  must  have  shared  ;  and  that  he  sharply  censured  the 
eristics  of  his  time.'    The   later  sceptics  themselves 


•Jras  6  X/Ayos,  8ti  oMv  IBfuy  vtpl 
ovitrhs,  iXK'  iwifiPwTfjdp  licdaroi(riy 
^  Wjif."  "  icalroi  BUXov  forot,  9ri, 
^TfJ  oTor  titairrov,  yw^ffKtiv,  iy  Airrf- 
^  4irrh.'*  Ap.  Diog.  »x.  72: 
*'  hrp  8i  oMy  T9/icir  iy  fivB^  yiip  ^ 
^^tiil "  (the  last  is  also  ap.  Cic. 
Acad.  ii.  10,  32).  Such  passages 
as  these  are  doubtless  the  only 
foandation  for  the  remark  of  Sex- 
tos, Math.  Tiii.  327,  that  the  em- 
pirical physicians  dispute  the  possi- 
Dilitj  of  demonstration  :  rdx^  '^ 
«a}  AiiiiAKpiroSj  Itrxtfp&s  y^  oJbrp 
^  rfiy  KcufStwy  krrtifniKtVf  indi- 
rectly, otherwise  rdx»  would  be 
tnmecessary. 

'  ProcL  Ml  Crat.  16  supposes 
that  the  hviiuera  are  Biffu  accor- 
ding to  Democritus.  In  support 
of  this  Tiew  he  brings  forward 
TQ\^/i4>r  lff6^owo¥  and  y^wfioVf 
and  contends  that  manj  words 
hare  several  meanings,  many 
things  several  names;  and  also 
many  things  which,  judging  from 
analogy,  we  might  expect  to  have 
a  distinct  desi|mation  have  none ; 
he  seems  likewise  to  have  appealed 
to  the  change  of  the  names  of  per- 


sons. The  iiirther  development  of 
these  arguments  as  given  by  Pro- 
dus  cannot  be  referred  to  Demo- 
critus. Of.  Steinthal,  Qesch.  d. 
Sprachtoissensch,  bei  Gr.u.  Rom,  76, 
137  sqq.,  with  whose  explanation 
of  these  expressions  I  do  not,  how- 
eyer,  entirely  agree:  the  pAwfiop 
especially,  he  seems  to  me  to  have 
misconceived.  Some  linguistic 
writings  of  Democritus,  on  the 
authenticity  of  which  we  cannot 
decide,  are  mentioned  by  Biog.  ix. 
48. 

•  Pint.  /,  c.  :  kKkh  ro<rovr6v  y% 
AiifUKpiros  &iro8ci  rod  yo/i/fciy,  /x^ 
fuiWop  ffTvai  Toioy  ^  roiov  rS»v 
TTfMn/fjArwv  l«nurroir,  A<rrc  UfKora- 
y6pa  Ty  cotptarf  rovro  tMmt 
fjLtfAaxv^Bat  Kot  yeypanpiveu  ftoWit 
Kol  wiBciyh,  wphs  ahr6v.  Sext.  Math, 
vii.  389  :  ircuray  iikv  ohy  ^camuriay 
oific  cfroi  ris  &Ai^  Ziii  r^y  trtpt- 
rpowiiy,  KoBifS  8  r^  Aiifi6Kpnos  Ka\ 
6  TlKdrwv  kvTiKiyovm  ry  Upvra- 
y6pq.  iZliaffKOP.    Cf.  ibid.  vii.  53. 

•  Fr,  145,  ap.  Pint.  Qu.  Conv. 
i.  1,  5,  2  ;  Olem.  8tr<m.  i.  3,  279 
D,  he  complains  of  the  Xc|ci8(«ir 
0ilpdrop€s,  i-nKwrai  TCX»^^p^«y,  ^p<- 


t2 


276 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 


point  out  the  essential  difference  between  his  doctrine 
and  theirs ; '  and  even  Aristotle  records  his  testimonj 
(which  harmonises  ill  with  the  supposed  denial  of  all 
knowledge),  that  of  all  the  pre-Soeratic  philoeophen  he 
concerned  himself  the  most  with  definitions  of  concep- 
tions,' We  must,  therefore,  suppose  that  the  complaints 
of  Democritus  as  to  the  impossibility  of  knowledge  are 
intended  only  in  a  narrower  sense :  only  of  the  sennhle 
p^ception  does  he  maintain  that  it  is  ^limited  to  the 
changing  phenomenon,  and  guarantees  no  true  know- 
ledge. On  the  other  band,  he  does  not  deny  that  reason 
may  be  able  to  perceive  in  the  atoms  and  the  void  the 
true  essence  of  things,  though  he  deeply  feels  the  limita- 
tions of  human  knowledge  and  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  a  profound  enquiry.  It  is  quite  compatible  with  all 
this  that  he  should  not  be  deterred  by  the  abandance 
of  his  own  knowledge  and  observations,  firom  warning 
us  in  the  spirit  of  Heracleitus  against  indiscriminate 


1  Saxt.  Fyrrh.  i.  213  sq.:  8ia- 
^6pM  fiirroi  xfWKTcu  t^  "  ob  /loA.- 
Xoy"  ^vf  oX  r«  SkcittumI  need  oi 
kirh  rov  Avfuntpiroy '  iKtanu  fily 
7^  iarh  r«v  ^i|8^rc^0F  ftyat 
rdrrwin  r^  ^y^y,  iifius  S4  iwl 
rov  &7yoctv  w6r€pop  kfi^S- 
rtpa  4  ob^irtpov  rl  4<rri  rmv 
pmvfUvwv,  irpoBiiKorJirfi  8^  ylv€- 
rw  4i  8idbcpi(ris.  Sroy  6  AiiiUiiptras 
\4yp  '*ir§^  84  Arofia  fcoi  Kcy^y." 
^Tcj  iikv  yhp  X^«i  Ai^l  T»D  A\i»- 
Oetf.  Kar'  iKi6*iw  84  d^for^-w 
\tywy  rds  r^  &r^vs  icol  rh  luybw, 
thi  Zityfivox*!'  ^/Afiy  .  .  .  ir€fmrh¥ 
olfuu  X^ciy. 

«  Part.  Jnim.  i.  1.  cf.  Vol.  I. 
185, 3 ;  Meiaph.  ziiL  4 ;  1078  h,  17 : 
^UMepdrous  84  r^pi  r^  ifiucks  itp^rms 


wpayfurr^vofUifOv  iral  w^  T«^r 
i^l(€ff$ai  lEflrf^Xov  CvTwrrot  wpAn» ' 
rmf  ibkv  yitp  ^uo-tcwv  M  i»*tf^ 
Anp^Kpirot  fi^wro  ft4tn9  ««l  M* 
vwr6  ir«f  rh  9^p^  ml  r4  i|«XP^- 
&c  (ride  wp.  Vol.  1. 606, 3) ;  PV 
ii.  2 ;  194  a,  81 :    *U  tn^py^  rtk 

Jmu  [ii  ^6ffis]  rivt  tkus '  hA  ^ 
Kphy  yip  Ti  fiipos  *E/crc8osA9f  n^ 

AHfA>6KpiT9S  rod  480Vf  Ks^rwti^ 

€htu^mno.  That  Demoorit^is  did 
not  altogether  aatiafy  later  demaods 
in  thi»  respect,  "we  see  firMB  tk* 
proposition  censured  bj  AiutoUe, 
Sm^.  4i«.  1.  1.  640  b,29;  Sext 
Afo^A.  vii.  364 :  i»9pttr4f  kti  » 


ETHICS  OF  DEMOCMITUS.  277 

learning,  and  from  placing  thought  higher  than  em* 
pineal  knowledge; '  that  he  should  assert  that  men  only 
arrived  at  culture  by  degrees,  haying  borrowed,  as  he 
thinks,  some  arts  from  the  animals ; '  that  they  at  first 
strove  only  to  satisfy  their  most  necessary  wants,  and 
then,  in  the  course  of  time,  to  beautify  their  life ; '  on 
which  account  Democritus  insists  all  the  more  that 
education  should  come  to  the  help  of  nature,  and  by 
the  remodelling  of  the  man,  bring  forth  in  him  a  second 
nature*^  We  recognise  in  all  these  sayings  a  philosopher 
who  does  not  undervalue  the  labour  of  learning,  and 
does  not  content  himself  with  the  knowledge  of  external 
phenomena,  but  by  no  means  a  sceptic  who  absolutely 
despairs  of  knowledge. 

A  philosopher  who  discriminates  the  sensible  phe- 
nomenon from  true  essence  so  decidedly  as  Demo- 
critus does,  cannot  fail  to  seek  the  problem  and 
happiness  of  human  life  in  the  right  constitution  of 
mind  and  temperament,  and  not  in  submission  to  the 
external  world.  Such  a  character  is  stamped  on 
all  that  has  been  handed  down  to  us  of  his  moral 
TiewB  and  principles.  But  however  dear  this  may  be, 
and  however  numerous  the  ethical  writings  which  are 
attributed  to  him  ^  (sometimes  indeed  unwarrantably), 

»  Ft.  Mot.   140-142  :    voXXoX  •  Philodem.  De  Mus.  iv.  (Vol. 

Ta\v^^t  r6w  oint  fx«wi. — iroAv-  Hercul,  i.  186»  ap.  Mnllach,  p.  237). 

wV  •*  itoKviaMnp  iiirK4€tw  xfH- —  On  this  subject  cf.  Arist.  MetapL 

Ml?  v^a  Mrrmff^  wpMfue,  fiii  i.  2,  9S2  b,  22. 

Htn^y  AfAO^'  7^iT*    ^  1°™^  aban-  *  IV,  Mor.  188:  ^  4>^ts  koI  ^ 

doB  my  preyions  doubts  as  to  the  SiSax^  vq^cnrA^iri^r  itrrt '  urol  7^ 

Bemocritean  origin  of  these  frag^  1^  ^(^X^  furafipwffAOt  rhv  6»6pa»iroy 

ments,  as,  aecording  to  the  above  fAiruffvcyMv^a  tk  fvat&iroi4u. 

lema^,  thej  harmonise  weU  with  *  Cf.  Mnllach,  218  Bqq.     Lort- 

tbe  views  of  this  philosopher.  sing  in  the  treatise  named  on  p. 

-  Pint.  Solert,  Anim,  29,1 ,  p.  974.  20S,  1 .    The  fragments  on  morals 


273  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

he  was  still  far  from  the  scientific  treatment  of  Ethics 
which  was  inaugurated  by  Socrates.  His  ethical 
doctrine  in  regard  to  its  form  is  essentially  on  a  par 
with  the  unscientific  moral  reflection  of  Heracleitos 
and  the  Pythagoreans ; '  we  can  see  indeed  a  distinct 
view  of  life  running  through  the  whole,  but  this  view  is 
not  as  yet  based  upon  general  enquiries  concerning  the 
nature  of  moral  action,  nor  carried  out  into  a  systeniatie 
representation  of  moral  activities  and  duties.  In  the 
manner  of  the  ancient  ethics,  he  considers  happiness  as 
the  aim  of  our  life :  pleasure  and  aversion  are  the 
measure  of  the  useful  and  injurious ;  the  best  thing  for 
man  is  to  go  through  life,  enjoying  himself  as  much,  and 
troubling  himself  as  little,  as  possible.'  But  Democritus 
does  not  conclude  from  this  that  sensuous  enjoyment  is 
the  highest  end.  Happiness  and  unhappiness  dwell  not 
in  herds  or  in  gold,  the  soul  is  the  abode  of  the  daemon : ' 
not  the  body  and  wealth,  but  uprightness  and  intelli- 
gence produce  happiness  {Fr.  5);  the  goods  of  the 
soul   are   the   divine  goods,   those   of  the   body,  the 

(which,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  de  virtute  quidem  dieia. 

qaote  only  according  to  the  nQm-  *  Fr. Mor.  8 :  olpos (uj^fo^^iirnt 

ben  in  this  collection),  ap.  Mull.  h^vfu^opUi^v  rdpf^is  irol  irtfiriii.    To 

Democr.  160  eqq. ;  Frag.  Phitos,  i.  the  same  effbct  Fr.  9  (cf.LoitziBg. 

340  sqq.  p.  28 ;    instead  of  the  iiMOinpre- 

'  Cic.  Fin.  v.  29,  87 :  Demo-  hensible  vtpniic/uuc&Twy,  we  nught 

critus  neglected  his  property  ^^uic^  conjectare     ir^rr^r).      Fr.    2: 

qttaerens  aliud,  nUi  becUam  vitam  t  ipurrop  iufBpAir^  rhw  fiiw  liSpif 

quam  si  etiam  in  rerum  cognitione  &s  irKtiffra  tbOvfoiOiprt  icai  ixix^e- 

panebat^  tamen  ex  ilia  investiffa-  ra  iivniB4m,  which  is  so  expressed 

tione  naturae  oansequi  volebat,  ut  in  Sextus  {aup,  p.  272,  2),  as  to 

esset  bono  animo.  Id  enim  Ule  mm-  make  the  sensations  the  criterion 

mum  bontimy  tb&ufday  et  ioepe  iiBe^  of  desire  and  detestation. 

fiituf  appellate  i.e.  animum  terrore  *  Fr»  1 :  9b6atfioylii  i^vx^'  '^ 

lib&rum,     8ed  haeo  etn  praeclare,  KOKoieutiovhi  o(nc  h  fioffidi/tati  m- 

nondum  tamen  et  perpolita.    Pauea  x^ei,  oW  iw  xpw^,  ^^^A  ^  mxT^* 

enimy  iieque  ea  ipsa  enucleate  ab  hoc  ptw  ialiMvos, 


ETHICS  OF  DEM0CRITU8.  279 

human.'  Honour  and  wealth  without  wisdom  are  an 
uncertain  possession,^  and  where  reason  is  wanting,  man 
knows  not  how  to  enjoy  life  or  how  to  overcome  the 
fear  of  death.*  Not  every  enjoyment  therefore  is  desir- 
able, but  only  the  enjoyment  of  the  beautiful :  *  it  is 
fitting  that  man  should  bestow  more  care  on  the  soul 
than  on  the  body,^  that  he  may  learn  to  create  his  joy 
out  of  himself.^  In  a  word,  happiness  according  to  its 
essential  nature  consists  only  in  cheerfulness  and  well- 
being,  a  right  disposition  and  unalterable  peace  of 
mind.^  These,  however,  will  become  the  portion  of 
man  the  more  surely,  and  the  more  perfectly,  the  more 
he  knows  how  to  keep  measure  in  his  appetites  and 
enjoyments,  to  discriminate  the  useful  from  the  in- 
jurious, to  avoid  what  is  wrong  and  unseemly,  and  to 
limit  himself  in  his  actions  and  wishes  to  that  which 
corresponds  with  his  nature  and  ability.®     Contentment, 

'  Fr.  6,  vide  gup,  p.  262,  I.  cBcu  8*  c^n^v  4k  rov  9u>purfiov  Koi 

*  Fr.  58,  60.  r^s   iuucpicrtofs    r&¥    4fioimp '    wai 

*  Fr.  51-56.  rodr*   thm  rh    Kd?<XMrr6y   r§    Kok 

*  Fr.9;  cf.  19.  frvfupopdrrorov    Mp^ots,       Clem. 

*  Fr.  VzS,  Tide  sup.  p.  261,  3.  Strom,  ii.  417  A :  Ariti6icp.  fj^y  4v 

*  Fr,  7 :    ednhy  4^  iavrov  rks  t#  irepl  r4\ous  r^v  thdvfdaif  \r4\os 
rip^utt  4BiC6fi€yoy  Xofifidytty.  9tycu  ttiUdffMi]  V  Kol  cdctrr^  irpoem- 

'  Cic.  tup,  p.  278,  1 ;   Theod.  y6p9vffw.    Cf.  the  following  note. 

Cwr.  Gr.  Af.  xi.  6,  vide  p.  98,  2 ;  Diog.  46  and  Seneca,  Tranqu.  An. 

Epiph.  Exp.  Fid,  1  088  A ;  Diog.  2,  3,  mention  a  treatise,  ir.  ebOv- 

ix.  45 :  t4kos  8*  tlrai  r^y  §if0vfjdayf  fdiis,  which  is  probably  identical 

ov  TJ^jr  aMiv  ohray  r§  vBovff  &s  with  the  ebeirrif  described  bj  Bio- 

li'UM  wapoKoitrairrts  4^ityfiffwro,i\'  genes  as  lost.    What  Stobseus  calls 

X^  Ka0  %v  7a\i?ycvs  kcU  thtrroBSts  ^  Ataraxia  is  designated  by  Strabo, 

^v}^  8(^t,  inch  iieiifi^vhs  raparro-  i.  3,  21,  p.  61,  as  &9aviixurT^  and 

fi4ini  ^fiov  ^  Btie'tlkufiovlas  ^  <UAov  by  Cicero,  I.e.,  as  i$afi$la. 

rtphs  wdBoos.    icaXc?  8*  aMiu  ko)  *  Vide  the  previous  note,  and 

tUtrrit  Kol  iroWoTs  &AAotf  Mfuuriv.  Fr.    20 :    hyOpmrouri   yitp    tif^fitifi 

Btob.  Eel.  ii.   76 :  r^y  8*  c^vfUay  yiyrrcu  furptdrrtrt  rdpr^ios  jccU  filov 

ira2  fhwrit  Kot  hpiwvlaof  avfiii^rpiay  ^u^cTp(p,  r&  Si  Xtivorra  Jcol  i^cp- 

Tc  Kol  irapa^Uof  KoK^t.     <rv9iarar  3i(\XoKra  /icroirfvTCiy  r«  ^tX^ci  KoX 


280  THE  ATOMISTIC  PmLOSOPRY. 

moderation,  parity  of  deed  and  thought,  culture  of  the 
mind,  these  Democritus  recommends  as  the  way  to  true 
happiness.  He  allows  that  happiness  is  reached  onl; 
with  labour,  that  misery  finds  man  unsought  (IV.  10) ; 
but  he  maintains  notwithstanding  that  all  the  means  of 
happiness  are  assured  to  him,  and  that  it  is  his  own 
fault  if  he  makes  a  wrong  use  of  them.  Hie  gods  give 
man  nothing  but  good ;  only  man's  folly  turns  the  good 
to  evil ; '  as  the  conduct  of  a  man  is,  such  is  his  life.^ 
The  art  of  happiness  consists  in  using  and  contenting 
oneself  with  what  one  has  got.  Human  life  is  short  and 
needy  and  exposed  to  a  hundred  vicissitudes :  he  who 
recognises  this  will  be  satisfied  with  moderate  possessions 
and  not  require  anything  beyond  necessaries  for  his 
happiness.  What  the  body  needs  is  easily  earned ;  that 
which  makes  trouble  and  difliculty  is  an  imaginary  want' 

IMyiXas  Kutl\aMS  iikftoiUtv 'tf  y^vxSi  A^tfrepoi'  r^y  firyoXoTJcfiiJ.^  Ct 
td  V  iK  fAtyd\Mp  SuurrTifJidT^v  Kiyt-  M.  Aurel.  iy.  24  :  '*  *0\lya  vp^c,'^ 
6fibtvm  (that  which  moTOs  back-  ^niahf  (who,  it  is  not  stated)  **«' 
wards  and  forwards  between  two  fitXXus  ^vevfi'fia^w" 
extremes)  r&v  ^x^^^  **''•  tudra*  '  i'V.  18  :  ol  6mI  toTci  Mp^ 
049S  clo-l  o$T9  f Mu|iOt.  In  order  to  roifft  tiBovtrt  rieyoBk  ntUra  ira2  ri- 
escape  this,  DemocritiiB  advisetf  \cu  jcat  yw,  nXifp  ^4va  fikafitfA 
that  we  should  compare  ourselves,  icol  iip«^\4a.  rdB^  V  06  rixoi 
not  with  those  who  have  a  brighter  oikc  yvp  $to\  MpAwouri  Bopionat 
lot,  but  a  worse,  that  so  we  may  oXA*  abrtli  rota^ai  ifAit^kdiwiffi  W 
find  it  easier:  M  roiai  ZwaroTct  yoov  rv^Kdnira  xal  ityvuftocA!^, 
IX«M'  r^y  yrAfvriv  uroi  toTo'l  wttpfoOo-t  i^.  11.  Fr,  12:  itt^  ip  iifipf  ri- 
Apic«€ff^.  Fr.  118 :  He  who  with  yoBit  ylwurm,  kth  r&p  ahrimv  td  ri 
a  good  courage  does  Tightens  it«»cA  iwavpurK&ifi^  iif  •  t»F  I* 
d^eds  it}  happy  and  free  from  care ;  kok&v  iierhs  ^iiiitp  (we  could  re- 
he  who  despises  the  right  is  main  free  frt)m  it).  Cf.  fV.  96: 
troubled  by  fear  and  by  the  re-  Most  evils  come  to  men  fr^m 
membranoe  of  his  deeds.  JPV.  92 :  within.  Fr.  14,  tup.  p.  2$8, 1. 
rhv  fif$vfi4€ffB€u  fi4XKovra  xph  M^  '  ^.  *5 :  T6iot  6  rpSrvs  M 
iroXX^  irp^o-crcMf  fi^c  IBip  fi^rt  cf^amroj,  rovr^eisri  jcal  fiUi  (airr^ 
^vwf,  |ii;84   iitrif^  hv   wp^itnrp   tw4p  ttuerai. 

Tf  B^yufuy  atp4€9€9u  r^v  iwvrov  koH  *  Fr.  22,  cf .  23   and  28 :  t^ 

4f6<rt¥t  &c.     ^  jhp  tboyKhi  Ao-^a-  XpfC^  •^•i  ^i^oy  [periiap8» '»] 


ETmci  OF  LEMOCmTUS,  281 

The  more  a  man  covets,  the  more  he  requires ;  insatiable- 
nesB  is  worse  than  the  extreme  of  want*  (Ft.  66-68.) 
To. him,  on  the  contrary,  who  desires  . little,  a  little 
suffices;  restriction  of  desire  makes  poverty  riches.* 
He  who  has  too  much,  loses  that  which  he  has,  like 
the  dog  in  the  fable  {Fr.  21);  through  excess  every 
pleasure  becomes  a  pain  (37) ;  moderation,  on  th^  other 
hand,  increases  enjoyment  (35,  34),  and  ensures  a  satis-^ 
faction  which  is  independent  of  fortune  (36).  He  is  a 
fool  who  desires  what  he  has  not,  and  despises  what  is 
at  his  command  (31) ;  the  sensible  man  enjoys  what  he 
has,  and  does  not  trouble  himself  about  what  he  has 
not'  The  best  is  therefore  always  the  right  measure, 
excess  and  deficiency  come  of  evil.^  To  conquer  one- 
self is  the  noblest  victory  {Fr,  75) ;  he  is  the  valiant 
man  who  conquers,  not  enemies  merely,  but  desire 
(76);  to  overcome  anger  indeed  is  difficult,  but  the 
rational  man  becomes  master  of  it  (77)  ;  to  be  right- 
minded  in  misfortune  is  great  (73),  but  with  under- 
standing, we  can  conquer  (74)  trouble.  Sensuous 
enjoyment  affords  but  short  pleasure  and  much  pain  ; 
and  no  satiating  of  appetit^,^  only  the  goods  of  the 
soul  can  give  true  happiness  and  inward  contentment.* 
Wealth  gained   by  injustice   is  an   evil;^   culture  is 

Xn^C<>}  ^  ^  xrii"'^  ^  ytw^mt.  enjojed  by  poverty,  of  being  secure 

The  oaater  t^  xJp'ii^^  1  formerly  from  jealousy  and  enmity, 
lefened  to  tbe  body,  and  I  stiU  «  Fr,  29,  cf.  42. 

think  this  is   possible ;  though  I  *  Fr.  25 :  Kuxhv  4n\  TovrX  th 

admit  that  Lortzing's  (p.  28)  read-  Xtrov,  im^p^&K^  U  Koi  HWta^is  o& 

ing,  aooording  to  whidi  t^  TCf^Cov  fioi  BoKiti.     Cf.  Fr.  33. 
i»  the  beast  and  6  xriif^*  i^^i  *  ^*  47i  cf.  46,  48. 

makes  good  sense.  »  Vide  tuprd,  p.  279,  7,  8. 

•  Fr,  24,  cf.  26,  27,  86  sq.,  38  •  Fr.  61,  cf.  62-64. 

Bq. ;  cf.  fV.  40,  on  the  adyantage 


282  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

better  than  poBsessions ; '  no  power  and  no  treasures 
can  be  equivalent  to  the  extension  of  our  knowledge.^ 
Democritus  demands  therefore  that  not  merely  deed 
and  word,*  but  the  will  also/  shall  be  pure  from  in- 
justice; that  man  should  do  good,  not  on  compulsioD, 
but  from  conviction  {Fr.  135),  not  from  hope  of  reward, 
but  for  its  own  sake ;  ^  and  should  keep  himself  from 
evil  (117),  not  from  fear,  but  from  a  sense  of  duty;  he 
should  be  more  ashamed  before  himself  than  before  all 
others,  and  avoid  wrong  equally  whether  it  will  be  known 
to  no  one  or  to  all :  ®  he  says  that  only  that  man  pleases 
the  gods  who  hates  wrong ;  ^  the  consciousness  of  doing 
right  alone  brings  peace  of  mind  {Fr.  Ill);  doing 
wrong  makes  a  man  more  unhappy  than  suffering 
wrong  (224).  He  extols  wisdom,  which  guarantees  as 
the  three  greatest  goods — to  think  truly,  to  speak  well, 
and  to  act  rightly ;  ^  he  holds  igpiorance  to  be  the  cause 

>  Fr.    186.     With   this    Lort-  »  Fr.  107,  cf.  242. 

zing,  23,  connectfl  with  much  pro-  *  Democritus,     aoooidiog     tx> 

bability  Fr.  18,  Stob.  FUyril.  4,  71,  Diog.,   ix.    46  ;   SuicL  rpiivy.  (cf. 

if   indeed  hj  the  cfSwXa    ^irdnri  Schol.-Bekker  in  II.  e,  89;  ^* 

(Meineke  has  this  word  instead  of  tath.  ad  11.  B.  p.  696,  37 ;  Bom. 

ai0%r(K&)    the  emptiness   of  the  Tsetz.  ad  Lyoophr.  y.  519;  Mill- 

ostentatious  man  is  meant  to  be  lach,  p.  1 19  sq.),  had  composed  a 

described,  work,  Tptroy^wio,    in    w!uch   he 

*  Dion  J  s.  ap.  Eus.  iV.  Ev.  ziv.  explained  the  Homeric  Pallas  and 
27,  8:  ArifjL6tptros  yovp  virrhs^  it  her  other  names  as  ▼isdom:  Sri 
^tunvy  iXry*  fioiXtoBai  fuiXXov  rpia  ytyvrrou  4^  abr^Sf  h  virr*  ri 
fjdcof  €bpuv  airioKayioMf  ^  riiv  OcfH  iufOp^um  trvr^x^i,  namely,  <2  Xay^ 
awv  ol  fiaffiK%ia¥  ywiaSai.  (ta$ai,  X4y€tp  KoAm,  6pBAf  wfirrfir. 

.    '  Fr.  103,  106,  97,  99.  Lortzing,  p.  5,  conaideis  this  u 

*  Fr.  109 :  iyMy  ob  rh  fi^  interpolation,  and  I  do  not  deny 
&8(K^ffiy,  &AX&  T^  firiB^  i$4\€iy.  Cf.  that  it  may  be  so ;  but  such  alle- 
Fr.  110,  171.  gorical  language  does  not  seem  to 

^  Fr.   1 60 :   x^V*''^"^^*    (bene-  exceed    that   which  is   elsewhere 

ficent^  obK  6  fi\4itcov  irphf  r^r  &fioi-  ascribed  to    Democritus  and  his 

fi^p,  AAA*  6  c?  8p$y  wpopfnifiivos.  contemporaries    (cf.    p.    251,   4 : 

*  Fr.  98,  100,  101.  265,  2;  287,  8 ;  Ptet  m,  a,  800, 


ETHICS  OF  DEM0CRITU8.  283 

of  all  faults  ; '  and  recommends  instruction  and  practice 
as  the  indispensable  means  of  perfection ; '  he  warns  men 
against  envy  and  jealousy,'  avarice  ^  and  other  faults. 
All  that  has  been  handed  down  to  us  of  the  writings  of 
Democritus  shows  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  extensive 
experience,  acute  observation,  earnest  moral  tempera- 
ment and  pure  principles.     His  utterances,  too,  con- 
cerning social  life  correspond  with  this  character.     The 
value  of  friendship,  with  which  Grreek  ethics  was  so 
deeply  penetrated,  he  rates  very  highly  ;  he  who  has  no 
righteous  man  for  his  friend,  he  says,  deserves  not  to 
live ;  ^  but  the  friendship  of  one  wise  man  is  better 
than  that  of  all  fools  (jFV.   163) ;  in  order  to  be  loved, 
however,  a  man  must,  on  his  side,  love  others  (171),  and 
this  love  is  only  fitting  when  it  is  not  defiled  by  any 
uolawful  passion.^     So  also  Democritus  recognises  the 
necessity  of  the  state.     He  declares  indeed  that  the 
wise  man  must  be  able  to  live  in  every  coimtry,  and 
that  a   noble  character  has  the  whole  world   for  its 
fatherland,^  but  at  the  same  time  he  says  that  nothing 
is  80  important  as  a  good  government,  that  it  embraces 
all  things  and  everything  stands  and  fells  with  it ;  *  he 

2nd  ed.).  It  is  quite  different  from  *  Fr.  6S-70. 

tlttt  employed  by  the  StoicB  (ibid.  •  Fr.  162,  cf.  166. 

30a,  1).    Seeidee,  the  words  need  *  Fr.  4 :  Blicaios    ifws  i^vfipl- 

not  necessarily  hftTe  formed  part  crots  i^€ffBai    r&y  tcaXAy,  -which 

of  the  main  content  of  the  treatise,  MuUach    does    not    seem   to   me 

they  may  have  been  merely  an  rightly  to  understand, 

introdoetion  to  some  moral  reflec-  '  Fr.  225  :  &ySpl  <ro^  iraaa  7^ 

tion.  fierrfi'  ^vxvs  7^  iryaldfis  varpls  6 

**Fr.    116:    afiaprifis    curlri  ^  ^iffimts  Kiafws. 

«M(i|  Tov  Kpiceovos.  *  Fr,  212  :  tk  ttarrh  r^r  %6Kiv 

'  Fr.  130-134,  116,  cf.  86  sq.,  Xfi^v  t&w  Xovk&p  iiiyurra  irf^*<r9ai. 

'  Fr,  30,  230,  147, 167  sq.  %Qfa  rh  iwuxh  /a^c  hx^  4«VTy 


384  THS  atomistic  PHILOSOPHY. 

tiiinkg  the  distress  of  the  commonwealth  is  wotse  titan 
that  of  individuals ; '  he  would  rather  live  in  poverty 
and  freedom  under  a  democracy,  than  in  plenty  and 
dependence  with  the  great  {Fr.  311).  He  acknow- 
ledges that  nothing  great  can  be  accomplished  except 
by  unanimous  cooperation  (Fr.  199),  that  civil  discord 
is  under  all  circumstances  an  evil  (200) ;  he  sees  in  law 
a  benefactor  of  men  (187),  he  requires  dominion  of  the 
best  (191-1 94),  obedience  to  authority  and  law  (189  sq., 
197),  unselfish  care  for  the  common  good  (212),  geneial 
willingness  to  help  others  (215) ;  he  deplores  a  state  of 
things  in  which  good  rulers  are  not  duly  protected, 
and  the  misuse  of  power  is  rendered  easy  for  e?il 
rulers ;  *  and  in  which  political  activity  is  connected 
with  danger  and  misfortune.*  Democritus  is  therefore 
at  one  with  the  best  men  of  his  time  on  this  subject^ 
His  opinions  on  marriage  are  more  peculiar ;  but  their 

9tptTi$4fuyoy  ra(A  rh  Xf^'l^^^*  '''^^  unGonditional  sense,  this  'waroiDg 

|vyoi7.    v6\tt  yitp  cS  ii,yofi4ini  ftf-  a^nst    political    aetiyitj   wooM 

ylffTii  tp$m^is   iirri'  ical  4p  roir^  not  be  in  harmckny  with  the  other 

irdrra  Iw,   luA    roinov    trw^ofi^yov  principles  of  Democritas.    0£  io 

fdirm  ffA(rrMf  urol  roiirw  ^ttpo*  addition  to  the  abore  qMtatioof 

ju^Kov  rk  vdarra  Sio^cipcroi.    Plut.  Fr,  196. 

adv.  Cdl,  32,  2,  p.  1126:  An/i^Kp.  *  What  Epiphanins,  jBip.  ^t^- 

fAkvvapauyttrhvTtxoXiTuciiyrdxrnv  1088  A,  relates  of  him:  that  he 

fAtyUrrnv  od<ray  MiZdffK€<rBm  ical  despised    existing    anthoritj  tad 

r(As  'r6ifouf  Si^ctK,  d^'  Sr  rh  fie-  acknowledged  only  natnnl  right, 

yihBk  Hoi  KiofiirpiL  yipoyrai  rois  iof-  that  he  declared  law  to  he  an  «^ii 

9p^kirotSt  cf.  Loruing,  p.  16.  invention,  and  said  the  wise  meo 

'  /v.  43  :  iiiropiii  ^vyii  riis  Ud"  shonld  not  obey  the  laws  hut  liva 

orovxot^*'*«T4fni'ohykphro\€l'wrrm  in  freedom, — is  manifntly  a  nui* 

4Kw\s  4wucwpias,  apprehension.    The  artafeiegMU 

*  Fr.  206,  where,  however,  the  as  practised  at  a  later  date  might 
text  is  not  quite  in  oider.    Fr,  214.  easily  And  in  the  citations,  p.  2 1 9. 3. 

*  So  I  understand  Fr:  213:  the  uniyersal  opposition  of  y<^ 
roTci  "Xf^iirroUn  ob  ^v/»ip4poy  V**  '^^  ^^ts»  little  as  this  applies  to 
K4oirrms  roitfi   [rAr]    iwurmv  &AXa  civil  laws. 

m^cttuv,  etc. ;  for  taken  in  an 


ETMICS  OF  DEMOCRITUS.  285 

peculiarity  is  not  on  the  side  where  from  his  raaterialism 
and  his  seeming  eud^monism  we  might  expect  to  find 
it :  a  higher  moral  view  of  marriage  is  indeed  wanting 
in  him,  but  not  more  so  than  in  his  whole  epoch. 
What  chiefly  offends  him  in  marriage  is  not  the  moral, 
bat  the  sensual  element  of  this  relation.  He  has  a 
horror  of  sexual  enjoyment,  because  consciousness  is 
therein  overcome  by  desire,  and  the  man  gives  himself 
over  to  the  debasing  charm  of  the  senses.*  He  has  also 
rather  a  low  opinion  of  the  female  sex ;  ^  and  desires  to 
have  no  children  because  their  education  withdraws  men 
from  more  necessary  activity,  and  its  results  are  uncer- 
tain;^ and  though  he  acknowledges  that  the  love  of 
children  is  universal  and  natural,  he  esteems  it  more 
prudent  to  take  adopted  children  whom  one  can  choose, 
than  to  beget  others  in  the  case  of  whom  it  is  a  chaiLce 
how  they  torn  out.  Though  we  must  allow  that  these 
opinions  are  onesided  and  defective,  we  have  no  right 
on  that  account  to  raise  against  the  ethical  principles 
of  Democritus,  as  a  whole,  objections  which  we  do  not 
raise  against  Plato  in  spite  of  his  community  of  wives, 
nor  against  the  Christian  votaries  of  asceticism. 

Whether  Pemocritus  has  connected  his  ^thics  with 

'  ^.   60:   Iwovffiti  kiroftK'rilbi  mocn'tus  for    declining    marri>ige 

v}mf4i'  4liff€vrm  yiif  Mponros  i^  and  the    ponession    of   children 

ii^^av(to  which  idiould  probably  because  they  would  be  a  disturb- 

be   Added    iml    &ToinraTcu   wXttyV  ^°^  ^^  ^i°^  i°  ^^^  eudaBmonism, 

'nn|u^(<fiMf«t,cf.Lortiing2lBq.).  bnt  this   is  a  nusunderstanding  ; 

Fr.  49 :  ^vdfjMfoi  Mpenroi  ^9ovrvu  the  Aj^Sfou,  which  Democritus  fears, 

Kai  ff^i  ytreru  iftp  roT&i  h^po-  refer  to  the  trouble  occasioned  by 

8Mi4(bo#i.  misgoided  childvan.  Theodoretus  is 

*  Fr.  176,  177, 179,  only  quoting  from  Clemens,  Strom. 

*  F^.  1S4-188.     Theodoretus,  ii.  421,  c,  who  does  not,  howoTer, 
Osr.  6r,  Aff,   3di.,  censures  De>  express  himself  so  decidedly. 


286  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

his  scientific  theories  in  such  a  manner  that  we  must 
regard  them  as  essentially  part  of  his  system,  is  another 
question ;  and  I  can  only  answer  it  in  the  n^;ati?e. 
There  is  indeed  a  certain  connection  between  them,  as 
already  observed;  his  theoretic  elevation  above  the 
sensible  phenomenon  must  have  inclined  the  philosopher 
in  the  moral  sphere  also  to  ascribe  small  value  to  ex- 
ternal things ;  and  his  insight  into  the  unchangeable 
order  of  nature  must  have  awakened  in  him  the  con- 
viction that  it  was  best  to  find  satisfaction  and  content- 
ment in  that  order.  But  so  far  as  we  know,Democritus 
did  little  himself  to  elucidate  this  inter-depeodence ; 
he  did  not  enquire  into  the  nature  of  moral  activity 
generally,  but  promulgated  a  number  of  isolated  ob- 
servations and  rules  of  life,  which  are  connected  cer- 
tainly by  the  same  moral  temper  and  mode  of  thought, 
though  not  by  definite  scientific  conceptions;  these 
ethical  propositions,  however,  stand  in  so  slight  a  con- 
nection, that  they  might  one  and  all  have  been  ad- 
vanced by  a  person  to  whom  the  Atomistic  doctrine 
was  entirely  alien.  However  remarkable  and  meri- 
torious therefore  the  ethics  of  Democritus  may  be,  and 
willingly  as  we  accept  them  as  a  proof  of  the  progress 
of  moral  reflection,  also  evinced  contemporaneously  by 
the  Sophistic  and  Socratic  doctrine,  we  can,  neverthe- 
less, only  see  in  them  an  outwork  of  his  philosophical 
system,  which  can  have  but  a  secondary  importance  in 
our  estimate  of  that  system. 

It  is  the  same  with  the  views  of  Democritus  about 
religion.^     That  he  was  unable  to  share  the  belief  of 

'  Cf.  for  what  follows  Krische,  Fonekunffen,  146  sqq. 


RELIGION  AND   THE  GODS.  287 

his  nation  as  to  the  gods  is  evident.  The  Divine,  in 
the  proper  sense,  the  eternal  essence  on  which  all 
depends,  is  to  him  only  Nature,  or  more  accurately,  the 
totality  of  the  atoms  moved  by  their  weight  and  form- 
ing the  world.  If  the  gods  are  substituted  for  this  in 
popular  language,  it  is  merely  a  form  of  expression.^ 
In  a  secondary  manner  be  seems  to  have  designated 
the  animate  and  rational  elements  in  the  world  and  in 
man  as  the  Divine^  without  meaning  by  it  anything 
more  than  that  this  element  is  the  most  perfect  matter 
and  the  cause  of  all  life  and  thought.*  Moreover  he 
perhaps  named  the  stars  gods,  because  they  are  the 
chief  seat  of  this  divine  fire ; '  and  if  he  had  also  as- 
cribed reason  to  them,  this  would  not  have  contradicted 
the  presuppositions  of  his  system.  In  the  gods  of  the 
popular  faith,  on  the  contrary,  he  could  see  only  images 
of  the  fancy:  he  supposed  that  certain  physical  or 
moral  conceptions  had  originally  been  represented  in 
them,  Zeus  signifying  the  upper  air ;  Pallas,  wisdom, 
&c.,  but  that  these  forms  had  afterwards  been  erro- 
neously taken  for  actual  beings,  having  a  personal 
existence.^  That  men  should  have  arrived  at  this  opinion, 

*  Fr.  Mot.  13,  w^a^  280,  1.  mocrt^M  MMpioa^fir ;  this  is  prob- 

Similarly,  i^.  Mot,   107 :    /movto  ably  a  reference  to  the  origin  of 

0fo^tfes,  8<rouri   ^x^pbv   t6    &5i-  the  stars  ;  it  might  also,  less  fitly, 

«^cir.    ¥t.  Mot,  250:   tfclov  j^^v  be  connected  with  the  existences 

t\  &tl    {laXoyf^co'tfcu    xoX^y.    In  presently  to    be    discussed,  from 

the  qnotation,  p.  267»  4,  the  men-  which  the  cfS«\a  emanate.    That 

tion  of  the  gods,  as  is  there  shown,  the  stars  were  regarded  as  gods  is 

cannot  belong  to  Democritns,  who,  shown  by  the  explanation  of  am- 

however,  might  still  have  spoken  brosia,  noticed  p.  251,  4. 
of  them  hypothetioally*  ^  Clemens,   Cohort.  46  B  (cf. 

'  Cf.  p.  262  sq.  Strom,  v.  598  B,  and  concerning 

'  Tertnll.  Ad  Nat,  ii.  2 :  Cum  the  text,  Mnllach,  359  ;  Burchard, 

rdi^  iffni  9upemo  Deoe  orto8  De-  Demoor,  de  Sens,  Phil.  9  ;  Fapen- 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PSILOSOPST. 


he  explained  partly  from  the  impresfiion  which  extra- 
ordinary natural  phenomena,  such  as  tempeeta,  eomets, 
solar  and  lunar  eclipses,  &c.,  produce  on  them/  and 
partly  he  believed  it  to  be  founded  on  real  obeervatioDs 
which  were  not  rightly  understood.  Free  therefore  as 
is  his  attitude  in  regard  to  the  popular  religion,  he 
cannot  resolve  to  explain  all  that  it  relates  of  the  pbe 
nomena  of  higher  natures,  and  their  influence  on  m^ 
absolutely  as  deception :  it  might  rather  seem  to  him 
more  consistent  with  his  sensualistic  tbeozy  ot  Icaowladge 
to  derive  these  conceptions  also  from  actual  external  im- 
pressions.    He  assumed,  therefore,^  that  there  dwell  is 


cordt,  72):  Mtr  o6«r  Airciic^tts  b 
Avfi^K^irof  r&¥  \cyiofy   ia^Bpii^wv 

X«(pat  irrwOa  tv  vw  ii4pa  KaX4ofUV 
ol  'EXXifKcf  irdyra  (this  seems  to 
be  iDOorrect,  though  it  was  doubt- 
less in  the  MS.  used  by  Clemens ; 
perhaps  we  should  read  v^Errcs,  or 
still  better,  wvr4pm)  Aia  iweUtrBai^ 
Koi  (a  &s  or  rofUC^p  i>%  seems  to 
hare  dropped  out  here)  wdrra  eSrec 
otitv  KaH  9iBoi  icoi  A^p^crflu  kcU 
fiaaiKths  otros  rih  w^rrwp.  On 
Pallas.  Tide  p.  282,  8. 

'Sext.  Math,  ix.  19.  Demo- 
critus  is  of  the  number  of  those 
who  derive  the  belief  \i>  gods  from 
extraordinary  natural  phenomena : 
6pWT95  ydp,  ^>vri,  rit  4v  roit  ^- 
rfdipoit  inJHiiJMfra  ol  iraXoiol  riir  Ar- 
BfxAwww,  KoBawtp  fiporrkt   tui   4^- 

Tw69ws  (comets,  so  also  p.  262, 
8;  Krische,  147)  ^X^ov  t€  imI  <r9- 
xims  iKKwti^tiS  ^ifutrpvtno,  Bwbs 
tUiuwi  ro^-vy  olrfovs  ^Imu. 

«  Sext.  Math.  ix.  19 :  Amp^- 
Kpvros  8*  ^t^Ki  riwd  ^i^«w  4fiw€' 
Xd{€i9   TOif   kifBpAmwf,  ifol  re^tiy 


rk  /t,hu  efrai  ityaOoroiii,  rii  N  «hc»- 
wotd.  Mty  Kat  ei^troi  c^A^nr 
(so  I  read,  with  Kriadie,  pu  IM ; 
Burchard,  L  c,  and  others,  for 
tdX^F  en  account  of  the  pss* 
sages  quoted,  inf.)  rvxw  cS^Aer. 
cTkoi  9k  ravTCL  fitydKoi  Tf  col  imp- 
^iCY^  ml  ^i^^Boprm  iu^.  «k  1^ 
ffapra  8^,  irpcni^rccF  t«  tA  ftih- 
Xorra  ralis  MpAvois^  Hmfvbinnf^ 
K^  ^m¥^  hpihnn.  (Thus  &r  also, 
almost  word  for  word,  the  asonj- 
mous  eomraentary  on  Anstoll«*s 
Ik  Divin.  p.  s. ;  Simpl.  Jk  Anmtu 
p  148,  Aid. ;  and,  Teiy  similarlr. 
T%emi8t.  on  the  same  woii,  p.  296. 
Sp.  Both  substitute  €b)Jo(uv  ^ 
cix^ywy,  and  leave  out  befon  hnf* 
fMy40ii  the  words  fMydXm  t€  m). 
which  are  no  doubt  glosses.)  U» 
re^iMT  mbrw  ^9»rmgim9  XaMms 
o/  vaXoiol  hr€piit<nu^  dtmt  Icir  ^ 
Bwhs  HXXou  irapk  rovrc  Iptm  l«tv 
T09  i^$mprop  ^iauf  Ixo^res.  Cf 
§  42 :  vk  ai  ittvXa  «Znu  iw  rf 
Ttpi^X*'*^'  vT«^^ii(|  ica)Aa4|piMrNit«tr 

tX^f^*  /^P^'f  Ktt^  MMt^XeV  TOIBVTm 

^vMi   /io^cTM    a^^  dMorX^ci' 


BELIOION  AND  THE  GODS. 


289 


the  air  beings  who  were  similar  to  man  in  form,  but 
superior  to  him  in  greatness,  power,  and  duration  of 
life :  these  beings  manifest  themselves  when  emanations 
and  images,  streaming  forth  from  them  and  often  re- 
producing themselves  at  a  great  distance,  become  visible 
and  audible  to  men  and  animals,  and  they  are  held  to 
be  gods,  although  in  truth  they  are  not  divine  and  im- 
perishable, but  only  less  perishable  than  man.     These 


Uktop,      Plat.    AfmU.    P.   c.    1 : 

Xffl^*rit  fiaAAoy  iifup  iK  rod  irepi- 

vvft/^ptfraA.  D^.  Orae.  c.  7:  <Pri 
^  Aqfi^ftpirof,  c^x^/^'i'''  MikSjx^^ 
ci8ii\»v  TV7x^*'''y  HiiXos  ^  irtpa 
SMTpdircXa  ica2  iMjcfino^  yivAaKMv' 
^X^rra  wpoeup^atis  rivas  roI  Spfids. 
Cic.  (who  also  mentions  this  theory 
in  Diem.  ii.  dS,  120),  M  D.  i. 
12,  29 :  DemocrUus,  qui  turn  ima- 
gma  earuTnque  circuitus  in  Deorum 
nuinero  rrferi,  turn  illam  mUuram, 
(piae  imagines  fundat  ac  mUtat^ 
^WA  9CtenHam  inteUd^entiamqu^ 
ftottram  (d  on  this  point,  p.  262 
fq).  Jhid.  48. 120 :  turn enimcendet 
imagmea  divinitcUe  praeditas  inMte 
M»  univenitate  rerum,  turn  prin- 
^fvi  mentis,  quae  nmt  in  eodem 
wiwrto,  Deas  esse  dioU ;  turn  ani- 
Jffantea  imagines,  quae  vel  prodesse 
^/Mt  doleant  vel  noeere,  turn  in- 
gmi«  quasdam  imagines  tan- 
^osque,  ut  universum  mundum 
compUetaniur  extrinsecus.  (This 
lauer  is  certainly  a  perversion 
of  the  doctrine  of  Democritns, 
oceaBioned  probably  by  the  men- 
tion of  the  ircpi^xoy,  which  we 
also  &m1  in  Sextos  and  Rntaich ; 
We  ought,  moreoyer,  to  remember 
tbat  in  both   these  passages   of 

VOL.  n.  1 


Cicero,  an  Epicurean  is  speaking, 
who  introduces  as  many  absurdities 
and  contradictions  as  possible  into 
the  doctrines  of  Demoeritus,  in 
order  the  more  easily  to  turn  them 
into  ridicule.)  Clemens,  Strom. 
y.  590  C :  r&  tV  a^^  (AiiM^irp.) 
irciro(t|Kffy  fff8«Xa  rois  bafBpd/woa 
vpo<nniFro¥ra  Kal  rois  hxAyoa  (^ois 
i,frh  rris  Btlas  oifvlas,  where  $Mioia-(a 
designates  natura  quae  imagines 
fundat,  the  beings  from  whom  the 
fff5(tfXa  emanate.  Cf.  Ibid.  Cohort. 
43  D  (the  first  principles  of  Demo- 
eritus are  the  atoms,  the  void  and 
the  tt9u\a)  and  Krische,  160,  1 ; 
Max.  Tyr.  Diss.  xvii.  6 :  the  Deity, 
according  to  Demoeritus,  was  dfut- 
wMs  (sc.  4ituv,  therefore  like  to 
men).  From  a  misunderstanding 
of  what  was  said  by  Demoeritus 
concerning  the  beneficent  and  male- 
ficent nature  of  these  existences, 
and  perhaps  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  some  forged  writing, 
no  doubt  arose  the  statements  of 
Plinius,  H.  N.  ii.  7, 14,  that  Demo- 
eritus supposed  there  were  two 
deities,  Pcma  and  Ben^ficium. 
Iren.  Adv.  Ear,  ii.  14,  3,  even 
confounds  the  atomistic  cI8«Aa  with 
the  Platonic  ideas.  For  the  rest, 
ef.  the  account  of  the  Epicurean 
doctrine  (Part  m.  a,  894  sqq.  2nd 
ed.). 


290  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 

beings  and  their  images  are  partly  of  a  beneficent,  and 
partly  of  a  destructive  nature ;  for  which  reason  Demo- 
critus,  we  are  told,  expressed  a  wish'  that  he  might  meet 
with  fortunate  images :  from  the  same  source,  lastly,  be 
derived  presages  and  prophecies,  for  he  thought  thai 
the  phantomis  unfold  to  us  the  designs  of  those  from 
whom  they  emanate,  and  also  what  is  going  on  in  other 
parts  of  the  world.^  In  fact,  they  are  nothing  else  than 
the  daemons  of  the  popular  belief,'  and  Democritus  may 
80  far  be  considered  as  the  first  who,  in  mediating  be- 
tween philosophy  and  the  popular  religion,  entered 
upon  the  course  so  often  piursued  in  after  times,  viz., 
that  of  degrading  the  gods  of  polytheism  into  daemons. 
Together  with  this  physical  view  of  the  belief  in  gods, 
some  words  of  his  have  been  transmitted  to  us,  which 
refer  to  its  ethical  importance.'  In  no  case  did  he 
think  himself  justified  in  assuming  an  antagonistic 
position  to  the  existing  religion,  and  to  the  order  of 
the  conunonwealth  ;  it  may,  therefore,  be  true  of  him- 
self, as  it  was  asserted  of  his  followers,  perhaps  only  on 
account  of  the  Epicureans,*  that  they  took  part  in  the 
accustomed  religious  services :  from  the  Greek  stand- 
point this  would  be  quite  in  order,  even  on  the  princi- 
ples of  Democritus. 

Of  a  similar  kind  are  some  other  doctrines  in  which 
Democritus  likewise  follows  the  popular  fiiith  more  than 

•  Cf.  p.  291,  1.  1.    Of.  also  Ft.  242:  xH^  tVa^J' 

*  The  dsemons  were  supposed  thtri^uiv  ^ay^p&s  MtUwodoi,  ^s 
to  be  loDg-lived,  but  not  immortal.  8i  ii\n$tlas  Ba^ivms  xptitffnt^. 
Cf.,  not  to  meution  other  references,  These  words,  however  (as  Lortxing 
Plut.  Dqf.  Orac,  c.  1 1, 16  sq.  p.  415,  remarks,  p.  15),  do  not  sonod  as  if 
418,  and  mp,  p.  152,  1 ;  172,  1:  written  by  Democritus. 

»  Fr.  Mor,  107 ;  vide  ewp,  287,  *  Orig.  C,  Cels,  vii.  66. 


PROPHECY  AND  MAQIC.  291 

his  physical  system,  though  he  tries  to  bring  them  into 
harmony  with  it.  Thus  besides  what  we  have  just 
been  speaking  of  as  to  the  manifestations  of  superior 
beings,  he  believes  in  prophetic  dreams,  and  seeks  to 
explain  them  also  by  the  doctrine  of  images.  As  dreams 
in  general  (so  we  must  understand  him)  arise  because 
images  of  all  possible  things  reach  sleeping  persons,  so 
under  certain  circumstances,  he  thinks,  it  may  also 
happen  that  these  images  (like  the  words  or  features 
which  we  perceive  in  waking)  may  reflect  the  conditions 
of  Boul,  the  opinions  and  designs  of  others ;  and  thus 
dreams  arise,  which  instruct  us  concerning  much  that 
is  hidden.  But  these  dreams  are  not  thoroughly  trust- 
worthy, partly  because  the  images  are  in  themselves 
not  always  equally  clear  and  forcible,  partly  because 
on  their  way  to  us,  according  to  the  constitution  of 
the  air,  they  are  subject  to  greater  or  lesser  changes.^ 
The  theory  of  emanations  and  images  is  also  employed 
to  justify  the  superstition,  so  prevalent  in  Greece  even 

^  Pint.  Q^.  Uonv,  vni.  10,  2:  ipfiia,  Ihw  hdftBpovs  iral  iunr/x^ 

^^l  AtifASKpnot  iy§carafiwra'ov<r6ai  rovs  ^vKirroma  wpofffdljf  'v^'  ^"^^ 

^^  ^(foXa  9iJk  r&y    w6imw  elf  rd  kos  *    rovro    8i    fidXMra  iroif 7  Zt' 

^^funu  Kol   TOiciy    rhs    Kctrii  rhy  Wpot   \*iov    ttjs    ^pas  yivo/i4tnis 

Cvroy  (h^fis  iirapai^p6tupa  *  ^oir^y  &jc»X^ou  iroi  raxc(as'  6  9^  ^ivo- 

^  Tovra  vorrax^cy  iwidrra  koI  wvpwhst  h  f  ^vAXo^^oci  r&  94v9pay 

vra  Si  it^9  Wh  aiXov  wohXov  ical  nrra,    9iaffrp4^€i     ical    iraparpSru 

^PI^'Arrfros,  ob  fi6yov  Hx'^^^^  fiop^  »oA\ox^  rh  dSttXa  koI  rh  itrnpyis 

(liftt  rod   ff^futros    iKfi§fUByfi4ycu  ohrw  i\irn\o¥  koI  kffBwls  vomi  t^ 

^M^t^nyrof  .  .  .  kKXk  koI  rw  iwrk  fipaivrriTi  r^f  Toptios  i/Miipo^/MVor, 

ft^r  Kiyti/idrafy  ical  /3ov\cufuiT«i'  Sktnrtp  a?  wd\iy  Tohs  hpyAvr»»  K€lL 

<K^y  jcol  ^fi&¥  Kcd  wMv  i^iJpifftiS  iuucaiofUtwy  MpioKovra  iroAX&  ical 

hfoXaiifidMovra  <rvrc^^Aic«r0ai,   ircU  raYv  KOfuCofitya  riis  dpu^dirtts  ifotpiis 

"^porwivTor^a  furk  ruirt^v  $<nr^p  km  trntuufruciLs  iaro9lZoeirty.     These 

^f^^ai^Cttp  Kmi9iaffr4A\€iy  rois  theories   are  alluded  to  in  Arist. 

^oifxofUyots  rks    ro9P   ficOicW«y  De  Dioin.  p.  8,  e.  2,  464  a,  5,  11 ; 

A^a  96iat    Kot    9ia}<joyurfubs    Koi  Piut.  Piac,  y.  2 ;  Cic.  Divin,  i.  3,  5. 


292  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY, 

to  the  present  day,  of  the  eflFect  of  the  evil  eye :  from 
the  eyes  of  envious  persons;  images,  he  thinks,  proceed 
which  carrying  with  them  something  of  their  temper, 
trouble  those  with  whom  they  settle.^  The  ai^gumeiit 
for  the  inspection  of  offerings,  which  our  philosopher 
also  approved,  was  simpler.*  Whether  and  in  what 
manner,  lastly,  he  connected  the  belief  of  tiie  divine 
inspiration  of  the  poet  *  with  his  other  doctrines,  we  are 
not  told  ;  but  he  might  very  well  suppose  that  certain 
souls,  of  a  favourable  organisation,  receive  into  them- 
selves a  greater  profusion  of  images  and  are  set  by  them 
in  livelier  motion  than  others ;  and  that  in  this  consists 
the  poetic  faculty  and  temperament. 

4.  The  Atomistic  Doctrine  as  a  whole;   its  historical  plate 
and  import ;  later  adherents  of  the  School. 

TsE  character  and  historical  position  of  the  Atomistic 
philosophy  have  been  variously  estimated  in  ancient 
and  modem  times.  In  the  ancient  order  of  succession 
the  Atomists  are  always  included  in  the  Eleatic  school-/ 

»  Pint.  Qu.  Conv.  V.  7,  6.  •  Democritiu,ap.Di.  Cairns.  O. 

*  Cic  Divin.  i.  67,  131 :  Bemo-  63.  ^Ofunpos  ^^io$  Xaxi^BtaCrit^t 

critus  autem  cetuet,  sapimter  insti-  hr4m»  Kiffy^v  ir^terfitm-o  rcofrmmt. 

iuisse  veteres,  ut  hosiiarum  trnmola-  Id.  ap.  Clem.  Strom:  vi.  698  B : 

tarum  inspicerentw  exta,  Riorum  iroiirr^t  8i  tiffoa  fikv  &y  y^i^ff  fun 

ex  habitu  atque  ex  colore  turn  sdLu-  MowrtaffiAov   leoSL   Upou  wptipms 

britaiis     turn     pestilentiae    signa  (?)  ira\d  Kiprra  ivri.    Cic  Dicw. 

pereipi,  nonmmquam  etiam,  quae  i.  37,  80:  Negat  enim  tuujunfre 

sit  vel  sterilitas  aarorum  vet  fer-  Demooritus  quenqnampoeiammag' 

tilitaa  fiUura.    Toe  limitation  to  numessevMse, 

these  cases  proves  that  only  snch  *  By  Diogenes,  Psendo-Oalen. 

changes  in  the  entrails  are  intended  Hippoljrtns,    Simplidtu,    Snidas, 

as  are  e£fected  by  natnral  canses,  Tzetzes.    in  the  first  three  it  ap- 

and    Democritns    seems   on    this  pears  from  the  place  assigned  to  the 

subject  less  explicit  than   Plato,  Atomists,  and  in  aU  from  their 

Tim,  71.  statements  as  to  the  teaehen  of 


HISTORICAL  POSITION. 


Aristotle  generally  places  them  with  Empedocles  and 
Anaxagoias,  sometimes  classing  them  with  these  philo- 
sophers among  the  physicists,*  and  sometimes  remark- 
ing upon  their  affinity  with  the  Eleatics.^  In  modem 
times  the  order  of  these  ancient  lists  has  been  followed 
by  a  few  writers  only,  who  describe  the  Atomists  as  a 
second  branch  of  the  Eleatic  School,  as  Eleatic  physic- 
ists.' The  more  usual  course  is,  either  to  reckon  them 
among  the  Ionian  physicists,^  or  to  place  them  as  a 
particular  form  of  philosophy  among  the  later  schools.^ 
But  even  in  this  case  their  relation  to  predecessors  and 
contemporaries  has  been  variously  stated.  Though  it 
is  generally  admitted  that  the  Atomistic  doctrine  at- 
tempted to  combine  the  conclusions  of  the  Eleatics 
with  experience,  yet  opinions  are  not  agreed  as  to  how 
fer  it  was  influenced  by  other  systems,  and  especially 
by  those  of  Heracleitus,  Anaxagoras  and  Empedocles. 


Lencippns  and  Democritns  (^ide 
wp.  p.  207,  1 ;  210,  »).  On  the 
Bame  presupposition,  Plutarch,  ap. 
Eos.  Pr.  Ev.  i.  8,  7,  places  Demo- 
critos  immediately  after  Parme- 
nides  and  Tjbno ;  Cicero's  Epicurean, 
-V.  D.  i.  12,  29,  places  him  with 
Empedocles  and  Protagoras  after 
Pannenides. 

'  Metaph,  i.  4,  985  b,  4. 

'  For  example.  Gen,  et  Corr, 
i-  8 ;  Tide  supra^  216,  1. 

'  t.g.  Degerando,  Getchich.  d. 
J^Hl.  i.  83  sq.  of  Tennemann's 
translation,  Tiberghien,  8ur  lageni- 
roiion  dea  eonnaiuancea  humaines, 
p-  176.  Similarly,  Mullach,  373 
sq.;  Ast,  Guch,  d.  Phil.  88,  places 
the  Atomistic  philosophy  under  tbe 
^tegory  of  Italian  idealism,  al< 
though  he  elsewhere  characterises 


it  as  Tennemann  does. 

*  Beinhold,  Geach.  d.  Phil.  i. 
48,  53;  Brandis,  Bhein.  Mub.  iii. 
132,  144;  Gr.-rom,  Phil.  i.  294, 
301;  Marbach,  Gesoh.  d.  Phil.  i. 
87,  95  ;  Hermann,  Gesch.  und 
St/stem  d.  Plat,  i.  152  sqq. 

^  Tiedemann,  Geist  d.  apek. 
Phil,  i,  224  sq.;  Buhle,  Geach.  d. 
Phil.  i.  324 ;  Tennemann,  Gexh.  d. 
Phil.  1  A.  i.  256  sq. ;  Fries,  Geach. 
d.  Phil.  i.  210:  Hegel,  Geach.  d, 
PhU.  i.  321,324  f ;  Braniss.  Gtach. 
d.  Phil.  a.  Kant,  i.  135,  139  sqq. ; 
vide  aup.  Vol.  I.  p.  168 ;  Striimpell, 
Gesch.  d.  Theoret.  PhU.  d.  Gr.  69 
sqq. ;  vide  Vol.  I,  p.  209, 1 ;  Haym, 
Allg.  Enc.  Sect.  iii.  vol.  xxiv.  38 ; 
Schwegler,  Geach.  d.  Phil  p  16; 
Geach,  d.  Gr.  PhU.  p.  12,  43; 
Ueberweg,  i.  p.  25. 


294  THE  ATOMISTIC  PfflLOSOPHF 

While  some  see  in  it  the  completion  of  the  mechanical 
physics,  which  were  founded  by  Anaximander,'  it  seems 
to  others  a  development  of  the  Heracleitean  stand- 
point, or,  more  accurately,  a  combination  of  the  con- 
ceptions of  Heracleitus  and  those  of  the  Eleatics,*  an 
explanation  of  Becoming,  as  held  by  Heracleitus,  by 
means  of  the  Eleatic  Being.*  Wirth  places  the  Atomists 
side  by  side  with  Heracleitus ;  because  Heracleitus 
maintained  Becoming,  and  the  Atomists  the  plurality 
of  things,^  as  against  the  Eleatics ;  Marbach  connects 
them  not  only  with  Heracleitus,  but  with  Anaxagoras; 
Reinhold  and  Brandis,  and  likewise  Striimpell,  derive 
the  Atomistic  doctrine  from  the  double  opposition  to 
the  Eleatic  doctrine  of  the  One,  and  to  the  dualism  of 
Anaxagoras ;  ^  lastly,  Brandis  regards  it  as  the  connect- 
ing link  between  Anaxagoras  and  the  Sophists.  At  an 
earlier  period,  Schleiermacher ^  and  Bitter^  had  still 
more  decidedly  reckoned  the  Atomists  among  the  Soph- 
ists, and  had  declared  their  doctrine  to  be  an  unscientific 
corruption  of  the  Anaxagorean  and  Empedoclean  philo- 

>  Hermann,  I.  c,  '  Haym,  Lc.\  Sehwegler, &«ieA. 

*  Hegel,  i.  324  sqq.  takes  this  d.  Phil.  16;  cf.  the  first  editioo  of 

view,  obserying :    In  the   Eleatic  the  present  work,  i.  212.    Schveg- 

philosophy,  Being  and  non-Being  ler,   on   the  contrary,    Gtich.  d. 

appear  in  opposition ;  with  Hera-  Griech.  Phil.  48,  treats  the  Atom- 

deitus  both  are  the  same  and  both  istic  philosophy  as  a  reaction  of 

equal ;  but  if  Being  and  non-Being  the    mechanical    view  of  cfttnre 

be  conceived  objectively,  there  re-  against  the  dualism  of  Anaxagoras. 

suits  the  opposition  of  the  Plenum  *  Jahrb.  d.  Gegemo,  1844, 722; 

and  the  Vacuum.    Parmenides  set  Idee  d,  Oottheit.  p.  162. 

up  as  his  principle.  Being  or  the  '  Or,  as  Brandis  says,  Anaxa- 

abstract  universal ;  Heracleitus  the  goras  and  Empedocles. 

process ;  to  Leucippus  belongs  the  *  Gesch.  JL  Phil.  72,  74  sq. 

determination  of  Being  in  its  actu-  ^  Geseh,  d.   Phil,  i.  689  sqq. 

ality.    Cf.  Wendt,  zu  Tmnemarm,  against  him;  Brandis, i?Ad». .V**- 

i.  322.  ill.  132  sqq. 


NOT  A  FORM  OF  SOPHISTRY.  2ft6 

sophy.  This  view  must  here  be  examined,  as  it  com- 
pletely destroys  the  position  which  we  have  assigned  to 
the  Atomists,  and  must  affect  our  whole  conception  of 
their  system. 

This  conception  is  founded  partly  on  the  literary 
character  of  Democritus,  and  partly  on  the  content  of 
bis  doctrine.  In  regard  to  the  former,  Bitter  *  finds 
much  to  censure.  Some  words  that  the  philosopher 
uses  at  the  beginning  of  a  treatise  ^  evince  arrogance ; 
of  his  travels  and  his  mathematical  knowledge  he  speaks 
vaingloriously,  his  language  betrays  liypocritical  enthu- 
siasm ;  even  the  innocent  remark  that  he  is  forty  years 
younger  than  Anaxagoras,  is  meant  as  an  ostentatious 
comparison  with  that  philosopher.  In  respect  of  the 
character  of  the  ayetem,  all  this  would  be  of  no  impor- 
tance. Even  supposing  that  Democritus  may  have  been 
vain,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  doctrine  he  taught  was 
an  empty  form  of  Sophistry,  if  indeed  the  doctrine  were 
his  alone.  This  is  not,  however,  the  case ;  for  though  it 
is  remarkable  how  his  name,  both  with  adversaries  and 
admirers  of  the  Atomistic  philosophy,  from  Epicurus 
and  Lucretius  down  to  Lange,  has  caused  that  of  his 
master  to  be  forgotten,' yet  it  is  certain  that  his  physics 

*  Geseh.  d.  PhiL  i.  594-597.  while  other  members  of  the  school 

*  Ap.  Sext.  Afath,  vii.  265  (who  regarded  him  (Epicurus)  as  Demo- 
aees  in  it  only  a  pretentious  boast) ;  cricus's  teacher.  Lucretius  never 
Cic.  Acad.  ii.  23,  73 :  r^Sc  \iyw  mentions  him.  Lange,  in  the  18 
«f^l  r&r  (tffiiittrrorr.  pages   which    he  devotes  to  the 

'  According  to  Diog.  x.  7,  even  Atomists,  only  once  refers  to  him 

£pieurus  would  not  reckon  Leucip-  (p.  13)  in  the  remark :  *  A  doubtful 

pus    (whose    work   was    perhaps  tradition  ascribes  to  him  the  pro- 

wholly  unknown  to  him)  as  a  phi-  position  of  the  necessity  of  all  that 

losopher  (&XA'  oM  \9-0kiic%6v  happens;'  for  the  rest,  he  so  ex- 

Tira  fr^f^w^oM  ^riiri  fi\6ffo^v)t  presses  himself   that  anyone  not 

nor   his    successor,   Hermarchus;  previously  acquainted  with  the  true 


296 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPMJ' 


in  all  their  essential  features  are  derived  from  Leucippns.* 
But  these  censures  are  in  themselves  most  unjust.'  As 
to  the  statement  of  his  age  in  comparison  with  Anan- 
goras,  we  know  nothing  of  the  connection  in  which  it 
stood ;  such  statements  however  were  not  uncommon 
in  antiquity*  The  opening  words  of  his  book  are 
simply  an  announcement  of  what  it  contains.  His 
self-confidence  does  not  exceed,  and  often  does  not 
nearly  equal,  that  with  which  Heracleitus,  Parmenides 
and  Empedocles  express  themselves.'  Lastly  his  lan- 
guage, though  ornate  and  fervid,  is  never  stilted  and 
affected ;  what  he  says  of  his  travels  and  of  his  geo- 
metrical knowledge  ^  may  have  stood  in  a  connection  in 

OD  which  Lange  lays  so  much  atress, 
belong,  therefore,  to  Leadppiis. 
nrhom  he  passes  orer  so  vnaocoimt- 
ably  in  silence — a  fact,  the  reccg- 
nition  of  which  would  not  indu*! 
have  unduly  diminished  the  great 
merit  of  Bemocritos,  but  would 
have  corrected  exaggerated  notions 
of  his  originality  and  importance. 

*  Cf.  Brandis,  Skem.  Uns.  iii. 
133  sq. ;  also  Marbach,  Geatk.  I 
Phil.  i.  87. 

»  Cf.  as  to  Parmenides,  Para. 
V.  28  (xp«^  5^  «"•  «"^«  »v##<r*w. 
&c.) ;  T.  33  sqq.,  45  aqq.  (VoL  L 
p.  584, 1) ;  as  to  Empedocles,  Emp, 
y.  24  (424  K ;  462  M)  sqq..  352 
(389  K;  379  M)  sqq.  (vide  mp. 
p.  118,  ».).  If  Democritiis  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  Sophist  on  the 
strength  of  one  expression,  vhich, 
in  truth,  is  not  more  boastfnl  than 
the  beginning  of  Herodotus's  his- 
tory, what  would  Ritter  have  M 
Bupp:sing,  like  Empedocles,  he  bad 
represented  himself  as  a  god  van- 
dering  among  mortals? 

*  Vide  9ujp,  p.  210,  211. 


state  of  the  case  would  suppose 
Democritus  alone  to  be  the  founder 
of  the  Atomistic  system. 

*  For  instance,  the  reduction 
of  generation  and  decay  to  the 
union  and  separation  of  underived 
matter,  the  doctrine  of  atoms  and 
the  void,  vide  sup.  p.  215,  1 ;  217, 
1  ;  220,  3 ;  the  perpetusd  motion 
of  atoms  (236,  1),  which  he  can 
only  have  deduced  from  their  gra- 
vity, the  concussion  of  the  atoms, 
their  rotary  motion,  and  the  forma- 
tion of  the  world,  which  resulted 
from  it  (p.  242, 2) ;  the  conceptions 
(somewhat  different  from  those  of 
Democritus)  on  the  shape  of  the 
earth,  the  order  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  the  inclination  of  the  earth's 
axis  (249,  2  ;  250,  3  ;  251,  5) ;  the 
nature  of  the  soul  (258, 1 )— all  this 
shows  that  Leucippus  had  treated 
of  cosmology  and  the  theory  re- 
specting living  beings,  though  pro- 
bably not  so  profoundly  as  his 
disciple.  The  fundamental  con- 
ceptions of  the  Atomistic  physics, 
which  are  precisely  those  portions 


NOT  A  FORM  OF  SOPHISTRY.  297 

which  special  motives  might  have  given  rise  to  it ;  and 
speaking  generally,  a  man  cannot  be  considered  a  Sophist 
because  he  asserts  in  a  suitable  place  a  thing  of  which 
he  has  in  truth  every  right  to  be  proud. 

But  the  Atomistic  philosophy  itself,  we  are  told, 
bears  throughout  an  antiphilosophical  character.  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  alleged,^  we  find  in  Democritus  an 
undue  predominance  of  Empiricism  over  speculation, — 
an  unphilosophical  variety  of  learning ;  this  very  ten- 
dency, secondly,  he  erects  into  a  theory,  for  his  whole 
doctrine  of  knowledge  seems  intended  to  annihilate  the 
possibility  of  true  science  and  to  leave  nothing  but 
the  idle  satisfaction  of  erudition ;  thirdly,  his  physical 
system  is  wholly  deficient  in  unity  and  ideality,  his  law 
of  nature  is  chance ;  he  acknowledges  neither  a  god  nor 
the  incorporeality  of  the  soul,  and  the  result  of  all 
this  is  that,  fourthly,  departing  from  the  character  of 
Hellenic  philosophy,  he  entirely  separates  the  mythical 
element  from  the  dialectical;  and  finally,  hia  ethics 
evince  a  low  view  of  life,  and  a  mind  given  up  to  ego- 
tistic cavilling  and  mere  enjoyment. 

Most  of  these  censures  have  been  already  refuted 
in  the  course  of  om-  exposition,  or  at  any  rate  consider- 
ably modified.  It  may  be  true  that  Democritus  accu- 
mulated much  more  empirical  material  than  he  was 
able  to  master  with  his  scientific  theoi*y,  although  he 
entered  more  deeply  and  particularly  into  the  explana- 
tion of  phenomena  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  But 
this  is  the  case  with  most  of  the  ancient  philosophers, 

^  SchleieTiDAcber,      Gesch.     d.     601,  614  fiq.;  622-627. 
■PAa.  76  sq. ;  Ritter,  p.  697  sq. ; 


203  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOFHT 

and  it  must  be  so  with  every  philosopher  who  unites 
comprehensive  observation  with  philosophical  specula- 
tion. Is  Democritus  to  be  blamed  because  he  did  not 
neglect  experimental  science,  and  tried  to  base  his 
theories  upon  an  actual  knowledge  of  things,  and  thence 
to  explain  the  particular?  Is  it  not  a  merit  rather 
than  a  defect  he  should  have  embraced  a  larger  sphere 
in  his  enquiry  than  any  other  previous  philosopher,  and 
in  his  insatiable  thirst  for  knowledge  should  have  des- 
pised nothing,  whether  small  or  great  ?  This  zeal  for 
collecting  materials  could  only  be  detrimental  to  'tis 
philosophical  character  if  he  had  neglected,  or  explicitly 
discarded,  the  intellectual  knowledge  of  things,  in  order 
to  bask  in  idle  self-sufficiency  in  the  light  of  his  own 
erudition.  But  all  that  we  have  seen  in  the  forcing 
pages  has  shown  how  far  he  was  from  this ;  how  de- 
cidedly he  preferred  thought  to  sensible  perception, 
how  industriously  he  laboured  to  explain  natural  phe- 
nomena from  their  causes.^  If,  in  so  doing,  he  en- 
counters that  which  in  his  opinion  cannot  be  derived 
from  any  ulterior  principle,*  we  may,  perhaps,  perceive 
in  this  a  proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  his  theory,  but 
not  *  a  Sophistic  neglect  of  the  question  respecting 
ultimate  causes :  and  if  the  difficulty  of  the  scientific 
problem  forces  him  to  complain  of  the  futility  of 
human  knowledge,*  he  may  well  claim  to  be  judged 
by  the  same  standard  as  his  predecessors,  and  not  to 
be  considered  a  Sophistical  sceptic  for  sayings  which, 
coming  from  a  Xenophanes,  or  a  Parmenides,  an  Anaxa- 

»  Vide  «wp.  271  sqq.  »  With  Ritter,  p.  601. 

*  Vide  8upra,  p.  236.  4.  «  Vide  p.  274. 


IfOT  A  FORM  OF  SOPHISTRY,  299 

goras  or  a  Heracleitus,  would  gain  for  these  philosophers 
the  reputation  of  scientific  modesty.  It  is  also  made 
a  subject  of  reproach  that  he  recommended  moderation 
even  in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge,  and  consequently 
undertook  his  enquiries  only  for  his  own  gratification 
and  not  in  the  interests  of  truth  J  But  in  the  first  place 
this  is  not  compatible  with  the  other  charge  of  super- 
fluous learning,  and  secondly,  we  can  only  wonder  how 
80  true  and  innocent  a  remark  could  receive  such  an 
interpretation.  If  even  however  he  had  said,  what  in 
fact  he  never  does  say  in  so  many  words,  that  we  should 
strive  after  science  in  order  to  be  happy,  it  would  only 
be  to  reiterate  the  assertion,  a  hundred  times  repeated, 
of  the  most  honoured  thinkers  of  all  ages ;  and  we 
shoidd  have  no  right  to  represent  as  a  base-minded 
Sophist,  a  man  who  with  rare  devotion  gave  his  life 
to  science,  and  who,  as  it  is  related,  would  have  re- 
fused the  kingdom  of  Persia  in  exchange  for  a  single 
scientific  discovery.* 

But  the  scientific  theory  advanced  by  Leucippus 
and  Democritus  is  no  doubt  unsatisfactory  and  one- 
sided. Their  system  is  throughout  materialistic:  its 
specific  object  is  to  dispense  with  all  Being  save  cor- 
poreal Being,  and  with  every  force  save  that  of  gravity: 
Democritus  declared  himself  in  express  terms  against 
the  vovs  of  Anaxagoras.'  But  most  of  the  ancient  sys- 
tems are  materialistic  :  neither  the  Early  Ionian  School, 
nor  Heracleitus,  nor  Empedocles  recognised  any  im- 

*  Bitter,  626,  on  aocoant  of  Fr,  Bitter's  representatioD,  but  what 

Mot.   142  :    yAi   wdirra  4wlffrcuT$M  follows  is]  vdrrtf¥  ttfAoB^s  y^vrf. 
roce6itMo,  /til  [(hfl  rf  ToKvfiaBi^i  &y<i|-  '  Vide  aup.  p.  282,  2. 

^f,  we  should  expect,  according  to  '  Diog.  iz.  34 ;  of.  46. 


300  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY 

material  essence ;  even  the  Being  of  the  Eleaties  is  the 
Plenum  or  the  body,  and  it  is  precisely  the  Eleatic 
conception  of  Being  which  forms  the  basis  of  the 
Atomistic  metaphysics.  The  Atomistfl  are  only  dis- 
tinguished from  their  predecessors  by  the  greater 
severity  and  consistency  with  which  they  have  carried 
out  the  thought  of  a  purely  material  and  mechanical 
construction  of  nature  ;  this  can  scarcely,  however,  be 
counted  to  their  disadvantage,  since  in  so  doing  thej 
merely  deduced  the  consequences  required  by  the  whole 
previous  development,  and  of  which  the  premisses  were 
already  contained  in  the  theories  of  their  predecessors. 
We  therefore  mistake  their  historical  significance  if  we 
separate  their  system  from  the  previous  natural  philo- 
sophy, with  which  it  is  so  closely  connected,  and  banish 
it  under  the  name  of  Sophistic  beyond  the  limits  of 
true  science.  It  is  likewise  unjust  to  maintain,  on 
account  of  the  multiplicity  of  the  atoms,  that  this 
system  is  altogether  wanting  in  unity.  Though  its 
principle  is  deficient  in  the  unity  of  numbers,  it  is  not 
without  unity  of  conception ;  on  the  contrary,  in  at- 
tempting to  explain  all  things  from  the  fundamental 
opposite  of  the  Plenum  and  the  Vacuum,  without  re- 
course to  further  presuppositions,  it  proves  itself  the 
result  of  consistent  reflection,  striving  after  unity. 
Aristotle  is  therefore  justified  in  praising  its  logical 
consistency  and  the  unity  of  its  principles,  and  giving 
the  preference  to  it  in  that  respect  as  compared  with 
the   less   consistent  doctrine   of  Empedocles.^      This 

*  Vide  on  this  poiot  what  is    from  De  Gen,  et  Carr,LS;  i-2; 
quoted  (p.  215,  1;  219,  2;  239,  1 ;     JM  An.  i.  2. 


NOT  A  FORM  OF  SOPHISTRY.  301 

would  sufficiently  disprove  the  further  statement  that 
it  sets  chance  upon  the  throne  of  the  universe ;  but  we 
have  already  seen  how  far  the  Atomists  were  from  so 
doing.*  All  that  can  truly  be  said  is  that  they  acknow- 
ledge no  ultimate  causes  and  no  intelligence  working 
to  an  end.  Even  this  peculiarity  however  they  share 
with  most  of  the  ancient  systems,  neither  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Early  lonians  nor  the  world-creating  Neces- 
sity of  Parmenides  and  Empedocles  can  be  credited 
with  more  intelligence  than  the  Necessity  of  Demo- 
critus ,  and  Aristotle  in  this  respect  makes  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  Atomistic  philosophy  and  the  other 
systems.*  "Can  the  Atomists  then  be  blamed  for  pro- 
ceeding in  the  direction  of  the  contemporary  philosophy, 
and  for  bringing  its  tendency  to  a  scientific  completion  by 
the  discarding  of  unwarranted  suppositions  and  mythical 
imagery  ?  And  is  it  just  to  praise  the  ancients  when 
they  declare  the  Necessity  of  Democritus  to  be  mere 
chance,  while  the  same  statement  in  regard  to  Empedo- 
cles, who  in  truth  gave  greater  occasion  for  it,  is  received 
with  censure  ?  ' 

The  atheism  of  the  Atomistic  philosophy  is  merely 
another  expression  for  the  same  defect.  But  this  also 
is  found  among  others  of  the  ancient  philosophies,  and 
at  any  rate  it  is  no  proof  of  a  Sophistic  mode  of 
thought.  That  Democritus  denied  the  popular  gods 
can,  least  of  all,  be  imputed  as  a  fault  to  him ;  on  the 
other  hand,  he  held  that  the  belief  in  gods  was  no  mere 

'  P.  236  Bqq.  a,  5  flqq. ;  Gen.  et  Corr.  ii.  6,  833 

*  Vide  Phya.  ii.  4  ;  Metaph.  i.  b,  9,  834  a. 
\  9S4  b,  11.    Coneerniog  £mpe-  «  Gf.  Bitter,  p.  606;  cf.  534. 

doeles  especiallj,  Phys,  viii.  1, 252 


802  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY 

delusion,  and  sought  for  something  real  which  might 
have  given  rise  to  it :  an  attempt  deserving  of  all  respect 
however  imperfect  may  seem  to  us  his  solution  of  the 
problem.     Even  this  measure  of  blame,  however,  must 
be  limited  '  when  we  perceive  that  Democritus,  in  his 
hypothesis  of  the  82!Sa>Xa,  only  does  in  his  way  what  so 
many  others  have  done  since  his  time:  namely  that 
he  explains  the  popular  gods  as  dsemons,  and  in  this 
adheres  as  logically  as  possible  to  the  presuppositioos  of 
his  system.     Moreover,  if  he  has  purified  his  expoa- 
tion  from  all  mythological  ingredients,  this  is  not,  as 
Schleiermacher  asserts,  a  fault  but  a  merit  which  he 
shares  with  Anaxagoras  and  Aristotle.     The  fact  that 
even  a  purer  idea  of  God  is  wanting  in  the  Atomistic 
system  is  a  graver  matter.    But  this  want  is  not  peculiar 
to  Sophistic;  the  ancient  Ionian  physics  could  only 
logically  speak  of  gods  in  the  same  sense  as  Democritus; 
Parmenides  only  mentions  the  Deity  mythically ;  Em- 
pedodes  speaks   of  him  (irrespectively  of  the  many 
daemon-like  gods  which  are  in  the  same  category  as 
those  of  Democritus)  merely  from  want  of  consistency. 
With  Anaxagoras  first,  philosophy  attained  to  the  dis- 
crimination of  spirit  from  matter ;  but  before  this  step 
had  been  taken  the  idea  of  Deity  could  find  no  place  in 
the  philosophic  system  as  such.    If,  therefore,  we  under- 
stand by  the  Deity  the  incorporeal  spirit,  or  the  creative 
power  apart  from  matter,  the   whole  of  the  ancient 
philosophy  is  atheistical  in  principle ;  and  if  it  has  in 
part,  notwithstanding,  retained  a  religious  tinge,  this  is 
either  an  inconsistency,  or  it  may  be  due  to  the  form  of 

1  Vide  aup,  p.  201. 


NOT  A  FORM  OF  SOPHISTRY.  803 

the  exposition,  or  perhaps  is  the  result  of  personal  faith, 
and  not  of  philosophic  conviction ;  in  all  these  cases, 
however,  the  best  philosophers  are  those  who  prefer  to 
set  aside  the  religious  presentation  rather  than  adopt  it 
without  philosophical  warrant. 

The  ethics  of  Democritus  are  not  indeed  so  closely 
connected  with  the  Atomistic  system  as  to  furnish  any 
criterion  of  that  system.  Nevertheless  Bitter  brings 
forward  some  unreasonable  objections  to  them.  In  their 
form  they  are  certainly  eudsemonistic,  inasmuch  as 
pleasure  and  aversion  are  made  the  standard  of  human 
actions.  But  in  all  the  ancient  system,  happiness 
stands  at  the  apex  of  Ethics,  as  the  highest  end  of  life ; 
even  Plato  is  scarcely  an  exception ;  and  if  happiness  is 
conceived  by  Democritus  in  a  onjs-sided  manner  as 
pleasure,  this  merely  proves  a  defective  scientific  basis 
in  his  ethical  doctrine,  and  not  a  self- indulgent  dispo- 
sition.^ The  principles  of  Democritus  themselves  are 
pure  and  worthy  of  respect ;  and  Ritter's  objections  to 
them  come  to  very  little.  It  is  said  that  he  was  not 
strict  about  truth,  but  the  maxim  from  which  this  is  sup- 
posed to  be  taken,  asserts  something  entirely  different.^ 
Also  he  is  blamed  for  depriving  the  love  of  country  of 
its  moral  value,  and  for  finding  nothing  moral  in  the 
conjugal  and  parental  relation :  oiu:  previous  discussion, 
however,  will  show  that  this  censure  is  in  part  wholly 

*  Even    Socrates,    as  a   rale,  to  speak ;  the  same  thing  that  is 

founds  moral  actiTities  on  a  merely  thus  expressed  in  Fr.  124 :  oiic^Zor 

eudsmonistic  basis.  ^AcuOep/ns  ra^fyiaiii'  kI^vvos  tk  4 

'  It  is  in  Fr.  Mor,  126 :  kkifio-  rov  KoipoS.    Moreover,  even  Socra- 

loSiuf  xf^^w  Sirotf  K^lop ;  but  this,  tes  and  Plato,  as  everyone  knows, 

it  is  clear,  only  means  that  it  is  maintain  that  under  certain  cir- 

often  better  to  keep  silenoe  than  cumstances  a  lie  is  allowable. 


304  TEE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPRT. 

unfounded,  and  in  part  greatly  exaggerated,  and  that  it 
might  be  with  equal  truth  applied  to  many  who  are 
never  reckoned  among  the  Sophists.^  Lastly,  with  re- 
gard to  his  wish  that  he  might  meet  with  favourable 
itiwka^  Bitter  observes  with  all  the  force  of  a  prejudice: 
^  An  entire  surrender  of  life  to  accidental  occurrenoes  is 
the  end  of  his  teaching.' '  Such  a  wish  may  indeed  soosd 
somewhat  strange  to  us,  but  in  itself,  and  regarded  from 
the  Atomistic  standpoint,  it  is  as  natural  as  the  desire 
for  pleasant  dreams  or  fine  weather ;  how  little  Demo- 
critus  makes  inward  happiness  dependent  on  chance, 
we  have  already  shown.' 

But  the  whole  comparison  of  the  Atomistic  philo- 
sophy with  Sophistic  doctrines  is  based  upon  a  view  of 
those  doctrines  that  is  much  too  indefinite.  Sophistry 
is  here  supposed  to  be  that  mode  of  thought  which 
misses  the  true  and  scientific  attitude  of  mind.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  nature  of  Sophistic  teaching  as 
seen  in  history,  which  rather  consists  in  the  withdrawal 
of  thought  from  objective  enquiry,  and  its  restriction 
to  a  one-sided  reflection,  indifierent  to  scientific  truth; 
in  the  statement  that  man  is  the  measure  of  all  things, 
that  all  our  presentations  are  merely  subjective  pheno- 
mena, and  all  moral  ideas  and  principles  are  merely 
arbitrary  ordinances.  Of  all  these  characteristics  we 
find  nothing  in  the  Atomista,*  who  were  accordingly 

*  Not  to  mention  what  has  been  *  Braniss  says  (p.  185)  in  proof 
already  quoted  of  other  philoso-  of  the  similarity  between  the  Atom- 
phers,  we  find  the  same  cosmopoli-  istic  doctrine  and  that  of  the 
tanism  ascribed  to  Anaxagoras  as  Sophists, '  that  it  regarded  spinV 
to  Bemocritns .  as  opposed  to  the  objeetiTe  in  space, 

*  Bitter,  i.  627.  as  merely  subjectire/  bat  this  isno^ 

*  Vide  p.  238, 1 ;  278. 8 ;  280, 1.  accurate.  The  Atomistic  systsm,  is 


DELATION  TO  FARMENIDE8.  806 

never  reckoned  as  Sophists  by  any  ancient  writer.  They 
are  natural  philosophers,  who  are  commended*  and 
regarded  with  preference  by  Aristotle  for  their  logical 
consistency ; '  and  it  is  precisely  in  the  strictness  and 
exclusiveness  of  a  purely  physical  and  mechanical  ex- 
planation of  nature  that  the  strength  and  weakness  of 
their  system  lies.  We  have,  therefore,  no  ground  at 
all  for  separating  the  Atomistic  philosophy  from  the 
other  physical  systems ;  and  we  can  rightly  define  its 
historical  position  only  by  assigning  it  to  its  true  place 
among  these. 

What  that  place  is,  has  already  been  generally  indi- 
cated. The  Atomistic  doctrine  is,  like  the  physics  of 
Empedocles,  an  attempt  to  explain  the  multiplicity  and 
change  of  all  things,  on  the  basis  of  Parmenides'  propo- 
sition concerning  the  impossibility  of  Becoming  and 
Decay — to  escape  the  conclusions  of  Parmenides'  system 
without  questioning  those  first  principles — to  save  the 
relative  truth  of  experience  as  against  Parmenides,  while 

common  with  other  physical  sys-  apparentlytaking  interest  in  things, 
terns,  has  among  its  objPcti?eprinci-  subjective  thought  is  only  con- 
pies  no  spirit  separate  from  matter ;  eerned  with  itself,  its  own  ezplana* 
bat  we  have  no  right  to  tnm  this  tions  and  hypotheses,  but  supposes 
native  proposition  into  a  positive  it  will  attain  in  these  objective 
one,  and  say  that  the^  place  spirit  truth,  &c.  Part  of  this  might  be 
exclusively  in  the  subject ;  for  they  asserted  of  any  materialistic  sys- 
reoo^ise  an  immaterial  piinci|de  ten,  and  the  rest  is  refuted  by 
as  httle  in  the  subject  as  out  of  what  has  j'ust  been  said  against 
it  Braniss,  p.  143,  justifies  his  Bitter,  I. 
statement  with  the  remark  that  *  Vide  p.  300,  1. 
the  Atomistic  philosophy  opposes  '  Of  all  the  pre-Socratic  philo- 
to  inanimate  nature  only  the  sub-  sophers,  none  is  more  frequently 
ject  with  its  joy  in  the  explanation  quoted  in  the  physical  writings  of 
of  nature,  as  spirit ;  in  place  of  Aristotle  than  Democritus,  because 
truth  it  introduces  the  subjective  his  enquiries  entered  most  particu- 
striving  after  truth  (after  tntth,  t  he  larly  into  details, 
real  knowledge  of  things);  while 

YOL.   !!•  X 


aU6  THE  ATOMISTIC  FHILaSOPJOY. 

its  absolute  trutli  is  reoounced — ^to  mediate   between 
the  Eleatic  point  of  view  and  that  of  ordinary  opinion.' 
Of  all  the  earlier  doctrines,  therefore,  it  is  most  cloeelj 
allied  with  that  of  Parmenides — allied,  however,  in  a 
double  manner :  directly,  inasmuch  as  it  adqfits  part  of 
his  propositions ;  indirectly,  inasmuch  as  it  contradicts 
another  part,  and  opposes  thereto  its  own  definitioD& 
From  Parmenides  it  borrows  the  conception  of  Being 
and  non-Being,  of  the  plenimi  and  vacuum,  the  denial 
of  generation  and  decay,  the  indivisibility,  qualitative 
simpleness,    and    unchangeableness    of   Being;    witb 
Parmenides,  it  teaches  that  the  cause  of  multiplicity 
and  motion  can  lie  only  in  non-Being;  like  him  it 
discards  the  perception  of  sense,  and  seeks  for  all  truth 
in  the  reflective  contemplation  of  things.  In  oppositicm 
to  Parmenides  it  maintains  the  plurality  of  Being,  the 
reality  of  motion  and  quantitative  change,  and,  in  cast' 
sequence,  that  which  most  clearly  expresses  the  oppCK 
sition  of  the  two  points  of  view,  the  reality  of  non-Being 
or  the  Void.     In  the  physical  theories  of  the  Atomists, 
we  are  reminded  of  Parmenides  by  several  particuhn,' 
and  especially  by  the  derivation  of  the  soul's  activity 
from  warm  matter ;  but  on  the  whole  the  nature  of  the 
subject  was  such  that  the  influence  of  the  Eleatic  doc- 
trine could  not  be  very  considerable  in  this  direction. 

With  Melissus  also,  as  well  as  Parmenides,  the 
Atomistic  philosophy  seems  to  have  had  a  direct  his- 

I  Vide  tu^pra,  p.  210  sqq.,  cf.  p.  is  surrounded  by  a  fixed  sheAth; 

220  sq.  the  genesis  of  living  creatnres  froa 

*  e.g.   the   conception    of   the  slime,  the  statement  that  s  corpse 

universe,  which,  according  to  the  retains  a  certain  kind  of  seDsation. 
•econd  portion  of  Parmenides'  poem. 


JtELATIOX  TO  THE  BLEATICS.  307 

torical  connection*  But  if  there  is  no  doubt  that  Leu- 
cippus  is  indebted  to  Melissus,  Melissus,  on  the  other 
hand,  seems  to  have  bestowed  some  attention  on  the 
doctrine  of  Leucippus.  For  example,  if  we  compare 
the  arguments  of  Melissus  with  those  of  Parmenides 
and  Zeno,  it  is  surprising  to  find  that  in  the  former  the 
conception  of  the  Void  plays  a  part  which  it  does  not  in 
the  latter ;  that  not  only  the  unity  of  Being,  but  like- 
wise the  impossibility  of  motion,  is  proved  by  means  of 
the  unthinkableness  of  the  Void;  and  the  theory  of 
divided  bodies  which  only  enter  into  connection  through 
contact  is  expressly  controverted.*  This  theory  is  found 
in  none  of  the  physical  systems  except  that  of  the 
Atomists,'  who  alone  attempted  to  explain  motion  by 
means  of  empty  space.  Are  we  then  to  suppose  that 
Melissus,  to  whom  no  especial  intellectual  acuteness  is 
ever  ascribed,  himself  originated  and  introduced  into 
its  proper  place  this  conception  which  was  so  important 
for  the  subsequent  Physics,  and  that  the  Atomists  first 
borrowed  from  him  what  was  one  of  the  comer-stones 
of  their  system ;  or  is  not  the  opposite  supposition  far 
more  probable,  viz.,  that  the  Samian  philosopher,  who 
in  general  was  more  closely  allied  with  the  doctrines 
of  the  contemporary  natural  philosophy,  so  carefully 
studied  that  conception,  only  because  its  importance 
had  been  proved  by  a  physical  theory  which  derived 
the  motion  and  multiplicity  of  all  things  from  the 
Void?> 

>  Vide  mpra.  Vol.  L  p.  682,  2 ;  swj^,  215,  1,  Vol.  I.  632,  2)  cannot 

S35  sq.  **  be  bronght  forward  againflt  thid. 

'  Vide  p.  228,  4 ;  229,  1.  Aristotle  here  certainly  represents 

*  Arist.  Geu,  et  Oorr.  i.  S  (vide  the  Eleatic  doctrine,  itom  ▼hich 

x2 


908  THE  ATOMISTIC  FHItOSOPSY. 

Whether  in  their  polemic  against  the  Eleaiics,  tbe 
Atomists  were  at  all  under  the  influence  of  the  Hen* 
cleitean  system  cannot  be  stated  with  certainty.  In 
regard  to  Democritus,  it  is  in  itself  probable,  and  is 
confirmed  by  his  ethical  fragments,  that  the  treatise  of 
Heracleitus  was  not  unknown  to  him ;  for  not  merely  do 
particular  sayings  of  his  agree  with  Heracleitus,  but  Ua 
whole  theory  of  life  closely  resembles  that  of  the  Ephe^ 
sian  philosopher.^  Both  seek  true  happiness  not  in 
externals,  but  in  the  goods  of  the  soul ;  both  declare  a 
contented  disposition  to  be  the  highest  good;  both 
recognise  as  the  only  means  to  this  peace  of  mind,  the 
limitation  of  our  desires,  temperance,  prudence,  and 
subordination  to  the  course  of  the  universe ;  both  are 
much  alike  in  their  political  views.^  That  I^eucippus, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  acquainted  with  the  Heradeitean 
doctrine,  and  made  use  of  it,  cannot  be  so  distinctly 
mainta.ined  ;  but  all  the  theories  of  the  Atomists  which 
brought  them  into  collision  with  Parmenides,  Ue  in 
the  direction  which  Heracleitus  inaugurated.  Kthe 
Atomistic  system  insisted  on  the  reality  of  motion  and 
of  divided  Being,  it  was  Heracleitus  who  maintained, 

he  paMes  to  Leucippus,  primarilj  from  Heracleitus,  Vol.  I.  510,  4; 

according  to  Melissus,  but  as  his  336, 5,  the  proposition  that  the  fonl 

chief  concern  is  to  show  the  rela-  is  the  dwelling  place  of  thedamoo, 

tion  between  the  Eleatic  and  Ato-  p.  278,  3,  cf.  98,  5;  the  theoiy  tint 

mistic  systems,  without  any  special  all  human  art  arose  from  the  imi- 

reference  to  the  particular  philoso-  tation  of  nature,  p.  277,  %  <^  ^r* 

phers  of  the  two  schools,  we  ought  2 ;  the  utterance  qaoted  p.  10, 2,  is 

not  to  conclude  from  this  that  he  reference  to  which  Lortnng,  p.  l^i 

regarded  Leucippus  as  dependent  cites  Ps.-Galen,  tp.  Uerp.  439,  xix. 

on  Melissus.  449    K,  where    these  words  are 

1  Such  as  the  statements  about  ascribed  to  Democritus:  Mft^*^ 

encyclopaedic  learning,  8wp,  p.  277«  cfi  tffrai  tad  ApBpmwos  vdms, 

1,  compared  with  what  is  quoted  '  Vide  p.  97  sq.,  277  8q. 


ItELATION  TO  HERACLEITU^.  309 

more  decidedly  than  any  other  philosopher,  that  the 
Keal  is  constantly  changing  and  sundering  into  oppo- 
sites ;  if  the  Atomists  derive  all  things  from  Being  and 
non-Being,  and  believe  all  motion  to  be  conditioned  by 
this  opposition,  Heracleitus  had  previously  said  that, 
strife  is  the  father  of  all  things,  that  every  motion  pre- 
supposes an  opposite,  and  that  everything  is,  and  equally 
is  not,  that  which  it  is*  Being  and  non-Being  are  the 
two  moments  of  the  Heracleitean  Becoming,  and  the 
principle  of  the  Atomists  that  non-Being  is  as  real  as 
Being,  might  without  difficulty  be  derived  from  the 
theories  of  Heracleitus  on  the  flux  of  all  things,  if  for 
absolute  Becoming,  relative  Becoming — Becoming  from 
an  unchangeable  primitive  matter- — were  substituted  in 
deference  to  the  Eleatics^  The  Atomists,  further,  are 
in  accord  with  Heracleitus  in  their  recognition  of  an 
unbroken  interdependence  of  nature,  in  which,  despite 
their  materialism,  they  acknowledge  a  rational  con« 
formity  to  law.*  Like  him,  they  hold  that  individual 
worlds  arise  and  perish,  while  the  whole  of  the  original 
matter  is  eternal  and  imperishable.  Lastly,  the  cause 
of  life  and  consciousness  is  sought  by  Democritus  in 
the  warm  atoms  which  are  diffused  throughout  the  uni- 
verse, as  well  as  the  bodies  of  living  creatures ;  ^  and 
this  theory,  in  spite  of  all  divergences  as  to  details, 
greatly  resembles  the  doctrine  of  Heracleitus  concerning 
the  soul  and  the  universal  reason ;  while  the  phenomena 
of  life,  sleep,  and  death,,  axe  explained  in  both  systems 
in  a  similar  manner.    All  these  traits  make  it  probable 

^  Vide  Miprv,  p.  286  sqq. ;  cf.  <  Of.  256  s^;  262  sq. ;  cf.  79 

39  iq.  gq. 


810  TEE  ATOMISTIC  PSILOSOFHl. 

that  the  Atoxnistio  philosophy  was  influenced  in  iU  be- 
ginning, not  only  by  the  doctrines  of  the  Eleatics,  but 
of  Heracleitus :  if  even,  however,  it  arose  independentlf 
of  the  latter,  at  any  rate  the  thought  of  change  and 
Becoming,  of  multiplicity  and  of  divided  Being,  is  so 
predominant  in  it,  that  it  must,  from  the  state  of  the 
case,  be  regarded  as  a  union  of  the  Heracleitean  stand- 
point with  the  Eleatic,  or,  more  accurately,  as  an  attempt 
to  explain  the  Becoming  and  plurality  of  derived  things 
on  the  hypothesis  of  the  Eleatic  fundamental  doctrines, 
from  the  nature  of  the  primitive  Being.^ 

The  Atomistic  system,  therefore,  proposes  to  itself 
essentially  the  same  problem  as  that  propoeed  by  .the 
system  of  Empedocles*  Both  start  from  the  interest  of 
natural  science,  to  explain  the  generation  and  decaj, 
the  plurality  and  change  of  things.  But  both  concede 
to  the  Eleatics  that  the  primitive  Reality  can  neither 
decay  nor  alter  in  its  nature  or  constitution.  Both, 
therefore,  adopt  the  expedient  of  reducing  Becoming 
and  Change  to  the  combination  and  separation  of  un- 
changeable substances,  and  since  this  is  only  possiUe, 
and  the  multiplicity  of  phenomena  is  only  explicable, 

^  Wirth  Beems  to  me  lees  accu-  vindication     of     Bocoming    ftsd 

rate  when  (vide  supra^  p.  294»  2)  Change  as  of  plur&litv ;   on  tbe 

he  co-ordinates  the  Atomises  and  other,  their  method  is' essentiall j 

Heracleitus  with  this  observation :  distinct  from  th^  of  HeraeWtni 

'  In  the  Eleatic  doctrine  there  lies  in  that  they  return  to  the  £leacie 

a  doable  antithesis,  ag  linst  Be-  conception  of  Being,  and  expressly 

coming  and  against  plurality ;  the  recognising  this oonoeptioDtStt^mpt 

former    conception,    that    of   Be-  to  explain  phenomena;   whereu 

coming,  was  taken  from  Heraclei-  Heracleitus    not    only    does  sot 

tus,  the  latter,  that  of  plurality,  recognise  the  conception,  but  ia 

from  the  Atomists.    For  on  the  one  fact    most    decidedly    annals  it.' 

hand,  as  AriKtotle  perceives  (vide  Moreover,  there  is  a  chionologiflil 

tuprat  p.  210  sqq.),  the  Atomists  interval  of  somo  decides  between 

are    as    much   concerned  in   t^a  them. 


EELATION  TO  HERACLEITUS.  811 

if  these  unchangeable  subetances  are  many,  both  sepa- 
rate the  one  prunitive  matter  of  the  earlier  philosophers 
into  a  plurality — Empedocles  into  four  elements,  the 
Atomists  into  inniunerable  atoms.  Both  systems,  there- 
fore, bear  the  stamp  of  a  purely  mechanical  explanation 
of  nature;  both  recognise  only  material  elements,  and 
only  a  combination  of  these  elements  in  space ;  even  in 
the  particulars  of  their  theories  as  to  the  way  in  which 
the  substances  combine  and  influence  one  another,  they 
are  so  very  similar  that  we  need  only  develop  the  con- 
ceptions of  Empedocles  more  Ic^cally  to  arrive  at 
Atomistic  definitions.^  Lastly,  both  dispute  the  truth 
of  the  sense-perception,  because  it  does  not  show  us  the 
unchangeable  first  principles  of  things,  and  deludes  us 
vith  an  actual  Becoming  and  Decay.  What  distinguishes 
the  two  theories  from  each  other,  is  merely  the  severity 
with  which  the  Atomistic  philosophy,  discarding  all  other 
presuppositions,  develops  the  thought  of  mechanical 
physics.  While  Empedocles  unites  with  his  physical 
theory  mythical  and  religious  notions,  we  here  encounter 
only  a  dry  naturalism ;  while  he  sets  up  as  moving 
forces  the  mythical  forms  of  Jjove  and  Hate,  move- 
ment is  explained  by  the  Atomists  in  a  purely  physical 
manner  as  the  effect  of  weight  in  the  Void ;  while  he 
attributes  tcr  the  primitive  substances  a  qualitative 
determinateness  from  the  beginning,  the  Atomists, 
maintaining  more  strictly  the  conception  of  Being,  re* 
dace  all  qualitative  differences  to  quantitative  differ- 
ences of  form  and  mass;  while  be  limits  the  elements 
according  to  number,  but  makes  them  infinitely  divi- 

'  Vide  ncpni,  p.  184. 


812  TSE  ATOMISTIC  PSILOSOPST. 

Bible,  the  Atomists  more  logically  go  back  to  indiviaUe 
primitive  bodies,  which,  in  order  to  explain  the  plurality 
of  things,  are  conceived  as  infinite  in  number  and  infi- 
nitely various  in  form  and  pize ;  while  he  makes  the 
union  and  separation  of  matter  alternate  periodicallj, 
the  Atomists  find  the  perpetual  union  and  separation  of 
the  atoms  based  on  their  eternal  motion.  Both  systems, 
therefore,  follow  the  same  tendency,  but  this  tendency 
is  more  simply  and  logically  developed  in  that  of  the 
Atomists,  which  so  fistr  occupies  a  higher  place  scienti- 
fically than  the  system  of  Empedocles*  Yet  neither 
bears  in  its  main  features  such  decided  traces  of  de- 
pendence on  the  other  that  we  should  be  justified  in 
ascribing  the  doctrine  of  Empedocles  to  Atomistic  in- 
fluences ;  the  two  systems  seem  rather  to  have  been 
developed  simultaneously  from  the  same  presuppositions. 
Only  when  the  Atomistic  philosophy  goes  more  into  de- 
tail, as  in  the  doctrine  of  emanations  and  ct&kiXa,  in 
the  explanation  of  the  perceptions  of  the  senses,  and 
the  theories  on  the  origin  of  living  creatures,  does  an 
express  obligation  to  Empedocles  become  probable,  tht 
more  so  as  he  was  much  reverenced  by  the^  later  ad- 
herents of  the  Atomistic  school.^  But  this  further  de- 
velopment of  the  Atomistic  doctrine  is  apparently  the 
work  of  Democritus,  in  regard  to  whom  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  opinions  of  bis 
famous  Agrigentine  predecessor. 

No  influence  of  the  ancient  Ionic  School  can  be 
traced  in  the  Atomistic  system ;  a  knowledge  of  the 
Pythagorean  doctrine  is  indeed  ascribed  to  Democritus,* 

>  Vide  the  (^notation  from  Lacretius,  p.  185, 1.  *  Vide  pc  210. 


RELATION  TO  THE  PTTHAG0EEAN8.        313 

but  whether  it  was  already  possessed  by  Leucippus  we 
do  not  know.  If  this  were  in  truth  the  case,  the  ma*« 
thematical  and  mechanical  character  of  the  Atomistic 
doctrine  might  have  some  connection  with  the  Pytha- 
gorean mathematics^  and  in  proof  of  the  similarity  of 
the  two  systems,  we  might  refer  to  the  Pythagorean 
Atomistic  doctrine  of  Ecphantus,^  and  to  the  remark 
of  Aristotle,^  in  whieh  he  compares  the  derivation  of 
composite  things  from  atoms  with  the  Pythagorean 
derivation  of  things  from  numbers.  In  respect  to 
Ecphantus,  however,  we  might  more  easily  suppose, 
that,  his  theory  bad  been  influenced  by  the  Atomists. 
Aristotle's  comparison  of  th^  two  doctrines  proves 
nothing  as  to  any  real  connecticni  between  them ;  we 
must,  therefore^  leave  the  question  undecided,  whether 
or  not  the  founder  of  the  Atomistic  doctrine  received 
any  scientific  impulse  from  the  Pythagoreans. 

Lastly  there  remains  the  enquiry  concerning  the 
relation  of  the  Atomists  to  Anaxagoras ;  but  as  this  can 
only  be  pursued  after  we  have  acquainted  ourselves  with 
the  opinions  of  that  philosopher,  it  must  be  postponed 
to  a  future  chapter* 

As  to  the  history  and  adherents  of  the  Atomistic 
philosophy  after  Democritus,  tradition  tells  us  little. 
Of  NessuS)  or  Nessas,'  the  disciple  of  Democritus,  we 
know  nothing  but  his  name.  A  disciple  of  this  Nessus, 
or  perhaps  of  Democritus  himself,  was  Metrodorus  of 

*  Vide  Vol.  I.  p.  627.  ^4    0'a^»s    SiyXovo'tr,    tymi   roOro 

*  De  CaU,  iii.  after  the  words    fio^Koyrai  \4yuy. 

quoted  p.  216i  8 :  rp6wov  ydp  riva         *  Diog.  ix.  68  ;  Aristocl.  vide 
Kcd  ulroi  witrta  rh  6vra  iroiov(rtv    foUowiog  note, 
hpi$ful$  icol  41  hkpi9iuiv '  Roi  yap  f  I 


S14 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHY. 


Ghios,^  who  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  these  later  Atomists. 

While  agreeing  with  Democritus  in  his  fundamental 
doctrines,  concerning  the  plenum  and  vacuum,'  the 
atoms,^  the  infinity  of  matter  and  of  space/  the  plurality 
of  worlds/  and  also  resembling  him  in  many  particulars 

Xioi  ^X^'  9X^^  ^^  air&s  rwr 
iTffpl  AmUxpirop  voce?  T^  vX^^fS  tust 
rb  M*9h¥  rks  wp^na  atrios  lmq§i/u. 
ros,  Sp  rh  fi^r  %¥  rh  ik  fdih^  cIpoi, 
irf ^  ih  TUP  ikXmp  iUtv  rv^  voif <r«i 
riip  ^^Mor.  So  also  AriitocL  ad. 
EuB.  Pr.  JSv.  ziT.  19,  5:  Metr.  m 
said  to  hAT«  boen  iofttraetod  by 
Democritus,  Vx^  '^  kn^vmg^ 
rh  ir\^f  iral  rb  ictwSr  iwrh  ftkw  hw 
rh  9h  fi^  hf  cZpsi. 

'  Stob.  ScL  i.  80i;  Tbeod.  Cmt, 
Gr.  Affetst,  it.  9,  p.  57,MooidiBgto 
whom  he  called  the  atoms  iMfifn. 
On  the  Toid,  in  paiticular,  cf-Sunpl 
/.  e.  p.  152.  a. 

«  Plut.  Plae,  i.  18,  S;  Stob. 
Eel  i.  880  ;  Simpl.  2.  «.  35  %  cf. 
following  note. 

»  Stob.  i.  496  (Pint.  Tiac.  i.  6, 


>  Diogenes,  I,  e,  mentions  both 
statemenu,  Clem.  Sfyrom.  i.  801  D, 
and  Arifltod.  ap.  Ens.  Pr.  £v,  xiv. 
19,  6,  mention  Protagoras  and 
Metrodorns ;  Saidas,  Aiiim6kp»  cf. 
lUt^^  the  Litter,  Democritus's 
disciple;  Aristocles  ap.  Eus.  Pr, 
Ev^  ziv.  7,  8,  says  on  the  contrary 
that  Democritus  was  the  instructor 
of  ProtHgoras  and  Nessas,  and  that 
'Mf^trodoros  wns  the  disciple  of 
NessHS.  The  name  of  Metrodonis's 
father,  according  to  Stobieus,  Ed, 
i.  304,  was  Theocritus.  'O  Xiot  is 
the  usual  appellation  of  this  Me- 
trodorns tu  distinguish  him  firom 
other  philosophers  of  the  same 
name,  especiallj  the  two  ftom 
Lampsacns,  of  whom  the  elder  was 
a  disciple  of  AnaxagorHS,  and  the 
younger  of  Epicurus.  But  he  is 
nevertheless  sometimes  confounded 
with  them  ;  for  instance,  in  Simpl. 
Phy».  257  bi  where  it  can  only  be 
through  an  orersight  that  the  Me- 
trodorns to  whom  in  common  with 
Anazagoras  and  Archelaus  is  at- 
tributed the  theoiy  of  the  creation 
of  the  world  by  vovs  is  designated 
as  the  Chian.  The  statements  of 
the  Placita  (except  ii.  1,  3,  where 
'Metrodorns  the  disciple  of  Epi- 
curus '  IS  mentioned),  of  the  Eclo- 
g»  of  Stobaeuf,  and  of  the  pseudo- 
Q-Hlen  concerning  Metrodorns,  re- 
late to  the  Chian,  thoee  in  Stobeus' 
Florile^am  to  the  Epicurean. 

'  Simpl.  Phys.  7  a  (according  to 
Theopbrustus) :  ««« Mirrp^8«pos  8i  4 


6;  Gftlen  c.  7,  p.  249  K):  lf«rp^ 
8«^s  .  .  .  ^niiw   &rov«r  fflvax  h 

jral  Iva  K6cfA9if  4v  r^  in(^.  «n 
8i  6,w§ip9i  icarc^  rh  wKn^s,  9iKw  ^ 
Tov  iw^ipa  tJL  edfrta  clmn.  fj  7«p  ^ 
K^vfios  wtvcpfMr^4iet,  rA  V  dria 
wArra  ttircipo,  4\  £r  SSf  4  Kifius 
74yeyfr,&rayicq&vff(povf  «1iw.  hw 
yitp  rk  oXtul  wdt^a,  iicti  «■!  t4  in- 
TffX^tr/Mira.  ofria  8i  (adds  the  na^ 
ratx)r)  ^oi  al  iro/jm  ^  rA  imqcM, 
There  is  again  mention  of  rhe 
All  in  the  singular,  when  Plotareh 
ap.  Eus.  Pr.  Ev.  i.  p.  12  ws*: 
Mi)rp48.  4  XiOf  &18ior  thai  fnn  r^ 
irfiir,  tri  fl  Ijw  ywnrrhv  U  rw  A 
iwros  &v  4r,  ttvMpor  8^,  9n  48tfr, 
ab  ykp  ZHv  ^p^oro,  o48i  W^  •^ 


METEOBORXra. 


810 


of  his  explanation  of  nature,^  he  was  separated  from 
him  as  a  physicist  by  many  opinions  peculiar  to  him-> 
self  ;*  and  as  a  philosopher,  by  the  sceptical  inferences 

critofl,  he  explained  as  the  iiXMKhs 
K6KX»t,  probably  meaning  that  it 
was  a  circle  of  Ught  left  behind  by 
the  san  on  his  way  through  the 
heayena  {Hao,  iii.  1,  5 ;  Stob.  574 ; 
Gal.  c.  17,  p.  2S6).  Like  Anaza- 
goras  and  Democritus  he  called 
the  sun  a  it^pos  ^  wirpos  Zidirvpos 
{Plae.  ii.  20,6;  Gal.  14,  p.  275; 
lees  precisely,  Stob.  524,  w^fw^w 
tvdpxw^)-  Also  his  explanation  of 
earthquakes  (Sen.  Kat,  Qu,  y\,  19) 
as  caused  by  the  penetration  of  the 
external  air  into  the  hollow  spaces 
within  the  earth,  must  have  been 
suggested  to  him  by  Democritus, 
who  howsTer  ascribed  that  phe- 
nomenon eyen  more  to  the  action 
of  water  than  to  currents  of  air 
{sup,  p.  253,  1).  No  doubt  there 
were  many  other  theories  iit  which 
he  agreed  with  Democritus,  but 
which  haye  not  been  handed  down 
to  us,  because  the  compilers  chiefly 
quote  from  each  philosopher  those 
ojnnions  by  which  he  was  distiu- 
guished  from  others. 

'  Especially  his  theories  about 
the  formation  of  the  world  seem  to 
haye  been  ycury  distinctiye.  He  is 
said  {Plao,  iii.  9,  5)  to  haye  re- 
garded the  earth  as  a  precipitate 
from  the  water,  and  the  sun  as  a 
precipitate  from  the  air;  this  is, 
mdeed,  but  a  modification  of  the 
conceptions  of  Democritus,  and 
with  it  agrees  what  is  quoted,  p. 
247,  4.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
statement  of  Plutarch  is  much 
more  remarkable  (ap.  Eus.  i.  8, 12) : 
mvKwobitMVOV  M  rhv  td94pa  woiur 
p§^\aSf  ^ha  0B«»p,  h  kw  Korthv  M 


XH9  rh  maar  icirf  Mr0cu  y^  iZ^o/row^ 
/$,il  fu9urrdfU»or,  fi§9iffT€ur$cu  Zh 
iiarjfuaior  4^01  ^U  irXiipffr  ^  sii 
utp6r  (bat  this  would  seem  to  be 
impossible,  since  in  the  voy,  the 
toulity  of  tluflgs,  all  the  yoid  and 
all  the  full  are  contained).  Eyen 
here  there  is  no  contradiction  to 
the  atomistic  standpoint,  for  the 
atoms  and  the  yoid  are  eternal, 
and  if  within  the  infinite  mass  of 
atoms  moUon  has  never  begun  and 
neyer  ceases,  yet  this  mass  as  a 
▼hole  (and  onl^  as  such  is  it  spoken 
of)  because  of  its  infinity  can  ueyer 
be  moyed.  Metrodoms  could  per* 
factly,  therefore,  in  regard  to  it, 
adopt  the  doctrine  of  Melissus  on 
the  eternity,  unlimitedness,  and 
immobility  of  Being  (that  he  did 
•0  is  proved  by  the  comparison  in 
Vol.  1.  553  aqq. ;  even  the  fiUse 
deduction  of  the  unlimitedness  of 
the  world  frem  its  eternity  reap* 
pears  here),  and  we  may  disregard 
the  ooigectiive  that  Eusebius  in  his 
excerpt  has  mixed  up  two  accounts, 
one  ralating  to  Melissus  and  one 
to  Metrodorus.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  between  the  words  quoted 
above,  and  the  words  which  directly 
follow  them,  a  lacuna  which  no 
doubt  is  the  fault,  not  of  Plutarch, 
but  of  the  compiler  of  the  Eusebian 
extracts. 

*  Thus  he  agreed  with  Demo- 
critus (vide  fupra,  p.  262,  2)  that 
not  only  the  moon  and  the  other 
planets,  but  also  the  fixed  stars  re^ 
ceive  their  light  from  the  sun  (Plut. 
Plac,  ii.  17,  1 ;  Stob.  Ed.  i.  518. 
558;  Galen,  H.  Ph,  c  18,  p.  273 
K);  the  milky  way,  unlike  I)emo« 


816 


THE  ATOMISTIC  PEIL080PHY. 


which  he  drew  from  the  doctrine  of  Democritus.  For 
example,  he  not  only  questioned  the  truth  of  the  sense- 
perception,^  bat  declared  that  we  could  know  nothing, 
not  even  whether  we  know  something  or  nothing.*  Yet 
he  cannot  have  intended  in  these  propositions  to  abolish 
on  principle  all  possibility  of  knowledge,  as  in  that  case 
he  would  neither  have  professed  the  chief  doctrines  of 
the  Atomistic  system,  nor  would  he  have  occupied  him- 

irouir  ix  rov  Xofiwpov  ffBttror  iurri- 
paSf  r^rra  re  iced  i^M^por  4ic  ri|f 
ff^tmt  fcal  i^dt^s  ical  iia$6' 
Kov  rht  iicKtb^is  dirorcXciy.  The 
-words  sound  as  if  Metxx)dorus 
had  supposed  the  stars  to  be  gene* 
rated  eaiich  daj  afresh  through  the 
influence  of  the  sun  on  the  atmo- 
spheric water;  but  e?en  if  this 
portion  of  his  cosmoeony  has  been 
misrepresented,  and  ne  in  reality 
only  accounted  in  this  way  for  the 
first  production  of  the  stars,  it 
would  still  be  a  considerable  di- 
vergence from  Democritus.  Wliat 
is  further  said  of  the  daily  ex- 
tinction and  rekindling  of  the  sun 
has  more  similarity  with  the  the- 
017  of  Heracleitus  than  of  Demo- 
critus. Like  Anaxagoras,  Metro-' 
doms  is  said  to  have  regarded  the 
stars  as  wheel-shaped  (Stob.  510), 
and  like  him  also  to  have  assigned 
the  highest  place  in  the  universe 
to  the  sun,  the  next  highest  to  the 
moon ;  af^  them  came  the  fixed 
stars  and  planets  (Plae,  ii.  Id,  6; 
Gal.  c.  13,  p.  272).  According  to 
Hoe.  iii.  16, 6,  he  explains  the  laet 
of  the  earth's  remaining  in  its  place 
in  the  fo.lowing  manner :  tiifi^p  4tr 
r^  ohc^i^  r6w^  ffwfui  nrturtfai,  •! 
fii  ris  Tpo^u*  ^  ita9fXic^ffi«  jcaf* 
Mpytuur  81b  fiifii  tV  •ynJ'i  *  T« 
mi/i4yiftf   ^vffiKms,  KUf4t^$ai;    the 


same  view  which  is  brought  Unr- 
ward  by  Plato  and  Aristotle 
against  the  Atomistic  hypotheses 
about  weight  Cf.  fbrther  his 
theories  on  the  Dioseuri  (PL  iL  18, 
2) ;  on  shooting  stars  (Ptac  iii.  2, 
1 1 ;  Stob.  i.  680) ;  thunder,  light- 
ning, hot  blasts  {H.  iii.  3, 2 ;  Stob. 
i.  693  sq.) ;  clouds  muL  ap.  Ens. 
/.  c, ;  on  the  other  hnnd,  Floe.  iii« 
i,  2;  Stob.  Fhril,  ed.  Man.  ir, 
161,  oontain  nothing  of  impor- 
tance) ;  the  rainbow  (Plae,  liL  6, 
12);  the  winds  {Hae.  tii.  7.  9); 
the  sea  {Pfae.  iii.  16,  6);  and  the 
quotations  in  the  previous  note. 

*  Ap.  Joh.  Damaac  PanUL  & 
ii.  26,  23;  Stob.  Floril.  ed.  Mao. 
iv.  2,  34.  The  proposition,  iM*<f 
clrou  rks  oio^rcis,  is  ascribed  to 
Metrodorus,  as  well  as  to  Dobkh 
critus,  Protagoras,  and  otben. 
Similarly  Epiph.  L  e,:  sM)  twt 
tuffB^iiTHn    hit    irpo(r4x*Wt  ^M^^t 

'  AristocL  ap.  Ens.  Pr,  Bo.  sir. 
10,  6.  At  the  opening  of  a  tns- 
tise  mfH  ^^c«»r,  Metrodorus  ssid : 
oUmIs  4ifi&p  oiihf  oOcr,  9W  tAfh 
rovTo'ir^Ttpov  otBofMr  ^  afodlSiv^* 
The  same  thing  is  quoted  in  Sext 
Math,  vii.  88 ;  cf.  48 ;  Diog.  '^ 
68 ;  Epiph.  Exp.  Fid,  1088  A; 
Gic.  Aoad.  ii.  23,  73 ;  the  last  a»- 
serts  that  it  stood  wiHoUbrign 
iitdenatmrtu 


ANAXARCHU8. 


Sir 


self  so  cloeely  with  physical  enquiries;  they  must, 
therefore,  be  r^^arded  merely  as  an  exaggerated  expres- 
sion of  his  mistrust  of  the  senses,  and  of  his  judgments 
concerning  the  actual  state  of  human  knowledge.  The 
truth  of  thought  he  does  not  seem  to  have  disputed.' 

Anaxarchus  of  Abdera,^  the  companion  of  Alexander,* 
celebrated  for  his  heroism  under  a  torturing  death,^  is 
said  to  have  been  taught  by  Metrodonis,*  or  by  his 
disciple,  Diogenes.  He  too  was  reckoned  among  the 
precursors  of  Scepticism  ;^  but  the  only  thing  that  can 


*  Aiiftodea,  {.  tf.,  citee  &oin  him 
the  statement :  Srt  nAma  i<rr\p^  % 
y  rts  pvhffot.  This  may  be  taken 
to  signify,  'all  is  for  each  man 
▼bat  he  thinks  of  it'  (cf.  Enthydem. 
in/.) ;  but  the  meaning  may  also  be 
'  the  all  is  that  which  we  can  think 
inclnded  in  it  ;*  so  that  it  expresses 
the  worth  of  dionght  as  contrasted 
wi:h  peiception.  Similarly  Empe- 
docles  (Tide  sup,  169,  6)  opposes 
rocir  to  the  senses.  On  this  sub- 
ject, d  p.  225,  3. 

'  He  is  described  as  an  inhabi- 
tant of  Abdera,Diog.  ix.  6S ;  Galen. 
H,  PkiL  c.  8,  p.  284  E,  and  c.  2, 
p.  228,  where  instead  of '  'Ai^a^ay^ 
pas*  *  *htfdfytpx^'*  ^  to  ^^  '^f  ^^ 
e?en  Dieb  now  admits. 

*  So  Diog.  iz.  58.  More  defi- 
nitely Clem.  Strom,  i  801  D ;  and 
Aristocles,  ap.  Ens.  xir.  17,  8, 
name  Diogenes  as  the  teacher  of 
Anazarchns.  The  native  city  of 
this  Diogenes  was  Smyrna ;  but, 
according  to  Epiph.  Exp,  Fid.  1088 
A,  Cyrene  was  also  mentioned. 
Epiphanius,-  on  whom,  however, 
we  cannot  certainly  rely,  says  that 
his  philosophical  standpoint  was 
the  same  as  that  of  Protagoras* 

-  *  Concerning  him,  Luzac,  Lec' 


times  AtiiciB,  181-193. 

*  He  had  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  his  enemy,  the  Cyprian  prince 
Nicocreon,  and  was  by  his  command 
poanded  in  a  mortar ;  unconquered, 
he  called  out  to  the  tyrant :  'wriavn 
rhv  *Ayaidpxov  0^aicor,  *Ayd^ctpxoy 
oi  rrlirvuf.  The  circumstance  is 
commonly  narrated  with  various 
minor  details ;  cf.  Diog.  /.  e, ;  Pint. 
Virt,  Mor,  10,  p.  440 ;  Clem.  Strtm. 
ir.  496  D ;  Vale r.  Max.  iii.  3,  ext. 
4 ;  Plm.  H,  Nat,  vii.  28,  87;  Ter- 
tull.  Apologet,  60 ;  Ps.  Dio  Ohrys. 
Or,  87,  p.  126  R  (ii.  806  Dind.). 
Wiedfmann,  in  the  Philologus, 
XXX.  8,  249,  83,  refers  to  other 
testimonies. 

•  Pli.  Oalen.  H,  PhU.  8,  p.  234 
£,  reckons  him  among  the  sceptics, 
and  Sext.  Math,  vii.  48,  includes 
him,  with  Metrodoms,  among  those 
who  admitted  no  criterion  of  truth. 
Also  in  p.  87  so.  he  says :  Many 
think  this  of  Metrodoms,  Anax- 
archus and  Monimns ;  of  Metro- 
dorus,  because  of  the  remark 
quoted  above ;  of  Anaxarchus  and 
Monimus:  8ri  vicnpoypai^i^  hml- 
Kura»  rh  6irra,  rois  Zh  jcor^  twpovs 
^  /teofittv  itpociriitrovci  raSra  Aftout' 


«18  THE  ATOMISTIC  FmLOSOPHT. 

be  quoted  as  evidence  of  this  is  a  oontemptuoiis  ex- 
pression about  tbe  doings  and  opinions  of  men,  which 
does  not  assert  more  than  we  constantly  find  apart  firam 
all  connection  with  any  sceptical  theory.  Other  ae- 
counts  represent  him  as  an  adherent  of  the  Democriteafi 
theory  of  nature.^  He  may  also  be  connected  with 
Democritus  when  he  declares  happiness  to  be  the  higfaesl 
end  of  our  efforts*'  On  the  other  hand,  he  diveq;ei 
from  him  in  his  more  precise  conception  of  the  pnc^ 
tical  problems  of  life,  with  which  his  philosophy  wu 
mainly  concerned,  in  two  directions*  On  the  one  side 
be  approaches  Cynicism;'  he  praises  Pyrrho's  indif- 
ference;^ he  confronts  external  pain  with  that  coin 
temptuous  pride  whicb  appears  in  his  famous  utterance 
while  he  was  being  pounded  in  Nicocreon's  mortar;  he 

>  Ap.  Plat.  Tranqu.  A%,  4,  p.  iz.  37).    Cf.    Galen,  H.   PkH  3, 

466 ;  Valer.  Max.  riii.  14,  «xt  2,  280 ;  a  philoaof^ie  aeet  might  be 

he  iHrppresentfld  as  bringing  before  eallfd    ^k   t^Xovs    u»    U^m^s, 

Alexander   the   doctrine   of    the  ItfVfp  i^  Mot/tifueii.  6  yhp*Afd^ 

inSnitj  of  worlds,  which  wonld  be  x^'  ^^^^^  ^'  *•*■'  mkrhif  •ftvyiryis 

lis  inappropriate  to  a  sceptic  as  tbe  (1.  ieytty.)  r^r  Matfim^  IXflfv, 

language  agreeing  with  the  ntter-  Diog.  I^roam,  17.    Many  of  tha 

ances  of  Democritus  {sup.  277, 1  \  philosophers  are  named  krh  lie^ 

quoted  in  Clem.  Sirom,  i.  287  A;  S^ffwwf,  in  ol  tUeuftmnK^,  Qmt- 

Stob.  34,  19  on  ^oXviao^ii,  which,  chns  ap.  Atben.  zii.  64S  b:  twt 

though  useful  to  the  wise  man,  is  IMoaiiowm&w  iwXoiy ^wir  * Awig^Xf. 
dedued  to  be  very  injurious  to  the  *  Thus  Timon  speaks,  ap^  Pint 

person  who  chatters  about  ererj*  FtW.  Mor.  6,  p.  446,  of  bis  ti^ 

thing  without  distinction ;  a  state-  aoX^or  r«  aol  4ftf»mMktt  his  sji'tir 

ment  which    Bemays,   Sh,  Mus.  fi4pot,  and  Pint.  Alex,  62,  otUs 

zxiii.  376,  also  proves  to  have  come  him  t9iw  rtpii  wo^tviftmros  4^  ifx^ 

from  the  mechanist  Athemeus  (vide  6Shp  ip  ^iXotf^e^Cf  ml  84(cv  iki^ 

Weechei's  PoUorckiqtie  dea  Greci,  ^ffp<4(as  jkoI  hXtympUa  rAr  ffwk' 

I  4,  202).  9mp, 

*  It  istothis«tatement,andnot  *  Biog.    is.   63.    Onoe  what 

to  his  Mk09ta  Kol  thKoKla  rod  $lov  Anazarchus  had  fallen  into  a  bog, 

(as  Dipg.  iz.  60,  asserted,  that  he  I^nrho  passed  bj  without  trouMhig 

owes  hie  appellation  4  EvSai^nir^t  himself  about  him,  but  was  praised 

(Diog.andClem./.c.;  SeztTii.  48;  bj  Anaxarehus  for  his  dtfkifyir 

Athen.  vi.  250  sq. ;  .£lian  F,  H,  ml  iaxfyop^ 


NAUSIPHANE8. 


S19 


takes  many  liberties  with  the  Macedonian  conqi^eror,^ 
corrupting  him  at  the  same  time  with  flatteries,  couched 
in  the  language  of  honesty.^  On  the  other  side,  in  his 
personal  conduct  he  contradicts  his  principles  by  an 
efifeminacy  and  self-indulgence  for  which  he  is  censured 
in  many  different  quarters.'  Anaxarchus  was  the  in- 
structor of  Pyrrho  the  Sceptic.^  Nausiphanes  also  seems 
to  have  been  indirectly  connected  with  Metrodorus,  at 
least  he  is  described  as  a  follower  of  Pyrrho's  scepticism, 
and  at  the  same  time  as  the  teacher  of  Epicurus ;  ^  we 

pleMiiir«,  and  proves  it  by  many 
examples.  Ap.  Pint.  Alex,  52, 
Callisthenes  says  to  him,  when  the 
question  was  Under  discufvioa 
whether  it  were  warmer  in  Perbia 
or  in  Greece,  he  must,  doubtless, 
haye  found  it  colder  in  Persia  since 
in  Oreece  he  had  exchanged  his 
doak  for  three  coverings;  but 
eren  Timon  says,  ap.  Plut.  VirU 
Mot,  6,  p.  446 :  his  ^innt  ^9okovA^( 
drew  him  aside  against  his  better 
knowledffe.  To  see  in  all  this,  as 
LuxHC  does,  only  a  peripatetit 
calumny  the  final  motive  of  which 
lies  in  the  enmity  between  Callis<* 
thenes  and  -Anaxarchus,  seems  to 
me  hazardous,  though  I  attach 
no  undue  importance  to  the  asser* 
tion  of  Clearehus. 

«  Diog.  it.  61, 63,  67 ;  Aristocl^ 
ap.  Eus.  /.  c.  and  18,  20. 

'  Dio^.  "Proctm,  15,  where  to* 
gether  with  him  a  certain  Nau* 
8ic>des.  otherwise  unknown,  is  in* 
troduced  as  a  disciple  of  Democri* 
tus  and  an  instructor  of  Epieorus, 
X.  7  sq.  14;  ix.  64,  69;  Suid. 
'EWk.  ;  Cic  N.  D,  i.  26,  78.  SS,  93 ; 
Sezt.  Math.  i.  2  sq. ;  ClemenSi 
Strom,  i.  301  D.  According  to 
Clem.  Strom,  ii.  417  A,  he  declared 
knofrtntXtiiim    to    be    the   higheit 


1  Cf.  the  anecdotee,  ap.  Biog. 
ix.  60.  Diogenes  himself  calls  at- 
tention to  the  different  account  in 
Plutarch,  Plut  Qi».  Cmv,  is.  1, 
2,  5 ;  ^L  V.  H.  ix,  37 ;  Athen.  vi. 
250  sq.  (according  to  Satyrus); 
even  the  last  seems  to  me  t^  con* 
tain  not  flattery  but  irony,  as  is 
presupposed  by  Alexander's  answer. 

'  I  know  not  how  otherwise  to 
regard  his  behaviour  after  the 
murder  of  Clitus  (Plut.  AUx.  52, 
adprinc,  mar,  4, 1,  p.  781 ;  Arrian, 
Exp.  AUx,  iv.  9,  9),  on  which  Plu- 
tarch observes,  tluit  through  it  he 
made  himself  greatly  beloved,  but 
exercised  the  worst  influence  over 
the  king :  and  I  see  no  reason  to 
mistmst  the  narrative  of  Plutarch. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  true 
that  it  was  not  Anaxarchus,  as 
Arrian  says,  /.  c.  9,  14. 10,  7t  pre- 
facing his  statements  with  ?<2yos 
«ar4xfi,  but  Gleon.  (so  Curt.  Ih 
Rd).  AUx,  viii.  17,  8  sqq.),  who 
recommended  to  the  Macedonians 
the  adoration  of  Alexander.  That 
Alexander  valued  rh^iikw  hpfwrtrnhp 

Plutarch  likewise  observes,  PluU 
Akx.  Virt.  10,  p.  331. 

'  Clearehus  ap.  Athm,  xii.  548 
b^  reproaebes   him  with  love  of 


1 


820  THE  ATOMISTIC  PHILOSOPHT. 

may,  tlierefore,  suppose  that,  like  Metrodoros,  he  com- 
bined an  Atooiistic  theory  of  physics  with  a  sceptical  view 
of  human  knowledge.^    In  general,  among  the  successors 
of  Democritus,  the  Atomistic  philosophy  seems  to  have 
followed  the  sceptical  tendencies  which  might  so  easily 
be  deduced  from  its  physical  presuppositions,  though  it 
did  not  itself  abandon  these   presuppositions;  while 
previously  and  contemporaneously,  a  similar  modifica- 
tion of  the  Heracleitean  physics  was  undertaken  by 
Cratylus  and  Protagoras,  and  of  the  Eleatic  doctrine  by 
Oorgias  and  the  Eristics.  Whether  Diagoras,  the  fiunoua 
Atheist,  who  became  proverbial  in  antiquity,  can  be 
lightly  included  in  the  school  of  Democritus,  appears  the 
more  doubtful  since  he  would  seem  to  have  been  older, 
or  at  any  rate  not  younger,  than  Democritus,  and  not  a 
single  proposition  of  his  philosophy  has  been  recorded,* 

good,  which  wM  called  by  Demo-  first  a  dithyrambic  poet ;  that  h« 

critus  itBofifila,    As  to  his  relation  originally    feared    the   gr4s  bnt 

with  Epicurus  cf.  Part  lu.  a,  342,  b^me  au  atheist,  because  afia- 

2ad  ed.  ffrant    wrong    committed  against 

>  This  connection  between  Epi-  him  (as  to  which  partieoltf  ac- 
curofl  and  Metrodorus,  through  counts  differ)  remained  unpnntshed 
the  medium  of  Kausiphanes,  may  by  the  gods;  he  was  then  eon- 
have  given  rise  to  the  statement  demned  to  death  in  Athens  to 
(Galen.  H,  Phil.  c.  7»  p.  240  ;  Stob.  blasphemous  words  and  aedoDs 
Eel,  i.  496),  that  Metrodorus  was  especially  for  divulging  the  mjs- 
the  K€iBfrfvrhi  'Evuco^ov.  teries,  and  a  reward  offered  for 

'  Concerning    Diogenes,    vide  delivering  him  up ;  in  his  flight  be 

Diodorus  ziii.  6  end;  Jos.  c,  A^ion,  whs  lost  in  a  shipwreck.    Axisto- 

c.  37  ;  Sezt.AfaM.  iz.  5,  3;  Smdas,  phanes    already    alludes    to  his 

tub  voce ;  Hesch.  De   Vir.  Illugtr.  atheism.  Clouds,  v.  830  (OL  89. 1), 

3ub  voce ;  Tatian,  Adv.  Gr.  c.  27;  and  to  his  condemnation,  Btrds,  r. 

Atheiiag,Supplic.4;  Clemens,  Co-  1073  (01.  91,  2).    Cf.  with  this 

hort.  15   B;   Cyriilus,  c.  Jul.  vi.  last  quotation   Backbuysea  v.  d. 

189  £;  Arnob.  Adv.  Gent.  iv.  29;  Brinck,  y.  LecU.  ex  Hist.  Pkil.  41 

Athen.  ziii.  611  a;  Diog.  vi.  59.  sqq.     His  condemnation  is  also  as- 

From  these  passages  we  get  the  signed  by  Diodorus  to  01.  91,  2; 

following    result :    that  Diagoras  the  statements  of  Suidas  that  he 

was  bom  in  Melos,  and  was  at  flourished  in  01.  78  (which  Ease- 


ANAXAQOItAS. 


821 


Of  the  Democritean  philosopher  Bion  of  Abdera,^  we 
know  no  particulars  whatever. 


III.  ANAXAGORAS.* 

1.  Principles  of  his  system :  Matter  and  Mind, 

Anaxagoras,  bom  about  500  b.c.,'  was  a  contemporary 


bios  likewise  maintains  in  his 
ChroH.  on  01.  78),  and  was  set  free 
hy  Democrifns  from  imprisonment, 
mutuallj  confute  one  another.  In 
the  accounts  of  his  death,  perhaps 
he  is  confused  with  Protaijoras.  A 
treatise  in  which  he  published  the 
mygteries  is  quoted  under  the 
title  of  ^piytoi  \6yoif  or  &iro- 
fvpyi(o¥r^i. 

»  Diog.  iv.  68.  What  is, said  by 
the  comic  poet,  I>amo:cenu8,  ap. 
Athen.  102  a,  on  the  popularity  of 
thp  physics  of  Democritus,  relates 
t«  the  Epicurean  physics,  and  only 
indirectly  through  these,  to  the 
Democritean  philosophy. 

^  '  On  the  life,  writings  and  doc- 
trine of  Anazagoras,  yide  Schau- 
bach,  Anaxagorm  Clas,  Fragmenta^ 
&c.,  Leipsig,  1827,  where  the  ac- 
counts of  the  ancients  are  most 
carefully  collected ;  Schom.  Anaxa- 
goTiB  CIaz,  et  IHogenu  Apoll. 
Fragnunta,  Bonn,  1829 ;  Breier, 
Phil  d,  Anaxag.  Berl.  1840; 
Krische,  Porsch,  60  sqq. ;  Z^Tort, 
Dissert,  sur  la  vie  et  la  doctrine 
tCAnaxagore,  Par.  1843 ;  Mullach, 
Fragm,  Philae.  i.  248  sqq.  Among 
modern  writers,  cf.  the  treatise  of 
Oladisch  and  Clemens,  De  Philoe. 
Anax.  Berl.  1839  (quoted  Vol.  I. 
p.  36).  Concerning  older  mono- 
graphs, especially  those  of  Cams 
and  Hemsen,  ef.  Schaubach,  p.  1, 
35 ;  Brandis,  i.  232  ;  Ueberweg,  i. 
524. 

VOL.  II.  1 


'  This  date,  previously  accepted 
universally,  has  been  recently  dis- 
puted by  Miiller,  Fragm.  Hist.  ii. 
24  ;  iii.  604 ;  K.  F.  Hermann,  De 
Philos,  Jon.  tftatibus,  10  sqq. ;  and 
8chweglQT  (Gesch.  d.  Griech.  Phil, 
p.  85  ;  cf.  Bom.  GescK.  iii.  20,  2); 
and  the  life  of  Anazagoras  has 
been  placed  34  years  earlier,  so 
that  his  birth  would  fall  in  01.  61. 
3  (534  B.C.},  his  death  in  01.  79, 
3(462  B.C.),  his  residence  in  Athens 
between  01.  70,  4,  and  78,  2  (497- 
466).  An  attempt  had  already 
(1842)  been  made  by  Bakhuysen 
▼on  den  Brinck  ( Var.  Leett.  de  Hist. 
Philoe.  Ant,  69  sqq.)  to  prove  that 
Anazagoras  was  bom  in  01.  65,  4, 
came  to  Athens  at  the  age  of  20  in 
01.  70,  4,  and  left  the  city  in  01. 
78,  2.  I  opposed  this  view  in  the 
second  edition  of  the  present  work, 
and  at  p.  10  sqq.  of  my  treatise, 
De  Hermodoro  (NLskTh,  1859),  with 
almost  universal  acquiescence.  It 
would  seem  from  Diog.  ii.  7,  that 
Apollodorus  probably,  after  Deme- 
trius Phaler.  (Diels,  Rh,  Mue. 
zxxi.  28),  placed  the  birth  of  Anaz- 
agoras in  01.  70,  1  (500-496  B.C.). 
Still  more  definite  is  the  statement 
(ibid,  with  the  prefiz  Xiyrrai)  that 
he  was  20  at  the  invasion  of  Gkreece 
by  Xerzes,  and  lived  to  the  age  of 
72 ;  that  his  birth  took  place  in 
01.  70,  1  (500  B.C.)*  and  his  death 
in  01.  88,  1  (528,  7  b.c.);  and 
though  the  traditional  tezt  of  Dio* 


^22 


ANAXAOORAS. 


genes,  /.  c,  represents  ApoUodoros 
as  assiflpiing  01.  78,  I  im  the  year 
of  his  deeth,  we  should  donbUess 
read  (as  most  agree)  WofitiKocT^t 
instead  of  hybojiKofftrii.  The  con- 
jecture of  Bakhuysen  v.  d.  Brinck 
(p.  72),  that  the  number  of  the 
Olympiad  should  be  retained,  but 
that  instead  of  '  rtSvui^^vai '  ^Kivn- 
Kivai  should  be  substituted,  has 
little  in  its  favour.  The  ordinary 
theory  is  confirmed  also  by  Hippol. 
R^fiU,  i.  8,  who,  no  doubt,  places 
the  htiL4i  of  this  philosopher  in  01. 
88,  1,  merely  because  he  found  this 
year  mentioned  as  the  year  of  his 
death,  and  erroneously  referred  it 
to  the  time  of  his  &icm4.  With 
this  agrees  also  the  statement  of 
Demetrius  Fhal.  (ap.  Diog.  /*  c), 
in  his  list  of  the  archons :  ^p^aro 
^iKoffo0*tv  *M^vn<ri¥  M  KaXX(ov, 
ir&w  ^Kofft  j^v,  without  even 
changing  (with  Meursius,  &c.,  cf. 
Menage,  ad  h.  I. ;  Brandis,  Gr, 
Rom,  Phil,  i,  238 ;  Bakhuysen  y. 
d.  Brinck,  U  c,  79  sq. ;  Cobet  in  his 
edition)  KaXA/ou  into  KoAAitiSov,  as 
these  are  only  different  forms  of 
the  same  name.  A  Kallindes  was 
Archon  Eponymus  in  480  B.C. 
We  therefore  get  the  year  600  b.c. 
as  the  birth-year  of  Anaxagoras. 
Only  we  must  suppose  Diogenes  or 
his  authority  to  have  misunderstood 
the  statement  of  Demetrius,  who 
must  either  have  said  of  Anaxago- 
ras :  ^p^aro  ^iAu<ro^ciK  M  KoXXfov, 
or  more  probably,  <Jp^  ^tXo<r. 
'A(?^j^<ri  Jkpxoirroi  KoAAfov  ;  for  in 
that  case  iipi,  ^lA.  could  not  relate 
to  the  appeanince  of  Anaxagoras  as 
a  teacher,  for  which  the  age  of  20 
would  be  much  too  young,  but  only 
to  the  commencement  of  his  philo- 
sophic studies.  What  could  have 
induced  him  to  come  for  this  pur- 
pose at  the  very  moment  when  the 
armies  of   Xerxes  were  pouring 


down  upon  Athens,  to  a  city  which 
neither  then,  nor  for  many  decades 
previously!  had  harboured  scj 
noteworthy  philosopher  within  its 
walls?  (Schaubach,  14  sq.;  Ze- 
vort,  10  sq.,  etc,  propose  that  with- 
out changing  the  name  of  the 
archon,  "  rt&cdLpdicorra  "  shcmld  be 
substituted  for  cboo-i;  that  is, 
*M'  should  be  substituted  for 
'  K ; '  so  that  Anaxsgoras  iroald 
have  come  to  Athens  at  the  age  of 
forty,  in  456  B,  when  Falli&s  was 
archon.)  Now  it  is  true  that  Dio- 
doms,  Eusebius  and  Cyrillasaaeigs 
dates  to  Democritus,  which  are  not 
compatible  with  this ;  for  if  Demo- 
critus (as  Diodorus,  xxiv.  11,  aT^) 
died  in  01. 94, 1  (403,  4  b.c.)  at  the 
age  of  90,  or  if  (as  Eusebius  and 
Oyrillus  say,  vide  sup.  209)  he  vas 
born  in  01.  69,  3,  or  01.  70,  Anax- 
agoras,* who  was  40  years  older 
(Diog.  ix.  41;  vide  nip.  p.  209), 
must  have  been  at  the  beginniiu^ 
of  the  fifth  century  a  man  of  from 
33  to  41  years  old.  But  there 
are  many  important  reasons  to  be 
urged  against  this  theory.  In  the 
first  plaice,  it  is  not  only  Eusebius 
and  Cyrillus  who,  in  thar  dates, 
are  guilty  of  so  many  contndic* 
tions,  and  in  the  case  of  Democritos 
incredible  contradictions  and  errors 
(examples  may  be  found  in  regard 
to  Eusebius  in  my  treatise,  De 
Hermodoro,  p.  10 ;  cf.  also  iWp. 
Ei\  X.  14,  8  sq. ;  xiv.  15,  9,  where 
Xenophanes  and  Pythagoras  are 
made  contemporary  with  Anaxago- 
ras, and  Euripides  and  Archelaos 
are  nevertheless  called  his  disci- 
ples. As  to  Cyrillus,  it  is  enoogh 
to  remember  that  in  C.  Jul.  13  b, 
he  assigns  the  iucfiri  of  Democritus 
simultaneously  to  01.  70  and  86 ; 
and  Parmenides  to  01.  86,  and 
makes  Anaximenes  the  philosopher, 
no  doubt  by  a  confusion  with  the 


HIS  DATE. 


Si>3 


rhetoridan  of  Ltimpsacus,  a  con- 
temporaiy  of  Epicuros.  Cedren. 
158  C,  also  describes  him  as  a 
t<>acher  of  Alexander  the  Great) ; 
but  also  Diodonis  who,  in  chrono- 
lugical  accuracy,  is  not  to  be  com- 
pared with  Apollodoms.  Hermann 
thinks  that  the  three  statements  on 
the  date  of  Democritus,  viz.  of  Apol- 
Iddoras,  Thras.yllus  and  Diodoras, 
are  to  be  traced  back  to  this  :  that 
thej  are  all  founded  on  a  previons 
notice,  according  to  which  Demo- 
critns  was  born  723  years  after 
the  destruction  ol  Troy ;  and  each 
ealcolated  the  date  after  his  own 
Tiojan  era  (placed  by  ApoUodorus 
in  1183,  by  Thrasyllus  in  1193, 
bj  Biodorus,  in  agreement  with 
Ephorus,  in  1217  B.C.);  and  that 
they  then  determined  the  date  of 
Aaixagoras  according  to  that  of 
Bemocritns.  Even  if  this  were 
true,  it  would  not  follow  that  Dio- 
doras is  right,  and  that  the  other 
t'wo  are  wrong ;  in  itself,  however, 
the  conjecture  is  not  probable. 
For,  on  the  one  hand,  it  cannot 
even  be  proved  that  Ephorus  as- 
signed the  destruction  of  Troy  to 
1217  (Bakhuysen  v.  d.  Brinck, 
?h{lol.  vi.  689  sq.,  agrees  with 
Boeckh  and  Welcker  in  saying  1 1 50 ; 
and  Muller,  Ctes,  $t  Ckronogr, 
Fragm.  126,  does  not  seem  to  me 
to  have  proved  anything  to  the 
contrary) ;  only  this  much  is  clear 
from  Clemens,  Strom,  i.  337  A; 
Biodorus,  xvi.  76,  that  he  fixed 
the  migration  of  the  Heraclidee  in 
1070  or  1090-1  b.c.  ;  and  it  is, 
moreover,  very  improbable  that 
ApoUodorus  and  his  predecessor, 
Eratosthenes,  arrived  at  their  con- 
dosions  about  the  dates  of  Demo- 
criins  and  Anaxagoras,  in  the  way 
that  Hermann  soggests.  For  De« 
mocritas's  own  statement,  that  he 
composed  the  ^uK^^s  BtdKofffAOs  in 


the  730th  year  after  the  destruction 
of  Troy,  must  have  been  well  known 
to  them  ;  indeed,  from  Diog.  ix.  41, 
it  would  seem  that  Apollodoma 
founded  his  calculation  of  Demo- 
critus*s  birth-year  upon  this  very 
statement.  But  in  that  case  they 
could  not  possibly  have  placed  the 
birth  of  the  philosopher  in  the 
723rd  year  of  the  same  era  in  the 
730th  year  of  which  he  had  com- 
posed his  work ;  they  could  only 
have  found  its  date  by  m>iking  the 
statements  of  Democritus  as  to  his 
epoch  correspond  with  their  era 
instead  of  his  own.  In  regard  to 
Anaxagoras,  however,  Demetrius 
Phalereus,  and  others,  sp.  Diog. 
ii.  7»  are  in  accord  with  them,  who 
cannot  certainly  have  arrived  at  all 
their  theories  through  a  wrong  ap- 
plication of  one  and  the  «inie  Tro* 
jan  era.  Even  to  an  Eratosthenes, 
an  Apollodoinis,  or  a  Thrasyllus,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  ascribe  so 
careless  a  procedure  as  that  with 
which  Hermann  credits  them.  In 
the  secofid  place,  Diodorus  himself, 
Hermann's  chief  witness,  agrees 
with  the  above  testimonies  con- 
cerning Anaxagoras;  since  in  xii. 
38  sq.,  when  discussing  the  causes 
of  the  Peloponnesian  war,  he  ob- 
serves :  '  The  embarrassment  in 
which  Pericles  was  placed  by  his 
administration  of  the  public  trea- 
sure was  increased  by  some  other 
accidental  circumstances  :  the  pro- 
cess against  Phcidias,  and  the 
charge  of  Atheism  against  Anaxa- 
goras.' Here  the  trial  of  Amixa- 
goi*as  is  assigned,  with  the  greatest 
possible  explicitness,  to  the  time 
immediately  preceding  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian war,  and  consequently 
his  birth  in  the  beginning  of  thn 
fifth  or  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century.  Hermann's  explanatory 
comment  (p.  19),  that  upon  occa- 


Y  2 


824 


AHAXAGORAS. 


eion  of  the  charges  a^inst  Fhei- 
dias,  the  old  complain t«  against 
Anaxagoras  were  revived,  is  so  un- 
natural that  scarcely  any  one  could 
admit  it.  '  The  enemies  of  Peri- 
cles,' says  Diodoras,  *  obtained  the 
arrest  of  Pheidias  :  koI  airrov  rov 
lltpM\4ovs  K«nrf6pov¥  UpoffvXlay, 
wphs  8i  robots  *Ava^cey6paif  rhy 
(To^tfrrVt  MdfficaKoy  tvra  Ilfpi- 
ttXiovs^  &s  iuT^^wra  cZf  robs  9<oi>r 
itrvKo^KTovtf.  Who  can  believe 
that  Diodorus  woold  have  thus  ex- 
pressed himself  if  he  had  been 
alluding,  not  to  a  suspicion  attach- 
ing to  Anaxagoras,  who  was  then 
living,  but  to  the  chaises  that  had 
been  brought  against  a  man  who 
had  been  dead  for  thirty  years? 
The  present  forms,  9i9£rKaXoy 
tvra  and  Atrf^ovKrA,  alone 
would  prove  the  contrary.  Plu- 
tarch also  (Pericl.  32)  places  the 
accusation  of  Anaxagoras  in  the 
same  period  and  historical  connec- 
tion ;  and  he  also  observes,  Nic.  23, 
upon  the  occasion  of  a  lunar  eclipse 
during  the  Sicilian  campaign, 
'  Anaxagoras,  who  was  the  first  to 
write  openly  and  clearly  on  lunar 
eclipses,  oifr*  ajtnht^v  waknibi,  ofh* 
6  xiyos  Mc^of  (acknowledged  by 

Siiblic  opinion),  on  account  of  the 
isfavour  in  which  the  physical 
explanation  of  nature  was  at  that 
time  held  in  Athens,  his  opinions 
were,  however,  received  with  cau- 
tion and  in  a  narrow  circle.'  Plu- 
tarch, therefore,  agrees  with  Dio- 
dorus, that  Anaxagoras  was  in 
Athens  until  near  the  beginning 
of  the  Peloponnesian  war.  No 
argument  against  this  can  be  de- 
rived from  the  fact  that  Satyms, 
ap.  Diog.  ii.  12,  names  Thucydides 
(son  of  Melesias)  as  the  accuser  of 
Anaxagoras ;  for  Sotion  (ibid.)  had 
designated  CI  eon  as  such,  who  only 
attained  to  any  celebrity  towards 


the  end  of  Perioles's  life  (Pint. 
Per.  33);  and,  according  to  PIm. 
Per.  32,  the  ryh^f/ut  against  thoee 
who  denied  the  gods,  and  tftn^T 
Metar8iol<'^a,  was  the  work  of 
Diopeithes,  who  is  mettti<>ned  It 
Aristophanes  (Birds,  t.  988)  ?» 
still  alive  (414  b.c.).  Nor  is  it 
prejudiced  by  the  circumstance  as 
which  Brandis,  Cresch,  d.  E^ite.  i. 
120  sq.,  greatly  relies,  that  Socra- 
tes, in  Plato*s  Phsdo,  97  B,  derive? 
his  knowledge  of  the  Anaxagoreaa 
doctrine,  not  from  Anaxagoras 
himself,  but  from  his  treatise. 
Plato  might,  no  doubt,  hsv? 
brought  him  into  personal  CKuinoe- 
tion  wkh  Anaxagoras,  but  that  he 
muBt  have  done  su,  if  Anaxsgwas 
was  in  Athens  until  434  B.C..  cu- 
Bot  be  maintained.  Tkir^^,  it 
tells  against  Hermann's  riev  that 
Xenophon  (Mem.  iv.  7,  6  sq.)  and 
Plato  (Apd.  26  D)  treat  Anaiago- 
ras  as  the  physical  philosopher 
whose  doctrines  and  writings  were 
universally  known  in  Atfa^ns  to- 
wards the  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
just  as  they  were  represented  by 
Aristophanes  in  the  CUmds.  Now, 
if  he  had  loft  Athens  mors  tlnn 
sixty  years  before,  nobody  wonld 
have  remembered  him  and  his  triftl. 
and  the  enemies  of  philosophv 
would  have  directed  their  attacks 
against  newer  men  and  doetrines. 
Plato,  in  the  Cratylua  (409  A),  the 
date  of  which  cannot  possibly  be 
eariier  than  the  two  last  decades 
of  the  fifth  century  (Plato  attended 
the  lectures  of  Cratylus  about  40SU 
407  B.C.),  describes  Anaxagoras'i 
theory  of  the  moon  as  something 
%  iK9ivos  p^wtrrl  .IXeyti'.  More- 
over, Euripides  (bom  480  rc.)  i» 
called  a  disciple  of  Anaxagoistf 
(inf.  828,  1),  and  if  he  himself 
seems  to  betray  that  he  waa  bo 
(vide  Vol.  II.  a,  12,  third  edition). 


SIS  DATE. 


326 


this  presupposes  that  the  philoso- 
pher did  not  die  before  462  b.c., 
severAl  years  after  he  had  quitted 
Athens.     If  it  bo  objected  that  the 
authors  'who  attest  this  relation  of 
Euripides  to  Anaxagoras  are  com- 
psiratively  recent,  there  is  a  valid 
answer    even    to    that   objection. 
For,  according  to  Athenseus,  y.  220 
b,  the  *  Callias '  of  iGschines  the 
Socratic  contained :  r^^w  rov  KaXAfov 
•wf^i  rhv  ircnipa  Ziapopiof  KaX  r^p 
TlpoHiKov  jcai  *Apa^ay}pov  rw  tro^ur- 
rir  SiofUtfiniiriy  (mockery) ;  he  had 
consequently  connected  Anaxagoras 
and  Prodicos  with  Callias,  who  was 
not  bom  at  the  time  when,  accor- 
ding to  Hermann,  Anaxagoras  left 
Athens.    Hermann's  only  resource 
in  this  difficulty  is  the  conjecture 
that  we  should  read  UfMnay^pov 
instead  of  *Ai^cty6pou  in  Athenseus. 
{DeAesch.Socrai.Beiiqu.U.)    But 
this  alteration  is  quite  arbitrary, 
and  no  reason  can  be  assigned  for 
it  except  the  impossibility  of  re« 
eoDciling  the  traditional  text  with 
Hermann's  hypothesis.    That  An- 
axagoras, according  to  the  language 
of  the  time,  might  have  been  called 
a  Sophist,  is  clear  from  Vol.  I.  p. 
302,  1,  and  will  be  made  clearer 
further  on  (inf.  Chap.  III.  Soph.). 
Hermann  expressly  acknowledges 
thiK,  Diodorus  himself  (vide  supra) 
calls  him  so,  and  the  name  involved 
no  evil  imputation.     Why  then  a 
^jcratic  like  Machines  shoald  have 
objected  to  class  him  with  other 
^phists  it  is   hard  to  see ;    for 
Socrates  himself,    in  Xenophon's 
Mem.  ii.  1,  21,  pHSses  a  much  more 
favouiable  judgment  on  Prodicus 
than  on  Anaxagoras.      Hermann 
thinks,  hisrly,  that  as  Callias  wh<i 
still  (ap.  Xen.  HdUsn.  vi.  3. 2  sq.)  in 
01. 102,  2  (371  B.C.)  occupied  with 
state  affairs,  he  could  no   longer 
We   attended    the    lectures   of 


Anaxagoras;  and  as  his  father, 
HipponicQS,  fell  at  Delium  in  424 
ac,  he  could  not  before  that  date 
have  been  represented  as  favouring 
the  Sophists.  But  against  this  we 
have  not  only  Plato's  account, 
which  makes  Protagoras  even  be-r 
fore  the  beginning  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  war  entertain  a  number  of 
the  most  distinguished  Sophists, 
but  the  still  more  decisive  proof 
that  Callias's  younger  half-brother 
Xanthippus  was  already  married 
before  the  year  429  (Plat.  Per.  24, 
36 ;  cf.  Plato,  ProL  314  E).  If  we 
add  to  these  arguments  the  fact 
that  Anaxagoras  (as  will  be  shown 
at  the  end  of  this  chapter),  not 
only  was  strongly  influenced  by 
Parmenides,  whose  older  contem- 
porary, according  to-  Hermann,  he 
was,  but  in  all  probability  studied 
Empedocles  and  Leucippus,  the 
correctness  of  the  popular  theory 
as  to  his  date  wilf  no  longer  be 
doubtful.  No  argument  against 
this  can  be  founded  on  the  state- 
ment in  Plutarch,  Themist^  2,  that 
Stesimbrotus  asserted  that  Themis- 
tocles  had  listened  to  the  teaching 
of  Anaxagoras,  and  had  occupied 
himself  with  Melissus.  For  though 
Plut.  Cimon,  4  says  of  Stesimbro- 
tus that  he  wa.s  wtpl  rhy  avrhydftov 
Tf  XP^^O"  ''^  KifjMVi  yryovifs,  this 
evidence  can  be  no  more  worthy  of 
belief  in  regard  to  Anaxagoras 
than  to  Melibsus,  who  was  somewhat 
younger,  and  not  older  than  Anaxa- 
goras, according  to  the  reckoning 
of  Apollodorus ;  and  we  have  the 
choice  between  two  alternatives-  - 
either  to  suppose  that  Themistooles, 
during  his  stay  in  Asia  Minor 
(474  to  470  B.C.),  actually  came  in 
contact  (it  could  not  have  amounted 
to  more  than  this)  with  Anaxago- 
ras, who  was  then  in  Lampsacus, 
and  with  Melissus;   or  that  the 


326 


AXAXAGORAS. 


of  Empedocles  and  Leucippus.  This  learned  man,'  who 
is  also  named  with  distinction  among  the  most  ancient 
mathematicians  and  astronomers,^  came  from  his  native 


writer,  whose  work,  nccording  to 
Pint.  Per.  36,  was  composed  more 
than  forty  years  after  Themisto- 
fle8*8  death,  and  of  whose  untrast- 
worthiness  Plutarch  (Per,  13.  36; 
l^hemist.  24)  iiimishes  condosive 
proofs,  is  in  this  ease  also  speaking 
grouiidlessly,  or  inventing  with 
some  ulterior  parpose.  To  me  the 
latter  is  far  the  more  prol)abIe. 
As  little  can  be  said  for  the  state- 
ment that  Arch  elans,  the  disciple 
of  Anaxagoras.  was  regarded  by 
Panaetins  as  the  author  of  a  con- 
solatory poem  addressed  to  Cimon 
after  the  death  of  his  wife  (Pint, 
Cim.  4),  for  this  is  apparently  a 
mere  conjecture,  as  to  the  truth  of 
which  we  know  nothing ;  and  even 
if  we  accept  it  as  true,  we  are  al- 
together ignorant  how  long  this 
poem  wa«  composed  before  Oimon's 
death  (450),  how  old  Archelans 
was  at  the  time,  and  how  much 
younger  he  waa  than  Anaxagoras. 
Plutarch,  who  assigns  the  flight  of 
Anaxagoras  from  Athens  to  the 
period  immediately  preceding  the 
Peloponnesian  war,  thinks,  how- 
ever, that  the  chronology  is  in 
favour  of  the  opinion  of  Panaetius. 
For  similar  reasons,  we  should  not 
be  justified  by  the  statement  (even 
were  it  correct)  that  Socrates  was 
a  disciple  of  Anaxagoras.  in  assign- 
ing Anaxafix>ra6'8  residence  in 
Athens  to  the  fl^^t  third  of  the 
fifth  century.  I  have  already 
pho^m,  however,  elsewhere  (Part 
II.  a,  47,  third  edition)  how  little 
this  statement  is  t-o  be  trusted. 
Hermann  alleges  in  support  of  his 
theory,  that  it  is  only  on  his  cal- 
culation that  Protogoras  can  be  the 


disciple  of  Democritns,  and  Demo- 
critus  the  disciple  of  the  P^¥i«ns. 
whom  Xerxes  brooght  into  his  jn- 
temal  house ;  but  this  is  littl«  to 
the  purpose,  for  the  supposed 
discipleship  of  Protagoras  ein^- 
nates,  as  will  be  shown,  from  very 
doubtful  sources;  and  as  to  the 
Persian  instructors  of  Democritns, 
we  hare  already  seen  («frj».  p.  210^ 
that  the  story  is  altogether  zm- 
worthy  of  credit. 

*  KKa(oiJL4ytos  is  his  usual  ap- 

g illation.  His  father,  according  to 
iog.  ii.  6,  &c.  (cf.  Schaubach.  p. 
7).  was  called  Hegesibalos,  or  also 
£ubulus ;  on  account  of  his  wealth 
and  good  £&mily  he  occupied  a  pro- 
minent position. 

'  That  Anaxagoras  was  so,  there 
is  no  doubt,  but  how  he  arrived  at 
hie  extensive  knowledge  it  is  no 
longer  possible  to  discover.  In 
the  9ia$ox/i,  lie  was  UiniallT  placed 
after  Anaximenefi,  and  thereforr 
was  called  the  disciple  and  pdco»- 
wr  of  that  philosopher  (Cie.  X I^- 
i.  11,  26;  Biog.  Procem.  14,ii.6; 
Strabo,  xiv.  3,  36,  p.  645 ;  Clem. 
Strom,  i.  301  A. ;  Simpl.  Phf*.  6 
b;  Galen.  H.  Phil.  c.  2,  &c.';  ff- 
Schaubach,  p.  3  ;  Krische,  Fonch. 
61);  but  this  is,  of  coarse,  a 
wholly  unhistorical  combination, 
the  defence  of  which  ought  not  to 
have  been  attempted  by  Z^tort,  p. 
6  sq. ;  the  same  theory  peenos  to 
have  been  adopted  by  Eusebins 
(Pr.  Ev.  X.  14,  16)  and  Theodore- 
tus  (Cur,  Gr.  Aff.  22,  p.  24,  cf  ir. 
46,  p.  77),  when  they  represent 
him  as  the  contemporary  of  Pj"- 
thagoras  and  Xeoophanes,  and 
when  £u8ebius  places  his  hx^  in 


LIFE  AND   WRITINGS. 


827 


city  ClazomensB  *  to  Athens,*  where  in  his  person  philo- 
sophy first  became  naturalised ; '  and  though  throughout 
his  many  years*  residence  in  this  city,  he  had  to  struggle 
with  the  mistrust  and  prejudice  of  the  majority  of  the 
inhabitants,*  yet  there  were  not  wanting  intellectual  men, 


Oi.  70-3  and  his  death  in  01.  79-2. 
What  ia  said  abont  a  journey  of 
Anazagoras  to  Egypt  for  the  pur- 
poses of  cultnra,  by  Ammian,  zxii. 
16,  22;  Theod.  Cur.  Gr.  jff.  ii. 
23,  p.  24;  Cedren.  Hist.  94  B; 
cf.  Valer.  viii.  7,  6,  deaerves  no 
credit.  Josephus  brings  him  into 
connection  with  the  Jews  {C.  Ap, 
c.  16,  p.  482),  but  this  is  not  cor- 
rect. The  most  trustworthy  ac- 
counts are  entirely  silent  as  to  his 
teachers  and  the  course  of  his 
education.  From  lore  of  know- 
ledge, it  is  said,  he  neglected  his 
property,  left  his  land  to  be  pasture 
for  sheep,  and  finally  resigned  his 
property  to  his  relations  (Diog.  ii. 
6  sq.;  Plat.  Hipp.  Maj.  283  A; 
Plut.  Perid.  c.  16  ;  De  V.  JEre  Al. 
8,  8,  p.  831 ;  Cic.  Tu&c.  v.  39,  116 ; 
Valcr.  Max.  viii.  7,  ext.  6,  &c. ; 
Sehaubach,  7  aq.;  cf.  Arist.  Eih. 
A*,  ri.  7,  1141  b,  3);  nor  did,  he 
trouble  himself  about  politics,  but 
regarded  the  sky  as  his  fatherland, 
and  the  contemplation  of  the  stars 
as  his  Tocation  (Diog.  ii.  7,  10 ; 
Eudem.  Eih.  i.  5,  1216  a,  10;  Fhilo, 
£t€r7i.  M.  p.  939  B ;  Iamb.  Proirepi. 
c.  9,  p.  146  Kiessl. ;  Clem.  Strofn. 
ii.  416  D ;  Lactant.  InstiU  iii.  9, 
23;  cf.  Cic.  De  Orat.  iii.  16,  66. 

•  P8.-Plarx),  AnterasL;  Procl. 
in  Euclid.  19  65  sq.  Eriedl.  (after 
Eudemus):  -woW&y  iipffji^o  Karii 
yt»fUTpiw;  Plut.  De  Exil.  17 
end.  In  after  times,  some  pre- 
tended to  know  the  very  mountain 
(Mimas,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 


Chios)  on  the  summit  of  whidi 
Anazagoras  pursued  his  astrono- 
mical observations  (Philoetr.  ApoU. 
ii.  6,  3).  With  his  mathematical 
knowledge  are  also  combined  the 

Erophecies  which  are  ascribed  to 
im  ;  the  most  famous  of  these, 
the  fabled  prognostication  of  the 
much  talked  of  meteoric  stone  of 
Aegospotamus,  relates  to  an  oc- 
currence in  the  heavens,  and  is 
brought  into  connection  with  his 
theory  of  the  stars:  Dios.  ii.  10 ; 
Ael.  H,  Anim,  vii.  8;  Plin.  H. 
Kai.  ii.  68,  149  ;  Plut.  Li/sand.  12 ; 
Philostr.  Apcllon.  i.  2,  2,  viii.  7, 
29;  Ammian.  xxii.  16,  22 ;  Tzetz. 
CAt/.ii.892;  Suid.'Ai'olay. ;  Schau- 
hach,  p.  40  sqq. 

'  According  to  the  account  of 
Diog.  ii.  7,  prefaced  with  ^oo-Ik,  he 
lived  in  Athens  for  thirty  years. 
In  that  case  his  arrival  there  must 
have  taken  place  ahout  463  or 
462  B.C.  For  the  rest,  in  regard  to 
dates,  cf.  p.  321  sqq. 

'  Zeno  of  Elea  is  also  said  to 
have  lived  for  a  while  in  Athens, 
vide  Vol.  I.  p.  609,  1. 

*  Cf.  the  passnge  from  Plut.  Nic. 
23  discussed  supra,  p.  324 ;  Plato, 
Apol.  26  c,  sq. ;  and  Aristophanes, 
Clouds.  Even  the  appellation  Novf , 
which  is  said  to  have  been  given 
him,  was  no  doubt  rather  a  nick- 
name than  a  sign  of  respect  and 
recognition  (Plut.  Pericl.  4 ;  Timon, 
ap.  Diog.  ii.  6 ;  the  later  writers 
quoted  by  Sehaubach,  p.  36,  pro- 
bably copied  from  them). 


828 


ANAXAGOEAS. 


who  sought  his  instructive  society ;  ^  and  in  the  great 
Pericles  especially  he  found  a  protector  whose  friendship 
was  a  compensation  for  the  disfavour  of  the  populace.^ 
When,  however,  in  the  period  immediately  preceding 
the  Peloponnesian  War,  the  enemies  of  that  statesman 
began  to  attack  him  in  his  friends,  Anaxagoras  became 
implicated  in  a  charge  of  denying  the  gods  of  the  state, 
from  which  even  his  powerful  friend  could  not  altogether 
shield  him ;  he  was  therefore  obliged  to  quit  Athens,' 


'  Besides  ArcheUos.  and  Me- 
trodoras  (who  will  be  mentioned 
later  on)  and  Pericles,  Euripides 
is  also  spoken  of  as  a  disciple  of 
Anazagoms  (Diog.  ii.  10,45;  Suid. 
'Ebptw, ;  Diodor.  i.  7  end ;  Strabo, 
xW.  1,  S6,  p.  645;  Cic.  Tusc.  iii. 
14,  80  ;  Gell.  K-  A,  xv.  20,  4,  8  ; 
Alexander  Aetolus,  whom  he 
quotes;  Heracl.  MUff.  Horn,  22, 
p.  47 ;  M.  Dionys.  Halic.  Ar$ 
Bhet.  10,  11,  p.  800,  356  R,  &c. ; 
of.  Schaubach,  p.  20  8q.)i  &nd  he 
himself  seems  to  allude  to  the 
person  as  well  as  to  the  doctrines 
of  this  philosopher  (cf.  Vol.  II.  a, 
12,  8rd  ed.).  According  to  Antyllus 
ap.  Marcellin.  V.  Thucyd.  p.  4  D, 
Thncydides  had  also  heard  the 
discourses  of  Anaxngoras.  That 
it  is  a  mistake  to  represent  Eni- 
pedocles  as  his  disciple,  lias  been 
shown,  p.  187,  cf.  p.  118;  for  evi- 
dence that  Democrates  and  So- 
crates could  not  have  been  so,  cf.  p. 
210  and  Part  ii.  a,  47,  3rd  ed. 

*  On  Pericles'  relation  to  An- 
axagoras, cf.  Pint.  Per.  4,  6,  6,  16 ; 
Plato,  PluBdr,  270  A;  Alcih,  i.  118 
C  ;  £)).  ii.  311  A ;  Isocr.  t.  kmiUff. 
235  ;  P8.-Demo8th.  Amaior.  1414  ; 
Oic.  Brut.  II,  44;  i?tf  Orat  iii.  34, 
188;  Diodor.  xii.  39  (jmp,  p.  323); 
Diog.  ii.  18,  &C.,  ap.  Schaubach,  p. 


17  sq.  But  this  relation  became 
the  prey  of  anecdote  and  scanda]- 
mongtrs  (even  no  doubt  at  the 
time) ;  among  their  idle  inrentiocs 
I  include  the  statement  in  Plat 
Per.  16,  which  is  not  very  happily 
explained  by  Backhuysen  v.  d. 
Brinck,  that  once,  when  Pericles 
could  not  look  after  him  for  a  long 
time,  Anaxagoras  fell  into  grrat 
distress,  and  had  almost  resoiftd 
to  starve  himself  when  bis  piitroD 
opportunely  interposed. 

'  Concerning  these  events,  d. 
Diog.  ii.  12-16;  PluU  Per.  ti: 
yic.  28 ;  Diodor.  xii.  39 ;  Jos.  <•• 
Ap.  ii.  37  ;  Olympiod.  in  Mttwol 
5  a,  1,  136  Id.  (where,  in  cppcx-i- 
tion  to  all  the  most  trustworthy 
evidences,  Anaxagoras  is  rt-pnr- 
senied  as  having  returned) ;  Cyrill. 
C.  Jul.  vi.  189  E;  also  Lucian, 
rivion.  10;  Plato,  Apol  26  D? 
Laws,  xii.  967  C. ;  Aristid.  OnL 
45,  p.  83  Dind. ;  Schaubach.  p.  47 
sqq.  The  details  of  tbe  rrial  sre 
variously  given.  Most  accounis 
agree  that  Anaxagoras  was  put  ia 
prison,  but  some  say  that  bfl 
escaped  with  the  help  of  Periclw; 
others  that  he  was  set  at  libeitv. 
but  banished.  The  statement  of 
Satyrus,  ap.  Diog.  ii.  12  (as  to  tJi^ 
real  meaning  of  which  QUdiseh, 


CHARACTER  OF  HIS  DOCTRINE. 


329 


and  betook  himself  to  Lampsaeus,^  where  he  died,  about 
the  year  428  b.c.^  His  scientific  theories  had  been  em- 
bodied in  a  treatise  of  which  valuable  fragments  have 
been  preserred.* 

The  doctrine  of  Anaxagoras  is  closely  related  to  the 

Anax,  u,  d.  Isocr.  97.  offers  a  very 
improbable  conjecture),  that  he 
vatt  accused,  not  only  of  aff4fi*ia 
but  also  of  fiit^ifffths,  stands  quite 
lilone.  As  to  the  date  of  the  charge 
and  the  accusers,  ride  p.  323  sq. 

^  That  he  founded  a  school  of 
philosophy  there,  is  very  insuffi- 
ciently proved  by  the  statement 
of  Ensebius,  Pr,  Ev.  x.  14,  13, 
that  Archelaus  took  chaise  »f  his 
school  at  Lainpsacas;  and  from 
his  advanced  age,  it  is  not  likely. 
Indeed  it  is  a  question  whether  the 
conception  of  a  school,  generally 
speaking,  can  rightly  be  applied  to 
him  and  his  frieods. 

*  These  dates  are  given  by 
Diog.  ii,  7  in  part  after  Apollo- 
dorus ;  ride  sup.  p.  821  ;  that  at 
the  time  of  his  trial  he  was  old 
and  weak,  is  mentioned  also  by 
HieronymuB,  ap.  Diog.  14.  The 
assertion  that  he  died  from  volun- 
tary starvation  (Diog.  ii.  15 ;  Sttid. 
'A»a^aiy.  and  kiroKOprtpffiffas)  is 
very  suspicious  :  it  seems  to  have 
arisen  either  from  the  anecdote 
mentioned  p.  328,  1,  or  from  the 
Blatement  of  Hermippue,  ap.  Dio^. 
ii.  13,  that  he  killed  himself,  from 
grief  on  account  of  the  disgrace 
that  came  upon  him  through  his 
trial.  This  anecdote,  however,  as 
^e  have  said,  is  very  doubtful,  and 
relates  to  something  else ;  the  as- 
sertion of  Hermippus  cannot  be 
reconciled  either  with  the  fact  of 
his  residence  in  Lampsacus,  or 
with  what  we  know  of  the  equa- 
Ulity  with  which  Anaxagoras  bore 


his  condemnation  and  banishment, 
as  well  as  other  misfortunes.  The 
people  of  Lampsacus  honoured  his 
memory  by  a  public  funeral,  by 
altars,  and  (according  to  ^lian, 
dedicated  to  fiovs  and  'Ax^0«a)  by 
a  yearly  festival  which  lasted  for 
a  century  (Alcidamas.  ap.  Arist. 
Rhet,  ii.  23,  1398  b,  15  ;  Diog.  ii. 
14  sq. ;  cf.  Pint.  Praec,  Ger.  Reip. 
27,  9,  p.  820;  Ael.  V.  H.  viii.  19). 
'  This,  like  most  of  the  trea- 
tises of  the  ancient  philosophers, 
bears  the  title  wfpl  tpicfeas.  !For 
the  fragments  of  which  cf.  Schau- 
bach,  Sckorn  and  Mullach.  Be- 
sides this  treatise  he  is  said 
(Vitruv.  vii.  Prof,  11)  to  have 
written  on  Scenography;  and,  ac- 
cording to  Plutarch,  Ve  Exfl.  17, 
p.  607,  he  composed  a  treatise  in 
prison,  or  more  properly,  a  figure 
which  related  lo  the  squaring  of 
the  circle.  Schorn's  notion  (p.  4), 
that  the  author  of  the  work  on 
Scenography  is  another  person  of 
the  tame  name,  is  certainly  incor- 
rect. 2^vort*s  conjecture  seems 
more  plausible— that  the  treatise 
on  Scenography  formed  part  of  the 
treatise  vcpl  ^ictus,  and  that  this 
was  his  only  work ;  as  Diogenes,  i. 
16,  no  doubt  on  more  Hucient  autho- 
rity, gives  us  to  understand.  Of 
other  writings  there  are  no  definite 
traces  (vide  Schaubach,  51  sqq. ; 
Ritter,  Geschich.  cL  Ion.  Phil,  208). 
For  the  opinions  of  the  ancients 
on  Anaxagoras  cf.  Schaubach,  35 
sq.,  cf.  Diog.  ii.  6. 


330  ANAXAOORAS. 

contemporaneous  systems  of  Empedocles  and  Leucippiis* 
The  common  starting  point  of  all  three  is  found  in  tlie 
propositions  of  Parmenides  on  the  impossibility  of  gene- 
ration and  destruction ;  their  common  aim  is  the  ex- 
planation of  the  actual,  the  plurality  and  variability  of 
which  they  acknowledge ;  and  for  this  purpose  they  all 
presuppose  certain  unchangeable  primitive  substaoces, 
from  which  all  things  are  formed  by  means  of  combi- 
nation and  separation  in  space.  Anaxagoras,  however, 
is  distinguished  from  the  two  other  philosophers  in  his 
more  precise  definitions  concerning  the  primitive  sab- 
stances  and  the  cause  of  their  motion.  They  conceive 
tlie  original  substances  without  the  qualities  of  tbe 
derived  :  Empedocles  as  elements  qualitatively  distinct 
from  each  other,  and  limited  in  number  ;  Leucippns  as 
atoms,  unlimited  as  to  form  and  number,  but  homoge- 
neous as  to  quality.  Anaxagoras,  on  the  other  hand, 
supposes  all  the  qualities  and  diflferences  of  derived 
things  already  inherent  in  the  primitive  liiatter,  and 
therefore  conceives  the  original  substances  as  unlimited 
in  kind,  as  well  as  in  number.  Moreover,  while  Empe- 
docles explained  motion  by  the  mythical  forms  of  Tiove 
and  Hate,  and  therefore  in  reality  not  at  all ;  and  the 
Atomists  on  their  side  explained  it  mechanically  by  tbe 
effect  of  weight,  Anaxagoras  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  can  be  only  understood  as  the  working  of  an  in- 
corporeal force ;  and  he  accordingly  opposes  to  matter, 
mind,  as  the  cause  of  all  motion  and  order.  On  these 
two  points  all  that  is  peculiar  to  his  philosophy,  so  far 
as  we  are  acquainted  with  it,  may  be  said  to  turn. 
The  first  presupposition  of  his  system  lies,  as  before 


OENERATION  AND  DESTRUCTION.  881 

remarked,  in  the  theorem  of  the  unthinkableness  of 
absolute  Becoming.  'Of  generation  and  destruction 
the  Greeks  do  not  speak  correctly*  For  nothing  is 
generated  nor  destroyed,  but  out  of  existing  things 
everything  is  compounded,  and  again  separated.  The 
right  course,  therefore,  would  be  to  designate  generation 
as  combination,  and  destniction  as  separation.'  *  Anaxa- 
goras,  accordingly,  is  as  unable  to  conceive  generation 
and  destruction  in  the  specific  sense  of  the  words,  as 
Parmenides ;  for  this  reason  he  also  maintains  that  the 
totality  of  things  can  neither  increase  nor  diminish  ;^ 
and  in  his  opinion  it  is  an  improper  use  of  language  to 
employ  such  expressions  at  all.*  In  truth,  the  so-called 
Becoming  of  the  new  and  cessation  of  the  old,  is  only 
the  change  of  something  that  previously  existed,  and 
continues  afterwards  ;  and  this  change  is  not  a  qualita- 
tive, but  a  mechanical  change :  the  substance  remains 
what  it  was,  only  the  mode  of  its  composition  changes ; 
generation  consists  in  the  combination,  destruction  in 
the  separation,  of  certain  substances.* 

»  Fr.  22  Schauh,  17  Mull. :  t^  kWk  vdpra  X<ra  cu«(. 
S«  ylvftrdeu  Koi  a'w6xxwr$ai  oitic  6p-  *  In  the  fragment  just  quoted 

Ws  ¥Ofu(owrty  ot  "EAAijwf,     ovScf  •*  yofAl^eii^ "  seemn  to  allude  (as,  iu- 

7ip  XP^/ut  ylytrtUf  owJi  air^Wvrcu,  deed,  the  mention  of  ***EAAiji»ef " 

&AX'  iir*    i6vT9ov    xf^lM^'^'^    ^^f*-'  would  lead  us  to  suspect)  to  the 

}^<ryrrai    re    ical    fiioirplMrai,    koX  current  expression,    which    corre- 

Q^tos  hif  hp9S»9  Kdkoitif  r6  re  ylyt'  sponds  with  the  **y6fi^"  of  Em- 

<r*cu  (nfif»lffy9a0ai  Kol  rh  kxdXXv-  pedocles  and  Democritus  (p.  124, 

(rem  haKpiytffdai.    The  treati^  of  1 ;  219,  3),  and  with  the  '*  Wof " 

Anaxagoras  did   not   begin    with  of  Parmenides   (V.   64,  ride  sup. 

these  words;  but  that  is,  of  course,  Vol.  I.  p.  684,  1),  and  is  therefore 

Doreason  why  they  should  not  form  not  quite  accurately  translated  by 

the  starting-point  of  his  system.  '  beliere.' 

*  Fr.  14:  rovritoy  8c  o&ra»  ^la-  *  Arist.  Phys.  i.  4,  187  a,  26: 

KMKpiyAywy  yiyJ»ffKtiy  xp^»  8t«  irstvra  loiice  9i  *Ay9^ay6pas  iirupa  ofSrcts 

oit^kv  4\daffot  iarW  oM  w\4w  ob  olnBrjimt  [7 A  aroixf^ot]  8i4  rh  inco' 

ynp   ipverrhy    vdynuy    Tktw   flvai,  \afjLPdyuy  r\\v    noiv^y    Sd^oy    r&y 


332 


ANAXAGORAS. 


In  this  manner  a  plurality  of  original  substances 
was  at  once  admitted ;  but  whereas  Empedocles  and  the 
Atomists  maintain  the  simplest  bodies  to  be  the  most 
primitive,  and  ac5cordingIy  ascribe  to  their  primitive 
substances,  besides  the^  universal  qualities  of  all  matter 
only  the  mathematical  characteristic  of  form,  or  the 
siniple  qualities  of  the  four  elements,  Anazagoras,  on 
the  contrary,  believes  that  the  individually  determinate 
bodies — such  as  flesh,  bones,  gold,  &c. — are  the  most 
primritivej  and  that  the  elementary  substances  are  only 
a  mixture,*  the  apparent  simpleness  of  wliich  he  explains 


^v<riK&v  (Tfck  ikXrfBrif  &s  ob  ytvofi4' 
Vov  Mfv6s  ix  rov  [lii  ivrot  *  3i^ 
Tovro  7^  ofhta  Kiyowriv^  *'  ^v  tyuov 
rk  udma^  koSl  "r}yyiv*aQai  tok^kSc 
HtxBi<rrj\mif  kWoiovifBtu"  ol  8i 
a^Kpurty  koI  ^liMpitriv.  $ti  8*  ^ic 
rov  yiytoBeu  i^  iiXk^Xww  riivcafrla' 
ivvinipxty  *if»,  etc.  The  words  t^ 
ylv.  —  iiWoioiHrBeu  seem  to  me  to 
contain,  like  Vhe  precediig  words, 
a  direct  citation ;  bo  that  we  should 
translate  the  passage  thus:  'For 
therefore  they  say  all  ehings  were 
united  together,'  and  *  Becoming 
means  ta  chaqge/  or  they  also 
speak  of  combi nation*  and  separa- 
tion. Therp  is  another  nlluBioir 
to  these  words  in  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1, 
3 1 4  a,  1 3 :  KaWoi  *Aya^ay6iMs  y*  r^v 
oiK^ioLv  ipwv)it  ^^v<Jn<»'€V  •  Kiy^i  yovv 
&S  rh  yiyvvfBeu  Koi  iiw6\Xvtr$u 
rainhp  iea$4arriK9  r^  iL\\otowT$m 
^which  is  repeated  by  Philop.  ad 
n.  I.  p.  8).  In  any  case,  we  find 
in  this  a  confirmation  of  the  state- 
ment that  Anaxagoras  expressly 
reduced  'Becoming'  to  aWolutris 
(cf.  p.  71);  when,  therefore,  Por- 
phyry (ap.  Simpi.  Pk^s.  34  b),  in 
this  passage  of  the  Physios,  pro- 
poses to  refer  the  words  rh  ylytaSaif 


etc,  to  Anaximenes  instead  of  An- 
axagoras. he  is  c«*rtainly  in  error. 
On  ffvyKpiffis  and  ticucpurit,  vida 
Metaph.  I.  3  (following  note)  and 
Gm.  An.  i.  18  {inf.  p.  834,  1). 
Later  testimonies  reiterating  tluit 
of  Aristotle,  ap.  Schanbach,  77 
sq.,  136  sq. 

»  Arisf.  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1,  314 
a,  18  :  ^  A^^cTdp  (Anaxag.)Ti  ^w- 
ficp^  (rToix*7a  rlBiiirtP  otov  offrovv 
KcH.  cdoKa  Koi  fivfXhy  «cal  rdr  iXXtrr 
&v  kxiffrov  avy^yufiop  (sc  ry  SXf, 
as  Philoponus,  ad  h.  I.  3  a,  rigbtlr 
explains)  rh  fi4pos  ivriw  .  .  • 
ivavriwi  8^  ^aivorrcu  X^rrn  W 
»fpl  'Ava^aySpov  rois  »f pi  'E^»«J*- 
K\4a'  6  fiiy  ydp  ^i}<ri  vvp  vol  Sitep 
Kal  ii4pa  KoX  yriy  trroix*UL  r4ffS9f9 
icoi  atrX.a  cTi^eu  fxaXXop  ^  adpua  Ktl 
6^Tovy  teal  rii  roiavra  rw  hfUM^ 
puVj  ol  8i  ravra  fi^v  airka  nol  tfr*- 
X(<«,  yriy  ^1  ical  wvp  koI  S9vp  km 
ii4pa  ffMfra'  raufirw^jiiaif  y^ 
cfyw  roihuy  (for  they,  the  four 
elements,  are  an  assemblage  of 
them,  the  determinate  bodies). 
Similarly,  J>e  Cmlo,  iii.  3.  802  a. 
28 :  'Ara{ay<{paf  V  'f^at^^okku 
ivfunion  K4y€i  »«pl  rAv  tfrocx*^. 
6  Illy  yap  wvp  jcol  yijy  xax  ri  ^^ 


rRlMITIVE  SUBSTANCES. 


833 


by  saying  that,  on  account  of  the  amalgamation  of  all 
possible  detenninate  substances,  not  one  of  these  is  per- 


ffTotx*  robots  trroix^'td.  ^<riv  §lyai 
Twv  <r«*fjdT»v  KoX  (rvyKturScu  irdtn' 
ix  ro6rw¥,  *Aya^ay6pas   9h  robvw- 
riov.     rh.  ykp   duoiofttpri   ffroix^<^ 
{\iy0  S*  oJov  trdpKa  koX  ^rovy  wal 
r&y  roio(nc»p  €Kaffr»y),  itpa  5i  koI 
vvp  fMyfM  Tovrwv  Kal  rwv  iiXAwv 
vwtpftdrwp  •wdm»p'  ciKOi  ykp  ixd- 
rtpoy  oSnmv  ^|  hopdrotv  dfxoiofitp&r 
wimmv  ^$pot<rfi4pcov.    In  like  man- 
ner Simpl.,  tn  A./.,  «ip.  Vol.1,  p  233, 
1 ;  236,  1 ;  rf.  Theophr.  K  PianL 
ill.  1, 4 ;  ibid.  ap.  Simpl.  Pkt/8.  6  b ; 
Locret  i.  834  sq. ;  Alex.  Aphr.  J)e 
Mizt.  141  b ;  cf.  147  b ;  Diog.  ii.  8, 
etc.,  vide  p.  333  sq.     This  seems 
to  be  contradicted  by^Ariet.  Me- 
taph.  i.  3, 984  a,  1 1 :  *Apa$,ay6pas  8i 
.  .  .  iartipovs  ttyal  ^<ri  r&s  apx<i^  * 
ax^iify  y^  &wayra  t&   ^/iotojucp^, 
xaddictp  t9t0p  fl  •wvptoOru  yly- 
varStti  ffol  i,ir6}iXv<r0ed  <^ri<ri  ffvyKpi' 
0'«t  Km  dicJtpla^i  fiSyoPf  Awtts   5* 
odrt   yiyy€<r0ai     ofh'    kw6\\vaBaiy 
kwh  9u^l4yt^y  atita.    But  the  words 
tcoBdtctp  SBtfp  ^  irvp  may  also  signify 
that  the  conception  of  dfioiofitph 
is   explained    through    them    by 
Aristotle  only  in  his  own  name; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  0'x<S^^  in- 
dicates that  Anaxagoras  did   not 
reckon  all  which  Ari»totle  includes 
under  this  conception  as  primitive 
Babstances  (Breier,  Philos.  d.  Anax,, 
40  sq.,  after  Alexander,  cut  h.  I.) ; 
or,  still  better,  the  words  may  be 
an  allusion  to  what  has  previously 
been  quoted  from  Empedoclos :  for 
he  maintains  that  all  bodies  of 
equal  parts,  as  well  as  the  elements 
(acconling  to  Empedocles),  origi- 
nate only  in   the  given  manner, 
through  combination  and  separa- 
tion (cf.  Bonitz,  III  h.  I.).    The 
passages,  aa  Schwegler  remarks, 


only  assert  the  same  thing  as  the 
fragment  quoted,  p.  331,  1,  and  we 
have  no  reason  (with  Schaiibach, 
p.  81)  to  mistrust  the  express 
titatements  of  Aristotle  in  the  two 
passages  first  quoted.  Philoponus 
indeed,  Gen.  et  Corr.  3  b,  coutra- 
dicta  his  statement  with  the  asser- 
tion that  the  elements  also  belong 
to  the  class  of  things  that  have 
equal  parts.  But  this  is  of  little 
import^ince ;  for  if  we  may  argue 
from  other  analogies,  this  theory 
has  only  been  invented  by  Philo- 
ponus from  the  Aristotelian  con- 
ception  of  that  which  has  equal 
parts.  The  mode  of  conception 
which  Aristotle  ascribes  to  Anaxa- 
goras, moreover,  perfectly  agrees 
with  the  general  tendency  of  his 
doctrine;  since  he  supposes  that 
no  quality,  pen.*eptible  to  sense, 
appears  in  the  original  mixture  of 
substances,  it  may  also  seem  to 
him  natural  that,  after  its  first 
imperfect  separation,  only  the 
most  universal  qualities,  the  ele- 
mentary, should  be  observable. 
Moreover,  Anaxagoras  (vide  infra) 
does  not  suppose  the  four  elements 
to  be  equally  primitive ;  but,  first, 
he  makes  fire  and  air  separate 
themselves,  and  out  of  fire  and 
air  arise  water  and  earth.  When 
Heracleitus,  Alfeg.  Ham.,  22,  p.  46, 
ascribes  to  Anaxagoras  the  theory 
which  is  elsewhere  ascribed  to 
Xenophanes — ^that  water  and  earth 
are  the  elements  of  all  things  (not 
merely  of  men,  as  Gladisch  says, 
Anax,  u.  d.  Jsr.) — he  can  only 
have  arrived  at  that  incomprehen- 
sible statement  through  the  verses 
there  quoted  from  Euripides,  the 
supposed  disciple  of  Anaxagoras. 


334 


ANAXAGORAS. 


ceived  in  its  diBtinctive  individuality,  but  only  that 
is  perceived  wherein  they  all  agree.*  Empedocles  and 
the  Atomists  hold  that  the  organic  is  formed  from  the 
elementary;  Anaxagoras,  conversely,  that  the  elementaiy 
is  formed  from  the  constituents  of  the  organic.  Aristotle 
usually  expresses  this  by  asserting  that  Anaiagoras 
maintained  the  bodies  of  similar  parts  {rh  6fiou>fUpri) 
to  be  the  elements  of  things,'*  and  later  writers  call  his 
primitive  substances  by  the  name  of  ofioiofjJpsuu.* 


»  In  the  samp  way  perhaps  that 
Beemingly  colouplees  light  arises 
from  the  mixture  of  all  coloured 
lights. 

»  Vide,  besides  the  quotations 
in  the  note  before  the  last,  Gen. 
Anim.  i.  18,  723  a,  b  (on  the  opinion 
that  the  teed  must  contain  in  itself 
parts  of  all  the  members) :  A  ainhs^ 

6fioiofup&v,     Ph\f8.  i.  4,  187  a.  25: 

(iroieT  'AwCavO.  i^^-  t"*  *'  ^03  a, 
19  :  8<ro»  8'  &TC(pa  woioC<rt  rh,  crof 
X«ra,  KoBdrtp ' Aifo^ayipai  icol  A7J/a<^ 
Kpnoi,  6  juir  iK  Tuv  6notofi€puy  6  V 
iK  T^f  wayartpulas  rStv  cx^fk^rvw, 
TTj  i^B  <rwfx*$  T^  tvtipov  cTyoi 
^affiv.  Metaph.  i.  7,  988  a.  28 : 
*Ava^ay6pas  8i  r^v  ru¥  6fjLOiofi§p&¥ 
ar€iplw  [i^pxhy  ?^^7«]-  -^fi  Cotlo, 
iii.  4 :  vp&rov  nfv  otif  Bri  ovk  itrriw 
&ireif»a  [ri  <rTOiX«*o]  •  •  •  «««pirr^o; 
ical  vp&rov  rovs  wovra  rh  dfiotofAtpfj 
(rroix^M  xoiovvras,  KoBdwep  'Avola- 
y6pas.  Gen.  Anim.  ii.  4  sq.,  740 
b,  16,  74i  b,  13,  can  scarcely  be 
quoted  in  this  connection. 

•  The  word  is  first  met  with  in 
Lucretius,  who,  however,  uses  it, 
not  in  the  plural  for  the  several 
primitive  elements,  but  in  the  sin- 
gular,  for   the  totality  of  these; 


so  that  ii  6fiotofi4ptia  is  synonymoos 
"« Ith  tA  6fwion€pii  (so  at  least  his 
Words  seem  to  me  best  explsined ; 
Breier,  p.  11,  explains  them  some- 
what differently) ;  for  the  rest  he 
pives  a  sufficiently  accante  ac- 
count, i.  830  :— 
nunc  et  Anaxttgora  tcrui^nv  ho- 

moBomeriam, 
guam  Graii  memorant,  &c 

834:— 

principio,  rerum  quom  dicU  hoi«^> 

meriam    (al,    itrincipiua  nr. 

guam  d,  horn.) 
ossa    videlicet    e    pauxiUit   ai^ 

minutis 
08sibu6  kic,  et  de  pauxdlis  aiquf 

miniUia 
visceribus  viscm  ffifftu,  sanguenqvt 

creari  , 

sanguinis  inter  sc  multis  ec€ttnt&^ 

guttisy 
ex  aitrique  putat  mieis  consisiere 


aurum,  et  de  terris  terram  co«t«- 

cere  parvis 
ignibus  ex  ignis,  umorem  umorm 

esse, 
cetera  consimili  fingit  ratiom  |«»- 

tatque. 
The  plural  Afiotm^p^wu  is  first  found 
in  later  writers.     Plut,  Peri(d.  c 


PRIMITIVE  SUBSTANCES, 


335 


Anazagoras  himself  cannot  have  employed  these 
expressions,^  for  not  merely  are  they  wholly  absent  from 
the  fragments  of  his  treatise,^  but  they  can  only  be  ex- 
plained in  connection  with  Aristotle's  use  of  language.* 


4 :  vovp  .  .  .  kwoKpiyovra  r&f  6fioiO' 
tuptias.  Sext*  Pyrrh.  iii.  83 :  rots 
mfiX  *Aya^ay6fioaf  ircuray  oIo^t^v 
TOM^Tifra  vcpl  rail  ifwiofitptiais  &iro- 
Xfirowuf,  Math.  x.  26»  2 :  ol  7&f> 
MfAOvs  ctirdj^cf  fj  6fxotofitptlas  fj 
irfKovs.  §  254.  Diog.  ii.  8 :  apx^s 
^  riis  ^fMio/itptittS'  KoBimtp  yiip  iK 
Twy  r^ftdi  »y  Ktyofi^yav  rhy  XP^ff  ^^ 
avywrdunu,  oirrtf  s  ix  Twy  dfioiofitpwy 
iwcpvy  <r»fJifrwy  rh  xSy  mryKtKpl' 
ffBou,  Simpl.  Phys.  258  a:  4d6Kti 
8c  X^iy  6  'Ayo^M  Srt  dfjLOV  irdyrwv 
oyrvy  x/ni/x^rory  ffol  iiptixoiyrwp  rhy 
irtipop  vp!6  rvv  xp^'^*^*  fiovKriOtls  6 
Kofffionoihs  yovs  duucpTyai  rit  elSij 
(kinds  of  things,  not  as  the  word 
has  been  translated,  'ideas;'  it 
seems  to  refer  to  Anaxag.  Fr,  3). 
&r€p  6iioiofA€p€ias  icaXei,  Klvriffty  a&- 
Tois  iytvoiTicty,  Ibid.  38  a,  106 
a,  10,  and  Porphyry  and  Themis- 
tiii8,  who  are  both  cited  by  him 
here  {Phys,  16  b.  p.  107  Sp.). 
Philop.  Phys,  A,  10;  Ibid.  Gen,  et 
(hrr,  3  b;  Pint.  Plac.  i.  3,  8 
(Stob.  i.  296) :  'Ava^ay.  .  .  .  a^x*^* 
rmy  Sfrwy  riLs  i/junofuptlas  &rf^^ 
varo,  and  af  :er  the  reasons  of  this 
theory  baye  been  discussed:  iarh 
rod  oSy  Hfioia  rii  fi4pri  tlycu  iy  rp 
rpo^  Tois  y^yywfiiyois  6fu>iopL§ptias 
oiinks  iKd\€ff9, 

*  Schleiermacher  was  the  first 
to  announce  this  (on  l)iog.  Werke^ 
iii.  2,  167;  Gesch,  d,  Phil,  43), 
afterwards  Ritter  (A>».  Phil.  211, 
269;  G€9ch.  d.  Phil  i.  303) ;  Phi- 
lippson  CTAij  iky0p.  188  sqq.) ;  Hegel 
{Gesch.  d,  Phil.  i.  359) ;  and  subse- 
quently Breier  (Phil.  d.  Anax.  1  -64), 
with  whom  modern  writeis  almost 


without  exception  agree,  and  whom 
we  chiefly  follow  in  our  exposition, 
places  it  beyond  a  doubt  by  a 
thorough  enquiry  into  this  whole 
doctrine.  The  opposite  theory  is 
held  by  all  the  earlier  writers,  and 
by  Schaubach,  p.  89 ;  Wendt,  tu 
Tmnemann^  i.  384 ;  Brandis.  I.  c. 
245  (oiherwiee  in  Gesch  d.  Entw, 
i.  123) :  Marbach,  Gesch,  d.  PhU. 
i.  79  ;  Z^vort,  53  sqq. 

'  In  places  where  we  should 
hare  expected  the  words  rh  biuao- 
/Atprif  as  in  Fr.  i.  3,  6  (4),  Anaxa- 
troras  has  inrtpfiara,  or,  still  more 
indefinitely,  xp^/^'*'^  Cf.  Simpl. 
De  Calo,  268  b,  37  (Schol.  613  a, 
39):  'Ayo^oy.  rh  i/xotofitpTj  itoy 
ffdpKa  Kcd  horovv  koX  rh  roiavra^ 
Sactp  cnr4pfjLara  indKri. 

'  Aristotle  designates  by  the 
name  of  bfiotofitp^s  ( GleichthtUig)  of 
like  parts,  bodies  which  in  all  their 
parts  consist  of  one  and  the  same 
substance,  in  which,  therefore,  all 
parts  are  of  like  kind  with  each 
other  and  with  the  whole  (cf.  on 
this  point  Gen,  et  Corr.  i.  1,  and 
Philop.  in  h,  I.  p.  332,  1  ;  ibid.  i. 
10,  328  a,  8  sqq. ;  Part.  Anim,  ii. 
2,  647  b,  17,  where  ^/noio/ieph  and 
rh  fiipos  6fju&yvfioy  r^  BAjp  express 
the  same  idea.  Alexander,  De 
Mixt.  147  b:  hyofiotofifpii  fi^y  rh 
ix  lit€Uptp6yrocy  fitp&y  ffvytarura,  &f 
xp6<r«aitoy  ical  x'Vi  ^l^oiofitpri  8i  cdp^ 
rts  [t«1  ffol  hara,  /ivs  Koi  atfia  Koi 
^\^^f  i?uus  &P  rh  fi6pia.  rots  tiXois 
iarl  (n;»^0ivt;/ia),  and  he  distinguishes 
from  the  6fioioiAtpks  on  the  one 
hand,  the  elementary  (which,  how- 
cTer,  is  reckoned  with  the  dfioto^ 


338 


ANAXAGORASn 


He  certainly  cannot  have  spoken  of  elements,  for  this 

term  was  first  introduced  into  philosophy  by  Plato  and 

Aristotle ;  *  and  the  primitive  substances  of  Anaxagoras 

are  besides,  in  accordance  with  what  we  have  already  said, 

something  different  from  the  elements.     His  meaning 

is  rather  that  the  substances  of  which  things  consist,  are 

in  this,  their  qualitative  determinateness,  underived  and 

imperishable ;  and  since  there  are  innumerable  things, 

of  which  no  two  are  perfectly  alike,  he  says  that  there  are 

innumerable  seeds,  not  one  of  which  resembles  another,^ 

jucpcf,  aup,  p.  332,  1,  and  De  Cce^o, 
iii.  4,  302  b,  17)  ;  and  on  the  other, 
the  flo-called  organic  in  the  nar- 
rower sense.  In  this  graduated 
scale,  formed  by  these  three  kind^, 
he  always  indicates  the  lower  as 
the  constituent  and  condition  of  the 
higher;  the  dfjMioutph  consists  of 
the  elements ;  the  organic,  of  the 
substances  of  like  parts;  to  the 
tfiotofAff,ks  belong  flesh,  bone,  gold, 
ailrer,  &c.;  to  the  organic,  or  of 
unlike  parts,  the  face,  hands,  &c., 
vide  ParL  Anim.  ii.  1  ;  De  Gen. 
Anim.  i.  1,  715  a,  9  ;  Meteor,  iv.  8, 
384  a,  30 ;  De  Cctlo,  iii.  4,  302  b, 
16  sq.,  Hist.  Anim,  i.  1 :  r&v  ip  rots 
C^ois  fioplcty  tA  fjL^v  4<my  iLffM^ra^ 
iira  Siaipcirai  tls  ^/loiofitpiij  otoy 
adpKts  CIS  ffdpnas,  rk  8i  (rMcTa, 
Zffa  els  &yo/uo(o/xcp^,  oXov  ^  x^^P  ^^"^ 
els  X^'P'^  tuupuTM  ohJik  rh  irp6ffoi' 
ftoy  €ls  xp6<rcoira.  Further  details 
in  Breier,  I.  c.  16  sqq. ;  Ideler  on 
the  Meteor.  L  c,  where  references 
to  TheophrastuB,  Galen,  and  Plo- 
tinus.  are  giren.  In  the  discrimi- 
nation of  like  and  unlike  parts, 
Plato  anticipated  Aristotle  [Prot. 
320  B,  340  C);  the  expression 
6fjMiofi€p^s,  it  is  true,  does  not  oc- 
cur, which  is  another  proof  of  its 
Aristotelian  origin,  but  the   idea 


is  there  very  decidedly :  rtyra  5« 
ravra  fi6pia  e7nu  iprriis,  oix  *' 
rh  rov  XP^*^^^  lUpm  ZfUMi  iera 
hkkiiKoiS  KtCL  r^  2\y  oS  itipti  i^rir, 
kKK"  iff  rh,  rod  xpoff^w  fUpu  sal 
r^  3X9»  ov  fiSpui  itrri  xal  iXxi^f 
hf6iMta.  The  comprehensire  ap- 
plication of  this  distinction,  how- 
ever, which  we  find  in  Aristotle,  is 
wanting  in  Pbta  According  to 
what  hps  been  said,  the  expla- 
nation in  the  Placita^  I.  e.;  Sext 
Math.  X.  318  ;  Hippol.  ReftU.  x.  7, 
of  the  Homoeomeries  as  tpM.  ntr 
y*yywn4yots,  is  incorrect 

>  Cf.  p.  126,  1. 

•  ^.  6  (4)  :  V  ir6tifu^n  ri^ 
XPVf^ruVf  rov  re  Biepw  nt  rw 
^flpov,  Kol  rov  O^pfiov  ffol  rov  ^fwXP^' 
Mcil  rov  hapLvpov  koX  rov  (o^tpti, 
Koi  yris  woAA^s  iyo^inis  xmL  ntf 
IJidrwy  ioTflpety  irXiiBovs  olfSkw  int^ 
rwy  hWifXois.  o68i  yhp  rm^  iXJ^ 
(besides  the  substances  alreadj 
named,  the  B^pfjAy,  &c.)  obikpktxt 
r^  Iriptf  rh  irtpoy.  Fr.  13  (6): 
Irtpoy  obd4y  (besides  yovs)  iffrir 
ZfMioy  oh9€y\  Ir^py  hw^ipmy  Urr», 
Fr.  8 :  trtpoy  8^  oitUy  itrrv  lpM» 
odtff rl  JkKK^.  The  infinice  number 
of  primitive  matters  is  often  men- 
tioned, e.g.  in  Fr.  1  {inf.  p.  338,1); 
e.g.  Fr,  I ;  Arist,  Moie^.  i.  3,  7; 


PRIMITIVE  SUBSTANCES. 


837 


but  they  are  different  in  shape,  colour,  and  taste.  ^ 
Whether  this  statement  relates  only  to  the  various 
ddsaes  of  the  original  substances,  and  to  the  things  com- 
pounded from  them,  or  whether  the  individual  atoms 
of  matter  of  the  same  class  are  also  unlike  each  other, 
is  not  specified,  and  this  question  was  probably  not 
entertained  by  Anaxagoras ;  nor  is  there  any  trace  of  his 
having  brought  the  infinitely  heterogeneous  character 
of  the  primitive  substances  into  connection  with  more 
general  metaphysical  considerations;*  it  is  most  pro- 
bable, therefore,  that,  like  the  Atomists,  he  founded  it 
merely  upon  the  multiplicity  of  phenomena  as  shown 
by  experience.  Among  the  opposite  qualities  of  things, 
we  find  the  categories  of  the  rare  and  the  dense,  the 
warm  and  the  cold,  light  and  dark,  moist  and  dry, 
brought  into  especial  prominence ; '  but  as  Anaxagoras 


?hyt,  i.  4,  iii.  4 ;  De  Catlo,  iii.  4 
(wi>.p.332, 1 ;  334, 1);  DeMeliseo, 
c.  2, 97d  b,  17,  &c.,  vide  Schaubach, 
71  s<^.  Cicero,  Acad,  ii.  37, 1 18,  says 
Anaxagoras  taught :  materiam  i»- 
Jiniiamy  ted  ex  ea  particulas  similes 
inter  se  mintUas,  bat  this  is  only  a 
wrong  intarpretatioii  of  the  Sfioio- 
fMpq,  which  he  no  doubt  took  from 
his  Greek  authority;  in  order  to 
correspond  with  oHikv  4oue6rmy  in 
Fr.  6,we  should  here  read  dissimiUs, 
In  fayour  of  this  conjecture  we 
might  quote  Aug.  Civ.  D.  yiii.  2 : 
^  particuUs  inter  se  dissimHibus^ 
corpora  dissimilia  (vide  infra, 
Anaxagorean  School ;  Archelaus). 
*  ^.  3 :  rovrimp  tk  o0t«s  ^x6v-' 
"^^  XP^  SoK^cijr  iywai  (this  reading, 
BQggeBted  by  Simpl.  De  Calo,  271 
a.  31;  Schol  613  b,  45,  is  rightly 
adopted  by  Schaubach  and  Mul- 
^ach:  Brandi8,p.  242;  and  Schom, 

YOL.   II.  S 


p.  21,  defend  tv  cTmm,  but  this 
makes  no  proper  sense),  roXXd  re 
JCcU  iraifTOia  iy  waai  rots  <rvyKpiyofi4~ 
yoa  (this  will  be  further  discussed 
later  on)  kciI  tnripnarra  vdyrwy 
Xp^fidrtty  Koi  i94as  wayroias  Ixovra 
ffol  xp^^i  fdi  ii^oydt.  On  the 
meaning  of  h^oyii^  vide  VoL  I.  p. 
291,  2,  and  supra,  p.  38,  1.  Here 
also  it  may  be  translated  '  smell/ 
but  '  taste '  is  much  more  appro- 
priate. It  is  most  probable,  now- 
ever,  that  the  word,  like  the  German 
'  SchmecJken  *  in  certain  dialects, 
unites  both  si^ifications  without 
any  accurate  ditttinction. 

s  Like  that  of  Leibnitz,  as* 
cribed  to  him  by  Bitter,  Jon,  Phil, 
218;  Gesch.  d,  Phil.  i.  307,  that 
everything  maintains  its  individual 
character  through  its  relation  to 
the  whole. 

•Ft,  6,  p.  836,2;  Fr.  8  (6): 


838 


A2fAXAG0RA& 


supposed  the  particular  sabstances  to  be  original,  with- 
out deriving  them  from  ime  primitive  matter,  the  per- 
ception of  these  universal  opposites  cannot  have  the 
same  importance  for  him  as  for  the  Fhysidsts  of  the 
ancient  Ionian  School  or  for  the  Pythagoreans. 

All  these  different  bodies  Anaxagoras  then  conceives 
afi  originally  mixed  together,  so  completely  and  in  such 
minute  particles,  that  not  one  of  them  was  perceptible 
in  its  individuality,  and,  consequently,  the  mixture 
as  a  whole  displayed  none  of  the  definite  qualities  of 
things.*  Even  in  derived  things,  however,  he  believes 
the  separation  cannot  be  complete,  but  each  must 
contain  parts  of  all;^  for  how  could  one  come  out  of 

itwoKplyerai  iiw6  rt  rov  itpauov  th 
rvKvhy,  icol  hrh  rov  ^mxP^v  rh  BtpfthVf 
Koi  iL%b  rod  (o^tpov  rh  Xofjivphw, 
xal  iarh  rov  StcpoS  rh  ^p6p.  Ft. 
19  (8):  rh  fj^¥  mmyhv  Kcd  ^itphv 
KoX  ^XP^^  '^^  (o^phif  4if66SM  trvy*- 
X^pyitrtv,  iv9a  vvv  ji  71?,  rh  W  kpaihy 
Mai  rh  $9pfihv  KcH  rh  ^Jiphvi^ex^ptl^^i^ 
els  rh  irp6<r»  rov  alBdpos.  Vide  p. 
339, 1.  It  18  no  doubt  in  reference 
to  these  and  similar  passages  that 
Aristotle,  /'Ays.  i.  4  {sup.  p.  S34,  2), 
calls  the  6/ioto^cp^  also  ivavrla  (cf. 
Simpl.  Phy».  38  b ;  ibid.  10  a). 

*  Fr.  I  (opening  words  of  his 
treatise)  :  tiiov  Tdvra  xp^M«To  ^r, 
ftir€ipa  iral  xKrjBot  irol  crfwcporiira, 
Ktd  ykp  rh  fffUKpibv  iSctr^ipoy  ^v  Koi 
vdyrvv  &fMv  Uvrwv  ol^^y  ^fS^Koy 
(al.  ti^nKov)  liy  ^h  fffUKporriros. 
Simplicias,  who  reports  these  words 
in  Phys,  83  b,  repeats  the  first 
clause  on  p.  106  a ;  but  what  he 
there  adds  is  his  own  emendation ; 
Schaubach,  therefore,  is  in  error 
when  he  makes  a  separate  frag- 
ment of  it,  p.  126.  Similarly  his 
jpV.  17  b,  ap.  Diog.  ii.  3  (as  is 


rightlj  maintained  by  Sehozn,  p. 
16;  Erische,  Forsch,  64  ag.; 
Mullach,  248),  contains  not  the 
rery  words  of  Anaxagoru,  bet 
merely  an  epitome  of  his  doctrine, 
connected  with  the  commeiiceiitfnt 
of  his  treatise.  On  the  other  huxi. 
Simpl.  De  Cmlo,  271  a,  15  (ScboL 
613  b,  32),  has  retained  the  wordi 
which  Mullach  passes  OTer :  "  ^^ 
rmv  kicoKpivoft€ww  /t^  «2Slnu  t^ 
ir\9fioi  fxirt  \Ay^  fjL-^€  IfOY*  i>- 
6  (4) :  rplif  9k  ^MOKpw&rfMu  tovta, 
9&vr»v    ifjLOV    Hvrv9^   Mk    xf^ 

ykp  ii  o^fiiit^is  mdwrtor  XP^"""* 
etc.  (vide  p.  337,  1).  The  expres- 
sion iftov  wAtna,  which  became  a 
proverb  among  the  ancients,  is 
continually  alluded  to;  e^.  ^ 
Plato,  Pkado,  72  C ;  Gory.  465 1>  ; 
Arist.  Phys,  i.  4  (supra,  p.  331, 4); 
Metaph.  iv.  4,  1007  b,  26,  x.  6, 
1066  b,  28,  zii.  %  1069  b,  20  (e£ 
also  Schwegler) ;  Schaabeeh,  65 
sq. ;  Schom,  14  sq. 

»  Fr,  3,  supra,  p.  337,  1 ;  <^ 
Schaubach,  p.  86;  i^.  ^  t«/i^ 


MIXTURE  OF  SUBSTANCES. 


another  if  it  were  not  in  it ;  and  how  could  the  transitioa 
of  all  things,  even  of  the  most  opposite  things,  one  into 
another,  be  explained,  if  they  were  not  all  of  them  in 
all  ? '     If,  therefore,  an  object  appears  to  us  to  contain 


p.  341,  3 ;  Fr.  7  (6) :  h  vcarrl  veunhs 
fwTpa  &c<rri  ir^V  P^Vt  ^trri  tXai  ^h 
KoX  960%  Ui,  Fr.  8,  if^fra,  p.  341,3; 
Fr.  11  (13):  od  Ktx^pivrcu  rk  iif 

o0rc  t6  Otpfihv  kwh  rou  ^vxpov  ofh^ 
rh  y^vxphp  ifth  rou  BtpfioQ.  Fr.  12 
(6),  which  is  referred  to  in  Theophr. 
up.  Sim  pi.  Phys.  35  b:  iv  muni 
irAitra  oM  x^P^^  Hirnv  cZyoi.  a\}Jk 
wdmra  wayrhs  fioipa¥  /icrfx^c  Srt  Si 
TovXAx^^oi^  hh  cirriv  (7va(,  oIk  tiy 
dvycuTo  x'^P"'^'^^*  '^^  ^  ^^  ^' 
(Cod.  D  better:  iif*  cf.  Fr.  8) 
ittvrov  y€P€(rteUj  &AA'  Hvtp  (or  Sfccvr ) 
-rtpl  dIpxVi  c7y«<  (thifl  woid  seems 
to  be  correct)  Ktd  vvv  Trdvra  dfjLov.  iv 
wSuri  Si  iroXA^  ^crt  koI  r»v  airo- 
Kpwofiljmv  2<ra  irAi}tfof  ^y  roif  fifl(otrl 
re  mil  ^Xdtrro<r<  (*  and  in  all  things, 
even  those  divided  from  the  original 
iDtermizture,  i.e.  individual  things, 
are  »nbstance8  of  different  kinds, 
in  the  least,  as  mnch  as  in  the 
greatest'  The  same  idea  is  thus 
expressed  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Pigment:  tffeu  fioipal  cmti 
Tov  T«  f^ydxov  jcai  rou  iTfUKpov). 
This  is  frequently  repeated  by 
Aristotle  (vide  thn  following  notes). 
Alex.  De  Senw,  105  b ;  Lnoret.  i. 
875  sq.  &c. ;  vide  Schaubach,  114 
*q.,  88,  96;  Philop.  Pki/6.  A  10, 
and  Simpl.  Phi/s.  106  a,  do  not 
express  this  quite  correctly  when 
they  say  that  in  every  Homceomeria 
all  others  are  present. 

'  Arist.  Phys.  iii.  4,  203  a,  23: 
6  /uir  (Anaxag.)  6tu>vv  tAv  fiopit^v 
cfrai  iiSyiiA  dfwims  r^  manl  Sc^  rh 
hp^9  irutwf  41  irovouv  yiyv6fUpow' 
4rr^9w  yhp  Uuct  md  dfwv  xori 


ircErra  x/^f*^^^  4*^pcu  etvcu,  oToy 
4^f  ^  9'kp^  ml  r^Zt  rh  iarovy  koI 
ofhtcs  6Ttov¥'  Koi  xdyra  &pa,  koX 
&fia  rolvw  &px^  y^  ^  fi6yoy  iy 
hcdtmif  iffrl  r^f  duucplateos,  iWk 
Kol  nhntovy  etc,  which  Simpl.  in 
h.  ^.  p.  106  a,  well  explains.  Ibid,i, 
4  (after  the  quotation  on  p.  331, 4) : 
«l  yhp  way  ft^y  rh  yiy6fityoy  kvwyiai 
yly99'Bat  fi  i^  tiyruy  ^  ^k  fiii  SyraWj 
tovrwy  8^  rh  fkky  ix  /lii  tyrtay 
yiytaBai  iZvyaroy  .  .  .  rh  Kotwhy 
iflhi  irun$aly€iy  i^  kvAyitris  iy6iucr€Uf 
i^  tyrooy  fiky  icol  iyvirapx6vrwv  yl- 
ytifBaUt  Bih  iuKp6r^a  8i  rS»y  SyKonf 
i^  iLycuoB^tty  iiiity.  Zi6  <^cun  wcu/  iy 
xavrX  fif/itx^M  htSri  iray  ix  ireufrhs 
idpwy  yty6fA€yoy  •  ^cdy^ffOai  Sk  8m- 
<^4poyra  koI  irpo<rayop*^t<r0ai  ercpa 
&AX^A«My  4k  rov  fid?^(r$*  ivepixoy- 
ros  5t&  v\ii$os  iy  r§  fjd^ti  r&y 
iartlpwy  ei\ucpivms  fihy  yhp  tKov 
K^mthy  ^  fjkiKay  ^  y\\m^  ^  adpKa  ^ 
hffrow  ovK  €tyaif  Srov  8^  irKtltrroy 
tKwrroy  lx*<»  rovro  Zoieuy  cTyoi  rhy 
^inri9  rov  irpdy/*aros.  In  the  Pla^ 
oUa,  i.  3,  8,  and  Simpl.  /.  c,  the 
doctrine  of  the  dfMio^tpTj  is  de- 
rived more  immediately  from  the 
observation  that  in  the  noarish- 
ment  of  our  bodies  the  different 
substances  contained  in  the  body 
are  formed  from  the  same  means 
of  nutrition ;  but  that  Anaxagoras 
was  also  thinking  herein  of  the 
transmutation  of  inorganic  matter 
is  shown  by  his  famous  assertion 
that  snow  is  black  (that  is,  there 
is  in  it  the  dark  as  well  the  light) ; 
for  the  water  of  which  it  consists 
is  black  (Sext  Pyrrh.  i.  33 ;  Cie. 
Acad.  iL  23,  72,  31,  100,  and  aftor 


z2 


340  ANAXAG0RA8, 

some  one  quality  to  the  exclusion  of  other  qualities, 
this  is  only  because  more  of  the  corresponding  sub- 
stance than  of  other  substances  is  in  it ;  but  in  truth 
each  thing  has  substances  of  every  kind  in  it,  though  it 
is  named  from  those  only  which  predominate.* 

This  theory  is  certainly  not  without  difficulties.  If 
we  accept  the  original  mixture  of  matter  in  its  strict 
meaning,  the  mixed  substances  could  not  retain  their 
particular  qualities,  but  must  combine  into  a  homo- 
geneous mass ;  we  should  consequently  have,  instead  of 
a  medley  consisting  of  innumerable  diflFerent  substances, 
a  single  primitive  matter,  to  which  none  of  the  quali- 
ties of  particular  substances  would  belong,  like  the 
Infinite  of  Anazimander,  to  which  Theophrastus  reduces 
this  mixture  of  Anaxagoras,^  or  the  Platonic  matter,  to 
which  it  is  reduced  by  Aristotle.*    If,  on  the  other 

him  Lftctant.  Inst.  ni.  23;  Galen,  forthe8akeofcle8nie68is,ofcooK« 

De  Simpl,  Medic,  ii.  1  B ;  xi.  461  in  this  form,  alien  to  Anaxigoras, 

Kuhn.     8ehd,  in  Iliad,  ii.    161).  yide  Breer,  p.  48. 
The  sceptical  propositions  which  '  Vide  sup..  Vol.  I.  p.  2S3, 1 ; 

were  deduced  even    by    Aristotle  236. 

from  the  above  theory  of  Anaxa-  *  Metaph.  i.  8,  989  a,  80  (ef. 

goras  will  be  discussed  later  on.  Bonitz,  ad  h.  I.):  'Am^oy^J' 

Hitter  (i.  307)  explains  the  sen-  cf  ris  iiroKdfioi  8oo  \4ytiw  ffToixt*»' 

tence,  '  all  is  in  aU/  to  mean  that  fjuiKun'  &y  6iroXi3oi  tairk  A^r.  tr 

the  activity  of  all  primitiye  oon-  ixuvos  aMs  fiiv  oi>  lii'iipO«Mr9,^ 

stitueuts  is  in  each  of  them;  but  Ao^<rc  fjJm'  ftv  i^  ordEyiarf  tm 

this  seems  to  me  compatible  nei-  iwdyowrtv    aMv    .   ,  .   I^i  7^ 

ther  with  the  unanimous  testimony  oh9\y  ^v  it,woK€KpifUv9tf,  9^jv  ^ 

of  the  ancientSf'Uor  with  the  spirit  oifB^y  ^v    dXfyOcs  clxciV  mrh  iv 

of  Anaxagoras*s  doctrine.  oMca  iKtimis  .  .  .  offrt  Totp  wm9 

*  Vide  in  addition  to  the  two  n  oT6y  re  owt^  cTmu  offrf  w«^iF»^« 

last  notes  Arist.  Metaph.  i.  9, 991  a,  ri    T»r  7^  ip  /Jt4f>€i  n  Xjtyoftif^ 

14,  and  Alex,  in  A.  i     A  criticism  tl^y  inrvipx^  ^  ofrry,  tovt»  ^ 

of  Anaxagoras's  doctrine  concern-  dSi^varov  ii€iityii4vmv   yc  riirntf' 

ing  the  Being  of  all  things  is  to  be  48ii  yhp  &jr  kw^KiKpiro  ,  ,  ,  k^ 

found  in  Anst.  Phya.  i.  4.     The  roirmy  avfifialyti  Kiyttw  a&rf  r^ 

distinction    between    matter    and  a^x^  ^^  ^c  ^^  (roDro  7^  ix^' 

quality  of  which  I  have  made  use  ira2  iifuyks)  tuiH  Oartpoy,  tHor  riBtpa 


MIXTURE  OF  SUBSTANCES. 


341 


hand,  the  determinate  qualities  of  the  substances  are  to 
be  maintained  in  the  mixture,  it  becomes  evident,  as  in 
the  system  of  Empedocles,  that  this  would  be  impossible 
unless  the  ultimate  atoms  were  incapable  of  division  or 
of  amalgamation  with  others ;  and  thus  we  should  arrive 
at  the  indivisible  bodies,  which  are  likewise  by  some 
writers  ascribed  to  Anaxagoras*^  Not  only,  however,  is 
he  himself  far  from  holding  the  theory  of  one  uniform 
primitive  matter,'  but  he  expressly  maintains  that  the 
division  and  increase  of  bodies  goes  on  to  infinity.' 

T^  k6purror  irplw  SptoBfinu  icai  fit- 
reurxw  cXSovf  tim6s,     Aart  Xiyerai 

liivroi  ri  irapctir\^<rtoy  rois  t«  0<r- 
rtpov  Xiyovffi  ical  rois  vvv  ^atyo' 
fUvois  fuiXAop. 

'  Never  indeed  in  express  words; 
for  Simpl.  Phys.  36  b,  only  says 
that  the  primitive  substances  do 
not  separate  chemiccdly,  any  far- 
ther; not  that  they  rannot  be 
dirided  in  regard  to  space.  And 
(ap.  Stob.  Eel,  i.  366)  it  is  evi- 
dently by  a  mere  transposition  of 
the  titles  that  the  atoms  are  at- 
tribnted  to  Anaxagoras  and  the 
hoDKBomeries  to  Leucippas.  Yet 
some  of  our  authorities  seem  to 
look  upon  the  homoeomeries  as  mi- 
nute bodies,  e.  g.,  Cicero  in  the 
passage  quoted  sup.  p.  336,  2 ;  but 
especially  Sextus,  who  repeatedly 
mentions  Anaxagoras  with  the 
various  atomists,  Democritus,  Epi- 
eunis,  Diodorus  Cronus,  Heraclei- 
des  and  Asclepiades;  and  identi- 
fies his  ifunofitfni  with  the  &To/ioi, 
the  ikixiora  ical  &ficp^  ffdffiara, 
the  irapfMt  (jryKOi  (^PyrrK  iii.  32 ; 
Math,  ix.  363,  x-  SI 8).  That  he 
is  here  following  older  accounts, 
we  have  the  less  reason  to  doubt, 
since  Hippol.  BtftU.  x.  7»  p.  500 


D,  agrees  word  for  word  with 
Math,  X.  818 ;  and  in  an  extract 
from  a  Pythagorean,  t.  «.,  a  neo- 
Pythagorean  treatise,  ib,  x.  262, 
we  read:  ol  yhp  iiTSfiovs  tMints 

fj    6fA0l0fJL«p€laS   fj    iyKOvs   ^     KOIV&S 

tKnjrii  tr^/juf/ra ;  similarly,  iind.  264. 
Among  modern  writers  Bitter  (ib 
306)  is  inclined  to  regard  the  pri-> 
mitive  seeds  as  indivisible. 

'  This  is  clear  from  our  pre^ 
vious  citations  from*  Aristotle.  We 
may  refer  also,  however,  to  Phff3» 
iii.  4  {sup.  p.  334,  2),  where  cu^ 
designates  the  mechafoical  combi* 
nation,  as  distingaished  from  the 
chemiciil  (a^|(');  abd  to  the  dis- 
cussion, Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  10,  327  b, 
31  sqq.,  where  Aristotle  evidently 
has  in  view  the  Anaxagorcan  doc*- 
trine  mentioned  shortly  before. 
Stobseus,  Eel.  i.  368,  is  therefore 
right  when  he  says :  'Aya{i7.  fhs 
Kpdfftit  Korh  wapiBttriv  yivtaBax  r&y 
oroix^lwy, 

»  Fr.  6  (16):  otrr9  ykp  rod 
apLiKpov  yi  itrri  r6  yt  iKdxiffrov, 
&XX*  ihoffffop  hMi'  rh  yhp  ihv  ohn 
%<rri  rh  yAi  ovK  cTycu  (1.  roii^  oinc 
tlyat.  It  is  impossible  that  Being 
should  be  annihilated  by  infinite 
division,  as  others  maintsin ;  vide 
stq>.  VoL  I.  616;  IL  218):  iMii. 


843  ANAXAGORAS. 

His  primitive  subfltanees  are,  therefore,  distinguished 
from  the  atoms,  not  merely  through  tJieir  qualitatiTe 
determinateness,  but  throngh  their  divisibility.  He 
also  contradicts,  quite  as  emphatically,  the  second  fan- 
damental  doctrine  of  the  Atomistic  system,  when  he 
disputes,  on  insuiScient  grounds  it  is  true,  the  presup- 
position of  empty  space.*  His  opinion  is,  that  the 
different  substances  are  absolutely  mixed,  without  there- 
fore becoming  one  matter ;  Empedocles  had  also  main- 
tained this  in  regard  to  the  mixture  of  the  elements  in 
the  Sphairos,  perceiving,  as  little  as  Anaxagoras,  the 
latent  contradiction. 

But  if  a  world  is  to  be  formed  from  these  substances, 
there  must  be  in  addition  an  ordering  and  moviDg 
power,  and  this,  as  our  philosopher  believes,  can  only 
lie  in  the  thinking  essence,  in  spirit  or  mind  (Geidy 
The  reasons  for  this  theory  are  not  given  in  a  general 
manner  in  the  fragments  of  Anaxagoras's  treatise;  hot 

/red  rov  ^c7(£aov  M  f^ri  fitlCotf  mH  ^vidciicr^oiKri  yhp  9ri  (ert  ri  i  i^ 

tcrop  hrrX  rf  trfitKp^  trkriBos  (in-  erp^^o^hn^i  robf  iurKolbs  koJ  5«i«- 

erease  has  as  many  gradations  as  w^tn-ts  As  hx»p^9  ^  &V>  "^  ^'"*' 

diminution  ;   literally,  there  is  as  Kofifidvowrts  iv  reur  icXc^wSpcu  (d 

much  ffreat  as  small),  ir^f  lo»vrh  9^  also  p.  135,  3).    Lncivt  i.  MS : 

Jjt«o^?W(rr.  ical  /i^  Kc^i  ei,.Kp6y  ^  ^^^^  ^  ^^  ^^^  j  ^  j 

W  yhp  wa,  iv  »avrn^«i  ,r«.  ^,c  wayrhs  ^^        ^^  ^.,^  ^^^^  •  J^ 

iKKpiyrrai  Kal  ^h  rov  ^Aaxicrro»  eoncedu\neqne  corporibusfiwemis^ 
SoKfoyros   tKiepiviiatral  ri  tAarTOi'  secandis 

4Ktivov,  Jtal  T^  fxiywrov  hoic4ov  iard 

Tivos  i^fKpidri  imnov  fitiCoyos.    Fr.  '  So    I  translate,  with  otfa^r 

12   (16):    rwX^x^irrov   fi^    Mffuv  writers,  the  Novt  of  Anazagvns. 

ttvai.  although  the  two  expressions  do 

»  Arirt.  Phys.  ir.  6,  213  a,  22  :  not  exactly  ooinoide  ia  their  mean- 

oi  fi^p  olv  BfiKyAttfu  itft^fxtyot  tri  ing;    for    the    German   language 

oim  (g'Tty  [Ktvhv'jf  ovx  t  fioikovroi  contains  BO  more  exact  eqaitalenk 

\ty€iy  ol  AifdpuToi  K€yh¥,  toOt'  ^|€-  The  precise   conceptioii  of   wj, 

Xdyxoif^iy,  iAA'  a^ioftrdyorrfs   Xd-  indeed,   can   only  be  takes  fion 

yovifiv,   &inrtp  *Apa^ery6fiat  Kcd  ol  the    explanatioos  of   Anaxigons 

Tovroy    rhy     rp6no¥     iXJyxoifT€5.  himself. 


SPIMIT.  343 

they  resnlt  from  the  characteristics  by  which  mind  is 
distinguished  from  the  various  substances.  These  are 
three — ^the  singleness  of  its  nature,  its  power,  and  its 
knowledge.  Everything  else  is  mixed  with  all  things, 
mind  must  be  apart  from  aU,  for  itself;  for  only  if  it 
is  unmixed  with  other  things,  can  it  have  all  things  in 
its  power.  It  is  the  rarest  and  purest  of  all  things ; 
and  for  this  reason  it  is  in  all  essences  entirely  homo^ 
geneous ;  as  to  other  things,  no  individual  thing  can 
be  like  another^  because  each  is  compounded  in  a  par- 
ticular manner  out  of  different  substances.  Spirit,  on 
the  contrary,  has  no  heterogeneous  particles  in  it ;  it  is, 
therefore,  everywhere  self-identical;  in  one  substance 
there  will  be  more,  in  another  less  of  it ;  but  the  smaller 
mass  of  spirit  is  of  the  same  nature  as  the  greater ; 
things  are  distinguished  only  according  to  the  quantity, 
and  not  by  the  quality  of  the  spirit  inherent  in  them.^ 

■  Fr.  8  (6)  :  rh  fil»  &A\a  iror-  Hullach,  instead  of  Srw  ftp.  Simpl. 

rhs  fioipatf  lx*'>  "^^  ^^  ^^^''  (i vpoi'  Phi/s,  33  b)  %\u<rra  Ivi,  ravra  jy- 

iral  abroKparh  icai  fiifutcreu  ob^^vl  SifA^Tftra  tv  tiuurroy   iarl  uoX  i$y. 

Xp^/uiTi,  dXA^   iiovvos    cMts   i^*  The   same    is    repeated  bj  later 

ipn/rov  4aTv.    c2  fi^  y&p  i^*  ittvrov  'writers  in  their  own  mode  of  ex- 

^v,  ixxd  r*^  ifU/wcro  &AA9*,  ^tm-  pression;  cf.  Plato^  Orat.  413  C : 

X*t^  ^  avdirrw¥  j(pnt*idrt»»,  u  ifi4'  ehcu  9k  rh  HUatof  h  \iyu  *A»al^ay6~ 

fuKr6    Tc^   {iv   vearrl  yitp   vtunhf  par,  ifoCv  thcu  rovro*  aifroKpdropa 

fuUpa  ^retrriy,  &<rrtp  iv  rois  wp6ff$w  yhp  abrby  Htfra  icol  obO^yl  fi^fuyiU' 

fiot  X^Xcicrcu)  icai  ^lec^Xvf v  tuf  ahrbv  pov  rdvra  ^ffly  abrbr  KOfffiuv  ra 

7&    avufufuyfi^vot    fiore     /ii^Scv^s  wpdyfuira  Bik  itdrrtty  i6tna,    Arist. 

jcpfflfjueros  Kparitiv  6/iolcts,  &s  koX  Metaph,  i.  8  {sup,  p.  340,  3) ;  Phya. 

yMuroy  iiyra  ^^'  ittvrov.     iari  yap  y\\\.  6,  266  b,  24 :  there  must  be 

x*TrT6raT6v    rt   wdmrny  xpn/Jidfrtty  something  that  moves,  and  is  itself 

Koi   KoBopArorroy   .   .   .   irarrivcuTi  nnmoved.     8i^  icai 'Ayo^ery^pos  hp* 

tk  0M9  iLwoKplyereu  trtpoy  ikirh  rou  OAs  \4yUf  rby  yovv  kwoBri  ^dffHwy 

ir4p9v   irXV    vdov.     v6os    6k    vas  Koi  ikfuyri  cTkou,  ^tiS^ircp  irt»^<rc«»s 

Sftoitf s  icrt  vol  i  pACuy  iteX  6  ihiff'  iipxh"  abrhy  irotci  cIkcu  *  olhm  yitp 

a»y.     wrtpoy  Sk  obZ4y  i(rrty  Zpuotoy  &y  fUyot  Kiyolri  kKlyrrros  &y  iced  Kpon 

0v8cyl  &AA49,  &AA*  8t«»v  (so  Preller,  rolii  iifuyiit  &y,    J)«  An,  i.  2,  405 

ffift,  PML   Chr.'Bom,  §   53,  and  a,  IS:   'Ayaivy6pas  8'  .  .  .  ipxh" 


S44 


ANAXA00RA8. 


To  spirit  must  also  belong  absolute  power  ov^r  matter, 
the  motion  of  which  can  only  proceed  from  spirit.^  It 
must,  lastly,  possess  an  unlimited  knowledge^'  for  oalj 
through  its  knowledge  is  it  in  a  position  to  order  all 
things  for  the  best : '  voOs  must,  therefore,  be  simple, 
because  it  could  not  otherwise  be  all-mighty  and  om- 
niscient, and  it  must  be  all-mighty  and  omnisdent, 
that  it  may  order  the  world  ]  the  fundamental  idea  of 
the  doctrine  of  i/ot)y,  and  the  idea  chiefly  brought  for- 


Tff  rhv  vovv  riBrrai  yuAXurra  irimtep  * 
luivov  yovv  ^i^iv  9^hw  r&y  tmttv 
kir\o¥¥  9lvcu  ftol  it/ityii  r€  Koi  Ka- 
Ba(>6v\  405  b,  19:  'Ava^.  84  ti6vos 
inr90ri  pticip  clyoi  rhv  rovy  Koi  koi- 
yhy  obdhy  obB^yl  r&y  &AA«y  ^X*^- 
ToiovTOs  8*  &y  v&s  yympitt  icai  8idt 
rW  alrie^f  o(h^  4K€iyos  ^(niKfy^ 
odr*  4k  r&y  ^Ifnjfiiwy  avyu^ayis 
ioTty,  Ibid,  iii.  4,  429  s,  18: 
itydrfKfi  tffw,  4vf\  wdyra  yo*7,  ikfuyri 
fjyai,  2»<nrep  ^cly  *Aya^«y6pas,  Xya 
Kparff  rovTo  V  iffrly,  Xya  yywpify 
(this  is  Aristotle's  own  oomment) : 
9ixp€fAilHuy6fuyoy  yhp  KatX6€t  rh  &X- 
xirpioy  Koi.  iurrvppJnr^i.  By  the 
apathy  which  is  attributed  to  i^i;^ 
in  some  of  these  passages  Aris- 
totle understands  its  unchange- 
ableness;  for,  according  to  Metaph. 
T.  21,  he  describes  as  ftaB6s  a 
woioTfis  KolEt  %y  ikKKoiovtrdai  Mix*' 
rai  (cf.  Breier,  61  sq.).  This 
quality  is  a  direct  consequence  of 
the  simpleness  of  yous;  for  since, 
according  to  Anazagoras,  all 
change  consists  in  a  change  of  the 
parts  of  which  a  thing  is  composed, 
the  simple  is  necessarily  unchange- 
able. Aristotle  may  therefore  haTe 
derived  this  conception  from  the 
words  of  Anaxagoras  quoted  above. 
But  Anaxagoras  may  perhaps  him- 
self have  spoken  of  it.    In  this 


qualitative  unchangeableness^bov- 
ever,  there  is  not  as  yet  the  im- 
movablenesB  in  space,  the  iMlnpv 
which  Simpl.,  Phus.  285  a,  derives 
from  Aristotle.  Further  evidence 
repeating  that  of  Aristotle  np. 
Schaobach,  104. 

*  Alter  the  words  "  mil  xoBapu- 
raroy"  Anazagoras  continues.  Fr. 
83 :  Kol  yy^firiy  yt  wtpl  vawrh  wSum 
firxct  tal  cax^ex  fiiyurroy.  2<r«  rt 
^vxhy  J^X«*  «c"i  tA  fUCv  Ktti  rkhdffCf 
wdyrwv  y6os  KparrUi.  koL  <n|y«p*- 
Xwp^<rios  T^j  ffvitMdtrns  y6oi  Upi' 
riiirty,  &<rT€  Tcptx«pn<rai  t^i' Vx^* 
Cf.  note  3,  and  p.  343,  1.  The  in- 
finity which  is  ascribed  to  it  in  the 
last  passage  seems  chiefly  to  refer 
to  the  power  of  vovs, 

*  Vide  previous  note,  and  the 
following  words :  ica*  rh  ffvfifurt^- 
fi9yd  re  ical  iL'roKpir6fA(ya  koI  St«- 
Kpiy6ftfva  xdrra  %yyta  y6os  (vhich 
are  also  quoted  by  Simpl.  De  Ca^f 
271  a,  20;  SchoL  6\Z  h,  Zo). 

'  Anaxagoras  continues:  <nl 
Skom  9fuW€y  Mfffffdai  xtd  6k(m^' 
ffol  iffo-a  yvy  fort  ttad  6k6m  ferut 
wdyra  Zfttifffafae  yoor  icol  t^i'  »«•' 
X'^ptl<riy  Tctfm>',  %y  yvy  rtptx^p*** 
rd  T«  inrpa  ical  &  ^XiOf  ical  ^  «X^ 
Mol  6  ii^p  icol  6  alBiip  oi  imftiih 
fityoi.  Cf.  what  is  quoted,  Vol.  I* 
286,  1,  from  Diogenes. 


spiMir. 


345 


watd  by  the  Jtncient  writers,^  lies  in  the  conception  of 
world-forming  force.  We  must,  therefore,  assume  that 
this  was  actually  the  point  from  which  Anaxagoras 
attained  his  doctrine^  He  knew  not  how  to  explain 
motion,  by  means  of  matter  as  such ;  ^  and  still  less  the 
regulated  motion  which  produced  a  result  so  beautiful 
and  so  fall  of  design  as  the  world.  He  would  not  have 
recoiu-se  to  an  irrational  Necessity,  nor  to  Chance,'  and 
so  he  assumed  an  incorporeal  essence,  which  has  moved 
and  ordered  matter :  that  he  really  had  such  an  essence 
in  view  ^  cannot  well  be  doubted,  as  hiff  emphatic  asser- 


»  Plato,  Phado,  97  5  {inf.  p. 
351,  1);  Laws.  xii.  967  B  (ibid.) ; 
Crat.  400  A:  rl  U;  kai  t V  r&y 
&XXm¥  awdyrofv  ^{htiv  oh  xiffr^iftis 

Zuucofffioviray  KoX  tx^^^^^i  Arist. 
Metaph.  i.  4,  984  b,  16:  the  most 
ancient  philosophers  knew  only  of 
material  causes  ;  in  course  of  time 
it  became  evident  that  to  these  a 
moving  cause  must  be  ndded  ;  and 
at  last,  after  prolonged  enquiry,  it 
vas  acknowledged  that  both  were 
insufficient  to  explain  the  beauty 
and  design  of  the  system  and  course 
of  the  universe :  vovv  5^  ris  dwdtp 
4yumt  KaBdirtp  iv  rots  (tfois  xol  iv 
rf  ^vtr^t  rhv  aXrtov  rod  K6fffiou  koI 
TTis  rcC|cws  xdffTiSf  otov  v4\pnv  i^vri 
Tap'  §bc7)  \iyovras  roifs  trpArnpov, 
Plut.  Perid.  c.  4  :  toij  Zkois  Tp&ros 
oh  T^x^ir  olB*  kydyicriyf  ZtaKoafiii' 
trtt/s  iipxh^t  &AX^  yovv  hr4aTria'€ 
KoBapoy  irol  Jkxparov,  4ynjL€fwyfi4vo» 
rots  &AAoff,  imoKpivovra  rhs  6ftoio- 
fuptlas.  Further  details  p.  346  sq., 
and  in  Schaubach,  152  sqq. 

*  This  is  clear  from  the  state- 
ment to  be  mentioned  later  on, 
that  the  primitive  mixture  before 
the  working  of  mind  upon  it  had 


been  immoved:  for  it  is  in  that 
primitive  state  that  the  essence  of 
the  corporeal  presents  itself  purely 
and  absolutely.  What  Aristotle 
quotes  (Phys.  ni.  6.  206  b,  1)  con- 
cerning tiie  repose  of  the  infinite 
does  not  belong  here. 

'  That  he  explicitly  repudiated 
both  is  asserted  by  later  writers 
on>y :  Alex.  Aphr.  De  An.  161  a, 
m  {De  Jf'ato^  c.  2) :  Xry€t  yhp  {'Ava^.) 
firii^v  rSfv  yivofiivwy  yiyvr$ou  Koff 
tifutpfidyriyf  iXA'  thai  Ktyhy  rovro 
roCyofia.  Pint.  Plac.  i.  29,  6  (Stob. 
EcL  i.  218;  Theodoret,  Gr.  Aff. 
Cur.  vi.  p.  87):  'Ava^ay.  icol  ol 
IrwiKoX  IkhriXov  airior  iiyBpnxlytp 
XoytffiA^  {r^y  r^xny)-  In  point  of 
fact,  however,  the  statement  con- 
tains nothing  improbable,  even 
though  the  words  employed  by  our 
authorities  may  not  be  those  of 
Anaxagoras.  Tzetz.  in  H.  p.  67 1 
cannot  bo  quoted  against  it. 

*  As  is  asserted  by  Philop.  De 
An.  c,  7,  9;  Procl.  in  Farm,  vi. 
217  Cous. ;  and  is  presupposed  by 
all  philosophers  from  Plato  on- 
wards, according  to  their  idea  of 
yovs.  Vide  especially  Aristotle,  p. 
343. 


846  ANAXAQORAS, 

tion  of  the  pre-eminence  of  mind  above  all  else  can  rest 
on  no  other  basis ;  and  though  it  may  not  be  whoUy 
due  to  the  inadequacy  of  his  language,  that  the  coH' 
ception  of  the  Incorporeal  comes  out  vaguely  in  his  des- 
cription'— though  he  may  actually  have  r^[arded  spirit 
as  a  more  subtle  kind  of  matter,  entering  into  things 
in  extension  ■ — ^this  does  not  interfere  with  his  general 
purpose.'  Our  experience  affords  no  other  analogy  for 
incorporeality  and  for  design  towards  an  end  than  that 
of  the  human  spirit ;  and  it  is,  therefore,  quite  natural 
that  Anaxagoras  should  define  his  moving  canse,  ac- 
cording to  this  analogy,  as  thinking.  But  because  he 
primarily  required  spirit  only  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
plaining nature,  this  new  principle  is  neither  purely 
apprehended,  nor  strictly  and  logically  carried  out.  On 
the  one  side,  spirit  is  described  as  a  nature  that  knows 
and  exists  for  itself,^  and  thus  we  might  suppose  we  had 
reached  the  full  conception  of  spiritual  personality,  of 
free,  self-conscious  subjectivity ;  on  the  other  hand,  it 
is  also  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  an  impersonal  matter,  or 
an  impersonal  force ;    it  is  called  the  subtlest  of  all 

>  Vide  ir^a  and  Zirort,  p.  84  sphere  as  cnrronnded  by  the  Deity, 

^q.  can  scarcely  be  consideKd  free  from 

•  The  proof  of  this  lies  partly  them.  When,  therefore,  Kern,  CV*. 
in  the  words  K^mirarov  irdvruv  Xenophanea^  p.  21,  finds  no  proof 
Xp17fu(rc0r<^>.  8.  p.  343),  but  espe-  that  AnaiLagoras  taught  an  im- 
cially  in  what  will  immediately  be  material  principle  nnextended  in 
o1>8erved  on  the  existence  of  vqvs  space,  this  does  not  touch  the 
in  things.  matter.  He  probably  did  not  teach 

•  The  same  half-matcpialistic  it  in  so  many  words,  but  his  design 
presentations  of  wvt  are  also  to  is  nevertheless  to  distinguish  vti 
be  found  among  philosophers  who  in  its  nature  from  all  compoette 
in  theory  maintain  the  opposition  things. 

of  mind  and  matter  most  empha-  ^  tinvvoi  ip*   imwv  ion  {Ft. 

tically.     Aristotle,   for    instance,     8). 
when  he  conceives  the  terrestrial 


SPIRIT:  IS  IT  A  PERSONAL  BEING?       »47 

things,*  it  is  sa^'d  that  parts  of  it  are  in  particular 
things,*  and  the  amount  given  is  designated  by  the  ex- 
pressions 'greater  and  lesser  spirit,' '  while  no  specific 
distinction  is  observed  between  the  lowest  stages  of  life 
and  the  highest  stages  of  rationality.^  Though  we 
ought  not  to  conclude  from  this  that  Anaxagoras  of  set 
purpose  wished  to  represent  spirit  as  impersonal,  these 
traits  will  prove  that  he  had  not  as  yet  the  pure  idea 
of  personality,  nor  did  he  apply  it  to  spirit ;  for  an 
essence,  parts  of  which  inhere  in  other  essences  as  their 
soul,  cannot  with  any  propriety  be  called  a  personality ; 
and  when  we  further  observe  that  precisely  the  dis- 
tinctive tokens  of  personal  life,  self-consciousness  and 
free  self-determination,  are  nowhere  ascribed  to  vovsy^ 
that  its  existence  for  self  {Fursichaein)  primarily  re- 
lates only  to  the  singleness  of  its  nature,  and  would 
hold  good  just  as  much  of  any  substance  with  which  no 
other  substances  are  mingled ;  *  finally,  that  knowledge 
was  not  unfrequently  attributed  by  the  ancient  philo- 
sophers to  essences  which  were  indeed  temporarily  per- 

'  Step.  346,  2.  the  similar  expressions  of  the  va- 

>  Fr.  7,  where  also  the  second  rioas  accounts  {sup,  p.  343)  des- 

v6ot  can  oalj  be  "understood  of  a  cribe,  indeed,  like  the  one  quoted 

nolpa  r6ou.     Arist.  J)e  An.  i.   2,  p.   344,   1,   absolute   power    orer 

404  b,    1  :    *Apaiaey6fKis    8'    ^ttoj*  matter,  but  not  freewill ;  and   so 

Siotf-o^i  iTfpl  ainStv  (on  the  nature  the  knowledge  of  N«vf  chiefly  re- 

of  the  soul).    voAAaxoS  fi.\y  -ykp  rh  lates  to  its  knowledge  of  primitive 

cfnov  roO  kuX&s  xoL  6p9&s  rhu  vovv  substances,    and    what    is    to   be 

Ar^ft,   i^4pte$t  Si  rovrop  thai  r^v  formed  out  of    them.      Whether 

i^X'hy  ^y  ivQ^t  ykp  wrhv  {nrdpxfiy  Vovs  is  a  self-conscious  Ego,  and 

T«7t  C^oiSf  Jial  fitydkois  Koi  fuitpois  whether  its  action  proceeds  from 

Ko}  Ti/Jois  ical   kripM/ripois.      Cf.  free    will,    AnHzagoras    probably 

vhat  was  quoted   from  Diogenes,  never  thought  of  asking,  because 

VoU  I.  p.  287,  1,  7.  he  only  required  Now  as  world- 

»  Fr.  8 ;  cf.  p.  343,  forming  force. 

*  Cf.  8Up,  note  2.  *  As  is  clear  from  the  eonnee* 

*  For  uKnoKparriiSy  Fr.  8,  and  tion  of  Fr.  8  j«st  quoted. 


d48 


ANAXAGORAS. 


sonified  by  them,  but  were  not  seriously  regarded  as 
persons,  as  individuals; '  when  all  this  is  borne  in  mind, 
the  personality  of  the  Anaxagorean  spirit  becomes  very 
uncertain.  The  truth  probably  is,  that  Anaxagoras  de- 
fined, indeed,  his  conception  of  vovs  according  to  the 


*  Thus  Heracleitns,  and  after- 
-wards  the  Stoics,  regarded  fire  as 
at  the  same  time  the  world- intelli- 
gence ;  Heracleitus  represents  man- 
as  inhaling  reason  from  the  sur- 
rounding air;  with  Parmenides 
thought  is  an  essential  predicate  of 
Being,  of  the  universtd  material 
substance ;  Philolaus  describes 
number  as  a  thinking  nature  {sup. 
Vol.  I.  p.  371,  2),  and  Diogenes 
(Vol.  I.  p.  287,  7)  belieres  he  can 
transfer  all  that  Anaxagoras  had 
said  of  mind  simply  to  the  air* 
Even  Plato  may  be  mentioned  in 
this  connection,  for  his  world-soul 
is  conceived  according  to  the  ana- 
logy of  human  personality,  but 
with  a  very  uncertain  personality 
of  its  own ;  and  at  the  beginning 
of  the  CriiiaSf  he  invokes  Cosmos, 
the  derived  god,  to  impart  to  the 
speaker  true  knowledge.  Wirth 
{d.  Idee  Gottes,  170)  objects  to  the 
two  first  of  these  analogies,  that 
Heracleitus  and  the  Eleatics,  in 
the  conceptions  just  referred  to, 
transcend  their  owir  principles-; 
but  our  previous  exposition  will 
serve  to  show  how  untrue  this  is. 
He  also  discovers,  in  my  view  of 
Diogenes,  merely  a  proof  of  the 
bias,  which  will  see  nothing  but 
Pantheism  everywhere  in  philoso- 
phy (as  if  the  doctrine  of  Diogenes 
would  not  have  been  truly  panthe- 
istic, and  in  that  case  only,  if  he  had 
made  the  personal  Deity  into  the 
substance  of  all  things;.  For  my 
part,  I  do  not  see  what  we  are  to 
understand  by  a  person,  if  the  air 


of  Diogenesv  the  matter  from  which 
all  things  are  formed  by  condem- 
tfon  and  rarefaction,  can  be  so  re- 
garded. That  it  mtftt  be  a  penon, 
because  '  the  self-<^n8cious  princi- 
ple in  man  is  air,'  is  more  thui  i 
nazardous  inference.  In  that  cue, 
the  air  of  Anaximenes,  the  vnnn 
vapour  of  Heracleitus,  the  iwnd 
atoms  of  Democritue  and  Epicurus, 
the  corporeal  in  the  doctrine  of 
Parmenides  and  the  blood  in  that 
of  Ennpedoclcs — would  earh  be  a 
self-conscious  personality.  It  bj 
no  means  follows  from  what  I  hare 
said  that  Dio^nes  was  *  nol  ia 
earnest  *  when  he  asserted  Uiat  the 
air  has  knowledge ;  he  is  certainly 
in  earnest,  but  is  still  so  far  from 
clear  conceptions  on  the  natore  of 
knowledge,  that  ho  supposes  that 
this  quality,  just  as  much  as  warmth, 
extension^  etc.,  may  be  attribot'^l 
to  lifeless,  impersonal  matter.  Bm 
if  matter  is  thereby  necessarily 
personified,  there  is  still  ft  grwi 
difference  between  the  involuntary 
personification  of  that  which  is  in 
iTself  impersonal,  and  the  conseioos 
setting  up  of  a  personal  principle- 
Still  Jess  can  be  proved  by  the 
mythical  personification  of  natarsl 
object",  which-  Wirth  also  qaot«s 
agatTist  me :  if  the  sea  was  pe^ 
sonified  as  Ocean  us  and  the  air  «s 
Here,  the^e  gods  were  discriminated 
from  the  elementary  substances  by 
their  human  forms.  Water  (tfW^ 
air  as  such,  were  never  regarded 
as  persons,  either  by  Bome'  of 
Hesiod. 


SPIRIT:  IS  IT  A  PERSONAL  BEING  f        849 


analogy  of  the  human  mind,  and  in  attributing  thought 
to  it,  ascribed  to  it  a  predicate  which  strictly  belongs 
only  to  a  personal  being  ;  but  that  he  never  consciously 
proposed  to  himself  the  question  of  its  personality,  and, 
in  consequence,  combined  with  these  personal  concep- 
tions others  which  were  taken  from  the  analogy  of 
impersonal  forces  and  substances.  Were  it  even  true, 
as  later  writers  *  maintain,  probably  without  foundation,* 
that  he  describes  vovs  as  Deity,  his  theory  would  be  only 
on  one  side  theistic ;  on  the  other  it  is  naturalistic,  and 
its  peculiar  character  is  shown  in  this :  that  spirit,  in 
spite  of  its  distinction  in  principle  from  the  corporeal, 
is  also  conceived  as  a  force  of  nature,  and  under  such 
conditions  as  could  apply  neither  to  a  personal  nor  to  a 
purely  spiritual  nature.' 

*  Cic.  AcatL  ii.  37,  118:  in  or- 
dinem  adductaa  [partictUas]  a  mente 
divina.  Sext.  Math.  ix.  6:  yovp, 
h  im  Kcn*  atnhy  Ms,  Stob.  Eel. 
i.  56 ;  Themist.  Orat,  xxvi.  317  c; 
Schanbach,  152  sq. 

*  For  not  merely  the  fra^ents, 
bat  the  majority  of  our  testimonies 
are  silent  on  this  point ;  and  those 
which  allude  to  it  are  not  very 
trustworthy  about  such  things, 
^he  question,  however,  is  not  very 
important,  since  NoOs,  in  any  case, 
does,  in  fact,  correspond  with 
Deity. 

*  Wirth  says.  /.  c,  that  *  in  the 
doctrine  of  Anazagoras  there  is  a 
theittic  element*  I  have  not  the 
least  ground  for  denying  this,  nor 
have  I  denied  it,  as  he  supposes,  in 
the  Jahrh.  d.  Gegenw.  1844,  p.  826. 
All  that  I  maintained,  and  do  main- 
^in,  is  this :  that  the  breach  be- 
tween spirit  and  nature,  though 
began   by  Anaxagoras,  was    not 


completed,  that  spirit  is  not  actu- 
ally conceived  as  a  subject  inde- 
pendent of  nature,  because  though, 
on  the  one  hand,  it  is  represented 
as  incorporeal  and  thinking;  on 
the  other,  it  is  regarded  as  an  ele- 
ment divided  among  individual 
natures,  and  working  after  the 
manner  of  a  physical  force. 
Krische,  Forsch.  66  sq.,  expresses 
himself  quite  in  accordance  with 
this  view.  Gladisch,  however 
(Anax.  u.  d.  Isr.  56  ;  xxi.  et  pass.), 
and  F.  Hoffinann  ( Ueber  die  Got- 
tesidee  des  Anax.  Socr.  u,  Platon, 
Wurzb.  1860.  Der  dualistischs 
TheUmtis  dee  Anax.  und  der  Mo' 
notheismus  d.  8okr.  u.  PL;  in 
"Eichte'B  ZeUschn/tf.  Philos  N.  F. 
xl.  1862,  p.  2  sqq.)  have  attempted 
to  prove  that  our  philosopher's 
doctrine  of  God  was  pure  Theism. 
But  neither  of  these  writers  has 
shown  how  the  pure  and  logicaUy 
developed  concept  of  personality 


8M 


AKAXAGORAS. 


This  will  beoome  still  clearer  when  we  perceive  that 
even  the  statements  concerning  the  efficient  activity  of 
spirit  are  chargeable  with  the  same  contradiction.  So 
fitr  as  spirit  is  to  be  an  intelligent  essence  which,  out  of 
its  knowledge  and  according  to  its  predetermined  pur- 
pose/ has  formed  the  world,  the  result  must  have  been 
for  Anaxagoras  a  teleological  view  of  nature ;  for  as  the 


is  compatible  with  the  statement 
that  Novf  is  divided  among  all 
living  crpatures,  and  that  the  va- 
rious classes  of  these  creatures  are 
distinguished  indeed  by  the  quan- 
tity, but  not  by  the  quality  of  this 
¥ovi  inhering  in  them.  Hoffmann, 
however,  expressly  allows  that  the 
two  things  are  not  compatible  (F*. 
Zettschri/l,  p.  26);  but  when  he 
deduces  from  this  that  we  cannot 
*  seriously  ascribe  to  Anaxagoras 
the  doctrine  that  VoQs  is  a  essence 
which  has  parts  and  can  be  divi- 
ded, so  that  parts  of  it  abide  in 
other  natures  as  their  soat/  this  is 
(if  we  may  say  so  without  offence) 
to  turn  the  question  upside  down. 
What  may  be  ascribed  to  Anaxa- 
goras we  can  pnly  jud^  of  from 
his  own  statements,  which,  in  this 
case,  are  explicit  enough ;  and  if 
these  statements  are  not  altogether 
compatible  with  each  other,  we  can 
only  conclude  that  Anaxagoras  was 
not  quite  clear  about  the  conse- 
quences of  his  own  point  of  view. 
AH  that  I  miiintain  is  this :  I  do 
not  deny  that  Anaxagoras  conceived 
his  Nov;  as  an  inteilieent  nature, 
working  according  to  design ;  but 
I  do  deny  that  he  combined  with 
the  conception  of  such  a  nature,  all 
the  presentations  which  we  are  ac- 
customed to  connect  with  the  idea 
of  a  personal  being,  and  excluded 
all  those  which  w§  exclude  from 


that  idea;  and  that  he  iiuwhaT« 
proceeded  in  this  way  (not,  as  HoflSn. 
F.  Zeitsckr^U  26,  says,  must  )ast 
done  so),  I  conclude,  among  othtr 
reasons,  from  the  cinttmstaoce, 
that  many  noteworthy  philosophecs 
have  actually  taken  this  course. 
To  find  fault  with  this  opinion  o£ 
mine  on  the  score  of  'lialbheit' 
{L  e.  21)  is  strange ;  if  I  say  that 
Anaxagoras  remained  half-my, 
this  is  something  different  from 
m  remaining  half-way.  But  my 
adversary  has  not  sufficiently  dis- 
criminated  the  historical  qaestion : 
how  did  Anaxagoras  conceive  th« 
Deity  as  mvt  ?  from  the  dogmatic 
question,  how  ought  we  to  eoneeire 
it  ?  Whereas  it  is  quite  iramsie- 
rial  for  our  conception  of  the  penoo- 
ality  of  God,  whether  Anangons 
and  other  ancient  philosophers  bad 
or  had  not  this  conception,  sad 
whether  they  apprehended  or  de- 
veloped it  more  or  less  poralyor 
imperfectly. 

'  This  is  indicated  in  the  words 
(p.  S44,  S):  ^o7a  ^fi^KKtw  ffff- 
0at  Sicjc^(r^if<rc  w6os.  Anaxagmas 
perhaps  also  spoke  of  mind  as  sus- 
taining the  universe,  cf.  Suid.  'Af*- 
(07.  (Also  ap.  Harpokraiion,  Ce- 
dren.  Chron.  168  C):  r»5r  wiyrt0 
^povphw  «7irfr.  But  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  himself  eiaplojed 
the  expreesion,  ppovft^. 


EFFICIENT  ACTIVITY  OF  SPIRIT. 


351 


spirit  itself  is  conceived  after  the  analogy  of  the  human 
spirit,  so  must  its  operation  be  conceived ;  its  activity 
is  the  realisation  of  its  thoughts  through  the  medium 
of  matter — activity  working  to  an  end.  But  the  physical 
interest  is  much  too  strong  with  our  philosopher  to  allow 
of  his  being  really  satisfied  with  the  teleological  view 
of  things;  as  the  idea  of  spirit  has  been  in  the  first 
instance  forced  upon  him  by  the  inadequacy  of  the 
ordinary  theories,  so  he  makes  use  of  it  only  in  cases 
where  he  cannot  discover  the  physical  causes  of  a  phe- 
nomenon. As  soon  as  ever  there  is  a  prospect  of  arriving 
at  a  materialistic  explanation,  he  gives  it  the  preference ; 
spirit  divides  matter,  but  it  does  this  in  a  mechanical 
manner,  by  the  rotatory  movement  it  produces;  all 
things  are  then  developed  according  to  mechanical 
laws  from  the  first  motion,  and  spirit  only  enters  as  a 
Deits  ex  Tnachina  wherever  this  mechanical  explanation 
fails.'     Still  less,  even  when  it  is  present,  is  any  special 


>  Plato,  Pkado,  97  B :  iAX* 
&«ovtrar  fUv  rtnt  4k  $t$\iw  riyhs, 
iff  M^  *Apa^ay60Ov,  iufaytyv^Kov^ 
ros  Kol  k4yoi/TOSf  &s  ipa  yovs  ivrly 
6  iuMKotrfiAv  re  no!  irdrrtfy  vHrios^ 
ra&rp  8^  r^    wria  ^ir^nv   re   koI 

rhv  vovv  ttifcu  vdvTWf  dfruM',  fcal 
irfflo-diitiVf  tl  rovff  offrws  lx<<t  Tcfv 
ye  wovw  KOfffiovrra  vtUnu  leod  tuacr- 
Toy  riBtWM  radrri  trp  hy  fitXriara 
fxtf'  •^  ^^  '''**  fio^Koero  t^v  cdriay 
wipuy  W4p\  iKdtrroVy  Sxp  yiyyerai  ^ 
^wiWvrai  fj  iert,  rovro  9uy  ircpl 
a&rov  €ip97y,  trif  fiixrurrov  abr^ 
iffrU  1^  §lyai  I)  &XXo  Sriovy  vdarx^u^ 
^  irowcy,  etc. ;  but  when  I  came  to 
know  his  tieatise  better  (OS  B), 
iarh  8^  Bavfuurnis  iKwidot,  i  iraip€, 
4xh'^^    ^cp^/Miwf,    ^ircid^  Tpoiiay 


Ktd  diyaryiyy^Ktoy  6p&  &y^pa  r^ 
fjihy  y^  oifUhy  xp^f^^^^^  ^^*  nvas 
airias  ixouru&ixtyoy  cts  rh  9iaKonfA§iy 
T&  irpdyfxara,  iApoi  Sh  «cal  cdSdpas 
KoX  ahofra  alrul^tyoy  kcH  &AAd  froWdt 
tcai  6row€tf  etc ;  Laws,  xii.  967  B : 
Kol  rtyts  MX/iwy  tovt6  y*  ainh 
irafMUciKSuKcvcty  koH  'r6r9f  \4yoyT€S 
&s  yovt  ^fi  6  duuc€K0<rfiriKii9S  trdyB* 
Z<ra  Kon'  ohpayiy.  ot  Si  ahroi  irdAty 
Ofutprdvoyrts  ^vxris  ^^«»i  .  .  . 
&ray9*  &s  ciirecy  llvos  ky4^pv^ 
itdKiyy  iairrobf  tk  iroXir  itaKKoy  r^ 
yhp  5i)  rriih  vmy  dfAftdraty  wdyra 
ahroh  ifavii  rik  kot*  ohpayhy  ip€p6- 
fitya  fjLtirra  tlycu  XiBwy  Koi  yijs  koX 
iroA  A£v  iXhaw  iu^6x*oy  irttfjJ^y  Sm- 
ytfA6yrwy  riu  airias  vayrhs  rod 
K6afiov,  Aristotle's  language  is 
quite  in  accoxdance  with  this.    On 


ANAXAGOIUS, 


r6U  assigned  to  it  in  the  world.  Anaxs^ras  not  only 
is  silent  as  to  any  personal  interference  of  the  I>eity  in 
the  course  of  the  universe^  hut  we  find  in  him  no 
trace  *  even  of  the  thought  of  a  Divine  government — 


the  one  h^nd  he  acknowledges  that 
an  essentially  higher  principle  was 
discovered  in  vovs,  that  in  it  all 
things  are  referred  to  the  Good,  or 
final  cause,  but  on  the  other  he 
complains,  partly  in  the  words  of 
the  Phado,  that  in  the  actual  de- 
Telopment  of  the  sjnU^m  the  me- 
chanical causes  are  brought  for- 
ward and  mind  is  oaly  introduced  as 
a  stop-gap.  Besides  the  quotations 
on  p.  344,  4  ;  346,  6,  ride  Metofh, 
i.  3.  9S4  b,  20:  ol  fkkp  obv  offrwt 
inrokdfifidvoin-ts  (Anax.)  &tui  rod 

tirrtav  t^Moat  «cal  r^w  rouuOtJiw  t$9w 
il  Klirn(ris  ^dpx^i  TOtf  oZciy  (cf.  c. 
6  end.);  xii.  10,  1075  b,  8:  'Am- 
^ay6pas  Si  &t  Kiyow  rh  ityoBhv 
&pX^K  •  6  yhp  V0V3  KiyUy  iiXXk  kiwT 
Mywd  twos;  x\7.  4,  1001  b,  10: 
rh  ytifv^cay  rpwroy  Apivroy  riBifuri 
.  .  .  '£/iT«9oicA7;s  re  icai  'Aya^oy^- 
pas.  But  on  the  contrary  he  says, 
in  chap.  i.  4,  985  a,  18:  the  an- 
cient philosophers  have  no  clear 
consciousness  of  the  import  of 
their  principles — 'Aya^aryi^fMu  r9 
yap  fAfJX^^'V  X/>^«"  '''V  "V  »P^»  '»^>' 
KOiFfMiroitayf  Koi  tray  dirop^crp,  8t^ 
t(v*  oiTiov  i^  iiydymii  iirrl,  rSrt 
irap4XK€i  iMinhy,  iy  Hk  rots  &AA.oit 
wdyra  fiaWoy  alriarai  r&y  yiyyo' 
Ikiywv  ^  yovy,  C.  7,  988  b,  6 :  rh 
8*  ol  cycKa  al  ir^ets  Koi  al  furafio- 
Aal  irol  al  ieii^<rcii,  rpiwoy  fi,4y  rira 
Kiyovciy  afrioK,  o0ro*  (as  final 
cause)  8*  ob  xiyowriy,  oW  Zwwtp 
w^iMccr.  ol  ft^y  yiip  yovy  k^yoyrts 
^  ipiXlay  &s  iiyaShy  fi4y  ri  ra^at 
rits  alrittt  rtB4affiy^  ob  fi^v  its 
iytKdy^  To6r«ty  ^  tr  ^  ytyyifity6y 


Ti  r&y  tyrtoy,  Aax'  i§s  kvh  raster 
riis  Kirfiaus  oOvas  Kiyoucip.  Later 
writers  who  repeat  the  judgment 
of  Plato  and  Aristotle  are  dted  hy 
Schaubaoh,  p.  105  sq.  In  this 
pUce  it  will  suffice  to  quote  Sinpl. 
Phi/8.  73  b :  itol  'Aya^.  «  thy  mSt 
iAffaSf  &s  ^<riy  Ei^fu>f,  ical  airo- 
ftMriC»v  rii  iroXXh  avylonin. 

*  The  Plaeita  attributed  to 
Plutarch,  i.  7,  5  (also  ap.  Eus.  JV. 
Ev.  xiv.  16,  2),  say,  indeed:  6  V 
'Apa^ay6pas  i>nffly,  i»s  •irr^w*  «t' 

&f»X^  '''^  flri/AW"  »'«"*  [**]  «^* 
Bi9ic6<rpaitr9  $fov  koL  rhs  ytyf^ta 
Twy  S\wr  iwolTiaty,  and  after  meo- 
tioning  the  similar  exposition  of 
Plato  (in  the  Timaua)  k  is  sdded: 
Koiyus  ody  ofiapTdyovffar  hft/^inp^ 
tri  rhy  B^hy  iiroiTiffay  Irtorpt^&fU- 
yoy  Twy  Mpartriywy,  ^  roI  to^ot 
X^u^  fhy  Kdafioy  mcrcurccv^flrra' 
rh  yhp  fuucdpioy  icol  i/^Oaproy  ffw 
.  .  .  3\or  hy  irepl  rify  ffvyoj^  flf 
Was  cv8a</ior(as  jcal  i^apaias  Ak- 
iriarp€^ii  i<m  rmy  i»$ptttiym9 
wpayfidrwy  KOKoBai/tmy  V  toF  ^ 
ipydrov  Siimv  acol  rittroyos  Ax**" 
^p&y  fcal  fAtpifuwy  c2s  ripf  r«S»^- 
fAov  KaraffK9viiy,  But  to  see  in 
this  passage  'an  explicit  and 
dear  testimony  of  Plutarch,  which 
makes  all  further  enquiry  super- 
fiuous,'  to  believe  that  *PlutMch 
ascribes  so  definitely  to  Anaxs- 
goras  the  superintending  cars  of 
yovs,  eren  in  human  affiiirs,  that 
he  even  makes  it  a  ground  of  ces- 
sure  to  this  philosopher'  (Gladisch. 
Anax.  d.  u.  Isr,  123  ;  cf.  16o),  rf 
qnires  all  the  prej^ice  and  hazi- 
ness into  whidh  the  lively  desire 


EFFICIENT  ACTIVITY  OF  SPIRIT, 


853 


of  that  belief  in  Providence  which  had  such  great  im- 
portance with  philosophers  like  Socrates^  Plato,  and 


to  substantiate  a  favourite  opinion 
often  betrays  writers  not  otherwise 
deficient  in  learning  or  in  the  art 
of  methodical  enquiiy.  Gladiech 
kDows  as  well  as  any  of  us  that 
the  Placita,  in  their  present  form, 
are  not  the  work  of  Plutarch,  but 
a  much  later  compilation,  patched 
together  from  various,  and  some- 
times very  doubtful,  sources;  be- 
sides, he  cannot  be  so  unacquainted 
with  Plutarch's  theological  views 
as  not  to  admit  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  him  to  have  raised 
such  objections  against  the  belief 
in  Providence,  and  especially 
against  Plato's  conception  of  it; 
he  can  scarcely  dispute  that  the 
Epicurean  origin  of  this  belief 
appears  absolutely  certain  at  the 
first  glance  (cf.  with  the  passajre 
we  are  considering  the  quotations 
in  Part  iii.  a,  870-390.  2nd  ed.) ; 
and  yet  he  speaks  as  though  we 
were  here  concerned  with  the  un- 
doubted testimony  of  Plutarch. 
The  supposed  Plutarch  does  not 
even  say  what  Gladisch  finds  in 
him :  he  only  gives  as  Anaf  agoras's 
own  statfiment  the  same  passage  as 
all  other  writers,  viz.,  that  the 
Divine  NoOs  formed  the  world : 
when  he  attributes  to  Anaxa^oras 
the  belief  in  a  Divine  Providence 
over  men,  this  is  simply  an  infrr^ 
ence  of  the  Epicurean  who  was 
enabled  by  it  to  apply  the  usual 
objections  of  his  school  against 
that  belief,  to  the  Anaxagorean 
doctrine.  This  inference,  however, 
has  as  historical  evidence  no  higher 
value  than,  for  example,  the  equally 
Epicurean  exposition  in  Cic.  N.  D. 
i.  11,  26  (cf.  Krische,  Farsch,  66), 
according  to  which  vovs  is  a  fyov 
endowed  with  sensation  and  mo- 


VOL.  II. 


tion.  When  Gladisch  further  (p. 
100  sq.,  118)  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  our  philosopher  the  propositions 
that  there  is  nothing  out  of  ordei 
and  irrational  in  nature ;  that  vovi 
as  the  arranger  of  the  universe  is 
also  the  author  of  all  which  is 
usually  regarded  as  evil, — this  is 
more  than  can  be  proved.  Arist. 
Metaph.  xii.  10,  1075  b,  10,  blames 
Anaxagoras  indeed  because  rh 
iycurrlok  fiif  tronjireu  r^  iyaBf  koI 
r^  y^y  but  we  ought  not  to  con- 
clude from  this  that  he  referred 
evil  also  to  the  causality  of  yoCs, 
for  it  is  likewise  possible  that  he 
never  attempted  to  solve  the 
problem  of  the  existence  of  evil ; 
and  Metaph.  i.  4,  984  b,  8  sqq., 
32  sq.,  unmirtakeably  favours  the 
latter  view.  The  passage  in  Alex. 
ad.  Metaph.  4  b,  4 ;  Bon.  663  b, 
1  Br. :  *hva^ay6pff  tk  6  vovs  rov  c9 
re  Kol  Kfuc&s  fidvoy  ^i^  wotririKhy 
cXrtoVy  As  ttfniKw  (sc.  'Ap«rroT.), 
would  in  no  case  prove  much,  for 
it  would  merely  be  an  inference, 
and  by  no  means  a  necessary  infer- 
ence, from  the  principles  of  Anax- 
agoras (for  Anaxagoras  might 
equally  well  have  derived  evil  from 
matter,  as  Plato  did).  It  is,  how- 
ever, manifest  (as  even  Gladisch 
inclines  to  admit)  that  we  ought 
here  to  read  "  koX&s  "  for  **  iroicwj." 
Arist.  Metaph  i.  3,  984  b,  10,  and 
Alexander  himself,  p.  26,  22  Bon. 
637  a,  30  Br.  describe  the  yovs  of 
Anaxfigoras  as  the  cause  of  the  td 
Koi  icaXwf .  Still  less  can  be  inferred 
from  Themist.  Phys.  68  b  (41 3  Sp.) : 
*  According  to  Anaxagoras  nothing 
irrational  and  unordered  finds  place 
in  nature.'  He  is  rather  in  this 
passage  opposing  Anaxagoras  from 
his  own  standpoint. 


A   A 


864  ANAXAGOBAS. 

the  Stoics.  Whether  this  be  matter  for  praise  or  blame, 
in  any  case  it  proves  that  the  inferences  which  would 
result  from  the  conception  of  an  cmniscient  framer  of 
the  world,  ordering  all  things  according  to  set  purpose, 
were  very  imperfectly  drawn  by  him;  that  he  conse- 
quently cannot  have  apprehended  this  conception  itself 
purely,  or  made  clear  to  himself  all  that  it  involves. 
Anaxagoras's  doctrine  of  spirit  is  thus,  on  the  one  side, 
the  point  to  which  the  realism  of  the  older  natural 
philosophy  leads  up  beyond  itself;  but  on  the  other 
side,  the  doctrine  still  rests  to  some  extent  on  the 
ground  of  this  realism.  The  cause  of  natural  Becoming 
and  Motion  is  sought  for,  and  what  the  philosopher 
finds  is  spirit ;  but  because  he  has  sought  this  higher 
principle  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  nature, 
he  can  only  employ  it  imperfectly ;  the  teleological  view 
of  nature  is  immediately  changed  into  the  mechanical 
view.  Anaxagoras  has,  as  Aristotle  says,  the  final  cause, 
and  he  uses  it  merely  as  motive  force. 

2.  Origin  mid  System  of  the  Universe, 

In  order  to  form  a  world  out  of  the  original  chaos, 
Mind  first  produced  at  one  point  of  this  mass  a  rotatory 
motion,  which,  immediately  spreading,  involved  in  its 
action  an  ever-increasing  portion  of  the  mass,  and  ex- 
tended   itself    further    and    further,^     This    motion, 

>  Fr.  8  (mp.  p.  843,  1) :  koI  r\4op,  note  3.    In  this  doBcriptJon, 

rrjs  irtpixwp^frtos  rrit  cvfirdajis  vovs  Anaxagoras   seems    to  hare  pty- 

Updrriirey^   Atrrt  rtpix^priirai   riiv  msrily  in  view  the  idea  of  a  flnid 

Itpxh''  KoX  rpvTov  h-nh  rov  cfiiKpov  mass,   into  which,  a  hody  being 

ffp^aro   trtpixnpfio-ai    l^€tT€    trXiov  cast,  there  arise  whiriing  eddie«, 

irepi«x«^pfe,    ifol    «fpix«p^<rfi     M  spreading  ever  further  and  fnrther. 


FORMATION  OF  THE  VNIVERSE. 


366 


through  its  extraordinary  swiftness,  eflFected  a  division 
of  the  substances,  which  were  in  the  firat  instance 
separated  into  two  great  masses,'  according  to  the 
most  imiversal  distinctions  of  dense  and  rare,  cold 
and  warm,  dark  and  bright,  moist  and  dry.;  ^  and  the 
reciprocal  action  of  these  is  of  decisive  importance  in 
the  further  conformation  of  things.  Anaxagoras  called 
them  Aether  and  Air,  including  under  Aether  all  that 
is  warm,  light  and  rare ;  and  under  Air  all  that  is  cold, 
dark  and  dense.^  The  dense  and  moist  were  driven  by 
the  rotation  into  the  centre,  and  the  rare  and  warm 
without,  just   as  in   all  eddies  of   water   or   air   the 


Perhaps  it  was  some  expression  of 
this  lund  which  gave  rise  to  the 
erroneous  stHtcmpnt  of  Plotinus, 
Enn.  ii.  4, 7,  that  the  /i^y/ia  is  water. 

'  For  the  warm  and  dry  are 
with  Anaxagoras,  as  with  the  other 
physicists,  identical  with  the  rare 
and  light,  vide  tn/ro,  note  3. 

«  jPV.    18   (7)  :    <^fl  ^pim  6 

w6oS     KlvUuff      kwh      rov     KlPWfttUOV 

■ratrrhs  kw€Kpiy«ro,  icol  iffov  iKivn<T(w 
6  v6os  Tay  rovro  ZttKplBri'  irtj/co- 
fiivmv  Z\  KcH  Buutptyofi4pwy  -^  ir«pt- 
X^pff<fif  iroWf  /jLoWop  iftoUt 
Stcurplrc0-0ai.  Fr.  21  (11):  oSrto 
r<nrr4»v  Tr9ptx»p*6vr»y  rt  koI  &iro- 
KpiVofi4ptay  (nth  fii-ris  re  ical  ra^v- 
Tvros'  fiiW  W  ^  Tax«T^»  irotUi,  ^ 
8^  Taxvr^s  eAriuf  odSci'l  Ioijcc 
XP^MATi  r^v  raxvrijra  ruy  vvv 
iivTwv  xp^f^^^  ^^  ^Bpi&wota'if 
aAX&  'rdyrus  iroXXmrkaaius  rax^ 
i<rrt,     Fr,  8,  19,  vide  p.  387,  8. 

*  This  theory,  already  advanced 
by  Ritter  (Ion.  Phil.  266,  Geaeh.  d. 
PhU.\.Z2\)  and  2^vort,  105  sq.,  is 
based  upon  the  following  passages. 
Antue.  Ft.  1  (after  what  is  quoted, 
p.  3  38, 1 ) :  vdirra  fitp  ii}p  re  Ka\  alBiip 


Kortix^f  ^fi4>6T«pa  ftireipa  46yra. 
ravra  ykp  fiiyiara  tvtariv  iy  ro7<rt 
ff^fixaai  KoX  irX'fjBu  Ktd  iJ.tyd0fT. 
FV.  2:  KOi  T^p  &  a^p  koI  &  cu$ifp 
iivoKplytTai  &ir6  rov  wtpiixoyros  rov 
iroAXov.  Kal  r6y9  irtpUxoy  &ir€ip6y 
itrri  rh  vXrjdos.  Arist.  Be  Ccelo,  iii. 
3  {swp.  p.  332,  1)  :  Upa  5i  koI  -irvp 
/ityfia  rovrooy  ircU  r&y  A\\vy  airtp- 
fuirwy  irdyrwy  .  .  .  8ib  KcH  yiyytaBat 
jcdvr'  iK  ro^tcy  (air  and  fire)*  rh 
yhp  wvp  Koi  rhy  cuBipa  irpo(rayop€^u 
rcan6.  Theophr.  De  SensUf  69: 
8ti  rh  fj^y  fxayhy  leal  Xmhy  Bfpfjthy 
rh  8i  iruKvhy  icai  ira^^  i^^XP^^* 
6<nrcp  'Ava{.  ^teupti  rhy  it4pa  fcol 
rhy  €u$4pot.  That  Anaxagoras  un^ 
derstood  by  aether  the  fiery  ele- 
ment, is  also  confirmed  by  Arist. 
De  Cctlo,  i.  3,  270  b,  24  \  Meteor. 
i.  3,  339  b,  21 ;  ii.  9,  369  b,  14. 
Similarly,  Pint.  Plac.  ii.  18,  3 ; 
Simpl.  De  Calo,  55  a,  8,  268  b, 
43  (Schol.  475  b,  32,  513  a,  39); 
Alex.  MeteoroL  73  a,  11 1  b ;  Olym 
piodorus,  MeteoroL  6  a  {ArUt, 
Meteor,  ed.  Id.  i.  140),  where  we 
read  in  addition  that  Anaxagoras 
derived  al^p  from  af0w. 


▲  ▲2 


856 


ANAXA00RA8. 


heavier  elementB  are  carried  towards  the  oentreJ 
From  the  lower  mass  of  vapour  water  was  at  length 
secreted,  and  from  water  earth ;  from  earth  stone  is 
formed  'through  the  action  of  cold.'  Detached  masses 
of  stone,  torn  away  from  the  earth  by  the  force  of  the 
revolution,  and  having  become  incandescent  in  the 
aether,  illumine  the  earth ;  these  are  the  stars,  includ- 
ing the  sun.'  By  means  of  the  sim's  heat  the  earth, 
which  at  first  consisted  of  slime  and  mud,*  was  dried 


'  Fr,  19,  vide  sup.  p.  337,  "3. 
cf.  Af  ist.  De  Cctlo,  ii.  18,  295  a,  9 ; 
Meieor.  ii.  7 ;  Simpl.  Pkys.  87  b; 
De  Caloy  235  b,  81  sqq.  The 
-words  of  Anaxagoras  are  followed 
by  Hippol.  Befut.  i.  8,  and  less 
accurately  by  Diog.  ii.  8. 

«  Fr.    20    (9) :    A»^    rovr^wt^ 

liAv  yap  r&y  yt<l>t\eiif  SHwp  kwoKpi- 
ycrat,  iK  Z\  rov  t^ro$  yri'  4k  l\ 
T^j  7^  J  \l6oi  ffvfiirfiyywTai  iwh 
rov  ^XP**^'  '^^  doctrine  of  the 
elements  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
Anaxagoras,  either  on  the  strength 
of  this  passage,  or  on  that  of  the 
Aristotelian  texts  quoted  p.  332, 1 ; 
334,  2.  In  his  system  it  would 
have  had  quite  another  meaning 
from  that  of  Empedocles ;  cf.  the 
previous  note,  and  Simpl  De  Cixlo^ 
269  b,  U,  41  (Sohol  613  b,  1), 
281  a,  4. 

*  Plut.  Lymnd.  c.  12:  jVeu  «i 
KoX  ruv  turrpwy  MKoaroy  Ovk  4v  f 
Tti^vKi  x*^P9*  ^^^^^"t  y^P  ^»^*  ficip4a 
\dfjLirtiv  fiky  kmfptlffti  icol  ircpc- 
KKiff^t  rov  al$€pos,  tXKtadat  Bk  drh 
fifas  <r<piyy6titvov  [-a]  Bivp  Ktd  r6v^ 
T^y  irepi4>opas,  &s  tov  koI  t^  itpSnay 
iKpat4\Brt  fjL^  Ttirtiy  SeOpo,  ruy 
}^uxpS>y  KtLi  fiap4wy  iLiroKpiyofi4ycou 
rovirayr6s.  P/ac.  ii.  13, 3:  *Ava^ay. 
rhy  iFfpiKiifityoy  aidtpa  •K^piyoy  fiky 


cTkcu  Karh.  r^v  oitaieuf.  rf  V  €JkaWf 
rris  rcpiSM^o-cws  iurapwdiwru  ^4- 
rpovs  4k  rrjs  yiis  kqI  Kora^t^fam 
ro{frous  ii(rrtpiK4pai.  HippoL^.  f.: 
liKioy  9i  Koi  (TcX^mfy  koI  v^a  rk 
Ikffrpa  \l$ovs  clroi  4niripovs  avfiM^t- 
\il^4vras  ^h  t^s  tov  aiB4p9i 
it€pi<popas.  That  Anaxagons  le- 
lieved  the  stars  to  be  stones,  and 
the  sun  in  particular  to  be  a  red- 
hot  mass  {\l$o$  hdwvpoSy  jiUpet 
Bidwvpos),  we  are  repeatedly  in- 
formed. Cf.  (besides  many  other 
passages  quoted  by  Schaabach. 
139s  qq.,  159)  Plato.  Apol.  26  D, 
Laivs  xii.  967  C. ;  Xenoph.  Mem. 
iv.  7,  6  sq.  According  to  Dio2- 
ii.  11  sq.,  he  appealed  in  support 
of  this  opinion  to  the  phenomeooa 
of  meteoric  stones.  What  is  said 
in  the  Placita^  as  to  the  terpcsirisl 
origin  of  rbese  stony  masses,  is  con- 
firmed by  the  passages  in  Plutarch ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  from  the  whole 
interconnection  of  his  doctrines,  it 
is  impossible  to  see  how  he  could 
hare  imagined  stones  arose  except 
from  the  earth,  or  at  any  rate  in 
the  terrestrial  sphere.  Cf.  the 
last  two  notes.  The  sun  and  mocn 
must  have  arisen  at  the  same  time 
(Eudem.  ap.  Procl,  in  Tm.  258  0). 
*  Cf.  the  following  note  and 
Tzetz.  in  11.  p.  42. 


FORMATION  OF  THE  UNIVERSE.  36? 

up,  and  the  water  that  was  left  became,  in  consequence 
of  evaporation,  salt  and  bitter.^ 

This  cosmogony  labours  under  the  same  difficulty 
that  we  find  in  all  attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of 
the  universe.  If  on  the  one  hand  the  substance  of 
the  world,  and  on  the  other  the  world-forming  force,  is 
eternal,  how  comes  it  that  the  world  itself,  at  a  definite* 
moment  of  time,  began  to  exist  ?  We  have  no  right, 
however,  on  that  account  to  explain  away  the  statements 
of  our  philosopher,  which  throughout  presuppose  a  be- 
ginning of  motion  in  time ;  or  to  adopt  the  opinion  of 
Simplicius,^  that  Anaxagoras  spoke  of  a  beginning  of 
motion  merely  for  the  sake  of  argument,  without  really 
believing  in  it.'  He  himself  adopts  the  same  tone  in 
speaking  of  the  beginning  of  motion  and  the  original 
intermixture  as  in  treating  of  other  subjects,  and  he 
nowhere  implies  by  a  single  word  that  what  he  says 
has  any  other  than  the  obvious  sense.  Aiistotle  ^  and 
Eudemus  ^  both  so  understood  him  ;  and,  indeed,  it  is 
impossible  to  see  how  he  could  have  spoken  of  a  con- 

»  IHog.  ii.  8 ;   Hut,  Plac,  iii.  •  So  Ritter,  Ion.  Phil  250  sqq. ; 

16,  2 ;  Hippol.  R^ut.  i.S.    Alex.  Geachd,  Phil.  i.  318  sq.;  Brandis, 

Meteor,  91  b,  ascribes  to  Anaxa-  i.  250;  Schleiermacher,  Gesch.  d. 

goras  the  statement  (Arist.  Meteor,  Phil,  44. 

ii.  1,  353  b,  13)  that  tiie  taste  of  *  Phys,  viii.  1,  250b,  24:  ipvol 

sea-water  is  caused  by  the  admix-  yitp  iKuvos  [*Aya|.],  4/ioD  rtdmwv 

tare  of  certain  earthy  ingredients ;  im^v  k9lL  ^ptfioifiroiv  rhv  Awttpoy 

only  this  admixture  is  not  brought  XP^^^^t  icivriffiy  iiirroirifftu  rhv  vovy 

about  (as  Alexander  seems  first  to  ircd  iieutpiveu, 

have  concluded  from  the  passage  *      *  8impl.   Pht/s,   273  a:    4  8^ 

in  Aristotle)  by  percolation- through  ECdrifMi  fi4fjL^rrat  r^  *A»a^arf6^  ott 

the   earth,  but  results  from  the  fk6vov  Zri  fi^  irp6T9poy  obaav  &p(a- 

original  constitution  of  the  fluid,  <r0a/  irorc  Xiyu  r^v  kIvii\9iv^   &W* 

the  earthy  portions  of  which  re-  8ti  mi  mpX  tov  ^tofidytw  ^  X^^eiy 

mained  behind  in  the  process  of  wrk  xapiXat^v  ck-cip,   Kolittp  ohK 

evaporation.  I^vros  ^tpov, 

»  Phys.  257  b. 


858  ANAXA00RA8. 

tiniial  increase  of  motion  without  presupposing^  a  com- 
mencement of  that  motion.     Simplicius,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  no  more  to  be  trusted  in  this  case  than  when 
he  applies  the  intermixture  of  all  substances  to  tbe 
unity  of  the  Neo-Platonists  and  the  first  separatioo 
of  opposites  to  the  world  of  ideas ;  *  but,  in  regard  to 
the  inherent  difficulties  of  his  presentation,  Anaxzigoras 
may  easily  have  overlooked  them,  as  others  have  done 
before  and  since  his  time.     With  more  reason  we  may 
ask  whether  our  philosopher  supposed  there  would  be  at 
some  time  or  other  a  cessation  of  motion,  a  return  to 
the  original  state  of  the  universe.*    According  to  the 
most  trustworthy  witnesses  he  did  not  express  himself 
clearly  on  this  point ; '  but  his  language  respecting  tbe 
increasing  spread  of  motion  *■  does  not  sound  as  if  he 
contemplated  any  end  to  it,  nor  is  there  any  connect- 
ing link  with  such  a  conception  in  his  system.    How 
should  i/oOf,  after  once  bringing  the  world  into  order, 
again  plunge  it  into  chaos?    This  statement  had  its 
origin,  no  doubt,  in  a  misunderstanding  of  that  which 
Anaxagoras  had  said  about  the  world  and  its  alternating 
conditions.*     Lastly,  it   is   inferred   from   an  obscure 

*  Phyf,  8  a ;  83  b  sq. ;  106  a ;    be  quoted  in  favour  of  the  opposite 
257  b  ;  vide  Schaubach,  91  sq.  view,  for  it  only  asserts  that  Ad&u- 

^  AsStobseus.  £(;^.i.  416,maiD-  goras  seems  to  regard  the  motion 

tains.  Since  be  clashes  AnaxagorAS  of  the  heavens  and  the  repoMof 

in  this  respect  with  Anaximander  the  earth  in  the  centre  as  eternal 

and  other  louians,  we  must  under^  It  is  stated  more  defiuitelj  in Simpl. 

stand  his  statement  as  referring  to  Phys,  33  a,  that  he  regarded  the 

an  alternate  construction  and  de-  -world  as  imperishable;  bat  it  is 

struction  of  the  world.  doubtful  whether  this  is  founded 

*  Vide  p.   357i   6;    cf.  Arist.  on  any  express  statement  of  Anaxs- 
Phys,  viii.  1,  252  a,  10;   SimpL  goras. 

De  Calo,  167  b,  13  {Schoi.  491  b,  *  Swpra,  p.  354,  1. 

10  sqq.).    This  last  passage  cannot  *  According  to  Diog.  ii.  lOfbs 


UNITY  OF  THE   WORLD. 


850 


fragment  of  his  treatise  '  that  Anazagoras  believed  in 
many  universes  similar  to  our  own;^  but  this  conjec- 
ture I  must  also  discard.  For  even  if  we  attach  no 
weight  to  the  testimony  of  StobsBus,'  that  Anaxagoras 
taught  the  unity  of  the  world;*  yet,  as  he  himself 
describes  the  world  as  one,  he  must  certainly  have  re- 
garded it  as  an  interdependent  whole,  and  this  whole 
can  only  form  one  imiversal  system,  since  the  move- 
ment of  the  original  mass  proceeds  from  one  centre, 
and  in  the  separation  of  matter,  like  parts  are  brought 
into  one  and  the  same  place — the  heavy  going  down- 
wards, the  light  upwards.  This  fragment  must  there- 
fore refer,  not  to  a  distinct  universe,  but  to  a  part  of  our 
own,  most  probably  to  the  moon.*    Beyond  the  world 


maintained  that  the  mountains 
Around  Lampsacus  would  some 
time  in  the  distant  future  be 
corered  with  the  sea.  Perhaps  he 
was  led  to  this  conjecture  by  obser- 
vations like  those  of  Xenophanes 
(Vol.  I.  p.  669). 

*  Fr.  4(10):  hvBft^irovs  rt  avfjora- 
yTJpai  iral  rftAAa  (^a  ^a  ^vx^y  ^X^h 
KoX  rouri  7«  ki^pdrtroiciw  fHvai  koL 
^6\ias  frw^tcnjjiivas  koL  (pya  irarc- 
ait^vaffiiiva,  &<nrtp  tap*  iifuv  ical 
iiiKi6p  re  abrouriy  clrcu  iccu  tr€\4iin^p 
Kcd  riXXa^  &<rir€p  wop*  fltuy,  iced  r^r 
yTJy  a^Toitrt  ipvttp  iroWd  re  Acd 
vatrroia  fir  iKUvoi  rh  hrtfiffra  awt- 
rfucdfi^yoi  is  r^r  oiKnimv  XP^^^^* 
SimpL  Phyi,  6  b,  speaking  of  this, 
makes  nse  of  the  plural,  Toh  k6' 
fffiovs;  but  this  is  of  no  im- 
portance. 

'  Schaubach,  119  sq. 
'  Ed.  1.  406. 

*  Fr.  11,  8vp.  p.  338,  2. 

*  The  words  (the  context  of 
which  we  do  not  know)  may  refer 


either  to  a  different  part  of  the 
earth  from  our  own,  or  to  the  earth 
in  a  former  state,  or  to  another 
world.  The  first  is  not  probable, 
as  it  could  not  be  asserted  of  u 
different  pjirt  of  the  world,  that  it 
likewise  had  a  stm  and  moon,  for 
AnazagorHS,  entertaining  the  no> 
tions  he  did  of  the  form  of  the 
earth  and  of  the  Above  and  Below 
(vide  p.  360,  3),  cannot  have  be- 
lieved in  antipodes,  in  regard  to 
whom  the  observation  might  havu 
been  in  place.  The  second  ex- 
planation IS  excluded  by  the  present 
forms  clyai,  ^rkiy,  xp^^^"*"^'  There 
remains,  therefore,  only  the  third, 
and  we  can  but  suppose  that  the 
moon  is  intended;  moreover,  we 
know  that  Anaxagoras  elsewhere 
says  it  is  inhabited,  and  calls  it  an 
earth.  If  a  moon  is  also  as9ignt>d 
to  it,  this  would  then  signify  that. 
another  star  is  related  to  the  moon 
as  the  moon  is  to  the  earth. 


860  ANAXAOORAS. 

spreads  infinite  matter,  of  which  more  and  more  is 
dra^n  into  the  cosmos^'  by  means  of  the  advancing 
vortex.  Of  this  infinite  Anaxagoras  said  it  rested  in 
itself,  because  it  has  no  space  outside  itself  in  which  it 
could  move.* 

In  his  theories  concerning  the  arrangement  of  the 
universe,  Anaxagoras  is  for  the  most  part  allied  with 
the  ancient  Ionian   physicists.     In  the   midst  of  the 
whole  rests  the  earth  as  a  flat  cylinder,  borne,  on  ac- 
count of  its  breadth,  upon  the  air.'     Around  the  earth 
the  heavenly  bodies  moved  at  the  beginning,  laterally ; 
so  that  the  pole  which  is  visible  to  us  stood  always  per- 
pendicularly over  the  centre  of  the  plane  of  the  earth. 
Afterwards  the  position  of  the  earth  became  oblique, 
and  on  account  of  this  the  stars,  during  part  of  their 
course,  go  under  it.*     As  to  the  order  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  Anaxagoras  agreed  with  all  the  more  ancient 
astronomers  in  placing  the   sun   and   moon  next  the 
earth  ;  but  he  thought  that  between  the  moon  and  the 
earth  there  were  other  bodies  invisible  to  us  :  these,  as 
well  as  the  earth's  shadow,  he  supposed  to  be  the  cause 
of  lunar  eclipses,*  while  eclipses  of  the  sun  were  caused 

»  Vide  supra,  p.  354,  1  ;  856,  3.  167  b,  13  (Schol.  491  b,  10),  be 

*  Ariat.  Phys.  iii.  5,  205  b,  1 :  menrioned  the  force  of  the  rotatkm 

k¥0i\ay6^as  8*  krAxtas  Xeyci   ircpl  as  a  further  reason  for  the  quies- 

Tiis  roZ   kx^ipov    yMviir   imnpifuv  cence  of  the  earth  ;  but  Simplidos 

yhp    ahrh  aln6  ^ni<n   rh    tnrupov.  seems   here  to  be  anvarmntab]/ 

rovro   8i   8ti   4v  aJbr^'   tXAo  7^  transferring  to  him  what  Aristotle 

ov^\v  mpiix^i.     Cf.  what  is  qaoted  says  of  Empedocles ;  cf  p  156. 2, 3. 
from  Melissus,  Vol.  I.  p.  635.  *  Diog.  ii.  9 ;  Pint  Plac.  ii.  8; 

«  Arist.  De  Cotlo,  ii.   13,  vide  also  Hippol.  i.  8  (cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  283, 

supra,  p.  249,  2 ;  Meteor,  ii.  7,  365  4 ;  and  sup.  251,  1). 
a,  26   sqq.;  Diog.  ii.  8;   Hippol.  »  Hippol.  2.  <r.  p.  22;  Stob-iW. 

Rfffut.  i.   8;  Alex.  Meteor,  66  b,  i.  660,  according  to  Theophiastns, 

and   others  ap.  Schanb.    174  sq.  also  Diog.  ii.   11 ;   cf.  Vol.  L  F* 

According  to  Simplicius,  De  Ccslo,  455,  3. 


THE  UNIVERSE. 


861 


solely  by  the  passing  of  the  moon  between  the  earth 
and  sunJ  The  sun  he  held  to  be  much  larger  than  it 
seems  to  us,  though  he  had  no  idea  of  its  real  size.^ 
As  we  have  already  seen,  he  described  it  as  a  glowing 
mass  of  stone.  The  moon  he  believed  to  have  moun- 
tains and  valleys  like  the  earth,  and  to  be  inhabited  by 
living  beings;'  and  thi?,  its  terrestrial  nature,  he 
thought,  explained  why  its  own  light  (as  shown  in  lunar 
eclipses)  was  so  dim ;  *  its  ordinary  brighter  light  he 
derived  from  the  reflection  of  the  sun,  and  though  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  he  himself  made  this  discovery,^ 
yet  he  was  certainly  one  of  the  first  to  introduce  it 
into  Greece.*  How  he  accounted  for  the  annual  revo- 
lution of  the  sun,  and  the  monthly  changes  of  the 


*  Hippol.  I.  c,  also  the  observa- 
tion :  ottTos  i^piat  xpSrros  rk  mpL 
rks  ^MXciifrcir  KoU  ^tontrftohSf  cf. 
Plut.  IHc,  c  23 :  ^  ykp  irp&ros 
cot^erarip  re  y<£rrfl»y  mil  Baf^aXt^' 
Toror  ircp)  fftk^yris  Karrauyofffuov 
Kal  ffiuas  \6nfov  cir  ypa/^¥  KwraJdi- 
fupus  'Apa^arY6pas. 

*  AcooTdiDg  to  Biog.  ii.  S ; 
Hippol.  /.  c,  he  said  it  vas  larger, 
and  aocordiog  to  Plut.  Plac.  ii.  21, 
many  times  larger  than  the  Pelo- 
ponnesus, while  the  moon  (accord- 
ing to  Pint.  Fac,  L,  19,  9,  ^.  932) 
was  the  same  sice  as  that  pemnsula. 

*  Plato,  Ajpol,  26  D :  rhw  fiiv 
4|Xxor  \t9op  ^ii(r\»  cTmu  r^y  8^ 
trwK^wipf  yijr.  Diog.  ii.  8 ;  Hippol. 
I,  c. ;  Stob.  i.  650  j/araU,  (supra.,  p. 
249,  3) ;  Anaxag.  Fr,  4  {aupra,  p. 
359, 1).  From  Stob.  i.  564,  it  would 
seem  (and  it  is  besides  probable 
in  itself)  that  Anaxagoras  con- 
nected with  this  the  lace  in  the 
moon;  according  to  Schol.  ApoU. 
Bhod.  i.  498  (vide  Schaubach,  161), 


cf.  Plat.  Fae.  L.  24, 6,  he  explained 
the  fable  that  the  Nemean  lion  had 
fallen  from  the  heavens  by  the 
conjecture  that  he  might  have 
oome  from  the  moon. 

*  Stob.  i.  564 ;  Olympiod.  in 
Meteor,  16  b,  i.  200  Id. 

^  Parmenides  maintained  this 
before  him,  and  Empedocles  con- 
temporaneously with  him,  vide 
Vol.  I.  p.  600,  2,  and  wp.  p.  156,  8. 
The  former,  v.  144,  for  this  reason 
calls  the  moon:  ywtri^ahs  irtpl 
yaioM  &?itifUifOif  hX^Arptov  ^ics.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  discovery  is 
wrongly  ascribed  to  Thales  (Vol.  I. 
p.  225.  1). 

•  Plato,  Orat,  409  A:  t  Uuyof 
rA»a|.]  veaKTrl  IXcyev,  Src  j^  o'cA^yif 
i,irh  roD  ^\lou  Hx^i  rh  ^&s,  Plut. 
Fae,  Lun,  16,  7,  p.  929 ;  Hippol. 
I.  c;  Stob.  i.  558;  cf.  p.  356,  3. 
According  to  Plutarch's  Plao.  ii. 
28,  2,  the  Sophist  Antiphon  still 
thought  the  moon  shone  by  her 
own  light. 


302  AHAXAOORAS. 

moon,  cannot  be  discovered  with  certainty.*  The  stars 
he  supposed  to  be,  like  the  sun,  glowing  masses,  the 
heat  of  which  we  do  not  feel  on  accoimt  of  their  dis- 
tance and  their  colder  surroundings ; '  like  the  moon 
they  have,  besides  their  own  light,  a  light  borrowed 
from  the  sun ;  in  this  respect  he  makes  no  distinction 
between  planets  and  fixed  stars:  those  to  which  the 
sun's  light  cannot  penetrate  at  night,  because  of  the 
earth's  shadow,  form  the  milky  way.'  Their  revolution 
is  always  from  east  to  west.*  From  the  close  juxtaposi- 
tion of  several  planets  arises  the  phenomenon  of  comets.' 

How  Anaxagoras  explained  the  various  meteoro- 
logical and  elemental  phenomena  is  here  only  shortly 
indicated,*  as  we  must  now  examine,  in  detail,  his 
theories  respecting  living  beings  and  man. 

■  From  Stob.£b/.i.  526  ;Hippol.  from  the  breaking  forth  of  the 

I.  e.  we.  only  learn  that  the  pe-  ethereal  iire  through  the  cloods 

riodical  return  of  both  is  derived  (Arist.  Meteor,  ii.  9,  369  h,  12; 

fromtherecistanceof  thecondt^n^ed  Alex,  ad  h.  I.  Ill   b;  Pint  Pltc, 

air  driven  before  them ;  and  the  iii.  3,  3 ;  Hippol.  I,  e.  Sen.  Afl/. 

reason  the  moon  returns  oftener  in  Qu,  ii.  19 ;  cf.  ii.  12,  less  predselT 

her  course  than  the  sun,  is  said  to  Diog.  ii.  9),  similarly  huiricsne) 

be  that  the  sun  by  his  heat  warms  and  hot   blasts  (tv^f  and  vft" 

and  rarefies  the  air,  and  so  conquers  0'r^p,  PUxe.  l.  e.) ;  other  winds  from 

this  resistance  for  a  longer  period,  the  current  of  air  heated  by  the 

Cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  276,  1.  sun    (Hippol.    I.   e,) ;    hail  from 

'  Hippol.   I,  e,  and  supra,  p.  vapours,  which,  heated  by  the  »qd, 

356,  3.  ascend  to  an  altitude  at  which  thej 

*  Arist.  Meteor,  i.  8,  345  a,  25,  freeze  (Arist.  Meteor,  i.  12,  348  b, 
and  his  commentators :  Diog.  ii.  9;  12;  Alex.  Meteor.  85  b,  86  »; 
Hippol.  I.  0. ;  Plut.  Plac.  in.  1,  7,  Olymp.  Meteor.  20,  ap.  Philop. 
cf.  p.  252,  2.  Meteor.    106  a,  i.  229,  233  Id.): 

*  Plut.  Plac,  ii.  16.  Democri-  falling  stars  are  sparks  whieh  the 
tus  was  of  the  same  opinion.  fire  on  high  emits  by  reason  of 

*  Arist.  A/e^(-or.  i.  6  ;  Alex,  and  it^  oscillation  (Stob.  Ed.  i.  5&0; 
Olympiod.  ad  h.  I.  supra,  p.  252,  3 ;  Diog.  ii.  9 ;  Hippol.  /.  c.) ;  rtio- 
Diog.  ii.  9 ;  Plut.  Hae.  iii.  2,  3 ;  bows  and  mock  suns  are  canted 
Schol.  in  Arat.  Diosem.  1091  (359).  by  the  refraction  of  the  sun's  nj* 

*  Thunder  and  lightning  arise  in    the   clouds    (Plac,  iiL  5,  H; 


ORGANIC  BEINGS.  863 

3.  Organic  Beings,     Man, 

If,  in  opposition  to  the  prevalent  opinion  of  his  time, 
our  philosopher  degraded  the  stars  into  lifeless  masses 
-which  are  moved  by  Mind  in  a  purely  mechanical 
manner,  through  the  rotation  of  the  whole,  in  living 
beings  he  recognises  the  immediate  presence  of  Mind. 
*  In  all  things  are  parts  of  all  except  Mind,  but  in  some 
Alind  is  also,'^  *That  which  has  a  soul,  the  greater 
things  and  the  smaller,  therein  rules  Mind.'^  In 
what  way  Mind  could  exist  in  particular  things  he 
doubtless  never  inquired ;  but,  from  his  whole  exposi- 
tion and  mode  of  expression,  it  is  clear  that  there 
floated  befqre  him  the  analogy  of  a  substance  which  is 
in  them  in  an  extended  manner.'  This  substance,  as 
has  already  been  shown,  be  conceived  as  homogeneous 
in  all  its  parts,  and  he  accordingly  maintained  that  the 
mind  of  one  creature  was  distinguished  from  that  of 
another,  not  in  kind,  but  in  degree  :  all  mind  is  alike, 
but  one  is  greater,  another  less.*  It  does  not,  however, 
follow  from  this  that  he  necessarily  reduced  the  dif- 
ferences of  mental  endowment  to  the  varieties  of  cor- 
poreal structure.^    He  himself  speaks  expressly  of  a 

Schol,  Ventt.  ad  II.  p.  547) ;  earth-  the  meltiqg  of  the  snow  on  the 

qo&kes  by  the  penetrating  of  the  Ethiopian   mountains  (Diodor.   i. 

ether  into  the  hollows  by  which  38,  &c.).    Vide  on  these  subjects 

the  earth  is  pierced  (Arist.  Meteor.  Schanbach,  170  sqq..  176  sqq. 

ii.  7  ;  Alex,  ad  h,  L  106  b ;  Diog.  »  Fr.  7,  vide  p.  272,  1. 

ii.  9  ;  Hippol.  /.  c;  Flut.  Plao.  iii.  <  Fr.  8,  p.  343,  1.    icparw,  as 

15,  4 ;  Sen.  Nat.  Qu.  yi.  0 ;  Am«  is  clear   from  what  immediately 

mian.  Marc.  zvii.  7,  11,  cf.  Ideler,  follows,   indicates    moving   force. 

Ariet,  Meteorol.  i.  687   sq.) ;    the  Cf.  Arist.  rap-  347,  2. 

rivers  are  nourished  by  rain,  and  *  Vide  sup.  345  sq. 

also  by  the  subterranean  waters  *  Cf.  p.  343. 

(Hippol.  I.  c.  p.  20) ;  the  inunda-  *  As  is  thought  by  Tennemann, 

tions  of  the  Nile  are  the  result  of  i.  a;  i.  326  sq.;  Wendt,  adh.  l.  p. 


864 


ANAXAG0RA8. 


various  amouDt  of  mind,^  and  this  is  quite  logical 
according  to  his  own  presuppositions.  Also,  when  be 
said  that  man  is  the  most  sensible  of  all  living  beings, 
because  he  has  hands,^  he  probably  did  not  mean  to 
deny  the  advantage  of  a  superior  order  of  mind,*  but 
is  merely  employing  a  strong  expression  for  the  value 
and  indispensability  of  hands/  Nor  can  we  suppose 
that  Anazagoras^  regarded  the  soul  itself  as  something 
corporeal,  as  air.  On  the  other  hand,  Aristotle  is  right 
in  asserting  that  he  made  no  distinction  between  the 
soul  and  Mind,^  and  in  transferring  to  the  soul  upon 
this  presupposition  what  Anaxagoras  primarily  says  of 
Mind,  that  it  is  the  moving  force.*  IDnd  is  always 
and  everywhere  that  which  moves  matter.     Even  if  a 

ySpov  atpotiiri  ilKwy6v  re  Ktlfifia 
[r^y  ifwx^"]-  This  theory  is  mow 
definitelj  ascribed  to  Anaxa^oiu 
and  Archelaus,  ap.  Stob.  EeL  I 
796 ;  Theod.  Cur.  Gr,  Aff.  ?.  18, 
p.  72;  cf.  Tert.  Be  An.  e.  12; 
Simpl.  2>0  ^».  7  b ;  ap,  Philop.  Jk 
An.  B.  16  (AnaxagoTM  described 
the  soul  as  a  self-moving  number); 
Bnmdis,  Or.-Rom.  PhU.  i.  26*, 
rightly  snbstitutes  Be^ox^ritt.  Gf. 
ibid.  c.  5. 

•  De  An.  1,  2;  n^).  p.  347,  2; 
ibid.  405  a,  13  :  'Ara^cryvtpar  t  Um 
fiJky  h-tpov  \iyuy  t^i^rfr  Tf  Kci  »w, 
&<ne%p  ctiro/icr  muL  rp^tpow,  XP^*^ 

y€  etc.  vide  p.  348,  1. 

•  /.c.  404  a,  26:  S/ioUtt  tk  aH 
*Apa^oBy6pas  ^j^x^K  clwu  X^  ^ 

KlVOVCt&f,  fCol  ff  TIf  ^SiKKOt  cfjplfCCy  •* 

T^  Toy  ixlyriat  rovt . 


417  sq.;  Bitter,  Ion.  PhU.  290; 
Gesch.  d.  PhU.  i.  32S ;  Schaubach, 
138  ;  Z^vort,  135  sq.,  &c. 

>  In  the  Bacita,  t.  20,  3,  the 
opinion  is  ascribed  to  him  that  all 
living  beings  have  active,  but  all 
have  not  passive  intelligence ;  this 
he  cannot  possibly  have  said ;  and 
in  order  to  express  the  special  pre- 
rogative of  man  above  animals,  the 
sentence  must  be  inverted. 

*  Arist.  Part.  Anim.  iv.  10, 
687  a,  7 :  *Kyafygy6pai  ti\v  ohv  ^0-1, 
Zih  rh  x^^P^'  ^X***'  ippopift^raroy 
cTyw  r&y  (fptay  MpwroK  Cf.  the 
verse  in  Syncellus,  Chran.  149  c,  to 
vhich  the  Anaxagoreans  are  there 
said  to  appeal :  x*^P*»^  hX\vfi4yvv 

*  This  is  also  shown  by  the 
observation  of  Plutarch,  De  For^ 
tundf  c.  3,  p.  98  :  '  in  respect  of  our 
bodies,  we  are  far  surpassed  by  the 
beasts : '  ifiwupiif  9h  koI  m*^mI7  fai 
aopi^  Koi  rixyv  Kar&  ^Aya^aydpay 
ffpStv  re  ahrSty  XP^V^^  *^  fiKitro- 


PLANTS  AND  ANIMALS. 


865 


being  moves  itself,  it  must  be  Mind,  which  produces 
this  motion,  not  only  mechanically,  from  without,  but 
from  within ;  in  such  a  being,  consequently,  Mind  itself 
must  dwell — ^it  becomes  in  him  a  soul.' 

This  animating  influence  of  mind  Anazagoras  re- 
cognises even  in  plants,  to  which,  like  Empedocles  and 
Democritus,  he  ascribes  life  and  sensibility.^  The 
origin  of  plants  he  explains  in  accordance  with  the 
fundamental  ideas  of  his  system ;  for  he  supposed  their 
germs  to  come  from  the  air,'  which,  like  the  other 
elements,  is  a  mixture  of  all  possible  seeds.^  In  the 
same  manner  the  animals  originally  arose ;  ^  the  slimy 
earth  was  fructified  by  the  germs  contained  in  the 
apther.*    This  was  asserted  contemporaneously  by  Em- 


'  Cf.  p.  363. 

«  So  Pint.  Qu.  K  c.  1.  p.  911 ; 
P8.-Arist.  De  Plant,  c.  1,  815  a,  15  ; 
b,  16  («up.  p.  159,  4;  263,  2):  6  fikv 
'Avo^cry^os  tol  (i^a  ttvai  Pra  ^irrd] 
Kol  liZwBax  Koi  XvTcurOoi  citrc,  rp  re 
itwofi^  T&y  ^^XXMtf  Kcd  rp  ab^ifiati 
rovTo  iK\afi$dywK  According  to 
the  sfime  treatise,  c.  2,  he  also 
attributed  breath  to  plants;  on  the 
other  hand,  Arist.  De  Respir,  2, 440 
b,  30,  refers  'w&ma  to  Cv"  only. 

«  Th<*ophr.  H.  Plant,  iii.  1,  4: 
*hFCifyrY6pa%  ii,\v  rhv  Upa  riirrctv 
^dffKutf  ix'^  ff'T^pfiara'  ical  ravra 
(rvyKaTeb^*p6ft€ya  r^  thvrt  ywv^v 
tk  ^vrd.  Whether  it  is  meant  that 
plants  are  still  produced  in  this 
manner  is  not  clear.  According  to 
Arist.  De  Plant,  c.  2,  817  a,  25, 
Anaxagoras  called  the  sun  the 
father,  and  the  earth  the  mother 
of  plants  ;  but  this  is  unimportant. 

*  Cf.  on  this  subject  p.  332,  1. 

*  Yet  their  higher  nature  seems 
to  be  indicated  in  the  derivation  of 


their  seeds,  not  from  the  air  and 
moisture,  but  from  the  fiery  ele- 
ment, «the  ether. 

•  Iren.  Adv.  Haer,  ii.  14,  2: 
Anaxagoras  ....  dogmatisavit, 
facia  animalia  decidentibus  e  coUo 
in  terram  seminifnts.  Hence  Euri- 
pides,  Chrysipp,  Fr.  6  (7):  souls 
arise  from  {ethereal  seeds,  and 
return  after  death  to  the  setber,  hs 
the  body  returns  to  the  earth  from 
which  it  sprang.  This  is  not  con- 
tradicted but  rather  completed  by 
what  we  read  in  Hippol.  Befut.  i. 
8,  p.  22,  and  Diog.  ii.  9:  C^a  Si 

ravra  8i  4^  AXA^Awir,  and,  (^ 
y€pMai   i^   iypov  koX   $€puov  ical 

According  to  Plut.  Plae.  ii.  8.  this 
happened  before  the  inclination  of 
the  plane  of  the  earth  (sup.  p.  360, 
4);  as  Anaxagoraa  doubtless  aa- 
sumed  because  the  sun  might  then 
work  upon  the  earth  without  in- 
terruption. 


AjyAXAGOItAS. 


pedocles,  previously  by  Anaximander  and  Parmenides, 
and  subsequently  by  Democritus  and  Diogenes.'  An- 
axagoras  also  agrees  with  Empedocles  and  Parmenides 
in  his  theories  on  generation  and  the  origin  of  the 
sexes.*  Of  his  opinions  about  animals,  excepting  the 
assertion  that  all  animals  breathe,'  tradition  has  told  us 
nothing  of  any  importance;^  and  the  same  may  be 
said  (with  the  exception  of  what  has  already  been 
quoted)  of  our  infoimation  concerning  the  corporeal 
life  of  man.*  The  statement  that  he  represented  the 
soul  as  perishing  at  its  separation  from  the  body  is  very 


»  Vide  tnip.  p.  159  sq. ;  Vol.  I. 
pp.  256,  601 ;  Vol.  II.  255,  1 ;  Vol. 
I.  295.  Also  the  Anaxagoreans, 
Archelaus  (vide  if^ra)^  and  Euri- 
pides, ap.  Diodop.  i.  7. 

'  According  to  Aristotle,  Gen. 
AniTii.  iv.  1,  793  b,  30;  Philop. 
Gen.  An,  81  b,  83  b  ;  Diop  ii.  9 ; 
Hippol.  I.  c,  (certain  dirergences, 
ap.  CenBorin.  Di.  Nat.  5,  4.  6,  6,  8; 
Plut.  Plac.  V.  7,  4,  need  not  be  con- 
sidered), be  supposed  that  the  male 
alone  fiirnished  the  seed,  the  female 
only  tJie  place  for  it;  the  sex  of 
the  child  is  determined  by  the 
nature  and  origin  of  the  seed  ;  boys 
spring  from  the  right  side  of  the 
ntems,  and  i^rls  from  the  left. 
Of.  mp.  Vol.  I.  p.  601,  4;  Vol.  II. 
p.  162,  5.  Gensorimis  further  says 
that  he  thought  the  brain  of  the 
foetus  was  formed  first,  because  all 
the  senses  proceed  from  this  ;  that 
the  body  was  formed  from  the 
sthereal  warmth  contained  in  the 
seed  (which  harmonises  well  with 
what  ifl  quoted  in  365,  6),  and  that 
the  child  received  nourishment 
through  the  navel.  According  to 
Cens.  5,  2,  he  op  osed  the  opinion 
of  his  contemporary  Hippo  (Vol.  I. 


p.  282,  5)  that  the  seed  comes  from 
the  marrow. 

■  Arist.  De  Refpir.  2,470  K  80. 
The  Scholia  ad  k  I.  (after  SmpL 
De  ^n.Venet.  1527),  p.  1 64  b,  167  a. 
With  Diogenes,  this  theory,  which 
he  shared  with  Anaxagoras,  stands 
in  connection  with  his  view  of  the 
nature  of  the  soul.  With  Anaxa- 
goras this  is  not  the  case  (vide  p. 
365,  6) ;  but  the  thought  must  hare 
been  obvious  to  him,  that  all  things, 
in  order  to  live,  must  inhale  vital 
warmth.    Cf.  p.  365,  6. 

*  We  have  only  the  obsem* 
tions  in  Aristotle,  Gtn.  Amm.  iii., 
that  he  thought  certain  animals 
copulate  through  the  mouth;  and 
ap.  Athen.  ii.  57  d,  that  he  oilled 
the  white  in  the  egg  the  milk  d 
birds. 

*  According  to  Hut,  Ptotf.  v. 
25,  3,  he  said  that  sleep  merely 
concerned  the  body  and  not  the 
soul ;  in  support  of  which  he  no 
doubt  appealed  to  the  activity  of 
the  soul  in  dreams.  Aceordiz^  to 
Arist.  Part]  An.  ir.  2.  677  a,  5,  he 
(or  possibly  his  disciples  only)  de- 
rived feverish  diseases  from  the 
galL 


MAX.     THE  SENSES.  367 

uncertain ; '  and  it  is  a  question  whether  he  ever  ex- 
pressed any  opinion  on  this  point.  From  his  own  pre- 
suppositions, however,  we  must  necessarily  conclude 
that  mind,  as  such,  is  indeed  eternal,  like  matter;  but 
that  mental  individuality  is,  on  the  contrary,  as  perish- 
able as  corporeal. 

Among  mental  activities  Anaxagoras  seems  to  have 
kept  that  of  the  intellect  primarily  in  view,  as  indeed 
knowledge  appeared  to  him  personally  (vide  infra) 
to  be  the  highest  end  of  life.  But  though  he  de- 
cidedly gave  the  preference  to  thought  over  sensible 
perception,  yet  he  seems  to  have  treated  more  at  length 
of  the  latter  than  of  the  former.  In  contradiction  to 
the  ordinary  theory,  he  adopted  the  view  of  Heracleitus, 
that  the  sense-perception  is  called  forth,  not  by  that 
which  is  akin,  but  by  that  which  is  opposite  to  it. 
That  which  is  of  like  kind,  he  says,  makes  on  its  like 
no  impression,  because  it  introduces  no  change  in  it ; 
only  the  unlike  works  upon  another,  and  for  this  reason 
every  sense-perception  is  united  with  a  certain  distaste.' 

>  Pint.  I.  c.  undep  the    title  iii.  2,  &c.,  if  they  are  hirtorical, 

vordpcv    itrriv    twvos    f^    Bdvaros,  would  mthep  seem  to  show  that  he 

t^vX^f  fj  <r6futro9 ;  continues :  cTi'Cu  regarded  death  as  a  simple  neces- 

Zi  KoX  ^xVi  Bdmov  rhv  Ztax^fpi-  sity  of   nature,  without  thinking 

iTM^r.     This  statement  is  the  more  of  &  ftiture  life  after  death ;  but 

untrustworthy,  as  the  proposition  this  inference  would  be  likewise 

that  death  concerns  the  body  only,  uncertain. 

and   not  the  soul,  is  referred  to  *  Theophr.  De  Sensu,  1 :  stfA 

Leudppus,  and  on  the  other  hand,  9*  olo^o-cwr  ed  ^iv  roAA.a2  Koi  kqB6- 

Empedocles,  in  spite  of  his  belief  \qv  I6lai  Ho  tlaiv.  ol  fihv  yiip  r^ 

in  immortality,  is  credited  with  Sfioi^  miovciw,  ol  8i  rf  irayrl^. 

the  theory  that  it  concerned  both.  To  the  former  belong  Parmenid«='s, 

It  is  plain  that  no  inference  can  be  Empedoclef,    and    Plato  ;    to  the 

drawn  from    the    expression   ap.  latter  Anazagoras  and  Heradeitns. 

Diog.  ii.  11  ;  Cic.  Tmc,  i.  43,  104  §  27:  'Ai^o^oo^paf  tk  ytwttreat  ft^v 

(vide  wi/.  871,  6):  and  the  utter-  rot*  ivatrrlois'  rh  yitp  Zfioiow  kinBh 

ances,  ap.  JDiog.  ii.  18,  2E1,  F»  H.  kvh  r,ov  SfAoiov  tn0  iitdg^w  M 


868  ANAXAG0RA8. 

The  chief  confirmation  of  his  theory  lay  however,  he 
believed,  in  the  consideration  of  the  several  senses. 
We  see  because  of  the  reflection  of  objects  in  the 
apple  of  the  eye :  this  reflection  is  formed,  according 
to  Anaxagoras,  not  in  the  part  which  resembles  the 
object  in  colour,  but  which  is  diflerent ;  as  the  eye  is 
dark,  we  can  see  in  the  day  if  the  objects  are  illumi- 
nated ;  but  in  certain  instances  the  opposite  is  the  case.^ 
Similarly  with  touch  and  taste  ;  we  receive  the  impres- 
sion of  heat  and  cold  from  such  things  only  as  are  warmer 
or  colder  than  our  body ;  we  perceive  the  sweet  with  tlie 
bitter,  the  fresh  with  the  salt  element  in  ourselves.*  So 
we  smell  and  hear  the  opposite  with  the  opposite ;  the 
more  precise  explanation  of  smell  is  that  it  arises  from 
respiration ;  of  hearing,  that  the  tones  are  transmitted 
to  the  brain  through  the  cavity  of  the  skull.'  In 
respect  to  all  the  senses,  Anaxagoras  believed  that  la^ 
organs  were  more  capable  of  perceiving  the  great  and 

ireiporai  StapiO^civ.     After  this  has  supra,  p.  1G5.  3. 
been  shown  in  detail,  he  continups,  *  /.  c.    Ck)ncerning  heAring  ud 

§   20 :    &ira0-ay   V    oXtrdTifftv   fierh,  tones,  other  writers  tell  us  a  few 

\6rris-  (similarly  in  §  17)  8ir«f)  &y  further  particulars.    According  to 

96^u€v  iuc6\oit$oy  cTyat  rf  droOcVct.  Plut.  PUic.  iv.  19»  6,  Anaxagoras 

way  yiip  rh  MyMiov  airrSfiwoy  it6ifoy  believed  that  the  voice  was  caused 

wap^X<^  as  ^^  clearly  see  in  those  by  the  current  of  air  proceeding 

sensible    impresbions,   which    are  from  the  speaker  striking  against 

especially  strong  and  lasting.     Cf.  condensed  air  and  returning  to  the 

p.  89,  2.  ears ;  in  this  way  also  he  explained 

*  Theophr.  L  c.  §  27.  the  echo.    According  to  Pint  ^. 

«  I.  c.  28  (cf.  36  sqq.),  where  Conv.  Tiii.  3,  8,  7  sq.,  Arist.  Pnhl 

it  is  thus  expressed :  the  sensation  xi.   33,  he  thought   that  the  air 

follows  Korh  T^K  IWciif^iy  r^y  Ud-  was  made  to  vibrate  with  a  tremn- 

trrov  viyra  yhp  iyuvdpx^^y  ^v  ^A*«»'.  Ions  motion  by  the  heat  of  the  sun, 

Cf.  with  the  last  proposition  the  as  we  see  in  solar  motes ;  and  thai 

quotations    from    Anaxagoras,   p.  in  consequence  of  the  noi&e  that 

338  sq.,  from  Pannenides,  Vol.  I.  results  from  this,  we  hear  less  dis- 

p.  165,  3,  and  from  Empedoclos,  tinctlv  by  day  than  by  night. 


MAN.     THE  SENSES.  .369 

distant,  and  smaller  organs  the  small  and  near.^  As  to 
the  share  of  vovs  in  the  sense-perception,  he  does  not 
seem  to  have  expressed  any  definite  opinion,  but  to 
have  presupposed,  notwithstanding,  that  vovs  is  the 
percipient  subject,  while  the  senses  are  merely  organs 
of  perception.* 

But  if  the  sense-perception  is  conditional  on  the 
nature  of  the  bodily  organs,  we  cannot  expect  that  it 
should  reveal  to  us  the  true  nature  of  things.  Every 
corporeal  thing  is  an  intermixture  of  the  most  various 
ingredients;  how  then  can  any  object  be  purely  re- 
flected in  it  ?  Spirit  alone  is  pure  and  unmixed :  it 
alone  can  separate  and  distinguish  things ;  it  alone  can 
procure  us  true  knowledge.  The  senses  are  too  weak 
to  ascertain  truth.  This  Anaxagoras  proved  from  the 
fact  that  we  do  not  perceive  the  minute  atoms  which 
are  intermingled  in  a  body,  nor  the  gradual  transitions 
from  one  state  into  the  opposite.*  That  he  therefore 
denied  all  possibility  of  knowledge,*  or  declared  all 
presentations  to   be   alike   true,*  we  cannot  suppose, 

'  T^eopkr.  I,  c.  29  sq.  cTra  ^k  $ar4pov  tts  Bdrtpop  icard 

*  This  Boems   to   be  convejed  <rrafy6va  rapeyx^oifxtyy  oh  tvirfiffrreu 

by  the  words  of  Tfaeophrastus,  De  ri  6^ts  iieucplytip  t&s    iraf>^  fuKphv 

SengUj    38.      He    says    Clidemus  /itrafioXits,  Kolirtp  wphs  r^r  ip6ffiv 

(vide  infra)    supposed    that    the  6woK€t$jL4ifas.    The  farther  reason, 

ears  do  not  themselves  perceive  that  the  senses  cannot  distinguish 

objects,  but  transfer  the  sensation  the  constituents  ofthings,  is  alluded 

to   ¥ovSy   ohx    &<nr9p    *Aya|a7<^af  to  in  the  passages  quoted,  p.  272,  2, 

^xV  voi€t  vdvTiav  rhp  wovv.  and  in  the  statement  {Plac.  i.  3,  9; 

'  Sext.   Math,  vii.  90 :  *A.  &s  Simpl.  De  Cctlo,  268  b,  40 ;  SehoL 

&(r0«rcts  BiafidWmy  riis  aiir$4ivus,  513    a,    42)    that    the    so-called 

"  M  ib^€atp6rnros  aJtn&p^  ^nciv^  6fioiofAtpvi  are  perceived,  not  by  the 

"  ou  iwarot  iffiAtp  Kplytiy  riX.ffi4s  **  senses,  but  by  the  reason  alone. 
{Ft.  25).    riemai  5i   rlfrny  aln&y  <  Cic.  Acad.  i.  12,  44. 

r^s  i»tarlas  t^k  »«pA  fiiKphv  rciy  *  Arist.  Metaph.  iv.  6,  1009  b, 

Xpvfi^my  ^^aWayiiy.    cJ  yhp   S^o  25:  *Ayalaiy6pov  Si  icol  knSipBryfia 

\i&oifity  xp^fMra,  ftiKay  iral  Xcvic^y,  fiyrifMv^ifrrcu  rplbs  rwv  Iredp^y  riyks, 

TOL.  II.  B  B 


870  AyAXAGORAS. 

since  he  himself  states  his  opinions  with  full  dogmatic 
conviction ;  as  little  can  we  infer,  as  Aristotle  does, 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  mixture  of  all  things,  that  he 
denied  the  law  of  contradiction ;  *  for  his  opinion  is 
not  that  opposite  qualities  belong  to  one  and  the  same 
thing  as  such,  but  that  diflFerent  things  are  inextrica- 
bly intermingled ;  the  inferences  which  a  later  writer, 
rightly  or  wrongly,  derives  from  his  propositions  ought 
not  to  be  ascribed  to  himself.  He  regards  the  senses, 
indeed,  as  inadequate;  he  admits  that  they  only  in- 
struct us  imperfectly  as  to  the  nature  of  things ;  yet  he 
argues  from  phenomena  to  their  hidden  causes,*  having 
really  attained  to  his  own  theory  in  this  and  no  other 
way;  and  as  the  world-ereating  Mind  knows  all  things, 
so  the  portion  of  Mind  which  is  in  man  must  be  allowed 
its  share  in  this  knowledge.  When  it  is  said  that  he 
declared  reason  to  be  the  criterion,^  this  is  true  in  fact, 
though  not  literally.  He  doubtless  never  attempted  any 
precise  definitions  of  the  nature  and  distinctive  character 
of  thought.^ 

The  moral  life  of  man  was,  in  all  probability,  not 

Uti  Totaur*  alroTs  f<rrai  tA  Svra  ota  them,    hardly    require   a  refats- 

&y  6ToXcE|3«0-tt%  which,  if  the  tradi-  tion. 

tion  is  true,  no  doubt  is  only  in-  *  Metaph,  ir.  4,  5,  17i  10^7  b, 

tended  to  assert  that  things  contain  25,  1009  a,  22  sqq.  1012  a,  24,  xi. 

for  us  another  meaning  when  we  6,  1063  h,  24 ;  Alex,  in  Metc^ 

consider  them  from  another  stand-  p.  295,  1  Bon.  684  a,  9  Br. 

point ;    the  course  of  the  world  *  Supra^  p.  272,  2. 

will  correspond  to  our  wishes,  or  •  Sext.  Math.  vii.  91 :  *Aw{. 

contravene  them,  according  as  we  Koiy&s  rhp  Xt^r  l^arpcdi^Fdm. 

have  a  right  or  a  wrong  theoiy  of  *  This  we  must  infer  from  the 

the  world.    Cf.  also  Hitter,  Ion,  silence  of  the  fragments,  and  of  all 

PAf{.  295  6q.    The  alteration  which  testimony:   even  Philop.  De  Ji*- 

Gladisch,  Anax.  u,  d,  hr.  46,  pro-  C  1,  7»  does  not  ascribe  the  hxor 

poses  in  the  words  of  Anaxa^ras,  totelian  definitions :  "  h  KupUs  Kfiy^ 

and  the  explanation  he  gives  of  /acfoi  vovs  6  Kwrh,  r^w  ffif^* 


THE  SENSES  AND   THOUGHT. 


371 


included  by  Anaxagoras  in  the  sphere  of  his  scientific 
enquiry.  There  are,  indeed,  some  isolated  expressions 
of  his,  in  which  he  describes  the  contemplation  of  the 
cosmos  as  the  highest  task  of  man,*  and  blames  the 
superficiality  of  the  ordinary  view  of  life ;  ^  and  traits 
are  related  of  him  which  evince  an  earnest  and  yet 
gentle  disposition,*  a  magnanimous  indifference  to 
external  possessions,^  and  a  quiet  fortitude  in  distress  ;* 

that  he  was  never  seen  to  laugh ; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  anecdote 
told  of  him  in  Plut.  Praec,  Ger, 
Beip.  27,  9,  p.  820;  Biog.  ii.  14, 
that  on  his  death-bed,  he  asked, 
instead  of  any  other  honoors,  that 
the  children  might  have  a  holiday 
from  school  on  the  aoniventary  of 
his  death,  shows  a  genial  and 
kindly  disposition. 

*  Cf.  what  is  said,  p.  826,  2,  on 
the  neglect  of  his  property.  All 
the  more  incredible  is  the  calumny 
ap.  Tert  ApofogeL  c.  46.  The- 
mistins,  Orat.  ii.  30  C,  uses  Sucai^- 
Tcpoj  *kvafysy6ftov  proverbially, 

*  According  to  Diog.  ii.  10  sqq. 
ho  replied  to  the  news  of  his  con- 
demnation (this,  however,  is  also 
told  by  Dioff.  ii.  35,  of  Socrates) 
that  'the  Athenians  as  well  as 
himself  have  been  long  ago  con- 
demned to  death  by  nature:'  to 
the  observation,  "  itrr^fHidus  *A0q- 
mUvk,"  "o6  iijkv  o5y,  &XX'  iKttvot 
4/Mv;"  to  a  condolence  upon  his 
being  forced  to  die  in  banishment, 
*  it  is  the  same  distance  everywhere 
to  Hades'  (this  is  also  in  Cic.  Tu90, 
i.  43,  104) ;  to  the  news  of  the 
death  of  his  sons:  fStar  abrohs 
BvflTohs  ywiiaas.  The  last  is  told 
by  Plut.  Cons,  ad,  Apoll  83,  p. 
118 ;  Panaetius  ap.  Plut  Coh,  Ira, 
16,  p.  468  E,  and  by  many  others, 
but  a£  Solon  and  Xenophon  as  well 


"  6  vovs  awXuis  iwrifioXcus  rots 
•wpdyuaaiv  iun-ifidWuv  ^  iyifof  9l 
ovK  fyyw,"  to  the  philosopher  him- 
self;  he  only  makes  use  of  them 
in  the  discussion  of  his  doctrines. 

1  Eudem.  Eth.  i.  5,  1216  a,  10 
(and  others,  p.  326,  2),  says  (prefix- 
ing ^offiv'):  Anaxagoras  replied 
to  the  question  why  life  has  any 
value :  rod  0€Wfni<rai  [fvcKa]  rhp 
Qvptufhy  KoX  T^y  wtpl  rhw  i\ov  K6a-fjtop 
rd^ip,  Diog,  ii.  7 :  irp^s  rbv  tMrrv 
**  oMv  aoi  fi4\u  rris  irarpi9os ; " 
*'  fh^fut,  i^,  ifiol  ykp  fcai  <r^>6^pa 
fjkiXtt  Tfis  wrplZos"  9c(^as  rhv  ohpa- 
v6v,  fie  calls  his  country  the 
heavens  either  because  his  interest 
and  his  thoughts  are  at  home 
there,  or  because  of  the  theory 
mentioned  p.  365,  6,  on  the  origin 
of  the  soul ;  or  in  allusion  to  both 
at  once,  he  may  mean  that  the 
heavens  from  which  our  soul 
springs  are  the  worthiest  object 
ol  its  interest. 

«  Eudem. /.c.c.  4,  1215  b,  6: 
*Aya{.  .  .  .  ipwtii\fi^^  ris  6  e&Seu/M* 
piarwros ;  "  oWelj,  ^Xxtv,  ir  ffh 
vafii(€is,   &AA*    irowos    fty  rls  <roi 

'  Cic.  Acad,  ii.  23,  72,  praises 
his  grave  and  dignified  demeanour; 
Plut.  Per.  c.  5,  ascribes  the  well- 
known  seriousness  of  Pericles  to 
his  intercourse  with  Anaxagoras; 
and  iEliaUy  F.  H.  viii.  13,  relates 


873  ANAXAGORAS. 

but  we  know  of  no  scientific  rules  belonging  to  this 
department,^  and  even  the  statements  mentioned  above 
are  not  taken  from  the  treatise  of  our  philosopher. 

Nor  did  he  enter  much  into  the  subject  of  religion. 
The  charge  against  him  was  made,  indeed,  on  the  score 
of  atheism^  that  is,  denial  of  the  gods  of  the  state  ;  '  but 
this  censure  was  only  based  on  his  theories  about  the 
sun  and  moon :  as  to  the  relation  of  these  theories  to 
the  popular  faith  he  had  doubtless  hardly  expressed  an 
opinion.     The  same  is  probably  the  case  in  regard  to 
his  naturalistic   explanation  of  phenomena,  in  which 
his   contemporaries  were   accustomed  to  see  miracles 
and  portents.'    Lastly,  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  first 
to  interpret  the  Homeric   myths  in  a  moral  sense  ;^ 
but  it  would  appear  that  in  this  respect  he  is  wrongly 
credited  with  what   really  belongs   to   his   disciples,^ 
and  especially  to  Metrodorus;*  for  if  the  allegorical 


as    Anaxagoras,  Vide  Schaubach,  wnr^ai  tTrai  ircp2  lfivr%i  tuX  i 

p.  53.  tHtVfis'  M  fr\4op  tk  rpoffrTfifat  to» 

*  The   statement  of  Clemens,  A.^v  MnrpS^mpor  rhv  AafK^frnx^w^ 

Strom,  ii.    416    D    (repeated  by  ywiptfAw  Syra  ahrov,  %w  xil  ^ 


Thw>d.  Cur.  €fr.  Jff.  x\,  S,  f.  152) :  intoMffoi    rod   rottfrov  rtfX   tV 

^Am^arySpaif  .  .  .  r^i^  Bttipiw  ^(Cmu  ^vau^v    TpwYfutr^loM,      Heradit 

Tov  $lw  t4\os  cTrai  ical  t^p  inrh  Alleg.  Homer,  c  22,  p.  46,  has  do 

To^s  i\9v$9f>lap,  is  no  doubt  de-  conDection  irith  this, 
rived  simply  froto  the  ethics  of  *  Svncell.    Ckron.  p.  149  C: 

Eudemui  {suprc^  p.  371}  1)*  4pui)ycOov(ri  U  ol  *Atniay6ptoi  rs&r 

•  Vide   the    writers    cited    p.  fivOiz^is  $«ohs,  vow  fiiw  rhf  Ak, 
323,  3  ;  Iren.  ii.  14,  2,  calls  him  rV  9k  'ABtflw  rcxni',  Mck  nl  W* 
for  this  reason  AnaxagoraB^  ^  ^^  X**P^^f  etc.    Vide  p.  364,  2. 
atheus  eoanommatus  est.  *  Vide  concerainfif  Metndonis 

'  Sucn  as  the  much  talked  of  (who  is  also  mentioned  by  Alex, 

stone  of  .SSgospotamos,  ap.  Diog.  Meteorol.  91  b,  and  Simpl.  Pip*- 

ii.  11,  and  the  ram  with  one  horn,  257  b.  as  a  disciple  ef  Anazsgons, 

ap.  Pint.  Per.  6.  and  in  Plato's  l<m.  530  C,  as  a 

*  Biog.  ii.  11 :  ZomI  5i  rp&ros,  solemn  exponnder  of  the  Homeric 
KoOd  ^vi  *afi»ptifos  ip  wwToicarf  poems),  Tatian.  C.  Grose,  e.  21,  p- 
iffTopl^^  T^  'Ofilipov  Toifiair  itwo^-  262  D  :  ml  MnTp6B»pos  5i  ^  W* 


RELATION  TO  PREDECESSORS.  878 

interpretation  of  the  poets  ig  altogether  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  taste  of  the  Sophistic  period,  the  moral 
interpretation  is  least  of  all  suited  to  Anaxagoras,  who 
paid  so  little  attention  to  ethios.  Of  him  we  may  ven- 
ture to  say  that,  in  his  enquiries,  he  confined  himself 
entirely  to  physics. 

IV. — Anaxagoraa  in  relation  to  his  predeeessorg,  Charaoter 
and  Origin  of  his  Docirine.  The  Anaxagorean  School : 
Archelaus, 

Wb  have  already  observed,  in  regard  to  Empedocles 
and  Democritos,  MeUssus  and  Diogenes,  that  in  the 
course  of  the  fifth  century  the  various  schools  of  phi- 
losophy and  their  doctrines  were  gradually  beginning  to 
exert  a  livelier  and  more  important  influence  over  one 
another.  The  example  of  Anaxagoras  only  confirms 
our  observation.  This  philosopher  seems  to  have  known 
and  made  use  of  most  of  the  ancient  doctrines :  from 
Pythagoreanism  alone  he  stands  so  entirely  aloof  that 
we  can  discern  no  influence,  however  indirect,  from 
that  quarter  upon  his  doctrines,  nor  even  an  invo- 
luntary coincidence  between  the  two  systems.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  influence  of  the  Ionian  physicists 
is  unmistakable  in  his  doctrine  of  primitive  opposites,^ 

rjtttiniphs  iv  T^  Tcpl  'Oitthpov  \lcaf  bolical  persons:  and  according  to 

fi^tfwr  8(c(Xcicrai  vtCyra  cIt  &AAi}-  Hesychius  (^Aytifiift.),  Metrodorus 

yopiMf  fitrdyttw,     olh-*  ydip  'Hpov  actUAlly  interpreted   Agamemnon 

oiht  *AS7iva»  oih€  Ala  roCr*  ttyal  as  the  aether.    Bat  as  a  rule,  as 

^TlfftTf  Hirtp  ot  rohi  irtpifi6Xovs  ainois  may  be  seen  from  Tatian's  censure, 

Ktd  ri  r^fiivn  KoBiZpinramts  rofil-  allegory  was  not  employed  by  him 

Cova-t,  ^6<rfus    Bh    ^woffrdatts  moI  in  respect  to  the  human  figures  of 

0-roixc^v  9iaK0CfAi}ff9ts,    We  might  the  Homeric  poems, 
just  as  well,  adds  Tatian,  explain  ^  P.  355,  cf.  Vol.  I.  p.   250, 

the  fighting  heroes  as  merely  sym-  272,  2. 


874  ANAXAQORAS. 

in  bis  astronomical  theories,^  in  his  views  about  the 
formation  of  the  earth,^  and  the  origin  of  living 
creatures ; '  what  he  says  of  the  mixture  of  all  tluDgs 
and  the  unlimitedness  of  matter  reminds  us  of  Anaxi- 
mander  and  Anaximenes,  and  though  in  particular 
details  he  has  no  such  striking  points  of  contact  with 
Heracleitus,*  yet  his  whole  system  is  directed  to  the 
explanation  of  phenomena— ^the  reality  of  which  Hera- 
cleitus  was  more  forward  to  acknowledge  tliau  any 
other  philosopher^ — of  change,  to  which  all  things  are 
subject,  and  of  the  multiplicity  resulting  from  change. 
Still  more  clearly  can  we  trace  in  him  the  influence  of 
the  Eleatic  doctrine.  The  propositions  of  Parmenides 
on  the  impossibility  of  Becoming  and  Decay  form  the 
starting-point  of  his  whole  system.  He  coincides  with 
the  same  philosophers  in  mistrust  of  the  sensible  per- 
ception, in  denial  of  empty  space,*  and  in  certain  of 
his  physical  theories ;  ®  the  only  doubt  is  whether  these 
doctrines  came  to  him  directly  from  Parmenides,  or 
through  the  medium  of  Empedocles  and  the  AtomistF. 
To  these  his  contemporaries  (the  lonians  and  the 
Eleatics),  as  has  been  already  observed,  Anaxagoras  is 
primarily  allied.  The  three  systems  equally  propose  to 
themselves  the  problem  of  explaining  the  formation  of 
the  universe,  the  Becoming  and  individual  generation  of 

>  P.  360,  cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  273  sq.       306)  thinks  that  this  may  hare 

*  P.  366,  ct  Vol.  I.  p.  256,  nrisen  independently  of  Eleatic  ia- 
254,  1.  fltiences,  out  of  the  polemic  agaia^t 

■  P.  365  sq.  Atomiats  or  Pythagoreans ;  bat, 

*  His  theories  concerning  the  considering  the  nnmistakeabls  in- 
sense-perception,  ho«rever  {mp*  p.  terdependecce  of  the  Anaxagoraui 
367  sq.)'  *®®n^  to  betray  the  influ-  and  Parmenidean  doctrines  on  the 
ence  of  Heracleitus.  whole,  it  seems  to  me  improbable. 

»  Sup.  p.  342,   1.     Eitter  (i.  •  Cf.  p.  865,  6;  866,  2;  368, 2, 


RELATION  TO  CONTEMPORARIES.  875 

beings,  and  the  changes  and  piultiplicitj  of  phenomena, 
ivithoiit,  however,  maintaining  an  absolute  Becoming 
and  Deeay,  and  a  qualitative  change  of  the  primitive 
matter,  or  giving  up  any  part  of  the  Parmenidean 
theories  concerning  the  impossibility  of  these  processes* 
To  this  end  they  all  adopt  the  expedient  of  reducing 
generation  to  the  union,  and  decay  to  the  separation  of 
substances,  which,  being  underived  and  imperishable, 
change  in  that  process,,  not  their  quality,  but  only  th^ir 
place  and  relation  in  space.  But  in  their  more  precise 
definitions  the  three  systems  differ.  A  plurality  of 
original  substances  they  must  all  indeed  assume,  in 
order  to  make  intelligibly  the  multiplicity  of  derived 
things ;  but  to  these  substances  Empedocles  ascribes 
the  elementary  qualities;  Leucippus  and  Democritus 
merely  the  universal  qualities,  which  belong  to  every 
corporeal  thing  as  such;  Anazagoras,  the  qualities  of 
determinate  bodies.  In  order  to  account  for  the  innu*- 
merable  differences  in  the  nature  and  constitution  of 
derived  things,  Empedocles  maintains  that  the  four 
elements  are  mingled  in  infinitely  various  proportions, 
the  Atomists  hold  that  the  homogeneous  matter  is 
divided  into  an  infinite  number  of  primitive  bodies  of 
various  shapes,  while  Anazagoras  says  that  the  innu- 
merable substances  are  capable  of  the  most  various 
intermizture.  The  primitive  substances,  therefore,  are 
conceived  by  Empedocles  as  limited  in  number  and 
differences  of  kind,  but  infinitely  divisible;  by  the 
Atomists,  as  unlimited  in  number  and  variety  of  form, 
but  indivisible;  by  Anazago'ras,  as  unlimited  in  number 
and    distinctions    of   kind,    and    infinitely    divisible. 


} 


876  ANAXAOORAS. 

Lastly,  in  order  to  explain  motion — on  which  all  gene- 
ration of  derived  things  is  based — ^Empedocles  adds  to 
the  fonr  elements  two  moving  forces  ;  but  as  these  are 
wholly  mythical  forms,  the  question  as  to  the  natural 
cause  of  motion  remains  unanswered.  The  Atomists 
find  a  purely  natural  cause  of  motion  in  weight ;  and 
that  this  may  operate  and  produce  the  infinite  mul- 
tiplicity of  movements,  they  introduce  empty  space 
between  the  atoms.  Anaxagoras  feels  indeed  the  neces- 
sity of  adding  to  matter  a  moving  force ;  he  does  not, 
however,  seek  this  in  a  mythical  image,  external  to 
nature  and  reality,  but  recognises  in  spirit  or  mind  the 
natural  ruler  and  mover  of  matter. 

In  the  further  application  of  his  principles  to  the 
explanation  of  nature,  Anaxagoras  is  also  in  many 
respects  agreed  with  Empedocles  and  Democritus.  All 
three  begin  with  a  chaotic  mixture  of  primitive  sub- 
stances, out  of  which  they  say  the  world  arose  by  means 
of  a  whirling  motion,  self-engendered,  in  this  mass. 
In  their  conceptions  of  the  universe  there  is  hardly  one 
important  difference  between  Anaxagoras  and  Demo- 
critus. As  Democritus  regarded  the  three  lower  de- 
ments as  a  medley  of  the  most  various  kinds  of  atoms, 
Anaxagoras  saw  in  the  elements  generally  a  medley  of 
all  seeds.^  All  three  philosophers  are  in  accord  about 
several  theories,  such  as  the  obliquity  of  the  ecliptic,* 
the  animate  nature  of  plants,'  the  origin  of  living 
beings  from  the  terrestrial  slime ;  *    Empedocles  and 

»  Of.  p.  225,  1,  with  332,   1;  »  Vide  p.  167,5;  2ol,  6;  360,4. 

Aristotle  uses  the  same  expression,  '  P.  173,  3;  263,  2;  365,  2. 

TovairtpfjJia,  in  both  cases.  *  P.  365,  6 ;  366,  1. 


RELATION  TO  EMPED0CLE8.  377 

Anaxagoras  also  in  regard  to  the  generation  and  de* 
velopment  of  the  foetus ;  *  and,  at  any  rate,  the  first  and 
last-named  of  these  theories  are  so  remarkable  that  we 
cannot  regard  the  coincidence  as  fortuitous. 

Although,  however,  it  thus  appears  imquestionable 
that  the  above-mentioned  philosophers  are  not  merely 
allied  as  to  their  doctrines,  but  that  they  actually  and 
historically  influenced  one  another,  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
determine  which  of  them  first  advanced  the  propositions 
that  are  common  to  all  three.  Anaxagoras,  Empedocles 
and  Leucippus  are  contemporaries,  and  tradition  has  not 
told  us  which  was  the  first  to  promulgate  his  system. 
Aristotle  indeed  says  of  Anaxagoras,  in  a  well-known 
passage,  that  he  was  earlier  as  to  his  age,  and  later  as 
to  his  works,  than  Empedocles.^  But  whether  this 
means  that  his  doctrines  appeared  later,  or  that  they 
were  more  matured,  or  on  the  other  hand,  more  imper- 
fect, than  those  of  Empedocles,  it  is  not  easy  to  dis- 
cover.^    If  W6  try  to  decide  the  question  according  to 

'  Pp.  162;  366,  2.  we  deduce  the  consequence  of  hig 

'  Metaph,   i.    3,    084    a,    11:  theories,  f<r«ts  &v  feuftlri  Kouvoirpf- 

^Ayai^aySpas  d«  .  ,  .  r^  itiv  iiXiKltf  vtardpm  Kiytott .  .  ,  0o6\trai  fiimo- 

irp&r*pos  &p  ro6roVf  to/j  8'  (^pyou  riitapairK'fifftoy'roi^  &rrfpov\4y(iwri; 

vartpos.  and  in  still  closer  correspondence 

'  The  words  allow  of  all  three  with  our  text,  J)e  Ccelo,  iv.  2,  308 

interpretations.    In  regard  to  the  b,  30 :  Koimp  Smts  kpxBu^*pot  rris 

firvt,  eren  if  Breier  {Phil.  d.  Anax.  vvv  ^KiKias  Kaiinyriptts  ip6nffap  rtpl 

85)   is  right  in  saying  that  fpya  r&p  rvv  Xtx^^yruw.    On  the  other 

cannot  refer  to  the  writings,  the  hand,  Sar«poy  also  designates  that 

Opera  omnia ;  nothing  hinders  our  which  is  inferior  to  something  else 

translating  the    text  tbos :    '  his  in   value.     Cf.   Arist.   Metaph.  r. 

achievements  fall   later.'      More-  11,   1081  b,  22:  t6  yitp  iirtp4xoy 

over,  as  what  is  later  is  as  a  rule  if  Zvrdfut    icp6r%poy^  and   Theo- 

riper  and  more  advanced,  d^rcpos  phrast.  ap.  Simpl.  Phys.  6  b,  who, 

may  also  be  used  in  this  sense ;  using  the   same    expression  con> 

and  Aristotle,  c,  jS,  989  b,  6,  19,  versely,  says    of    Plato:    ro^ois 

actuaUy  says  of  Anaxagoras:    if  hnrf9v6iiwos  nXarair,  r^  /iiy  Z6^igi 


378  ANAXAG0RA8. 

the  internal  relation  of  the  doctrinesf  we  shall  probaU; 
be  drawn  in  two  opposite  directions.  On  the  one  hand, 
it  would  seem  that  Anazagoras's  derivation  of  motion 
from  spirit  must  be  later  than  the  mythical  derivation 
assigned  to  it  by  Empedocles,  or  the  purely  material 
explanation  it  receives  from  the  Atomists ;  for  in  the 
idea  of  Spirit  not  only  is  a  new  and  a  higher  principle 
introduced  into  philosophy,  but  this  principle  is  the 
same  with  which  the  subsequent  development  is  chiefly 
connected ;  whereas  Empedocles,  in  his  conception  of  the 
moving  forces,  approximates  to  the  mythic  cosmogony, 
and  the  Atomists  do  not  advance  beyond  the  pre-So- 
cratic  materialism.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  the 
theories  of  Empedodes  and  the  Atomists  appear  to  he 
more  scientific  in  regard  to  the  primitive  substances 
than  those  of  Anaxagoras ;  for  Anaxagoras  places  the 
qualities  of  derived  things  immediately  in  the  primitive 
substances,  while  the  other  two  systems  seek  to  explain 
those  substances  by  reference  to  their  elementary  and 
atomistic  constituents :  consequently,  the  procedure  of 

ivoi   rp    8vr^/(Acc  vpSrtpot,  rots  8^  the    primitive    sobsbmeee    with 

Xp6»ois  tffrtpos.    This  sigoificAtion  which  our  text  is  coBcemed,  Ari*- 

is  given  to  the  words  of  our  text  totk  could  not  possrblj  fa&ve  nud 

by  Alexander,  p.  22,  13  Bon.  534  the  doctrine  of  Anaxagoras  higber 

b,  17  Br.    The  words,  thus  under-  than  that  of  Empedodes,  which  ba 

stood,  contain  a  rhetorical  and  not  himself  followed.    But  it  msr  be 

a  logical  antithesis ;  for,  in  point  that  in  the  predicate  roti  fjrfmi 

of  fact,  there  would   be   nothing  lhrr€pos  he  hsd  in  view  the  whole 

surprising  in  the  older  view  being  of  Anaxagoras  s  doctrine,  in  which 

the  less  perfect;  but  if  Theophras-  he  certainly  recognised  an  es$en- 

tus  could   express  himself  as  he  tial  progress,  as    compared  with 

does  (2.  c),  Aristotle  may  have  said  previous    philosophers,  and  that 

the  same  in  the  same  sense.     If,  Lis   observation    was    merely  in* 

on  the  contrary,  we  understand  by  tended  to  explain    why  he  hsi 

fhrtpoi  the  riper,  there  arises  the  placed  Annxagoras,  in  spite  of  his 

difficulty  (of  which  Alexander  re-  age,  immediately  after  Empedodes. 
minds  us),  that  in  the  question  of 


RELATION  TO   THE  ATOMISTS.  379 

the  Atonlists  is  more  thorough,  because  they  are  not 
content  with  attaining  sensibly  perceived  substances,  but 
derive  these,  individually  and  collectively,  from  some- 
thing still  more  primitive.  This  might  incline  us  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Atdmists  appeared  later  than  Anaxagoras, 
and  Empedocles  at  any  rate  not  earlier ;  and  that  it  was 
precisely  the  inadequacy  of  Anaxagoras's  explanation  of 
nature  which  caused  them  to  abandon  Spirit  as  a  sepa- 
rate principle  side  by  side  with  matter,  and  to  set  up  a 
uniform  and  strictly  materialistic  theory.* 

But  the  apposite  view  has  nevertheless  preponder- 
ating reasons  in  its  favour.  In  the  first  place,  it  has 
already  been  shown*  that  Empedocles  was  acquainted 
with  the  poem  of  Parmenides,  and  that  he  took  from 
that  source  what  he  says  on  the  impossibility  of  gene- 
ration and  decay.  If  we  compare  with  this  Anaxa- 
goras^s  utterances  on  the  same  subject,'  we  find  that 
the  thoughts  and  expressions  in  them  exactly  haimonise 
with  those  of  Empedocles,  whereas  they  have  no  similar 
connection  with  the  corresponding  verses  of  Parmenides. 
The  passages  in  Empedocles  therefore  presuppose  an 
acquaintance  with  Parmenides,  and  can  be  explained 
on  the  basis  of  such  an  acquaintance,  without  any  as- 
sistance from  Anaxagoras ;  conversely,  the  statements 
of  Anaxagoras  can  perfectly  be  understood  on  the  sup- 
position that  he  was  acquainted  with  Empedocles's 
poem :  there  is  nothing  in  them  that  implies  a  direct 
obligation  to  Parmenides*  This  relation  of  the  three 
systems  makes  it  highly  probable  that  Empedocles  first 

»  Cf.  p.  293  sq.  r.  36  sqq.,  40  sqq.  69  sqq.,  89,  92 

«  P.  195  8q,;  161  sq.  (p.  122,  1,  2;  123,  1,  2 ;  124,  1). 

'  Sup,  331,  1|  2,  3;  cf.  Emped, 


380  ANAXAG0RA8. 

derived  his  statement  that  all  generation  is  the  mdon, 
and  all  decay  the  separation,  of  substances,  from  the  doc- 
trine of  Parmenides  of  the  impossibility  of  Beooming; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  Anazagoras  first  borrowed 
the  theory  from  Empedocles :  and  this  conjecture  is 
confirmed  when  we  observe  that  it  harmonises  better 
with  the  other  presuppositions  of  Empedocles  than  with 
those  of  Anazagoras.  For  to  identify  generation  with 
mixture,  and  decay  with  division,  must  have  been  easy 
to  a  philosopher  who  regarded  the  elementary  substances 
as  the  original  principle  out  of  which  the  particular 
was  formed,  merely  through  combination ;  and  who,  in 
connection  with  this,  considered  the  uniting  power  as 
the  truly  divine  and  beneficent,  and  the  intermixture 
of  all  matter  as  the  most  blessed  and  perfect  state.  It 
is,  on  the  contrary,  much  less  easy  if,  with  Anazagoras, 
we  regard  particular  substances  as  the  most  primitive, 
their  original  intermixture  as  an  unordered  chaos,  and 
the  separation  of  the  mixed  substances  as  the  specisd 
work  of  the  spiritual  and  divine  essence.  In  that  case 
the  generation  of  individual  beings  must  be  derived 
primarily  from  the  separation,  and  in  the  second  place 
only  from  the  union,  of  the  fundan^ental  substances ; 
while  their  decay  must  be  brought  about  by  their  return 
to  the  elementary  condition  of  intermixture.*    Among 

*  Steiphart  (^%.  L.  Z,  1845,  elements -v^fire  not  th9  simplest  But 
yovhr.  p.  893  sq.),  on  the  other  what  is  mixture,  if  not  the  geww* 
hand,  thinks  that  the  doctrine  of  tion  of  a  composite  something  from 
the  genes9.tion  of  individuals  from  something  more  simple?  If, there- 
mixture  and  separation  does  not  fore,  all  things  arose  oat  of  inter 
harmonise  with  the  four  primitive  mizturp,  the  simplest  sabstSDces 
substancesof  Empedocles;  it  could  mu»t  be  the  most  p^mittre;  •> 
only  have  been  an  organic  part  of  indeed  all  mechanical  pbjsicists, 
A  doctrine  in  which  the  physical  except  AnaxDgoras,  h^re  assumed 


DELATION  TO  THE  ATOMISTS.  881 

the  other  theories  of  Anaxagoras,  especially  in  what  he 
says  of  the  sense^perception,  he  seems  sometimes  to 
contradict  Empedocles,  and  sometimes  to  show  traces 
of  his  influence.'  We  may  therefore  suppose  that  the 
philosophical  opinions  of  Empedocles  were  published 
before  those  of  Anazsigoras,  and  that  Anaxsigoras  nmde 
use  of  them. 

The  same  holds  good  of  the  founder  of  the  Atom- 
istic School.  Democritus  certainly  seems  to  have 
borrowed  much  from  Anaxagoras,  especially  in  his 
astronomical  conceptions,  in  which  he  is  allied  with 
the  older  theory  of  Anaximander  and  Anaximenes*' 
Anaxagoras,  on  the  contrary^  seems  to  be  referring 
to  Leucippus  when  he  refutes  the  doctrine  of  empty 
space  in  its  details  by  physical  experiments.  When  he 
expressly  asserts  the  unity  of  the  world,  and  protests 
against  the  division  of  primitive  substances,'  he  can 
scarcely  have  in  view  any  other  adversary  than  the 
Atomistic  philosophy.  The  Pythagoreans,  who  alone 
of  all  the  other  schools  might  be  intended,  give  quite 
another  meaning  to  the  conception  of  the  Void ;  and 
the  older  enemies  of  this  conception,  Parmenides  and 
Heracleitus — who  were  anterior  to  the  Atomistic  theory 
— ^bestow  on  it  no  detailed  refutation.  The  Atomistic 
philosophy  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  arouse 
serious  discussion  as  to  the  possibility  of  empty  space.^ 
There  is  doubtless  a  reference  to  this  philosophy,  also, 

for  this  veiy  reason,  and  do  as-  1 ;  248  sqq. 

sume,  eren  to  the  present  day.  *  Vide  supra,  p.  342,  1 ;  Fr.  11, 

»  Cf.  p.  867,  2;  868,  2;  with  supra,  p.  338,  2. 
p.  166,  3.  *  CI',  p.  306. 

'  Vide  supra,  p.  860,  3, 4 ;  374, 


AKAXAG0IU8. 


in  the  remark  *  that  there  can  be  no  *  smallest,'  since 
Being  cannot  }ye  annihilated  by  division  ;  for  here  the 
theory  of  indivisible  bodies  is  directly  supported  by  the 
assertion  that  things  are  annihilated  by  infinite  divi- 
sion :  which,  indeed,  had  already  been  pointed  out  by 
Zeno,  though  he  gave  a  different  application  to  the 
theory.  Anaxagoras's  denial  of  a  blind  Fate  *  has  also 
been  said,  though  less  certainly,  to  have  reference  to 
the  Atomists:  there  is  no  other  system  to  which  it 
would  better  apply.  I  should  therefore  suppose  that 
Leucippus  must  have  preceded  Anazagoras  in  his  doc- 
trine, and  that  Anaxagoras  had  directed  his  attention 
to  it.  That  this  was  quite  possible  chronologically  ve 
have  already  seen  •  in  the  course  of  our  discussion.^ 
The  special  philosophic  importance  of  Anaxagoras 

Hfioiw,  MuUiich's  interpretation 
qtiod  etium  Anaxagorat  ostendit 
infinih^m  sui  simiU  esse  (so  &r,  ac- 
cording to  Fr.  8,  sujmL,  p.  343. 1. 
as  vovs  is  infinite,  and  at  the  same 
time  iras  Sfioios),  introdnees  a 
thought  that  is  snpeifinoas  and 
irrelevant  to  the  context,  and  ii 
besides  contradicted  by  ihiyxw: 
for  though  this  vord  is  used  not 
merelj  for  *  refute,'  bat  also  for 
'prove,'  yet  it  altniys  designates 
a  proof  by  which  an  opposite 
opinion  is  refuted.  But  as  the 
writer  does  not  expressly  say  that 
Anaxagoras  contradicted  the 
opinion  of  Melissus  concerning  the 
homogeneous  nature  of  the  ftni^i 
his  language  may  also  be  under- 
stood thus:  'ETenAnaxagozaaeoD- 
tradicts  the  opinion  that  the  ftm- 
pov  must  be  homogeneous,  so  &r 
as  he  represents  the  infinite  mm 
of  the  primitive  matter  as  consist- 
ing entirely  of  heterogeneous  parts.' 


«  Vide  swpra,  p.  341,  8,  cf.  p. 
218;  Vol.  I.  614. 

*  Vides«p.p.346,3,cf.p.238sq. 
■  P.  306. 

*  Further  confirmation  of  this 
might  be  found  in  the  treatise  De 
Mdisso,  c.  2,  976  a,  13,  Accord- 
ing to  the  most  probable  reading, 
though  this  is  partly  founded  on 
conjecture,  we  are  there  told :  icol 

olfx^  ^f  ^^  '  '  -  Tt^i  (MuUach 
completes  this  in  agreement  with 
Beck,  &XAoi  Mp^if  riA,  I  should 
myself  conjecture  (iW^  ifioi6¥  riyi) 
Sircp  Kol  *AyaiQry6pas  (Beck  rightly 
substitutes  Anaxagoras  for  *Mnra- 
y6pas,  which  we  find  in  Cod.  Lips.) 
ikiyX^h  ^»  dfioiov  rh  tw^ipov '  rh 
8i  ifxotov  irip^  tfioiop,  &ffTt  i6o  ff 
9\tia»  hvra  oifK  tU^  Ir  o&d*  ir*tpoif 
cJyai.  These  words,  it  seems  to 
me,  can  only  be  understood  to 
mean  that  Anaxagoras  contradicted 
the  theory  that  the  Unlimited  is 


CHARACTER  OF  HIS  PHILOSOPHY.  883 

is  based  upon  the  doctrine  of  vovs.    With  this  doctrine 
his  theory  of  matter  is,  however,  so  intimately  connected 
that  the  one  is  conditioned  by  the  other.     Matter  in 
itself,  as  he  represents  it  in  the  primitive  state  before 
Spirit  had  begun  to  work  upon  it,  can  only  be  a  chaotic, 
motionless  mass ;  for  all  motion  and  separation  must 
conie  from  Spirit.     But  matter  must  nevertheless  con* 
tain  all  the  constituents  of  derived  things  as  such  ; 
for  Spirit  creates  nothing  new:  it  only  divides  what 
actually   exists.     Conversely,  Spirit   is  necessary,  be- 
cause matter,  as  such,  is  unordered  and  unmoved,  and 
the  activity  of  matter  is  restricted  to  the  separation  of 
substances,  because  they  are  already  supposed  to  contain 
within  themselves  all  their  determinate  qualities.     The 
one  doctrine  is  so  directly  given  in  the  other  that  we 
cannot  even  enquire  which  was  the  earlier  and  which 
the  later;  for   this  conception  of  matter  could   only 
result  if  an  incorporeal  moving  caase,  distinct  from  it 
and  working  in  this  particular   manner,  were  main- 
tained:   and   such   a  moving    cause    could    only  be 
maintained  if  the  nature  of  matter  were  conceived  in 
this  particular  way  and  no   other.      Both   definitions 
are    so    far    equally  original — they    merely    indicate 
the  two  sides  of  the  opposition  of  Spirit  and  matter, 
as    conceived    by  Anaxagoras.     If   we  ask  how  this 
opposition  itself  arose  in  the  mind  of  our  philosopher, 
an  answer  has  already  been  given  in  the  coiurse  of 
the  present  discussion.*     Ancient  physics   recognised 
only  corporeal    nature.    With  this   corporeal   nature 
Anaxagoras  cannot  satisfy  himself,  because  he  knows 
>  P.  345. 


384  ANAXAG0RA8. 

not  how  to  explain  from  such  a  cause  the  movement  of 
nature,  the  beauty  and  design  of  the  imiverse,  especiaUy 
as  he  has  learned  from  Parmenides,  Empedocles  aad 
Leucippus,  that  the  corporeal  substance  is  something 
underived  and  unchangeable,  not  moved  dynamical]; 
from  within,  but  mechanically  from  without.  Accord- 
ingly, he  discriminates  Spirit,  as  moving  and  ordering 
force,  from  matter ;  and  as  he  finds  all  order  conditional 
on  a  division  of  the  unordered,  all  knowledge  condi- 
tional on  discrimination,  he  thus  defines  the  opposition 
of  Spirit  and  matter :  Spirit,  he  says,  is  the  dividing  and 
discriminating  force,  and  consequently  is  itself  simple 
and  unmixed  ;  matter  is  that  which  is  absolutely  mixed 
and  composite :  a  definition  which  was  closely  connected 
with  the  traditional  ideas  of  chaos,  and  more  recently 
with  the  doctrines  of  Empedocles  and  the  Atomists 
concerning  the  primitive  state  of  the  universe.  If, 
however,  matter  really  consists  originally  in  a  mixture 
of  all  things,  and  the  operation  of  moving  force  in  a 
separation  of  them,  things  as  these  definite  substances 
must  already  be  contained  in  the  original  matter,  and 
in  place  of  the  elements  and  atoms  the  so-called  Ho- 
moeomeries  are  introduced. 

The  fundamental  conceptions,  therefore,  of  the  An- 
axagorean  system  are  without  difficulty  to  be  explained 
as  resulting  partly  from  the  theories  of  earlier  and  con- 
temporary philosophers,  and  partly  from  such  considera- 
tions as  might  easily  and  naturally  occur  to  its  author. 
Such  being  the  case,  we  can  the  more  readily  dispense 
with  the  other  sources  of  this  doctrine,  which  some  even 
among  the  ancients  sought  to  derive  from  Hermotimus, 


CHARACTER  AND  ORIGIN  OF  HIS  SYSTEM.      385 


the  mythical  magician,^  or  from  the  wisdom  of  the  East ; ' 
but  these  views  have  so  little  to  recommend  them  that 
there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt  of  their  groundlessness. 
As  to  any  dependence  of  Anaxagoras  on  Oriental  doctrines, 
there  exists  no  tradition  on  which  the  smallest  reliance 
can  be  placed,  nor  does  the  nature  of  his  system  render 
it  in  any  way  probable.'    Hermotimus  is  manifestly  not  a 


1  Arist.  Metaph,  i.  3,  984  b, 
18,  after  meDtion  of  povs  :  ^avtp&s 
fiky  ody  *Aini^ay6pay  tcfuv  iv^fievov 
Tovr«0y  rSy  Kdyttv,  alriay  8*  llx^^ 
irp6T€po9  *Epfi6Tmos  6  K\a(ofi4vios 
ciircur.  The  fiame  is  repeated  by 
Alexander,  &c.,  ad  A.  I.  (SchoL  in 
Ar,  536  b)  ;  Philop.  ad  A.  I.  p.  2  ; 
ap.  Simpl.  Phys.  321  a;  Sext. 
Math.  ix.  7 ;  Elias,  Cret.  in  Greg. 
Naz.  Orat.  37,  p.  831  (in  Carus, 
Nachg.  W.  iv.  341),  with  no  other 
aathority  for  the  statement  except 
this  Xfixt  of  Aristotle. 

'  To  these  belong  the  state- 
ment already  mentioned,  p.  326, 
2,  that  Anaxagoras  visited  the 
East  and  especially  Egypt;  also 
the  hypotheses  of  Qlndisch  {Die 
Bel.  itnd  die  Philosophie  Anaxag. 
und  die  Israeliten\  and  some  of 
the  ancients  (on  whom  cf.  Anaxag. 
und  d.  Iw.  p.  4),  who  would  con- 
nect him  with  Judaism. 

'  How  inadequate  are  the  au- 
thorities for  Anaxagoras*s  visit  to 
Egypt,  we  have  already  seen  in 
the  notice  of  them,  p.  32*6,  2.  Not 
one  is  less  recent  than  the  last 
decade  of  the  Fourth  Century  after 
Christ;  even  Valerius  Maximus 
does  not  speak  of  a  journey  to 
Egypt,  but  only  of  a  ditUina  pere- 
grinaiio,  while  the  property  of  An- 
axagoras was  laid  waste,  and  it  is 
very  possible  that  he  was  thinking 
of  Anaxagorss's  residence  in  Athens, 


or  of  nothing  definite.  But  even  if 
he  had  named  Egypt  as  the  destina- 
tion of  thisjouroey,  his  evidence 
could  easily, be  contradicted,  and 
the  saying  concerning  the  grave 
of  Mausolus,  which  Diog.  (ii.  10) 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  our  philo- 
sopher (who  died  19  Olympiads, 
i.e.  76  years,  before  it  was  built), 
would  scarcely  lend  it  any  confirma- 
tion.  If  it  be  urged  that  the  Greeks 
from  the  time  of  Anaxagoras  were 
so  inclined  to  place  their  scientific 
greatness  in  connection  with  £!gypt, 
that  it  is  improbable  an  Egyptian 
journey,  known  to  have  been  under- 
taken by  this  philosopher,  should 
have  received  no  mention,  we  can 
only  infer  from  the  complete 
silence  of  all  authorities  on  the 
subject,  that  nothing  whatever  was 
known  of  such  a  journey.  Con- 
cerning the  hypothesis  of  Gladisch, 
I  have  already  given  my  opinion 
on  the  general  presuppositions  and 
collective  result  of  this,  Vol.  I.  p. 
36.  The  interpretation  of  facts 
to  suit  the  interest  of  arbitrary 
combinations,  with  which  he  is 
there  censured,  is  not  wanting  in 
the  present  case.  For  example, 
from  the  dogmas  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, not  only  does  he  deduce,  p. 
19,  the  doctrine  of  pre-exi stent 
matter  (for  which  the  Alexandrian 
Book  of  Wisdom  is  cited  among 
other  evidence  as  perfectly  valid 


VOL.  II, 


C   C 


886 


ANAXAGORAS. 


historical  contemporary  of  Anaxagoras,  but  a  mythical 
figure  in  the  past,  who  has  only  been  associated  with 
Anaxagoras  by  the  idle  ingenuity  of  later  writers.' 


testimony) ;  bat  also  the  Anazago- 
rean  Homoeoroeries  (p.  48);  and 
conversely^  from  Anazagoms  (as 
has  been  shown,  p.  352,  1)  he  de- 
rives, by  the  most  inadequate 
reasoning,  the  Jewish  notions  of 
the  government  of  the  universe. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament 
of  the  creation  of  the  world  by  the 
direct  Divine  behest  is  represented 
as  in  all  essential  respects  *  entirely 
the  same '  (p.  43)  as  that  of  Anax- 
agoras, of  the  first  movement  of 
matter  by  mCj,  from  which  move- 
ment all  things  arise  in  a  purely 
mechanical  manner.  A  parallelism 
that  is  instituted  in  such  a  way 
can  be  of  no  assistance  from  an 
historical  point  of  view. 

^  The  statements  of  the  ancients 
in  regard  to  Hermotimus  (the  most 
complete  coUection  has  been  made 
by  Garus,  *  Ueber  die  Sagen  von 
Hermotimus^  Nachg,  Werke^  iv. 
330  sqq.,  and  previously  in  FUlle- 
honCs  BeUrdge)  are  of  Uiree  kinds. 
The  first  has  just  been  quoted 
from  Aristotle,  &c.  Secondly,  it 
is  asserted  that  Hermotimus  had 
this  wonderful  faculty — that  his 
soul  of^en  quitted  his  body  for  a 
long  time,  and  after  its  return  to 
the  body  would  give  news  of  things 
at  a  distance ;  but  once  his  enemies 
took  advantage  of  this  state  to 
burn  his  body  as  if  he  had  been 
dead.  Thus  Pliny,  H,  N.  vii.  53 ; 
Plut.  Gen,  Socr,  c.  22,  p.  592; 
ApoUon.  Dysc.  Hist.  CommentU.  c. 
3.  All  three,  however,  are  evi- 
dently dependent  on  the  same 
source  (probably  Theopomjms;  cf. 
Bohde,  Bhein.  Mus.  xxvi.  558); 
Lucian,  Mwc.  Enc,  c.  7 ;  Orig.  c. 


CeU.  iii.  3 ;  Tert.  Be  A%.^%  44, 
who  adds  that  tJie  inhabitants  d 
Claasomense  erected  a  shrine  to  Her 
motimus  after  his  death.  Thirdly, 
Hermotimus  is  mentioned  by  Hen- 
cleides  ap.  Diog.  viii.  4  sq.  among 
those  in  whom  the  soul  of  Pytha- 
goras .had  dwelt  in  its  preTioc^ 
wanderings;  and  this  is  repe;it«d 
by  Porph.  V.  Pytk, ;  HippoL  Rifti. 
i.  2,  p.  12 ;  Tert.  i>e  ^.  28,  31. 
That  the  statement  refers  to  th« 
Hermotimus  we  are  diseossiiig 
there  can  scarcely  be  a  doubt, 
though  Hippolytus  erroneouslj 
calls  him  a  Samian.  Bat  since  io 
these  narrations  Hermotimiis  sp-^ 
pears  as  a  fiibulous  personage  ot 
the  distant  past,  it  is  obvious  th&t 
the  statement  which  Aristotle  men- 
tions  must  be  devoid  of  all  his- 
torical foundation ;  not  to  mentioa 
the  modem  writers  who  iroald 
even  make  Hermotimus  the  teacher 
of  Anaxagoras  (vide  Cans,  S34, 
^62  sq.).  This  statement  no  doobt 
.originated  in  the  myth,  in  » 
attempt  to  find  in  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body,  which 
is  related  of  the  old  soothsaver.  an 
analogue  of  Anaxagoras's  aisUD^ 
tion  of  mind  and  matter.  It  is 
possible  that  Democritus  may  har« 
been  the  author  of  this  inteipre- 
tation,  cf.  Diog.  ix.  34.  Similar 
legends  are  found  in  India,  as 
Rohde  shows,  I.  c. ;  and  it  may 
well  be  that  the  story,  like  other 
myths  and  some  of  our  &bl« 
about  animals,  may  have  had  its 
rise  there :  whether  we  suppose  it 
to  have  been  brought  by  the  an- 
cestors of  the  Hellenes  in  very 
ancient  times  from  thur  Asiatie 


CHARACTER  AND  ORIGIN  OF  HIS  DOCTRINE.  387 

We  may  therefore  discard  all  these  conjectures,  and 
consider  the  doctrine  of  Anaxagoras  as  the  natural  pro- 
duct of  the  previous  philosophic  development.  And  it 
is  also  the  natural  end  of  that  development.  For  if  in 
Spirit  a  higher  principle  has  been  found  through  which 
nature  itself  is  conditioned,  and  without  which  neither 
the  movement  of  nature  nor  its  order  and  design  can 
be  explained,  there  arises  henceforward  the  demand 
that  this  higher  cause  of  nature  shall  also  be  recognised, 
the  one-sided  philosophy  of  nature  comes  to  an  end, 
and  along  with  nature,  and  even  before  it,  spirit  be- 
comes an  object  of  investigation. 

The  school  of  Anaxagoras  did  not  itself  take  this 
course.  We  are  indeed  reminded  of  the  Sophists  in 
Metrodorus's  allegorical  interpretations ;  *  but  on  the 
other  hand  Archelaus,^  the  only  disciple  of  Anaxagoras 

home,  or  to  have  come  by  way  of  Proctm.  15 ;  Ens.  xiv.  15,  9  ;  Aug. 
further  Asia  to  the  lonians  on  the  /.  c,  and  from  thence  emigrated  to 
coasts.  Athens.  The  same  presupposition, 
'  P.  372,  6.  or  a  negligent  use  of  the  source 
*  Archelaus,  son  of  Apollo-  employed  by  Clemens,  seems  to  have 
dorus,  or,  according  to  others,  of  given  rise  to  the  astounding  asser- 
Myson,  is  described  by  most  writers  tion  (Diog.  ii.  16;  cf.  Schaubach, 
as  an  Athenian,  but  by  some  as  a  Anax,  22  sq.)  that  he  first  trans- 
Milesian  (Diog.  ii.  16;  Sext.ATa^A.  planted  Physics  from  Ionia  into 
vii.  14,  ix.  360;  Hippol.  RefutA.  0;  Athens.  Most  probably,  however, 
Clemens,  Cohort.  43  D ;  Pint.  Plac.  both  the  first  and  second  of  these 
i.  3,  12;  Justin,  Coliort.  c.  3  ;  and  statements  are  merely  inferences 
Simpl.  Phys,  6).  That  he  was  a  from  the  supposed  connection  of 
scholar  of  Anaxagoras  we  are  fre-  the  8ia$ox^.  Cf.  p.  329,  1.  The 
^uently  told  (cf.,  besides  the  writers  same  judgment  must  be  passed  on 
just  cited,  Cic.  Tusc.  ▼.  4,  10;  the  statement  (Cic,  Sext.,  Diog., 
Strabo,  xiv.  3,  36,  p.  645 ;  Eus.  Simpl.  /.  c. :  lo^  Arittoxenus  und 
Pr.  Ev.  X-  14,  8  sq. ;  August.  Civ.  Diokles  ap.  Diog.  ii.  19,  23,  x.  21 ; 
2).  viii.  2).  According  to  Euse-  Eus.  Pr,  Ev.  x.  14,  9,  xiv.  16,  9, 
bins,  ^.  (?.,  he  first  presided  in  Lamp-  xv.  62,  8;  Hippol.  i.  10;  Galen, 
sacus  over  the  school  of  Anaxagoras,  H.  Phil.  2,  &c.)  that  Socrates  was 
whose  successor  he  is  called,  ap.  his  disciple.  This  is  not  historical 
Clem.    Strom,   i.    301    A;    Diog.  tradition,  but  a  pragmatical  con- 

c  c  2 


388 


ANAXAQ0RA8. 


of  whom  we  know  any  particulars,*  remained  faithful  to 


jecture,  shown  to  be  improbable 
not  merely  by  the  silence  of  Xeno- 
phon,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  bnt  also 
by  the  mutual  relation  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  two  men,  and  by  the 
philosophic  character  of  Socrates. 
(Cf.  Part  11.  a,  47  sq.,  3rd  ed.) 
The  accounts  concerning  the  doc- 
trine of  Archelaus  would  lead  us  to 
conjecture  that  it  was  expounded 
in  writings.  A  book  of  Theophras- 
tus  about  him,  which  is  mentioned 
by  Diog.  T.  42,  was  perhaps  only  a 
section  of  a  larger  work.  Simpl. 
I.  c.  seems  to  refer  toTheophrastus's 
PhyHca  and  not  to  this  exposi- 
tion. 

*  The  Anaxagorean  school  C Avo- 
{ayiJpcioi,  Plato,  Crat.  409  B ; 
SyncelL  Chron.  149  C;  ol  A»' 
*AyoJicirf6pov,  Plut.  Plac.  iv.  3,  2— o/ 
tttpi  'Ay.  in  the  t«xtfi  which  Schau- 
bach,  p.  32,  quotes  is  merely  a 
paraphrase)  is  sonetimes  mentioned 
without  any  farther  account  of  it. 
A  trace  of  its  iafluence  has  already 
come  before  us  (p.  70  sq.)  in  the 
treatise  of  the  pseudo-Hippocrates, 
«■.  Zialrr\s.  A  scholiast  on  Plato's 
Gorgias  (p.  845,  Bekk.)  calls  the 
sophist  Polus  an  Anaxagorean;  but 
this  is  evidently  an  inference  un- 
justifiably drawn  from  465  D.  In 
regard  to  Clidemus,also,it  seem«  to 
me  doubtful  whether  Philippson  is 
right  in  assigning  him  to  the  school 
of  Anaxagoras  ('TXn  kvBp.  107)i 
though  I  cannot  agree  with  Ideler 
(Arist.  Meteorcl.  i.  617  sq.).  ^lio 
makes  him  an  adherent  of  £mpedo- 
cles.  It  would  rather  appear  that 
this  naturalist,  who  is  mentioned 
by  Theophrastus  (H.  Plant,  iii. 
1,  4)  after  Anaxagoras  and  Dio- 
genes, and  again  {Be  Setuu,  38) 
between  them,  and  whom  we  may 
probably  regard  as  a  contemporary 
of  Diogenes  and  Democritus,  had 


no  fixed  theory  of  philosophy,  kt 
occupied  himself  merely  with  pa^ 
ticular  investigations.  Arist  Me- 
teor, ii  9, 870  a,  1 0,  says  he  supposed 
lightning  to  be  only  a  phenomeiioD 
of  light,  like  the  glittering  of  vater 
in  motion.  Theophrastus,  H.  Ph. 
I.  c,  says  that,  aocoiding  to  him, 
plants  consist  of  the  same  suV 
stances  as  animals,  only  that  thej 
are  less  pure  and  warm;  and 
{Onus.  Plant,  i.  10,  3)  that  the 
colder  plants  flower  in  winter,  the 
warmer  in  summer.  Th^  mmt 
author  (I.  c.  iii.  23,  1,  sq.)  mentions 
his  opinion  on  the  best  time  for 
sowing ;  and  (V.  9,  10)  his  vie# 
concerning  a  disease  of  the  vine; 
lastly  he  tells  us(2>0£b».ni,  38)  that 
Clidemus  expressed  some  opinions 
on  the  perceptions  of  the  senw : 
aiffBdytffBcu  ydp  ^at  rois  ^oA^it 
fihv  (so  Wimmer  reads  instead  of  ^^- 
^oy)  tri  8<a^ayc?5*  rait  3'  ^xoah  hi 
c/LiirfirTwr  6  &V  'f'*'"*  ^•"*  ^  A*^ 
i(li9\KOfi4yovs  rhv  it*pa,  rovrmry^ 
hya/iiyyuoBaf  rf  hh  yKico^  rws 
XVfiohs  Kol  rh  9tpfihp  iroi  t^  innd^^ 
3iA  rh  trofi^y  cTweu*  ry  V  4XAf 
cAfAort  irapk  fiky  ravr'  M}v,  a^rir 
3^  ro^aty  ical  rb  9tpuhv  mu  rh  hp^ 
Koi  rk  fyayria-  /aSpov  3i  ras  Uaits 
abrks  fjL^y  olri^y  Kply^iy,  tis  t^  rbv 
yovy  dicnr^/iirciy*  oix  Surwtp  *A«i{*- 
'y6pas  i^xh^  iro«*«  rdrrmr  (of  all- 
sense -perceptions)  rhy  yow.  This 
alone  shows  that  Clidemus  did  not 
share  the  philosophic  opinions  of 
Anaxagoras;  and,  indeed,  nothing 
is  anywhere  said  of  him  in  a  philo- 
sophic point  of  view.  That  he  is  a 
different  person  from  Clidemus,  or 
Clitodemus  the  historian  (Mnller, 
Hist.  Gr.  i.  869  sqq.),  with  whom 
he  is  identified  by  Meyer,  Geseh,  i. 
Botanik,  i.  23  sqq.  and  others,  is 
proved  by  Kirchner,  Jakrb.  /. 
PhiUd.  Swppl.  N.  F.  vii.  601  sq. 


ARCHELAUS. 


389 


the  physical  tendency  of  his  master,  and  while  he 
sought  to  soften  down  his  dualism,  approximated  some- 
what to  the  ancient  materialistic  physics.  But  even 
in  his  case  our  information  is  very  scanty.  We  are 
told  that  in  respect  to  ultimate  causes  he  agreed  with 
Anaxagoras;  that,  like  him,  he  assumed  an  infinite 
number  of  small  bodies  of  equal  parts,  from  which  all 
things  arise  by  means  of  mechanical  combination  and 
separation,  and  conceived  these  substances  as  originally 
mingled  together  \  but  that  he  distinguished  Spirit  from 
the  corporeal  as  the  power  which  rules  over  it.*  The 
original  mixture  of  all  substances  he  (approximating 
herein  to  Anaximeues  and  the  ancient  Ionic  school)  sup- 
posed to  be  like  air,^  which,  indeed,  Anaxagoras  had  re- 


>  Simpl.  Phys.  7  a  (after  Theo- 
pbrastits) :  iv  fihy  r-g  ywiati  toO 
K6<rfiov  Ktti  rois  &AXois  vt^atal  t< 
^4p€Uf  tiiov.  rhs  &px^  '^  '''^^  airrkf 
^iBccatw  iairtp  *Aya^ay6pttS'  o&to< 
fikv  oiy  iartlpovs  r^  irX^0et  koU 
iLyofuy(Vf7s  rhs  &px°^  kiyovci  rks 
6fAOiofi€ptias  ri$4yrts  &px^^*  (The 
latter  also  in  De  Calo,  269  b,  1 ; 
Schoi.  in  Ar,5lZ  a.)  Clem.  Cohort, 
43  D :  ol  fih¥  ainAv  rh  Aireipow 
KaBvfuniaatf,  £k  .  .  .  'Aya^ay6p<u  .  . 
Kol  .  .  ^Apx^^aos'  ro^Tu  iiAv  yt 
&fb^  rhp  vovv  iwfiTTnadrfiv  rf 
awupi^  Hippol.  Bffut.  i.  9  :  oTno^ 
t^  T^v  fu^w  rrjs  0\ds  dfioias  *Ai'a- 
lay6pff  rds  re  ipx^^^  &aa{nM, 
Aug.  Civ,  D.  viii.  2 :  etiam  ipse  de 
particuUa  inter  se  dissimilibua, 
quibus  singula  gmeque  fierent,  ita 
omnia  eon  stare  putauUf  ut  inesse 
etiam  mentem  dicerei,  quae  corpora 
diseimiliay  i,  e,  illas  particulas, 
conjungendo  et  diasipando  ageret 
omnia.  Alex.  Aphr.  Le  Mixt,  141 
hi  Anaxagoras  and  Aicbelaufi  were 


of  opinion  that  dfjMiofiepri  ,  ,  .  rtya 
&rtipa  tlvm  tr^fuira,  i^  Stv  ^  r&if 
€ua^rfr&¥  yiv^ffts  ffuftdrup,  ywofiivn 
Kwrh  triyKpiaiv  ical  trvvQ^aiv^  where- 
fore they  are  both  counted  among 
those  who  regard  all  mixture  as  a 
mass  of  substantially  separate  mat- 
ters. Philop.  Le  An.  B  16 :  Arche- 
Ihus  belongs  to  those  Zffoi  tlpiiKoai 
rh  vav  ^h  Tov  rov  KtKunia'Bou. 

'  Through  this  theory,  which 
is  confirmed  by  what  immediately 
follows,  the  statement  that  Arche- 
laus  held  air  to  be  the  primitive 
matter  may  easily  be  combined,  as 
it  appears  to  roe,  with  the  other 
accounts.  Of.  Sezt.  Math.  ix.  360 : 
'Apx  *  •  •  ^^P^  [^^*i^  ftdtrr^v  •lyat 
&pxhy  Kol  aroix^Tov].  Pint.  Plae, 
i.  3,  12  (word  for  word  the  same: 
Justin,  Cohort,  c.  3  end) :  *Apx* 
.  .  dcjpa  &ircfpor  [^X^r  dve^^^wsro] 
icol  tV  »«pi  abihif  wvKv6rvra  koX 
/idyoofriif'  ro^nw  h\  rh  filv  tlytu  trvp 
rh  54  08<tfp. 


300  ANAXAGORAS. 

garded  as  a  mixture  of  primitive  substances  of  varioos 
kinds,  but  still  only  as  a  part  of  the  original  mase.^ 
Moreover,  while  Anaxagoras  strongly  insisted  on  the  un- 
mixed nature  of  Spirit,  Archelaus,  it  is  said,  represented 
Spirit  as  mixed  with  matter ; '  so  that  in  air  animated 
by  Spirit,  he  had  a  principle  similar  to  that  of  Anazi- 
menes  and  Diogenes,  but  different  from  theirs  by  reason 
of  its  dualistic  composition.'  He  also  agreed  with  these 
philosophers  in  describing  the  first  separation  of  the 
primitive  mixture  as  rarefaction  and  condensation.^ 
In  this  first  separation  the  warm  and  the  cold  were 
divided,  as  had  been  taught  by  Anaximander,  and  also 
by  Anaxagoras ;  *  but,  as  the  original  mixture  was  already 
declared  to  be  air,  Archelaus  (herein  diflFering  from 
Anaxagoras)  called  these  two  principal  masses  of  derived 
things  fire  and  water.®  Following  the  example  of  his 
master,  he  regarded  fire  as  the  active,  and  water  as  the 
passive  element ;  and  since  he  tried  to  explain  the 
formation  of  the  universe  in  a  pmrely  physical  manner 
from  their  joint  operation,  it  might  seem  as  if  these 
material  bases  were  the  ultimate  cause  of  the  universe, 
and  that  Spirit  had  no  concern  with  it.     This  cannot, 

»  P.  865,  3.  Up}i>^v  ical  dyp^r.     Herm.  irm  c 

^  Hippol.  /.  c.i  obrot  8i  r^  vy  6 :   *Apx*  i^^o^aivSfuwos  r&w  JX«» 

ivvwApx^tv  Tt  9it04oos  p^yixa.  Apx^^  Btpiihif  koX  ^vxp^v,    HippoL 

'  fcitob.  Eel,  i.  66,  may  so  far  be  I.  c. :    cTycu  8*  dpx^y  r^s  Kofi^nes 

correct :    'A^X*  ^^P^   '^^  ^^^  '''^'^  ^^  i^iroKpiynrOiu  (so  Duncker,  after 

$€6y,  i.e.,  he  may  have  characterised  Roper  and  Bitter)  &ir*  aXktiKmv  t^ 

air  aod  Spirit  as  the  eternal  and  Otpfibv  Ka\  rh  if^vxp^i^,  «««  t^  P** 

divine.  Btp/Jibv    Kir^aOaiy     rh     8^    ^XP^^ 

*  Pint.  Plac. ;  vide  389,  2.  iiptfitTy.     Cf.  Plato,  Soph,  242  D: 
>  Vide  Vol.  I.  p.  250,  and  Vol.  i6o  8i  mpos  «iirjl»y.  6yphv  m2  {^ 

II.  p.  355.  ii  Btpfiw  KoL  ^vxp^t  9«pom/{h  tc 

*  Plut.  Plac.  I.  c,  Diog.  ii.  16:    ainkKt^  Miimffi.   The  reference  to 
li\§yf  ah  8vo  dtrlas  etyai  yey^creaiy,     Archelaus  is  not,  however,  ceitaiu. 


ABCHELAU8.  891 

however,  have  been  the  meaning  of  Archelaus  ;  ^  he  no 
doubt  supposed,  like  Anaxagoras,  that  spirit  produced 
a  vortex  in  the  primitive  infinite  mass,  and  that  from 
that  vortex  arose  the  first  division  of  heat  and  cold, 
from  which  all  other  things  spontaneously  proceeded. 

In  the  division  of  matter  the  water  ran  together  in 
the  midst ;  through  the  influence  of  heat,  part  of  this 
evaporated  and  ascended  as  air,  another  part  condensed 
and  became  earth;  from  the  earth  came  the  stars, 
which  are  detached  portions  of  earth.  The  earth, 
which  is  a  very  small  part  of  the  universe,  is  kept  in 
it8  place  in  the  rotation  by  the  air,  and  the  air  by  fire. 
The  surface  of  the  earth  must,  according  to  Archelaus, 
be  depressed  towards  the  centre ;  for  if  it  were  absolutely 
level,  the  sun  would  rise  and  set  everywhere  at  the 
same  time.  The  stars  at  first  revolved  laterally  around 
the  earth,  which,  on  account  of  its  raised  edge,  lay  in 
perpetual  shadow ;  only  when  the  inclination  of  the 
heavens  began,  could  the  light  and  warmth  of  the  sun 
operate  upon  the  earth  and  dry  it  up.^  In  all  these  con- 
ceptions there  is  Uttle  to  distinguish  Archelaus  from 

^  Vide  prerious  note  and  Stob.  obscure  irtpifi^ti,  irvpl  wtpifbureu, 

I,  c. :  ov  fitrroi  Kovfuntoihp  rhp  yovif,  as  Diog.  continaes  :  idty  fj  fuit  ^h 

'  The  above  results  from  Hip-  rod  iApoSy  6  8i  {nrh  rris  rod  irvphs 
pel.  loc.  eit.t  "trhere,  however,  the  irtpi^opca  Hparurai.  Byk,  I'orso- 
text  is  very  corrupt ;  and  from  krat.  Phil,  i.  247  sq-,  proposes  to 
Diog.  ii.  17,  where  the  traditional  transpose  the  sentence  thus  :  KaBh 
reading  is  e<^uallj  inadmissible  in  fily  ircpi^^fi  ttoiup  t^v,  fra0b  Si  tis 
it8  meaning.  According  to  this  rh  wvp&its  ffhylararat  hipa  ytvvav, 
the  words  run  thus  :  rriK6f;Ltv6v  But  what  then  would  be  the  mean- 
^Yl<n  rh  vSovp  vrh  rod  Btpfiov,  KoBh  ing  of  vpi^pu?  In  the  same 
nir  cif  rh  irvp&^fs  avvlffrarai,  itokTv  passage  is  the  statement  riiv  9h 
'XTjK'  KaBh  8<[  Ttptf^fif  kipa  ytvv^.  BiXarrav  i»  rois  koIKois  8»a  rrjs 
Fur  iri/pw8cf  Hitter,  i.  842,  reads  yris  iiOoufi4yriy  awtarivai.  In  this 
rvpSits ;  perhaps  wc  should  sub-  way  no  doubt  the  taste  of  Bea- 
st i  cute  for  this  itriKuits,  and  for  the  water  was  explained. 


392  ANAXAOORAS. 

Anazagoras,^  whom  he  likewise  resembles  in  his  opinions 
concerning  living  beings,  so  far  as  we  are  acquainted 
with  them.  The  cause  of  animation  in  all  creatures  is 
Spirit,^  which  Archelaus  seems  to  have  connected  with 
the  air  that  they  breathe.'  They  first  arose  from  the 
heat  of  the  sun :  this  produced  from  the  terrestrial 
slime  various  kinds  of  animals,  which  were  nourished 
by  the  slime  and  only  lived  a  short  time  ;  subsequently, 
sexual  propagation  was  introduced^  and  men  raised 
themselves  above  the  other  creatures  by  their  arts  and 
manners.^  Concerning  his  other  theories  about  men 
and  animals,  nothing  has  been  told  us ;  but  it  seems 
reasonable  to  conjecture  that  in  them  also  he  followed 
Anaxagoras,  and  that,  like  him  and  other  predecessors, 
he  bestowed  special  attention  on  the  activities  of  the 


'  Cf.  p.  366  sq.,.  860.     Arche-  wpurroy    iu  ry    Karh  fjJpos  [«^t* 

laus  (vide  m»pm,  362,  6)  also  agreos  ^^^ci]>  ^ov  rh  Btpfihy  col  rh  ^Xf^ 

-with  Anaxagoras  in  his  explana-  ifil<ry€To,  kv^^v^o  rd  t«  4XA*  f«w 

tion  of  earthquakes,  ap.  Sen.  Qi«.  N.  woKKh.  koDl  hfifjuota  irirra  r^r  ainkj^ 

vi.  12.  W«Tov  txoma  Ik  ti?s  IXvoixp*^ 

^  Hippol.  Lc.    vovw  }i\  Xiyu  /i«ya,  ^jr  8i  iKiyoxP^fi^'  ^rtpw^ 

vanv  ifjLp^to'Bai  ftfois  tyioiws.  XP^"  >^o<r  Ktu  ii    i^   a^Xi|Aoew  yirtca 

iroffBai  ykp  tKcuirov  koX  r&p  ffufidrotv  kyi<m\  koI  ZuKpi^nfftLv  &y6pwrM  ia^ 

B(r(p  rh  fi^v  fipaUvripus  rh  Sc  raxv-  rwv  IkKKtav^  irol  ify^ii/&vas  Ktu  piitavt 

r4pces.     Instead   of  xf^^^*^^^  ^®  **^  r4xvas  ical  ir^Acis  ttai  -fh  lUa 

should  read  no  doubt  xp^^^^i  f^^^  trwitmitrap.    The   same  is  to  be 

instead  of  the  obscure  words,  r&v  found  in  part  ap.  Diog.  ii.  16 :  cf* 

ffufAdiup  Batp  T^  (rAfULTi  6fjLoiees,  as  p.  366,  6.     A  misapprehension  of 

Bitter  suggests  {Ian.  Phil.  304).  this  tradition  seems  to  have  gireo 

•  This,  I  conjecture,  partly  rise  to  the  statement  of  Epiph** 
from  his  general  theories  on  Spirit,  nius,  Exp.  Fid.  1087  a,  that  Arche- 
discussed  abore,  and  partly  from  laus  thought  all  things  originated 
the  testimonies  quoted,  p.  364,  4.  from  eartb,  which  he  regarded  is 
Also  the  fact  that  that  opinion  was  the  ipxh  rQv  tXup. 
attributed  to  Anaxagoras  is  most  ^  There  seems  to  be  an  allasioa 
easily  explained  on  this  theory.  to   this  in   the   short  notice,  sp- 

*  Hippol.    I.  c:   irepi    Hh   (efoty  Diog.  ii.  17:  irp&ros  8i  eTrf^wM^J 
^o-Iy,  th-t  9€pfuuvofiirtis  rijs  t^j  rh  y4v€<rtif  t^v  tov  iipos  irXn^ur,  where 


ARCSHLAUS. 


893 


enc5e  of  an  infinite  number  of  worlds  ^  is,  no  doubt, 
founded  on  a  misapprehension. 

Some  writers  maintain  that  Archelaus  occupied 
himself  with  ethical  enquiries  as  well  as  physics,  and 
that  he  was  in  this  respect  a  precursor  of  Socrates.^ 
In  particular,  he  is  said  to  have  sought  the  origin  of 
right  and  wrong,  not  in  nature,  but  in  custom.'  These 
statements,  however,  seem  to  have  arisen  from  the  im- 
possibility of  conceiving  the  supposed  teacher  of  Socrates 
to  be  without  an  ethical  philosophy ;  and  confirmation 
of  this  presupposition  was  looked  for  in  a  passage  which 
originally  had  quite  another  meaning.^  That  Archelaus 
accomplished  anything  important  in  the  sphere  of  ethics 
is  improbable,  from  the  silence  of  Aristotle,  who  never 
once  mentions  him. 

But  although  the  school  of  Anaxagoras  remained 
faithful,  as  he  himself  did,  to  physical  investigations,  yet 


hoirerer  irpAros  is  incorrect,  vide 
9up.  p.  368.  3. 

»  Stob.  Eel.  i.  496,  vide  mpra, 
Vol.  I.  p.  262,  3. 

*  Soxt.   Math,   vii.    14 :    *Apx. 

X^'^o],  "Dio^.  ii.  16:  loiicc  ik  koX 
oZros  i^jfOffBai  rrjs  ^Bucrjs,  icol  yiip 
rfpl  v6ftwv  irc^iAoff^^t^KC  la^i  KoK&y 
Kcd  HiKolur  wop*  oZ  "Zmcpdrtis  r^ 
a^{^<rai  ahrhs  tbpitv  &irt\7i(p$rj. 

*  Diog.  I.  ct:  IA«7€  W  .  .  .  ri 
ffa  aith  Trjs  Mos  ywii&rivai'  Ka\ 
rh  Zlxatoy  cTyai  km  rh  cdtrxp^y  oh 
p{f<ru  hKXJk  y6fjL^, 

*  At  any  rate  in  Diogenes  the 
remarkable  combiDation  of  the  two 
propositions  concerning  the  genesis 
of  animals,  and  the  origin  of  right 
and  wroDg,  would  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose that  his  utterances  are  ulti- 
mately   derived    from    the    same 


passage  in  Archelaps^s  treatise  as 
that  quoted  on  p.  392,  4,  from  Hip- 
polytus.  Archelaus  in  that  case 
had  merely  said  that  men  were  at 
first  without  law  or  morals,  and 
only  attained  to  them  in  course  of 
time ;  and  from  this,  later  writers 
deduced  the  sophistical  statement 
that  right  and  wi:t>ng  are  not 
founded  on  nature.  Hitters  ex- 
planaTion  of  this  proposition 
iGesch.  d,  PkU.  i.  344) :  *  That  good 
and  evil  in  the  world  arise  from 
the  distribution  (y^/ios)  of  the 
primal  seeds  in  the  world,'  seems 
to  me  impossible :  this  signification 
of  p6fio5  is  not  proved  by  any  of 
the  analogies  which  he  adduces. 
Diogenes,  moreover,  certainly  took 
the  sentence  which  he  quotes  only 
in  its  ordinary  meaning. 


894  THE  SOPHISTS. 

the  new  principle  which  he  had  introduced  into  physics 
necessitated  an  altered  direction  of  enquiry ;  and  thus 
he  is  immediately  connected  with  the  phenomenon 
which  marks  the  end  of  the  previous  philosophy,  and 
the  transition  to  a  new  form  of  scientific  thought — viz., 
the  rise  of  Sophistic  opinion. 

S   III.— THE    SOPHISTS.* 

1.  Origin  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine. 

Philosophy,  until  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
was  confined  to  the  small  circles  which  the  love  of 
science  had  assembled  in  particular  cities  around  tbe 
authors  and  representatives  of  physical  theories.  Sci- 
entific enquiry  concerned  itself  but  little  with  practical 
life.  The  necessity  of  theoretical  instruction  was  only 
felt  by  a  few,  and  as  yet  the  attempt  had  never  been 
made  on  an  extended  scale  to  make  science  common 
property,  and  to  found  moral  and  political  activity  on 
scientific  culture.  Even  Pythagoreanism  can  hardly  be 
regarded  as  such  an  attempt ;  for  in  the  first  place  it 
was  only  the  members  of  the  Pythagorean  Society  on 
whom  its  educating  influence  was  exerted ;  and  secondly, 

*  Jac.    Q-eel,    Historia   critica  results.     Grote,  Hist,  of  Grmce, 

Sophistarum,    qui    Socraiis    atate  viii.  474-544 ;  to  which  discussions 

Atkefiia  flonierunt  (Nova  acta  lite-  I  shall  often  have  occasion  to  refer, 

raria  societ.  Ekeno-Trc^ject,  P,  II. \  on  account  of  their  very  great  im- 

Utr.  1823.     Hermann,  P/a/.  PhU.  portance.    Schanz,  ^rirr.  £.  twso- 

pp.  179-223,296-321.  Baumhauer,  kraU  Phi/,  aus  Plato,  1.  H.  Die 

Disputatio  literaria,  quam  vim  So-  Sophisfcn,    Gott.    1867;    Siebeck, 

phUt<t  habuemit  Athenis  ad  atatis  Ueb.  Sokraie*  Verh.  r.  Scpkisfii; 

sua  dUcipltnam  mores  ac  studia  Unterauoh.  s,  Phil.  d.  Gr.  187S.  p- 

immuiafida  (Utr.  1144),  a  labori-  1  sqq. ;  Ueberweg,  (rmarfr.  i.  §  27. 
ous  work,  but  without  important 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE.         396 

its  science  had  no  immediate  reference. to  practical  life: 
Pythagorean  morality  is  a  kind  of  popular  religion ; 
Pythagorean  science,  conversely,  is  physics.  The  prin- 
ciple that  practical  capability  is  conditioned  by  scien- 
tific cnlture  was,  generally  speaking,  quite  alien  to 
antiquity. 

Meanwhile,  in  the  course  of  the  fifth  century, 
various  causes  combined  to  alter  this  state  of  things. 
The  mighty  impulse  which  Greece  had  received  since 
the  Persian  wars,  and  Gelon's  victory  over  the  Carthagi- 
nians, must,  in  its  subsequent  influence,  have  deeply 
affected  Greek  science  also,  and  the  relation  of  science 
to  the  nation  at  large.  Through  a  magnanimous  en- 
thusiasm, a  rare  devotion  on  the  part  of  all  individuals, 
these  extraordinary  successes  had  been  attained:  a 
proud  self-reliance,  a  youthful  desire  for  action,  a  pas- 
sionate struggle  for  freedom,  glory  and  power,  were 
their  natural  result.  The  traditional  institutions  and 
national  customs  became  too  narrow  for  a  nation  that 
was  spreading  itself  on  all  sides :  the  old  constitutional 
forms  could  nowhere,  except  in  Sparta,  maintaia  their 
ground  against  the  spirit  of  the  age — the  old  customs, 
even  in  Sparta,  were  unable  to  do  so.  The  men  who, had 
staked  their  lives  for  the  independence  of  their  country 
would  not  suffer  their  interest  in  the  conduct  of  its  affairs 
to  decline ;  and  in  the  greater  number^  and  the  most 
intellectually  active  of  the  cities,*  a  democracy  arose  to 
power  which  in  course  of  time  was  able  without  diflB- 
culty,  to  set  aside  the  few  barriers  of  law  yet  remaining. 

*  Especially  in  Athens  and  among  her  allies  in  Syracuse,  and  the 
other  Sicilian  colonies. 


S96  THE  SOPHISTS. 

Athens,  who  by  her  glorious  deeds  had  Income  the 
ruling  centre  of  Greek  national  life,  and  since  Pericles, 
had  also  united  in  herself  more  and  more  the  scientific 
powers  and  efforts  of  the  nation,  was  foremost  to  pursae 
this  course.  The  result  was  an  incredibly  rapid  pro- 
gress in  all  spheres,  an  active  rivalry,  a  joyful  straining 
of  all  the  powers  which,  let  loose  by  freedom,  were 
guided  by  the  great  genius  of  Pericles  to  the  highest 
ends;  and  so  this  city  was  enabled  within  a  single 
generation  to  attain  a  height  of  prosperity  and  power, 
of  glory  and  cultiure,  of  which  history  aflfords  no  parallel. 
With  the  increase  of  culture  the  claims  on  individuals 
necessarily  increased,  and  the  customary  means  of  edu- 
cation were  no  longer  sufficient.  Education  had,  UU 
then,  been  limited  to  music  and  gymnastic,  together 
with  some  elementary  arts ;  everything  further  was  left 
to  the  unmethodical  practice  of  life,  and  to  the  personal 
influence  of  relatives  and  fellow-citizens.*  Even  politics 
and  the  art  of  oratory^  so  indispensable  to  a  statesman, 
were  learned  in  the  same  manner.  This  method  had 
indeed  produced  the  most  brilliant  results.  From  the 
school  of  practical  experience  the  greatest  heroes  and 
statesmen  went  forth,  and  in  the  words  of  the  poets — 
of  Epicharmus  and  Pindar,  of  Simonides  and  Bacchy- 
lides,  of  ^schylus  and  Sophocles — an  abundant  store  of 
practical  wisdom  and  observation  of  mankind,  of  pure 
moral  principles  and  profound  religious  ideas,  was  de- 
posited in  the  most  perfect  form,  for  the  benefit  of  all. 
But  just  because  men  had  gone  so  far,  they  found  it 
necessary  to  go  farther.  If  a  higher  cultivation  of 
taste  and  intellect,  such  as  could  be  attained  in  the 
>  Vide  Vol.  I.  p.  77. 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE,  897 

accustomed  way,  wa3  universally  disseminated,  the  man 
who  wished  to  distinguish  himself  was  forced  to  look 
around  him  for  something  new.  If  all  were  habituated, 
through  political  activity  and  multifarious  intercourse, 
to  a  keen  apprehension  of  the  relation  of  things,  to 
rapid  judgment  and  resolute  action,  only  a  special  train- 
ing could  give  decided  ascendency  to  individuals  ;  if  an 
appreciative  sense  of  the  beauties  of  language  and  the 
subtleties  of  expression  were  quickened  in  all,  speech 
required  to  be  treated  in  a  more  artistic  manner  than 
heretofore ;  and  the  value  of  this  artistic  eloquence 
became  necessarily  greater  as  more  importance  was 
attached,  in  the  all-powerful  popular  assemblies,  to  the 
momentary  charm  and  impression  of  the  speeches.  For 
this  reason  there  arose  in  Sicily,  independently  of  the 
Sophists,  and  almost  contemporaneously  with  them,  the 
rhetorical  school  of  Corax.  But  the  necessities  of  the 
time  required  not  merely  a  methodical  introduction  to 
rhetoric,  but  scientific  instruction  concerning  all  things 
of  value  in  practical,  and  more  especially  in  civil,  life ; 
and  if  Pericles  himself  did  not  disdain  to  feed  his  re- 
fined and  commanding  spirit  upon  intercourse  with 
Anaxagoras  and  Protagoras,  the  disciples  of  this  scien- 
tific culture  might  the  more  confidently  expect  to  benefit 
— ^as  it  became  easier  for  a  receptive  intellect,  by  the 
proper  use  of  dialectic,  to  discover  weaknesses  and  con- 
tradictions in  the  ordinary  notions  about  ethics,  and 
thereby  to  attain,  even  as  against  the  most  skilled 
and  experienced  men  of  practice,  the  consciousness  of 
superiority.^ 

'  Cf.  the  remarkable  conrersa-    blades,  Xen.  Meyn,  i.  2,  40  sq. 
tion  between  Pericles  and  Alci- 


^Q  THE  SOPHISTS, 

Philosophy,  in  its  earlier  one-sided  "physical  tendency, 
could  not  satisfy  this  need  ;  but  it  had  itself  arrived  at 
a  point  where  its  form  most  of  necessity  undergo  a 
change.  It  had  started  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
external  world ;  but  already  Heracleitus  and  Pannenides 
had  shown,  and  all  subsequent  systems  had  agreed  with 
them,  that  the  senses  cannot  teach  us  the  true  essential 
nature  of  things.  These  philosophers  did  not  indeed 
on  that  account  cease  to  regard  the  explanation  of 
nature  as  their  proper  task  :  they  hoped  to  establish  by 
reason  that  which  is  hidden  from  sense.  But  what  right 
had  they  to  this  assumption  until  the  specific  character 
of  intellectual  thought  and  its  object,  as  distinguished 
from  the  sensible  perception  and  sensible  phenomenon, 
had  been  more  closely  investigated  P  If  thought,  like 
perception,  acts  according  to  the  nature  of  the  body 
and  of  external  impressions,*  it  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand why  the  one  should  be  more  trustworthy  than  the 
other ;  and  all  that  the  early  philosophers,  from  their 
various  standpoints,  had  said  against  the  senses  may  be 
said  universally  against  the  human  faculty  of  cognition. 
If  there  is  nothing  besides  corporeal  Being,  the  mis- 
trust of  the  Eleatics  and  the  principles  of  Heracleitus 
may  be  applied  to  all  reality.  They  had  contended 
against  the  reality  of  the  Many  by  showing  the  contra- 
dictions that  would  result  from  its  divisibility  and  ex- 
tension in  space  :  and  the  reality  of  the  One  might  be 
questioned  on  the  same  grounds.  Heracleitus  had 
said  that  nothing  is  fixed  except  reason  and  the  law  of 
the  universe ;  and  it  might  with  equal  right  be  asserted 

>  Vide  Vol.  I.  p.  602;  Vol.  II.  pp.  79,  171. 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE.         309 

that  the  law  of  the  universe  must  be  as  changeable  as 
the  fire  of  which  it  consists — our  knowledge  as  change- 
able as  the  thing  to  which  it  relates,  and  the  soul  in 
which  it  dwells.^  The  ancient  physics,  in  a  word,  con- 
tained in  its  materialism  the  germ  of  its  destruction. 
If  there  be  only  corporeal  Being,  all  things  are  extended 
in  space  and  divisible,  and  all  presentations  arise  from 
the  working  of  external  impressions  upon  the  corporeal 
soul — from  sensation ;  therefore,  if  the  reality  of  di- 
vided Being  and  the  truth  of  the  sensible  phenomenon 
be  renounced  from  this  standpoint,  truth  and  reality 
are  altogether  cancelled,  all  things  are  resolved  into  a 
subjective  appearance;  and,  with  the  belief  in  the 
cognisability  of  things,  the  endeavour  after  the  know- 
ledge of  them  must  likewise  be  at  an  end. 

As  Physics  thus  indirectly  paved  the  way  for  an 
altered  tendency  of  thought,  so  this  tendency  was  di- 
rectly forced  upon  Physics  from  without.  Though  we 
ought  not,  perhaps,  to  lay  much  stress  upon  the  fact 
that  the  later  physicists,  as  compared  with  the  earlier, 
bestow  far  more  attention  on  the  study  of  man,  and  that 
Democritus,  already  a  contemporary  of  the  Sophists, 
also  occupied,  himself  to  a  great  extent  with  ethical 
questions — yet  we  must  in  any  case  regard  the  Anaxa- 
gorean  doctrine  of  Spirit  as  the  direct  preparation  for 
the  Sophistic  doctrine,  or,  more  accurately,  as  the 
clearest  indication  of  the  change  which  was  even  then 
taking  place  in  the  Greek  theory  of  the  world.     The 

*  That  such    inferences    irere  of   this    section.      In    regard   to 

really  deduced  from  the  doctrines  Heradeitus  it  has    alreadjr  been 

of  the   Eleatics  and  Heradeitus  shown,  p.  115,  1  ;  and  in  regard  to 

will  be  shown  in  the  fourth  Chapter  the  Atomists,  p.  314  sq. 


400  TEE  SOPHISTS. 

V0V9  of  Anazagoras  is  not,  indeed,  the  human  mind  as 
such ;  and  when  he  said  that  vov9  rules  all  things  he 
did  not  mean  that  man  has  all  things  in  his  power  by 
means  of  thought.  But  he  had  nevertheless  created 
the  conception  of  mind  out  of  bis  own  consciousness, 
and  though  it  may  have  been  treated  by  him  as  a  force 
of  nature,  in  its  essence  it  was  not  distinct  from  the 
mind  of  man.  Consequently,  when  others  transferred 
what  Anaxagoras  had  said  of  Mind  to  the  human  mind 
— the  only  Mind  given  in  our  experience — they  went 
only  one  step  farther  upon  the  road  which  he  had 
opened — they  reduced  the  vov9  of  Anaxagoras  to  its 
basis  in  actual  fact,  and  set  aside  a  presupposition  which 
must  have  seemed  to  others  untenable :  they  allowed 
that  the  world  is  the  work  of  the  thinking  essence; 
but  as  the  world  was  to  them  a  subjective  phenomenon, 
BO  the  world-creating  consciousness  became  human  con- 
sciousness, and  man  became  the  measure  of  all  things. 
Sophistic  did  not  directly  arise  from  this  reflexion.  The 
first  appearance  of  Protagoras,  at  any  rate,  can  hardly 
be  assigned  to  a  later  date  than  the  development  of 
Anaxagoras's  doctrine,  and  we  know  of  no  Sophist  who 
had  any  express  connection  with  that  doctrine.  But 
the  doctrine  shows  us,  speaking  generally,  an  alteration 
in  the  attitude  of  thought  to  the  outer  world ;  whereas 
previously,  the  grandeur  of  nature  had  so  absorbed  man 
that  he  was  carried  away,  and  became  self-forgetful  in  his 
admiration  of  it,  ipan  now  discovered  in  himself  a  power 
which,  distinct  from  everything  corporeal,  orders  and 
rules  the  corporeal  world ;  spirit  appears  to  him  some- 
thing higher  as  compared  with  nature ;  he  turns  from  the 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE.  401 

investigation  of   nature,  in    order    that  he  may  be 
occupied  with  himself.^ 

That  this  would  immediately  take  place  in  the  right 
way  was  hardly  to  be  expected.  With  the  culture  and 
brilliancy  of  the  epoch  of  Pericles  there  went  hand-in- 
hand  an  increasing  relaxation  of  the  ancient  discipline 
and  morality.  The  undisguised  self-seeking  of  the 
greater  States,  their  tyrannical  conduct  to  the  lesser, 
even  their  successes,  undermined  the  public  morals; 
the  ceaseless  internal  feuds  opened  a  wide  field  for 
hatred  and  revenge,  for  avarice,  ambition,  and  all  the 
passions ;  men  accustomed  themselves  to  the  violation, 
first  of  public,  then  of  private  rights,  and  the  curse 
of  all  self-aggrandising  policy  was  fulfilled  in  the  most 
powerful  cities,  such  as  Athens,  Sparta  and  Syracuse : 
the  recklessness  with  which  the  State  trampled  upon 
the  rights  of  other  States  destroyed  in  its  own 
citizens  respect  for  right  and  law.^  And  when  indi- 
viduals had  sought  their  gloiy  for  a  while  in  devotion 
to  the  ends  of  the  common  selfishness,  they  began  to 
apply  the  same  principle  of  egoism  in  an  opposite 
direction,  and  to  sacrifice  the  welfare  of  the  State  to 
their  own  interests.'  Moreover,  as  democracy  in  most 
of  the  States  increasingly  threw  aside  all  the  restraints 
of  law,  the  most  extravagant  notions  were  formed  con- 

>  A   similar    relation  to  that  '  No  more  forcible  reason  could 

between  Anaxagoras  and  the  So-  be  given  for  the  Sophistic  theory 

phista  is  to  be  found  later  between  of  egoism  than  that  brought  for- 

Aristotle  and  the  post-Aristotelian  ward    by  the    Platonic    Callicles 

philosophy,  with  its  practical  one-  (Gorg,   483   D),  and    afterwawis 

sidedness,  and  its  abstract  subjec-  repeated  in  Home  by  Garneades 

tivity.    Of.  Part  in.  a,  13,  2nd  ed.  (nde  Part  iii.  a,  487,  2nd  ed.), 

'  Of.  in  reference  to  this  Part  that  in  politics  men  only  proceed 

II.  a,  23,  3rd  ed.  on  these  principles. 

VOL.  II.  D  D 


i02  THE  SOPHISTS. 

cerning  popular  government  and  civil  equality;  there 
grew  up  a  licentiousness  which  respected  no  customs  or 
proprieties,^  and  the  perpetual  alteration  of  the  law{» 
seemed  to  justify  the  opinion  that  they  arose  without 
internal  necessity,  merely  from  the  whims,  or  the 
interests,  of  those  temporarily  in  powen^  Finally,  the 
advancing  culture  must  itself  have  more  and  more  re- 
moved the  limits  which  were  formerly  set  by  morality 
and  religious  faith  to  selfishness.  The  unqualified 
admiration  of  home  institutions,  the  simple  presupposi- 
tion, so  natural  to  a  restricted  stage  of  culture,  that 
everything  must  be  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to 
see  it  at  home,  necessarily  vanished  before  a  wider 
knowledge  of  the  world  and  of  history,  and  a  keener 
observation  of  mankind.*  For  the  man  who  had  once 
accustomed  himself  to  ask  for  reasons  in  everything, 
traditional  usage  naturally  lost  its  sanctity;  and  he 
who  felt  himself  superior  to  the  mass  of  the  people  in 
intelligence  would  not  be  inclined  to  venerate,  in  the 
resolutions  of  the  ignorant  multitude,  an  inviolable 
law.  Nor  could  the  ancient  belief  in  the  gods  bold 
its  place  before  the  growing  enlightenment ;  the  reli- 
gious services  and  the  gods  themselves  belonged  to  the 
things  which  some  nations  regard  in  one  way,  and  some 
in  another ;  moreover,  the  old  myths  contained  much 
that  was  incompatible  with  the  purer  moral  conceptions, 
and   newly   attained    insight.     Even   art    contributed 

*  Here  again  Athens  is  an  ex-  *  Cf.  on  this  point  the  quota- 

ample ;  the  fact  itself  requires  no  tions  that  will  be  cited  lAter  on 

confirmation ;  in  place  of  all  other  in  connection  with  the  Sophistic 

evidence  we  may  refer  to  the  mas-  theories  on  right  and  law. 
terly  description  in  the  Bepuhlic,  *  Cf.,  for  example,  Herod,  iii. 

viii.  657  B  sqq.,  662  C  sqq.  38. 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE.  403 

to  the  undermining  of  faith.  Plastic  art,  by  its  very 
perfection,  made  men  recognise  in  the  gods  the  work 
of  the  human  mind,  which  in  art  actually  proved  that 
it  was  capable  of  creating  from  itself  the  divine  ideal, 
and  was  free  to  control  it.'  But  still  more  dangerous 
for  the  traditional  customs  and  religion  must  have  been 
the  development  of  poetry,  and,  above  all,  of  the  drama, 
the  most  eflFective  and  popular  kind  of  poetry.  The 
whole  action  of  the  drama,  comic  as  well  as  tragic,  is 
based  upon  the  collision  of  duties  and  rights,  of  views 
and  interests,  upon  the  contradiction  between  traditional 
usage  and  natural  laws,  between  faith  and  the  specula- 
tions of  reason,  between  the  spirit  of  innovation  and 
the  predilection  for  what  is  old,  between  versatile 
cleverness  and  simple  rectitude — in  a  word,  upon  the 
dialectic  of  moral  relations  and  duties.^  The  more  per- 
fectly this  dialectic  unfolded  itself,  the  lower  poetry 
descended  from  the  sublime  study  of  the  moral  whole 
to  the  relations  of  private  life,  the  more  she  sought  her 
glory  (after  the  manner  of  Euripides)  in  the  subtle 
observation  and  accurate  dissection  of  dispositions  and 
motives,  the  more  the  gods  were  subjected  to  human 
standards,  and  the  weaknesses  of  their  anthropomorphic 
nature  exposed, — the  more  unavoidable  was  it  that  the 
drama  should  serve  to  nourish  moral  doubt,  to  under- 
mine the  old  faith,  and  along  with  pure  and  exalted 
utterances,  to  bring  into  circulation   some  that  were 

>  The  most  flourishing  period  prepared:  we  need  only  think  of 

of  art,  even  of  religious  art,  seems  the  artists  of  the  fifteenth  and  six- 

in  general  to  occur  when  some  form  teenth  centuries. 
of    faith   is  beginning   to  waver,  '  Part  ii.  a,  4,  3rd  edition, 

and    its   transformation  is  being 

p  D  2 


404  THE  SOPHISTS. 

frivolous  and  dangerous  to  morals.^  Of  what  use  was 
it  to  recommend  the  virtue  of  the  ancients,  and  to 
complain,  like  Aristophanes,  of  the  modems,  if  every- 
one was  alike  quitting  the  standpoint  of  past  times, 
and  making  merry  in  a  wanton  humour  with  all  tiiat 
had  then  been  holy  ?  The  whole  epoch  was  penetrated 
with  a  spirit  of  revolution  and  of  progress,  and  none  of 
the  existing  powers  was  in  a  position  to  exorcise  it. 

It  was  impossible  that  philosophy  should  not  be 
infected  by  this  spirit.  Essential  points  of  contact  with 
it  were  already  to  be  found  in  the  systems  of  the 
Physicists.  When  Parmenides  and  Heradeitos,  £m- 
pedocles,  Anaxagoras  and  Bemoeritus  with  one  accord 
distinguish  between  nature  and  traditional  custom,  be- 
tween truth  and  human  tradition,  this  distinction 
needed  only  to  be  applied  to  the  sf^ere  of  practice  in 
order  to  maintain  the  Sophistical  view  of  the  positiye 
dement  in  morals  and  law.  If  several  of  these  philo- 
sophers had  expressed  themselves  with  bitter  contempt 
in  regard  to  the  senselessness  and  folly  of  mankind,  the 
conclusion  was  not  far  to  seek — ^that  the  opinions  and 
laws  of  this  foolish  multitude  were  not  binding  on 
the  wise.  In  respect  to  religion,  this  declaration  had 
loi^  since  been  made.  The  bold  and  telling  assaults 
of  Xenophanes  had  given  a  shock  to  the  Grreek  popular 
belief  from  which  it  never  again  recovered.  Heia- 
cleitus  agreed  with  him  in  a  passionate  polemic  against 
the  theological  poets  and  their  myths.  Even  the 
mystical  school  of  the  Pythagoreans,  even  the  prophet 

*  The  character  of  Greek  poetry  more  at  length  in  the  introductioii 
in  the  fifth  centoij  is  discnssed    to  the  second  part  of  this  woi^ 


ORIGIN  OF  SOPHISTIC  DOCTRINE.         406 

Empedocles,  appropriated  this  purer  conception  of  God, 
whicb,  outside  of  philosophy — not  unfrequently  in  the 
verses  of  a  Pindar,  an  iEschylus,  a  Sophocks,  an  Epi-. 
channus — gleams  out  amidst  the  luxuriant  growth  of 
mythieal  imagery.  The  stricter  physicists,  lastly — such 
as  Anaxagoras  and  Democjitus — occupy  towards  the  faith 
of  their  country  an  attitude  of  complete  independence  r 
the  visible  gods,  the  sun  and  moon,  are  in  their  opinion 
lifeless  masses ;  and  whether  the  guidance  of  the  uni- 
verse be  entrusted  to  a  blind  natural  necessity  or  to  a 
thinking  mind,  whether  the  gods  of  the  popular  ereed 
are  quite  set  aside,  or  are  changed  into  the  eSScoXa  of 
Demoeritus,  makes  no  great  difference  as  far  as  any 
connection  with  the  existing  religion  is  concerned.^ 

More  important  however  for  the  purpose  of  our 
enquiry,  than  all  that  we  have  been  considering,  is 
the  whole  character  of  the  earlier  philosophy.  All 
the  factors  which  promoted  the  development  of  a 
sceptical  mode  of  thought,  were  also-  of  necessity 
favourable  to  moral  scepticism ;  if  truth,  speaking 
generally,  disappears  from  consciousness  on  account 
of  the  deceptions  of  the  senses  and  the  flux  of  pheno- 
mena, moral  truth  must  likewise  disappear  from  it.  If 
man  is  the  measure  of  all  things,  he  is  also  the  measure 
of  what  is  commanded  and  permitted ;  and  if  we  cannot 
expect  that  all  men  should  conceive  things  in  the  same 
manner,  neither  can  we  expect  that  all  men  in  their 
actions  should  follow  one  and  the  same  law.  This  scep- 
tical result  could  only  be  escaped  through  a  scientific 
method,  which  should  be  able  to  reconcile  contradic- 
tions by  the  union  of  that  which  is  apparently  opposed, 


400  THE  SOPHISTS, 

to  distinguish  the  essential  from  the  unessential,  to 
point  out  abiding  laws  in  changing  phenomena  and  in 
the  capricious  actions  of  men;  and,  in  this  manner, 
Socrates  saved  himself  and  philosophy  from  the  errors 
of  the  Sophists.  But  it  was  here,  precisely,  that  all 
the  earlier  philosophers  failed.  Starting  from  a  limited 
observation,  they  brought  forward  now  one,  and  now 
another  quality  in  things,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
qualities,  as  tlieir  first  principle.  Even  those  among 
them  who  sought  to  combine  the  opposite  principles  of 
Unity  and  Multiplicity,  Being  and  Becoming— viz. 
Empedocles  and  the  Atomists — did  not  get  beyond  a 
one-sided  physical  and  materialistic  theory  of  the 
world ;  and  though  Anaxagoras  completed  the  material 
oauses  by  the  addition  of  Mind,  he  only  apprehended 
Mind  as  a  force  of  nature.  The  one-sidedness  of  their 
procedure  made  the  ancient  philosophers  not  merely 
incapable  of  opposing  a  dialectic  which  combated  these 
partial  notions  by  means  of  one  another,  and  cancelled 
them  by  each  other,  but  in  the  progress  of  reflection 
they  must  necessarily  have  been  forced  to  adopt  it  If 
the  Plurality  of  Being  were  maintained,  the  Eleatics 
proved  that  All  is  One  ;  if  its  Unity  were  asserted,  this 
was  met  by  the  consideration  which  had  led  the  later 
Physicists  beyond  the  Eleatic  doctrine — viz.,  that  with 
Plurality  all  concrete  qualities  of  things  must  likewise 
be  given  up.  If  something  unchangeable  were  sought 
us  the  object  of  thought,  Heracleitus  upheld  the  uni- 
versal experience  of  the  variability  of  phenomena.  If 
the  feet  of  their  variability  were  admitted,  then  the  ob- 
jections of  the  Eleatics  against  Becoming  and  Being 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY.  407 

had  to  be  overcome^  If  natural  enquiries  were  pursued, 
the  newly-awakened  consciousness  of  the  higher  im- 
portance of  spirit  turned  aside  the  enquirer.  If  moral 
duties  were  attempted  to  be  established,  no  point  of 
fixity  could  be  found  in  the  vortex  of  opinions  and 
usages,  and  natural  law  seemed  to  lie  only  in  the  justi- 
fication of  this  caprice,  in  the  dominion  of  subjective 
pleasure  and  advantage.  This  uncertainty  of  all  scien- 
tific and  moral  convictions  was  first  brought  to  an  end 
by  Socrates,  who  showed  how  the  various  experiences 
were  to  be  weighed  against  each  other  dialectically,  and 
combined  in  general  conceptions,  which  teach  us  to 
know  the  unchangeable  essence  of  things  in  the  change 
of  their  accidental  characteristics.  The  earlier  philo- 
sophers, to  whom  this  method  was  still  strange,  could 
not  withstand  him — their  one-sided  theories  mutually 
destroyed  each  other.  The  revolution  which  was  then 
being  accomplished  in  all  the  spheres  of  Greek  life 
took  possession  also  of  science,  and  philosophy  became 
Sophisticism. 

2.  The  External  History  of  the  Sophists, 

The  first  person  who  is  mentioned  ^  as  having  come 
forward  under  the  name  and  with  the  pretensions  of  a 

*  The  fullest  account  of  Prota-  Crit,  Soph.  p.  68-120,  is  unimpor- 

goras    is    giren  by  Frei   in    his  tant ;  the  monograph  of  Herbst  in 

Quasti'-nes     Protagorea      (Bonn,  Petersen's  PhiloL-Histor,    Siudien 

1845);  this  is  merely  confirmed  and  (1832),  pp.  88-164,  contains  much 

supplemented    as    to    details,    by  matter,  but  treats  it  rather  super- 

O.  Weber,   Qitastiones  Protagorea  ficially;  Geiat^  De  Protooora  Vita, 

(Marb.    1850),   and  Vitringa,   De  Oiessen,  1827,  confines  himself  to 

Prot.  Vita  et  Phiios.  (Gron.  1 853).  a  short  discussion  of  the  biography 

Of  the  earlier  writers,  Geel,  Hist,  of  Protagoras. 


408 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


Sophist  is  Protagoras,"  of  Abdera.*  The  activity  of 
this  man  extends  over  almost  the  whole  of  the  second 
half  of  the  fifth  century.  Bom  about  480  b.c.,  or 
perhaps  somewhat  earlier,*  from  his  thirtieth  year  up- 


>  All  writ«r8,  from  Plato  down- 
WHrds,  describe  him  as  a  native  of 
Abdera  (Prot  809  C ;  Bep.  x.  600 
C).  Eapolis,  according  to  Diog. 
iz.  50,  dec.,  calls  him  instead  a 
Teian,  but  this  is  only  a  difference 
of  expression.  The  Abderites 
-were  called  Teians  because  their 
city  was  a  colony  of  Teos.  In 
Galen,  H.  Phil.  c.  8,  instead  of 
Protagoras  the  Elean,  Diagoras  the 
M  elian  should  be  substituted.  The 
fathef  of  Protagoras  is  sometimes 
called  Aitemon,  sometimes  Msean- 
drius,  also  Mseandms  or  Menander ; 
vide  Frei,  5  sq. ;  Vitr.  19  sq. 

«  In  Plato,  Prot.  816  B.  sqq.,  he 
says  himself  that  the  Sophistic  art 
is  of  ancient  date,  but  that  those 
-who  practised  it  formerly  disguised 
themselves  under  other  names:  4yii 
ohf  roinwv  r^v  iwunlay  (LTturatf  Nihy 
i\4iKtf$at  ital  hiioKoyH  tc  vo^ivr^s 
cTkm  Kal  iraiSc^ffii'  hofBpAwow^  &c. 
In  reference  to  this  we  read  further 
on,  349  A  :  <r^  7*  iLvu/^aMv  trtavrhi' 
^omipv^Afitifos  elf  vdtnaf  ro^s^EX^ 
\i}var  <ro4»i9T^v  Iwopofidcas  fftavrhp 
iLir44»lPas  TatStvfft^s  Jcal  iptrris 
9iS44rKa\or  wpOros  roinov  iiurBhP 
&{u60'as  ipyvaBai.  (The  latter  state- 
ment is  repeated  in  Diog.  iz.  62 ; 
Philostr.  V.  Soph.  i.  10,  2 ;  Plato, 
ff^p.  Maj.  282  C,  &c.)  When  in 
the  Mfsno^  91  E,  certain  predecessors 
of  the  Sophists  are  mentioned,  this 
does  not  refer  to  Sophists  proper, 
but  to  the  persons  previously  spoken 
of  in  Prot.  816  sq. 

■  The  dates  in  the  life  of  Prota- 
goras are  uncertain,  as  with  most 
of  the  ancient  philosophers.  Apol- 


lodorus,  ap.  Diog.  iz.  56,  assigu 
his  most  flourishing  period  to  (A, 
84  (444-440  B.C.).  That  he  was 
considerably  older  than  Socratos 
we  learn  from  Plato,  Prot,  317  C, 
where  it  is  said  that  there  wu 
none  of  those  present  of  whom  he 
might  not  have  been  the  father 
(though  this  remark  may  not  be 
intended  literally);  from  Pmt. 
318  B.  Thectt.  171  C,  and  from  the 
circumstance  that  the  Platonic  So- 
crates often  speaks  of  him  (Tlefff. 
164  E  sq.,  168  C.  D,  171  D.  Afow, 
91  £ ;  cf.  Apol.  19  E)  as  dead,  and 
in  the  ATefto,  I*  c.  be  is  said  to  hare 
nearly  attained  the  age  of  eenavr. 
In  regard  to  the  time  of  his  dnttb, 
the  words  in  the  Meno:  hi  m 
T^v  ilfjidpay  tavriiwl  MoKiniiw  evtcr 
itiwavrm  imply  that  he  belonged  to 
tho  distant  past ;  and  if  the  state- 
ment  of  Philochorus,  ap.  Dicg.  iz. 
55,  is  correct,  that  Euripides,  vbo 
died  in  406  or  407  b.c.,  alluded  to 
him  in  Izion,  he  cannot  be  snppoMd 
to  have  lived  beyond  408  b.c.  That 
this  theory  is  not  contradicted  by 
the  verse  of  Timon,  ap.  Sext  Matk. 
iz.  57,  has  already  been  shovn 
by  Hermann  (Zeiisckr.  f.  AUer- 
ihumstp.  1834,  p.  364),  Frei,  p.  62, 
&c.  The  assertion  (IKog.  ii.  54) 
that  his  accuser  Pythodorns  vss 
one  of  the  Four  Hundred,  makes 
it  probable  that  his  trial  took  place 
in  the  time  of  the  Four  Hundr^; 
though  it  must  be  granted  to  the 
writers  named  above  that  this  dees 
not  ab.solutely  follow ;  and  another 
testimony  (inf.  409,  2)  designates 
Euathlus  as  his  accuser.  The  other 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    PROTAGORAS,       409 


wards  *  he  passed  from  one  Greek  city  to  another,  ofiFer- 
ing  his  instructions  in  exchange  for  payment,  to  all 
who  sought  to  gain  practical  ability  and  higher  mental 
culture ;  ^  and  so  brilliant  was  his  success,  that  the 
youths  of  the  educated  classes  everywhere  flocked  to 


authorities  in  fiiTour  of  his  perse- 
cution by  the  Four  Hundred  (ef. 
Frei.  76;  Weber,  19  sq.)  are  tin- 
cextain.  The  statement  that  he 
was  ninety  years  old  at  his  death 
(  iwtoiy  ap.  Diog.  ix.  66  ;  Schol.  ad 
Plat.  Rfj}.  X.  600  C),  which  con- 
tradicts the  testimony  of  Plato, 
followed  also  by  ApoUodorus  (ap. 
Diog.  ix.  56),  deserves  no  attention. 
Accord!  ng  to  the  foregoing  evidence, 
the  conjectore  (Geist,  8  sq. ;  Frei, 
64  ;  VitringH,  27  sq.)  that  his  birth 
was  in  4Su  B.a  and  his  death  in 
411  B.C.  does  not  make  hira  at  all 
too  old ;  his  birth  may  probably  be 
assigned  still  more  accurately  to 
481-2  (Diels,  Rh.  Mus,  xxxi.  44); 
on  the  other  hand,  Schanz,  /.  c,  23, 
doubtless  goes  too  far  in  assigning 
his  birth  to  490-487,  and  his  death 
to  420-417  B.C  Cf.  the  detailed 
discossion  of  Frei,  p.  13  sqq.,  and 
Weber,  p.  12. 

*  According  to  Plato,  Meno,  91 
E;  Apollod.  ap.  Diog.  ix.  66,  he 
practised  his  profession  as  a  Sophist 
for  forfy  years. 

«  Vide  p.  408,  3;  411,1;  Plato, 
Themt,  161  D,  179  A.  The  fee 
that  he  asked  (for  a  whole  course) 
is  said  by  Diog.  ix.  50,  62; 
Quintil.  iii.  1,  10,  &c.  (Frei.  165) 
to  hare  been  100  minse,  and  Gell. 
T.  3,  7,  speaks  of  a  pecunia  ingens 
annua.  The  sum  is  no  doubt 
greatly  exnggerated,  though  it 
appears  from  Prot.  310  D,  that  he 
demanded  considerable  remunera- 
tion.  According  to  Plato,  Prot, 
328  B;  Arist.  Eth,  N,  ix.  1,  1164 


a,  24,  he  asked,  indeed,  a  fixed 
sum,  but  left  it  to  his  pupil  to 
decide  at  the  end  of  the  instruc- 
tions what  he  would  give,  if  the 
price  seemed  to  him  excessive. 
All  the  move  improbable  is  the 
well-known  story  of  his  law-suit 
with  Euathlus,  ap.  Gell.  v.  10 ; 
Apul.  FlorU,  iv.  18.  p.  86  Hild.; 
Diog.  ix.  56 ;  Marcellm,  Bhet,  Gr. 
Ed.  Walz,  iv.  179  sq.  Especially 
as  Sext.  Math.  ii.  96 ;  Prolegg,  in 
Hermogen.)  Rket,  Gr.  Ed.  Walz, 
iv.  13  sq. ;  Sopater,  in  Htrmog, 
Hnd,  V.  6,  65,  iv.  154  sq. ;  Max. 
Plan.  Prolegg.  ibid.  v.  215  ;  Doxo- 
pater,  Prolegg,  ibid.  ti.  13  sq.,  sny 
the  same  of  Corax  and  Tisias.  The 
case  here  supposed  of  an  unanswer- 
able question  seems  to  have  been  a 
favourite  theme  for  sophistic  rhe- 
torical exercises;  if  Pythagoras*8 
timi  Mp  fiiffBov  (Diog.  ix.  56)  was 
genuine,  we  might  assume  that  this 
theme  had  been  discussed  in  it, 
and  that  the  anecdote  arose  from 
thence ;  if  it  was  not  genuine,  the 
opposite  assumption,  that  the  anec- 
dote gave  occasion  to  its  fabrica- 
tion, has  more  in  its  favour.  Ac- 
cording to  Diog.  ix.  54  ;  cf.  Cramer, 
Anecd.  Paris,  i.  172  (Frei,  76), 
Euathlus  was  named  by  Aristotle 
as  the  person  who  accused  Prota- 
goras of  atheism;  but  this  is 
perhaps  only  the  ignorant  repeti- 
tion of  an  expression  relating  to 
the  lawsuit  about  his  payment. 
According  to  Diog.  ix.  50,  Prota- 
goras also  collected  money  from 
those  present  for  single  lectures. 


410 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


him  and  overwhelmed  him  with  admiration  and  with 
gifts.^  Besides  his  native  city,'  Sicily  and  Magna 
G-rsecia  '  are  mentioned  as  the  scene  of  his  labours,  but 
especially  Athens,^  where  not  only  Callias,  but  also 
Pericles  and  Euripides  sought  his  society ;  ®  the  exact 


*  The  most  Tivid  account  of 
the  entbasiastic  veneration  ac- 
corded to  ProtagoraB,  ib  given  by 
Plato,  Proi.  310  D  Bqq.,  314  E  vq., 
&c.  Cf.  Bep.  X.  600  0  iinf.  418, 1) ; 
Theat.  161  C;  as  to  Mb  gains  we 
read  in  the  Meno^dl  E,  that  his  art 
yielded  more  than  that  of  Pheidias 
to  himself  and  ten  other  sculptors ; 
Athemeus,  iii.  113  e,  speaks  pro- 
verbially of  the  gains  of  Gorgias 
and  Protagoras.  Dio  Chrys.  Or, 
lir.  280  K,  cannot  be  quoted  as 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  as  is 
shown  by  Frei,  p.  167  sq. 

*  According  to  ^lian,  V,  H.  iv. 
20;  cf.  Suid.  Upteraiy.  Schot.  ad. 
Plato.  Rep.  X.  600  C,  his  fellow 
citizens  called  him  \6yos,  Favo- 
rinus,  ap.  Biog.  ix.  60,  says,  through 
a  mistake  for  Diogenes  (vide  sup. 
p.  213,  n.):  o-o^/o. 

*  His  residence  in  Sicily  is 
mentioned  in  Plato's  Greater  Hip- 
pias,  282  D,  which,  however,  it«elf 
is  not  very  trustworthy.  There  is 
a  reference  to  Lower  Italy  in  the 
statement  that  he  gave  laws  to  the 
Athenian  colony  in  Thurii  (Hera- 
cleid.  ap.  Diog.  ix.  50,  and  Frei,  65 
sqq.,  Weber,  14  sq.,  Vitringa,  48 
sq.),  since  he  no  doubt  himself  in 
that  ease  accompanied  the  colonists. 
From  Sicily  he  may  have  gone  to 
Cyrene.  and  there  formed  a  friend- 
ship with  the  mathematician  Theo- 
dome,  whom  Plato  mentions,  Theat, 
161  B,  162  A. 

*  Protagoras  was  repeatedly  in 
Athens,  for  Plato  {Prot  810  E) 


represents  him  as  speaking  of  a 
former  visit  which  took  place  a 
considerable  time  before  the  seeo&d, 
to  which  the  dialogue  is  assigned. 
Plato  makes  this  second  visit  begin 
before  the  commencement  of  the 
Peloponnesian  War,  for  that  ia^ 
irrespective  of  trifling  anaefaio- 
nisms,  the  supposed  date  of  the 
dialogue,  which  was  held  on  the 
second  day  after  the  airival  of  the 
Sophist  (vitle  Steinhart,  Platoiis 
Werke^  i.  425  sqq.,  and  my  treatJBe 
on  the  Platon.  Anachronismen,  Aik 
d,  JBerL  Akad.  1873 ;  Pldl.  Hut. 
KL  p.  83  sq.).  That  Frotagorafl 
was  at  that  time  in  Athenn,  ve 
find  also  from  the  fragment,  ap. 
Pint.  Cons,  ad  ApolL  33,  p.  118, 
and  Pericl.  c.  36.  Whether  he  r^ 
mained  there  until  his  exile,  or 
continued  his  wanderinj^  in  the 
interim,  we  are  not  told,  but  the 
latter  supposition  is  far  the  moat 
probable. 

*  In  regard  to  Oallias,  the 
famous  patron  of  the  sophists,  who, 
according  to  Plato«  Apol.  20  A,  had 
expended  more  money  upon  them 
than  everyone  el^  put  tog(>ther, 
this  is  well  known  from  Plato 
(Prota^f.  314  D,  315  D,  Cm^.  391 
B),  Xenophon  {Symp.  i.  5).  &c. 
lo  regard  to  Euripides,  we  gather  it 
from  the  quotations,  p.  408,  3,  and 
also  from  the  statement  (Diog.  ix. 
54),  that  Protagoras  read  alowi 
his  treatise  on  the  gods  in  Eoit- 
pides*  house.  In  regaid  to  Pericles, 
vide  the  quotations  from  Plutarch 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    PROTAGORAS.       411 


date  and  duration,  however,  of  his  residence  in  these 
different  places  we  cannot  precisely  ascertain.  On  ac- 
count of  his  treatise  concerning  the  Gods,  he  was  perse- 
cuted as  an  Atheist,  and  obliged  to  leave  Athens ;  in 
his  voyage  to  Sicily  he  was  drowned :  his  treatise  was 
burnt  for  political  reasons.^  Of  his  doctrine  nothing 
is  known  to  us;  he  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of 
Democritus,^  but  this,  in  spite  of  Hermann's  opinion 
to  the  contrary,^  I  consider  to  be  as  fabulous  *  as  the 


in  the  previous  note;  for  even  if 
the  anecdote  mentioned  in  the 
second  quotation  be  merely  a  piece 
of  gossip,  such  g08i»ip  would  have 
been  impossible  unless  the  inter- 
course of  Pericles  with  Protagoras 
had  been  a  recognised  fact.  Con- 
cerning other  disciples  of  Prota- 
goras, vide  Frei,  171  sqq. 

*  The  above  is  attested  by 
Plato,  Themt.  171  D;  Cic  N.  />. 
i.  23,  63;  Diog.  ix.  51  f,  54  sq. ; 
Eus.  Pr.  Ev,  xiv.  10, 10  ;  Philostr. 
V.  Soph.  i.  10 ;  Joseph,  c.  j4p.  ii. 
87 ;  Sext.  Math.  ix.  56,  &c. ;  but 
the  evidence  is  not  agreed  as  to 
the  particular  circumstances,  and 
especially  as  to  whether  Protagoras 
left  Athens  as  an  exile  or  as  a 
fugitive.  VideFrei,  75!>q.;  Krische, 
Forteh.  139  sq. ;  Vitringa,  52  sqq. 
*  Diagoras  *  is  substituted  for  Pro- 
tsgoras  in  Valer.  Max.  I.,  i.  ext. 
7 ;  but  this  is  of  no  importance. 

'  The  oldest  evidence  for  this 
is  an  Epicurean  letter,  Diog.  ix. 
53  :  wpvTOs  r^v  Ka\ovfA4yfiy  riXriVf 

&t  ^<riy  *ApurTor4Kiif  iy  r^  vtpl 
watB^las'  ^opiAB^p9S  fkp  ^y,  &s  koX 
*ETiKovp6s  woA  ^licif  Kal  T9VToy  rhy 
rp&iroy  lipOri  irp6s  ArifUitpiroy,  ^liXa 
8«8cjrcbf  i^tis ;  Id,  x.  8,  Timocrates, 
a  popil  of  Epicurus,  whoafterwaxds 


quarrellerl  with  him,  reproached 
him  with  despisingaU  other  philoso- 
phers, and  with  having  called  Plato 
a  sycophant  of  Dionysius,  and  Aris- 
totle a  debauchee  (&irwTOf)  ^p/io- 
^poy  re  UpwTay6pay  ical  ypaupia 
AyiiioKpirov  koI  iy  K^fuus  ypdififutra 
SiSderictfy.  The  same  is  asserted  by 
Suidas,  UfwraySpas  kot6Xii,  ^opfio- 
^6f>os;  hy  the  Scholiast  in  Plato's 
Rep.  X.  600  C,  and  somewhat  more 
at  length  from  the  same  Epicurean 
letter,  by  Athen.  viii.  S54  c. 
Lastly,  Gellius  v.  3  elaborates  the 
story  still  further,  but  without  ad- 
ding any  different  features.  Pro- 
tagoras is  also  called  the  pupil  of 
Democritas  by  Philostr.  V.  Soph. 
i.  10,  1 ;  Clem.  Strom,  i.  301  D, 
and  Galen,  H.  Phil.  c.  2  ;  and  the 
statement  in  Diogenes  is  based 
upon  the  same  assumption. 

»  De  Philos.  Ionic.  jEtatt.  1 7,  cf. 
ZeUschr.  /Kr  Alterthurnsw.  1834; 
369  i?'.  Gesch.d.  Plat.  190.  Vitringa 
follows  him,  p.  30  sqq. ;  Brandis 
also  gives  credit  to  the  statement 
of  Epicurus,  while  Mullach,  2)e* 
,mocr.  Fragm.  28  sq.,  Frei,  9  sq., 
and  others,  contest  it. 

*  My  reasons  are  these.  In 
the  first  place  there  is  no  credible 
testimony  for  the  statement.  In 
regard  to  our  authorities,  Diogenei 


412 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


statement  of  Philostratus,  according  to  which  he  was 
instructed  by  the  Magi ' — the  same,  who,  according  to 
others,  were  the  teachers  of  Democritus  himself.^  Of 
his  writings,  which  were  tolerably  numerous,*  only  a 
few  fragments  have  been  preserved. 

Gorgias  of  Leontium  was  a  contemporary  of  Prota- 


and  Atheniens  name  as  their  eonree 
only  the  Epicurean  letter ;  Suidas 
and  the  Scholiast  of  Plato  depend 
only  on  Diogenes;  the  representa- 
tion of  Gellins  is  evidently  a  mere 
amplification  of  that  which  Athe- 
Dseus  relates  as  from  Epicurus. 
All  these  testimonies,  therefore, 
are  wholly  derived  from  the  state- 
ment of  Epicurus.  What  value, 
however,  can  we  aftach  to  this 
when  we  see  what  slanders  the 
writer  permits  himself,  in  the 
same  letter,  against  Plato,  Aris- 
totle, and  others?  (As  to  the 
conjecture  of  its  spuriousness,  We- 
ber, p.  6,  which  is  not  justified  by 
Dioff.  X.  3,  8,  I  say  nothing ;  nor 
can  1  attribute  any  weight  in  the 
discussion  of  the  question  to 
the  words  of  Protagoras  in  the 
Scholium  in  Cramer's  Anecd.  Paris, 
i.  171.)  The  statement  of  Epi- 
curus is  perfectly  accounted  for  by 
the  contemptuousness  of  this  phi- 
losopher (whose  self-satisfied  vanity 
depreciated  all  his  predecessors), 
even  if  it  had  no  further  founda- 
tion than  the  above-mentioned  no- 
tice of  Aristotle.  The  statements 
of  Philostratus,  Clemens,  and  the 
pseudo-Galen  may  ultimately  have 
had  the  same  origin ;  in  any  case 
they  cannot  claim  more  credit 
than  other  statements  of  the  same 
authors  concerning  the  5ia8ox4. 
But  the  discipleship  of  Protagoras 
to  Democritus,  besides  being  alto- 


gether uncertain,  contradicts  the 
most  trustworthy  theories  as  to  the 
chronological  relation  of  the  tvo 
men  (cf.  p.  209,  321  sqq.),  and  since 
we  shall  presently  find  that  there 
is  not  a  trace  of  Democrite&i  infla- 
ence  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Soph- 
ists, we  may  venture  to  regard  the 
whole  as  most  probably  an  unhis- 
torical  invention. 

»  r.  SopA.i.10,1.  His  father, 
Msandevy  by  his  magnificent  re- 
ception of  Xerxes,  is  said  to  hare 
obtained  the  instruction  of  the 
Magi  for  his  son.  Dino  in  his 
Persian  History  mentions  Prota- 
goras and  his  father,  bot  it  does 
not  follow  from  this,  as  Weber 
8U}^oses,  p.  6,  that  he  related  the 
alK)ve  story  of  the  Magi,  though 
the  thing  is  possible.  The  stoiy 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  state- 
ment of  Epicurus;  for,  according  to 
the  latter,  he  was  only  a  day- 
labourer,  while  in  the  former  he 
appears  as  the  son  of  a  rich  man, 
who  gained  the  favour  of  Xerxes 
by  his  princely  gifts  and  hospi- 
tality. 

=  Cf.  p.  210  ». 

'  The  scanty  statements  of  the 
ancients  concerning  these  will  be 
found  in  Frei,  176  sqq. ;  Viiringa, 
113  sq.,  160  sq. ;  cf.  Bemays, 
Kora0(iXXoirrcf  des  PrU.,  Bh.  MfU- 
vii.  (1850)  464  sqq. ;  those  which 
claim  our  attention  will  be  men- 
tioned later  on. 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    G0RGIA8, 


413 


^ras,  perhaps  somewhat  anterior  to  him.^  He  also 
came  to  Athens,  where  he  made  his  first  appearance  in 
the  year  427  B.C.,  at  the  head  of  an  embassy  to  solicit 


'  Vide  Fobs,  De  Gor^  Leon- 
tino  (Halle,  1828X  who  treaU  of 
him  far  more  particularly  and  ex- 
hauatively  than  Geel  (p.  13-67); 
Frei,  BeUrdqez,  Gesch.  der  Chriech. ; 
Sophutik,  Rhein.  Mus.  yii.  (1850) 
527  sqq.,  Tiii.  268  sqq.     The  native 
city  of   Gorgias   is   unanimously 
stated    to    have    been    Leontini 
(Leontium).    On  the  other  hand, 
the  statements  as  to  his  date  differ 
considerably.    According  to  Pliny, 
H,  N.  xxxiii.  4,  83,  in  01.  70,  he 
had  already  erected  a  statue  to 
himself  of  massive  gold  in  Delphi : 
here,  however  there  must  be  a  mis- 
take in  the  calculation  of  the  Olym- 
piads, whether  arising  from  the 
author,  or  the  transcribers.    Por^ 
phyry  ap.  Suid.  sub  voce^  assigns 
nim  to  ul,  80 :  Suidas  himself  de- 
clares him  to  be  earlier.    Eusebius 
in  his  Chronicle  places  his  acme  in 
01.  86.    According  to  Philostr.  F. 
Soph,  i.  9,  2  (on  which  little  stress 
can  be  laid),  he  came  to  Athens 
^8i|  ytipdaKwy.     Olympiodorus  in 
Gorg,  p.  7   (Jahn's  Jahrbh,  Sup- 
plementb,  ziv.    112),  makes  him 
twenty-eight  years  younger  than 
Socrates ;    but  the  statement  on 
which   this    is    founded,  that  he 
wrote  in  01.  84  (444-440  b.c.)  ir§p\ 
^iufwi  implies  the  contrary.    The 
safest  clue,  though  it  may  not  be 
altogether  accurate,  is  to  be  foimd 
in  the  two  facts  that  in  01.  88,  2 
(427  B.C.),  he  appeared  in  Athens 
as  the  ambassador  of  his  country 
(the  date  is  given  in  Diog.  xii.  68, 
cf.  Thucyd.  iii.  86),  and  that  his 
long  life  iai.  Plato,  Phadr,  261  B ; 
Plut.  Def.  Orac,  c.  20,  p.  420),  the 
duration  of  whidi  is  sometimes 


fixed  at  108  years  (Plin.  H.  N.  vii. 
48,  166 ;  Lucian.  Macrob.  c.  23 ; 
Cena.  DL  Nat.  16,  3  ;  Philostr.  v. ; 
Soph  494;  Schol.  ad  Plato.  I.  c; 
cf.  Valer.  Max.  viii.  13,  ext.  2), 
sometimes  at  109  (ApoUodor.  ap. 
Diog.  viii.  68;  Quintil.  iii.  1,  9; 
Olympiod.  /.  e.  Suid.),  sometimes 
at  107  (Oic.  Cato,  6,  18),  some- 
times at  106  (Pausan.  vi.  17,  p. 
496),  sometimes  less  precisely  at 
more  than  100  (Demetr.  JBi^, 
ap.  Athen.  xii.  648  d),  came  to 
an  end  subsequently  to  the  death 
of  Socrates.  This  is  clear  from 
Quintilian*s  evidence,  I,  c,  accord- 
ing to  the  pertinent  remark  of 
Foss  (p.  8  sq.),  also  from  Xeno- 
phon's  statements  concerning 
Proxenus.  the  -  pupil  of  Gorgias 
{Anabas,  ii.  6,  16  sq.),  also  from 
PUto  {Apol.  19  £),  and  from  the 
statement  (Pausan.  vi.  17,  p.  496) 
that  Jason  of  Pherae  highly  es- 
teemed him  (vide  Frei,  Rh.  M, 
vii.  636) ;  this  agrees  with  another 
statement,  that  Antiphon,  who  was 
born  about  the  time  of  the  Persian 
War  (the  second,  no  doubt),  is 
called  rather  younger  than  Gorgias 
(Pseudoplut.  VU.  X. :  Orat.  i.  9, 
p.  832,  with  which  cf.  Frei,  I  c. 
630  sq.).  According  to  all  these 
indications,  Ck>rgias  can  scarcely 
have  lived  earlier  than  Foss,  p.  11, 
and  Dryander,  De  Antiphonte 
(Halle,  1838),  3  sqq.  suppose,  viz. 
from  01.  71,  1  to  98,  1.  But  he 
may  perhaps  have  been  later  (as 
Kriiger,  ad  Clinton  FasH  Hell.  p. 
888  thinks),  and  Frei  may  be  more 
correct  in  assigning  his  birth  proxi- 
mately to  Ol.  74,  2  (483  B.C.),  and 
his  death  to  OL  101,  2  (376  b.c.). 


414 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


help  against  the  Syracusans.'  Already  mach  esteemed 
in  his  own  country  as  an  orator  and  teacher  of  rhetoric,* 
he  charmed  the  Athenians  by  his  ornate  and  flowery 
language,'  and  if  it  be  true  that  Thucydides  and  other 
important  writers  of  this  and  the  succeeding  epodi 
imitated  his  style/  he  must  be  allowed  to  have  exercised 


*  Vide,  eoncprni ng  this  embassy, 
the  previous  note  and  Plato.  Hipp, 
Maj,  282  B;  Faus.  /.  c.  Dionys. 
Jud.  Lys,  c  3,  p.  468 ;  Oiympiod. 
in  Gorg.  p.  3  (likewise  Plut.  Gtn, 
8oc,  e.  18,  p.  683,  in  itself  not 
indeed  historical  evidence),  and 
Foes,  p.  18  sq. 

'  This  appears  probable  from 
the  expressions  of  Aristotle  ap. 
Cic.  Brut.  13,  46,  and  especially 
from  his  having  been  sent  as  am- 
bassador to  Athens.  Hardly  any- 
thing besides  is  known  of  Gorgias' 
previous  life,  for  the  names  of  his 
father  (ap.  Pans.  vi.  17,  p.  494, 
Karmantiaas,  ap.  Snid.,  Charman> 
tidas),  of  his  brother  (Herodicus, 
Plato,  Gcyrg.  448  B,  466  B),  and 
of  his  brother-in-law  (Deicrates, 
Paus.  I.  e.)  are  immaterial  to  us ; 
and  the  statement  that  Kmpedocles 
had  been  his  teacher  (vide  on  this 
point  Frei,  Rh.  Mus.  viii.  268  sqq.) 
18  not  established  by  Satyrus  ap. 
Diog.  viii.  68  ;  Quintil.  /.  <?.,  Suidas, 
And  the  scholia  on  Plato's  Gorgias, 
466  D ;  and  it  cannot  be  deduced 
from  the  language  of  Aristotle, 
quoted  p.  119,  note.  However 
credible  it  may  be,  therefore, 
that  Gorgias  may  have  received 
impulses  from  Empedocles,  as  an 
orator  and  rhetor,  and  may  also 
have  appropriated  something  from 
his  physical  theories  (as  we  may 
infer  from  Plato,  Meno,  76  C; 
Theophr.  Fr.  3 ;  De  Igne,  73) ;  it 
is  questionable  whether  this  in- 


volves actual  disci pleahip,  and 
whether  moreover  the  remark  of 
Satyras,  which  primarily  refers  to 
the  rhetoric  of  Gorgias,  does  not 
rest  upon  mere  conjecture,  p«rhap 
even  upon  the  passage  in  toe 
Meno.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  statement  in  the  prolegomena 
to  Hermogenes,  Rket.  Gr.  ed.  Wak, 
iv.  14,  where  Gorgias  is  represented 
as  having  been  taught  by  Tisias, 
widi  whom,  according  to  PansaD. 
vi.  17,  he  contended  in  Athens. 
To  infer  from  Plut.  De  Adul.  c  23, 
p.  64 ;  Conj.  Praeo,  43,  p.  144. 
that  Gorgias  led  an  immoral  life 
is  the  less  justifiable,  as  the  anec- 
dote in  the  second  of  these  passages, 
concerning  his  married  life,  con- 
tradicts t^e  express  testimony  of 
Isocrates  ir.  &vrt8^ir.  1667,  that  he 
was  unmarried. 

■  Diodor.  I  c;  Plato,  H^. 
I.  c. ;  Olymp.  L  c. ;  Prolegg.  m 
Hermog.  Rhet.  Gr.  ed.  Walz,  iv. 
16;  Dozopater.  ibid.  vi.  Id,  &c; 
▼ide  Welcker,  Klein.  Sehr.  ii.  413. 

*  This  is  said  of  Thucydides  in 
Dionys.  Ep.  ii.  c.  2.  p.  792 ;  Jud, 
de  thuc.  c.  24.  p.  869 ;  ^ntyllus 
ap.  Marcell.  V.  Tkuc.  p.  8,  xi. 
Bind. ;  of  Gritias  in  Philostr.  V. 
Soph.  i.  9,  2;  Ep.  xiii.  919;  cf. 
Isocrates,  who  was  a  hearer  of 
Gorgias  in  Thessaly;  Aristoteles 
ap.  Quintil.  Inat.  iii.  1, 13;  Diodts. 
Jud.  d.  laocr.  c.  1,  636 ;  De  vi  dk, 
Demoeih,  c.  4,  963;  ()ic  OrtUcir, 
62,  176;  Caio,  6,  18;  cf.  Plut  V. 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    GORGIAS. 


415 


considerable  influence  over  Attic  prose  and  even  poetiy. 
Sooner  or  later  after  his  first  visit,^  Oorgias  seems  to 
have  betaken  himself  permanently  to  Greece  Proper, 
where  he  wandered  through  the  cities  as  a  Sophist,^ 
earning  thereby  much  wealth.*     In  the  last  period  of 

Dec,  Orat,  laocr,  2,  15,  p.  836  sq. ; 
Philostar. V,  8opk. i.l7, 4, &c.  (Frei, 
I.  c.  641);  of  Agathon  in  Plato, 
8ymp,  198  C,  and  the  Scholiast  od 
the  beginning  of  this  dialogue,  cf. 
Spengel,  tvpvy,  Tex*'*  91  sq. ;  of 
.Sschines  in  Diog.  ii.  63  ;  Fhilostr. 
Ep,  ziii.  919;  cf.  Fobs,  60  sq. 
That  Pericles  was  not  a  '  hearer  * 
of  Gorgias  is  self-evident,  and  is 


shown  by  Spengel,  p.  64  sqq. 

*  For  the  supposition  {Prolegg. 
in  Hermog.  Bhet.  Gr.  ir.  16)  that 
he  remained  there  after  his  first 
visit,  is  contradicted  by  Diodor. 
I.  e.,  and  by  the  nature  of  the 
errand  on  which  he  went. 

»  In  Plato  he  says,  Gorg.  440 
B,  that  he  teaches  oh  fUyov  MJi^t 
&AX2^  jcal  &Wo$t ;  this  is  confirmed 
by  Socrates,  Apol.  19  £,  and  hence 
Theag.  128  A.  In  the  Meno,  71  C, 
Qorgias  is  absent,  but  a  former 
sojourn  of  his  in  Athens  is  spoken 
of.  Gf.  Hermippus  ap.  Athen.  zi. 
605  d,  where  some  unimportant 
and  very  imcertain  anecdotes  on 
Gorgias  and  Plato  are  to  be  found 
(likewise  ap.  Philostr.  V,  Soph. 
PrtHxm.  6,  en  Gk)rgias  and  Chaeri- 
phon).  There  is  mention  of  a 
journey  to  Argos,  where  attend- 
ance at  his  leccures  was  forbidden, 
in  Olympiod.  in  Gorg.  p.  40; 
Proxenus,  according  to  Xenoph. 
Anab.  ii.  6,  16  (after  410  B.C.), 
seems  to  have  had  instruction  from 
him  in  Boeotia.  Among  the  writ- 
ings of  Grorgias.  an  Olympic  dis- 
course is  named,  which,  according 
to  Pint.  Owy.  Prac,  c,  48,  p.  144; 


Piftus.  vi.  17;  Philostr.  F,  Soph. 
i.  9,  2;  Ep,  xiii.  919,  he  himself 
delivered  at  Olympia ;  also  accord- 
ing to  Philostr.  V.  8.1  d;  2,  3,  a 
discourse  on  the  fallen  in  Athens, 
and  the  Pythian  oration  in  Delphi. 
Much  reliance,  however,  could  not 
be  placed  on  these  statements  as 
such,  if  the  facts  they  assert  were 
not  in  themselves  probable.  In 
regard  to  Suvern's  mistaken  con- 
jecture that  Peisthetaerus  in  the 
Birds  of  Aristophanes  is  intended 
for  Gorgias,  vide  Foss,  30  sqq. 

*  Diod.  xii.  53,  and  Suidas,  re- 
present him  as  asking  a  premium 
of  100  minee,  which  is  also  said  by 
others  of  Protagoras  and  of  Zeno 
the  Eleatic  (vide  p.  409,  2 ;  Vol.  I. 
609, «.) ;  in  Plato's  Greater  Hippias, 
282  B,  it  is  asserted  that  he  gained 
much  money  in  Athens ;  similarly 
in  Athen.  ili.  1 13  e ;  cf.  also  Xenoph. 
8ymp.  i.  5;  Anab.  ii.  6,  16.  On 
the  other  hand,  Isocrates  says  ir€pl 
kvriZ6ff.  155,  that  he  was  indeed 
the  richest  of  all  the  Sophists  with 
whom  he  was  ^acquainted,  but  that 
at  his  death  he  left  only  1,000 
staters,  which  even  if  they  were  gold 
staters  would  only  amount  to  16,000 
marks  (750^.).  The  magnificence 
of  his  external  appearance  would 
seem  to  have  corresponded  with 
his  supposed  wealth  as,  according 
to  .£lian,  T.  H.  xii.  32,  he  used  to 
appear  in  purple  raiment ;  but  the 
golden  statue  in  Delphi  is  especi- 
ally famous ;  whir:h,  according  to 
Pans.  L  0.  and  x.  1 8,  p.  842 ;  Her- 
mipp.  ap.  Athen.  xi.  605  d ;  Plin. 


416 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


his  life,  we  find  him  in  Larissa  in  Thessaly,'  where, 
after  an  eKtraordinarily  long  and  hale  old  age,'  be 
appears  to  have  died.  Among  the  treatises  ascribed 
to  him '  is  one  of  a  philosophic  nature ;  two  declama- 
tions which  bear  his  name  ^  are  probably  spurious.^ 
Prodicus^  is  mentioned^   among  the  disciples  of 


H  N.  xxTiv.  4,  83,  ho  himself 
erected,  whereas  nccording  to  Cic. 
J)e  Oral.  iii.  32,  129 ;  Valor.  Max. 
Tiii.  15,  ezt.  2,  and  apparently  also 
Philostr.  i.  9,  2,  it  was  erected  by 
the  Greeks.  Pliny  and  Valerius 
describe  it  as  massive ;  Cicero. 
Philostratus  and  the  so-called  Dio 
Chrys.  Or,  37,  p.  115  R^  as  golden, 
Pausanias  as  gilded. 

*  Plato,  MenOt  at  the  beginning. 
Arist,  PolU,  iii.  2,  1275  b.  26; 
Pans.  vi.  17,  495 ;  Isocr.  ir.  hni^6<r. 
155. 

*  In  regard  to  the  Length  of  his 
life,  vide  8upra ;  in  regard  to  his 
green  and  halo  old  age,  and  the 
temperate  life  of  whidi  it  was  the 
fruit,  vide  Quintil.  xii.  11,  21; 
Cic.  Cato^  6,  13  (repeatedly  in 
Valer.  viii.  13,  ext.  2) ;  Athen.  xii. 
548  d  (Geel,  p.  30,  rightly  conjec- 
tures yaffripoi  for  Mpov) ;  Lucian, 
MacToh.  c.  23 ;  Stob.  FkHl,  101, 
21 ;  cf.  Foss,  37  sq. ;  Mullach,  Ft. 
Phil.  ii.  144  sqq.  According  to 
XiUcian,  he  starved  himself  to 
death.  One  of  his  last  sa^ngs  is 
reported  by  ^lian,  F.  H.  ii.  35. 

*  Six  discourses,  probably  also 
a  system  of  Rhetoric,  and  the 
treatise  v.  ^vatus  ^  rov  f(9)  6vtos. 
Vide  the  detailed  enquiry  of 
Spengel,  Sway.  Texv.  81  sqq. ; 
Foss,  pp.  62-109.  Foss  and  Sch6n> 
born  (p.  8  of  his  dissertation  quoted 
below)  give  the  fragment  of  the 
discourse  on  the  Fallen,  which 
Planudes,  in  Kermog,  Rhet,    Gr, 


ed.   Walz,  v.   548,   repeats   from 
Bionysius  of  Hal«caniassus. 

*  The  Defmee  ofPalamedavA 
the  Praise  of  Helen. 

*  Opinions  on  this  point  are 
dividod.  Geel,  31  sq.,  48  sqq.,  con- 
siders the  Ptdajnedgg  to  be  genuine 
and  the  ir<9^  spurious.  Scbonbom, 
De  authentia  dedanuUumum  Gtfrp. 
(Bresl.  1826)  defends  both;  Foes, 
7B  sqq.,  and  Spengel,  ^.  c.  71  ^qq-* 
reiect  both.  Steinhart  (PkU>$ 
Werke,  ii.  509, 18)  and  Jahn,  Pa2s- 
medes  (Hamb.  1836),  agree  with  the 
last  writers.  To  me  the  Pdamedet 
appears,  if  only  on  account  of  its 
language,  decidedly  spurious,  and 
the  Helen  very  doubtfiil ;  but  I  cao- 
not  sgree  with  Jahn*s  conjecture 
that  these  writings  may  have  be€4i 
composed  by  the  later  Gorgias, 
Cicero's  contemporary.  Spengel 
may  more  probably  be  right  in 
assigning  the  Praiee .  of  Hden  to 
the  rhetorician  Polycrates,  a  cffli* 
temporary  of  Isocrates. 

*  Welcker,  Prodikos  von  Kms, 
Vorgdnger  dee  Sokratee.  Klem. 
Schr.  ii.  393-541,  previously  m 
Rhein.  Mue.  1833. 

'  Scholia  ad  PUft.  Sep.  x.  600 
C  (p.  421  Bekk.),  of  whom  one  ealU 
him  the  pupil  of  Gorgias,  another 
the  pupil  of  Protagoras  and  Gor- 
gias, and  a  contemporaiy  of  Demo- 
critus.  Suid.  Tlpwrarf.  and  npA. 
Vide,  on  the  other  hand,  Frdi 
Quast  Prot,  174. 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    FRODICUS. 


417 


Protagoras  and  Gorgias ;  but  this  is  doubtless  only  so 
far  true  that,  judging  from  his  age,  he  might  have  been 
so  J  A  citizen  of  lulis,^  a  town  in  the  little  island  of 
Ceos,  renowned  for  the  purity  of  the  manners  of  its 
inhabitants ; '  a  fellow-townsman  of  the  poets  Simon- 
ides  and  Bacchylides,  he  seems  to  have  first  come  for- 
ward in  his  own  country  as  an  ethical  teacher :  whether 
it  be  true  or  not  that  he  frequently  journeyed,  on  public 
affairs,^  to  Athens,  under  whose  dominion  Ceos  stood,* 
it  was  there  only  that  he  could  find  an  important 
sphere  of  action.  That  he  visited  other  cities  is  not 
altogether  certain,^  but  it  is  possible.  Like  all  the 
Sophists,  he  required  payment  for  his  instructions;^ 
the  esteem,  in  which  he  was  held,  is  attested  not  only 


*  This  may  be  deduced  irom 
Plato,  for  Prodicufl  already  ap- 
peals in  the  ProtagorM  (perhaps 
indeed  rather  too  soon)  as  a  Sophist 
of  repute;  and  yet  it  is  said,  317 
C,  that  Protagoras  might  be  his 
&ther ;  also  in  Jpol,  19  E,  he  is 
brought  forward  among  the  stiU 
liring  and  active  Sophists ;  he  can 
therefore  neither  be  older,  nor  very 
much  younger,  than  Socrates,  and 
his  birth  may  be  approximately 
assigned  to  460-466  B.O.  This 
agrees  in  a  general  manner  with 
what  is  said  of  him  by  Eupolis  and 
Aristophanes,  and  in  the  Platonic 
Dialogues,  and  also  with  the  state- 
ment that  Isocrates  was  his  pupil 
(vide  Welcker,  397  sq.) ;  although 
we  cannot  assert  anything  very 
definite  on  the  strength  of  it.  The 
description  of  his  personality  in  the 
Protagoras^  316  C  sq.  would  implv 
that  the  traits  there  mentioned, 
the  careful  attention  to  the  invalid 
Sophist,  and  his  deep  voice,  were 


known  to  Plato  from  his  own  ob- 
servation, and  were  fireeh  in  the 
remembrance  of  his  hearers. 

'  This  is  asserted  by  Suidas, 
and  indirectly  by  Plato,  Prot,  339 
£,  when  he  calls  Simonides  his 
feUow-citizen.  Prodicas  is  always 
without  exception  called  Kctos  or 
Kibf  (vide,  concerning  the  ortho- 
graphy, Welcker,  393). 

'  Cf.  on  this  point  the  passages 
cited  hj  Welcker,  441  sq.  from 
PUto,  Prot.  341  £ ;  Laws,  i.  638  ; 
A.  Athen.  xiii.  610;  1>.  Pint.  Mul. 
Virt.  Yjki,  p.  249. 

•  Plato,  Hipp.  Maj.  282  C; 
Philostr.  F.  Soph,  i.  12. 

•  Welcker,  394. 

•  What  Plato  says,  Apd.  19  E, 
does  not  appear  decisive,  and  the 
accounts  of  Philostr.  V.  8.  i.  12; 
Procem.  6;  Liban.  Pro  Socr.  328 
Mor. ;  Lucian,  Herod,  c.  3,  may  easily 
be  founded  on  mere  conjecture. 

'  Plato,  Apol.  19  £;  Hipp. 
M(t;\  282  C ;  Xen.  S^p.  1,  6,  4, 


YOL.  n. 


B  E 


418 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


by  the  assertions  of  the  ancients,*  but  by  the  celebrated 
names  that  are  found  among  his  pupils  and  acquaint- 
ances.'   Even  Socrates  is  known  to  have  made  use 


62;  Diog.  ix.  60;  aocording  to 
Plato,  Crat,  884  B;  ArUt.  EkU, 
iii.  14,  1415  b,  15,  his  lecture  on 
the  right  tue  of  words  cost  fif^ 
drachmas ;  another  doubtless  of  a 
popular  kind  intended  for  a  more 
general  audience  (like  the  lecture 
on  Heracles  perhaps),  onlj  a  single 
drachma.  The  pseudo-Platonic 
Axiochus,  p.  866  C,  speaks  of  lec- 
tures at  half-ardrachma,  at  two, 
and  at  four  drachmas;  but  upon 
this  we  cannot  depend. 

»  Plato,  Apol,  19  E ;  Prot.  816 
D,  and  particularly  Rep,  x.  600  C, 
where  it  is  said  of  ^odicus  and 
Protagoras  that  thev  could  per- 
suade their  friends :  »«  oih-c  oWiaw 

HvovTcu  ih»  /t^  a^cif  abr&p  irurrO' 
rhtftMri  T^r  muSciaf,  kolL  M  ra^rqf 

Atrr^  IMVO¥  oIk  M  reus  kc^oXcuV 
9€pt<l>4f>owruf  ainobs  ol  Iraijpoi.  Also 
it  appears  from  Aristophanes  (cf. 
Welcker,  p.  408  sq.)  that  Prodicus 
was  respected  at  Athens,  and  even 
by  this  poet,  the  relentless  foe  of 
all  other  Sophists.  Though  he 
may  have  occasionally  reined 
him  {TagenigUBy  Fr.  6)  among  the 
'  chatterers ; '  yet  in  the  CloM^s^  t. 
860  s^.,  he  praises  his  wipdom  and 
prudence  in  contrast  with  Socrates, 
without  irony:  in  the  Tagenitta 
(Ft,  6),  he  seems  to  have  assi^ed 
him  a  worthy  r61e,  and  in  the  Birda^ 
y.  692, he  introduces  him  at  any  rate 
as  a  well-known  teacher  of  wisdom. 
The  proverb  (ap.  Apostol.  xiy.  76) 
Tl^iUov  ffo^Ar^pos  (not  Upa^iKov 
rov  K(ov,  as  Welcker  supposes, 
896)  has  doubtless  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Sophist,  but  means '  wiser 


than  an  arbitrator : '  Apostol.,  wbo 
takes  TT^ZiKos  for  a  proper  name, 
without  thinking  of  the  Cean,  has, 
as  Welcker  obsexres,  misnnderftood 
the  word.  Welcker,  p.  405,  tries 
to  show  that  this  prorerb  oeeon 
at  the  beginning  of  the  thirt^nth 
Socratic  letter,  where  we  certaiolr 
find  "  tlpit^ittm  if  R/«  tro^Anpow,' 
but  the  expression  here  does  not 
sound  like  a  proverb :  it  relates 
only  to  supposed  utterances  of 
Simon  concerning  the  Heradet  of 
Prodicus.  Even  the  predicate 
<ro^^f  (Xen.  Mem.  ii.  1 ;  Symp.  4, 
62 ;  Axioch.  366  C;  Eryx,  397  B) 
proves  nothing,  for  it  is  identiol 
with  'Sophist'  (Plato,  Prtrf.  312 
C,  337  0,  et  pass.),  sftill  less  does 
Plato*s  ironical  ir«Ur<r«^s  col  Bun. 
Prot,  316  E  (et  Eidh^.  271  C; 
Lye.  216  A). 

*  e.g.^  Damon  the  mnsidaii 
(Plato,  Lack.  197  D),  Theramcnes, 
himself  a  Cean  by  birth  (Atben.  t. 
220  b ;  Schol.  on  Aristopk  Clouds, 
860 ;  Said.  Onfw^.) ;  Eniipideg 
(GelL  XV.  20,  4;  FUa  Eurip.  ed. 
Elmsl.  cf.  Aristoph.  Frogs,  1188); 
Isocrates  (Dionys.  Jud.  It.  c  1,  p. 
685;  Pint.  X.  OrtU.  4,  2,  p.  886; 
repeated  by  Phot.  Cod.  260,  pt 
486  b,  16,  vide  Welcker,  458  eqq.). 
That  Critias  also  attended  his  in- 
structions is  in  itself  probable,  biit 
is  not  proved  by  Plato,  Charm.  163 
D ;  nor  can  it  be  established  bj 
Prot.  838  A,  cf.  Phisdr.  267  B,  that 
Hippias  the  Sophist  was  inflnenced 
by  PJrodicus ;  of  Thucydides  it  is 
merely  said,  by  Mamllinus  T. 
Thue.  p.  viii.  Dind.  and  the  Scholion 
ap.  Welcker  460  (Spengel,  p.  53), 
that  in  his  mode  of  expnssioo,  be 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    PROBICUS. 


419 


of,^  and  recommended,  his  instruction,'  though  neither 
Socrates  nor  Plato  assumed  an  attitude  towards  him 
really  diflferent  from  that  in  which  they  stood  to  Prota- 
goras and  Oorgias.^    Beyond  this  we  know  nothing  of 


took  for  his  model  the  Aocuracy  of 
Prodieus;  the  truth  of  which  ob- 
servation Spengel,  Svy.  Tcxv.  53 
sqq.,  proves  by  examples  from 
Thaeydides.  According  to  Xenoph. 
Symp.  4,  62,  of.  i.  5,  ^^icus  was 
introduced  to  Callias,  in  whose 
house  we  find  him  in  the  Prota- 
goroBf  by  Antisthenes,  who  was  also 
one  of  his  followers. 

'  Socrates  often  calls  himself, 
in  Plato,  the  pupil  of  Prodieus. 
MenOf  96  D:  [xiySwei/ci]  o-c  re 
Topyias  ohx  ^o"^  irciratScvic^ycu 
Kol  4fi\  nfiiutos.  Prot.  341  A: 
you,  Protagoras,  do  not  seem  to 
understand  the  distinctions  of 
words :  obx  &fffF*p  iyi>  ffirtipos  9 A 
rh  fiaBfiT^s  cTycu  TlpoSlKou  rovrodt: 
Prodieus  always  corrects  him,  he 
says,  when  he  applies  a  word 
wrongly.  Charm,  163  D :  npo8f#cov 
ptvpla  rvk  iuefiKoa  ircpl  hvofjuirrw 
Buupowros,  On  the  other  hand, 
we  read  in  Crat  384  B,  that  he 
knows  nothing  about  the  correct- 
ness of  names,  as  he  has  not  heard 
the  fifty-drachma  course  of  Prodi- 
cuBi  but  only  the  single  drachma 
course.  In  Hipp.  Maj.  282  C, 
Socrates  eallfl  Prodieus  his  iraipos. 
Dialogues  like  those  of  Axiochua 
(366  G  sqq.)  and  Eryxias  (397  0 
sqq.)  cannot  be  taken  into  conside- 
ration in  regard  to  this  question. 

'  In  Xen.  Mem,  ii.  1,  21,  he 
appropriates  to  himself  the  story 
of  Heracles  at  the  cross  ways, 
which  he  repeats  in  all  its  details, 
from  Prodieus;  and  in  Plato, 
Theat.  151  B,  he  says  that  those 
who  are  not  in  trayail  with  any 


mental  birth,  he  assigns  to  other 
teachers:  &y  iroWohs  fi^y  8^  4^4- 
9»Ka  Upo^U^,  voXXobs  8i  &A\o» 
(robots  Tc  Kol  $€irw€<rlois  kydpdtri. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Antis- 
thenes and  not  Socrates,  through 
whom  Prodieus  makes  the  acquaint- 
ance of  Oallias. 

•  All  the  remarks  of  the  Pla- 
tonic Socrates  concerning  the  in- 
struction which  he  received  from 
Prodieus,  even  those  in  the  Meno, 
have  an  unmistakeably  ironical 
tone,  and  as  to  any  historical  eon- 
tent,  nothing  is  to  be  derived  from 
them,  beyond  the  fact  that  Socrates 
was  acquainted  with  Prodieus,  and 
had  heard  lectures  from  him  as 
from  other  Sophists.  That  he  sent 
certain  individuals  of  his  acquaint- 
ance to  him  does  not  prove  any 
special  preference,  for,  according 
to  the  passage  in  the  Themtetus,  he 
sent  others  to  other  Sophists.  We 
have  no  right  to  make  of  these 
others,  one  other,  viz.,  Evenus,  as 
Welcker  does,  p.  401.  In  Xen. 
Mem.  iii.  1,  Socrates  even  recom- 
mends the  tactician  Dionysodorus 
to  a  friend.  He  not  only  takes 
rebukes  from  Hippias  in  the 
Greater  Hippias  (301  C,  304  C), 
to  which  I  cannot  attach  much 
weight,  but  from  Polus,  in  the 
Gorgias,  461  C,  without  expressing 
himself  in  the  ironical  manner 
which  he  does  (Prot.  341  A)  to 
Prodieus.  He  describes  Hippias 
likewise  as  a  wise  man  (Prot.  337 
C),  and  Protagoras  {Prot.  338  C, 
341  A),  Gorgias  and  Polus  (Gorcf, 
487  A) ;  he  calls  the  two  last  hiB 


aa2 


420 


THE  SOPHISTS, 


the  life  of  Prodicus.^  His  character  is  described,  but 
only  by  later  and  untrustworthy  testimonies,*  as  licen- 
tious and  avaricious.  Of  his  writings,  tradition  has  onlj 
handed  down  imperfect  accounts  and  some  imitations.' 


friends,  and  in  the  Theat.  161  D, 
he  ezpreBsee  himself  as  grateful 
to  Protagoras  with  the  same  grace- 
ful irony  as  elsewhere  in  speaking 
of  Prodicus.  Although,  therefore, 
it  may  be  true  (Welcker,  407)  that 
Plato  never  brings  hie  Socrates 
into  collision  in  aigoment  with 
Pirodicns,  nor  introduces  any  pupil 
of  his  who  might  bring  discredit 
on  his  teacher,  as  Callides  or  Gor- 
gias,  yet  this  proves  little,  for 
neither  does  he  introduce  any  such 
pupils  of  Prota^ras  and  Hippias ; 
and  Oallicles  himself  is  not  §peci- 
alltf  quoted  as  a  pupil  of  Gkirgias. 
Whether  the  non-appearance  of 
Prodicus  in  the  arguments  shows 
a  high  estimation  of  him  or  the 
reverse  would  be  matter  of  enquiry. 
But  if  we  recall  the  satirical  man- 
ner in  which  Plato.  Prot,  3J&  C, 
represents  this  Sophist  as  a  suffer- 
ing Tantalns ;  what  insignificant 
and  absurd  parts  he  assigns  him« 
^id,  837  A  sqq.,  389  £  sqq. ;  the 
fact  that  nothing  special  is  recorded 
of  him  except  his  distinctions  of 
words  (vide  i^f.),  which  are  treated 
with  persistent  irony ;  and  a  rhe- 
torical rule  of  the  simplest  kind  in 
Phadr,  267  B ;  and  that  he  is  al- 
ways placed  in  the  same  category 
with  Protagoras  and  other  Sophists 
(Apoi,  19  E;  Bep,  x.  600  0; 
EkUhyd.  277  £,  and  throughout 
the  Frotagor€M)y  we  shaU  receive 
the  impression  that  Plato  regarded 
him  indeed  as  one  of  the  most 
harmless  of  the  Sophists,  but  of 
far  less  importance  than  Protagoras 
and  Ch>rgias;  and  that  he  recog- 


nised no  essential  difference  be- 
tween his  labours  and  thein.  Cf. 
also  Hermann,  De  Socr.  Magx&r, 
49  sqq. 

'  According  to  Suidas  and  the 
scholiast  on  Plato,  Rep,  x.  600  C, 
he  was  condeBined  at  Athens  as  & 
corrupter  of  youth  to  drink  hem- 
lock. The  falsity  of  this  statemect 
is  undoubted,  vide  Welcker,  503 
sq.,  524.  Nor  is  there  anygiDTtnd 
for  the  theory  that  he  chose  this 
death  voluntarily  for  himsell 

*  The  scholium  on  Qtmdt^  t. 
360,  which  perhaps  is  only  n- 
peated  wroneously  from  v.  354, 
and  Philostr.  V,  iS.  i.  12,  where  he 
is  represented  as  employii^  people 
to  act  as  recruiting  officers  nir  Ids 
instructions  (perhaps  merely  oe 
account  of  Xen.  iS^inp.  iv.  62). 
Vide,  on  this  subject,  Welcker,  513 
sqq.  On  the  other  hand,  flsto, 
Prot.  315  C,  describes  him,  not 
merely  as  weak  in  health,  but  as 
effeminate. 

'  Of  his  works  there  are  known 
to  us  the  discourse  upon  HerMles, 
or,  as  the  proper  title  was,  *fl^ 
(Schol.  on  CXoftdB,  360;  Suidas,  ifoi 
Up6Z.\  the  contents  of  which  are 
given  by  Xen.  Mem.  ii.  1,  21  sqq. 
(other  details  in  Welcker,  406  sqq), 
and  the  lecture  vc/ii  hpoftiiTm  ipM- 
nrros  (Plato,  Eutkyd.  277  E;  Cni. 
384  B,  &c ;  Welcker.  452),  which, 
even  judging  from  Plato's  carica- 
tures of  it,  must  have  been  pre- 
served after  the  death  (tf  the  ao- 
thor.  A  statement  in  ThemisL  Or. 
XXX.  349  b,  wonld  seem  to  imply 
the  existence  of  a  panegyric  od 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    fflPPIAS. 


421 


Hippias  of  EKs*  seems  to  have  been  almost  of 
the  same  age  as  Prodicus.'  After  the  manner  of  the 
Sophists,  he  abo'  wandered  through  the  Greek  cities  in 
order  to  gain  by  his  orations  and  lecturer  fame  and 
money;  and  he  frequently  came  to  Athens^ where  he 
likewise  assembled  round  him  a  circle  of  admirers*^ 


Agricuknre ;  the  imitation  in  the 
poeiido-Platomc  Axiochus,  366  B 
eqq.  (Welcker,  497  sqq.)i  a  dis- 
oonrse  on  the  mitigation  of  the 
fear  of  death,  and  the  story  in  the 
EryxiaSy  397  C  sqq.,  a  discussion 
on  the  value  and  use  of  wealth. 

*  Mahly,  Hippias  von  Elis, 
Rhein.  Mus.  N,  F,  xy.  614-536; 
X7i.  38-49. 

'  In  this  respect  he  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Protofforas  in  the 
same  way  as  Prodicus  (vide  supra, 
417,  1).  So  in  the  Hippias  Afaj\ 
282  £,  he  appears  considerahly 
younger  than  Protagoras,  but  stiU 
old  enough  to  come  into  conflict 
with  that  Sophist.  Xenophon, 
Idetn.  iv.  4,  6  sq.,  depicts  him  as 
an  old  acquaintance  of  Socrates, 
who,  at  the  time  of  the  dialogue, 
had  revisited  Athens  after  a  long 
absence,  and  Plato's  Apol.  19  E, 
presupposes  that  in  899  b.c.  he 
was  one  of  the  foremost  Sophists 
of  the  time.  Against  this  con- 
current testimony  of  Plato  and 
Xenophon,  the  statement  of  the 
pseudo-Plutarch  (K.  X.  Orat.  iv. 
16,  41)  that  Isocrates  in  his  old 
age  had  married  Plathane,  the 
widow  of  the  rhetorician  Hippias 
(Suid.  *Atap€irf,  first  says  the 
Sophist),  cannot  justify  us  in  sup- 
posing (Miiller,  Fr.  Hist,  ii.  69; 
Mahly,  I.  c.  xv.  520)  that  Hip- 
pias was  only  a  little  older  than 
Isocrates;  we  do  not  even  know 
whether  Hippiaa   the  Sophist  is 


intended,  and  not  some-  other  per' 
son  of  the  same  name ;  nor  what 
relation  the  age  of  Plathane  bore 
to  that  of  her  two  husbands.  If 
she  was  several  decades  younger 
than  the  first,  but  the  same  age  or 
not  much  younger  than  the  second, 
b^  whom  she  had  no  child,  the 
birth  of  the  Sophist  (even  if  he 
was  really  her  first  husband)  must 
be  placed  about  460  b.c.  On  the 
native  city  of  Hippias  all  authori- 
ties are  agreed.  His  supposed  in- 
structor Hegesidemus  (Suid.  'Inr.) 
is  wholly  unknown,  and  perhaps  is 
only  mentioned  through  an  error. 
Geel  concludes  from  Athen.  xi. 
506  sq.  that  Hippias  was  a  pupil 
of  Lamprus  the  musician  and  of 
the  orator  Antiphon ;  but  there  is 
not  the  smallest  foundation  for  the 
story. 

*  What  tradition  has  told  us 
on  the  subject  is  this:  Hippias, 
like  other  Sophists,  oifered  his 
instruction  in  different  places 
for  remuneration  (Plat.  Apol,  19 
£  and  other  passages)  ;  in  the 
Greater  Hippicu,  282  D  sq.,  he 
boasts  of  having  made  more  money 
than  any  other  two  Sophists  to- 
gether. The  same  dialogue,  /.  c. 
and  281  A,  names  Sicily,  but  es- 
pecially Sparta,  as  the  scene  of 
his  activity;  whereas,  on  account 
of  the  numerous  political  embassies 
bo  which  he  was  attached,  he  came^ 
less  frequently  to  Athens ;  on  the 
other  hand,  Xen.  Mem.  iv.  4,  6y 


422 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


Preeminent  for  his  vanity,  even  ^mong  the  Sophists,^ 
he  aspired  above  all  things  to  the  reputation  of  uni- 
versal knowledge,  constantly  bringing  out  of  the 
treasury  of  his  manifold  wisdom,  according  to  the  taste 
of  his  hearers,  something  new  for  their  instruction  and 
amusement.'      The    same     superficial    mann 

remarks  onlj  in  a  single  passage, 
that  after  long  absence  he  came  to 
Athens  and  th^re  met  Socrates. 
The  Lester  IRppias,  363  C,  asserU 
that  he  usually  at  the  Olympic 
games  delivered  lectures  in  the 
temple  precincts,  and  answered 
any  questions  that  were  put  to 
him.  Both  dialogues  (286  B,  363 
A)  mention  epideictic  speeches  in 
Athens.  (These  statements  are 
repeated  by  Philoetr.  V.  Soph,  i. 
11.)  Lastly,  in  the  Protagoras^ 
815  B,  817  D.  we  see  Hippias  with 
other  Sophists  in  the  nouse  of 
Oallifts  (with  whom  he  is  also  re- 
presented as  connected  in  Xenoph. 
i^ymp.  4,  62),  whene,  surrounded 
by  his  followers,  he  gave  informa- 
tion to  all  questioners  concerning 
natural  science  and  astronomy,  and 
afterwards  took  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings by  delivering  a  short 
discourse.  We  cannot,  however, 
deduce  with  certainty  from  these 
statements  anything  more  than  is 
given  im  the  text,  since  the  repre- 
sentation in  the  Greater  Hippias 
is  rendered  suspicious  by  the  doubt- 
ful authenticity  of  that  dialogue 
(vide  Zeitsckr.  f.  Mterthumsto, 
1851,  256  sqq.),  and  even  the 
details  of  the  other  dialogues  are 
scarcely  free  from  {satirical  ex- 
aggenition;  while  Philostratus  is 
unmistakeably  employing,  not  in- 
dependent and  historical  sources, 
but  merely  these  Platonic  dialogues. 
Tertullian's  assertion,  Apo^oget,  46, 


that  Hippias  was  killed  in  a  trsa- 
sonable  undertaking,  deserves  no 
more  credence  than  the  other  ini- 
quities which  TeitulUan  ascribes  to 
many  of  the  ancient  philosophers. 

*  e.g,  in  the  matter  of  th« 
purple  robe  which  JEliaa,  F.  H. 
zii.  82,  ascribes  to  him. 

*  In  the  Greater  Bippjat,  285 
B  sqq.,  Socrates,  in  ironical  ad- 
miration of  his  learning,  names,  as 
subjects  of  his  knowledg^  astro- 
nomy, geometry,  arithmetic,  tho 
science  of  letters,  syllable9,rhjthmi^ 
and  harmonies ;  he  himself  addf 
to  these  the  history  of  the  heroes 
and  founders  of  cities,  and  of 
archaeology  in  general,  boasting  ai 
the  same  time  of  his  extmordioai; 
memory.  The  Lesser  Hippias,  in 
the  iutroduction,  mentions  a  lectnn 
on  Homer,  and,  at  p.  868  B  sqq., 
makes  the  Sophist  boast,  sot 
merely  of  many  and  multi&n<»» 
lectures  in  prose,  bat  also  of  epics, 
tragedies,  and  dithyrambs,  of  Iiii 
knowledge  of  rhythms  and  hi- 
monies,  and  of  the  hpB^nis  7^ 
/m£twi',  of  his  art  of  memoiy,  aixl 
of  every  possible  technical  art  and 
skill,  e.g.  the  fabrication  of  doth^N 
shoes,  and  ornaments.  These 
statements  are  subseqnentlT  k- 
peated  by  Philostratus  I.  c,\  bj 
Cic.  De  Orai.  iii.  32,  127 ;  ApnL 
Floril,  No.  32 ;  partially  abo  br 
Themist.  Or.  xxix.  345  C  sqq.,ai"i 
on  them  is  founded  the  treatis^of 
pseudo-Ludan,  Inrtos  %  ^cAorc^ 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    THRASYMACHU8.    438 


was  no  doubt  characteristio  also  of  his  literary  ac- 
tiWty.* 

Of  other  celebrated  Sophists  who  are  known  to  us, 
it  remains  to  mention  Thrasymachus,'  of  Chalcedon,'  a 


which,  however  (c.  3,  sub  init), 
itself  claims  to  be  a  production  of 
the  time  of  Hippias.  Meantime 
it  is  a  question  how  much  fact 
underlies  this  story;  lor  if,  on 
the  one  side,  it  is  impossible  to 
calculate  to  what  point  the  vanity 
of  a  Hippias  might  be  carried ;  on 
the  other  side  it  is  very  likely,  and 
the  language  in  which  it  is  clothed 
favours  the  supposition,  that  in 
Plato's  account,  a  boastful  style 
of  expression,  not  so  altogether 
childii^,  or,  generally  speaking, 
the  self-complacent  encyclopsedio 
knowledge  of  the  Sophists,  may 
hare  been  parodied  in  an  exag- 
gerated manner.  More  reliance, 
in  any  case,  is  to  be  placed  on  the 
statement  of  the  Protagoras^  315 
B  (ride  previous  note),  318  E, 
that  Hippias  icstructed  his  pupils 
in  the  arts  {r4xv9i\  under  which 
may  have  been  included,  besides 
the  arts  named  (arithmetic,  astro- 
nomy, geometry,  and  music),  en- 
cyclopaedic lectures  on  mechanical 
and  plastic  art ;  and  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Memorabilia,  iv.  4,  6, 
that  because  of  his  universal  know- 
ledge he  aimed  at  saying  always 
something  new.  Xen.  8ymp.  4,  62. 
>  The  little  that  we  know  of 
his  writings,  or  that  has  been  pre- 
served from  them,  is  to  be  found  in 
Geel,  190  sq. ;  Osann.  Ler  Sophist 
Hipp.  aU  Archaolog,  Shein.  Mus, 
ii.  (1843)  495  sq.;  Miiller,  Fragm, 
Hist.  Gr.  ii.  59  sq. ;  Miihly,  l.  c, 
XV.  529  sq.,  xvi.  42  sq.  Through 
these  works  we  learn  something 
about  the    archs&ological  treatise 


referred  to  in  the  Greater  Hippias. 
Hippias  himself  says  in  a  Frag- 
ment ap.  Clem.  Strom,  ii.  624  A, 
that  he  hopes  in  this  treatise  to 
compose  a  work  collected  from 
earlier  poets  and  prose-writers,  Hel- 
lenes and  barbarians,  and  agreeable 
by  reason  of  its  novelty  and  variety. 
The  statement  ap.  Athen.  xiii.  609 
a,  is  taken  from  another  treatise, 
the  title  oi^hiah^ffwayvy^  perhaps, 
had  some  more  definite  addition. 
In  the  Greater  Hippias,  286  A, 
there  is  an  allusion,  doubtless 
founded  on  fact,  to  a  discourse 
containing  counsels  of  practical 
wisdom  for  a  young  man.  The 
lecture  on  Homer  seems  to  have 
been  distinct  from  this  {Hipp,  Min. 
cf.  Osann,  509).  According  to  Plu- 
tarch, NuTJM,  c.  1,  end,  Hippias 
made  the  first  catalogue  of  the 
victors  at  Oivmpus,  and  we  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  this  statement, 
as  Osann  does.  From  a  treatise  of 
Hippias.  of  which  no  exact  title  is 
given,  a  notice  is  quoted,  ap.  Prokl. 
in  Euol.  19  (65  Fr.),  concerning 
the  Mathematician  AmenRtus,  the 
brother  of  Stesichorus.  Pausan.  v. 
25,  1,  refers  to  an  elegy  composed 
by  him.  What  is  said  by  Philostr. 
K,  ^.  i.  11,  of  his  style  is  perhaps 
only  an  abstract  from  Plato. 

«  Geel  201  sq. ;  C.  F.  Hermann, 
De  Trasymacho  Chalcedonio.  Ind. 
Led.,  Gotting.  1848-49;  Spengel, 
Tcxv.  Si/y.  93  sq.,  where  the  various 
statements  as  to  the  writings  of 
Thrasymachus  are  also  to  be  found. 

'  The  Chalcedonian  is  his  con- 
stant appellation,  but  he  seems  to 


424 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


yonoger  oontemporary  of  Socrates,'  who  occupies  no  in- 
considerable position  as  a  teacher  of  rhetoric,'  but  in 
other  respects  is  un£Bivourably  portrayed  by  Plato,'  on 
account  of  his  boastfulness,  his  avarice,  and  the  undis- 
guised selfishness  of  his  principles;  Euthydemus  and 
Dionysodorus,  the  two  eristic  pugilists,  described  bj 
Plato  with  exuberant  humour,  who  late  in  life  came 
forward  as  professors  of  disputation,  and  at  the  same 
time  as  ethical  teachers,  whereas  they  had  previously 
only  given  lectures  on  the  arts  of  war  and  forensic 
oratory;*   Polus  of   Agrigentum,   a    pupil    of   Gar- 


have  spent  a  considerable  portion 
of  his  life  in  Athens.  From  the 
epitaph  in  Athen.  x.  454  sq.,  it  is 
probable  that  he  died  in  his  natiye 
city. 

^  This  is  to  be  oonjectured  from 
the  relation  of  the  two  men  in 
Plato's  Republic,  bat  on  the  other 
hand  it  seems  probable  from  Theo- 
phrast.  ap.  Dionjs.  ])e  vi  die. 
j)e7no8ih.  c.  S,  p.  953 ;  Cid  Orat. 
12,  3  sq.,  that  he  considerably 
preceded  Isocrates,  who  was  bom 
in  01.  86,  1  (435  B.C.),  and  was 
older  than  Lysias  (Dionys.  Jttd.  de 
Lvs.  c.  6,  p.  464,  in  opposition  to 
Theophrastus,  regards  him  as 
yonnger ;  but  the  contrary  results 
from  the  Platonic  representation). 
As  the  date  of  the  dialogue  in  the 
Republic  is  supposed  to  be  about 
408  B.C.  (ef.  p.  86  sqq.  of  my  trea- 
tise, mentioned  p.  410,  4),  Thnisy- 
machus  must  have  at  that  time 
arrived  to  manhood. 

■  Vide  infra. 

•  Rep.  i.  cf.  especially  836  B, 
838  C,  341  C,  343  A  sqq.,  344  D, 
350  C  sqq.  That  this  description 
is  not  imaginary,  we  should  natu- 
rally presuppose,  and  the  opinion 


is  confirmed  by  Arist.  Rktt.  il  23, 
1400  b,  19 ;  and  in  a  lesser  degree 
by  the  B^turvftAXtuiKfi^ipfuem  of 

^  Ephippus,  ap.   Athen.  zi.  509  e. 

'  Thzasymachos,  however,  in  the 
course  of  the  Repuhlie  bec<imn 
more  amenable;  cf.  i.  854  A;  ii. 
358  B;  V.  450A. 

*  Euthyd.  271  C  sqq..  273  C 
sq.  where  we  are  further  toM  that 
these  two  Sophists  were  brothen 
(this  we  have  no  reason  to  think 
an  invention),  that  they  had  emi* 
grated  from  their  home  in  Chios 
to  Thurii  (where  they  maj  hare 
formed  a  connection  with  Prota- 
goras), that  they  left  the  city  as 
fugitives  or  exiles,  and  travelled 
about,  remaining  mostly  in  Athens, 
and  that  they  were  about  as  old, 
perhaps  rather  older,  than  Socrates. 
Dionysodoras  alsa  appears  ap. 
Xeu.  Mem.  iii.  1,  as  a  teacher  of 
strategy.  The  statements  of  Plato 
and  others  concerning  both  the 
brothers  are  oollected  by  Winckel- 
mann  in  his  edition  of  Eathydemns, 
p.  zxiv.  sqq.  Grote  doubts  {Ptaity 
1.  536,  541)  whether  there  were 
two  Sophists  in  Athens  eorrespood- 
ing  to  Plato's  description  in  the 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY. 


425 


gias,^  who,  like  his  master  in  his  later  years,^  confined 
his  instructions  to  rhetoric;  the  orators  Lycophron^' 
Protarchus,^  and  Alcidamas,^  also  belonging  to  the  school 


TTuatetoB ;  and  this  it  so  far  true 
that  this  description  is  (as  it  never 
attempts  to  conceal)  a  satirical 
parody.  In  its  main  features, 
howeyer,  it  is  confirmed  by  Aris- 
totle and  others,  cf.  p.  456 ;  467, 2). 
Grote  farther  belieres  (iind,  559) 
that  in  the  epilogue  of  the  Euthy- 
demus  (304  G  sqq.),  the  Sophist  of 
that  name  is  treated  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  true  dialectic  and  phi- 
losophy ;  bat  he  has  entirely  mis- 
nnderstood  the  design  of  this  portion 
of  the  dialogne.  Of.  Part  iz.  a, 
416,  3.  Even  Euthydemus  305  A 
D,  proves  nothing. 

*  fle  is  described  as  an  inhabi- 
tant of  Agrigentnm  bv  the  psendo- 
Plato,  Theag.  128  A ;  Philostr.  V. 
Soph,  i.  13,  and  Snidas,  sub  voce) 
that  he  was  considerably  younger 
than  Socrates  is  plain  from  Plato, 
Gorgias,  463  £.  Philostratns  calls 
him  moderately  wealthy,  a  Scho 
liast  on  Arist.  J7A«^.  ii.  23  (in  Creel, 
173)  ireu;  tqv  Fopyiovy  but  the 
former  is  no  donbt  inferred  from 
the  high  price  of  Gorgias'  instruc- 
ttons,  and  the  latter  ^according  to 
GeePs  just  observation)  from  a 
miaunderstanding  of  Gara.  461  C. 
There  is  reference  to  a  Historical 
treatise  of  Polos  in  Plato,  Phadr. 
267  C ;  Gary.  448  C,  462  B  sq. ; 
Arist.  Metaph.  i.  1,  981  a,  3  (where, 
however,  we  must  not,  with  Qeel, 
167,  consider  what  follows  as  an 
extract  from  Polus);  cf.  Spengel, 
L  c.  p.  87  ;  Schanz,  I.  c.  p.  134  sq. 

2  Plato,  Meno,  96  C. 

-'  Lycophron  is  called  a  Sophist 
by  Arist.  Polit.  iii.  9,  1280  b,  10, 
Alexander,  in  Soph.  el.  Schol.  310 
a,  12;  ti»  Metaph.  p.  533,  18 ;  Bon. 


and  Ps.  Plut.  De  NobUii.  18,  3. 
What  Arist  Bhet.  iii.  3 ;  Alex. 
Tap,  209,  222,  relate  of  his  mode 
of  expression,  stamps  him  as  a 
pupil  of  Gorgias.  Also  the  state- 
ments to  be  discussed,  infrOf  pp. 
455, 466, 477  ;  487, 1,  coincide  with 
this.  A  few  unimportant  sayings 
are  also  to  be  found  ap.  Arist.  Polii, 
I.  c.  Metaph,  viii.  6,  1045  b.  9 ;  cf. 
Alex<  ad  h,  I.  Concerning  the  man 
himself,  vide  Vahlen,  Rhein,  Mua, 
xvi.  143  sqq. 

*  Plato  unmistakeably  de- 
scribes Protarchus  (to  whom  in 
the  Philebus  the  principal  part  after 
Socrates  is  assigned),  Phileb.  68  A, 
as  a  pupil  of  Gorgias,  and  chiefly 
indeed  m  rhetoric,  for  his  recom- 
mendation of  oratory  is  here 
quoted  as  something  which  Prota- 
goras had  often  heard  from  him. 
As  Plato  elsewhere  never  introduces 
imaginary  persons  with  names,  we 
must  suppose  that  Gorgias  really 
had  a  pupil  of  this  name ;  and  in 
that  case,  the  conjecttire  (vide 
Hirzel,  Hermes,  x.  254  sq.)  has 
everything  in  its  favour,  that  this 
Protarchus  is  the  same  from  whom 
Aristotle,  Pkys,  ii.  6,  197  b,  10, 
quotes  a  text  probably  taketi  ttom 
a  public  oration. 

^  Alcidamas  of  Eleea  in  .S!olia 
was  the  pupil  of  Gorgias,  who  after 
his  death  undertook  the  leadership 
of  his  rhetorical  school  (Suid.  Vop- 
yias,  'AAkiS.  Tzetz.  Chil,  xi.  746 ; 
A  then.  xiii.  592  c).  He  was  a 
rival  of  Isocrates,  and  bitterly 
opposed  him  not  only  (as  Vahlen 
shows :  D,  Rhetor  Aliid.  SUzungs- 
berichte  der  Wiener  Akad,  Hist,- 
PhU.  Kl.   1863,  p.   491   sqq.,  cf. 


426 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


of  G-orgias ;  Xeniades,  of  Corinth,  whose  sayings  remind 
us  most  of  Protagoras ;  ^  Antimoeras,  the  scholar  of 
Protagoras;'  Evenus  of  Paros,'  the  rhetorician  and 
teacher  of  virtue,  and  Antiphon,  a  Sophist  of  the  time 
of  Socrates,^  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  famous 


eipecially  p.  504  sqq.)  in  his  Mco-- 
imvwithst  but  also  in  the  diBoourses 
of  his  that  have  been  preserred, 
and  are  probablj  genuine,  against 
the  writers  of  speeches  or  Sophists. 
A  second  declamation  bearing  his 
name,  the  denunciation  of  Pala- 
medes  by  Ulysses,  is  spurious. 
All  the  particulars  known  of  his 
writings  are  given  by  Vahlen  ;  the 
fragments  of  them  are  to  be  found 
in  OrcU.  Atiid,  ii.  164  s(K).  That 
he  survived  the  battle  of  Mantinea 
(362  B.C.)  is  proved  by  his  Messe- 
nian  oration  composed  subsequently 
to  that  battle  (Vahlen,  505  sq.). 

*  The  onlj-  author  who  men- 
tions him  is  Sextus,  Math,  vii.  48, 
53,  383,  399,  viii.  5;  Pyrrh,  ii.  18 ; 
according  to  Math.  vii.  53,  Demo- 
critus  had  already  spoken  of  him, 
no  doubt  in  the  same  connection  in 
which  he  «had  opposed  Protagoras 
(vide  swpra^  276,  2).  As  to  his 
sceptical  propositions,  we  shall 
have  to  speak  further  on  (956). 
Grote,  Plato^  iiL  509,  refers  the 
statements  of  Sextus  to  the  well- 
known  Corinthian  Xeniades,  the 
master  of  the  Cynic  Diogenes; 
and  Kose,  JrUt.  lAbr,  Ord.  79,  to 
a  treatise  which  must  have  been 
forged  with  his  name;  but  the 
fact  of  his  having  been  already 
mentioned  by  Democritus  is  here 
overlooked. 

'  Of  this  man  we  know  nothing 
further  than  what  is  said  in  ProL 
315  A,  that  he  came  from  Mende 
in   Macedonia,   was   regarded  as 


the  most  distinguished  scholar  of 
Protagoras,  and  intended  to  make 
himself  a  professional  Sophist. 
From  the  last  remark  we  may 
infer  that  he  really  appeared  sab- 
sequently  as  a  teacher.  The  same 
may  perhaps  hold  good  of  Areha- 
goras  (Biog.  iz.  54).  CoDceniisf 
Euathlus,  vide  p.  409,  2. 

>  Plato,  Apol.  20  A ;  Phaic,  60 
D;  Phadr.  267  A  (cf.  Speagel, 
Svray.  T.  92  sq. ;  Schaos,  ISS). 
According  to  these  passages,  he 
must  have  been  younger  than  So- 
crates, was  at  once  poet,  rhetoridao, 
and  teacher  of  hprr^  dn^pMrinr  t« 
jcal  iroXiTuri^,  and  demanded  a  fee 
of  five  minse.  Further  particalan 
concerning  him  in  Bergk,  Lvnd 
Gr.  476,  and  the  writers  there 
quoted.  Ibid.  474  sq.,  for  the  frag- 
ments of  his  poems. 

*  On  the  personality  of  this 
man  (concerning  whom,  according 
to  Athen.  xv.  673  e,  Adrantus  and 
Hephsestio  wrote),  cf.  Sauppe.  Orat. 
ML  ii.  145  sqq. ;  Spengel,  Tfiparf. 
T€XK«v,  114  sq. ;  Welcker,  Ki  8ekr. 
ii.  422 ;  Wolff,  Porphyr.  Ik  PkHet. 
ex  orae.  haur.  Hd.  59  sq.  He  is 
described  as  tro^urr^s  in  Xen. 
Memor.  i.  6,  and  is  there  repre- 
sented as  seeking  to  allure  to 
himself  the  pupils  of  Socrates, 
and  consequently  disputing  with 
him  on  three  occasions  ;  this  pas- 
sage is  referred  to  not  only  in  Ps. 
Plut.  V.  Dec.  Oral.  i.  2,  p.  882 
(where  the  Sophist  of  Rhamnns  is 
expressly  said  to  be  meant),  bat 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY:    CALLICLES. 


427 


orator.  Critias,  also,  the  celebrated  leader  of  the  Athe- 
nian oligarchs,  and  Callicles,^  must  be  counted  among 
the  representatives  of  the  Sophistic  culture,  although 
they  were  far  from  being  Sophists  in  the  narrower  sense, 
i.e.,  paid  and  professional  teachers,'  and  the  Platonic 
Callicles,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  practical  politician. 


probably  also  in  Aristotle's  state- 
ment about  Antiphon's  jealonsy  of 
Socrates  (ap.  Diog.  ii.  46).  Aris- 
totle calls  him  'Avr.  6  rtparoffKdiroSj 
and  tliis  agrees  with  Hermog.  De 
Id.  ii.  7  iiihet.  Gr.  iii.  386  W,  ii. 
414  Sp.),  who,  quoting  Didymus 
the  grammarian,  distinguishes  him 
by  the  appellation  6  Koi  rtparo- 
aK6ros  leal  dytipoKplrris  K«y6fi€Vos 
from  Antiphon  the  rhetorician  of 
Rhamnas.  When  Suidas  mentions 
one  Antiphon  as  r^paroffKSiros  ical 
ixmroihs  not  <ro^urr^s,  and  a  second 
as  6p€tpoKplTris,  he  has  no  doubt 
erroneously  referred  to  different 
persons  two  statements  derived 
from  separate  sources,  but  relating 
to  the  same  person.  Tzetzes  (in 
a  scholium  quoted  by  Wolff,  /.  c , 
from  Bahnken)  represents  Anti- 
phon 6  rtparocxSiros  as  a  contem- 
poraiy  of  Alexander;  but  this 
cannot  weigh  against  the  above 
more  authentic  and  unanimous 
testimonies,  and  does  not  ju&tify 
MB  in  distinguishing,  as  Wolff  does, 
6  rtparofftcSiros  from  the  Sophist  of 
the  MemorabUia,  His  X&yoi  n^pX 
r^s  &Xi)0eias  are  discussed  in  Her- 
mog. I.  e.  p.  386,  387  W  ;  a  small 
fragment  of  the  a'  'KKiiBtlas  is  given 
by  Suixlas,  &8^of;  some  other 
wrritings,  which  are  ascribed  to  him 
in  the  traditional  text  of  Her- 
mogeoes,  belong  to  Antiphon  of 
Bhamnus,  as  is  clear  &om  the  sub- 
sequent context  in  Herraogenes, 
and  also  from  Fhilostr.  F.  8o^h.  i. 


15 ;  and  are  only  attributed  to  him 
through  the  carelessness  of  the 
transcriber,  cf.  Spengel,  T.  X  115. 
In  tbe  treatise  ir.  t.  iXriBtias  he 
no  doubt  brought  forward  the 
mathematical  and  physical  theories 
to  be  mentioned  later  on ;  no  frag- 
ments of  any  system  of  physics  of 
his  (as  Wolff  supposes)  have  been 
handed  down  to  us.  The  interpre- 
tations of  dreams,  mentioned  by 
Cicero,  Divtn.  i.  20,  39,  ii.  70, 144; 
Seneca,  Controv.  9,  p.  1 48  Bip. ; 
Artemidor.  Oneiroorit,  ii.  14,  p. 
109,  Herch.,  seem  to  have  been 
taken  from  a  separate  book. 

*  The  principal  interlocutor  in 
the  third  part  of  the  Gorgias,  from 
481  B  onwards,  of  whom  we  know 
so  little  that  his  very  existence 
has  beea  doubted.  In  favour  of 
it,  however,  we  have  Plato's  usual 
style,  as  seen  in  other  instances, 
and  the  definite  statement,  487  C, 
which  seems  to  be  quite  of  an  indi- 
vidual character,  whether  it  be 
historical  or  not.  Of.  concerning 
Gorgias,  Steinhart,  PL  Werke,  ii. 
352  sq. 

«  Some  writers  would  there- 
fore distinguish  Critias  the  Sophist 
from  the  statesman  of  that  name 
(Alex.  ap.  Philop.  De  An,  C,  8 ; 
Simpl.  De  An.  8  a).  Vide,  on  the 
other  hand.  Spengel,  I.  c.  120  sq.- 
Dionys.  Jud.  ds  Thuc,  c.  51,  and 
Phrynichus  ap.  Phot.  Cod.  168,  p. 
101  b,  reckon  Critias  among  tho 
model  writers  of  the  Attic  style.    ,' 


428  THE  SOPHISTS. 

speaks  contemptuously  of  the  uselessness  *  of  the  theo- 
rists. On  the  other  hand,  in  the  political  rules '  of  the 
famous  Milesian  architect,  Hippodamus,'  the  peculiarity 
of  the  Sophistic  view  of  law  and  of  the  state  is  not 
discemihle,  although  the  multifarious  literary  activity 
of  the  man*  is  suggestive  of  the  character  of  the  Soph- 
ists/ The  communistic  theory  of  Phaleas  the  Chalce- 
donian  ^  may  perhaps  with  more  probability  be  brought 
into  connection  with  the  Sophistic  doctrine ;  it  is  at 
any  rate  quite  in  the  spirit  of  Sophistic  innovation,  and 
may  easily  be  deduced  from  the  proposition  that  erist- 
ing  rights  are  contrary  to  nature;  but  we  know  too 
little  about  him,  to  be  able  to  determine  his  personal 
relation  to  the  Sophists*  In  regard  to  Diagoras,  it  has 
already  been  shown''  that  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
his  atheism  to  have  been  based  on  his  philosophy ;  and 

'  Gcrg.  4S4   0  sqq.,   4S7   C;  iMvloa^  some  fragments  are  giTCD 
cf.  616  A  and  619  C,  where  Cal-  by  Sto>)8ens,  FlorU,  43,  92-94,98, 
licleR,   as    politician,    is    clearly  71-103,  26,  is  the  same  person  (ss 
distinguished    from    Gallides    as  Hermann    ])elieyes,    p.    38  8qq.)« 
Sophist.  and    whether    Hippodamos    the 
*  Arist.  Pclit,  ii.  8.  Sophist  really  had  any  connection 
'  Concerning  the  date  and  per-  with  the  Pythagoreans  f»6t^  42 
sonal  circumstances  of  this  man,  sq.),  cannot  be  ascertainea. 
who  is  mentioned  by  Arist.  I.  c.  *  Arist  PolU,  ii.  8:  7ci^m<»«« 
and  Polit,  vii.  11,  1330  b,  21,  as  the  irol  xcpl  rhv  tXXov  fiiop  wtperr^tpof 
fbrst  person  who  attempted  to  Isj  Bth    ^iKorifdw  .  .  .  xAyios  t*  Kci 
out  cities   artistically,   Hermann,  ir€p\  r^y  SXijy  <^uf  (in  physics,  cf. 
De  Hippodamo  Miletio  (Marb.  1841),  Metaph.  i.  6,  987  b,  1 )  «!wu  /JouXrf- 
comes  to  the  following  conclusions :  /icyos,  irpwros  tw  /h^  woXit€uo^«W 
he  may  have  been  twenty-five  years  4y€X^i(ni<r4  ti  ircpl  xoXirclos  ftrttM 
old  in  01.  82  or  83,  when  he  made  rris  kplvrvs. 
the  plan  for  the  Pirseus,  that  he  *  Among  whom   Hermann,  p. 
planned  the  city  of  Thurii  in  01.  18  sqq.,  includes  him. 
84 ;    and  in  01.  93,  1,  when   he  •  Arist.  Polit.  ii.  7.  where  he 
built   Khodus,  was    considerably  is  mentioned  as  the  first  who  de- 
past  sixty.   Whether  Hippodamus,  manded  an  equality  of  goods, 
the  so-called  Pythagorean,  of  whose  '  Vide  p.  320,  2. 
treatises,  ir.  woKtrwu  and  x.  <65ai- 


EXTERNAL  HISTORY.  429 

the  same  holds  good  of  the  rhetoricians  contemporary 
with  the  Sophists,  so  far  as  their  art  is  not  connected 
with  the  Sophistic  doctrine  by  any  definite  theory  of 
ethics  or  cognition. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  the  im- 
portance of  the  Sophists  grows  less  and  less,  though 
their  name  is  still  in  use  for  teachers  of  eloquence, 
and  generally  for  all  those  who  imparted  scientific  in- 
struction for  payment.  Plato  in  his  earlier  dialogues  is 
constantly  at  war  with  the  Sophwts ;  in  the  later,  they 
are  only  mentioned  when  occasion  specially  calls  for 
it.^  Aristotle  alludes  to  certain  Sophistic  propositions 
in  the  same  way  that  he  speaks  of  the  theories  of  the 
physicists,  as  something  belonging  to  the  past;  that 
which  he  treats  as  permanent  is  the  Eristic  disputation 
which  was  indeed  first  introduced  by  the  Sophists,  but 
was  not  confined  to  them.  We  hear  of  no  noteworthy 
representatives  of  Sophistic  opinion  after  the  time  of 
Polus  and  Thrasymachus. 


3.  Tlis  Teaching  of  the  Sophists  considered  in  its  Oeneral 
Chwracter, 

Plato  himself  complains  that  it  is  difficult  rightly  to 
define  the  nature  of  the  Sophist.^  This  difficulty  lies 
for  us  chiefly  in  the  &ct  that  the  teaching  of  the  Sophists 
does  not  consist  in  fixed  theorems  equally  acknowledged 
by  all  its  adherents,  but  in  a  scientific  mode  of  thought 

*  e^.  in  the    introduction  to  sophistic  doctrines  to  be  resumed, 
the  i7^?}c^/tc,  where  the  connection  *  Soph.  218    C,    sq.,    226  A, 

with  fundamental   ethical  en^ui-  231  B,  236  C,  sq. 
ries  causes  the    polemic   against 


430 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


and  procedure  which,  in  spite  of  the  unmistakeable 
family  likeness  between  its  dififerent  branches,  is  com- 
patible with  a  multiplicity  of  starting-points  and  results. 
Contemporaries  designate  by  the  name  of  Sophist, 
generally  speaking,  a  wise  man ;  ^  but  more  particu- 
larly, one  who  makes  wisdom  his  calling  and  profession' 
— who,  not  satisfied  with  informal  and  unmethodical 
influence  on  fellow-citizens  and  acquaintances,  regards 
the  instruction  of  others  as  his  profession,  and  in  his 
wanderings  from  city  to  city  oflFers  it  for  payment,  to 
everyone  desirous  of  culture.*    As  to  its  extent,  this 

authors  applies  it  to  Socntes  al» 
(while  on  the  other  haod  .^scfaiiL 
Adv.  Tim,  §  173  describes  Socrates 
as  a  Sophist  in  the  later  sense); 
Diog.  Apoll,  ap.  Simpl.  Pkys.  S2 
b;  Xenoph.  Mem,  i.  1,  11;  ft.- 
Hippokr.  w.  iipy.  ianrp.  c.  20 ;  Isokr. 
I,  c,  268,  apply  it  to  the  ancient 
physicists ;  .^^chines  the  Socratic 
and  Diodoms  to  Anaxaj!;oTas  (vide 
gupra,  p.  325) ;  Plato,  Meno,  86  B, 
to  the  teachers  of  mathematici ; 
conversely,  the  Sophists  are  called 
ffo^l,  vide  supra  418,  3,  end;  419, 
4 ;  cf.  Plato,  Jpoll,  20  D.  The 
explanation  of  the  word  as  *  teach' 
en  of  wisdom'  is  dispoted  by 
Hermann,  Plat,  PhU,  \,  308  sq.,  u 
it  appears  to  me,  rightly;  while 
Steinhart,  Plat,  Leben,  288,  92, 
defends  it. 

«  Plato,  Prot.  315  A  (which  ex- 
plains 312  B) :  ^i  'rfyrp  fuvMm, 
&s    ffo^urriis    4c6iifros]     316  B: 

fi^y  c7nu  ToXoulr,  etc.  Epitaph  on 
Thrasymachus  in  Athen.  x.  454  sq. 
i)  8e  r^xvri  [sc.  ainov]  tro^hi. 

*  Xenoph.  Mem,  i.  6.  13:  n^ 
r^v  ao^icuf  &ou{rrus  ro^f  fiJh  ifjtf 


»  Plato,  Prot  812  C :  rl  ^tl 
cImu  rhp  0'o0i<rr^r ;  'E7^  fi^yt  ^  ^ 
hs,  &o'vffp  rotfvo/ia  \iy9i,  rovroy  ehai 
rby  r&y  vo^my  ^vurr^^ova,  where 
the  validity  of  the  evidence  as  to 
the  nse  of  language  is  not  affected 
by  the  derivation  of  the  last 
syllables  from  lirurr4\f»my^  in  the 
manner  of  Platonic  etymologies. 
Biog.  i.  12 :  olth  0*0^0!  ical  (fo^urrc^ 
iKoKovyro.  In  this  sense  Hero- 
dotus, i.  29,  iv.  95,  calls  Solon  and 
Pythagoras,  and  in  ii.  49  the 
founders  of  the  colt  of  Dionysus, 
Sophists.  The  name  is  also  ap- 
plied by  Oratinus,  ap.  Diog.  i.  12, 
to  Homer  and  Hesiod,  by  Sopho- 
cles in  the  fragment  ap.  Schcl, 
Pind,  Isthm.  v.  36,  &c.  (Wagner, 
Frag,  Gr,  Fragm,  i.  499,  No.  992) 
to  a  citharist ;  by  Enpolis  (ac- 
cording to  the  Sehol.  Ven,  Zu,  E. 
0,  410;  Eustath.  in  h,  I  p.  1023, 
13)  to  a  rhapsodist ;  according  to 
Hesych.  <ro^MT.,  the  designation 
was  in  use  for  all  musical  artists. 
Androtion  ap.  Aristid.  QmUuarv, 
T.  ii.  407  Dind.,  Aristarchos  ap. 
Pint.  Frai,  Am.  i.  p.  478  and 
Isokr.  V.  iLyrth6<r,  235  Apply  it  to 
the  seven  sages ;  the  first  of  these 


MOW  REQARLED  BY  THE  ANCIENTS.      431 

instruction  might  embrace  everything  included  by  the 
Greeks  in  the  comprehensive  idea  of  wisdom,'  and  its 
task  might  therefore  be  variously  apprehended :  while 
some  Sophists^  like  Protagoras  and  Prodicus,  Euthyde- 
mus  and  Evenus,  boasted  of  imparting  to  their  pupils 
intellectual  and  moral  culture,  civil  and  domestic  virtue,^ 
Oorgias  laughs  at  such  a  promise,  and  confines  his  in* 
structions  to  rhetoric;*  while  Hippias  prides  himself  on 
his  proficiency  in  arts  of  all  kinds,  on  his  archseological 
and  physical  knowledge,^  Protagoras,  as  teacher  of  poli-- 
tics,  feels  himself  far  above  this  learning  of  the  study.^ 
Yet  even  in  the  art  of  politics  many  different  branches 
were  included ;  for  example,  the  brothers  Euthydemus 


crhs  kwoKoXowrw  tfrris  tk  %v  fty 
7ry  ff^va  ivra  HiZdffKwr  8  rt  &y  l^xp 
iyv^hw  ^iKw  Toicrroi,  rovroy  vofi- 
(oftMV  &  T^  KoA  j  KkytiB^  woXir^ 
wpotHiKu  rawra  rouuf;  ef.  p.  409» 
2;  417,  7;  Protagoras  ap.  Plato, 
Proi.  316  C:  i4poy  yhp  ia^fio,  icai 
Uirra  cis  w6K%ts  fir)fi.\a.s  koX  4v 
raircus  wtUhma  tAv  9i%»v  robs 
fi^Kri^rovs,  kro\€lvorras  tAj  r&¥ 
iXXmy  (Twovaias  .  .  .  lenn-^  0-vMt- 
rat  its  fitXrlovs  4<roii4rovs  8>A  r^y 
lavTov  awovcicof,  etc.  (c£  318  A); 
ApoL  19  E:  rcuMtiv  hfBpAwws 
Sirrtp  Topytast  etc.  roirmy  yap 
IfKcurros  .  .  .  I^k  cit  Udtrrtiy  r&v 
ir6XM9$y  Tohs  y4ovs,  ots  f^Mtm  r&y 
hufT&y  roXjerSy  wpoaca  ^vyuyai  f  &y 
fioiKeomUf  Tff&rovs  vtlBawrt  rhs 
ixtlywy  ^vyowrlas  iMo\tir6yras  a^ifft 
(vrtiMt  xp^fuvra  SiStfrros  Kol  X^'^ 
9po^u9iyeu.  Similarlj  Afeno,  91  B. 

»  Arist.  Eth.  N,  vi.  7. 

«  I^f,  note  6  i  «*p.  408,  2 ;  424, 
4;  426,  3.  I  do  not  think  that 
the  WOTcis  of  i^fodicng,  ap.  Plat. 
BiUhjfd.   806    C    (oftf    l^ii    Tip69. 


fu06pia  ^i\oir6^ov  re  iw^pibs  jcol  xo- 
kiriKov),  are  intended  to  describe 
the  position  ascribed  to  himself  by 
that  Sophist. 

•  Plato,  Meno,  95  C;  cf.  Phileb. 
68  A.  Polns,  Lycophron,  Thrasy- 
machus,  etc.,  p.  423  sqq. 

<  Supra,  p.  422,  2. 

*  In  Prot.  318  D,  the  Sophist 
says  that  it  shall  not  be  with  his 
scholars  as  with  those  of  other 
Sophists  (Hippias),  who  ria  ri^yas 
cArobs  wt^fvy&ras  dKovras  xd\ty  oi 
iyoyrts  i^ifidWowrw  ds  r4xyas,  Ao- 
yuTfiois  TC  K^X  iurrpoyoiiiaof  Koi  y^W" 
furploM  ical  fAOwriK^y  biZdffKovrts : 
by  him  they  shall  only  be  taught 
what  suits  their  purpose:  t^  3^ 
fjuiBnyui  4<niy  €b0ov\la  wtpl  tc  'rAy 
olKtlofyj  hats  hy  Hpicrra  r^y  abrov 
obclay  8ioiKo7,  icol  wtpi  r&y  liis 
vtfXffws,  St<os  rii  rrjs  ir^Acws  8ura- 
ri6raT0f  &y  cfi|  koI  wpdrrtty  ira2 
\4yttyf  in  a  word,  therefore,  the 
voAiTur^  rixyrit  the  introduction  to 
civic  virtue. 


432  THE  SOPHISTS. 

and  Dionysodorus  combined  with  ethics,  lectnres  on 
strategy  and  military  tactics,*  and  even  Protagoras 'is 
said  to  have  entered  into  details  of  wrestling  and  other 
arts,  applying  them  in  such  a  manner  as  to  contradict 
professional  men.  When  therefore  Isocrates,  in  his 
speech  against  the  Sophists,  includes  under  that  name 
the  Eristic  teachers  of  ethics  and  the  teachers  of  elo- 
quence, while  an  opponent '  applies  it  to  Isocrates  him- 
self, on  account  of  his  studied  and  written  speeches, 
this  is  entirely  consonant  with  the  language  of  the 
time.  Every  paid  teacher  of  the  arts  included  under 
higher  culture  is  called  a  Sophist,  The  name  relates 
primarily  to  the  object  and  external  conditions  of  in- 
struction. In  itself  it  implies  no  judgment  concerning 
the  worth  or  scientific  character  of  this  instruction ;  it 
rather  admits  the  possibility  that  the  Sophistic  teacher 
may  impart  genuine  science  and  morality  as  well  as  the 
reverse.  Plato  and  Aristotle  were  the  first  to  restrict 
the  idea  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine  within  narrower  limits 
in  discriminating  it  as  dialectic  Eristic  fix>m  rhetoric, 
and  as  a  false  appearance  of  knowledge,  arising  out  of  a 
perversion  of  the  moral  sense^  from  philosophy.  The 
Sophist,  according  to  Plato,  is  a  hunter  who,  giving 
himself  out  as  a  teacher  of  virtue,  seeks  to  catch  rich 
young  men.    He  is  a  merchant,  a  host,  a  pedlar,  who 

^  P.  424,  4.  writer  may  have  composed  a  sept- 

'  Plato,  Soph,  232  D ;  Diog.  ix.  rate  treatise  out  of  the  discnssioos 

53;  cf.  Frei,  191.    Aocording  to  mentioned  by  Plato,  and  these  dis- 

Diogenes,     Protagoras     wrote    a  cnssions  may  have  been  really  in 

treatise,    xcpl  «^i}s ;    Frei   con-  the  Eristic  disputations  or  the  tsor 

jectures  that  this  may  be  a  portion  tradictions. 
of  a  more  comprehensive  work  on  '  Alcidamas,  vide  p.  425,  5. 

the  arts;  but  perhaps  some  later 


sow  REGARDED  BY  THE  ANCIENTS.       433 

traffics  in  art,  a  tradesman  who  makes  money  by  dispu* 
tation :  ^  a  person  who  may  no  doubt  be  mistaken  for  a 
philosopher,  but  to  whom  it  would  be  doing  too  much 
honour  to  ascribe  the  higher  vocation  of  purifying  men 
by  means  of  the  elenchic  art,  and  of  freeing  them  from 
conceit.*  The  Sophistic  teaching  is  an  art  of  decep- 
tion :  it  consists  in  this — ^that  men  without  real  know- 
ledge of  the  good  and  right,  and  conscious  of  such  a 
deficiency,  can  give  themselves  the  appearance  of  that 
knowledge,  and  in  conversation  with  others  can  involve 
them  in  contradictions.^  It  is  therefore  no  art  at  all, 
but  a  flattering  shadow  of  an  art— a  caricature  of  the 
true  art  of  politics,  which  is  related  to  it  only  as  the 
art  of  dress  is  to  gymnastic,  and  is  distinguished  from 
false  rhetoric  only  as  the  setting  up  of  principles  is  dis- 
tinguished from  the  application  of  them.^  Similarly, 
Aristotle  describes  the  Sophistic  doctrine  as  a  science 
confined  to  the  unessential ;  as  appearance-knowledge,^ 
or,  more  exactly,  as  the  art  of  gaining  money  by  mere 
appearance-knowledge.^     These   descriptions  are  evi- 

>  Soph.  221  C,  226  A;  cf.  Bep.  oHinis.    Ibid,  c  11,  171  b,  27;  cf. 

Ti.  493  A  :  cicatrrof  r&y  fiurBapyow"  33,  183  b,  36 :  ol  v€p\  robs  ipurri' 

row  IStwT&Vf  ots  9ii  o&roi  ffo^iffriu  nobs  \^vs  fuaBapwvwTts.     Still 

KoXcwri,  etc.  stronger  langaage  is  used  by  the 

«  Soph,  226  B-281  C.  peeudo-Xenophon,    ])e    Venai,    c. 

*  IHd,  232   A-236  E,  264  C  \Z:  ol  iro^unaX  8*  M  r^  ^laacwr^v 
sqq. ;  cf.  Meno^  96  A.  K^own  ical  ypd^wriy  M  r^  kc»n»p 

*  Gorg.  463  A-465  C;     Rep,  K4p9€i,  koL  M4va  obZlw  it^itKovffiv 
I,  e. ;  cf.  Part  n.  a,  609  sq.,  8rd  ed.  ovih  y^  ffo^ht  obrAr  iyiv^ro  o&dtU 

»  Metaph.  vi.  2, 1026  b,  14 ;  xi.  ohV  Karty  .  .  .  o/  /*ii/  yhp  vo^tarcX 

3,  8,  p.  1061  b,  7  ;    1064  b,  26.  wKovalo^n  koI    vinnn   Omp&vrm,    ol 

'  Metoph.  iy.  2,  1004  b,  17;  8^91X^0-0^01  irSo-i  itowoi  ko^  ^iXor 

Soph.  jG^.  c.  1,  165  a,  21 :  Itrri  7^  r^x"    (^^PP7    circumstances)   tk 

^   ffo^urru^  ^oMfOjiimi  ao^ia  otaa  ikvZp&v   otht  rtfMotP  otfrc   irifM^ 

8*  oh,  Koi  6  tro^urr^s  xp^t"'^^*^^'  C^vai. 
iwh    ^oiPOfiivTis    ffo^lea    AXA'  obK 

VOL.   II.  F  F 


434  THE  SOPHISTS. 

dently  in  part  too  narrow,  in  part  too  broad,  to  afford 
us  trustworthy  information  concerning  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  phenomenon  we  are  considering — too 
narrow,  because  from  the  outset  the  idea  of  the  wrong 
and  untrue  is  included  as  an  essential  characteristic 
in  the  conception  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine ;  too  broad, 
because  they  do  not  represent  that  doctrine  in  its  defi- 
nite historical  aspect,  as  it  actually  appeared  at  a  certain 
period,  but  as  a  universal  category.  This  is  the  case, 
in  a  still  higher  degree,  with  the  language  of  the  more 
ancient  accounts.  The  conception  of  a  public  instruc- 
tion in  wisdom  tells  us  nothing  as  to  the  content  axxi 
spirit  of  this  instruction,  and  whether  it  was  imparted 
for  payment  or  not,  is  in  itself  quite  unimportant.  If, 
however,  we  consider  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
Sophists  made  their  appearance,  and  the  earlier  customs 
and  culture  of  their  nation,  these  traits  will  serve  in 
some  degree  to  explain  their  peculiar  character  and 
significance. 

The  previous  method  of  education  and  instruction 
among  the  G-reeks  provided  indeed  distinct  teachers  for 
particular  arts  and  accomplishment!),  such  as  writing, 
arithmetic,  music,  gynmastic,  but  left  everyone  to  re- 
ceive his  general  training  and  education  simply  through 
intercourse  with  his  family  and  acquaintance.  It  some- 
times happened,  no  doubt,  that  individual  youths  allied 
themselves  with  some  man  of  special  reputation,  in 
order  to  be  introduced  by  him  to  public  affairs;^  or 

^  Thus  Plutarch  in  his  life  of  Mnesiphilus,  who,  as  Plularch  ob- 

Themistodes  represents  that  states-  serves,    belonged    neither  to  th« 

man,  in  the  be^nning  of  his  public  orators,  nor  to  the  ^intucoI  ^Ai- 

career,  as  seeking  intercourse  with  o'o^i,  but  aimed  at  distioguishiBg 


AS  PROFESSIONAL   TEACHERS. 


435 


that  teachers  of  music  or  other  arts  attained,  under 
certain  conditions,  to  a  more  extended  sphere  of  per- 
sonal and  political  influence.^  In  neither  case,  how- 
ever, is  there  question  of  any  formal  instruction,  any 
directions,  based  on  certain  rules,  for  practical  activity, 
but  only  of  such  influence  as,  without  any  express 
educational  purpose,  must  naturally  result  from  free 
personal  intercourse.'  Not  one  of  the  ancient  Physicists 
can  be  supposed  to  have  opened  a  school  of  his  own, 
or  given  instruction  in  the  way  that  was  afterwardsp 
customary:  the  communication  of  their  philosophical 


himself  by  what  was  thfn  called 
<ro<pla,  the  B^tvinis  wo\itik^  K<d 
Zpwrriipios  aifveo'is^  on  the  gromid 
of  ao  old  family  traditioD  of  Solon ; 
%y  ol  furh  ravra,  adds  Plutarch, 
ZucaytKois  fd^avrfs  rixinus  kvlL  firro' 
yarf6vrts  Mi  r&v  irpd^tw  rify 
Haiaiffty  M  robs  x6yous  <ro^i(rra\ 
vpo0Try9p€Mri(ra», 

»  e,ff.  Damon,  cf.  Pint.  Per,  4; 
Plato,  Lach,  180  D;  Alcib.  I  118 
C.  and  Pythoclides,  cf.  Pint.  I.  c. ; 
Plato,  Prot.  316  E;  Alcib.  i.  118  C. 

*  Plntarch  has  drawn  this  dis- 
tinction quite  correctly  {Them,  2) 
when  he  sajs  that  those  persons 
were  called  Sophists  who  trans- 
ferred political  training  from  prac- 
tical actixity  to  speeches ;  Sophists 
in  the  sense  alluded  to  p.  430,  3, 
can  only  be  said  to  exist  where  the 
arts  and  skill,  which  hitherto  had 
been  attained  by  practice  in  the 
treatment  of  actual  cases,  are  hence- 
forth founded  on  theoretical  in- 
struction (\^oi)  and  the  universal 
roles  of  art  which  are  thus  im- 
parted. Plutarch  also  says,  less 
accurately  {Per.  4).  that  Damon 
being  an  &«cpos  ffo^urrris  (which  in 


this  case,  as  in  Plato,  Si/mp.  203  D, 
seems  to  designate  both  the  Sophist 
and  the  crafty  man)  concealed  his 
avocation  as  teacher  of  Pericles 
in  politics,  under  the  mask  of  a 
musician.  Similarly,  Protagoras, 
ap.  Plat.  St/mp,  203  D,  maintains 
that  the  art  of  the  Sophists  is 
very  ancient,  but  from  fear  of  the 
dislike  attaching  to  them,  they 
had  all  before  him  concealed  it; 
some  having  called  themselves 
poets,  as  Homer,  Orpheus,  Simo- 
nides,  &c. ;  others  gymnasts ;  others 
again  musicians,  as  A gathocles  and. 
Pythoclides.  Here  it  is  in  fact 
conceded  what  Prot.,  317  B,  ex- 
pressly declares,  and  what  was  of 
course  self-evident  in  most  of  the 
above-mentioned  cases,  viz..  that 
the  distinguishing  mark  of  those 
who  were  called  Sophists  in  the 
special  sense — the  onoKoyuy  co* 
^urr^s  cTroi  Ka\  iraiSc^ciy  ityBptirovs 
— was  absent  in  the  predecessors 
of  Protagoras;  they  are  (ro^o]^ 
like  the  seven  wise  men,  but  not 
ffwpiarat,  according  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  the  time  of 
Socrates. 


FF  2 


486  THE  SOPHISTS. 

doctrines  seems  to  have  been  entirely  confined  to  the 
narrower  circle  of  their  acquaintance,  and  to  have  been 
conditioned  by  the  rektion  of  personal  friendship.  If 
a  Protagoras  and  his  successors  departed  from  this 
custom,  it  argues  a  two-fold  change  in  the  popular 
estimation  of  science  and  scientific  teaching.  On  the 
one  hand,  such  teaching  was  now  declared  to  be  indis- 
pensable for  everyone  who  desired  to  distinguish  him- 
self in  active  life{  the  previous  capability  for  speech 
and  action  attained  merely  by  practice  was  condemned 
as  unsatisfactory :  theoretical  study,  and  the  knowledge  of 
universal  rules,  were  announced  as  necessary.*  But  on 
the  other  hand  science,  so  far  as  the  Sophists  troubled 
tiiemselves  about  it  At  all,  was  essentially  restricted  to 
this  practical  problem.  It  is  not  in  knowledge  as  such, 
but  amply  in  its  use  as  a  means  of  action,  that  its 
worth  and  importance  are  sought.'  The  Sophistic  doc- 
trine, therefore,  stands  on  the  *  boundary  line  between 
Philosophy  and  Politics  ; '  *  practice  is  to  be  supported 
by  theory,  and  enlightened  in  regard  to  its  ends  and 
means ;  but  theory  is  to  be  merely  a  help  to  practice. 
This  science  is,  in  its  general  aim  and  purpose,  a  phi- 
losophy of  enlightenment  and  nothing  more. 

From  this  point  of  view   alone  can   we  rightlj 
criticise  the  disputed  question  concerning  the  pay- 

^  This  fandamental  distinction  differed  from  Damon  and  othen 

between  the    instruction    of   the  in  the  snpenor  amount  of  koov- 

Sophists,  and  the  purely  practical  ledge    and    ability    which    they 

instruction  of  the  previous  teachers,  brought  to  the  exercise  of  their 

is  overlooked  by  Grote,  viii.  4S5  profession, 
sq.,  when  he  maintains  tliat  the  *  Cf.  also  p.  430,  3. 

appearance  of   the  Sophists  was  '  Vide  aupra,  p.  431,  2. 

nothing  new,  and  that  they  only 


THEIR  FEES  FOR  INSTRUCTION.  437 

ment  accepted  by  the  Sophists.  As  long  as  the  im« 
parting  of  philosophic  opinions  and  knowledge  wa» 
on  the  same  line  with  all  other  educational  intercourse 
between  friends,  there  could,  of  course,  be  no  question 
of  payment  for  philosophic  instruction :  the  study  of 
philosophy  was,  like  instruction  in  it,  even  wkh  those 
who  wholly  devoted  themselves  ta  philosophy,  an  affair 
of  free  choice.  This  is  the  light  in  whieh  both  were 
regarded  by  Socrates,  Plato  and  Aristotle,  and  conse^ 
quently  the  idea  of  remuneration  for  instruction  inp 
philosophy  was  energetically  opposed  by  these  men  as- 
a  gross  indignity.  .Wisdom,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Socrates  of  Xenophon,  like  love,  should  be  bestowed  as' 
a  free  gift,  and  not  sold.*  He  who  teaches  any  other  art^ 
8ays  Plato,^  may  take  wages  in  return,  for  he  does  not 
profess  to  make  his  pupil  just  and  virtuous ;  but  he  who 
promises  to  make  others  better  must  be  able  to  trust  to 
their  gratitude,  and  should  therefore  require  no  money.. 
Aristotle  expresses  himself  in  a  similar  strain.^  The  re- 
lation between  teacher  and  pupil  i&  with  him  no  business 
connexion,  but  a  moral  and  friendly  relation,  founded 
on  esteem ;  the  merit  of  the  teacher  is  not  compensated 
by  money — it  can  only  be  rewarded  by  gratitude  of  the 
same  kind  that  we  feel  towards  parents  and  towards  the 
gods.  From  this  point  of  view  we  can  well  understand 
the  harsh  judgments  that  were  passed  on  the  earnings  of 
the  SophistA  by  Plato  and  Aristotle,  as  we  have  seen,. 
p«  432  aq.    That  the  same  judgments,  however,  should 

1  Metn,  L  6.   13;  Tide  mpra,    223  D  sqq.    The  same  in  Isocr. 
p.  430,  3.  Adv.  Soph.  6  sq. 

*  Gorg.  i20  0  sqq.;  c£  8opK  *  EtX  N.  ix.  1,  1164  a,  32  sqq. 


438  THE  SOPHISTS. 

now  be  repeated,  that  in  an  age  in  which  all  instruc- 
tion is  usually  given  by  salaried  and  paid  teachers,  and 
by  such  as  on  this  very  account  would  have  been  con- 
sidered Sophists  in  Greece,  the  teachers  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury before  Christ  should,  merely  because  they  demanded 
payment  for  their  instructions,  be  treated  as  mean- 
spirited,  self-seeking,  avaricious  men — is  a  flagrant 
injustice,  as  Grote  justly  maintains.'  Where  the  ne- 
cessity for  scientific  instruction  is  more  extensively  felt, 
and  in  consequence  a  separate  class  of  professional 
teachers  is  formed,  there  the  necessity  also  arises  that 
these  teachers  should  be  able  to  support  themselves 
by  the  labour  to  which  they  devote  their  time  and 
strength.  Even  in  Greece  this  natural  demand  could 
not  be  ignored.  A  Socrates,  in  his  magnanimous  con- 
tempt for  the  necessaries  of  life,  a  Plato  and  an  Aris- 
totle, with  their  ideal  theory  of  the  relation  between 
master  and  teacher— an  ideal  fostered  by  their  own 
easy  personal  circumstances,  and  by  the  Hellenic  preju- 
dice against  all  industrial  activity — ^may  have  disdained 
all  remuneration  for  their  teaching ;  and  the  mass  of 
the  people  may  have  been  the  more  ready  to  blame 
the  Sophists  for  their  gains,  which  were  represented, 
no  doubt,  as  much  greater  than  they  actually  were; 
for  in  this  case  the  universal  ill-will  of  the  unculti- 
vated man  towards  mental  work  the  labour  and  trouble 
of  which  are  unknown  to  him,  was  combined  with 
the  jealousy  of  natives  towards  foreigners,  of  demo- 
crats towards  the  teachers  of  the  upper  classes,  of  the 
friends   of  the  old   against  innovators.     In  point  of 

1  L.  c.  498  eq, 


THEIR  FEES  FOR  INSTRUCTION.  439 

fact,  however,  as  has  been  well  observed,*  there  was  no 
reason  why  the  Sophists,  especially  in  foreign  cities^ 
should  have  given  their  instructions  gratuitously,  or 
should  have  themselves  defrayed  the  cost  of  their 
maintenance  and  of  their  journeys.  Even  Greek  cus- 
tom in  no  way  forbade  payment  for  intellectual  posses- 
sions— painters,  musicians  and  poets,  physicians  and 
rhetors,  gymnasiarchs  and  teachers  of  all  kinds  were 
paid;  and  the  Olympic  victors  received  from  their 
native  cities  rewards  of  money  as  well  as  prizes,  or 
even  themselves  collected  contributions  in  their  con- 
querors' wreaths.  Nor  can  the  theory  of  payment  for 
philosophic  teaching  be  condemned  without  further 
argument,  even  from  the  ideal  standpoint  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle ;  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  scientific 
activity  of  the  teacher  or  his  moral  relation  to  his 
pupil  should  thereby  be  corrupted;  for,  in  analogous 
cases,  the  love  of  the  wife  for  her  husband  is  not  affected 
by  the  judicial  obligation  of  the  husband  to  maintain 
her,  the  gratitude  of  the  restored  patient  to  the  physi- 
cian is  not  deteriorated  by  his  fee,  nor  that  of  children 
to  their  parents  by  the  circumstance  that  the  parents  are 
bound  by  law  to  support  and  educate  them.  That  the 
Sophists  should  have  asked  payment  from  their  pupils 
and  hearers  could  only  be  turned  to  their  disadvantage  if 
they  had  made  exorbitant  demands,  and  had  shown  them- 
selves generally  in  the  pursuit  of  their  calling  to  be  cove- 
tous and  dishonourable.  But  it  is  only  in  regard  to  some 
of  them  that  this  can  be  proved.  Even  in  antiquity,  no 
doubt  very  exaggerated  notions  were  rife  concerning 
1  Welcker,  Kl.  Schr,  ii.  420  sqq. 


440  THE  SOPHIST& 

the  payments  they  claimed,  and  the  riches  which  thej 
amassed;^  but  laocrates  assures  us  that  not  one  of 
them  had  made  any  considerable  fortune,  and  that  their 
gains  did  not  exceed  a  moderate  amount.'  And  though 
it  is  quite  possible  that  many^  especially  among  the 
younger  Sophists,  may  have  deserved  the  reproach  of 
selfishness  and  covetousness,'  it  is  a  question  wheUier 
we  ought  to  apply  to  a  Protagoras  and  a  Grorgias  the 
descriptions  of  sophistic  teaching  which  men,  to  whom 
all  payment  for  philosophic  instruction  appeared  at  the 
outset  as  something  vulgar  and  shameful,  had  copied 
from  the  Sophists  of  their  own  time.  Protagoras,  at  any 
rate,  showed  great  consideration  for  his  pupils  ^  when 
he  left  the  amount  of  his  fee  to  be  decided  by  them- 
selves in  doubtful  cases ;  ^  and  that  there  was  a  difference 
in  this  respect  between  the  founders  of  Sophistic 
teaching  and  their  successors,  is  indicated  by  Aristode.* 

'  Vide  the  statements  on  this  tics  {Adv,  Soph,  3),  because  the 

subject,  p.  409,  2 ;  410,  1 ;  416,  3 ;  whole  of  virtue  was  to  be  had  from 

418,  1 ;  421,  3.  them  for  the  absurd  price  of  3  or  4 

'  n.  &vTt8^<r.  155 :  SXwf  fikroZtf  minse ;  while  in  Hei,  6,  he  blames 

o&8cb  tdpc^o'crcu  r&p  KoXovfUimp  them  for  onlj  caring  for  the  moaej. 
ffo^i(TTU¥  ToAX&  XP^/*"^^  (TvWt^d'  '  Of.  p.  424,  3 ;  433  sq. 

fAtpos,  &XX*   ol  fi^y  iv  6\lyois,  ol  *  Ab  Grote  (SUi.  of  Gr.  riii. 

y  4p  wdufu  fitrplott  rhv  fiiop  Ztaya-  494)  rightly  obseryes. 
y6tnts.    Vide  the  statement  as  to  *  Cf.  p.  409,  2. 

Ctoigias  (quoted  p.  415,  S),   who  *  In  the    passage    quoted  bj 

amassed  more  wealth  than  any  of  Welcker,  Elk.  X,  ix.  1,  11S4  a,  22 

the    Sophists,    and    had    neither  sq^,  where  this  custom  of  Protagoras 

public  nor  family  expenses.    We  as  to  payment  is  mentioned,  and 

must  not  suppose  that  the  Sophists  Aristotle  then  goes  on  to  say  that 

earned  as  much  as  the  actors.    In  it  was  different  with  the  Sophists, 

later  times,  the  fee  for  a  course  of  i,e.  with  those  of  his  own  time: 

instruction  seems  to  have  been  3-5  these  no  doubt  were  obliged  to 

minse.      Evenus   in    Plato,   ApoL  demand  payment  in  advance,  for 

20  B,  asks  5 ;  Isocrates  who,  like  no  one  aner  getting  to  know  their 

other  rhetoricians,  took  10  minse  science  would  have  given  them  aoy- 

(Welcker,  428),  ridicules  the  Ens-  thing  for  it    Xenoph.  Ik  VenaL 


THEIR  FEES  FOR  INSTRUCTION.  441 

If  we  consider  impartially  the  circumstances  mider 
which  these  men  arose,  and  the  accounts  which  have 
been  preserved  of  them,  we  are  not  justified  in  chargin^j^ 
the  Sophists  as  a  body,  and  especially  those  of  the  earliei: 
generation,  with  niggardliness  and  avarice. 

But  although  we  must  protest,  on  behalf  of  the  So- 
phists, or  at  any  rate  of  many  of  the  most  important  of 
them,  against  a  prejudice  which  for  more  than  two 
thousand  years  has  done  more  than  all  besides  to  injure 
their  good  name,  two  things  must  yet  be  borne  in  mind. 
In  the  first  place,  the  introduction  of  payment  for 
scientific  instruction  in  that  period,  whatever  we  may 
think  of  its  moral  justification,  is  at  any  rate  a  proof  of 
the  change  already  adverted  to  in  the  general  estimation 
of  the  worth  and  importance  of  scientific  knowledge — a 
sign  that  now,  instead  of  honest  enquiry,  satisfied  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  actual,  that  knowledge  only  is  sought, 
and  regarded  as  worthy  and  attainable,  which  may  be 
employed  as  a  means  to  other  ends,  and  consists  less  in 
general  mental  culture  than  in  certain  practical  capa- 
bilities. The  Sophists  claimed  to  teach  the  special 
tricks  of  eloquence,  of  worldly  prudence,  of  the  manage- 
ment of  men ;  and  it  is  the  prospect  of  the  resulting 
advantage,  the  possession  of  political  and  oratorical 
trade-secrets,  which  they,  as  indispensable  guides,  hold 
out  before  everything  else  to  the  youth  of  the  period.* 

13,  is  less  conclusive:  we  know  referring  to  other  philosophers  and 

no  one  tvru^  ol  vvv  tro^iffraX  teachers  of  virtue,  in  wnich  case 

kyoBhv  iwolrieav ;  for  it  is  doubtful  the  vw  co^urraX  would  coincide 

whether  the  author  intends  hj  the  with  the  co^urra^  KoKoifupoi  pre- 

older  Sophists  with  whom  he  com-  yiously  mentioned, 
pares  the  Sophists  of  his   time,  ^  Proof  of  this  will  be  given  in 

Protagoras,  &c.,  or  whether  he  is  the  description  of  the  ^ophistiq 


442  THE  SOPHISTS. 

Secondly,  experience  shows  that  it  was  a  most  dangerous 
thing,  under  the  circumstances  of  that  time,  to  place 
the  higher  education  and  preparation  for  public  life  ex- 
clusively in  the  hands  of  teachers  who  were  dependent 
for  their  maintenance  on  the  payments  of  their  pupils. 
As  human  nature  is  constituted,  scientific  activity  would 
inevitably  by  such  an  arrangement  become  dependent 
on  the  wishes  and  necessities  of  those  who  sought  in- 
struction, and  were  in  a  position  to  pay  for  it.  These 
pupils  would  chiefly  estimate  its  value  by  the  advantage 
which  they  might  hope  from  it,  for  their  personal  ends; 
very  few  would  look  beyond,  and  recognise  the  use  of 
studies,  the  practical  application  of  which  did  not  lie 
ready  to  hand.  A  nation  would  require  to  be  penetrated 
in  an  unusual  degree,  and  far  more  than  was  the  case  in 
Grreece  at  that  time,  with  the  value  of  pure  and  inde- 
pendent enquiry,  if  science  as  a  whole  did  not  sink, 
under  these  conditions,  into  mere  technical  skill,  and 

instruction.    Cf.  also  p.  431,5,  and  biades  did    not  seek  inteTCOiosA 

Plato,   Symp.  217  A  sqq.,  where  with  Socrates  in  order  to  become 

Alcibiades    treats    Socrates  as  a  like  him  in  character,  bnt  »ofu- 

Sophist  when  he  would  give  him  trorrf ,  cl  hiuXiiffoirnv  iK^hn^j  7«v«- 

all   he  possesses   in  order    irdyr'  oBu  hv  iKoyurdrw  \4y€iw  re  mi 


hcovffcu  Zffeartp  olros  fZu,  while  irpdrrtiv.     The  fact  that  the  So- 

Socrates,  by  his  purely  moral  con-  phists   announced    themsehes  as 

ception  of  their  relation,  makes  teachers  of  rirtue  and  improrers 

him  feel  the  difference  of  his  in-  of  men  does  not  alter  the  case,  for 

struction  from  that  cf  the  Sophists,  it    may  well   be   asked   wherdn 

The  Sophists,  it  is  true,  are  not  virtue  (or  more  properly,  ability, 

named  here,  but  the  way  in  which  fitness,  aper^)  is  to  be  found :  the 

Alcibiades  at  first  treated  his  rela-  Aper^,  for  instance,  which  Euthy- 

tion   with    Socrates    shows  what  demus  and  Dionysodorus  promise 

pupils  of  his  class  were  accustomed  to   give    to    their   scholars  mon 

to  seek  and  to  expect  from  their  quickly  than  all    other   teacheis 

instructors.    The  same  holds  good  (Plato,  EiUkydem.  273  D).  is  a- 

of  the  remark  of  Xenophon,  Mem.  tirely  diffbi'ent  from  what  we  call 

i.  2,  14  sq.,  that  Critias  and  Aid-  virtue. 


THEIR  FEES  FOR  INSTRUCTION.  448 

become  restricted  more  and  more  under  a  long  con- 
tinuance of  them  to  supplying  the  mass  of  men  with 
the  crafts  and  knowledge  which  they  considered  advan- 
tageous, as  quickly  and  easily  and  pleasantly  as  possible. 
In  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Sophistic  in- 
struction was  given  there  lay  a  great  danger  for  the 
thoroughness  of  enquiry  and  the  earnestness  of  the 
philosophic  mind ;  and  this  danger  was  further  in- 
creased by  the  fact  that  most  of  the  Sophists,  without 
any  settled  abode,  and  without  any  interest  in  the 
State,  were  thus  without  the  restraint  which  citizenship 
affords  to  men  in  respect  to  their  moral  life  and  the 
moral  side  of  their  professional  activity.'  That  circum- 
stances themselves  led  to  this  result  cannot,  however, 
alter  the  matter.  It  is  undeniably  true  that,  for 
talented  and  cultivated  citizens  of  small  States,  travels, 
and  public  lectures,  were  in  those  times  the  only  means 
of  obtaining  recognition  for  their  attainments  and  a 
comprehensive  sphere  of  action,  and  the  discourses  of  a 
Crorgias  and  a  Hippias  at  Olympia  are  not  in  them- 
selves more  blameworthy  than  those  of  an  Herodotus ; 
it  is  also  true  that  it  was  only  po8sit)le  by  means  of 
payment  for  instruction,  to  open  the  profession  of 
teacher  to  all  who  were  capable  of  it,  and  to  collect  in 
one  place  the  most  multifarious  powers ;  the  effects, 
however,  of  such  an  institution  are  not  on  that  account 
cancelled.    If  the  Sophistic  teaching  involved  from  the 

1  Cf.  Plato,  TVm.  19  E:  r^  Si    re  IZIm  odSofi^  hi^ieiiK6s,  turroxoy 

\6yw¥  kcDl  mXSnf  JiXKwv  fjJjC  Iftvci-    h&w  (it  is  incapable  of  rightly  un- 
po¥  Irtniuuy  ^fiovfteu  9i,  fiiTir«f,  &    derstanding  the  old  Athenians). 
re  irAamirhp  hv  Karh  «-^\cit  oU^Ui 


44i  THE  SOPHISTS. 

outset  the  limitation  of  the  scientific  interest  to  the 
useful  and  practically  advantageous,  this  one-sidedness 
was  greatly  increased  by  the  dependence  of  the  Sophistic 
teachers  upon  the  wishes  and  taste  of  their  hearers, 
and  the  more  deficient  in  scientific  and  very  soon  after 
in  ethical  content  the  Sophistic  instruction  became,  the 
more  inevitable  it  was  that  it  should  speedily  be 
degraded  into  a  mere  instrument  for  the  acquirement 
of  money  and  £BLme. 

Though  this  disregard  of  purely  scientific  enqiiiiy  in 
and  for  itself  presupposes  a  sceptical  temper,  yet  the 
most  important  of  the  Sophists  never  expressly  declared, 
and  the  rest  only  implied  by  their  general  procedure, 
that  they  had  broken  with  the  previous  philosophy 
because  they  thought  a  scientific  knowledge  of  things 
impossible.  When  man  despairs  of  knowledge,  there 
remains  to  him  only  the  satisfaction  of  activity  or  en- 
joyment; for  his  intellect,  which  has  lost  its  object, 
there  arises  the  task  of  producing  an  object  from  it- 
self;  its  self-confidence  now  becomes  absorption  in 
self,  duty ;  knowledge  becomes  will.*  So  the  Sophistic 
philosophy  of  life  is  entirely  based  upon  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  knowledge.  But  this  makes  a  fixed  scientific 
and  moral  attitude  impossible  to  it ;  it  must  either 
follow  the  old  opinions,  or,  if  it  criticises  them  more 
closely,  it  must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  moral  law 
of  universal  validity  is  as  impossible  as  a  universally 

*  Examples  may  easily  be  found  Cicero,  &c.,  the  '  IllamiDation '  of 

in  the  history  of  philosophy :  it  is  the  last  oentniy,   the  coonerdon 

sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  between  Kant*s  *  Cridqne  of  Uia 

to  recaU  the  practical  tendency  of  Reason,  and    his    Mozslity/  and 

Socrates,  and  the  later  eclectics,  similar  instances. 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:    PROTAGORAS.    445 

recognised  truth.  It  cannot  therefore  claim  to  instruct 
men  as  to  the  end  and  aim  pf  their  activity,  and  to 
furnish  moral  precepts  :  its  instruction  must  be  limited 
to  the  means  through  which  the  ends  of  individuals,  of 
whatever  kind  those  ends  may  be,  can  be  attained. 
But  for  the  Grreeks  all  means  are  comprehended  in  the 
art  of  speech-  Rhetoric,  as  the  universal  practical 
art,  forms  the  positive  side  to  the  Sophists'  negative 
morality  and  theory  of  knowledge.  It  therefore  quits 
the  sphere  with  which  the  history  of  philosophy  is 
concerned.  We  will  now  examine  more  particularly 
the  different  aspects  of  the  phenomenon  which  we  are 
considering. 

4.  The  SophuUc  TJieory  of  Knowledge  and  Eristic 
Disputation, 

Even  among  the  most  ancient  philosophers  we  find 
many  complaints  of  the  limitations  of  human  know- 
ledge, and  from  the  time  of  Heracleitus  and  Parme- 
nides  downwards,  the  uncertainty  of  the  sensible  percep- 
tion was  acknowledged  from  the  most  opposite  points 
of  view.  But  it  was  not  until  the  appearance  of  the 
Sophists  that  these  germs  were  developed  into  a  uni- 
versal scepticism.  For  the  scientific  establishment  of 
this  scepticism,  they  took  as  their  starting-point,  partly 
the  doctrine  of  Heracleitus,  partly  that  of  the  Eleatics ; 
that  the  same  result  should  have  been  attained  from 
such  opposite  presuppositions  may  be  regarded,  on  the 
one  hand,  as  a  true  dialectical  induction  through  which 
those  one-sided  presuppositions  cancel  one  another; 


446  THE  SOPHISTS. 

but  it  is  at  the  same  time  suggestive  of  the  Sophistic 
doctrine,  which  was  concerned,  not  with  any  definite 
view  of  the  nature  of  things  or  of  knowledge,  hot 
only  with  the  setting  aside  of  objective  philosophical 
enquiries. 

Protagoras  based  his  scepticism  on  the  physics  of 
Heracleitus.  He  is  not,  indeed,  an  actual  adherent  of 
that  philosophy  in  its  full  extent  and  original  import; 
what  Heracleitus  had  taught  concerning  the  primitive 
fire,  and  its  changes  and  gradations — generally  speaking, 
of  the  objective  constitution  of  all  things — could  not  be 
appropriated  by  a  Sceptic  as  he  was.  But  he  at  least 
adopted  from  the  Heracleitean  philosophy,  in  order  to  use 
them  for  his  own  purposes,  the  general  propositions  of 
the  change  of  all  things,  and  the  opposing  streams  of  mo- 
tion. According  to  Protagoras,  all  things  are  in  constant 
motion  ; '  but  this  motion  is  not  merely  of  one  kind : 

>  Plato,  Theat  162  D,  157  A  sq.  p.  70).  The  pneterite  is  used  here 
(ride  aup.  1 8, 2),  ib.  1 66  A,  expresses  bs  in  the  Aristotelian  ezpreivion, 
this  in  the  following  manner :  &»  rh  rl  Ijv  §tyeu.  We  can,  therefore, 
iray  Klyri<rii  ijv  ical  oKKo  napk  tovto  neither  attrihiite  this  pure  mo- 
o(fi^¥,  that  he  is  not  thinking,  how-  tion  to  Prot.  (Frei,  79),  nor  ac- 
ever,  of  motion  without  something  cuse  Plato  of  an  invention  (Weber, 
moved — a  *  pure  motion ' — hut  only  23  sqq.),  justified  by  Sextus,  who 
of  a  motion  the  subject  of  which  declares  of  Protagoras  in  Stoical 
is  constantly  changing,  is  clear  language  (I^rrh,  i.  217) :  ^vif^ 
from  180  B,  181  C,  D,  where  he  oZp  6  Mip  riiif  fiKii¥  ^cuorrV  ^f^ 
uses  these  words,  irdma  mcetTcu,  t&  ^toutnis  9k  abrris  avif^x^f  vfiotr$iata 
itixna  Ki¥uoO<Uj  ww  kft^ariptos  iarrX  t&v  iaro^^att^w  yiyw^c^ui, 
KipfiurBai,  ^p6fity6p  re  koX  dixxoiotf-  In  Theatetia^  181  B  cqq.,  it  is 
ficvor,  and  also  from  166  G  sqq. :  further  shown  that  the  motion  of 
ravru  irdtra  fi^v  Kwthai ...  all  things,  assumed  by  Protagons^ 
^4pfTai  yhp  koI  h  ^p$  a^rwy  ^  must  be  defined  not  merely  as  ^opi, 
Kivnffis  wc^vKcy,  &c.  (and  the  same  but  as  kKXalwra ;  but  it  is  dear, 
texts  prove  that  ^y  does  not  imply,  from  the  same  passage,  that  Pro- 
as Vitringa  asserts,  p.  83,  that  tagoras  himself  had  not  explained 
originally  only  motion  was,  but  himself  more  particularly  on  the 
that  all  is,  according  to  its  easet^  subject, 
tial  nature,   motion;   cf.  Schanz, 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE. 


447 


there  are  innumerable  motions,  which,  however,  may  all 
be  reduced  to  two  classes,  since  they  consist  either  of 
doing  or  suffering.^  Only  through  their  action,  or  their 
being  acted  upon,  do  things  receive  their  particular 
qualities ;  and  as  doing  and  suffering  can  belong  to  a 
thing  only  in  relation  to  other  things  with  which  it  is 
brought  into  -contact  by  motion,  we  ought  not  to 
attribute  any  quality  or  definiteness  to  anything  as 
such:  it  is  only  because  things  move  towards  each 
other,  mingle,  and  work  upon  one  another,  that  they 
become  determinate :  we  can  never  say,  therefore,  that 
they  are  something,  or,  in  general,  that  they  are,  but 
only    that    they    become     something,    and    become.^ 


'  Tkeat,  1 56  A,  continues :  tijs 

tarttpoy  iitdrtpoUf  96¥afU¥  8f  rh  fi^v 
Toicur  f^x"^^  ^^  '^  irito'xc'i'.  This  is 
further  explained  at  157  A:  neither 
action  nor  suffering  belongs  to  a 
thing  absolutely  in  and  for  itself; 
but  things  act  or  are  acted  upon  by 
meeting  with  others  to  iihich  they 
are  related  in  an  active  or  passive 
manner;  the  same  can  therefore 
be  active  in  relaTion  to  one  thing, 
and  passiye  in  relation  to  another. 
The  language  in  this  exposition  is 
for  the  most  part  Platonic,  but  we 
are  not  justified  in  denying  alto- 
gether to  Protagoras  the  distinction 
between  active  and  passive  motion. 
•  ThetBt,  152  D,  156  E  {sup, 
18,  2),  m  B:  rh  V  oh  8c?,  is 
i  rSiv  ffo^v  X6yos,  oSt€  r\  ^vy- 
X^P^^  0^9  fov  o(h*  i/iov  o(h€ 
TdJf  otfr*  iic*tyo  olhe  tiWo  oMy 
irofM  trihy  Urrpf  dAA&  Karh  ^{t<nv 
^0^77f  (r0ai  yiyy6ntya  Ktd  woio^ya 
Kol  knoWifuya  koX  hXhotaOfitya, 
(The  form  of  the  exposition  seems 
to  belong  to  Plato.)    We  find  the 


same — no  doubt  originally  taken 
fipom  these  passages — in  Philop. 
Gen.  et  Corr.  4  b,  and  Ammon. 
Cateff.  81  b,  Schol.  in  Ariat  60  a, 
15,  where  the  proposition  obK  tlyat 
^iffuf  wpifTfidyniy  obhty6s  is  ascribed 
to  Protagoras  (Frei,  p.  92,  con- 
jectures, probably  erroneously,  that 
these  are  his  very  words).  It  is 
also  expressed  in  the  language  of 
later  terminology  by  Sextus,  /.  e. 
thus :  robs  \6yovs  itdyray  r&y 
<fKuyofi4ycoy  broKfioBcu  4y  rf  0A];, 
words  which  do  not  seem  to  me 
rightly  explained  either  by  Peter- 
sen {Phil.  Hist.  Stud.  117),Brandi8 
(i.  628),  Hermann  {Plat.  Phil.  207, 
142),  Frei  (p.  92  sq.).  or  Weber  (p. 
86sqq.).  These  words  do  not  assert 
that  the  causes  of  all  phenomena 
lie  only  in  the  material,  but  rather 
the  converse,  that  in  matter,  in 
things  as  such,  irrespectively  of 
the  manner  in  which  we  apprehend 
them,  the  germ  of  all  things,  the 
equal  possibility  of  the  most 
various  phenomena  is  given,  that 
everjrthing,  as  Plut.  Adv,  Col.  4, 2, 


448 


TEE  SOPHISTS. 


Through  the  meetiBg  of  these  two  kinds  of  motion  onr 
presentations  of  things  arise.*  Where  an  object  comes 
in  contact  with  our  organ  of  sense  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  object  acts  upon  the  org^,  and  the  organ  is 
acted  upon,  there  arises  in  the  organ  a  definite  sensa- 
tion, and  the  object  appears  endowed  with  determinate 
qualities.'      But  these  two  results  occur  only  in  and 


says  in  ezplainiDg  this  theory  of 
Protagoras,  is  fiii  /mAAov  ro7oif  9l 
rotor  \  and  as  Sextns  himself  goes 
on  to  explain,  hlvauarBox  r^v  0Xi})^, 
HffOP  i4f  iavrg,  irdrra  §tym  %aa  irm 

1  It  is  not  quite  clear  whether 
he  simply  identified  active  motion 
with  that  of  the  •Wirrkr  and  pas- 
sive with  that  of  the  offi^o'cs  (as 
Schanz,  p.  72,  believes),  or  whether 
he  regarded  the  motion  of  the 
oJiff^n^v  and  the  aftr^o-ts  only  as 
definite  kinds  of  active  and  passive 
motion.  The  latter  opinion  seems 
to  me  the  more  probable,  partly 
for  the  reason  that  if  Protagoras 
ascribed  to  things  an  objective 
existence,  independently  of  our 
presentative  consciousness,  as  he 
undoubtedly  did,  he  must  also 
have  assumed  a  reciprocal  action 
of  things  upon  one  another,  and 
not  merely  an  action  upon  our- 
selves ;  partly  because  the  remark 
(167  A,  vide  sup.  p.  446,  2)  teUs 
the  same  way,  viz.,  that  the  iden- 
tical thing  that  in  relation  to  one 
thing  is  active,  in  relation  to 
another  thing  may  be  passive:  for 
in  respect  of  our  oUtr^j^is  the  civBti- 
rhv  is  always  active ;  it  can  only  be 
passive  in  respect  of  other  things. 

«  Theat.  166  A,  after  what  is 
quoted,  p.  446,  2 :  ^k  8i  ti)j  ro&ruy 
6fu\ias  re  Kol  rpf^c«f  wphs  ftXAiyXa 
ylymrai  txyova  irX^tfci  fikv  iwupOf 


9tBvfjM  8i,  rh  ficy  al<r$wrhif,  t^  8i 
oftr^qo'it,  &cl  avytKwlrrovn  itat  ycr- 
iwfiiirn  lurh  rov  aicBiirod,  The 
alaB^fftu  are  called  6^ts,  dcoal, 
ocr^p^o-cir,  ^^is,  Kwbctis,  jfiotnL^ 
Ainrflu,  iviBu/jiiat,  p6fioi,  etc  ;  to  the 
aiirOfrrhif  belong  colours,  tones,  &c. 
This  is  then  further  explained: 
4vti9iu>  oiv  tmia  ical  &AAo  ri  t«p 
To^y  ^vfififrpmv  (an  object  which 
is  so  formed  as  to  act  upon  the 
eye)  irKtictdtrap  ytrrhirp  v^ir  A«iic^ 
rrrrd  re  Koi  otiHhitrtr  adrp  (i^/<^vr«r, 
a  ohic  &if  irorc  iy4vro  iicafrifmt 
iittCrtfv  iTf^s  iKKo  iXBiprott  rirc 
8^,  fttra^b  ^pOfi4vw¥r^t  f>^  i^s 
-vpiis  r&v  i^BoJkfi&pf  rijs  9k  Xem4- 
niros  irphs  rov  arvrtnarlKTOpros  r^ 
XP^tM,  6  fikv  i^iSahfihs  ipa  <^t 
f/ixKtvs  4y4r€ro  teeU  6pf  8^  r^f  nl 
iyi¥^o  ofri  i^ts  IXXh  h^BuXp!^ 
SpmVf  rh  tk  {vTrycnftror  rh  XP^ 
\§vK6Tfrros  ittpuvX'fyirdii  icol  iy4nro 
oi  XcvK^n^f  ai  kkXii  \wtm6r  .  .  . 

Btpfihv  icai,  wdyrOf  rhy  abrlfw  rphw 
^o\nnr4o¥  ednh  /t)y  icci9*  airh  ^n)liv 
tlvaif  etc  The  various  relations 
in  which  things  stand  to  the  senses 
seem  to  have  been  derived  by 
Protagoras  from  the  greater  or 
lesser  swiftness  of  their  motion, 
for  it  is  said  (156  C)  that  some 
move  slowly,  and  oonsequontly 
only  attain  to  what  is  near,  others 
more  qui<&ly,  and  attain  to  what 
is  farther.      The   former  would 


TKEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:   PEOTAGOEAS.    449 

during  this  contact ;  as  the  eye  does  not  see  when  it  is 
not  affected  by  some  colour,  so  the  object  is  not 
coloured,  when  it  is  not  seen  by  any  eye.  Nothing 
therefore  is  or  becomes,  what  it  is  and  becomes,  in  and  for 
itself,  but  only  for  the  percipient  subject ;  ^  the  object, 
however,  will  naturally  present  itself  diflferently  to  the 
percipient  subject,  according  to  the  constitution  of  the 
latter:  things  are  for  each  man,  that  which  they 
appear  to  him  ;  and  they  appear  to  him,  as  they  must 
necessarily  appear,  according  to  his  own  state  and 
condition :  *  Man  is  the  measure  of  all  things,  of  Being 
that  it  is ;  of  non-Being  that  it  is  not ; '  there  i3  no 


answer  for  example  to  the  percep- 
tions of  touch,  and  the  latter  to 
those  of  sight. 

'  Vide  previous  note,  and  /.  e. 
157  A:    £<rTc  4^  airdrruv  rolnoov 

%p  ainh  Koff  ainhf  hKKh  tivX  &ci 
yiyvtcBaty  etc.  (Vide  supra^  1 8,  2 ; 
447  1),  160  B:  X^iwwrai  8^,  otym, 
7ifU¥  ixXiiXoiSf  efr'  ifTfi^p,  clycu,  cfr« 
yiyy6fM9ay  ylyyttrBaif  iirtiirtp  iiyMV  ^ 
kp^Tftai  n^v  otffiay  ffw^9iii^¥t  avphti 
8i  ovScy}  r&¥  iXXwP,  ohHf  aH  ^fuy 
aifTois.  dAA^Aois  8^  Ktlvtreu  <ruy8c- 
S4<r$cUt  (iffre  cYrc  ris  clyol  ti  6votJid(*if 
TiW  tJycu  fj  Tii^j  fj  irp6s  ri  ^4o¥ 
uin^,  rfr€  7^)ryf  0-001,  etc. ;  cf .  Phado, 
90  G.  Similarly  Arist.  Metaph,  ix. 
3,  1047  a,  5:  aioBnr^y  oifihy  farcu 
$iil  aurBaySfuyov'  Sfcrrt  rhy  Ilporra- 
y6pav  \6yoy  (rvfififfiffercu  \iy91y 
oMTois,  Alex,  ad  h.  L  and  p.  1010 
b,  30;  p.  273,  28  Bon. ;  Hermias, 
IrrU,  c.  4 ;  Sext.  Pyrrh.  i.  219 :  tk 
Zk  fitfi^yX  ruy  iuf$p>6vuy  ^€uy6fi*ya 
ov8i  iffTiy,  On  the  other  hand,  the 
word  ^vffio\6yoif  in  Arist.  De  An, 
iii.  2,  426  a,  20,  alludes,  not  to 
Protagoras  (as  Philop.  ad  h,  I.  O 


15,  and  Vitringa,  p.  106  believe), 
but  to  Democritus. 

'  Plato  proves  this,  lo7  E  sqq., 
by  the  example  of  dreamers,  sick 
persons  and  lunatics,  and  observes 
that  since  they  are  differently  con- 
stituted from  those  who  are  awake 
and  in  good  health,  different  per- 
ceptions must  necessarily  result 
from  the  contact  of  things  with 
them.  At  158  £,  however,  ha 
does  not  seem  to  refer  this  answer 
explicitly  to  Protagoras,  but  gives 
it  rather  as  the  necessary  comple- 
tion of  his  theory.  This  makes  it 
the  more  probable  that  the  similar 
statements  and  arguments  ap.  Sext. 
Pyrrh,  i,  217  sq.;  Ammon.  and 
Philop.  in  the  passages  quoted,  sup, 
p.  447,  1 ;  David,  Schol.  in  Arist 
60  b,  16,  were  not  taken  from  the 
treatise  of  Protagoras,  but,  like 
those  of  the  TheaMus,  are  merely 
the  comments  and  additions  of  the 
several  writers. 

*  TheaL  152  A :  ^i)<rl  ydp  wov 
[n^cvT.]  wdyrcfy  xpvi^'^^^  ft-irpoy 
ifOpctiroy  flycUy  r&y  fi\y  6yr»y  &s 
(rrif  rAy  8i  fiii  6yrwy,  &s  oIk  ^arw. 


VOL.   II. 


a  a 


460 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


The  same  senteDce,  sometimes  with 
this  addition  and  sometimes  with- 
out, is  often  quoted:  by  Plato, 
Themt.  160  C;  Cro/.  S86E;  Arist. 
Metaph.  x.  1,  1053  a,  35 ;  xi.  6 ; 
Sext.  McUh,  vii.  60 ;  lifrrK  i.  216 ; 
Biog.  ix.  51,  &c.  (vide  Frei,  94). 
According  to  Tkt(Bt,  161  C,  Prota- 
goras said  this,  ipx^t^'^'*^  ^'  ^^ 
Btiat.  As  there  is  also  mention  of 
the  iiXfi$€ia  of  Protagoras,  162  A, 
170  E;  cf.  156  E,  166  B;  Crat. 
886  C,  301  C,  it  seems  probable 
that  the  treatise  in  which  the 
sentence  occurred  had  the  title 
'AX^eeia  (as  the  Schol.  ad  Theat 
161  G  maintains).  It  does  not, 
however,  appear  impossible  that 
Plato  himself  first  called  it  so, 
because  Protagoras  had  therein 
often  and  emphatically  declared 
that  he  would  make  known  the 
true  state  of  things  in  opposition 
to  ordinary  opinion.  According  to 
Sext.  Math.  vii.  60,  the  words  stood 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Koro^ciX- 
XoKTf  f ,  and  Porph.  ap.  Eus.  IV.  Ev. 
X.  3,  25,  says  that  Protagoras  in 
the  x6yos  wtfA  rov  6yrot  opposed 
the  Eleatics,  which  no  doubt  was 
the  case  in  the  work  from  which 
the  words  in  the  T%MBtetu8  are 
taken.  But  perhaps  Porphyry 
designates  this  work  according  to 
its  contents,  and  the  proper  title 
was  KarafidWovrtt  (sc.  X^t),  or 
*AXii$€ia  ^  Karafi.;  possibly  the 
two  books  of  *AiniXoyiai  ap.  Diog. 
ix.  55,  may  be  only  another  ex- 
pression for  Kara$ii^Xopr€S.  Of. 
Prei,  176  sqq. :  Weber,  43  sq.  ; 
Bemays,  Rh.  Mita.  vii.  464  sqq.; 
Vitringa,  115;  Schanz,  Beitr.  g, 
Vortokr.  Phil.  1  H,  29  sqq. ;  Bethe, 
Vers,  einer  Wurd.  d.  Sophist.  Be- 
dekunstf  29  sqq.  The  meaning  of 
Protagoras*s  maxim  is  usually 
given  thus :  otu  t»  9oKp  iicdirr^ 
rotavra  Koi  tfrai  (Plato,  CrcU.  386 


C.  Similarly  Theat.  152  A;  cf. 
Cic.  Acad.  ii.  46,  142),  rb  S«xo»r 
iK^trr^  rovto  ical  clroi  wayUa 
(Arist.  Metaph.  xL  6 ;  cf.  iv.  4, 
1007  b,  22;  iv.  5;  Alex,  ad  h.L 
and  elsewhere ;  Bavid,  SdioL  m 
Arist.  23  a,  4,  where,  however, 
what  is  said  in  the  Evihydenm, 
287  E,  is  transferred  to  Prot*- 
goras)  irdffas  rhs  ^arroffia^  ml  rks 
96^as  hXtiBeis  Mipx^of  iral  rir  rpk 
ri  that  riiy  hkhe^uv  (Sext  Matk 
vii.  60 ;  cf.  Schol.  m  Arist.  60  b, 
16).  But  here  also,  if  the  acoooot 
is  true,  the  meaning  can  only  be, 
that  what  appears  to  anyone  in  a 
certain  manner,  is  for  him  as  it 
appears  to  binu  Phtto,  TAe^. 
152  A,  expressly  says  this,  sod  is 
unjustly  censured  by  Grote  (P/aio, 
ii.  347,  353,  369).  for  having  left 
it  unnoticed.  The  expressions 
made  use  of  by  the  authors  men- 
tioned above  are,  as  is  often  self- 
evident,  not  the  expressions  of 
Protagoras.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  Plato's  obserration  that 
knowledge  according  to  Protafc»s 
consists  in  sensation  and  nothing 
besides  (cf.  next  note) ;  and  of  the  ■ 
inference  of  Aristotle  (/.  c.  Mdaph. 
iv.),  and  his  commentator  (Alex.  p. 
104,  16,  228.  10,  247,  10.  258.  IS 
Bon.  637  a,  16.  653  a,  1.  662  a,  4. 
667  a,  34  Br.),  that  according  to 
Protagoras  self-contradictory  as- 
sertions could  at  the  same  time  be 
true.  The  statement  of  Biog-  iz- 
5 1  ;  ^Kfyi  r^  fLifihv  ^wu.  ^vy^vvofk 
rhs  ola^<rtis,  for  which  he  refers 
to  the  TheaietuSf  seems  either  to 
have  been  deduced  from  the  pro- 
position that  things  exist  only  is 
the  act  of  perception,  or  (as  appears 
to  me  more  probable)  to  be  a  mis- 
take for  the  other  proposition  that 
irurHifiti  is  nothing  else  than 
tCUrdfiffis.  What  Themistius  says, 
Analyt,  Post.  p.  25  Sp. ;  8ek>l  » 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:    GORGIAS.       461 

objective  truth,  but  only  subjective  appearance  of  truth, 
no  universally  valid  knowledge,  but  only  opinion.^ 

The  same  result  is  attained  by  Grorgias  from  the 


Jrut.  207  b,  26,  on  Protagoras's 
Tiew  of  knowledge,  is  no  doubt 
deduced  from  the  passage  in  Aris- 
totle, which  does  not  refer  to 
Protagoras  at  all. 

>  Grote  {Plato,  ii.  322  sqq.) 
indeed  doubts  whether  Protagoras 
himself  founded  his  proposition, 
'  Man  is  the  measure  of  all  things,' 
in  the  manner  supposed  in  the 
text,  upon  HerHcleitus's  theory : 
Schuster  goes  still  farther  {HeraJcl. 
29  sqq.) ;  he  not  only  maintains  in 
connection  with  his  obserrations 
on  Heracleitus  (discussed  supra,  p. 
93  sq.),  that  neither  Protigoras 
nor  Heracleitus  arrived  at  a  theory 
of  knowledge  through  metaphysical 

frinciples,  but  he  also  believes  that 
'rotagoras  assumed  the  existence 
of  knowledge,  and  that  it  coin- 
cided with  it,ffBj\ffis  and  the  opinion 
based  upon  cia9iiait.  This  last 
statement  is  destitute  of  all  foun- 
dation, *and  is  besides  irrecon- 
cileable  with  every  tradition  con- 
cerning Protagoras  that  we  possess. 
In  the  first  place  the  proposition 
(The€Bt,  151  £,  160  D) :  ohK  ftXAo 
ri  iffruf  itnariiiATi  tj  dtrOntrts,  is 
not  (as  even  Schuster  observes)  di- 
rectly attributed  to  Protagoras  by 
Plato.  Plato  expressly  says  (152 
A;  cf.  159  D),  that  Protagoras 
enunciated  this  in  (mother  form: 
{rp^o¥  riph  &AAoy),  in  80  far  as 
results  from  his  words:  itdtn^y 
j(f»yifiiir»¥  fUrpw  iyBpttfieos,  that 
there  can  be  no  knowledge  tran- 
scending appearance,  and  conse- 
quently (since  ^oivtaBax  »  ato'^d- 
Kc<r0ac,  1 52  B)  transcending  dfo-ffijcrif . 
But  in  that  case,  it  is  clear  that 


this  proposition,  in  the  connection 
in  which  it  stands  with  Plato,  can- 
not mean  that  there  is  a  knowledge 
and  this  knowledge  consists  of 
t^Oriffis,  but  rather  the  converse : 
there  is  no  objective  knowledge, 
for  there  is  no  knowledge  that  is 
anything  but  afcr^qtris,  and  aXaOriffis 
is  mere  appearance  and  nothing 
else:  this  is  evident  from  Theat. 
152  A  sq.,  101  D,  166  A  sqq.,  &c. 
But  all  our  witnesses  without  ex- 
ception say  the  same:  they  aU 
declare  that,  according  to  Prota- 
goras, that  is  true  for  every  man 
which  appears  to  him  true,  which 
is  directly  contrary  to  the  propo- 
sition '  that  there  is  an  iiriffritni* 
We  must,  if  we  adopt  this,  under- 
stand by  iviffriifirj  a  presentation 
that  is  only  subjectivdy  true,  a 
mere  fancy  (^rrour^o,  Theest,  152 
C).  It  would  be  more  reasonable 
to  doubt  whether  Protagoras  had 
reaUy  established  his  proposition 
in  the  manner  that  Plato  supposes. 
Plato,  as  I  have  repeatedly  ob- 
served, does  not  seem  to  have  kept 
strictly  to  the  form  of  Protagoras's 
exposition ;  but  we  have  no  reason 
to  deny  to  Protagoras  the  essential 
content  of  the  theory  which  Plato 
puts  into  his  mouth,  or  to  doubt 
its  connection  with  the  physics  of 
Heracleitus,  even  supposing  that 
Sextus,  JPyrrh.  i.  216  sq.,  Math,  vii. 
60  sqq.,  is  not  to  be  considered  an 
original  source,  which  he  certainly 
is  in  respect  to  part  of  his  state- 
ments. It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
Plato  arrived  at  his  exposition,  if 
Protagoras  himself  had  not  fur- 
nished an  occasion  for  it. 


o  a  2 


462  THE  SOPHISTS. 

opposite  point  of  departure.  In  his  treatise  on  Nature, 
or  the  non-existent,'  he  sought  to  prove  three  proposi- 
tions— (1)  Nothing  exists;  (2)  If  anything  be  assumed 
to  exist,  it  is  unknowable ;  (3)  If  even  it  is  knowabie, 
it  cannot  be  imparted  in  speech.  The  proof  of  the  first 
proposition  is  entirely  based  on  the  theories  of  the 
Eleatics.  *  If  anything  existed,'  said  G-orgias,  '  it  must 
be  either  existent  or  non-existent,  or  both  at  once/  But 
(A)  it  cannot  be  non-existent,  because  nothing  can  at 
the  same  time  exist  and  not  exist ;  and  non-Being  would 
then,  on  the  one  hand,  as  non-Being,  not  exist ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  so  far  as  it  i^  non-Being  it  would  exist; 
further,  as  Being  and  non-Being  are  opposed  to  each 
other,  we  cannot  attribute  existence  to  non-Being  with- 
out denying  it  to  Being ;  but  existence  cannot  be  denied 
to  Being,'  Just  as  little,  however,  (B)  can  what  exists 
be  existent,  for  the  existent  must  either  be  derived  or 
underived — it  must  be  either  One  or  Many,  (a)  It 
xsannot  be  underived;  for  what  is  not  derived,  says 
<Torgias,  in  agreement  with  Melissus,  has  no  beginning, 
and  what  has  no  beginning  is  infinite.  But  the  infinite 
is  nowhere — ^it  cannot  be  in  some  other,  for  in  that  case 

*  A  detailed  extract  from  this  life  confined  himself  to  rhetoric 

treatise,  but    in  his  own  words,  The  sutement  that  nothing  eiists 

is  given  by  Sext,  Math.  vii.  66-87,  is  ascribed  hj  Isocrates,  Hd.  3, 

a  Sorter  one  by  the  pseado-Arist.  «-.  hniZSo.,  268,   to  his   master 

De  Meliato,  c.  5,  6.    For  ita  title,  Gorgias,  in  the  former  of  these 

iTf^l  rov  fi^  {{ktos  ^  T.  0^9-e«r,  we  pass^es,  with  express    refereace 

are  indebted  to  Sextus.     Rose's  to  the    writings  of   the   ancient 

doubt  of  its  authenticity  (Ariat.  Sophists. 

V   Libr,    Ord,  77  sq.)   seems  to  me  ^  Sext.    66  sq.    and    (though 

not  adequately  justified  either  by  somewhat  dififerenthr,  which  per- 

the  silence  of  Aristotle  concerning  haps  is  the  fault  of  the  text)  tha 

the  scepticism  of  Gorgias,  nor  by  treatise  on  Melissus,  c.  5,  ^79  a, 

the  fact  that  Goxgias   n  hisl  ater  21  sqq. 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:    G0RQIA8.      453 

it  would  not  be  infinite ;  nor  in  itself,  for  what  compre- 
hends must  be  some  other  than  that  which  is  compre- 
hended* But  that  which  is  nowhere  exists  not  at  all. 
If,  therefore,  Being  is  imderived,  it  is  non-existent.*  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose  it  to  be  derwedy  it  must 
have  arisen  either  from  Being  or  non-Being.  But 
from  Being  nothing  can  be  derived ;  for  if  Being  be- 
came another,  it  would  be  no  longer  Being:  and  as 
little  can  it  have  arisen  from  non-Being:  for  if  non-^ 
Being  does  not  exist,  the  proposition  would  apply  that 
out  of  nothing  nothing  comes ;  and,  if  it  exists,  the 
Bame  reasons  hold  good  which  make  a  derivation  from 
Being  impossible.*  (6)  Being  can  neither  be  One  nor 
Many.  Not  One ;  for  what  is  really  One  can  have  no 
corporeal  magnitude :  and  what  has  no  magnitude  is 
nothing.'  Not  Many ;  for  every  plurality  i&  a  number 
of  unities :  if  there  is  no  unity,  there  is  also  no  plu- 
rality.* {c)  If  we  add  to  this  that  Being  cannot  be 
raoved  since  all  motion  is  change,  and,  as  such,  would 
be  the  Becoming  of  non-Being ;  since,  furthermore,  all 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.  p.  638,  1 ;  618,  2.  also  that  they  could  not  both  simul- 

*  Sext.  68-71,  I>e  Mel,  979  b,  teneously  be  true. 
20  sqq.  The.latter  expressly  refers  ■  De  Mel.  979  b,  86  (according 

to  MelisBus  and  Zeno,  vide  supra,  to  Mullach's  supplement :   iral  If 

Vol.  I.  618,  2;    627  fq.     Sextus  fi^pobKhyHyaaBcuttyai^^ikv^tia* 

giyes  the  conclusion  of  the  argu-  roy  tty  tXii  rh  ^y  rh  yhp  iur^uarSyf 

ment  more  simply :  he  merely  says  ^ffiy,  ohh^y^  <x«v  yy^futiy  irapairXt}- 

that  from  non-Being  nothing  can  fflay  r^  rod  Zfiyuyos  \6y^  (vide 

come,    for    that   which    produces  supra^  Vol.  I.  615,  1).     Ooig.  ap. 

another,  must  first  exist  itself ;  and  Sextus,  73,  proves  at  greater  length 

he  adds  that  Being  cannot  at  the  that  the  One  can  be  neither  a  iro<r^y, 

same  time  be  derived   and  unde-  nor  a  crw^x^Sy  nor  a  ft4yt$0St  nor  a 

ri  ved,  si  nee  these  terms  exclude  one  o&fjui. 

another.    Perhaps,   however,  this  *  Soxt.  74  ;  De  Mel,  979  b,  37 

may  be  his  own  addition.    Sextus,  (according  to  Foss  and  Mull.) ;  cf. 

after  refuting  the  two  alternatives  Zeno,  I.  c. ;  and  Melissus,  suprUf 

of  a  dilemma,  is  fond  of  showing  VoL  I.  p.  638,  2. 


464  THE  SOPHISTS. 

motion  presupposes  a  division,  and  every  division  is  a 
cancelling  of  Being,'  it  is  evident  that  Being  is  as  un- 
thinkable as  non-Being.  (C)  But  if  Being  is  neither 
existent  nor  non-existent,  it  plainly  cannot  be  both  at 
once ;  ^  and  thus,  as  Gorgias  believes,  his  first  proposi- 
tion, *'  that  nothing  exists,'  is  proved. 

The  proofs  of  the  two  other  propositions  sound 
simpler.  If  even  something  existed  it  would  be  un- 
knowable ;  for  the  existent  is  nothing  that  is  thought, 
and  what  is  thought  is  nothing  that  exists,  otherwise 
what  everyone  imagines  for  himself  must  necessarily 
have  an  actual  existence,  and  a  false  presentation  would 
be  impossible.  But  if  Being  is  nothing  that  is  thought, 
it  is  neither  thought  nor  known — it  is  unknowable.'  If, 
however,  it  were  even  knowable,  it  could  not  be  im- 
parted in  words.  For  how  ean  intuitions  of  things  be 
produced  by  mere  tones,  when,  in  fact,  words  arise  con- 
versely, from  intuitions  ?  Moreover,  how  is  it  possible 
that  the  hearer  in  hearing  the  words  should  think  the 
same  as  the  speaker,  since  one  and  the  same  cannot  be 
in  different  places  and  different  persons  ?  *  Or  if  even 
the  same  were  in  several  individuals,  would  it  not  neces- 

*  So  in  the  treatise  on  Melissus,    supra,  453,  2. 

980  a,  1 ;  cf.  supra.  Vol.  I.  p.  634.  •  De    Mel.   980   a,   8,   where. 

In  Sextus  this  proof  is  absent,  but  however,    the    commencemeDt    is 

it  is  not  likely  that  Goigias  made  no  mutilated   and    not    aatisfiictarily 

use  whatever  of  the  arguments  of  amended  by  Mollach ;  while  Sex- 

Zeno  and  Melissus  against  motion,  tus,  77-82,  introduces  much  matter 

From  his  procedure  in  other  cases,  of  his  own. 

we  may  conjecture  that  he  sst  up  ^  Sext.  83-86,  who  here  mgiin 

a  dilemma,  and  showed  that  Being  no  doubt    intermingles    his   own 

can  neither  be  moved  nor  unmoved,  comments ;   more  completely,  but 

There  seems,  therefore,  to  be  a  with  a  text  that  is  not  altogether 

lacuna  in  this  place  in  our  text.  certain,  De  Afelisso,  980  a,  19  sqq. 

*  Sext.  75  sq. ;  cf.  the  remark 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:    QOROIAS.       465 

sarily  appear  to  them  diflferently,  since  they  are  diflferent 
persons  and  in  different  places  ?  These  arguments  are 
in  part  purely  sophistical ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  real 
difficulties  are  touched  by  them,  especially  in  respect  to 
the  third  proposition :  and  the  whole  might  well  have 
been  regarded  at  that  period  as  a  formidable  attempt 
to  establish  doubt  as  to  the  possibility  of  know- 
ledge.^ 

No  other  Sophist  seems  to  have  taken  such  pains 
about  the  complete  justification  of  scepticism,  at  least, 
there  is  no  tradition  of  any  attempt  of  the  kind.  All 
the  more  general,  however,  was  the  agreement  in  the 
result  which  was  common  to  the  Heracleitean  and  Ele- 
atic  scepticism,  the  denial  of  any  objective  truth,  and 
though  this  denial  was  in  very  few  instances  based  upon 
a  developed  theory  of  knowledge,  yet  the  sceptical 
arguments  of  a  Protagoras  or  a  Grorgias,  %  Heracleitus 
or  a  Zeno,  were,  notwithstanding,  eagerly  utilised.  The 
observation  which  was  perhaps  first  made  by  Gorgias 
after  the  precedent  of  Zeno,  that  the  One  cannot  be 
at  the  same  time  Many,  and  that  therefore  the  imion 

*  On  the   other    band,   Grote  cognised  nor  described.    Of  such  a 

(^Hist.  qf  Gr.  viii.  603  sq.)  is  carried  limitation  our  authorities  contain 

too  far  by  his  predilection  for  the  not  the   slightest   hint ;    Qorgiaa 

Sophists,  when  he  says  that  the  argues  quite  generally  and  uncon- 

demonstration  of  Gorgias  relates  ditionally  that  nothing  can  exist 

only  to  the  Thing-in-itself  of  the  or  be  known  or  be  expressed.   The 

Eleatics.     The  Eleatics  only  re-  Eleatics  themselves,  nowever,  did 

cognised  as    reality    the    essence  not  distingmsh  between  the  phe- 

lying  beyond  the  phenomenon ;  as  nomenon    and    that    which    lies 

against  them,  Gorgias   (he  says)  behind  it;  but  only  between  the 

shows  with  good  reason  that  such  true  theory  of  things  and  the  false. 

a  'Thing-in-itaelf '   {' tUtra'phmo-  A  double  Being,  phenomenal  and 

menalSofnething or Noumenon') does  absolute,  was  first  held  by  Plato, 

not  exist,  and  can  neither  be  re-  and  in  a  certain  sense  by  Aristotle. 


466 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


of  a  predicate  with  a  subject  is  inadmissible— seems 
to  have  found  special  £eiyoiir.'  With  the  propositions 
of  Protagoras  concerning  the  relativity  of  our  presentar 
tions,  may  be  connected  the  statement  of  Xeniades  that 
all  opinions  of  mankind  are  false ;  and  if  Xeniades,'  in 
contradiction  to  a  presupposition  of  the  physicists,  at 
first  latent,  but  since  the  time  of  Parmenides  explicitly 
recognised,  regarded  generation  as  a  Becoming  out  of 
nothing,  and  decay  as  pure  annihilation^  he  may  have 


1  Gf.  Plftto,  Soph.  251  B :  89cr 
7«,  olfuUf  rots  re  viois  kcA  ytpdrrvp 
rois  i^tfiaB4<ri  Boirtiw  trapwKtvdKa- 
fuir  tiohs  yhp  hmkufi4<r(ku  warr) 
Tp6x*i(ioy,  &s  iMvarov  rd  rt  iroAAa 
li'  Ktd  rh  %v  T0^^&  ^bfcu,  ical  8^  trov 
Xtdoowruf  olfK  iAvrts  isyoBhp  K^yttP 
MptnroWf  &XA&  rb  /i^r  iyaBhp  hryor 
Bhpf  rhv  8^  Mp€two9  ii^pcnrow. 
Plato  here  certainly  has  Antis* 
thenes  and  his  school  primarily  in 
▼lev;  but  that  his  remark  is  dot 
confined  to  them,  is  dear  from 
Philebut,  U  G,  15  D,  where  he 
describes  it  as  a  common  and  uni- 
versal phenomenon  that  young  per- 
sons, in  their  dialectical  disputa- 
tions, used  sometimes  to  conrert  the 
One  into  the  Many,  and  sometimes 
the  Many  into  the  One ;  and  to  dis- 
pute the  possibility  of  the  Many  in 
the  One.  Aristotle,  Phys.  i.  2, 185 
b,  25,  is  still  more  explicit :  ^opv* 
$owro  8i  Kol  ol  0<rrtfKN  r&v  &px'^*'' 
(Heradei  tus  was  preriously  named), 
throts  ft9)  l(f(a  yivririu  cdnois  rh  alnh 
ttf  Kol  voWd.  9ih  ol  fuhy  rh  itrruf 
k^uKovy  &<nr9p  AvKS^fwVf  ol  8i  riir 
K4^ir  fMTtfip(>0fu(oVt  8r(  6  ta^ponros 
oO  X€vk6s  icruf,  kKXh.  XcAcvKt^TCU, 
etc.  If  Lycophron  alluded  to  this 
statement,  it  probably  was  not  first 
circulated  by  Antisthenes,  but  was 
borrowed  by  him  from  Gorgias, 


who  was  the  teacher  both  of 
Antisthenes  and  Lycophron;  cf. 
p.  425,  3.  Damasc,  De  PrtMc.  c 
126,  p.  262,  says  that  the  statement 
was  indirectly  made  by  Protagons, 
but  explicitly  by  Lycophron ;  this, 
howerer,  is  no  doubt  founded  merely 
on  an  inaccurate  reminiscence  of  the 
passage  in  Aristotle. 

«  Cf.  p.  426.  1.  This  is  to  be 
found  ap.  Sext.  M,  rii.  53 :  Ecna- 
8t}S  8i  8  KoplifBios,  oZ  xat  Aitft^Jcprrof 
fU/unrreUf  vdirr*  citr^r  ^cvSq  al 
Tcuray  ^wmoxriay  irai  Zi^ojf  i|*fi!8(- 
irBaif  KoX  iK  rov  t^h  Htncs  wir  ri 
ytv6fi€vor  ylvtvBai,  koX  cis  t^  f^ 
%v  watf  rh  ^$^tp6fuvor  ^0c(pctfiou, 
ivwdfiH  rfis  vvbr^t  Ixercu  r^  B«m- 
^d¥€i  ariffuos.  The  latter,  hov- 
ever,  relates  only  to  the  supposed 
scepticism  of  Xenophanes :  ve 
cannot  deduce  from  it  that  Xeni- 
ades' point  of  departure  was  the 
Eleatic  doctrine.  The  statement 
as  to  generation  and  decay  is  onlj 
compatible  with  that  doctrine,  if 
Xeniades  used  it  to  prove  that 
generation  and  decay  are  altogether 
impossible.  The  proposition  that 
all  opinions  are  false,  is  also  moi- 
tioned  by  Sextus,  vii.  388,  389; 
Tiii.  5 :  he  reckons  Xeniades  amosg 
those  who  admitted  no  criterioD, 
Jlf.vii.  48;  P.  ii.  18. 


THEORY  OF  KNOWLEDGE:    EUTHYDEMUS.    457 

been  moyed  to  it  by  Heracleitus's  doctrine  of  the  flux 
of  all  things*  Perhaps,  however,  he  asserted  this  only 
hypothetically,  to  show  that  generation  and  decay  are 
as  unthinkable  as  a  Becoming  out  of  nothing  and  into 
nothing.  Others,  like  Euthydemus,  no  doubt  inter- 
mingled the  theories  of  Heracleitus  and  the  Eleatics. 
This  Sophist  maintained  on  the  one  hand,  in  the  spirit 
of  Protagoras,  that  all  qualities  belong  to  all  things  at 
all  times  equally  and  simultaneously ;  ^  on  the  other,  he 
deduced,  from  the  propositions  of  Parmenides,*  the  con- 
clusion that  no  one  can  err  or  say  what  is  false,  and  that 
it  is  consequently  impossible  to  contradict  oneself,  for 
the  non-existent  can  be  neither  imagined  nor  uttered.* 
This  statement,  however,  we  meet  with  elsewhere,  partly 
in  combination  with  the  Heracleito-Protagorean  Scep- 

'  Plato,  Crat,  886  D,  after  the  Euthydemus  aignes  that  it  is  not 

citation  of  Protagonu's  proposition,  possible  to  tell  a  lie,  for  he  who 

*  Man  is  the  measure  of  all  things : '  says  something,  always  says  what 

&AXik  ftV  ohZh  KOT*  ZlfOiiZiif^v  7€,  19,  and  he  who  says  what  is,  says 

oTfuu,  trol  Soxct  wtun  xdyra  6fAoius  the  truth ;  what  is  not,  cannot  be 

«?Kcu  Kcd  &c{.  oh9^  yhp  ti»  ofhws  cTck  said,  for  nothing  can  be  done  with 


ol  fi^y  xP^^rroX^  ol  Z\  wovjipoi,  tl  that  which    is    not.      The 

6fiolats  Siwaffi  Koi.  &ffl  iiperii  Kid  Kcucia  thesis  is  shortly  summed  up,  286 

ffty.   Seituf ,  Atath.  vii.  64,  couples  C,  thus :  ^vdrj  \4yur  oIk  i<m  .  .  . 

Protagoras  with  Euthydemus  and  ohZk  Zold(uv ;  after  Dionysodoms 

Dionysodorus :  rw  yap  'rp6s  ri  icai  has  previously  demonstrated  that 

oZrot  r6  t«  %¥  Kai  rh  aXTfih  &voXc-  as  one  cannot  sa^  what  is  not,  it  is 

Xoivaffit  whereas  Proclus,  in  Cnit,  likewise  impossible  that  different 

§  41,  repeating  the  assertions  in  persons  shoold  say  different  things 

Plato,  remarks    that    Protagoras  of  the  same  object;  for  if  one  says 

and  Euthydemos  agree  indeed  as  something  different  from  the  other, 

to  their  result,  but  not  in  their  they  cannot  be  speaking  of  tho 

points  of  departure.     This,  how-  same  object.    This  statement  also 

erer,  is  scarcely  true;  cf.  what  is  appears  in  Isocr.  Hcl,   1,  where, 

quoted,  p.  447,  2,  on  Protagoras,  however,  it  seems  to  relate  to  Ani- 

with  the  proposition    of  Euthy-  tisthenes   (concerning    whom,   cf. 

demus.  Part  n.  a,  266,  1,  3rd  ed.),  for  the 

«  Parm.  v.  89  sq.,  64  sq.,  vide  elder  sophists  are  expressly  con- 

sup.  VoL  J.  584,  1 ;  685,  3.  trasted  with  the  upholders  of  this 

*  In  Plato's  Euthyd,  283  E  sqq.,  opinion. 


458  THE  SOPHISTS. 

ticism ;  ^  and  thus  we  may  with  probability  assume  that 
observations  of  different  kinds  and  starting  from  dif- 
ferent standpoints  may  have  been  employed  without 
any  strict  logical  connection,  in  order  to  justify  the 
general  distaste  for  scientific  enquiries  and  the  sceptical 
temper  of  the  time. 

The  practical  application  of  this  scepticism  is  Eristic 
disputation.  If  no  opinion  is  true  in  itself  and  for  all 
men,  but  each  is  true  for  those  only  to  whom  it  appears 
to  be  .true,  then  every  statement  may  with  equal  right 
be  opposed  by  another ;  there  is  no  proposition  the  con- 
trary of  which  would  not  be  equally  true.  Protagoras 
himself  deduced  this  fundamental  principle  from  his 
theory  of  knowledge,*  and  though  we  are  not  told  that 
others  stated  it  so  broadly,  yet  the  nature  of  their  pro- 
cedure throughout  presupposed  it.  Serious  physical  or 
metaphysical  enquiries  are  not  ascribed  by  tradition  to 
any  of  the  Sophists.  Hippias,  indeed,  loved  to  make  a 
display  of  his  physical,  mathematical  and  astronomical 
acquirements,' but  a, thorough  enquiry  into  the  subject- 

*  Thus  Gratjlus  (vide  «fp.  p.  rally :  rb  yip  fi^  %¥  o9r^  Zuan^urid 

1 1 3  sq.)  says  in  the  Platonic  dia-  riya  o6t€  Kiy€ur  ohtrlas  yhp  o&S4r 

logue  bearing  his   name,   429  D,  oiiofifi  rh  fiii  hv  iitr^xfi". 
that  we  can  say  nothing  false :  '  i^iog>  i^*  61 '  i^P^os  1^  Svo 

ir« J  yikp  fty  ,  .  .  Ktyuv  y4  ris  rovrOt  kiyovs  tttfoi  ircpl  varrht  v^ypuaens 

%  \fyfi,  yAi  rh  %v  \iyot ;  ^  oh  rovT6  hvructtfjLivotfs  dAA^Xoif  uSs  ical  mni' 

4<rri  th  y^^v^Ti  \4yeiv,  rh  fi^  t4  5kto  pt&ra  (he  used  them  in  dialectical 

\(ytty ;  and  in  Eutkyd.  286  C,  we  questions)    'rpAros    rovro    vptffot. 

read,  in  reference  to  the  previously  Clem.  Strom,  vi.  647  A :  "EkXnt^s 

quoted  statement  of  Dlonysodorus :  ^<rt   UpmrwySpov    vfwicardp^ayrM, 

Koi  ydtp  ol  ikfipl  llponaySpw  a^Bpa  toi^tI  \Ay^  \6yo9  imiKtlfitvop  to- 

^xp^yro   avr^  koI   ol   In  va^oud-  peaKtvdnrBcu.      Sen.    E^.    88,   43: 

Tcpoi  (cf.  also  Diog.  ix.  53).     Cf.  Protagoras  ait,  de  &mni  re  in  utr^m' 

Ammon.  in  Categ.  Sckd.  in  Ar.  60  qwe  ^partem  diaputari  posse  ex  aqt» 

a,  17.    In  Soph.  241  A,  260  D,  the  et  de  hoc  ipsa,  an  onmis  res  in 

statement  tha^  there  is  no  untruth  utramque  partem  ditptUahilis  sU. 
is  ascribed  to  the  Sophists  gene-  •  Vide  swp.  p.  421  sq. 


ERISTIC  DISPUTATION. 


459 


matter  of  these  sciences  could  not  be  expected  of  him, 
and  though  Antiphon,  in  his  two  books  upon  Truth,^ 
alluded  also  to  physical  subjects,  his  attempt  to  square 
the  circle  ^  shows  that  he  had  no  special  knowledge  of 
these  subjects.  What  is  related  of  him  in  this  connec- 
tion is  either  borrowed  from  others^  or  else  falls  short  of 
the  general  level  of  natural  science  at  that  time.'  Pro- 
tagoras not  only  himself  refrained  from  giving  instruc- 
tion in  physics,  but  Plato  describes  him  as  ridiculing 
that  of  Hippias ;  *  and  Aristotle  tells  us  that,  true  to 


'  On  which,  cf.  p.  426,  4. 

'  This  attempt  is  mentioned  by 
Aristotle,  Phys.  i.  1,  185  a,  17; 
Soph,  EU  c.  11,  172  a,  2  sqq.,  but 
is  expresslj  described  as  that  of  a 
dilettante.  According  to  Simpl. 
Phy8,  12  a,  which  £ademus  here 
seems  to  follow  (Alexander  in  h,  I. 
confuses  the  solution  of  Antiphon 
with  another;  in  the  text  in  the 
Physics  he  seems  to  have  appre- 
hended it  rightly),  it  simply  con- 
sisted in  drawing  a  polygon  m  the 
circle  and  measuring  the  superficial 
content  of  the  polygon;  for  he 
thought  that  if  only  sides  enough 
were  given  to  the  polygon,  it  would 
coincide  with  the  circle. 

•  The  PlaeUa,  ii.  28,  2  (Stob. 
EcL  i.  666 ;  Galen,  H.  Ph,  c.  16,  p. 
281 ;  Joh.  Lyd.  De  Meno,  iii.  8, 
p.  39),  ascribe  to  him  the  opinion 
(which  was  also  held  by  Anax- 
agoras,  vide  tup,  p.  361)  that  the 
moon  shines  with  her  own  light, 
and  that  when  we  do  not  see  tnis, 
or  see  it  imperfectly,  it  is  because 
the  light  of  the  sun  overpowers 
that  of  the  moon.  According  to 
Stob.  E.I,  i.  624,  he  thought  the 
sun  was  a  fire,  nourished  (as  Anaxi- 
majider  and  Diogenes  also  held, 


vide  9up.  Vol.  I.  253,  295  sqq.)  by 
the  vapours  of  the  atmosphere; 
and  its  diurnal  course  is  the  result 
of  its  constantly  seeking  fresh 
nourishment  instead  of  that  which 
has  been  consumed.  According  to 
the  same  authority,  i.  668,  he  ex- 
plained lunar  eclipses  (in  agree- 
ment with  Heracleitus,  vide  sup, 
p.  68,  2)  AS  the  inversion  of  the 
boat  in  which  the  fire  of  the  mooa 
is  kept.  According  to  the  Placita, 
iii.  16,  4  (Galen,  H.  Ph,  c.  22,  p. 
2U9,,  he  said  the  sea  was  formed 
by  the  exudation  of  the  earth 
caused  by  heat  (according  to  the 
opinion  of  Anaxagoras,  vide  sup, 
p.  367,  1).  Galen,  in  Hippocr. 
f^pidsm.  T.  xyii.  a,  681,  quotes  a 
passage  from  the  treatise  named 
above,  in  which  a  meteorological 
phenomenon  (it  is  not  quite  clear 
what  phenomenon  it  is)  is  ex- 
plained. 

*  Vide  supra,  p.  431, 6.  When 
therefore  TertulUan  {fis  An.  15, 
towards  the  end)  ascribes  to  Pro- 
tagoras the  opinion  that  the  s^at 
of  the  soul  is  in  the  breast,  this 
must  refer  to  some  incidental  re- 
mark, and  not  to  an  anthropological 
theory. 


460 


THE  SOPHISTS, 


his  sceptical  standpoint,  he  found  fault  with  astronomy 
because  the  actual  positions  and  courses  of  the  stars  do 
not  coincide  with  the  figures  of  the  astronomers;*  if, 
therefore^  he  wrote  upon  mathematics,'  he  must  have 
taken  the  line  of  denying  its  scientific  certainty  and 
confining  its  practical  application  within  narrow  limits.' 
Gorgias  may  have  employed  certain  physical  theories 
occasionally  for  his  own  purposes/  but  his  scepticism 
likewise  must  have  deterred  him  from  independent  en* 
quiry  in  this  sphere,  and  such  enquiry  is  never  ascribed 
to  him.  Nor  do  we  hear  anything  of  natural  science 
in  connection  with  Prodicus,  Thrasymachus,  or  other 
famous  Sophists.^    Instead  of  an  objective  interest  in 

1  Metaph,  iii.  a,  2,  which  is 
repeated  bj  Alexander,  ad  h.  I., 
and  amplified  probably  on  his  own 
authoritj  by  Asclepiiu  {SchoL  in 
Ar.  619  b,  3).  This  statement  is 
referred  to  by  Syrian,  Metaph.  21, 
I.  c.t  Bagol. 

*  ncp2  ftaBrifiATwrf  Biog.  ix.  65 ; 
cf.  Frei,  189  sq. 

*  He  may  easily  have  admitted 
such  an  application,  and  even  have 
given  positive  instruction  in  regard 
to  it.  According  to  Diog.  /.  c.  and 
Plato,  Soph.  232  D  (infra,  461,  1), 
he  also  wrote  about  the  art  of 
wrestling;  according  to  Aristotle 
(vide  supra,  411,  2)  he  invented  a 
pad  for  porters. 

*  Sopater,  Aiafp.  Cirr,Bhet.  Gr, 
viii.  23 :  Topy,  fi^poy  9lvai  Xiyww 
rhy  fiKiop  (where  there  is  perhaps, 
however,  a  confusion  with  Anaxa- 
goras).  Plato,  Meno,  76  G:  Bo^Xci 
olv  <yoi  Karh  Topyiay  itwoKplpttfiai  \ 
.  .  .  O^KOvi^  X4yrrt  kro^ods  nyas 
r&v  6rrtty  Kwr'  *'Rfiir§9oKX4a  .  .  . 
fcol  ir6povs,  etc.  The  definition  of 
colours,  on  the  other  hand,  which 


is  combined  with  this,  is  given  by 
Socrates  in  his  own  name. 

*  A  treatise  of  Prodicus  is 
named  indeed  by  Galen,  J)e  EUm, 
i.  9  ;  T.  i.  417  K ;  2>«  Virt.  Pkys, 
ii.  9;  T.  ii.  130,  under  the  title: 
trcpl  ^(Kftwi  or  ir.  ^v(rc«f  hf9p^ 
vov ;  and  Cicero  says,  De  Orai.  iii. 
32,  128:  Quid  de  Prodico  Ckiof 
quid  de  Thrasymaeho  Ckalcedomo, 
de  Protagora  Abderita  loquarf 
quorum  unusquisqite  plurimum  tern- 
pcribtis  illis  etiam  de  natura  rerum 
et  disseruit  et  acripsit.  But  that 
this  treatise  of  Prodicus  really 
contained  physical  enquiries  is  not 
proved  by  the  title.  Cicero  in  the 
passage  quoted  only  wants  to  shov 
veteres  doctores  auetoresque  dteendi 
nuUum  ffenws  dUpnUationiB  u  m 
alietmm  putasse  semperque  esse  m 
omni  orationis  raticne  teraatos,  and 
for  this  purpose  he  instances,  be- 
sides those  just  mentioned,  not 
only  the  example  of  the  universal 
artist,  Hippias,  but  the  offer  of 
Qorgias  to  give  lectures  on  any 
given  theme.    Here,  therefore,  we 


ERISTIC  DISPUTATION. 


461 


the  knowledge  of  things,  there  is  only  the  subjective 
interest  in  the  exercise  of  a  formal  art  of  thought  and 
speech,  and  this  must  find  its  sole  task  in  the  confuting 
of  others,  when  once  any  positive  conviction  of  its  own 
is  renounced.  Eristic  disputation,  therefore,  was  directly 
involved  in  the  Sophistic  teaching ;  Zeno  having  pre- 
pared the  way,  we  find  in  Grorgias  a  demonstration  which 
is  thoroughly  eristic ;  at  the  same  time,  Protagoras 
distinctly  brings  forward  Eristic  as  a  separate  art,  for 
which  he  himself  wrote  an  introduction ;  *  and  it  finally 
becomes  so  inseparable  firom  the  Sophistic  doctrine,  that 
the  Sophists  are  shortly  designated  by  their  contempo- 
raries as  Eristics ;  and  their  doctrine  is  defined  as  the 
art  of  making  everything  doubtful,  and  of  contradicting 
every  statement.*      In    this,  however,   the   Sophistic 


hare  to  do,  not  with  natural  philo- 
sophy, but  with  orations ;  it  is, 
morsover,  a  question  how  far 
Cicero's  own  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject extended,  and  whether  he  may 
not  have  inferred  too  much  from 
titles  such  as  ir«pl  ^(Krevs^  v9p\  rod 
6yroSt  or  still  more  probably  from 
the  ambiguous  remark  of  a  pre- 
decessor on  the  difference  between 
forensicandepideictic  oratory.  (Cf. 
Welcker,  622  sq.)  Moreover  the 
fact  that  Critias  (according  to 
Arist.  De  An.  i.  2,  405  b,  5,  which 
statement  the  commentators  merely 
repeat)  supposed  the  soul  to  be 
blood,  inasmuch  as  sensation  has 
its  seat  there,  does  not  justifjrus  in 
the  conclusion  that  he  occupied 
himself  systematically  with  natural 
philosophy. 

'  Diog.  ix.  52  :  Kat  r^y  9idyoiap 
ib^U  wflbs  ro6wofia  iu\4x9ri  koX  rh 
vvp  hfnoKdQnf  yipos  t&v  ipurrucAif 


iy4yy7i<r€V  {these  words  seem  to 
have  been  taken  &om  some  tolerably 
ancient  authority),  for  which  reason 
Timon  says  of  him,  ipifffuycu  cS 
c(8fi6$.  In  §  55  Diogenes  mentions 
a  rtxyri  ipiffTtK&¥,  the  nature  of 
which  we  may  see  from  the  passage 
quoted  from  Aristotle  (infra,  p. 
462,  1);  and  Plato  says  (Soph, 
232  D)  that  from  the  writings  of 
Sophists  we  may  learn  t&  rtpl  voff&v 
T€  xal  Kwrh.  fJay  kKdffrriv  rix^^y 
h  8c(  'vphs  tKOffrov  ainhp  rhy  8i^- 
fuovpyhy  iarrtiiruy  .  .  .  t&  Tlpura- 
y6p9ia  xtpl  T«  vd\ris  xol  r&y  iWaoy 

*  Plato,  Soph.  225  G :  rh  Bi  7c 
llyr§x>'oy  (sc.  rov  ianiKoyiKov  fidpos) 
ical  irtpl  tucaiup  abrSty  koX  iMitmy 
xal  ircpt  rStv  i\K»v  SA«»f  i^i^ivfiff- 
rovy  ip*  oifK  ipiffrikby  a$  Kiytiy 
tlBlfffuBa.  The  Sophistic  doctrine 
then  consists  in  applying  this  art 
of  disputation  in  ffuch  a  manner  as 


462 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


teachers  proceeded  very  unmethodically.  The  different 
artifices  which  they  employed  were  collected  firom  all 
sides,  just  as  they  presented  themselves ;  and  the  attempt 
was  never  made  to  combine  these  various  tactics  into  a 
theory,  and  to  arrange  them  according  to  fixed  points 
of  view.  The  Sophists  cared  nothing  for  any  scientific 
consciousness  about  their  method,  but  only  for  its  direct 
application  to  particidar  cases,  and  they  therefore  made 
their  disciples  learn  quite  mechanically  the  questions 
and  fallacies  which  most  commonly  came  before 
them.* 

We  get  a  vivid  picture  of  the  Sophistic  art  of  dis- 
putation, as  it  was  constituted  in  later  times,  in  Plato's 
dialogue  of  Euthydemus,  and  in  Aristotle's  Treatise  on 


to  earn  money.  Similarly  it  is 
maintaioed  farther  on  (232  B  sqq.) 
to  be  the  general  characteristic  of 
the  Sophist  that  he  is  iuniXoytiths 
**p\  wAirrw  wp6f  kfi^tafiiinitnw, 
and  oonseqnently  it  is  »aid,  230  D 
sqq.,  that  the  art  of  the  Sophists 
resembles  the  Elenchic  art  of  So- 
crates, if  only  as  the  wolf  resembles 
the  dog.  Cf.  216  B,  where  the 
expressions  9§hs  iKtyKriKhs  and  r&p 
Tcpl  riis  Uptias  i<rwot^tuc6rttp  are 
intended  for  the  Sophists  perhaps 
in  conjunction  with  Megarian  and 
Cynic  Eristics.  Similarly  Isocrat^s 
designates  them  as  rw  trcpl  riis 
fpi9«is  JiiaTpifi6yT09V^  r&v  ».  t.  %p. 
KaKiplovfkiimr  (c.  Soph.  1,  20,  cf. 
Hel.  1),  and  Aristotle  fvide  fol* 
lowing  note)  as  ol  Wfpl  robs  ipurri' 
Kohs  \6yovs  fuffBapyovprts  (cf.  Plato, 
supra,  p.  433,  1).  Even  Demo- 
critus  complains  of  the  disputations 
people  and  their  fallacies,  supra, 
p.  275.  3. 

•»  Arist.  Soph,  EL.  33,  183  b, 


15.  As  to  other  enquiries,  he  Fays, 
he  has  only  had  to  complete  what 
others  had  begun;  rhetoric,  for 
example,  had  from  small  beginnings 
gradually  developed  to  a  consider- 
able extent^  through  the  inatru- 
mentality  of  a  Tisias,  a  Thrasyma- 
chus,  a  Theodorus :  roAr^s  Si  rqs 
irpoyfurrcfas  ott  th  fiir  ^p  rh  S*  wk 
^p  Trpo9^§ipyaa'fi4pop,  &XX*  ovS^r 
iroyrcXdf  Mipx^P.  koI  y^  rw  wtfH 
robs  4piffrutobs\Ayovsfutr9aptn^rrmr 
i/Aoia  ris  lip  ii  naSZfvfns  rp  Fopyiem 
wpayfiOTti^.  Xiyotn  yhp  ol  fi^r  ^^o- 
piKobs  ol  Si  iptmiTtKobs  49l^offap 
iKfuarO^tof,  tls  ots  TXcMTrdirtf 
ifiwivrup  t^djiffop  kKdr^poi  rahs 
ixX'tihcffP  xiyovs'  hUwip  Tax*Ui  fthf 
ftrcxi^o'  8'  4^  ^  9iZcurKaXiti  rots 
/mpBdyovai  wap*  ainuy,  ob  yap  rixfV 
hXXh  T&  iarb  rqs  t^X*^'  ScS^rrct 
troiSf  ^ii^  br^Kdfifiayop,  as  if  a  shoe* 
maker  (says  Aristotle)  were  to  give 
his  pupil  a  number  of  ready-xnade 
shoes  instead  of  instruction  in  his 
trade. 


SRISTIC  DISPUTATION.  463 

Fallacies;^  and  though  we  must  not  forget  that  the 
one  is  a  satire  written  with  all  poetic  freedom,  and 
the  other  a  universal  theory  which  there  is  no  reason 
to  restrict  to  the  Sophists  in  the  narrower  sense,  or  to 
anything  historical,  yet  the  harmony  of  these  descrip- 
tions one  with  the  other,  and  with  other  accounts,  shows 
that  we  are  justified  in  applying  them  in  all  their  es- 
sential features  to  the  Sophistic  teaching.  What  they 
tell  us  is  certainly  not  much  to  its  advantage.  The 
Eristics  were  not  concerned  about  any  scientific  result ; 
their  object  was  to  involve  their  adversary  or  interlo- 
cutor in  confusion  and  difficulties  from  which  he  could 
find  no  way  of  escape,  so  that  every  answer  that  he 
gave  seemed  incorrect ;  *  and  whether  this  object  was 
attained  by  legitimate  inferences,  or  surreptitiously  by 
means  of  fallacies,  whether  the  interlocutor  was  really 
or  only  apparently  vanquished,  whether  he  felt  himself 
vanquished,  or  only  seemed  to  the  auditors  to  be  so, 
whether  he  was  merely  silenced  or  made  ridiculous,  it 
did  not  matter  in  the  least.'  If  a  discussion  is  uncom- 
fortable to  the  Sophist,  he  evades  it ;  ^  if  an  answer  is 

1  Properly  the  ninth  book  of  defined  as  irvXXoyicrM^f  koI  tKtyxos 

the    Topica,  Tide  Waitz,  Ariatot.  <^auf6fitwos  /tkv  ovk  tbr  94. 
Ora.  ii.   628.      Ab  to   particular  *  In  -S^A.  El.  c.  16,  174  b,  28, 

fallaciefl  quoted  by  Aristotle,   cf.  Aristotle  gives  the  rule  from  the 

Alexander  in  the  Scholia;  Waitz,  standpoint  of  the  Sophists:  8«(  84 

in  his  Commentary ;  Prantl,  Geaeh,  icoi  a/^urratiivovsrov  \Ayov  t&  Xotwdi 

d.  Log,  i.  20  sqq.  rwv  hrix^ipvituiTrnv  4irir4fiy9iy  ,  .  . 

'  The    ft^vm-a    ipuriifMra,    of  ^wtx^iprrriot^  V  ipior*  koX  irfAs  &XXo 

which  the  Sophist  boasts,  Euthy'  rov  tlpiy/i^i^ov,   Uuvo    iKXa$6rrcUf 

dem,  276  E,  276  E.  ihi^  /ih  wphs  rh  Ktifitvov  txp  ^ij 

•  Cf  the  whole  of  the  Euihy-  iwixtip^itr  trtp  6  tivK6^p«tp  iwoirivt^ 

demw,  and  Arist.  Soph.  El.  c  1  xpo^A1»•^r^of    K^pw    iyKtt/udifiv. 

(cf.  c  8,  169  b,  20),  where  the  Examples  are  given  in  Euthydem. 

Sophistic  demonstration  is  shortly  287  B  sqq.,  297  B,  299  A,  etc. 


464 


THE  SOPHISTS, 


desired  of  him,  he  insists  on  asking  questions  ;  *  if  any- 
one tries  to  escape  from  ambiguous  questions  by  closer 
definition,  he  demands  yes  or  no;^  if  he  thinks  his 
adversary  knows  of  an  answer,  he  begins  by  deprecating 
all  that  can  possibly  be  said  on  that  side ;'  if  he  is  accosed 
of  contradicting  himself,  he  protests  against  bringing 
forward  things  that  are  done  with  long  ago :  *  if  he  has  no 
other  resource,  he  stupifies  his  adversaries  with  speeches, 
the  absurdity  of  which  precludes  any  reply .^  He  tries 
to  hoodwink  the  diffident  man  by  a  swaggering  mode  of 
address,^  to  surprise  the  thoughtful  man  by  hasty  infer- 


1  Euthyd,  2S7  B  sq.,  295  B  sqq. 

*  Soph,  El,  a  17,  176  b.  8 :  « 
T*  iTri(rrroviri  yvvfikv  lyrrov  irp6rr^pov 
tk  tsJaXXov  ol  ipurriKoX^  t^  ^  vol  ^ 
oh  iLwoKpl¥t(re<u.  Cf.  Euthyd,  295 
£  sq.,  297  B  sqq. 

*  Thus  ThrasjrmachTis  in  Plat. 
Bep,  i.  336  0,  chaUenges  Socrates 
to  Bay  what  is  justice :  ircU  twtts 
fioi  fui  iptis^  tht  th  94ov  i<rrX  fii)8' 
Sri  rh  o9^iKifiop  fii}S*  Sri  rh  \virtrt- 
Kovv  fii}^  8t(  rh  «i«pSa  \4otf  jUifS*  in 
rh  ^vfi/^4potf,  dAAc^  tra^s  fioi    icol 

OlfK  iaro94^ofiai,  iiiw  8d\ovs  roio6rovs 
Kiyiis,  with  which  cf.  the  answer  of 
Socrates.  337  A. 

*  This  is  done  with  the  most 
delightful  nai>et6  in  Euihi/dem, 
287  B:  ffT',  iipfi,  £  5«iic/wT€j, 
Atovwr69Mpos  throA.a3«by,  o5tms  cT 
Kp6yos,  &<rrt  &  rb  rtpArop  cfvo/icy, 
pyy  iyofUfurfiffKfi,  irol  tX  rt  wtpwruf 
•Iwov^  vv¥  iivaiwriff^iTti^  rois  8*  iy 
r^  vap6yri  Kfyofi4¥Ois  ohx  *{•**  ^  '"^ 
XPV ;  Similarly  Hippiaa  ap.  Xon. 
Mem.  iv.  4,  6,  says  ironically  to 
Socrates  :  thi  yhf  <rh  iK€tva  rA  avrk 
\4ytis,  &  iyit  ird^M  vor4  ffov  IJHOwra ; 
to  which  Socrates  replies  :  t  94  y§ 
ro^ov  i€tv6r€porf  &  'hnrlOf  oi  fUvov 


del  T^  ahra  \4yo»,  ixxit  icol  iripl  m 
avr&v.  ffb  8*  Xv»s  8i&  rh  iroXuyu^s 
fJvai  wfp\  r&v  alnmv  ovB4noTt  rk 
auriL  X4y€ts,  Plato,  Gorg.  490, 
puta  the  same  into  the  mouth  of 
Socrates  and  Gallicles ;  so  perhaps 
it  may  actually  have  been  said  by 
the  historic  Socrates. 

*  For  example  in  the  £lf%- 
demus,  where  th^  Sophists  at  litft 
admit  that  they  know  and  under 
stand  all  things,  and  even  as  little 
children  nnderstood  how  to  count 
the  stars,  mend  shoes,  &c.  (293  D) ; 
that  puppies  and  sucking  pigs  ara 
their  brothers  (298  B);  and  the 
finale,  when  the  adversary  laja 
down  his  arms  and  all  break  forth 
in  wild  excitement.  Ctesippos  ex- 
claims, vinnr^,  &  'HpcLcXcis!  and 
Dionysodorus  answers :  rirfpay 
o3y  6  *HpaK\^t  rvwwd^  itrriy  4  ^ 
wwnri4  'HpoicA^s. 

•  In  Bep,  336  C,  Thrasymachus 
introduces  himself  into  the  con- 
yersation  with  the  words :  ris  ^f 
irdKai  ^Xvapta  l^x^^  ^  Sd&Kporcs,  eoI 
rl  €unOl(*ir$€  irpbs  oAX^Xovs  &roira< 
raK\ir6ft€P0i  vfup  avrois ;  in  tlM 
Euthydemus,  283  B,  Dionysodonii 
begins  thus :   &  lti&Kpar4s  rt  ml 


ERISTIC  DISPUTATION.  466 

ences^^  to  betray  the  inexperienced  man  into  surprising 
statements^  and  clumsy  expressions.'  Assertions  that 
were  only  intended  to  have  a  relative  meaning  and  a 
limited  application,  are  taken  absolutely ;  that  which 
holds  good  of  the  subject  is  transferred  to  the  predicate ; 
from  superficial  analogies  are  deduced  the  most  extrava- 
gant conclusions.  It  is  maintained,  for  instance,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  learn  anything,  for  a  man  cannot 
learn  what  he  already  knows ;  and  he  cannot  seek  for 
that  of  which  he  knows  nothing:  the  wise  man  can 
learn  nothing,  because  he  already  knows,  and  the  foolish 
man  nothing,  because  he  does  not  understand ;  *  more- 
over, he  who  knows  anything  knows  all  things,  for  the 
man  who  knows  cannot  be  also  ignorant ;  ^  he  who  is  the 
father  or  the  brother  of  anyone,  must  be  the  father 
and  brother  of  everyone;  for  a  father  cannot  be  not 

d/AC(f  ol  JkKKoi  .  .  .  'w6rtpo¥  valCfT§  adyersary  into  wrong  expressions, 

ravra  \4yoyTtSf  ^  .  .  .  <rwov9dCer€  or  if  he  expressed  himself  rightly, 

(similarly  Callicles,  Gorg.  4S1  B) ;  into  the  opinion  that  he  was  com- 

and  when  Socrates  has  said  that  mitting  faults),  Soph.  El.  c.  14,  32, 

he  is  in  earnest,  Dionysodoms  still  and  the  notrjaai  &8oX«0'x<<v,  ibid,  c« 

warns  him :  <ric<{irct/iV)£2<&KpaTfr,  13,   31.    The  latter  consisted  in 

8iro»r  fiii  ^apms  fffei  &  vvv  X^cis.  obliging  the  enemy  to  repeat  the 

*  Soph.  El.  c.  15,  174  b,  8:  ideaof  the  subject  in  the  predicate: 

c^^pa  ik  KoX  woXhAxis  wotu  Soirciv  e.g,  rh  ffifjthp  Kot\6rrjs  ^iv6t  iirriv, 

4\ri\4yx9ai  rh  fAdXurra  ffo^urruthv  itrri  8i  pU  ffifiij,  taruf  ipa  pU  fls 

ffwto^dyniiia    r&v    4p»r^vrt0v,    rh  Koikri. 

fiJI^hv  ovWoytffofAhovs  fiii  4p<&nifui  *  This  seems  to  haye  been  a 

Tottof  rh  r^Kwrtuovy  bXKk  trvfurt-  favourite  fallacy  of  the  Sophists, 

pcan-ucws  thup,  &s  irvXAcAoyM-zi^-  and  many  different  applications  of 

yovSf  *'  ohK  &pa  rh  koI  t^.".  it  are  quoted ;  by  Plato,  Meno,  80 

'  Vide  Soph.  El.  c  12,  where  E ;  Euiht/d.  275  D  sq.,  276  D  sq. ; 

various  artifices  are  suggested  by  by  Aristotle,  Soph.  El.  c.  4,  165  b, 

which  the   interlocutor  might  be  30 ;  cf.  Metaph.  ix.  8,  1049  b,  33; 

entrapped  into  false  or  paradoxical  and  Prantl,  ^esch.  d.  Log.  \.  23. 
assertions.  *  EtUhgd.  293  B  sqq.,  where 

'  Among  the  Sophistic  devices  the  most  absurd  consequences  are 

which  Aristotle   mentions  is  the  deduced  from  this. 
Solecism  (this  was  to  mislead  the 

VOL.  n.  H  H 


466  THE  SOPHISTS. 

a  fether^  or  a  brother  not  a  brother.'  If  A  is  not  B 
and  B  is  a  human  being,  A  is  not  a  human  being.^  If 
the  negro  is  black,  he  cannot  be  white,  even  as  to  his 
teeth.'  If  I  sat  yesterday  in  a  certain  place,  but  to- 
day sit  there  no  longer,  it  is  at  the  same  time  true  and 
not  true,  that  I  sit  there.^  If  a  bottle  of  medicine  does 
a  sick  man  good,  a  cart-load  of  the  remedy  will  make 
him  still  better.^  Questions  were  raised  such  as  that 
of  the  veiled  person,*  and  difficult  cases  imagined,  such 
as  the  oath  to  swear  falsely,^  and  the  like.  The  most 
fruitful  mine,  however,  for  Sophistic  art  was  afforded 
by  the  ambiguity  of  language;'  and  the  less  the 
Sophists  were  concerned  with  real  knowledge,  and 
the  smaller  the  advance  in  that  period  towards  the 
grammatical  definition  of  words  and  propositions,  and 
towards  the  logical  distinction  of  the  various  categories, 
the  more  imrestrainedly  could  the  intellect  run  riot  in 
so  wide  a  sphere,  especially  among  a  people  so  expert 
in  speech,  and  so  accustomed  to  linguistic  catches  and 
riddles,  as  the  Greeks.*     Equivocal  expressions  were 

*  Euthyd.  297  D  sqq.,  -with  the    and  similar  catches  are  mentioned 
same  aigumentatiTe  exaggeration,      bj  Aristotle,  Soph.  El.  c.  24. 

'  Soph.  M.  c  6,  166  b,  32.  '  Some  one  has  svom  to  oommit 

*  Ibid.   167  a,  7  ;    cf.  Plato,    A  peijnry;  if  be  actually  commits  it, 
Phikb.l^'D.  isthis  cvopiccuror  lanopicfur?    SopL 

«  Soph.  El.  c.  22,  178  b,  24  ;  £2.  c.  25.  180  a,  34  sqq. 

C.  4,  166  b,  30  sq.  •  Arist.  Soph.  El.  c.  1,  166  a, 

*  Eidhyd.    290    A   sq.,   where  4 :  cTs  r&wos  9h^viaror6s  ivrt  ml 
there  are  others  of  the  same  kind.  UntJ^oi^aros  6  Zih  r&tf  itfOftdrttw^ 

*  A  reiled  person  is  shown,  beieanse  words,  being  universal  de- 
and  one  of  his  acquaintances  is  signations,  are  necessarily  ambign- 
asked  whether  he  knows  him ;  if  ous,  cf.  Plato,  Rep.  464  A,  wha« 
he  says  yes,  he  says  what  is  untrae.  Dialectic  is  characterised  as  tiie 
for  he  cannot  know  who  is  hidden  SceupciW  fcar*  cf9i7,  and  Eristic  as  the 
behind  the  yeil ;  if  he  says  no,  he  custom  /car*  aibrh  rh  ian/ta  ZtArnw 
equally  says  an  untruth,  for  he  rod  Xcx^iyros  rV  iva^riwriw. 
does  know  the  yelled  person.  These  '  Examples  are  numerouB,  no( 


ERISTIC  DISPUTATION. 


467 


taken  in  one  sense  in  the  first  proposition,  and  in 
another  in  the  second  ;  *  that  which  gave  a  right  mean- 
ing only  in  combination  was  separated;^  that  which 
ought  to  be  separated  was  united ; '  the  inconsistency 

fidBrifJLa'  ffirovScuov  Apa  fidBrifui  rb 
k€uc6p,  EtUhydem,  ap.  Aiist.  Soph. 
El.  c.  20, 177  b,  46 :  the  ambiguity 
lies  here  in  udOrffuiy  which  may 
either  mean  knowledge  in  the  sub- 
jective sense,  or  the  object  of 
knowledfi;e. 

>  So  m  the  EiUhyd.  295  A  sqq. 
'  Thou  knowest  all  things  always 
with  it  (the  soul),  ther^ore  thou 
knowest  all  things  always.'  Soph. 
El.  c.  4,  5, 166  a,  168  a:  '  Two  and 
three  are  five,  therefore  two  is  five, 
and  three  is'  five ; ' '  A  and  B  is  a 
person,  whoever,  therefore,  strikes 
A  and  B  has  struck  one  person  and 
not  several,'  and  the  like.  Snd.  c. 
24,  180  a,  8:  rb  tlyai  r&y  kcuc&p 
Ti  hyaB6v  ^  yitp  ^p6y7iais  itrrip 
iviar'fitiri  r&v  kokw,  but  if  it  be 
(so  the  conclusion  must  have  ran) 
^Turr^/iii}  rSsy  jrcurtM^,  it  is  also  rl 


only  in  the  comic  poets,  but  also 
in  Uie  common  proverbial  expres- 
sioDS.  Aristotle  speaking  of  the 
Sophistical  play  on  words  alludes 
to  those  K^fOi  ytkotoi,  which  are 
quite  according  to  Greek  popular 
taste,  e.g. :  iror^pa  t&v  fioiiw  tii- 
irpoff$€y  ri^rrtu ;  oiB^rdpa,  hW* 
HiricBw  dfA^.  Similarly  Arist. 
Ehet.  ii.  24,  1401  a,  12  quotes; 
tnrov^atop  tlvcu  ftvv,  for  from  it  come 
the  fivarffpta. 

'  For  example :  rh  Kouci  hyaBd' 
rh  yiip  Ziorra  hyoBit,  rk  9h  kok^l 
94ovTa  {Soph.  M.  4j  166  b,  34).— 
2pa  %  4pf  riSt  TOVTO  6pf ;  &p^  Z\ 
rbv  KloMk,  fio'TC  6p§  6  Kiw.~-ipa  % 
ah  ^s  •JyeUf  rovro  ffh  ^ps  thai; 
^s  8i  KlBoi^  thai,  <rb  ipa  ^s  \i0os 
thai. — ip*  itrri  aiyAvra  \4yti¥,  etc. 
—(3id.  166  b,  9,  and  c.  22.  178  b, 
29  sqq.).  Of  the  same  calibre,  and 
partly  identical  with  these,  are  the 
fallacies  in  the  Euthydemus,  287  A, 
D,300A,D,301  Csqq.).— 2p«TaCTo 
f/yti  ffii  flvou,  &y  tiy  ^]7'  «cal  4^fi 
aot  ahrots  j(PV<fBai  8  ri  &y  fio^kp ; 
iwtMf  aby  6no\oy€is  thai  rby  Aia 
Ka«  robs  &\\ovs  Btobsy  2pa  ^tffri 
ffot  abrobs  kwQ96ffBai,  etc.  (Euih. 
301  E  sq. ;  Soph.  El.  c.  17,  176  b, 
1  :  6  &y$p€tw6s  iari  r&w  (tpwv ;  yai. 
KriifMa  ipa  6  itrBponros  r&v  C4»v). 
*  What  someone  has  had,  and  has 
no  longer,  he  has  lost;  therefore 
if  of  five  stones  he  lose  one,  he  has 
lost  ten,  for  he  has  ten  no  longer.' 
'If  a  man  who  has  several  dice, 
gives  me  one  of  them,  he  has  given 
me  what  he  had  not,  for  he  has  not 
only  one'  (Soph.  M.  e.  22,  178  b, 
29  sqq.).     Tov  kokov  ffwot^euoy  Tb 


r»y  KOKwy, 

»  E.ff.  Euthyd.  298  D  sq.  (cf* 
Soph.  El.  c.  24,  179  a,  34):  'you 
have  a  dog,  and  the  dog  has 
puppies ' :  obKovy  war^p  hy  <r6s 
iffrtyf  &<rrt  abs  irwr^p  ylyytrai. 
Soph.  El.  c.  4,  166  a,  23  sq.  : 
Zvyarby  KoBiifi/eyoy  fiaBl(tiy  ical  fiii 
ypd^orra  ypdupuy,  and  the  like. 
Ibid.  c.  20,  177  b,  12  sqq.,  where 
the  following  are  given  as  falla- 
cies of  Euthydemus :  ip^  oVias  ab 
yvv  oSffas  4y  llttpaiti  rpvtiptis  4y 
2uccX(f  &v\  ('Do  you  know,  being 
in  Sicily,  that  there  are  ships  in 
the  Piraeus ; '  or :  'Bo  you  know  in 
Sicily,  the  ships  that  are  in  the 
Pirseus  ? '  This  last  interpretation 
results  from  Arist.  Rhet.  ii.  24, 
1401  a,  26.    Alexander's  explana- 


H  H  2 


468 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


of  language  in  the  use  of  words  was  employed  for 
small  witticisms  and  railleries,^  &c.  In  all  these  things 
the  Sophists  knew  neither  measure  nor  bounds.  On 
the  contrary,  the  more  glaring  the  extravagance,  the 
more  laughable  the  statement,  the  more  exquisite  the 
absurdity  in  which  the  interlocutor  was  involved,  the 
greater  was  the  amusement,  the  higher  the  renown  of 
the  dialectic  pugilist,  and  the  louder  the  applause  of 
the  listeners.  Of  the  great  Sophists  of  the  first  genera- 
tion, indeed,  we  may  with  certainty  assume,  even 
judging  from  Plato's  descriptions,  that  they  never 
descended  to  this  level  of  charlatanism  and  bufiboneij 


tion  of  the  passage  does  not  seem 
to  me  correct):  dp*  fflrrt*',  iiyadhv 
6vra  &Kvr4a  tiox^'np^'^  ttwat; — J^' 
iXridks  tlwtiv  pvv  8ti  frh  y4yovas ; — 
9b  KiBapi(i»v  fxc  ^{fvayiiv  rov  iriOa- 
p(ff  cr  KiOa^ctM  tof  ipa  oO  Ki$apl(tt9. 
Aristotle,  in  all  these  cases,  ascribes 
the  fallacy  to  the  trOvB^fris^  the  false 
combination  of  -words,  and  this  is 
quite  right ;  the  ambiguity  is  based 
upon  the  fact  that  the  words: 
vwrhp  tbp  <r6s  iaript  may  either 
mean  '  he  is,  beine  a  father,  yours,' 
x>T  *  it  is  he  who  is  your  father ;  * 
that  K^iievov  fMii(ti¥  d^ratrtei 
means '  to  be  as  a  person  sitting  in  a 
position  to  go,'  and  also  '  to  be  in  a 
position  to  go  sitting ; '  that  i-yaBbv 
6vra  <rmn4a  imx^j^v  €lrai  means 
'  to  be  a  good  cobbler  and  a  bad 
(man) '  and  '  to  be  a  good  cobbler 
and  a  bad  cobbler ; '  that  tUrtiy  vvy 
8t*  ah  y4yo¥tu  means  *  to  say  now 
that  you  came  into  the  world '  and 
also  'to  say  that  you  now  came 
into  the  world,'  &c. 

>  Soph,  El.  c.  4,  166  b,  10  c.  22 ; 
Aristotle  calls  this  'wapik  rh  trxrifM 
rifs  \i^€ooSf  and  quotes  as  an  ex- 


ample, 2f*  ip94x^oi  rh  tsM  E^ 
TOi€ty  re  Kol  wfToirjKipai ;  o5.  ijixk 
fihf  6p^v  'y4  Ti  UfM  Kok  iwpvKnu  ri 
ahrh  4ca2  Kork  rubrh  M4x^^  ^^ 
the  fallacy  here  arises  £rom  the 
analogy  of  »oi€?r  ri  being  applied, 
on  account  of  the  similarity  q£  the 
grammatical  form,  to  6p^9  ri.  To 
the  same  class  belong  the  state- 
ments of  Protagoras,  caricat^ired 
by  Aristophanes  (C2otM&,  601  sqq.), 
on  the  gender  cf  words,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  analogy  we  must 
say  6  foivis  and  6  iH|Xi7{  {Soph,  B. 
14, 173  b,  19).  Concerning  another 
kind  of  grammatical  paralogism, 
the  play  upon  words  whidi  aie 
distinguished  only  by  their  pro- 
nunciation and  accents,  as  o6  and 
oS,  Hiioficw  and  9tl^iup  (Soph.  EL 
c.  4,  166  b.  o.  c.  21).  Aristotle 
himsdf  says  that  examples  of  it 
never  came  across  him  either  in 
the  writings  of  the  Sophists,  or  in 
oral  tradition,  because  these  fiskl'- 
lacies  are  always  detected  in  speech, 
to  which  the  arts  of  the  Sophists 
always  had  reference. 


ETHICAL  DOCTRINES.  469 

and  childish  deHght  in  foolish  witticisms;  but  their 
immediate  successors,  from  all  that  we  know,,  appear  to 
have  done  so,  and  they  themselves  at  any  rate  prepared 
the  way  for  this  degeneracy.  For  they  were  incontes- 
tibly  the  founders  of  Eristic  disputation.'  If,  however, 
we  once  enter  on  the  downward  path  of  a  dialectic  which 
cares  not  for  truth  of  fact,  but  only  for  the  display  of 
personal  prowess,  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  halt  at  will : 
pugnacity  and  vanity  have  full  sway,  and  allow  them^* 
selves  aU  the  advantage  which  this  standpoint  affords ; 
and  such  a  dialectic  will  claim  the  right  to  exercise 
this  principle  until  it  is  refuted  by  a  higher  principle 
The  Eristic  off-shoots  of  the  Sophistic  teaching  are, 
therefore,  as  little  accidental  as  the  insipid  formalities 
of  Scholasticism  in  later  times,  and  if  we  are  bound  to 
discriminate  between  the  quibbling  of  a  Dionysodorus 
and  the  argumentation  of  a  Protagoras,  we  ought  not  to 
forget  that  the  one  is  the  lineal  descendant  of  the  other. 

6.  The  opinions  of  the  Sophists  concerning  Virtue  and  Justice^ 
Folitics  and  Religion,     The  Sophistic  Rhetoric. 

The  remarks  at  the  conclusion  of  the  last  chapter  may 
also  be  applied  to  the  Ethics  of  the  Sophist.  The 
founders  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine  did  not  proclaim  the 
theory  of  life  corresponding  with  their  scientific  stand- 
point so  unreservedly  as  their  successors — in  some  cases 
they  did  not  proclaim  it  at  all ;  but  they  scattered  the 
seeds  from  which  by  a  historical  necessity  it  could  not 
fail  to  be  developed.  Although,  therefore,  we  must 
>  Cf.  p.  461  sq. 


470  THE  SOPHISTS, 

always  distinguish  between  the  beginnings  of  Sophistic 
Ethics  and  the  later  and  more  completed  form,  yet  we 
must  not  on  that  account  overlook  their  mutual  inter- 
dependence and  their  common  presuppositions. 

The  Sophists  professed  to  be  teachers  of  virtue,  and 
they  regarded  this  as  their  peculiar  task,  because  they 
did  not  believe  in  the  scientific  knowledge  of  things 
and  had  no  taste  for  it.  The  conception  of  duty  seems 
to  have  been  accepted  by  the  elder  Sophists  in  the  same 
sense,  and  with  the  same  indeterminateness,  as  by  their 
compatriots  generally  at  that  time.  They  included 
under  this  name  all  that  according  to  Oreek  ideas  con- 
stituted the  capable  man  ;  on  the  one  side  all  practical 
and  useful  arts,  including  bodily  activity,  but  especially 
all  that  is  of  value  in  domestic  and  civil  life ; '  on  the 
other  side,  ability  and  uprightness  of  character.  That 
the  latter  was  not  excluded,  and  that  the  Sophistic 
teachers  of  the  first  generation  were  far  from  opposing 
on  principle  the  prevailing  moral  theories,  is  clear  from 
all  that  we  know  of  their  Ethics.  Protagoras,  in 
Plato's  dialogue,  promises  his  pupil  that  every  day  that 
he  passes  in  his  company  he  shall  become  better,  he 
will  make  him  a  good  father  of  a  &mily  and  a  brave 
citizen  ;  ^  he  calls  duty  the  most  beautiful  of  all  things ; 

>  Cf.  p.  431  sq.    Now,  there-  belongs  which,  thongh  somewhat 

fore,  we  meet  with  attempts  at  more  detailed,  might  weU  form  part 

political  theories,  e.g,  the  treatise  of  an  independent  theoretical  diF- 

of  Protagoras,  rcpl  iroAirc/os  (Diog.  cnssion  such  as  the  Sophists  loved, 

iz.  55)  and  the  works  mentioned,  in  historical  language,  ooneeming 

Wipra,  p.  428,  of  Hippodamus  and  the  value  of  the  Uiree  forms  of  go- 

Pbaleas,  of  whom  the  former,  ao-  vemment  (cf.  p.  473,  1;  473,  6); 

cording  to    Aristotle,   opens    the  possibly  it  may  have  been  actually 

series  of  theoretical  politicians  in  taken  from  a  discussion  of  this  kind. 
Greece.     To  these  also  the  famous  ■  Prot,  318  A,  £,  sq.  (n^.  p. 

exposition  of  Herodotus  (iii.  80-82)  430,  8;  431  5). 


ETHICAL  DOCTRINES.  471 

he  does  not  regard  every  pleasure  as  a  good,  but  only 
pleasure  in  the  beautiful ;  nor  is  all  pain  an  evil.^  In 
the  mythus^  which  Plato  has  chiefly  taken  from  a 
treatise  of  Protagoras  ^  we  read :  <  The  beasts  have  their 
natural  means  of  defence ;  to  men,  the  gods  have  given 
for  their  protection  the  sense  of  justice  and  the  ab- 
horrence of  wrong  {hUt)  and  aiJ^ois) ;  these  qualities 
are  implanted  in  every  man  by  nature,  and  if  they 
should  be  wanting  in  anyone,  that  person  could  not  be 
tolerated  in  any  commonwealth :  in  political  questions, 
therefore,  all  have  a  voice,  and  all  take  part,  by  means 
of  instruction  and  admonition,  in  the  moral  education 
of  youth.'  Justice  appears  here  as  a  law  of  nature,  the 
subsequent  distinction  of  natural  and  positive  right  is 
still  alien  to  the  orator.  The  natural  disposition  re- 
quires to  be  cultivated,  Protagoras  says,  by  instruction, 
but  on  the  other  hand  instruction  can  only  attain  its 
end  when  nature  and  habit  come  to  its  aid.^  Grorgias 
declined,  indeed,  both  the  name  and  the  responsibility 

>  ProL  349  E,  351  B  sqq.    In  on  the  other  hand,  Rh,  Mu9,  Tii. 

what  is  said  349  B,  on  the  parts  466,  believes  that  this  is  the  title 

of  virtue,   there  can  scarcely  be  of  a  rhetorical  work.    I  am  in- 

anything  really  derived  from  Pro-  dined  to  refer  it  to  the  Politeiti, 

tagoras.  *  Vide  the  irords  from  the  M^af 

'  I.  c.  320  C  sqq.  \^s  of  Protagoras,  in  Cramer, 

•  Steinhart,  PI,  Werke,  i.  422,  Anted,,  Paris,  i.  171  (Mallach,  Ft, 

doabts  this,  because  the  my  thus  is  Philos.   ii.   134,   9):    ^(^<r«wr    ica* 

quite  worthy  of  Plato,   but  why  dundiirws  8i8acricaA.(a  8e<Tcu'  Kctl  &irb 

should  it  be  too  good  for  Prota-  t^t^nrros  8i  iiff^afUpovs  8<<  ftopBd' 

goras  ?    The  language  has  a  pecu-  iftiK    Here  the  question  is  already 

liar  colouring,  and  the  thoughts  suggested,  which  Plato  asks  at  the 

and  their  investiture  are  quite  in  begioniog  of  the  Meno,  and  with 

the  style  of  the  Sophists.    From  which  philosophy  has  so  greatly 

what  work  it  is  taken  it  is  impos-  occupied  itself  ever  since  the  time 

sible  to  discover;  Frei,  182  sqq.,  of  Socrates,  viz.  how  instruction  is 

thinks,  and  others  agree  with  him,  related  on  the  one  hand  to  natural 

that  it  is  from  the  treatise,  irtpl  disposition,  and  on  the  other  to 

rrjs  iv  iipxS  Karaardjttts ;  Bernays,  moral  practice  ? 


472 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


of  a  teacher  of  virtue ;  at  any  rate,  in  his  later  life ; ' 
but  this  does  not  hinder  him  from  speaking  about 
virtue.  He  did  not,  however,  attempt  any  general 
definition  of  its  nature,  but  described  in  detail  wherein 
consisted  the  virtue  of  the  man  and  of  the  woman,  of 
the  old  man  and  of  the  boy,  of  the  freeman  and  of  the 
slave,  without  departing  from  the  prevailing  opinion.* 
Plato  does  not  accuse  him  of  immoral  principles ;  Gor- 
gias  rather  hesitates  about  proceeding  to  the  inferences 
of  a  Callicles.'    Nor  did  Hippias,  in  that  discourse  in 


>  Plato,  Meno,  96B:  W  Sol  8^; 
ol  co^urred  troi  olroi,  dhtp  fi6rot 
iwayy4\Kotnaty  9oKov<n  iiBdurtmXoi 
clrai  dfMT^s ; — Koi  Topylov  ftdKiffrOf 
i  2«ifrparcs,  ravra  Byafuu,  Srt  oitK 
Hw  rorc  aibrov  rovro  iuso^ats  ^i- 

KoroycXf,  trca^  iuto{nrff  6ricrxM>v- 
fiivonr  iAAi  Xtfyciy  ofrroi  Sctlr  tmcZt 
Scuro^s.  Cf.  Gorg,  449  A ;  PhUd>, 
68  A. 

>  Arist.  PM,  i.  13,  1260  a, 
27 :  The  moral  problem  is  not  the 
same  for  different  persons;  we 
ought  not,  therefore,  to  define 
virtue  universally  as  Socrates  does : 
voKh  yiip  Afutyoy  K^yovtruf  ol  ^|a- 
piBnoviTts  r&f  Apcr^,  fiovcp  Top- 
yiof.  After  this  evidence  we  may 
the  more  readily  ascnbe  to  Gorgias 
himself  what  Hato  in  the  Mmo, 
71  I)  sq.,  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
the  disciple  of  Gorgias,  wit]i  express 
reference  to  his  master:  rC  ^s 
iperifv  thou ;  .  .  .  'AXX'  oO  xaXcv^^f 
d  Sfliivparcf,  ttwup,  wp&rop  ft^p^  ct 
fiodkti,  iLp9fhs  itprr^Pt  ^Swv,  Sri 
aSrti  iarhf  hpZphs  iiprrh,  iKoyhv  tJyai 
t4  t^j  v6\€vs  wpdrrttv  koI  wpdr- 
ropra  rohs  filp  i^lXovs  e3  iroicur 
robs  8*  ix^P^'  koxms,  koI  alrrhp 
thXafiwrBat  firid^p  roiovrop  ira0ctv. 
(Gf.,  in  regard  to  this  principle, 


Welcker,  Kl,  8chr\ftm,  ii.  522  sq.) 
cl  tk  iBo^Xfi  yupouchs  jfcprr^r,  oi 
XaXfT^y  8i«A9crv,  5r»  8«r  oMiip  tV 
oijciair  f8  ot«ctv  a^ovcdtf  re  t& 
Mop  irol  icar^iroov  oZcaw  rod  h^flhs. 
KoL  SXkii  4orl  ratios  iiperTi  md  tfqXcIos 
Kol  if^tpos  Koi  wp^fivripoo  Mp^t, 
el  fi^p  /So^Xct  4\9\A4pov,  c<  U  fio6Ktt 
9o6Kov.  KOi  AaAoi  trdEf&ToAAfti  iptrai 
tlciP,  Airrt  o&ir  iaropia  tiwtiP  i^rr^s 
v4pi  Z  ri  fffrt*  Koff  kioim^p  yitp  rwp 
wpd^tmp  ica2  r&p  ^Kuu&p  wp!^s  ?«•• 
crop  fpyop  iKdffr^  iffu»r  ii  iprrii 
4<rrtp,  itiroArots  U,  olfuu,  &  XAttpa- 
Tct,  icoi  4i  KOfcio.  The  more  genual 
definitions  which  are  extort^  from 
Meno  (73  C,  77  B)  cannot  with 
certainty  be  ascribed  to  Gorgias, 
though  some  isolated  ezpresnions 
of  his  may  perhaps  be  employed  in 
them.  Plutarch,  JHful.  r*rt.  p.  242, 
quotes  a  few  words  from  him  on 
female  virtue.  Fobs,  p.  47.  rightly 
applies  to  virtue  the  apophthegm 
ap.  Procl.  ad  Hedod.  Opp.  340, 
Gaisfoid,  on  Being  and  appear- 
ance. 

■  G(yrg.  459  E  sq.,  ct  482  C, 
456  G  sqq.  Likewise  what  Plu- 
tarch quotes  from  him,  Jh  Adulat. 
et  Am,  23,  p.  64 :  •  We  must  not, 
indeed,  require  from  our  friends 
wrong-doing,  but  we  must  be  ready 


ETHICAL  DOCTRINES.  473 

which  he  imparted  rules  of  life  to  Neoptolemus  through 
Nestor,'  set  himself  in  opposition  to  the  customs  and 
opinions  of  his  countrymen.*  As  to  Prodicus,  it  is  well 
known  that  his  doctrine  of  virtue  was  approved,  even 
by  those  who,  in  other  respects^  had  no  leaning  to  the 
Sophists.  His  Heraclea^^  which  gained  for  him  so 
much  praise,  portrayed  the  worth  and  the  happiness  of 
virtue,  and  the  pitifulness  of  an  effeminate  life,  given 
over  to  the  pleasures  of  the  senses.  In  a  discourse  on 
wealth  he  seems  to  have  taught  that  riches  in  them- 
selves are  not  a  good,  but  that  all  depends  upon  thdir 
employment ;  for  the  licentious  and  intemperate  it  is  a 
misfortune  to  possess  the  means  of  satisfying  their 
passions/  Lastly,  a  discom*se  upon  death  is  mentioned, 
in  which  he  described  the  ills  of  life,  praised  death  as 
the  deliverer  &om  these  ills,  and  silenced  the  fear  of 
death  with  the  reflection  that  death  can  affect  neither 
the  living  nor  the  dead ;  not  the  living,  for  they  are 
still  alive,  and  not  the  dead,  for  they  exist  no  more.^ 
In  all  this,  there  is  little  to  be  found  in  the  way  of  new 
thoughts  and  scientific  definitions,^  but  as  little  on  the 

to  do  Teroni?    for  them,'  hardly  '  Ap.  Xen.  Mem,  ii.  1,  21  sqq. 

contradicts  the    prevailiDg  moral  *  Efyxicu,  395  £,  396  E,  897  D. 

notions,  while  it  presupposes  in  a  *  JxtochuSj  366  C,  369  C.  That 

general  manner  the  idea  of  right.  what  follows,  especially  the  aiga- 

'The    substance  of   these   is  mentsforthebelief  in  immortality, 

gireninthe(7rea^^7))pta«,286A,  370  C  sqq.,  is  likewise  borrowed 

no  doubt  correctly :   Neoptolemus  from  Prodicus  seems  to  me  impro- 

asks  Nestor :  wold  itrri  koA^  iiririi'  bable  ;  and  the  author  does  not  in 

Mfutra^  h  &p  Tis  iwirri^mas  vios  any  way  assert  it    This  Tery  cir- 

i^v tv9oKifA^afros  yivotro*  fierkravra  cnmstance,  however,  speaks  for  the 

Ml  \4ytfy  iffrly  h  Utirrup  Kot  6iroT<-  credibility    of    the    preyious    ro- 

94fuyos  a&Tf)  ir^iroAXa  vS/u/ia  ica)  ferances  to  that  Sophist 
vdyicoXa.  *  Heracles  at  the  cross-ways  is 

'  He  there  boasts  of  the  success  only  a  new  investiture  of  thoughts 

of  his  lectures  in  Sparta.  which  Hesiod  had  already  brought 


474  THJB  SOPHISTS. 

other  hand  of  Sophistic  cavilling  at  moral  principles.^ 
Prodicus  appears  here  rather  as  a  panegyrist  of  t-he  oli 
customs  and  theory  of  life,'  as  an  adherent  of  the  school 
of  the  practical  sages  and  gnomic  poets,  of  Hesiod  and 
Solon,  Simonides  and  Theognis.  If,  therefore,  the  So- 
phistic morality  were  to  be  judged  of  from  the  relation 
in  which  the  first  Sophists  placed  themselves  to  the 
thought  of  their  nation,  there  would  be  no  ground  for 
any  distinction  between  them  and  the  ancient  sages. 

This,  however,  is  not  the  true  state  of  the  case. 
Although  the  founders  of  the  Sophistic  teaching  may 
have  been  unconscious  of  raising  an  opposition  to  the 
prevailing  principles,  their  whole  point  of  view  must 
have  tended  in  that  direction.  Sophistic  opinion  is  in 
itself  a  transcending  of  the  previous  moral  tradition : 
by  its  very  existence  it  proclaims  this  tradition  to  be 
inader[uate.  If  we  had  simply  to  follow  common  habits 
and  customs,  special  teachers  of  virtue  would  be  un- 
necessary, every  man  would  learn  by  intercourse  with 
his  family  and  acquaintance  what  he  had  to  do.  If,  on 
the  contrary,  virtue  is  made  the  object  of  special  in- 

foTwaxd  in  the  well-known  passage  older  than  Simonides,  if  it  did  not 

on  the  path  of  viTtue  and  of  vice,  transcend  the  simple  notions  of  the 

'£.  K,  'H17.  285  sqq.     With  the  pas-  poets,  and  were  deficient  in  philoso- 

sage  of  the  Eryxiaa  Weleker,  p.  493,  phic  definiteness  and  importance.* 
justly  compares  sajings  of  Solon  ^  I    agree    with  Weleker    (p. 

(vide  9ujp,  VoL  L  p.  116,  2),  and  532)  that  the  semi-endsemonistic 

Theognis  (vide  v.    145  sqq.,  2^0  basis  of  the  moral  admonitions  in 

sqq.,   815   sqq.,   719   sqq.,   1155).  the  discourse  on  Heracles  are  not 

The  same  author  shows  (p.  502  far  removed  from  the  standpoint 

sqq.)  that  the  euthanasia  of  Axio-  of  ordinary  Greek  morality  (which 

chus  is  specially   grounded   upon  Plato  frequently  censures  for  this 

Cean  customs  and  theories  of  life ;  reason,  e.g.  in  the  Pkado,  68  D  sqq.)- 
and  at  p.  434  he  makes  this  general  *  His  Praise  of  AffricuUure  is 

remark  :  *  The  wisdom  of  Prodicus  rightly    brought    into    connection 

(in  Plato)  might  be  said  to    be  with  this,  by  Weleker,  p.  496  sq. 


MORAL  SCEPTICISM.  475 

structioD,  it  can  neither  be  asked  nor  expected  that  this 
instruction  should  be  limited  to  the  mere  tradition  of 
ancient  usage,  or  to  the  imparting  of  rules  of  life  which 
do  not  affect  moral  conduct:  the  teachers  of  virtue 
must  do  as  the  Sophists  did  from  the  first — they  must 
enquire  wherein  virtue  consists,  why  it  deserves  to  be 
preferred  to  vice,  &c.  To  this  question,  however,  on 
the  presupposition  of  the  Sophistic  standpoint,  only 
one  logical  answer  was  possiblev^  If  there  is  no  truth 
of  universal  validity,  there  can  be  no  universally  valid 
law ;  if  man  in  his  opinions  is  the  measure  of  all 
things,  he  is  so  also  in  his  actions :  if  for  each  man 
that  is  true  which  appears  to  him  true,  that  which 
seems  to  each  right  and  good,  must  be  right  and  good. 
In  other  words,  everyone  has  the  natural  right  to 
follow  his  caprice  and  inclinations,  and  if  he  is  hindered 
from  doing  so  by  law  and  custom,  it  is  an  infringement 
of  this  natural  right,  a  constraint  with  which  no  one  is 
bound  to  comply,  if  he  has  the  power  to  break  through 
or  evade  it» 

These  inferences  were  very  soon,  indeed,  actually 
drawn.  Though  we  may  not  consider  as  an  adequate 
proof  of  this  the  words  which  Plato  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Protagoras  on  the  subject,'  since  they  pro- 
bably exaggerate  that  Sophist's  own  declarations,*  yet 
the  promise  to  make  the  weaker  case  the  stronger' 
has  a  suspicious  sound ;  for,  if  the  orator  can  venture 
to  boast  that  he  is  in  a  position  to  help  wrong  to  gain 

>  Theat.    167    C:    oW   7'  ar  «  Vide  «/p.  p.  470, 

iKdurr^  ir^Xci  ^Uccua  Kcd  ncoX^  Bok^  'On    the     menning    of    this 

ravra  iccU  ^hai  aifrp  has  &y  abrk    promise,  vide  ii^.  488,  1. 


476 


THE  SOPHISTS, 


the  victory,  feith  in  the  inviolability  of  right  must 
necessarily  be  shaken*  It  was  still  more  endangered 
by  the  discrimination  and  opposition  of  natural  and 
positive  right,  that  favourite  theorem  of  the  later 
Sophistic  ethics  which  we  hear  first  clearly  and  defi- 
nitely enunciated  by  Hippias.  Xenophon  represents 
this  Sophist  as  disputing  the  moral  obligation  of  laws, 
because  they  so  often  change,'  while  he  acknowledges 
as  divine  or  natural  law  only  that  which  is  everywhere 
equally  observed  ;^  but  how  little  of  such  law  exists,  his 
archaBological  enquiries  might  have  been  sufficient  to 
show  him.  In  Plata*  he  says  that  law,  like  a  tyrant, 
compels  men  to  do  much  that  is  contrary  to  nature. 
These  principles  soon  appear  as  the  Sophists*  general 
confession  of  faith.  In  Xenophon,*  the  young  Alcibiades, 
the  friend  of  the  Sophistic  doctrine,  already  expresses 
himself  in  the  same  manner  as  Hippias,  and  Aristotle  ^ 


*  Menu  iv.  4,  14,  after  Socrates 
has  reduced  the  eonception  of  jus- 
tice to  that  of  lawfuloess :  ¥6iun» 
8*,  1^,  2  "X&K^rts,  ir&s  &k  ris 
iiyfiaturo  ffirovicuop  vpayfut  cTkcu  ff 
rh  ire(9c<r0ai  airrois,  otis  y  iroXA^ctf 

furenlBtrrcu ; 

'  /.  c.  19  sqq.,  Hippias  allows 
that  thfire  are  also  unwritten  laws, 
will*  f-  ^.jM..r,I  jiuifl  theffods;  but 
ftmoiiif  those  ho  will  only  reckon 
those  which  ar?  everywhere  recog- 
tiimd,  «ueh  as  veneration  of  the 
pAh  und  of  pirents;  while  on  the 
Qih^T  Imnd,  for  example,  the  pro- 
hibition of  incuHt,  being  against 
r.ha  custom  of  many  nations,  is  not 
kicluded  in  th*  number. 

»  ProL  237  a 

*  Mim,  1.  %  40  sqq. 


•  S(ypk,  El.  c   12.  178^  a,   7' 

vapdZo^a  \4y€ip  &4nrtp  koI  6  KoXX*- 
Kkijs  iv  r^  Topyi^  y4ypcarr<u  X^Twr, 
ical  ol  &pxa<ot  8i  wdvT^s  ^rro 
(rvfi/3a(yciy,  wapii  rh  mrr^  ^^ai»  mU 
KOT^  rhv  y6fiopf  iwoprla  ykp  §bmt 
^iatM  ical  if6fioVy  kclL  r^y  Sacoiocr^nir 
nark  y6iioy  fihy  cTvou^icaX^y  mark 
^vffof  t  oh  KaX6v,  Similarly, 
Plato,  Theift.  172  B:  iv  rols  6- 
Koiois  Kal  iubiKOiS  ical  balois  leaX  &yo- 
ffiois  i$(hov<ny  l(r;^up{(c«^af,  &s  «&k 
fan  <p6<r9i  alnup  obiky  oMap  iavrov 
^X^^t  &AX&  rh  Koar^  8<S|av  rovre 
yiymrai  hKrfi\i  iroaf  8^^  «al  %vop 
&v  Sofcp  XP^^**^'  *^^  '^®'  7*  ^ 
fiil  Tcundircun  rhp  TlfwraySpw  K^ 
yov  \4yovfftp  55/  »a»j  rifp  tro^tuf 
iyovai. 


NATURAL  AND  POSITIVE  RIGHT.  477 

describes  as  one  of  the  most  popular  Sophistic  common- 
places the  assertion  of  the  Platonic  Callicles*  that 
nature  and  custom  stand  in  most  cases  in  contradiction. 
Now  it  would  not  unconditionally  follow  from  this 
that  universal  moral  principles  are  founded  only  on 
ancient  eustom,and  not  on  nature;  for  the  contradiction 
may  in  itself  arise  from  the  positive  law  being  behind 
the  strict  requirements  of  the  law  of  nature.  And 
examples  are  not  wanting  where  the  independence  of 
ancient  custom,  claimed  by  the  Sophists,  moved  them  to 
attacks  upon  institutions  which  we  can  only  regard  as 
prejudices  or  imperfections  of  the  laws  of  that  time. 
Lycophron  declares  nobility  to  be  an  imaginary  ad- 
vantage ;^  Alcidamas  points  out  that  the  contrast  of 
slave  and  freeman  is  unknown  to  nature,  and  others  go 
so  &r  as  to  impugn  slavery  as  an  institution  contrary  to 
nature.'    But  we  can  easily  see  that  their  attacks  upon 

>  Gorg.  4S2  E  sqq.     The  fact  h  8'  tv  fierdBwrreu  Kot  thay,  r<$Tc 

that  Callicles  was  not  a  Sophist  in  Kdpta  t^xcurra  thnu,  yty¥6n€pm  rSxvp 

the  narrower  sense,  bnt  a  politician,  «cal  ro7s  y6fiois,    &XX*    ob  8^  rivc 

who  sometimes    spoke  with  con-  ^^m  (exactly  the  same  argument 

siderable  contempt  of  this  fruitless  which,  according  to  476, 1,  Hippias 

argumentation  (vide  sup.  p.  427),  had  employed), 
is  unimportant.     Plato  certainly  ■  P8.-Plut.   De  NchUit.  18,  2. 

intends  us  to  regard  him  as  a  re-  Is  the  tiyivta  r&v  rtfd^ty  «ral  awov' 

presentative  of  the  Sophistic  cul-  8a/»y,^iva9iircpAvic^^/x»r^<ro^urT^f 

tnre,  who  does  not  hesitate  to  push  iypca^t  hcui^6p  [iccv^k,  cf.  Meineke, 

it  to  its  extreme  consequences.    It  ad  8toh.  Florit  86,  24]  ri  frAyntw ; 

is  evidently  of  the  Sophists  and  iKtiyos  y^p  iufrnrapafidX\w  Mpois 

their  disciples  of  whom  Plato  is  ityaBois  avr^y,  tbytp^las  fi^p  o^y, 

chiefly  thinking,  when,  in  the  Zaiof,  ^<rly,  &^arlf  rb  icdAXor,  4p  \6y^ 

X.  889  D,  he  tells  us  of  pwple  84  rh  trtfUfSp. 
who  maintain  r^¥  woiM^vrlvf  Totreuf  '  Arist.  says,  Pol,  i.  3,  1250  b, 

oh  ^<rc<,  rdxril  94-  lis  oImc  ii\fi$€is  20  :  roh  84  ircipik  ^it^w  poKct  c7mu] 

cfnu  T&s  9^(rc(f  .  .  .  T&  K!a>k  ^v^i  rb   8c0w^((fr.     rtf^ty  yip   rhy  ^4y 

ft4r  ftAAa  cTnii,  p6fA^  84  frepa,  t&  thvXop  tlyat  rhw  8*  i\t6$9pop,  ^^au 

84  8(fccua  ohV  thu  rtnrapdiray  ^^ci,  8'  oMp  9ta^4p€tp.  9t6T»p  oW  tUeuov 

iX\*itti/^ia'fivr''ovPTat9iart\t7pk^X^'  $laiop  ydp.    Alcidamas  expressed 

\ois  Kol  fjLervri9^fi4pous  &el  ratrra*  himself  in  a  similar  manner,  as 


478 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


positive  laws  would  not  be  confined  to  such  cases.  Lair 
and  ancient  usage  had  been  hitherto  the  only  moral 
authority ;  if  this  authority  were  no  longer  binding, 
all  moral  obligation  was  open  to  question,  belief  in  its 
inviolability  was  declared  to  be  a  prejudice,  and  so  long 
as  no  new  basis  of  moral  life  was  indicated,  there 
remained  only  the  negative  result  that  every  moral  and 
judicial  law  is  an  unjust  and  unnatural  restriction  of 


Vahlen  proves  (p.  604  8q.  of  the 
treatise  quoted  tupra,  p.  425,  5\ 
from  Arist.  Bhet,  i.  13,  1373  b,  18, 
where  Aristotle  appeals  in  support 
of  the  theory  of  a  universal  natural 
law  to  his  M€inniyuut6s ;  and  the 
Scholion  {Orat.  Mtici,  ii.  164) 
quotes  fyom  that  work  these  words, 
which  originallj  appear  to  have 
stood  in  the  Aristotelean  t^xt: 
iKtv$4pws  &^Kff  wdanas  9«br,  ol94tfa 
9ov?iOv  ii  ^{fots  w^wolriKMP.  Yet 
Aristotle  does  not  seem  to  be 
thinking  specially  of  him  in  the 
passage  quoted  above  from  the 
Politics,  For  the  Mtatnipuuchs  (as 
Vahlen  has  conclusively  shown,  p. 
604  sqq.)  had  a  definite  practical 
purpose — that  of  effecting  the  re- 
cognition of  the  restored  Mes- 
senians  after  the  battle  of  Man- 
tinea  ;  and  as  in  this  it  ran 
counter  to  the  feelings  of  the 
Spartans,  who  strongly  disliked 
having  their  Helots  (intermingled 
with  the  Messenians)  for  indepen- 
dent neighbours  (as  Isocrates  says, 
Archid,  28,  cf.  8,  87,  96)— it  was 
quite  fitting  to  remind  tbem  that 
the  opposition  of  slaves  and  free- 
men was  not  absolute,  that  all  men 
are  by  nature  free-bom.  On  the 
other  hand,  an  attack  on  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  whole  institution  of 
slavery,  such  as  is  presupposed  in 


the  Politio8y  the  declaration  that  this 
social  arrangement,  which  through- 
out Hellas  constitnted  a  lawful 
right,  was  a  wrong—such  an  attack 
ooald  only  damage  the  effect  of 
the  discourse.  Aristotle,  however, 
speaks  in  Polit.  i.  6,  1265  a,  7,  of 
▼oX\o)  rAy  ip  rots  p6ftats,  who 
accuse  slavery  of  injustice ;  and  in 
c.  3,  either  ne  or  the  adversaiy 
whom  he  has  primarily  in  view, 
sums  up  these  accusations  (as  the 
trimeter:  p6fi^  yiip  hs  iihf  SovAcr 
ts  V  iKfiBtpos  shows,  which  also 
betrays  itoelf,  c  6,  1255  b,  5)  in 
the  words  of  a  tragic  poet,  possibly 
Euripides  (from  whom  Oncken, 
Staatd.d.  Arist.  ii.  33  sq.,  has  col- 
lected similar  statements),  or  Aga- 
thon,  the  pupil  of  Gorgias.  But 
even  if  the  passage  in  Uie  PoUties 
has  no  special  referonce  to  Alci- 
damas,  it  is  probably  concerned 
with  a  theory  which,  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Sophistic  distinction 
between  p6itJos  and  ^uo-is.  Laid  bare 
the  most  vulnerable  part  of  ancient 
society.  Among  the  adherents  of 
this  theory  may  have  been  the 
Cynics,  who  wero  connected  with 
Gorgias  through  their  founder, 
and  who  made  great  use  of  this 
distinction,  if  they  were  not  (as  I 
coi\]ectured.  Part  n.  a,  276, 3rd  ed.) 
its  first  assertors. 


NATURAL  AND  POSITIVE  RIGHT.  479 

human  freedom.  Hippias,  in  the  application  which  he 
makes  of  his  proposition,  approximates  closely  to  this 
principle;  others  do  not  hesitate  to  avow  it  openly.^ 
Natural  right  is,  as  Callicles  says  (^.c),  only  and  solely 
the  right  of  the  stronger ;  and  if  the  prevailing  opinions 
and  laws  do  not  recognise  this,  the  reason  is  to  be  found 
in  the  wealmess  of  the  majority  of  men :  the  mass  of 
the  weak  found  it  more  advantageous  to  protect  them- 
selves against  the  strong  by  an  equality  of  rights ;  but 
stronger  natures  will  not  therefore  be  hindered  from 
following  the  true  law  of  nature — the  law  of  private 
interest.  All  positive  laws  therefore  appear  from  this 
point  of  view  as  arbitrary  enactments,  set  up  by  those 
who  have  the  power  of  making  them  for  their  own 
advantage;  the  rulers,  as  Thrasymachus  says,^  make 
that  a  law  which  is  useful  to  themselves;  right  is 
nothing  else  than  the  advantage  of  the  ruler.  Only 
fools  and  weaklings  consequently  will  believe  that  they 
are  bound  by  those  laws  ;  the  enlightened  man  knows 
how  little  such  is  the  case.  The  Sophistic  ideal  is 
unlimited  authority,  even  though  attained  by  the  most 
unscrupulous  means,  and  in  Plato,  Polus'  considers  none 

*  Cf.  the  qnoUtioDS,  p.  476,  2,  838  C  sqq.,  Teho  no  doubt  has  good 
5 ;  277, 1,  from  Hippias,  Plato,  and  reason  for  patting  these  principles 
Aristotle,  and  remark  especially,  in  into  the  month  of  the  Ch^cedonian 
the  last  mentioned,  the  expression  rhetorician :  also  what  is  quoted 
«2  &PX^"^^*'»  ^^i<^>  ^^^S^ ''^^  *V^  P*  "^S^t  2,  agrees  herewith, 
to  be  taken  literaUj,  bears  witness  Thrasymachus  there  admits  tJiat 
to  the  wide  diffusion  of  this  mode  jastice  would  be  a  great  good,  but 
of  thought;  and  which  we  may  sup-  he  denies  that  it  is  to  be  found 
pose  to  be  founded,  not  on  Plato's  among  men,  because  aU  laws  are 
statements,  but  on  Aristotle's  own  made  by  those  in  power  for  their 
independent  knowled^.  since  he  own  adyantage. 

had  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  ■  Gorg.  470  0  sqq.    Similarly 

the  Sophistic  rhetoricians.  Thrasymachus,  Rep,  i.  344  A ;  cf. 

*  Aoooiding  to  Plato,  Rep,  i.    XatMii.66l6;l8ocr.Paiia<A.2488q. 


4ao 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


happier  than  the  King  of  Persia,  or  Archelaus  the 
Macedonian,  who  rose  to  the  throne  through  innumer- 
able treacheries  and  deeds  of  blood.  The  final  result 
is  thus  the  same  as  in  the  theoretic  view  of  the  world, 
unlimited  subjectivity ;  the  moral  world  like  the  natural 
world  is  recognised  as  the  work  of  man,  who,  by  his 
imagination,  produces  phenomena,  and  by  his  will,  laws 
and  customs,  but  who  is  in  neither  case  bound  by  nature 
and  the  necessity  of  things.* 


»  The  above  remilt  does  not 
seem  to  me  to  be  conUuvened,  even 
by  Grote's  animated  defence  of  the 
Sophistic  ethics  (Hist,  of  Greece, 
viii.  d04  sqq.,  vii.  51  sq. ;  simi- 
larly Lewes'  Hist  of  PHI  i.  108 
sqq.\  full  as  it  is  of  weighty  and 
pertinent  suggestions  in  jnstlAea- 
tion  of  the  errors  and  extrava- 
gancies which  had  previously  pre- 
vented any  unprejuaiced  historical 
representation  of  Sophistic.  It 
would  certainly  be  very  precipitate 
to  charge  the  Sophists  in  general, 
and  without  distinction  of  indivi- 
duals, with  principles  dangerous 
to  morals,  or  with  immorality  of 
life.  But,  it  is  no  less  precipitate 
to  maintain,  with  Orote  (viii.  627 
sq.,  632  sq.)  and  Lewes,  I.  c, 
that  such  principles  as  Plato  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  his  Gallicles 
and  Thrasymachus  eould  never 
have  been  brought  forward  by  any 
Sophist  in  Athens,  because  the 
hearers  on  whose  applause  the  So- 
phists depended,  would  thereby 
have  been  roused  to  the  most  vio- 
lent opposition  against  them.  On 
this  ground  it  might  also  be  proved 
that  Protagoras  did  not  express 
those  doubts  in  the  existence  of 
the  gods  which  occasioned  his  con- 
demnation; and  that  many  other 


Sophists  could  not  have  said  va- 
rious things  which  gave  offence  to 
people.  But  how  do  we  know  that 
a  Thrasymachus  and  his  like  would 
have  aroused  among  those  who 
chiefly  sought  Sophistic  instruction 
— ^the  ambitious  young  politicians, 
the  aristocratic  youths,  whose  proto- 
types were  Alcibiades  and  Critias — 
the  same  opposition  by  the  views 
Plato  ascribes  to  them,  which  they 
certainly  aroused  in  the  democratic 
community  which  adhered  to  the 
ancient  forms  of  religion,  politios, 
and  morality?  Grots,  moreover 
(viii.  496  sqq.),  defends  Protagorai 
for  his  offer  to  make  the  weaker 
argument  appear  the  stronger  (cf. 
fV.  488),  by  observing  that  So- 
crates, Isocrates,  and  others,  were 
also  accused  of  the  same  principle; 
but  this  is  to  misstate  the  ques- 
tion. Protagoras  was  not  falsely 
accused  of  the  principle,  but  him- 
self set  it  up.  Grote  goes  on  to 
say  that  no  one  would  blame 
an  advocate  for  lending  his  elo- 
quence to  the  side  of  wrong  as 
w«U  as  of  right ;  but  this  again  is 
only  half  true :  the  advocate  must 
certainly  urge  on  behalf  of  the  cri- 
minal whatever  he  can  say  for  him 
with  a  good  conscience,  but  if  he 
were  to  make  a  tiade  of  his  art  of 


RELIGION  AND   THE  OODS. 


481 


Among  human  prejudices  and  arbitrary  rules,  the 
Sophists  necessarily  assigned  a  prominent  place  to  the 
religious  faith  of  their  nation.  If  no  knowledge  be 
possible,  a  knowledge  about  the  hidden  causes  of  things 
must  be  doubly  impossible ;  and  if  all  positive  institu- 
tions and  laws  are  the  products  of  human  caprice  and 
calculation,  the  worship  of  the  gods,  which  in  Greece 
belonged  entirely  to  public  jurisdiction,  must  come 
under  the  same  category.  This  was  expressed  in  plain 
terms  by  some  of  the  leading  Sophists.  *  Of  the  gods,' 
says  Protagoras,  *  I  can  know  nothing,  neither  that  they 
are,  nor  that  they  are  not.'  *  Thrasymachus  is  mentioned 
as  entertaining  doubts  of  Divine  Providence ; '  Critias 
maintains*  that  in  the  beginning  men  lived  without 


helping  the  wrong  to  conquer, 
everybody  wotild  call  him  a  per- 
verter  of  justice.  This  is  what  is 
ofTensiTe  m  the  promise  of  Pro- 
tagoras: he  is  not  blameworthy, 
nor  did  his  contemporaries  blame 
him,  for  teaching  an  art  which 
might  be  abused,  but  for  recom- 
mending this  art  precisely  from  that 
point  of  view.  The  disquisitions  of 
Hippias  on  v6ijlos  and  ^vtm  are  en- 
tirely passed  over  by  Grote  and 
Lewes. 

^  The  famous  opening  words  of 
this  treatise  for  which  he  was  com- 
pelled to  leare  Athens,  according 
to  Diog.  iz.  51,  &c.  (also  Plato, 
Theat.  162  B)  ran  thus :  ircpl  fiJkv 
0€uy  oifK  fx^  fftScVat  obff  &s  tlffly 
otiff  its  obx  *Ur(y,  iro\A^  yhp  rk 
KuX^orra  tiSiyeu^  f)  re  iZrjK&rijs  ical 
fipax^s  &p  ^  filot  rod  in^Offctirov, 
Others  give  the  first  proposition, 
less  correctly,  thus :  wtpi  9t&»  o1h« 
tl  §lff\p  oW  iiroloi  Tiv4s  tifft  Upafjuu 
\4y9iv.    Vide  Frei,  96  sq.,  and  es- 


pecially Xrische,  Forsck.  132  sqq. 

'  Hermias,  in  the  Phadrus,  p. 
192  Ast.:  {&p<urifi.)  Pypat^ty  iy 
Kiy^  iauTOv  roiovrSy  ti,  5rt  ol  Stol 
obx  ^P^t  T&  ayOpd»vwa '  oh  yhp  fh 
lUyurroy  rSiv  iy  iiyBpdticois  kyoBSoy 
'KaptTBoy  tT^p  9ac€Uo<riyny'  6p&ft9pykp 
robs  Mfkhrovs  ravrp  fxii  xp^M'^f^ow* 

■  In  the  verses  given  by  Sext. 
Math,  ix.  54,  and  on  account  of 
which  Sextus,  Pt/rrh.  iii.  218,  and 
Plutarch,  J)e  Su-perstit.  13,  p.  17, 
reckon  Critias  as  an  atheist  with 
Bingoras.  The  same  verses,  how- 
ever, are  ascribed  in  the  Placita, 
i.  7,  2  paralL;  cf.  ilnd.  6.  7  to 
Euripides,  who  is  there  eaid  to 
have  placed  them  in  the  mouth  of 
Sisyphus  in  the  drama  bearing  his 
name.  That  such  a  drama  com- 
posed by  Euripides  existed,  cannot 
be  doubted  after  the  positive  state- 
ments of  iElian,  V.  H.  ii.  8 ;  but 
Critias  may  likewise  have  written 
a  SisffphnSf  and  it  may  have  been 
uncertain  at  a  later  period  whether 


VOL.  IL 


I  I 


483  TEE  SOPHISTS. 

law  and  order,  like  the  animals,  that  penal  laws  were 
given  for  protection  against  tyranny ;  but  as  these  could 
only  prevent  open  crimes,  it  occurred  to  some  clever 
and  imaginative  man  to  provide  a  protection  against 
secret  wrong-doing,  by  relating  that  there  are  gods  who 
are  mighty  and  immortal,  and  see  all  hidden  things ; 
and,  to  increase  the  fear  of  them,  he  placed  their  abode 
in  heaven.  In  proof  of  this  theory,  the  Sophists  no 
doubt  appealed  to  the  variety  of  religions :  if  the  belief 
in  gods  were  based  upon  nature,  they  said,  men  would 
all  adore  the  same  god ;  the  variety  of  gods  shows  most 
clearly  that  the  worship  of  them  merely  originates  from 
human  invention  and  consent,*  That  which  holds  good 
of  positive  institutions  in  general,  must  also  hold  good 
of  positive  religions;  because  religions  are  different 
in  different  nations,  they  c^n  only  be  regarded  as  arbi- 
trary inventions.  Prodicus  explained  the  rise  of  reli- 
gious belief  in  a  more  naturalistic  manner.  The  men 
of  old  time,  he  says,^  held  the  sun  and  moon,  floods 
and  streams,  and  all  things  that  are  of  use  to  us,  to  be 
gods,  just  as  the  Egyptians  do  the  Nile ;  and  therefore 
bread  is  revered  as  Demeter,  wine  as  Dionysus,  water 
as  Poseidon,  fire  as  HephsBstus.'     The  popular  gods, 

the  verses  belonged  to  him  or  tx>  of  religion. 

£iiripi4e8 ;  moreover,  a  drama  is  *  Plato,  LatM,  x.  889  E :  0»«^, 

mentioned  by  Athen.  xL  496  b,  <K  fuucdpitj  cTvai  irpeh-6y  ^aair  t^rw. 

the  authorship  of  which   lay   in  [the  vo^l]  rdxyp,  oh  ^^ci,  io^Kd 

doubt  between  Critias  and  Euri-  ritrt    v6fioiSf    ieaX    ro^rovs    SXAovs 

pideu ;  cf.  Fabricius  ad  8evt.  Math.  &\X]7,  Sirq  tKOftrroi  iavToiart  trwmfto- 

l.  c. ;  Bayle,  Diet  Critias,    Rent.  \6y7iaa¥   yofioe^roifi^wot,     Cf.   ppw 

H.    Whoever   may  hare  written  476,  2,  6;  477,  1. 

the  verses,  and  in  the  mouth  of  '  Sext  Math.  ix.   IS,  51  sq.; 

whomsoever  they  may  have  been  Cic.  N.  D.  i.  42,   118;  cf.  Epiph. 

placed,  they  are  at  an^  rate    a  Exp,  Fid.  1088  0. 

monument  of  the  Sophistic  view  '  We  may  bring  into  conneetioB 


RELIGION  AND   THE  GODS.  483 

however, as  such,  are  upon  this  theory  likewise  denied;' 
for  though  Prodicus  mentions  them  in  the  usual  manner 
in  his  discourse  upon  Heracles,^  this  proves  no  more 
than  the  corresponding  appropriation  of  their  names  in 
the  myth  of  Protagoras ;  ^  and  that  he  distinguished  the 
one  natural  or  true  God  from  the  many  popular  gods,* 
there  is  no  evidence  to  certify.  The  statements  also  of 
Hippias,  who  referred  the  unwritten  laws  in  Xenophon,* 
agreeably  to  the  prevailing  opinion,  to  the  gods,  are 
unimportant,  and  merely  show  that  this  Sophist  was 
too  inconsistent  to  make  the  obvious  application  of  his 
theory  concerning  the  laws  to  religion.  The  Sophistic 
teaching  as  a  whole  could  only  logically  assume  towards 
the  popular  religion  the  position  of  a  Protagoras  and  a 
Critias.  If  even  the  things  that  we  see  are  for  us 
merely  what  we  make  them,  this  must  still  more  be  the 
case  with  those  we  do  not  see :  the  object  is  only  the 
counterpart  of  the  subject,  man  is  not  the  creature,  but 
the  creator  of  his  gods. 

The  rhetoric  of  the  Sophists  stands  to  their  ethical 
theory  of  life  in  the  same  relation  that  their  Eristic 
disputation  stands  to  their  theory  of  knowledge.     To 

with  this   the   importance  which  the  products  of  the  field;  a  Tiew 

Prodicus,    according   to  Themist.  which  was  certainly  countenanced 

Or.  XXX.  349  b,  ascribes  to  agri-  by    the     cult    of    Bemeter    and 

culture  in  the  origin  of  religion:  Dionysus. 

Upovpyituf  naffoof  MpAirwv  ica2  yMV-  *  Consequently  Cicero  and  Sex- 

T^pia  itai  itaanty^pus  ical  rcXcras  tus    reckon  Prodicus  among   the 

rdr  yuffpyias  KaA.«y   i^Jiwrti,    po-  atheists,  in  the  ancient  acceptation 

fjd(uy  KaX  9t»v  tifpouw  [fpr.]  irrtuetr  of  the  word. 

h    Mp^9vs     4k9*iy    icol    Toao^  '  Xen.  Afem.  iL  1,  28. 

Mlxri^ioM  iyyv^iitvos.  The  autumn  ■  Plato,  ProU  320  C,  322  A. 

and  harreet  fetdvais  might  espe-  «  As  Welcker,  L  c  521,  is  dis- 

cially  seem  to  have  eiven  rise  to  posed  to  assume. 

the  wonhip  of  the  gods,  since  they  *  Mem,  ir.  4,  19  sqq.  vide  mp, 

were  partieolarly  ooneenied  with  476,  2. 

I  i2 


484  THE  80PJSIST8. 

the  man  who  denies  an  objective  wisdom,  there  remains 
only  the  appearance  of  wisdom  in  the  sight  of  others ; 
and  similari J,  to  the  man  who  denies  an  objective  light, 
there  remain  only  the  appearance  of  right  in  the  sight 
of  others,  and  the  art  of  producing  such  an  appearance. 
But  this  art  is  the  art  of  oratory.'  For  oratory  was 
not  only  the  best  means,  under  the  conditions  of  that 
period,  of  attaining  power  and  influence  in  the  State; 
but  it  is,  speaking  generally,  the  instrument  by  which 
the  superiority  of  the  cultivated  maintains  itself  orer 
the  unctdtivated.  Where  therefore  a  high  value  is  set 
upon  mental  culture,  as  it  was  by  the  Sophists  and  their 
whole  epoch,  there  the  art  of  oratory  will  be  fostered : 
and  where  this  culture  is  deficient  in  any  deeper,  scien- 
tific, and  moral  basis,  not  only  will  the  importance  of 
eloquence  foe  over-estimated,'  but  it  will  itself  become 
negligent  of  its  content,  and  concern  itself  in  a  one- 
sided manner  merely  with  its  immediate  success  and 
external  form.     The  same  will  inevitably  happen  as  in 

*  The  task  of  rhetoric  ig  thus  Gorgias  himself,  he  is    oeitainlT 

defiDed  bj  the  Platonic  Ooi^as,  quoting  only  irom  the  passage  in 

Gorff.  454  B  (cf.  452  E) :  Rhetoric  Plato,  and  the  same   passage  is 

is  the  art  ra^iyt  t^s  v9i9ovs,  r^s  doubtless  also  the  source  of  that 

ip  rois  Zuctumipioif  iral  rots  ikkott  other    definition    quoted    in    the 

6x^*^^  1^  ^*P^ '''ovrmp  iiirn  ZUatJi  anonymous    introduction     to    the 

r«  «ral  &8i«a,  and  therefore  Socra-  trHnfffis  of  Hermogenes  ap.  Walz. 

tes,  455  A,  with  the  consent  of  the  Rhet.  Gr.  rii.  33 ;  Spengel,  2«v.  T. 

Sophist,  defines  it  as  wuOovs  8iy-  35,  from  Plutarch,   the    Neo-pla- 

fuovyhs    wtartvranis,    AXX'    oh  9t-  tonist's  Commentary  on  the  Gor» 

ScurxaAiinif ,  W9f\  rh  9ucat6y  re  iral  ffias.  as  Spos  ^irropucqs  Kork  V^fjimM, 

&9tKop.    That  the   essence  of  So-  *  Ct  Pbito,  PkiUb,  6S  A,  where 

phistic    rhetoric     is    rightly    de-  Piotarchus  says  he  has  often  heard 

scribed   in    these    words  will   be  of  Gorgiss,  As  4l  rov  TtlBw^  woXw 

clear  from  the  rest  of  our  chapter.  3iaf  ^pet  vcwwr  t^xp&w  wJLpra  y^ 

When,    howerer,    Doxopater,    In  ^*  abr^  ZovXa  Zi*  knAmn  ud  •» 

Aphthtm.  JRhet.  Gr,  ed.  Walz,  ii.  9tiL    fitas    voumto,   etc.;    similarly 

104,  attributes  this  definition  to  Gor^.  452  £»  456  A  sqq. 


SOPHISTIC  RHETORIC. 


465 


the  exclusive  application  of  dialectic  forms  to  Eristic 
argumentation.  The  form  which  has  no  corresponding 
content  becomes  an  external,  false  and  empty  formalism, 
^nd  the  greater  the  skill  with  which  this  formalism  is 
managed,  the  nK>re  quickly  must  follow  the  ruin  of  a 
culture  which  is  limited  to  it. 

These  observations  may  serve  to^  explain  the  m,eaning 
and  specific  character  of  Sophistic  rhetoric.  In  regard 
to  most  of  the  Sophists  we  know,  and  of  the  rest  there 
is  scarcely  a  doubt,  that  they  practised  and  taught  this 
art,  sometimes  setting  up  general  rules  and  theories, 
sometimes  models  for  imitation,  or  furnishing  ready- 
made  speeches  for  immediate  use  ;^  while  not  a  few  even 

Ihi/irtyopiKols  8c  Myots  {Voffylov 
wtptTvxoy  A.^70(»)  Kai  run  ira2  tc^- 
rtuf.  The  same  author  mentions 
(De  Compos.  Verb.  c.  12,  p.  6S  R) 
a  discussion  of  Gorgias  v^pl  Kcupov, 
-with  the  remark  that  he  vas  the 
first  who  ever  wrote  on  the  subject. 
Spengel,  /.  c.  81  sqq.,  however, 
thinks  that  on  aceount  of  the 
passages  from  Aristotle,  quoted  p. 
462,  1,  and  Cic.  Brut.  12,  46,  we 
are  justified  in  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  any  work  on  the  rhetorical 
art  by  Gorgias.  But  as  Sebanz  (p. 
ISl)  pertinently  observes,  neither 
of  these  passages  is  decisive :  Cicero, 
following  Aristotle,  names  Corax 
and  Tisias  as  the  first  authors  of 
rhetorical  technology;  Protagoras 
and  Gorgias  as  the  first  who  made 
speeches  concerning  commonplaces; 
this,  however,  would  not  prevent 
their  having  also  written  about 
the  rules  of  art :  from  the  language 
of  the  treatise  against  the  Sophists, 
it  would  certainly  seem  that  Aris- 
totle did  not  place  Gorgias  on  a 
par  with  Tiisias  and  Tbrasymachut 


'  We  are  acquainted  with  theo' 
retical  works  on  rhetorical  subjects 
by  Protagoras  (vide  if^ra  and  Frei, 
187  sq.),  by  Prodicus  (vide  supra, 
p.  420,  3),  by  Hippias  (vide  infra, 
»Spengel,  p.  60),  by  Thrasymachus 
(vide  on  his  "EXeo*,  Arist.  Soph,  El. 
c.  33,  183  b,  22;  Rluit.  iii.  1,  1404 
a,  13  ;  Plato,  Phadr,  267  C.  Ac- 
cording to  Suidas,  sub  voce,  and 
the  Scholia  on  Aristophanes,  Birds, 
V.  881,  he  also  wrote  a  tcxi^  of 
which  the  "tAcoi  perhaps  formed  a 
part ;  vide  Spengel,  96  sqq, ;  Her- 
mann, De  Thras,  12;  Schanz,  p. 
131  sq.);  by  Polus  (vide  mpra,  p. 
426,  1),  and  by  Evenus  (Plato, 
Phadr.  267  A,  vide  supra,  p.  426, 
3).  That  Gt)rgias  at  his  death  left 
a  rixyitt  isi  asserted  by  Diog,  viii. 
58,  and  by  the  author  of  Prole- 
gomena to  Hermogenes  quoted  by 
Spengel,  livyay.  T*xy-  82.  Quin- 
tilian  includes  him  among  the 
Artium  Scriptores  (Qnintil.  iii.  1, 
8).  Dionysius  observes  in  the  frag- 
ment given  by  a  scholion  on  Her- 
mogenes (ap.  Spengel,  X  T.  78); 


i86 


THE  SOPHISTS, 


made  rhetoric  the  chief  object  of  their  instructions.^ 
Their  own  lectures  were  rhetorical  displays;*  besides 
the  speeches  which  they  had  prepared,'  they  plumed 
themselves  on  never  being  at  a  loss,  even  at  a  momenta's 
notice,  for  specious  answers  to  all  possible  questions :  * 


as  a  cultiTator  of  rhetoric ;  it  does 
not  imply  that  he  was  nnacquainted 
with  any  rhetorical  work  of  Uorgias. 
On  the  other  hand,  Plato,  Phadr. 
261  B,  267  A,  expressly  aUud«>8 
to  technical  treatises  on  rhetoric 
l)y  this  Sophist;  these,  however, 
prohably  consisted  not  of  one  com- 
plete theory  of  the  rhetorical  art, 
but  of  dissertations  on  particular 
questions :  Ht  least  the  oxpresKion 
T«xMu  Tiw  in  the  work  of  Diony- 
81  ns  (cited  stipra)  indicates  this 
(Tide  also  Welcker,  Kl.  Sekr.  ii. 
456,  176).  Still  more  important 
than  their  writings,  however,  were 
the  example  and  practical  teach- 
ing of  the  Sophistic  rhetoricians 
(Protagoras  ap.  Stob.  Floril.  29, 
80,  equally  repudiates  ^fX^ri) 
l^ycv  r4x»Vf  Mid  rtx^  &*^v  fi«- 
A^Tiif),  and  especially  those  dis- 
courses on  general  themes  ascribed 
to  Protagoras,  Goi^as,  Thrasy* 
machus,  and  Prodicus  (Biartis  or 
hci  communes,  as  distinguished 
from  the  particular  cases  on  which 
the  periodical  and  political  dis- 
courses turned  ;  these  were  (nroBt- 
<reis  or  causa;  cf.  Cic.  Top.  21,  79  ; 
Quintil.  iii.  5,  5  sq.,  and  others 
cited  in  Frei,  Quasf.  Proi.  160 
sqq. ;  the  only  point  in  which  I 
disagree  with  Frei  is  in  his  distinc- 
tion of  theses  from  loci  communes). 
Vide  on  this  subject,  Aristotle  ap. 
Cic.  Brut,  12,  46;  Diog.  ix.  63 
(Protagoras  vpStros  mtr^Scile  r&r 
^phs  rat  94(rtis  iwix*ip^<rtts) ; 
Quintil.  iii.  1,  12,  and  on  Thrasy-' 


machus  individnally,  Snidas,  sub 
voce,  who  attributes  to  the  Chalce- 
donian  Sophist,  it^pitai  ^opucai, 
according  to  Welckers  c^njectore 
(Kl.  Sehr.  ii.  457),  identical  with 
the  ^fpfidX\orr€t  cited  by  Plu- 
tarch, Sympos,  i.  2,  3  ;  and  At  hen. 
X.  416  a,  who  quotes  something 
from  his  pnxsmia.  Quintilian 
merely  ascribes  to  Prodicus  the 
cultivation  of  lod  eommunes,  which 
looks  as  if  he  had  not,  like  the 
three  otbers,  developed  them  fot 
the  purposes  of  instmction  ;  but 
speeches  in  the  larger  sense  like 
those  cited  from  him  {rnp.  p.  473), 
and  also  the  lectures  of  Bippias 
(/.  c),  might  possibly  have  been 
reckoned  as  lod  communes.  The 
employment  of  such  commonplaces 
was  even  with  Goigias  very  me- 
chanical, vide  supra,  p.  462.  1. 

^  Cf.  besides  what  follows,  p. 
425.  472.  1. 

'  ErfSft^is,  i'riZtiioftfvBtu  are,  as 
is  well  known,  the  standing  expres- 
sions for  these.  Cf.  e.ff.  Plato,  Gorg, 
auh  init.  Protag,  320  C,  347  A. 

•  Such  as  the  Heracles  erf  Pro- 
dicus, the  displays  of  Hippias,  Prot. 
347  A,  and  svpra,  p.  423, 1 ;  and  the 
speeches  of  Gorgias  (vide  «^a, 
416,  2;  416, 3),  especially  the  cele- 
brated speech  at  Olympia, 

*  Grorgina  is  mentioned  as  the 
first  who  displayed  his  art  in  these 
impromptu  speeches.  Plato,  Gvrg. 
447,  C :  Mol  yap  avr^  If  rovr*  ^r 
T^s  ^TiScf^cvf  *  MKtv9  yovp  rvw  Bii 


SOPHISTIC  RHETORIC. 


487 


besides  the  rhetorical  exaberance  which  allowed  them 
all  possible  expansion  of  their  subject,  they  boasted  of 
having  the  art  of  compressing  their  meaning  into  the 
tersest  language ;  ^  besides  independent  discussion,  they 
considered  the  explanation  of  the  poets  as  part  of  their 
task ; '  along  with  the  great  and  noble,  they  thought  it 


ivrtfv  Koi  Tcpbi  Evarra  1^  iivoiepivti' 
irBai.  Cic.  De  Orai,  i.  22,  103  : 
quod  primum  ferunt  Leontmumfe- 
cisse  Gorgiam :  qui  perma^um 
quiddam  suscfpere  ac  profiteri  vide- 
iatur,  cum  ae  ad  oTHnia^  de  quilws 
(fuiaque  audire  vellet,  esse  paratum 
denuntiaret  Ibid.  iii.  32,  129 
(hence  Valer.  yiii.  15,  ext.  2). 
Fin.  ii.  1,  1 ;  Quintil.  Inst.  ii.  21, 
21 ;  Philostr.r.  Soph.  482,  no  doubt 
only  through  a  misunderstanding, 
represents  him  as  coming  forward 
in  this  manner  in  the  Athenian 
theatre.  Cf.  Foss  45,  similarly  on 
Hippias,  sup.  p.  421,  3. 

*  e.ff.  Protagon*  s,  ap.  Plat.  Prot, 
329  B,  334  E  sqq.,  where  we  read 
of  him  :  5t«  ah  of6i  t'  eT  Ka\  a&rbf 
K€u  AWotf  MA^au  ircpl  r&if  avr&y  koI 
fjuucfA  Kiyuv  iky  /So^Xp,  o0T»r,  &<rTt 
rhv  \&yov  fi7i9*TOT9  ivtXnruy,  ical 
ad  fipax^fi  olhws,  6<rr€  fitfidya  trov 
ip  $paxvK^pots  tlruy.  The  same 
occurs  in  the  Phctdrus,  267  B, 
where  it  is  said  of  Gorgias  and 
Tisias :  (rvKro/i(ay  re  \iyo»y  Kod  Hvtipa 
fi4iK7i  ir€pl  xdyrwy  kytvpoy,  and 
Gorgias  himself  says,  Gorg.  449  C  : 
tcai  yap  aZ  Koi  rovro  iy  iarir  wy  ^ii(, 
liifiiy*  ay  iv  fipaxvripois  ifiov  rk  avrit 
ciVety,  on  which  Socrates  requests 
him,  as  he  requests  Protagoras  in 
Prot.  335  A,  &c.,  to  use  shortness 
of  speech  in  the  discourse.  But 
that  he  was  addicted  to  diffasive" 
ness  of  language  we  also  see  from 
Arist.  Bhet.  iii.  17,  1418  a,  34,  for 


he  went  into  ereiT  possible  detail 
connected  with  his  theme.  The 
same  was  the  case  with  his  scholar 
Lycophron,  ap.  Arist.  Soph.  El.  15, 
174  b,  32 ;  and  Alex,  ad  h.  I.  Schol. 
in  Arist.  310  a,  12.  Hippias  io 
the  ProtagoraSf  337  £  sq.,  makes 
a  conciliatory  proposition  to  So- 
crates and  Protagoras,  that  the 
former  shall  not  insist  severely  on 
the  conciseness  of  the  dialogue,  and 
that  the  latter  shall  bridle  his 
eloquence,  so  that  his  speeches  shaU 
not  exceed  due  measure ;  and  Pro- 
dicus  is  ridiculed  in  the  Phadrus, 
267  B,  because  he,  like  Hippias, 
prided  himself  on  this:  ii6yos  abrhs 
^{ifniKiyai  &y  8ci  \6rf»v  rtxrriy'  Htly 
8^  olht  fioKp&y  offrc  fipaxwy,  iiKKii 
lAvrpimy. 

«  Plato,  Prot.  338  E:  yrfoviuu, 
i^  [npon-.l  £  ^Kparts^  iyia  Mpl 
vai9*las  fifyierroy  fi4pos  *lyat  Ttpl 
iir&v  ittvhy  ttyat'  Hern  it  rovro  t&  6nh 
T&y  voiiiTwv  \ty6fitya  oT6yr^  tlyai  <rv- 
yidyai  £  re  6p0&s  Koi  ft  /x^,  iral  Mtrra" 
ffdai  SieXely  re  iral  ipwr^ntyoy  \6yov 
iovyeUf  on  which  follows  the  well- 
known  discussion  of  the  poem  of 
Simonides,  Hippias  similarly,  at 
the  commencement  of  the  Lesser 
Hippias^  ti-vats  of  Homer  and  other 
poets;  and  Isocrates  {Panath.  18, 
83)  makes  an  attack  on  the  So- 
phists, who,  having  no  original 
thoughts  of  their  own,  chatter  about 
Homer  and  Hesiod. 


488 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


showed  intelligence  to  praise  for  a  change  the  insignifi- 
cant, the  commonplace,  and  the  unpleasant.^  Protagoras 
had  already  announced  the  highest  triumph  of  rhetoric 
to  be  this :  that  it  could  convert  the  weaker  into  the 
stronger,  and  represent  the  improbable  as  the  probable ;  ^ 


>  Thus  Plato,  8ymp.  177  B, 
and  Isocr.  Hel.  12,  mention  eu- 
logies on  salt  and  silkworms  ;  Al- 
cidamas,  according  to  Menander, 
ir.  /ir(6fiMr.  Rhet,  Gr,  ix,  163. 
Tzetz.  Ckil.  ix.  746  sq.  wrote  in 
praise  of  death  and  of  poverty: 
and  Polycrates,  whose  art  of  rhe- 
toric is  doseljr  allied  to  that  of 
the  Sophists,  composed  eulogies  on 
Bnsiris  and  Clytemnestra,  and  an 
accusation  of  Socrates  (Isocr.  Bus. 
4  Quintil,  ii.  17,  4),  a  speech  in 
praise  of  mice  (Arist.  Rhet.  ii.  24, 
1401  b,  16),  of  poU  and  of  pebbles. 
(Alex.  T.  iii^pfA.  ^irr.  Rhet  Gr,  ix. 
334  to  iii.  3  Sp.)  To  the  same  class 
belong  the  Busiris  of  Isocrates,  and 
Antiphon's  discourse  (Welcker,  KL 
8chr.  ii.  427,  conjectures  him  to 
have  been  the  Sophist  mentioned 
p.  426,  4,  not  Antiphon  of  Rham- 
nus,  to  whom  it  is  ascribed  bj 
Athen.  ix.  39 7»  8  c,  and  others) 
upon  peacocks. 

•  That  Protagoras  promised  his 
pupils  to  teach  them  how  the  ^/jttwp 
\6yos  could  be  made  the  KptWrmv^ 
is  attested  by  Aristotle,  Rhet.  ii. 
24,  end.  After  he  has  been  speak 
ing  of  the  tricks  by  which  the 
improbable  can  be  made  probable, 
he  adds,  kcDl  rb  rhv  ^Ifrru  8i  \^ov 
Kp^irrm  vomiv  tout*  icriv.  koI  ^kt€0- 
0*y  iiHoltts  iivtrx^pooMov  ol  tofBfwwoi 
rh  nporrvy6pou  iirdyytXyua.  if»(D8ds 
tc  y^p  lari,  koI  oIk  iXriBhs  &XAA 
^aiy6fi9voy  ththst  icol  iy  oif^iefu^ 
'^^X^V  *^*  ^^  ^riropue^  Ktd  ipiffrucp. 
It  is  obvious  that  Aristotle  here 


describes  that  promise  as  actually 
given  by  Protagoras,  and  that  he 
is  not  (as  Grote,  ffist.  of  Greeet, 
viii.  495,  represents  the  case) 
merely  expressing  his  own  judg- 
ment on  rhctcnric;  consequently 
Gellius,  N.  A.  V.  3,  7,  entirely 
agrees  with  him  when  he  says, 
pollicebainr  se  id  doctrt^  qwmam, 
verborum  indttstria  causa  infirmior 
fieret  foriior^  qnam  rem  graeee  ita 
dicebat:  rhv  ftrrtt  K6yop  ttptlrrw 
votuv.  (Similarly  Steph.  of  By- 
santium  "A/Sdifpa  appealing  to  En- 
doxus,  and  the  Scholion  ou  the 
Cloiids,  V.  1 13  ;  cf.  Frei,  Qu,  Pnt. 
142  sq.)  At  the  same  time  we 
see  from  these  pas.sage8  the  mean- 
ing of  this  promise ;  the  l^tev 
X^iyds  is  the  cause  which  in  rea^ion, 
and  consequently  in  law,  is  the 
weaker ;  and  this  by  the  art 
of  the  orator  is  to  be  made  the 
stronger.  It  is  therefore  not  alto- 
gether untrue  when  Xenophon, 
Qu.  11,  25.  says  in  explanation 
of  Protagoras's  expression,  rh  ^£- 
Hos  dAij9ir  irotfi¥f  also  Isocr.  ir. 
kvrt1i6<r.  15,  30;  i^fM/ttPor  roKjiBri 
hiyorros  4wucpwr€iy,  and:  retpkrh 
Hkcuov  iv  rait  iirywri  vA.covcier«2y ; 
nor  even  when  Aristophanes  with 
malicious  explicitness  makes  out 
of  i^TTtfir  \6yos  an  6Sucos  Kiyos. 
Protagoras  certainly  did  not  pro- 
fess in  actual  words  that  he  would 
teach  the  art  of  helping  the  vnjusi 
cause  to  triumph  ;  but  he  undoubt- 
edly promised  that  people  should 
learn  from  him  how  to  help  any 


SOPHISTIC  RHETORIC. 


and  in  a  similar  sense  Plato  says  af  Gorgias  ^  that  he 
made  the  discovery  that  appearance  is  of  more  value 
than  truth,  and  understood  in  his  speeches  how  to  make 
the  great  appear  small,  and  the  smsill  great.  But  the 
more  indifferent  the  orator  thus  became  to  the  contents 
of  his  orations^  the  higher  grew  the  value  of  the  tech- 
nical instruments  of  language  and  expression :  on  these 
consequently  the  rhetorical  instructions  of  the  Sophists 
almost  exclusively  tui-ned ;  as  was  the  case  at  this  time, 
quite  independently  of  philosophy,  in  the  rhetorical 
schools  of  Corax  and  Tisias  in  Sicily.*  Protagoras  and 
Prodicus  occupied  themselves  with  the  grammatical 
and  lexigraphical  aspects  of  language,  and  thus  became 
the  foundei-s  of  scientific  linguistic  enquiry  among 
the  Greeks.*  Protagoras*  doubtless  was  the  first  to 
distinguish  the  three  genders  of  nouns,^  the  tenses  of 


possible  cansft  to  conquer,  even 
-when  in  itself  it  did  not  deserve 
to  conquer.  The  same  thing  was 
afterwards  repeated  hj  many 
others.  Aristophanes  accuses  So- 
crates not  only  of  meteorosophy, 
hat  also  of  the  art  of  making  the 
^rtav  \6yos  the  Kpti'M'wv.  In 
Plato,  Socrates,  while  defending 
himself  against  this  charge  (ApoL 
18  B,  19  B),  describes  it  as  a  com- 
mon accusation  against  all  philo- 
sophers (I.  c.  23  D,  T^  Kwrk  vdyrww 

XiyowrtP^  5ti  .  .  .  rhv  ^Jttw  \6yov 
Kpfirrm  woiciv),  and  Isocrates  has 
also  /.  c.  to  wajd  off  the  same  cen- 
sure. Only  we  cannot  infer  from 
its  being  wrongly  imputed  to  some 
that  it  was  also  wrongly  imputed 
to  Protagoras.  Grote  himself  does 
not  conclutle  from  Apol.  26  D, 
that  Anaxagords   did    not    teach 


what  is  there  £&lsely  ascribed  to 
Socrates. 

>  Phcsdr.  267  A ;  cf.  Garg,  U6 
A  sqq. ;  455  A  (yide  supra  483). 
There  is  a  similar  statement  of  an 
anonymous  writer  conceminf;  Pro- 
dicus and  Hippias  in  Spengel,  Xvyay, 
r€xv.  213  itiket.  Gt,  v.  Walz.  vii. 
9),  but  Welcker,  I  e.  460,  justly 
attaches  no-  importance  to  it. 

«  Spengel,  I.  c.  22-39. 

*  Cf.  for  the  following  remarks^ 
Lersefa,  Die  Sprachpkilosophie  der 
Altetit  i.  15  sqq.;  Albert^  Dvi 
Sprachphiloaophie  von  Plaion  (Phi' 
lologiM  xi.  1856,  p.  061  sqq.), 
699  sq. 

*  Vide,  concerning  Protagoras, 
Frei,  120  sqq. ;  Spengel,  40  sqq. ; 
Schanz,  141  sq. 

*  Arist.  Hket.  iii.  5,  1407  b,  6. 
He  remarks  on  this  subject  that 
language  treats  as  masculine  many 


400 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


verbs,^  the  different  kinds  of  propositions;'  lie  also  gave 
instruction  coneeming  the  right  use  of  language.' 
Prodieus  is  famous  for  his  distinctions  between  words  of 
similar  meaning,  which  he  taught  for  large  fees  in  one 
of  his  lectures  ;^  the  satire  which  Plato  pours  forth  upon 
this  discovery  ^  seems  to  show  that  his  distinctions  and 


things  th^t  should  reoily  4>e  femi- 
Dine  (Id.  Soph.  FX,  c.  14,  and  re- 
pented by  Alex,  ad  h.  I  SchoL  308 
li,  32;  yide  supra,  467,  Z);  Aris- 
tophanes, who,  in  his  Clottds, 
transfers  this  and  much  besides 
from  Protagoras  to  Socrates,  makes 
it  the  occasion  of  many  pleasant- 
ries, T.  661  sqq. 

>  iidfrti  xp6yov,  Diog.  ix.  52. 

*  cdxflA^^,  iptirtio'is,  4iv6Kpt(rtSf 
iyrok)i,  Diog.  is.  53.  As  Quint il. 
Inst,  iii.  4,  10,  mentions  this  clas- 
sification in  his  chapter  on  the 
different  kinds  of  speeches  (politi- 
cal, forensic,  and  so  fordi),  Spengel 
conjectures  (p.  44)  that  it  has  re- 
ference, not  to  the  grammatical 
form  of  sentences,  but  to  the  rhe- 
torical character  of  the  discourses 
and  their  parts ;  that  it  primarily, 
bowerer,  refers  to  grammar  is  clear 
from  tihe  statement  ( Arist.  Poet,  c  1 9, 
1456  b,  15)  tha*;  Protagoras  blamed 
Homer  because  he  did  not  com- 
mence the  Iliad  with  a  command 
to  the  muse  instead  of  a  prayer  in 
the  words  pijinv  &€i8c. 

»  Plato,  Phofdr.  267  C  :  Hfwra- 
y6pfia  8e,  i^Kpares,  obx  ^v  fi4^roi 
roMVT*  &rra ; — 'OpOocircii  y4  ris,  & 
ir<u,  Kcu  iXKa  iroXX^  icol  Hfiiid.  Cf. 
Crat.  391  C :  iiHiai  <rt  T^y  opSS- 
TrjTtt  vtpl  rvv  roto{fT(ty  (ifiSfiaTa, 
generally  speaking,  language)  ^v 
$tu^t  rrapa  *np«rray6pou.  From 
these  passages  (to  which  Prot.  339 
a,  Piut.  Per.  c.  36,  might  be  added), 
and  from  Aristotle,  I.  c,  it  has 


been  reasonably  inferred  that  Pr>- 
tagocas,  in  his  discnssioiMi,  was  ac- 
customed  to  make  use  of  the  ex- 
pressions ip^s,  iffe^&TTis.  On  the 
other  hand,  ap  Themist.  Or,  xxiii. 
289  D,  6p$ofV€ia  and  ipBo^i^avvrn 
are  not  (as  LersHli  supposes,  p.  18) 
ascribed  to  Protagoras,  but  to  Pro- 
dieus. 

«  The  fifty^dziichma  course, 
Tepl  ovoyuirwp  6p06rfiros,  which  has 
already  been  menticyied,  p.  418,  1. 
I  feel  myself  obliged,  on  account 
of  the  passage  in  Piat</8  EtUh^ 
deitms^  277  £.  (o  agree  with 
Welcker  (p.  453)  and  most  writers 
that  the  subject  of  this  course  was 
not  the  question  whether  speech  is 
tpwFMi  or  vo'/iy,  but  CQOcemiqg  the 
right  use  of  words  and  the  dif- 
ferences between  apparently  equi- 
valent expressions.  The  Stoipcilr 
T4f\  oyofjdrmp,  Ckarmid.  163  D.  at 
any  rate,  can  only  relate  to  these 
verbal  distinctions ;  and  if  Prodieus 
founded  his  rules  upon  the  same 
atJitement  that  Plato,  Crat.  383  A, 
ascribes  to  Cratylus :  Mfxaros  ^p6^ 
rrira  c7k«u  iKdcmp  r&r  Strrmp  pvati 
wt^vievioy,  we  should  have  to  seek 
the  chief  content  of  this  course 
(which  evidently  embraced  the 
quintessence  of  Prod«cns*8  whole 
linguistic  science)  in  the  itsdpwis 
hvopidr^v. 

^  Cf.  in  regard  to  this  know- 
ledge of  words,  without  which  he 
(Welcker,  454)  *  never  speaks,  and 
is   hardly  ever  mentioned  in  the 


SOPHISTIC  RHETORia 


491 


definitions  were  set  forth  with  a  good  deftl  of  self-com- 
placency, and  no  doubt  very  often  in  an  ill-timed 
manner.  Hippias  too  gave  rules  for  the  treatment  of 
speech,'  but  they  were  probably  limited  to  metre  and 
euphony.  The  discourses  of  Protagoras,  judging  from 
Plato's  representations,  besides  their  general  clearness 
and  simplicity  of  expression,  appear  to  have  been  charac- 
terised by  a  suave  dignity,  an  ease  and  copiousness  of 
language,  and  a  delicate  poetical  colouring,  although 
they  were  not  unfrequently  too  long.'  Prodicus,  if  we 
may  trust  the  narrative  of  Xenophon,*  made  use  of 
choicer  language,  in  which  the  subtle  distinctions  of 
words  were  carefully  attended  to ;  but  which  from  all 
accounts  was  not  very  forcible,  nor  free  from  the  errors 
for  which  Plato  censures  it.  Hippias  does  not  seem 
to  have  disdained  pompous  display  in  his  expositions ; 
Plato  at  any  rate,  in  the  short  example  which  he  gives,^ 
represents   him   as  full   of  extravagant  bombast   and 


Platonic  dinlognes,'  Prot.  337  A, 
339  E  ;  Meno,  76  E  ;  Orat.  884  B  ; 
Futhyd.  277  E;  cf.  C^arm.  163  A, 
D ;  Lack.  197  D.  The  first  of  thoee 
passages,  efpecialljr,  carioatares 
tho  manner  of  the  Sophists  with 
tlio  most  humourous  exaggemtion. 
Cf.  Arist.  Top.  ii.  6,  112  b,  22; 
Prantl,  Gesck.  d.  Log.  i.  16. 

*  mp\  pu$fiwp  Km  hpfJLWuiu  icmt 
ypafifiirctif  optHrrrros,  Plato,  Hipp. 
Min.  368  D:  ir,  ypofrndrvr  dwd- 
fitws  Koi  drv\Xa/i«r  iml  ^v$fio»v  «rpi} 
apfiofiAtf,  Hipp.  Maj.  285  C.  From 
Xen.  Mem.  ir.  4,  7,  nothing  can  be 
inferred.  What  Mahly,  /.  e.  x?l. 
39,  Alberti,  /.  c.  701,  and  others 
find  in  the  passage  is  much  too  far- 
fetched. The  question  is  simply 
this — '  Of  how  many  letters,  and 


of  what  kind  of  letters,  does  the 
word  Socrates  consist  ?  ' 

*  The  fftfw&rris  of  his  exposi- 
tion is  noticed  by  Philostr.  V.  Soph. 
i.  10,  end,  no  doubt,  howerer,  only 
after  Plato ;  and  its  irvpioXf^ia  by 
Hermias  in  Pfupdr.  192.  Accord- 
ing to  the  fragment  in  Pint.  Conffol. 
ad  Apdl.  03,  be  used  his  natire 
dialect,  like  Democritus,  Herodotus 
and  Hippocrates. 

'  That  we  are  justified  in  doing 
so,  though  the  representation  of 
Xenophon  is  not  literally  true 
(Mem.  ii.  1,  34),  is  shown  by  Spen- 
gel,  67  sq. 

«  Prot.  387  C  sqq. ;  of.  Hipp. 
Maj.  286  A.  With  this  exception, 
neither  of  the  dialogues  called  Hip* 
pias  contains  any  of  this  mimiciy. 


492  TRB  SOPmSTS. 

redundant  metaphors.  That  he  should  seek  to  impart 
a  special  charm  to  his  discourses,  through  the  multi- 
fariousness of  their  subject-matter  and  ccmtents,  might 
be  expected  from  a  man  of  such  varied  learning,  and 
so  vain  of  the  many-sidedness  of  his  knowledge ;  and 
so  much  the  more  value  must  he  have  set  upon  his 
art  of  memory,  especially  as  a  help  in  his  rhetorical 
orations*'  Oorgias,  however,  of  all  the  Sophists  at- 
tained the  greatest  renown,^  and  exercised  the  most 
important  influence  on  Greek  style.  He  was  both 
witty  and  intellectual,  and  managed  to  transplant  with 
brilliant  success  the  rich  ornamental  imagery,  the  play 
upon  words  and  thoughts,  of  the  Sicilian  oratory  into 
Greece  proper.  At  the  same  time  it  is  in  him  and 
his  school  that  the  weak  side  of  this  rhetoric  is  most 
clearly  apparent.  The  adroitness  with  which  Gorgias 
could  adapt  his  lectures  to  particular  objects  and  cir- 
cumstances, and  pass  from  jest  to  earnest,  and  vice  versa^ 
as  occasion  required  it,  could  impart  a  new  charm  to 
what  was  already  admitted,  and  soften  down  what  waa 
startling,  in  unfamiliar  statements,' — the  adornments 
and  brilliancy  which  he  gave  to  language  through  un- 

1  As  to  this  art,  as  well  as  the  ^tii/ii}r  \6yov,  ittuvd  re  iipx^^  "v^k 
varied  learning  of  Hippias,  cf.  p.  r*  iyayrla  Katy&s ;  Arist.,  Bket.  iii. 
422,  2;  on  the  art  of  memory  in  18,  1419  b,  3,  quotes  from  bim 
particular,  cf.  Mahljr,  zvi.  40  sq.  this   mle :    Bw  t^f  fi^v  oyopSV 

2  Vide  p.  413  sq.  The  charao-  iia^tlpftf  r&v  ivatnUav  yiKteri, 
ter  of  the  eloquence  of  Gorgi'ts  is  rhv  d^  ytKmra  <nrovip;  and  accord- 
epimined  by  Qeel,  62  sqq.,  and  ing  to  Dionystus  (ride  Mpra,  483, 
more  thoroughly  by  Schdnbom,  1 )  he  was  the  first  who  wrote  upon 
De  Auth.  Dedajnat.  Gcrg.  15  sqq. ;  the  necessity  of  the  orator*8  h&- 
Spengel,  63  sqq.,  and  Foss,  50  sqq.  stowing  attention  on  the  cireum- 

'  Plato   says  in   the  Phmdrus  stances  of  the  case  (wtfA  Kaipov\ 

(supra,  490,  3)  of  him  and  Tisias :  though  in  the  opinion  of  his  critic, 

rd  re  ai  ffpuKpk  ii^y&Ka   Kol    r&  he  did  not  handle  the  matter  sati8> 

fieycUa  trpuKph.  ^cdyarBat  woiovtri  9ik  factorily. 


SOPHISTIC  RHETORIC, 


498 


expected  and  emphatic  applications,  through  elevated 
and  almost  poetical  expression,  through  elegant  figures 
of  speech,  rhythmical  construction,^  and  synmietrically 
connected  propositions, — all  this  is  acknowledged  even 


'  Ariat.  Bhet.  iii.  1,  1404  a,  26: 
ieoiririK)i  irp^rm  iyivero  ri  Xc|tf, 
oTov  ri  Topylov.  Diunjs.  Ep.  ad 
Pomp.  764 :  r^r  HyKov  t^  troinrunis 
irofMuriccv^s.  De  Vi  die,  Dem.  963/. 
6oi/icv8{8ov  jcal  Topyiov  t))k  fityaXo- 
vp4w9iay  ical  (r9fiy6rfiTa  Koi  ica\- 
ktXoylay.  Cf.  ilnd,  968;  Ep.  ad 
Pomp,  762 ;  Diodor.  xii.  63,  when 
Oorgias  came  to  Athens :  ry  ^tvi- 
(ovTi  T^f  \^{cw5  i^irXfi^f  robs 
*Mi\valovi  (similarly  Dion.  Jud,  de 
Lya.  458)  ,  .  .  vp&ros  yhp  ixp^' 
ffaro  TVS  Xf^tws  trxfltMrurfMis 
TtptrrOTtpots  Koi  rp  ^lAorcx"^ 
iicupipoutrtp,  iufriOirois  koX  1<tok^ 
Xots  Koi  xapicrots  koL  SfioioreXtvrois 
Koi  riffty  Mpois  roioitrois,  h  r6r€ 
fifv  9i&  rh  ^4yov  rrjs  irorcuricci/^f 
iLwo9oxyis  h^iovro,  vvv  tk  jr^pifpyicuf 

l^X^^    ^OfC€i    irol    ^cUfrCTOi  KaTayiXOr 

(Ttop  TX'toydita  icol  Kcn-axSpofs  ri04' 
IMvw.  Philostr.  V.  Soph,  i.  9,  1 
(cf.  Ep.  73  [13],  3):  ip/A^f  rt  ykp 
T0(5  (To^urrais  i|p(«  iced  iropaSo^o- 
\oyia%  icol  Ty^^fiaros  ical  rod  rk 
fieydXa  fuydhMs  ipfirivtiiiyy  &va- 
crdatAv  re  (the  emphatic  interrup- 
tion by  the  commencement  of  a 
new  proposition.  Vide  Frei,  Rh, 
Mits.  534  sqq.)  koH  irpocfiohMP  (no 
doubt,  of  a  limited  kind,  vide  Foss^ 
62)  d^'  &y  6  \6yos  ^8(ay  iavrov 
ylytrcu  koX  tro0€ipdr*post  on  which 
account Philostmtos  compares  him, 
in  an  exaggerated  manner,  with 
i^chyins.  As  figures  of  speech 
which  GoTgias  invented, «.«.,  which 
he  was  the  first  to  use  consciously 
and  designedly,  there  are  especially 
mentioned  wdpura  or  wapurdffds 
{paria  paribus  adjunciay  the  jrepe- 


tition  of  the  same  expressions,  the 
equality  of  syntactic  construction 
and  of  the  members  in  two  sen- 
tences) ;  irapSfiota  or  irapofxolcoffeis 
(a  play  upon  words  of  similar 
sound,  6fioi<n4\€vra  and  6fxoiOKd- 
rapKTa),  and  antitheses,  cf.  Cic« 
Orat,  12,  38  sq.,  62,  175,  49,  165 ; 
Dionys.  Ep.  ii.  ad  Amm.  p.  792, 
808;  Jud.  de  Tkuc.  869;  De  Vi 
die.  Dem.  963,  1014.  1033;  Arist. 
Rhet.  iii.  9,  1410  a,  22  sqq.  The 
figures  mentioned  by  Diodorns  are 
included  in  these  ;  OKoordtrtis  and 
irpoofioXalf  named  by  Philostratus, 
were  perhaps  employed  by  G-orgias 
without  giving  any  express  rules 
concerning  tliem :  in  no  case  can 
we  argue  from  Arist.  /.  c,  that  he 
was  unacquainted  with  them ;  for 
Aristotle  is  then  speaking  only  of 
figures  which  arise  out  of  the  re^ 
lation  of  the  parts  of  the  sentence. 
In  the  sharply  pointed  antitheses 
and  propositions  of  equal  members, 
rhythm  was  directly  involved,  as 
Cicero  observes,  loc.  cit.  Similar 
arte  are  ascribed  to  Polus  by 
PUto,  Pheedr,  267  C :  rkU  lU&Kov 
vijs  <f>pd(rofity  ad  fiovotia  \Aywv, 
&s  dtiF\aotoXoylay  Kcd  yywfxokoyiav 
jval  tUoyoXoyiay,  iyofidrwy  re  Aikv/a- 
vtitcy  h  iKfiytp  ih<api\<raro  jrphs 
TToinaiy  tlfvtlas  (on  the  passage 
itself,  the  text  of  which  appears  to 
be  somewhat  mutilated,  and  Li- 
cymnius,  the  rhetorician,  mentioned 
in  it,  vide  Spengel,  84  sqq.  and 
Schanz,  p.  134  sq.).  To  this  be- 
longs  what  is  said  in  the  Phctdr, 
267  A  of  Evenus. 


494 


THE  SOPHItSTS. 


by  those  who,  in  other  respects,  are  not  too  favourable  in 
their  judgment  of  him.  But  at  the  same  time  later 
critics  unanimously  agree  that  he  and  his  pupils,  in 
applying  these  expedients,  far  exceeded  the  limits  of 
good  ta8te%  Their  expositions  were  overladen  with 
unusual  expressions,  with  tropes  and  metaphors,^  with 
pompous  epithets  and  synonyms,  with  cunningly  turned 
antitheses,  with  plays  upon  words  and  sounds;  their 
style  moved  with  fatiguing  symmetry  in  short  propo- 
sitions consisting  of  two  members ;  the  thoughts  bore 
no  proportion  to  the  expenditure  of  rhetorical  devices, 
and  the  whole  system  could  only  produce,  upon  the 
purer  taste  of  a  subsequent  period,  the  impression  of 
frigidity  and  affectation.'  Thrasymachus  introduced 
a  better  method.    Theophrastus  praises  him*  for  having 


*  For  this  reason  Aristotle  says 
of  Alctdaiiias  (Rhet.  iii.  3,  UOS  a, 
IS),  that  epithets  with  him  were 
not  a  seasoning  of  speech,  1fi}ttrfjM, 
but  the  priacipal  fare  (I8fv/ia). 

'  Abandant  authority  for  what 
is  said  aboTO  is  to  be  round,  not 
only  ia  the  fragment  from  the 
fnneml  oration  of  Oorgias,  bnit 
in  the  nnequailed  imitation  of 
Gorgias*s  rhetoric,  Sf/mp.  194  £ 
sqq.;  cf.  108  B  sqq.,  and  in  the 
ordinary  judgments  of  the  ancients 
based  on  examples ;  see  the  quota- 
tions OB  p.  498,  I ;  also  in  Plato, 
PhBdr.  267  A,  C;  Gorg,  467  B, 
448  G  (^.  the  Scholia  in  Spengel, 
p.  87);  Xenoph.  Conv,  %  2«; 
Arist.  S%et.  iii.  3  (the  whole  chap- 
ter); Id,  Rket.  ii.  19,  24,  1392  b, 
«,  1402  a,  10;  Eih.  N,  vi.  4,  1149 
a,  19,  concerning  Agathon  (the 
fragments  of  whose  writings  ap. 
Athen.  v.  185  a,  211  c,  ziii.  584  a) ; 
Dioays.  Jud,  de  !#$>«.  458;  Jud,  de 


Itmo,  625 ;  i^  Ft  Dk.  in  Dem,  963, 
1033;  Longin.  ir.  fif.  c  3,  2; 
Hermog.  w.ls.  ii.  9  ;  Bket.  Gr.  iii. 
362  (ii.  398  Speng.) ;  Plannd.  w 
Htrnfg.  ibid.  v.  444,  446,  499, 
514  sq. ;  Bemetr.  De  InUrprtL  c. 
12,  15,  29 ;  ibid.  ix.  8,  10,  18  (iii. 
263,  264,  268  Sp.);  Doxopater,  m 
Aphth.  ibid.  ii.  32,  240;  Joseph. 
Rhaeendyt.  SynopB,  e  15 ;  ibid.  iii. 
562,  521  ;  Jo.  SiceL  m  Hermog.; 
ibid.  W.  197  ;  Snid.  Topy. ;  Synes. 
Ep.  82, 133  r\  ^vxfi^v  ical  TofrftaSov, 
<(uintiL  ix.  8,  74;  cf.  also  the 
apophthegms  in  PUt.  Aud,  Fo.  c. 
i.  p.  15  (.Grlor.  AtK  c.  5);  Gimcm, 
c.  10;  Mill  VirU  i.  p.  242  £; 
(iu.  Conv.  viit  7,  2,  4,  and  what 
Alex.  T9p.  209  {Sehol.  287,  6. 
16)  quotes  &om  Lycophron;  and 
Philostr.  £p.  73,  3,  from  iEachi- 
nes. 

>  Ap.  Dionys.  J^  Ly*.  464; 
De  Vi  Die.  Lye.  958.  Bioa  ereo 
x^ganii  Lysias  as  tha  fiist  iriw 


S0FEI8TIC  RHETORIC  495 

been  the  first  to  adopt  the  middle  kind  of  speech ;  for 
having  enlivened  the  barrenness  of  ordinary  language  by 
more  copious  adornments,  without  therefore  falling  into 
the  exaggerations  of  the  school  of  Gorgias*  Dionysius 
also^  allows  that  his  ejcposition  had  this  merit;  and 
we  see  from  other  accounts  that  he  enriched  the  art  of 
rhetoric  with  well-considered  rules  for  working  on  the 
minds  and  emotions  of  the  audience,^  and  with  dis- 
cussions on  the  formation  of  sentences,*  rhythm,*  and 
external  action*  and  delivery.  Nevertheless  we  cannot 
say  that  Plato  ®  and  Aristotle  ^  are  In  the  wrong  when 
they  accuse  him  even  here  of  a  want  of  solidity  and 
thoroughness.  With  him,  as  with  the  other  Sophists,  it 
is  only  the  technical  education  of  the  orator  that  is  re- 
garded ;  there  is  no  attempt  to  construct  his  art  on  a 
deeper  basis,  by  means  of  psychology  and  logic,  in  the 
manner  that  these  philosophers  justly  require*  The 
Sophistic  doctrine  here  also  remains  true  to  its  cha- 
racter; having  destroyed  faith  in  an  objective  truth, 

introduced    the    middle    kind    of  '  Suid.  sub  voc,  vfwros  ffio^iov 

oratory ;  but  Spengel,  94  sq.  and  moI  kmAok  jirar^8c«|«. 

Hermann,  De  Thrasym,  10,  rightly  *  Arist.  Rhet.  iii.  1,  1409  a,  1 ; 

follow  Theophrastas.  Cic.  Orator,  62,  175 ;  Qnintil,  ix. 

^  Loc.cit.,  taidJud.de  hao,  627.  4,87. 

Bionysias,  howeyer,  observes  that  *  Arist.  Rhet.  iii.  1,  1404  a,  13. 

the  exposition  of  Thrasym.  only  •  Phcedr,  267   C,    269  A,  D, 

partially  answered  to  his  design,  271  A. 

and  Cicero,  Ortit.  12,  39,  censures  '*  Arist.  Rhet.  iii.  1,  1354  a,  II 

his  small  verse-like  sentences.    A  sqq.,  where  Thrasymachus  is   not 

considerable  fragment  of  Thrasy-  indeed  named,  but  is  certainly  in- 

machus  is  giyen  by  Dionysius,  De  eluded  in  Aristotle's  geneml  re- 

Demosth.  loc.  cit,,  and  a  smaller  marks    on   his  predecessors ;    the 

fragment  by  Clemens,  Strom,  vi.  mom  so,  as  he  speaks  expressly  of 

624  C.  those  arts  in  which  the  peculiar 

•  Plato,  Phadr.  267  C.    Con-  strength  of  Thrasymachus  ky — e,ff. 

ceming  his  '^EAcoi,  yide  supra,  p.  HiafioKii^  ^pyh,  ^Af os,  &c^  as  Spengel 

485, 1.  justly  observes. 


496  THE  SOPHISTS. 

and  renounced  science  which  is  concerned  with  this 
truth,  the  only  end  that  remains  for  its  instruction  is  a 
formal  versatility  to  which  it  can  give  neither  scientific 
foundation,  nor  a  higher  moral  significance. 

6.    The  vahie  and  historical  importance  of  the  Sophistic 
Doctri)ie.     The  various  tendencies  hiduded  in  it. 

In  attempting  to  form  a  general  opinion  as  to  the 
character  and  historical  position  of  the  Sophistic  doc- 
trine, the  first  consideration  that  arrests  us  is  this: 
that  originally  not  merely  teachers  of  different  arts,  but 
men  of  various  habits  of  thoughts,  were  called  Sophists. 
How  are  we  justified  in  selecting  certaih  individuals 
from  the  number,  and  describing  them  exclusively  as 
Sophists,  in  contradistinction  from  all  the  rest,  or  in 
speaking  of  their  teaching  as  a  definite  doctrine  or 
tendency  of  mind,  while  in  point  of  fact  there  were  no 
definite  tenets  or  methods  which  all  who  were  called 
Sophists  recognised  as  their  own  ?  This  difficulty  has 
been  much  insisted  on  in  modem  times,  as  is  well 
known,  by  Grote,^  The  Sophists,  he  says,  were  not 
a  school,  but  a  class,  in  whose  members  the  most 
various  opinions  and  characters  were  represented ;  and 
if  an  Athenian  at  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  W^ar 
had  been  asked  concerning  the  most  famous  Sophists 
of  his  native  city,  he  would  unquestionably  have  men- 
tioned Socrates  in  the  foremost  rank.  From  this 
the  immediate  inference  is  merely  that  the  name  of 
Sophist    has    acquii'ed   in    our    language   a    narrower 

»  Hist,  of  Gr.  viii.  605  sqq.,  483. 


THEIR  PLACE  IN  HISTORY.  407 

Bignifioation  than  at  first  belonged  to  it.  But  that 
gignification  can  only  be  regarded  as  inadmissible,  if 
no  common  peculiarity  can  be  pointed  out  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  name  as  at  present  understood.  Such, 
however,  is  not  the  case.  Although  the  men  whom  we 
are  accustomed  to  reckon  as  Sophists  are  not  united  by 
any  common  doctrines  recognised  by  them  all,  there 
is  a  certain  similarity  of  character  among  them  which 
is  unmistakable,  and  this  peculiarity  shows  itself  not 
merely  in  their  coming  forward  as  teachers,  but  in  their 
whole  attitude  towards  the  science  of  their  epoch,  in 
their  repudiation  of  physical,  and  generally  speaking, 
of  all  merely  theoretical  enquiry,  in  the  restriction  of 
their  sphere  to  arts  of  practical  utility,  in  the  Scepticism 
explicitly  avowed  by  the  majority,  and  the  most  im- 
portant, of  the  Sophists ;  in  the  art  of  disputation,  which 
most  of  them  are  said  to  have  taught  and  practised,  in 
the  formal,  technical  treatment  of  rhetoric,  in  the  firee 
criticism  and  naturalistic  explanation  of  the  belief  in 
gods,  in  the  opinions  Qonceming  right  and  custom,  the 
seeds  of  which  were  sown  by  the  scepticism  of  Prota- 
goras and  Gorgias,  though  these  opinions  themselves 
only  appear  in  a  definite  form  at  a  subsequent  period. 
Though  all  these  traits  may  not  be  discoverable  in  all 
the  Sophists,  yet  some  of  them  are  to  be  found  in  each 
case ;  and  they  all  lie  so  much  in  one  direction,  that 
while  we  cannot  overlook  the  individual  differences 
among  these  men,  we  are  nevertheless  justified  in  re- 
garding them  collectively  as  the  representatives  of  the 
same  form  of  culture. 

What  judgment  then  are  we  to  pronounce  respect- 

VOL.  II.  K  K 


498  THE  SOPHISTS. 

ing  the  value,  character,  and  historical  importance  of 
this  phenomenon  ? 

If  we  take  into  account  all  the  strange  and  per- 
verted notions  attaching  to  Sophistic  culture  and  teach- 
ing, we  might  be  inclined  to  adopt  the  view  which  was 
formerly  quite  universal,  and  which  even  in  modem 
times  ^  has  had  many  advocates,  viz.,  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely nothing  but  confusion  and  corruption,  a  perversion 
of  philosophy  into  an  empty  appearance  of  wisdom,  and 
a  mercenary  art  of  disputation — a  systematised  immo- 
rality and  frivolity — devoid  of  all  scientific  earnestness 
and  all  sense  of  truth,  and  springing  from  the  lowest  and 
meanest  motives.  It  shows  an  unmistakable  advance  in 
historical  intelligence  that  in  modem  times  historians 
have  begun  to  abandon  this  view,  and  not  merely  to 
exonerate  the  Sophists  from  imjust  accusations,  but  also 
to  recognise,  even  in  what  is  really  one-sided  and  wrong 
in  them,  a  basis  originally  justifiable,  and  a  natural 
product  of  historical  development.'     The  unbounded 

'  M.    Schleiermacher,    Geach.  for  a  deeper  comprehension  of  their 

d.  PhiL  70  sqq. ;  Brandis,  i.  616;  doctrine  and  its  historical  position; 

but  especially  Bitter,  i.  675  sqq.,  these  discussions  were  completed 

628  (preface  to  the  2nd  edition,  by  Hermann  (vide  m;/»n7,  p.  394,1) 

ziT.  sqq.);    and    Baumhauer,    in  with  sound  and  learned  arguments, 

the  treatise  mentioned  p.  394,  1.  in  which  the   importance  of  the 

Similarly  Waddington,  SioMces  ei  Sophists  in  regard  to  culture,  and 

Travaux  de  VAead.  des    Sciences  their  close  relation  with  their  epoch. 

Moraletf  Cy.  (1876)  106.   Brandis,  are  especially  euiphasised ;  ctalso 

Geech,  d.  Entw.  i.  217  sq.,  is  less  Wendt,  Zu  Tennemann,  i.  4o9  sq.; 

severe   in  his  judgment    of   the  Marbach,  Gesch,  d.  PkU.  L  152, 

Sophists.  157;   Braniss,    Gesek.  d.  PkiL  <. 

*  Meiners,  Gesch,  d.  WUsensch.  Kant,  i.  144  sq. ;  Schwegler,  Getek 

it  176  sqq.,  had  already  recognised  d.  Phil.  21  sq.  (and  for  a  somewhat 

the  services  of  the  Sophists  in  the  more  unfavourable  view,   Grieck. 

spread  of  culture  and  knowledge ;  PML  84  sq.) ;  Haym,  Alia.  EneyeL 

but  Hegel  (Getch  d,  Phil.  ii.  3  Sect.  iii.  B,  xxiv.  39  sq. ;  Ueberweg, 

eqq.)  was  the  first  to  pave  the  way  Grundr.  i.  §  27.    The  side  of  the 


THEIR  PLACE  IN  HISTORY.  499 

influence  of  these  men,  and  the  high  reputation  in 
\7hich  many  of  them  are  asserted,  even  by  their  enemies^ 
to  have  been  held,  should  of  itself  be  su£Scient  to 
prevent  us  from  stigmatising  them  as  empty  babblers 
and  vain  pseudo-philosophers  in  the  manner  onee 
usual.  For  whatever  may  be  said  of  the  evil  of  a 
degenerate  period  which  found  its  truest  expression 
in  the  Sophists,  just  because  of  its  own  shallowness 
and  want  of  fixed  opinions ;  whoever  in  any  period  of 
history,  even  the  most  corrupt,  utters  the  watchword 
of  the  time,  and  takes  the  lead  in  its  spiritual  move- 
ment, we  may  perhaps  consider  as  wicked,  but  in  no 
case  as  unimportant.  But  the  period  which  admired 
the  Sophists  was  not  merely  a  period  of  degeneracy 
and  decline,  it  was  also  a  period  of  a  higher  cultm-e, 
unique  in  its  kind — the  period  of  Pericles  and  Thucy- 
dides,  of  Sophocles  and  Pheidias,  of  Euripides  and 
Aristophanes ;  and  those  who  sought  out  the  Sophistic 
leaders  and  made  use  of  them  for  their  own  purposes 
were  not  the  worst  and  most  insignificant  of  that  gen- 
eration, but  the  great  and  noble  of  the  first  rank.  If 
these  Sophists  had  had  nothing  to  communicate  but  a 
deceptive  show  of  wisdom,  and  an  empty  rhetoric,  they 
would  never  have  exerted  this  influence  upon  their 
epoch,  nor  have  brought  about  this  great  revolution  in 
the  Greek  mind  and  mode  of  thought ;  the  grave  and 
highly  cultured  intellect  of  a  Pericles  would  hardly 

Sophists  is  taken  still   more  de-  Versuch  einer  sittlichen  Wurdigui\g 

ddedly,  but  with  somewhat  of  the  d.  Sophist,  Redekunst  (Stade,  1 873), 

partiality  of  apologists,  by  Grote  agrees  with  (Jrote,  but  throws  no 

and  Lewes  in  the  worlra  to  which  new  light  on  the  matter, 
we  hare  so  often  referred.    Bethe» 

K  X  2 


600  THE  SOPHISTS. 

have  taken  pleasure  in  their  society,  a  Euripides  would 
not  have  valued  it,  a  Thucydides  would  not  have  sought 
instruction  firom  them,  a  Socrates  would  not  have  sent 
them  pupils:  even  over  the  degenerate  but  gifted  con- 
temporaries of  these  great  men  their  power  of  attraction 
could  scarcely  have  been  permanent.  Whatever  it  may 
have  been  on  which  the  charm  of  the  Sophistic  instruc- 
tion and  lectures  depended,  we  may  justly  infer  firom 
these  considerations  that  it  was  something  new  and 
important,  at  least  for  that  period. 

In  what  it  more  particularly  .consisted  we  shall  see 
from  our  present  discussions.  The  Sophists  are  the 
'  Illuminators '  of  their  time,  the  Encydopsedist^  of 
Greece,  and  they  share  in  the  advantages  as  well  as 
the  defects  of  that  position.  It  is  true  that  the  lofty 
speculation,  the  moral  earnestness,  the  sober  scientific 
temperament  entirely  absorbed  in  its  object,  which  we 
have  such  frequent  occasion  to  admire  both  in  ancient 
and  modem  philosophers,  all  this  is  wanting  in  the 
Sophists.  Their  whole  bearing  seems  pretentious  and 
assuming,  their  unsettled,  wandering  life,  their  money- 
making,  their  greediness  for  scholars  and  applause, 
their  petty  jealousies  among  themselves,  their  vain- 
glorioosness,  often  carried  to  the  most  ridiculous  lengths, 
form  a  striking  contrast  to  the  scientific  devotion  of  an 
Anaxagoras  or  a  Democritus,  to  the  unassuming  great- 
ness of  a  Socrates,  or  the  noble  pride  of  a  Plato ;  their 
scepticism  destroys  all  scientific  •endeavour  at  the  veiy 
root,  their  Eristic  disputation  has  as  its  final  result  only 
the  bewilderment  of  the  interlocutor ;  their  rhetoric  is 
calculated  for  display^  and  is  employed  in  the  cause  of 


THEIR  PLACE  IN  HISTORY. 


601 


wrcMQg  as  well  as>  truth ;:  its  views  of  science  are  low,  its 
moral  principles  dangerousr  Even  the  best  and  greatest 
representatives  of  the- Sophists  cannot  be  altogether  ac- 
quitted of  these  faults  ;  if  Protagoras  and  Gorgias  did 
not  assume  a  position  of  hostility  towards  the  prevailing 
customs,  they  both  prepared  the  ground  for  scientific 
scepticism,  for  sophistic  argumentation  and  rhetoric, 
and  consequently,  in  an  indirect  manner,  for  the  denial 
of  universally  valid  moral  laws;  if  Prodicus  praised 
virtue  in  eloquent  words,  his  whole  appearance  is  too 
closely  allied  with  that  of  a  Protagoras,  a  Gorgias  and 
a  Hipplas,  to  allow  of  our  separating  him  from  the  ranks 
of  the  Sophists,  or  calling  him  a  precursor  of  Socrates, 
in  any  essentially  different  sense  from  that  in  which  the 
rest  were  so.*     In  others,  like  Thrasymachus,  Euthy- 


'  Such  was  the  opiDion  I  ex- 
pressed concenung  Prodicus  iu  the 
first  edition  of  this  worlcj  p.  263, 
and  eren  after  Welcker's  counter 
obser7ations,  Klein,  Schr,  ii.  528 
sqq.,  I  cannot  depart  from  it.  I 
am  far  from  crediting  Prodicus 
with  all  that  ordinal^  opinion  has 
indiscriminately  ascnbed  to  the 
Sophists,  or  with  what  is  really 
reprehensible  in  many  of  them, 
nor  do  I  deny  his  affinity  and  re- 
lation to  Socrates.  But  neither  do 
we  find  in  Protagoras,  GK)igia8, 
and  Hippias  all  the  faults  and 
one-sidedness  of  Sophisticism  ;  they 
too  conceiyed  rirtue,  the  teachers 
of  which  they  proclaimed  them- 
selves to  be,  primarily  according 
to  the  usual  acceptation,  and 
the  later  theory  of  self-interest  was 
not  attributed  to  either  of  them ; 
though  Protagoras  and  Gorgias 
prepared  the  way  for  it  by  their 


scepticism,  Plrotagoras  by  his  treat- 
ment of  rhetoric,  and  Hippias  by 
his  distinction  between  positive  and 
natural  law.  These  men  may  all 
in  a  certain  sense  be  regarded  as 
the  precxirsors  of  Socrates,  and  tha 
importance  of  Protagoras  and  Gor- 
gias is,  in  this  respect,  far  greater 
Uian  that  of  Prodicus.  For  they 
anticipated  him  in  the  attempt  to 
found  a  class  of  teachers  who 
should  woik^  by  instrvction,  upon, 
the  moral  improvement  of  man 
(Welcker,  585) ;  the  content  of  their 
moral  theory^  as  has  been  already 
remarked,  was  in  essential  agree- 
ment with  that  of  Prodicus,  and 
with  the  prevailing  opinions,  and 
was  not  further  removed  from  the 
new  and  peculiar  theory  of  th& 
Socratic    ethics    than    were    the 

Sspular  moral  maxims  of  Prodicus.. 
ut  in  the  treatment  of  this  subject- 
matter,  Goigias,  by  his  discussions. 


602 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


demus,  Dionjsodorus,  in  the  whole  crowd  of  attendant 


concerning  the  dutios  of  particnUr 
classea  of  men,  comes  much  nearer 
to  a  scieotific  definition  than  Pro- 
dicus  with  hisnnirersalnnd  popalar 
glorification  of  yirtne ;  and'  the 
mythus  which  Plato  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Protagoms,  and  the  re- 
marks connected  with  it,  on  the 
teachableness  of  virtue,  stand,  in 
respect  to  the  thoughts  contained 
io  them,  far  above  the  apologue 
of  Prodicus.  In  regard  to  other 
achievements,  the  verbal  distinc- 
tions introduced,  by  the  sage  of 
Geos,  may  certainly  have  had  an 
influence  on  the  Socratic  method 
of  determining  the  concept:  they 
may  also  have  contributed  not 
a  little  to  the  enquiries  concern- 
ing the  various  meanings  of  words, 
which  subsequently  became  so  im- 
portant in  the  Aristotelian  meta- 
physics; but  in  the  first  place, 
Protagoras  preceded  Prodicus  in 
rhib  respect ;  and  secondly,  these 
verbal  distinctions,  which  Plato 
held  cheaply  enough,  cannot  be 
compared  for  their  influence  upon 
the  later  and  especially  upon  the 
Socratic  science,  with  the  dialectical 
discussions,  and  the  discussions  on 
the  theoiT  of  knowledge,  of  Prota- 
goras and  Gorgiae,  which  precisely 
through  their  sceptical  results  led 
up  to  the  discrimination  of  essence 
from  the  sensible  phenomenon,  and 
to  the  introduction  of  a  philosophy 
of  conceptions.  At  the  samf*  time, 
however,  the  limitation  of  the  dis- 
cussions of  Prodicus  to  verbal  ex- 
pression, and  the  exaggerated  im- 
portance ascribed  to  this  subject, 
Bhow  that  we  are  here  concerned 
with  something  that  lay  exclusively 
in  the  formal  and  one-sided  rhe- 
torical direction.  Further,  in  re- 
spect to  the  moral  theory  of  Pro- 


dicus, we  must  concede  to  Welcker 
that  its  Eudsemonistic  basis  is  no 
proof  of  its  Sophistic  character; 
but  on  the  other  band,  we  must 
remember  that  of  the  distinctive 
peculiarities  of  the  Socratic  ethics, 
of  the  great  principle  of  self- 
knowledge,  of  the  reduction  of 
virtue  to  knowledge,  ot  the  de- 
rivation of  moral  prescripts  from 
universal  conceptions,  we  find  in 
Prodicus  not  a  trace.  Lastly, 
what  we  know  of  his  views  abont 
the  gods  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Sophistic  culture.  Although 
therefore  Prodicus  may  be  called 
*  the  most  innocent  of  the  Sophists ' 
(Spengel,  -59),  inasmuch  as  we  are 
acquainted  with  no  principles  of  his 
dangerous  to  morality  and  sciencsk 
it  is  not  merely  on  external  simi- 
larity, but  also  the  internal  affinity 
of  his  scientific  character  and  pro- 
cedure with  those  of  the  Sophists, 
which  makes  me  hold  to  the  prece- 
dent of  the  ancient  writers,  who 
unanimously  counted  him  in  the 
Sophistic  ranks.  (Vide  gupra,  p. 
419,  3.^  The  disputing  of  moral 
principles  does  not  necessarily  be- 
long to  the  conception  of  the  So- 
phist, and  even  theoretical  sceptic- 
ism is  not  inseparable  from  it, 
though  both  were  included  no 
doubt  in  the  consequences  of  t^e 
Sophistic  point  of  view:  a  Sophist 
is  one  who  comes  forward  with  the 
claim  io  be  a  teacher  of  wisdom, 
whereas  he  is  not  concerned  with  the 
scientific  investigation  of  the  ob- 
ject, but  only  with  the  formal  and 
practical  culture  of  the  subject; 
and  these  characteristics  are  ap- 
plicable even  to  Prodicus.  Of. 
with  the  foregoing  remarks,  Scfaanz, 
loc.  cit,  p.  41  sqq. 


TSEIR  PLACE  IN  SI8T0RY.  608 

scholars  and  imitators,  we  see  the  one-sided  narrow- 
nesses and  exaggerations  of  the  Sophistic  stand-point 
exhibited  in  all  their  nakedness.  We  must  not,  how- 
ever, forget  that  these  defects  are  only  in  the  main 
the  reverse  side,  the  degradation  of  a  movement 
that  was  both  important  and  justifiable ;  and  that  we 
equally  fail  to  recognise  the  true  character  of  the 
Sophists,  or  to  do  justice  to  their  real  services,  whether 
we  regard  them  merely  as  destroyers  of  the  ancient 
Greek  theory  of  life,  or  with  Grote,  as  its  representatives. 
The  previous  period  had  confined  itself  in  its  practical 
conduct  to  the  moral  and  religious  tradition,  and  in  its 
science  to  the  contemplation  of  nature;  such  at  any 
rate  was  its  predominant  character,  though  isolated 
phenomena,  as  is  always  the  case,  announced  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  later  form  of  culture.  Now  people 
awoke  to  the  consciousness  that  this  is  not  sufficient, 
that  nothing  can  be  of  real  worth  or  value  for  a  man  that 
is  not  approved  by  his  personal  conviction,  or  that  has 
not  attained  a  personal  interest  for  him.  In  a  word,  [ 
the  validity  of  the  principle  of  subjectivity  is  asserted. 
Man  loses  his  reverence  for  the  actual  as  such,  he  will 
accept  nothing  as  true  which  he  has  not  proved,  he  will 
occupy  himself  with  nothing,  the  advantage  of  which  for 
himself  he  does  not  see:  he  will  act  upon  his  own  know- 
ledge, use  all  that  oflFers  for  himself,  be  everywhere  at 
home,  discuss  and  decide  everything.  The  demand  for 
universal  culture  is  aroused,  and  philosophy  makes  itself 
subservient  to  that  demand.  But,  because  this  road  is 
opened  for  the  first  time,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  find  the  way 
upon  it ;  man  has  not  yet  discovered  in  himself  the 


a04  TEE  SOPHISTS. 

point  at  which  he  must  place  himself^  in  order  to  see 
the  world  in  the  right  light,  and  not  to  lose  his  balance 
in  his  actions.  The  previous  science  no  longer  satisfies 
his  mental  needs ;  he  finds  its  scope  too  limited,  its  fundsr 
mental  conceptions  uncertain  and  contradictory.  The 
considerations  by  which  the  Sophists  made  men  conscious 
of  this  ought  not  to  be  undervalued,  nor  especially  the 
importance  of  the  Protagorean  scepticism  in  i^^ard  to 
questions  about  the  theory  of  knowledge ;  but  instead 
of  completing  physics  by  a  system  of  ethics,  physics  are 
now  entirely  set  aside ;  instead  of  seeking  a  new  scientific 
method,  the  possibility  of  wisdom  is  denied.  The  same 
is  the  case  with  the  sphere  of  morals ;  the  Sophists  are 
light  in  acknowledging  that  the  truth  of  a  principle, 
the  binding  nature  of  a  law,  is  not  demonstrated  by  its 
validity  as  a  matter  of  fsct ;  that  ancient  usage  as  such 
is  no  proof  of  the  necessity  of  a  thing ;  but  instead  of 
proceeding  to  seek  for  the  internal  grounds  of  obliga- 
tion in  the  nature  of  moral  activities  and  relations,  they 
are  satisfied  with  the  negative  result,  with  the  invalidity 
of  existing  laws,  with  the  abandonment  of  traditional 
customs  and  opinions ;  and,  as  the  positive  side  of  this 
negation,  there  remains  only  the  fortuitous  action  of 
the  individual  regulated  by  no  law  and  no  general  prin- 
ciple— only  caprice  and  personal  advantage.  Nor  is  it 
otherwise  with  the  attitude  adopted  by  the  Sophists 
towards  religion.  That  they  doubted  the  gods  of  their 
nation  and  saw  in  them  creations  of  the  human  mind 
will  never  be  a  reproach  to  them,  nor  should  the  histor- 
ical significance  of  this  scepticism  be  lightly  esteemed. 
They  erred  in  not  supplementing  their  denial  with  any 


THEIR  PLACE  IN  HISTORY,  605 

positiye  affirmatioD,  in  losing,  with  the  belief  in  gods, 
religion  altogether.  The  Sophistic  *  Illumination '  is  cer- 
tainly therefore  superficial  and  one-sided  in  its  nature, 
and  unscientific  and  dangerous  in  its  results.  But  all 
that  is  trivial  in  our  eyes  was  not  trivial  to  the  contem- 
poraries of  the  first  Sophists,  and  everything  that 
experience  has  since  shown  to  be  pernicious  was  not 
therefore  a  thing  to  be  avoided  from  its  commencement. 
The  Sophistic  movement  is  the  fruit  and  the  organ  of 
the  most  complete  revolution  that  had  hitherto  taken 
place  in  the  thought  and  intellectual  life  of  the  Greeks. 
This  nation  stood  on  the  threshold  of  a  new  period ; 
there  opened  before  it  a  view  into  a  previously  un- 
known world  of  freedom  and  culture :  can  we  wonder 
if  it  became  giddy  on  the  height  so  quickly  climbed,  if 
its  self-confidence  transcended  the  due  limits ;  if  man 
thought  himself  no  longer  bound  by  laws  when  he  had 
once  recognised  their  source  in  human  will;  and  re- 
garded all  things  as  subjective  phenomena,  because  we 
see  all  things  in  the  mirror  of  our  own  conscious- 
ness? The  way  of  the  old  science  had  been  lost,  a 
new  science  had  not  yet  been  discovered ;  the  moral 
powers  that  existed  could  not  prove  their  claim  to 
authority,  the  higher  law  within  a  man  was  not  as 
yet  acknowledged ;  there  was  a  straining  to  get  beyond 
natural  philosophy,  natural  religion,  and  a  morality 
which  was  the  natural  growth  of  custom,  but  there  was 
nothing  to  set  in  their  place  but  Empirical  subjectivity, 
dependent  upon  external  impressions  and  sensuous  im- 
pulses. Thus,  in  the  desire  to  render  himself  inde- 
pendent of  the  actual,  man  again  directly  sank  back 


506  THE  SOPHISTS. 

into  a  state  of  dependence  upon  it ;  and  an  attempt, 
which  was  justifiable  in  its  general  tendency,  on  account 
of  its  one-sidedness  bore  dangerous  fruits  for  science 
and  for  life.'  But  this  one-sidedness  was  not  to  be 
avoided,  and  in  the  history  of  philosophy,  it  is  not  even 
to  be  deplored.  The  fermentation  of  the  time  to  which 
the  Sophists  belong  brought  many  turbid  and  impure 
substances  to  the  surface,  but  it  was  necessary  that  the 
Greek  mind  should  pass  through  this  fermentation 
before  it  attained  the  clarified  stage  of  the  Socratic 
wisdom ;  and  as  the  Germans  would  scarcely  have  had  a 
Kant  without  the  *  AufHd/ningaperiode^^  so  the  Greeks 
would  scarcely  have  had  a  Socrates  and  a  Socratic  phi- 
losophy without  the  Sophists. 

The  relation  of  the  Sophists  to  the  previous  philo- 
sophy was,  on  the  one  side,  as  we  have  already  seen,  hos- 
tile, inasmuch  as  they  opposed  themselves,  not  merely 
to  its  results,  but  to  its  whole  tendency,  and  denied  the 
possibility  of  any  scientific  knowledge  whatever ;  at  the 
same  time,  however,  they  made  use  of  the  points  of 

'  That  the  Sophists  were  not  differs  from  its  own  opinions  and 

indeed    the    only,   or    the    chief  inclinations ;    the    Sophists      are 

cause,  of  the  moral  disorganisation  merely  persons  who  know  how  to 

which  prevailed  during  the  Pelo-  manage   the    public    adroitly,   to 

ponnesianwar;  that  the  aberrations  flatter  it^  prejudices  and  wishes, 

of  their  Ethics  were  rather  an  evi-  and  to  teach  others  the  same  art. 

deuce  than  a  reason  of  this  dis-  But  theie  is  no.  occasion  therefore 

organisation,  is  evident  and  has  to  deny,  as  Grote  does  (viii.  508 

already  been   shown,  p.   401   sq.  sqq.),  in  oppot»ition  to  the  most 

Grote  (vii.  51  sq.:  viii.  544  sq.)  express  statements  of  Thucydides 

appeals,   with  justice,   to   Plato*s  (iii.  82  sq. ;  iii.  52),  and  the  un- 

Assertion  {Hep.  vi.  492  A  sq.)  :  we  equivocal  testimony  of  history,  that 

ought  not  to  think  that  it  is  the  in  this  period  generally  a  disor- 

Sophists  who  corrupt  youth,  the  ganisation  of  moral  ideas,  and  a 

public  itself  is  the  greatest  of  all  decline  of  political  virtue  and  of 

Sophists,  tolerating  nothing  that  the  regard  for  law,  took  place. 


SOPHISTIC  SCHOOLS.  607 

contact  aflForded  them  by  the  older  philosophy ; '  and 
founded  their  scepticism  partly  upon  the  physics  of 
Heracleitus,  and  partly  upon  the  dialectical  arguments 
of  the  Eleatics,  But  we  are  scarcely  justified  in  recog- 
nising on  this  account  Eleatic,  as  distinct  from  Prota- 
gorean.  Sophists;^  for  Protagoras  and  Gorgias  attain 
essentially  the  same  result,  the  impossibility  of  know- 
ledge ;  and  as  regards  the  practical  side  of  Sophistic 
teaching— Eristic  disputation,  Ethics,  and  Ehetoric — 
it  makes  little  difference  whether  this  result  be  deduced 
from  Heracleitean  or  Eleatic  presuppositions.  Most  of 
the  Sophists,  moreover,  take  no  further  account  of  this 
diversity  of  scientific  starting-points,  and  trouble  them- 
selves little  about  the  origin  of  the  sceptical  arguments 
which  they  employ  according  as  the  need  of  them  arises. 
It  would  be  diflScult  to  say  in  the  case  of  several  very 
important  Sophists,  e.g.j  Prodicus,  Hippias,  Thrasyma- 
chus,  to  which  of  the  two  classes  they  belong.  If  to  these 
classes  be  added  the  Atomistic  doctrine,  as  a  degenerate 
form  of  the  Empedoclean  and  Anaxagorean  physics,'  it 
has  been  already  shown  (p.  294  sqq.)  that  the  Atomists 
do  not  belong  to  the  Sophistic  Schools ;  and  we  should  be 
unjust,  moreover,  to  the  Sophists,  and  ignore  what  is  new 
and  characteristic  in  the  movement,  if  we  were  to  treat 
it  merely  as  the  deterioration  of  the  previous  philo- 

'  Of.  p.  398  sq.,  404  sqq.  9o^ta  (both  words,  however,  mean 

*  Schleieimacher,     Gtsck.     d,  exactly  the  same) ;  Bitter,  i.  689 

Phil.  71  sq.,  defines  this  difference  sq.,  Brandis  and  Hermann,  ride 

in  the  following  hair-splitting,  and  infra,  Ast.  Ge»eh.  d.  Phil.  96  sq., 

we   might   almost    say,   Sophistic  had  already  drawn  a  distinction 

formala:  In  Magna  Gnecia,  he  says,  between   the   Ionian   and   Italian 

Sophistic  teaching  was  So^acro^to,  Sophists. 

in    Ionia,    universal    knowledge,  '  Schleiermacher    and    Ritter, 

knowledge  about  appearance,  ao^o-  loc.  cU, 


608  THE  SOPHISTS. 

sophy,  or  even  as  the  deterioration  of  particular  branches 
of  that  philosophy.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Hitter's 
observation,  that  the  later  Pythagoreanism  was  likewise 
a  kind  of  Sophistic  doctrine.  Finally,  when  Hermann^ 
distinguishes  an  Eleatic,  Heracleitean  and  Abderite 
Sophisticism,  and  says  the  first  is  represented  by  Croi^as, 
the  second  by  Euthydemus,  the  third  by  Protagoras,  we 
may  urge  in  reply  that  no  clear  result  is  obtained  firom 
the  division  of  the  leading  Sophists  into  these  three 
classes,  and  that  the  division  itself  is  not  in  agreement 
with  historical  fact. .  For  Protagoras  bases  his  theory  of 
knowledge,  not  on  Atomistic,  but  exclusively  on  Hera- 
cleitean conceptions,  and  Euthydemus  is  distinguished 
from  him,  not  by  his  adopting  the  theories  of  Heraclei- 
tus  in  greater  purity,  but  on  the  contrary,  by  his  sup- 
plementing them  with  certain  propositions  borrowed 
from  the  Eleatics.*  Democritus  and  Protagoras  certainly 

>  ZeU6chr,f,AUerthwn8wA^'^^y  wherea»,  according  to  Heracleitus, 

360  sq.  of.  295  sq. ;   Plot,  PHI.  unlike  is  known  by  unlike.    Her- 

190,  299,   161  ;    De  PhUos.  Jon.  mann,  however,  has  here  confounded 

£tatt.  17;   of.  Petersen,  Pkilol,-  two  very  different  things.     Theo- 

HUtor.    Stud.    3d,    who    derives  phrastus  (vide  aupnL,  p.  89,  2)  savs 

Protagoras  from  Heradeitus  and  of  Heracluitus,  that,  like  Anaxa- 

Democritus  conjointly.  goras   subsequently,   he  supposed 

'  Hermann  urges  in  support  of  in  regard  to  the  sense-peroeption 
his  theory  that  Democritus,  like  (for  to  this  only  the  proposition 
Protagoras,  declared  the  phenome-  relates,  and  to  this  only  it  is  re- 
nal to  be  the  true :  we  have  already  ferred  by  Theophmstus :  the  reason 
seen,  however,  p.  272  8q.,that  this  external  to  us,  the  primitive  fire, 
is  only  an  inference  drawn  by  Aris-  we  know,  according  to  Heracleitus, 
totle  from  his  sensualistic  teaching,  by  means  of  the  rational  and  fieiy 
but  which  Democritus  himself  was  element  within  us)  that  contraries 
far  from  entertaining.  Hermann  ave  known  by  contraries,  warm  by 
further  says  that  as  Democritus  oold,  &c.  Protagoras  is  so  fif 
held  that  like  was  only  known  by  from  contradicting  this  statement 
like,  so  Protagoras  maintained  that  that  he  rather  derives,  with  Hera- 
the  knowingsubject  must  be  moved,  cleiitu,  the  sense-peTception  from 
as    much    as  the    thing    known ;  the  encounter  of  opposite  motions. 


SOPHISTIC  SCHOOLS. 


509 


agree  in  the  assertion,  that  the  sensible  qualities  of 
things  merely  describe  the  manner  in  which  things 
affect  us ;  but  this  agreement  is  rather  to  be  explained 
by  the  influence  of  Protagoras  on  Democritus,  than  by 
that  of  Democritus  or  Protagoras.*     Neither  of  these 


an  active  and  a  passiye  motion 
(vide  stxp,  445  sqq.,  cf.  88  sq.)-  On 
the  other  hand,  that  tJie  knowing 
subject  and  the  thing  known  must 
equally  be  moved,  was  not  only 
admitted  by  Heiacleitus,  but  he 
was  the  firat  amone  the  ancient 
physicists  to  assert  it,  and  Prota- 
goras borrowed  the  statement,  as 
we  have  shown,  /.  c,  according  to 
Plato  and  others,  from  him  alone. 
Lastly  it  is  said  that  Cratylus  the 
Heracleitean,  maintains,  in  Plato, 
the  direct  contrary  of  Protagonists 
theorem ;  this  I  cannot  find ;  it 
rather  seems  to  me  that  the  state- 
ments that  language  is  the  work  of 
the  maker  of  names,  that  all  names 
are  equally  true  and  that  one  can- 
not utter  anything  false  {Crai.  429 
B,  D),  are  entirely  in  harmony  with 
the  standpoint  of  Protagoras,  and 
when  Proclus  (in  CraL  41)  opposes 
to  Euthydemus's  theorem  that '  aU 
is  at  the  same  time  true  to  all,'  the 
famous  Protagorean  proposition,  I 
can  see  no  great  difference  between 
them.  Cf  the  proofs  given,  p.  456 
sq.  Moreover,  as  all  our  authori- 
ties, and  Plato  himself,  derive  the 
Protagorean  theory  of  knowledge 
primarily  from  the  physics  of 
Heracleitus,  and  as  no  trace  of  an 
Atomistic  doctrine  is  discernible  in 
Protagoras,  and  even  the  possibility 
of  such  a  doctrine  is  excluded  by 
his  theory,  history  must  abide  by 
the  usual  opinion  concerning  the 
relation  of  Protagoras  to  Heradei- 
tus.  This  judgment  is  endorsed 
by  Frei,  Q^mst,  Prot   105  sqq.; 


Bhein,  Mua.  viii.  273,  &c.  When 
Vitringa,  De  Prot,  188  sqq.  ur|;es 
in  &vour  of  Protagoras's  connection 
with  Democritus,  that  Democritus 
(like  Protagoras,  vide  stfpra,  p.  445 
sq.)  maintained  a  motion  without 
beginning,  a  doing  and  a  suffering, 
he  relies  on  points  of  comparison 
that  are  much  too  indefinite :  the 
question  is,  whether  we  are  to 
derive  a  theory  which  starts  from 
the  presupposition  that  there  is  no 
unchangeable  Being,  from  a  system 
which  IS  based  upon  this  very 
thrarem;  or  from  another  system 
which  denies  aU  change  of  original 
Being:  from  Democritus  in  &ct, 
rather  than  Heracleitus.  What 
Vitringa  farther  adduces  has  little 
weight. 

■  Lange,  Geach,  d.  McUer,  i. 
131  sq.,  is  indeed  of  opinion  that 
the  subjective  tendency  of  Pro- 
tagoras in  his  theory  of  knowledge, 
the  cancelling  of  sensible  qualities 
in  subjective  impressions,  cannot  be 
explained  from  Heracleitus  alone ; 
and  that  the  y6iufp  yXwch^  &c.  of 
Democritus  forms  the  natural  tran- 
sition from  Physics  to  Sophisticism. 
In  case,  therefore,  Protagoras  was 
reall]^  twenty  years  older  than  De- 
mocritus, we  must  suppose  that, 
having  been  originally  merely  an 
orator  and  a  teacher  of  politics,  he 
subsequently  formed  his  system 
under  the  influence  of  Democritus. 
But  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the 
assertion  of  the  philosophers  (so 
often  repeated  from  Heracleitus 
and  Parmenides  onwards)  that  the 


610 


THE  SOPHISTS. 


classifications,  therefore,  appears  either  true  or  satis* 

factory. 

Nor  do  the  internal  differences  between  individual 

Sophists  seem  important  enough  to  constitute  a  basis 

for  the  theory  of  separate  schools.    When,  for  instance, 

sopher  who  sees  in  bodies  oom- 
binatioDs  of  nDchangeable  sub- 
Btances,  may  complain  of  the 
Ben  sea  because  thej  do  not  shov 
us  these  ftindamental  constituents 
of  bodies,  and  consequently  make 
the  Becoming  and  Decay  of  the 
composite  appear  as  an  absolute 
Becoming  and  Decay ;  but  he  can- 
not complain  of  tbem,  as  Protago- 
ras did,  because  nothing  permanent, 
speaking  generally,  corresponds 
vith  the  phenomena  which  th(<y 
show  us,  and  because  the-  objects 
perceived  only  exist  in  the  moment 
of  perception.  The  only  thing  in 
which  Protagoras  reminds  us  of 
Democritus  is  the  proposition  (p. 
448,  1),  that  things  are  white, 
warm,  hard,  &Ct  only  in  so  far  and 
for  so  long  as  our  senses  are  af- 
fected by  them.  This  has,  no 
doubt,  a  similarity  with  the  state- 
ment attributed  by  Theophrastus 
(sup.  p.  231,  8)  to  Democritus  (in 
the  vOfA^  y\wcuy  &o.,  p.  219,  3,  it  is 
not  as  yet  to  be  found) ;  rww  iWmw 
alaihiTtSy  (besides  weight,  hard- 
ness, &c.)  oh9^s  clnu  ^ve-iy,  itXXk 
vdrra  riBri  r^r  ataiNftf'cws  oAXotov- 
Ikirns,  But  if  Democritus  really 
said  this,  and  it  was  not  merely  a 
comment  of  Tbeophrastus  on  some 
utterance  of  his,  and  if  his  coin- 
cidence with  Protagoras  is  not 
merely  fortuitous,  it  is  still  a 
question  which  of  these  men  first 
asserted  the  proposition.  In  favour 
of  Protagoras,  there  is  the  fact 
that  he  was  not  only  much  older 
than  Democritus,  but  that  Demo- 


senses  are  untrustworthy — was  not 
sufficient  to  lead  Protagoras  to  the 
conclusion  that  since  it  i»  through 
the  senses  alone  we  have  any  know- 
ledge of  things,  if  they  are  untrust- 
worthy, we  can  know  absolutely 
nothing,  and  why  Heracleitus*s 
statement  that  everything  per- 
ceptible to  sense  is  only  a  passing 
phenomenon,  and  what  the  senses 
tell  us  is  merely  delunve  appear- 
ance (vide  p.  88),  might  not  have 
caused  him  (Protagoras)  to  adopt 
the  theory  which  Plato  and  Sextns 
ascribe  to  him  (cf.  p.  446  sq.).  It 
was  only  necessary  that,  on  the  one 
hand,  Heracleitus's  propositions  of 
the  flux  of  all  things,  and  of  the 
opposite  course  of  motions,  should 
have  been  expressly  anplied  to  the 
question  concerning  the  origin  of 
perceptions,  in  order  to  explain  the 
untrustworthiuess  of  perceptions 
already  maintained  by  Heracleitus ; 
and  that  on  the  other  hand,  rational 
perception,  in  which  Heracleitus 
found  truth,  should  have  been  over- 
looked (cf.  pp.  113,  114).  But  this 
latter  must  have  occurred  (as  Lange 
himself  remarks^  even  with  the  doc- 
trine of  Democntus,  if  a  scepticism 
like  that  of  Protagoras  was  to  re- 
sult from  it;  and  in  the  former 
case,  Heracleitus  alone  could  have 
furnishe  the  presuppositions  with 
which  Protagoras  is  actually  con- 
nected: whereas,  as  has  been  al- 
ready shown,  it  is  impossible  to 
deduce  his  theory,  as  represented 
to  us  in  history,  from  the  Ato- 
mistic   philosophy.      The    philo- 


SOPHISTIC  SCHOOLS. 


611 


Wendt'  divides  the  Sophists  into  those  who  came  for- 
ward chiefly  as  orators,  and  those  who  were  more  espe- 
cially known  as  teachers  of  wisdom  and  virtue,  we  can 
see  by  the  use  of  the  word  '  more '  how  uncertain  such  a 
division  must  be  ;  and  if  we  try  to  apportion  the  known 
historical  names  to  the  two  classes,  we  immediately  fall 
into  confusion.*  Instruction  in  rhetoric  was  not  usually, 
with  the  Sophists,  separated  from  their  teaching  of 
virtue ;  eloquence  was  regarded  by  them  as  the  most 
important  instrument  of  political  power,  and  the  theo- 
retical side  of  their  teaching,  which,  in  reference  to  phi- 
losophy, is  precisely  of  most  consequence,  is  passed  over 
in  this  classification.  The  classification  of  Petersen'  is 
no  better :  he  makes  a  distinction  between  the  subject- 
ive scepticism  of  Protagoras,  the  objective  scepticism  of 
Gorgias,  the  moral  scepticism  of  Thrasymachus,  and  the 
religious  scepticism  of  Critias.     What  is  here  described 


crituB  (acoording  to  p.  275)  op- 
posed his  scepticism ;  for  in  spite 
of  Lange,  the  relation  of  age  be- 
tween tiie  two  is  beyond  a  donbt. 
It  is  idso  yery  improbable  that 
Protagoras  only  arrived  at  his 
sceptical  theory,  and  his  doctrine, 
lUJAn  is  the  measure  of  all  things/ 
seyeral  years  after  his  first  a^ 
pearance  as  a  teacher;  for  this 
doctrine  was  of  radical  importance 
for  him,  and  was  essentially  con- 
nected with  his  art  of  disputation, 
his  repudiation  of  physics,  and  his 
restriction  to  the  practical  sphere. 
1  Wendt,Ztf  r«nn<»7Mnfi,i.467. 
Similarly  Tennemann  himself,  /.  c, 
discriminates  those  Sophistfl  who 
were  also  orators,  and  those  who 
separated  sophistic  teachini?  from 
rhetoric    But  in  the  second  class 


he  places  only  Euthydemus  and 
Bionysodorus ;  and  these  do  noc 
belong  to  it,  strictly  speaking ;  for 
they  likewise  taught  judicial  ora- 
tory, which  they  never,  even  sub- 
sequently, quite  abandoned :  Plato, 
EiUhyd.  271  D  sq.,  273  C  sq. 

'  Wendt  reckons  in  the  first 
class,  besides  Tisias — who  was  only 
a  rhetorician  and  not  a  sophist — 
Gorgias,  Meno,  Polus,  Thrasyma- 
chus; in  the  second,  Protagoras, 
Cratylus,  Prodicus,  Hippias,  Eu- 
thydemus. Bat  Oorgias  is  also  of 
importance  as  a  teacher  of  virtue, 
especially  because  of  his  sceptical 
eDquiries,«nd  Prot-agoras,  Prodicus, 
Euthydemus '  occupied  themselves 
much  in  their  instructions  and 
their  writings  with  rhetoric. 

*  PMlo8,mst0T.  Studien.  85  sqq. 


612  THE  SOPHISTS. 

as  peculiar  to  Thrasymachus  and  Critias  is  commoD  to 
them  and  to  the  majority  of  the  Sophists,  at  any  rate,  of 
the  later  Sophists;  Protagoras  and  Gorgias  also  are 
closely  allied  to  each  other  in  their  conclusions  and  gene- 
ral tendency ;  lastly,  Hippias  and  Prodicns  find  in  these 
categories  no  special  place.  Against  the  exposition  of 
Brandis,*  likewise,  much  may  be  urged.  Brandis  ob- 
serves that  the  Heracleitean  Sophisticism  of  Protagoras 
and  the  Eleatic  Sophisticism  of  Gorgias  very  soon  be- 
came united  in  an  extensive  school,  which  branched  off 
in  different  directions.  Among  these  branches  two  classes 
are  primarily  distinguished :  the  dialectical  sceptics  and 
those  who  attacked  morality  and  religion*  Among  the 
former,  Brandis  reckons  Euthydemus,  Dionysodorus  and 
Lycophron ;  with  the  latter,  Critias,  Polus,  Callicles, 
Thrasymachus,  Diagoras.  In  addition  to  these,  he 
mentions  Hippias  and  Prodicus ;  of  whom  Hippias  en- 
riched his  rhetoric  with  multifarious  knowledge,  and 
Prodicus,  by  his  linguistic  discussions  and  his  didactic 
discourses,  sowed  the  seeds  of  more  serious  thought. 
But  though  this  theory  is  right  in  asserting  that  the 
Sophisticism  of  Protagoras  and  that  of  Gorgias  were 
very  soon  united,  yet  the  discrimination  of  dialectic 
and  ethical  scepticism  affords  no  good  dividing  line ;  for 
this  reason,  that  they  are  in  their  nature  mutually  de- 
pendent, and  the  one  is  merely  the  direct  application  of 
the  other ;  if,  therefore,  in  particular  details  they  do 
not  always  coincide,  this  is  not  the  result  of  any  essen- 
tial difference  of  scientific  tendency.  We  know,  how- 
ever, too  little  of  most  of  the  Sophists  to  be  able  to 

»  Gr.-Eom,  Phil.  i.  623,  641,  643. 


SOPHISTIC  SCHOOLS, 


613 


judge  with  certainty  how  they  stood  in  respect  to  this 
matter ;  even  Brandis  does  not  place  Prodicus  and 
Hippias  in  either  of  the  two  categories.  Vitringa* 
names  them  with  Protagoras  and  Gorgias  as  the  heads 
of  the  four  Sophistic  schools  which  he  assumes;  he 
designates  the  school  of  Protagoras  as  sensualistic,  that 
of  Prodicus  as  ethical,  that  of  Hippias  as  physical,  that 
of  Crorgias  as  politico-rhetorical;  but  in  this  way  we 
do  not  obtain  a  true  representation  of  the  individual 
character  and  mutual  relation  of  these  men ; '  nor 
does  history  give  us  any  warrant  for  dividing  all  the 
Sophists  with  whom  we  are  acquainted,  even  if  it 
were  possible  to  do  so,  into  the  four  schools  just  men- 
tioned.* 


'  De  Sophigtarum  seholis  qua 
Socraiis  €ttate  Athenia  Jlortierunt, 
Mnemosyne,  ii.  (1863)  228-237. 

*  Vitringa  calls  the  doctrine  of 
Protagoras  *  absolute  sensualism ; ' 
bat  his  theory  of  knowledge  is 
rather  a  scepticism,  starting  no 
doubt  from  sensualistic  presuppo- 
sitions; and  his  ethico-political 
views,  on  the  other  hand,  iure 
brought  into  connection  by  Vi- 
tringa (l.  c.  226)  with  this  sen- 
sualism in  a  very  arbitrary  manner ; 
moreover  his  rhetoric,  which  con- 
stituted a  chief  part  of  his  activity, 
is  in  harmony  with  his  scepticism, 
but  not  at  all  with  sensualism. 
Prodicus,  liVewise,  is  not  merely  a 
moralist^  but  also  a  rhetorician : 
in  Plato  his  discussions  on  lan- 
guage are  placed  decidedly  in  the 
foreground.  Still  less  can  Hippias 
be  described  as  a  physicist  merely  : 
be  is  a  man  of  universal  know- 
ledge ;  indeed,  it  would  seem  that 
the  greater  part  of  his  speeches  and 


writings  were  of  an  historical  and 
moral  nature.  Lastly,  if  Gorgias, 
at  a  later  period,  professed  to  teach 
rhetoric  only,  we  cannot,  in  esti- 
mating his  scientific  character,  pass 
over  either  his  sceptical  demon- 
strations or  his  doctrine  of  virtue. 
'  In  the  school  of  Protagoras 
Vitringa  includes  Enthydemus  and 
Dionysodoms,  in  that  of  Gorgias, 
Thraiymachus ;  but  the  two  former 
were  not  exclusively  allied  inth 
Protagoras,  as  has  been  already 
shown  pp.  466, 457;  and  that  Thra- 
symachns  belonged  to  the  Gorgian 
school  there  is  no  evidence  to 
prove.  The  character  of  his  rhe- 
toric (vide  iupra,  p.  494)  is  against 
the  supposition.  On  the  other 
hand,  Agathon,  who  was  not,  how- 
ever, a  Sophist,  must  have  been 
designated  as  a  disciple  of  GoTgias 
and  not  of  Prodicus  (cf.  p.  494,  2). 
He  is  represented  in  Plato.  Prot, 
316  D,  as  a  hearer  of  Gorgias,  but 
that  proves  nothing. 


VOL.  n. 


L  L 


614  THE  SOPHISTS. 

If  we  possessed  more  of  the  writings  of  the  Sophists, 
and  had  tradition  informed  us  more  perfectly  as  to  their 
opinions,  it  might,  however,  have  been  possible  to  follow 
up  the  characteristics  of  the  different  schools  somewhat 
further.  But  our  accounts  are  very  scanty,  and  indeed 
any  fixed  boundaries  between  the  schools  seem  to  be 
excluded  by  the  very  nature  of  Sophisticism ;  for  its 
purpose  was  not  to  guarantee  objective  knowledge,  but 
only  subjective  readiness  of  thought  and  practical 
versatility.  This  form  of  culture  is  tied  to  no  scientific 
system  and  principle,  its  distinctive  character  appears 
far  more  in  the  ease  with  which  it  takes  from  the  most 
various  theories  whatever  may  be  useful  for  its  tempo- 
rary purpose ;  and  for  this  reason  it  propagates  itself 
not  in  separate  and  exclusive  schools,  but  in  a  freer 
manner,  by  mental  infection  of  different  kinds.^  Al- 
though therefore  it  may  be  true  that  one  Sophist  ar- 
rived at  his  results  through  the  Eleatic  presuppositions, 
and  another  through  those  of  Heracleitus;  Uiat  one 
gave  the  preference  to  Eristic  disputation,  and  another 
to  rhetoiic,  that  one  confined  himself  to  the  practical 
arts  of  the  Sophists,  and  another  adopted  their  theories 
also ;  that  one  paid  greater  attention  to  ethical  and 
another  to  dialectical  enquiries ;  that  one  desired  to 
be  called  a  rhetorician,  and  another  a  teacher  of  virtue 
or  a  Sophist ;  and  that  the  first  Sophists  transmitted  in 
these  respects  their  own  characteristics  to  their  scholars ; 
yet  all  these  distinctions  are  fluctuating;  they  cannot 
be  regarded  as  essentially  different  conceptions  of  the 
Sophistic  principle,  but  only  as  separate  manifestations 
^  As  Brandis  well  obserrefl. 


SOPHISTIC  SCHOOLS,  615 

of  that  principle  according  to  individual  tendency  and 
temperament. 

There  is  more  to  be  said  for  the  division  of  the 
earlier  Sophists  from  the  later.  Exhibitions  like  those 
^vhich  Plato  describes  in  so  masterly  a  manner  in  the 
EtUhydemus,  are  as  far  removed  from  the  important 
personalities  of  a  Protagoras  and  a  Oorgias  as  the  virtue 
of  a  Diogenes  from  that  of  a  Socrates ;  and  the  later 
Sophists,  as  a  rule,  bear  unmistakable  marks  of  de^ 
generacy  and  decline.  The  moral  principles  especially, 
which  in  the  sequel  justly  gave  so  much  offence,  are 
alien  to  the  Sophistic  teachers  of  the  first  period.  But 
we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  even  the  later  form 
of  Sophisticism  was  not  accidental,  but  an  inevitable 
consequence  of  the  Sophistic  standpoint,  and  that  there- 
fore its  premonitory  symptoms  begin  even  with  its  most 
celebrated  representatives.  Where  belief  in  a  truth  of 
universal  validity  is  abandoned,  and  all  science  is  dissi- 
pated in  Eristic  argumentation  and  rhetoric,  as  is  the 
case  here,  everything  will  in  the  end  be  dependent  on 
the  caprice  and  advantage  of  the  individual ;  and  even 
scientific  activity  will  be  degraded  from  a  striving  after 
truth,  concerned  solely  with  its  object,  into  an  instru- 
ment for  the  satisfaction  of  self-interest  and  vanity. 
The  first  authors  of  such  a  mode  of  thought  generally 
hesitate  to  draw  these  inferences  simply  and  logically, 
because  their  own  culture  still  partly  belongs  to  an 
earlier  time  ;  those  on  the  otber  hand  who  have  grown 
up  in  the  new  culture,  and  are  bound  by  no  antagonistic 
reminiscences,  cannot  avoid  such  inferences,  and  having 
once  set  out  upon  the  new  road,  must  declare  them- 

ll2 


616  THE  SOPHISTS. 

Belves  more  decidedly  with  each  fresh  step.  Bnt  a 
simple  return  to  the  old  faith  and  morality,  such  as 
Aristophanes  demands,  could  not  have  taken  place,  nor 
would  it  have  satisfied  men  who  more  deeply  understood 
their  own  times.  The  true  way  of  transcending  the 
Sophistic  teaching  was  shown  by  Socrates  alone,  who 
sought  to  gain  in  thought  itself,  the  power  of  which  had 
been  proved  by  the  destruction  of  the  previous  con- 
victions, a  deeper  basis  for  science  and  morality. 


INDEX. 


A  BASIS,  Hyperborean  priest  of 
Apollo,  Pythagorean  legends 
of,  i.  327,  1 ;  339,  ». 

Aeusilaut,  cosmology  of,  i.  97; 
reckoned  among  Uie  seven  wise 
men,  i.  119,  1 

Adrcutea,  in  Orphic  cosmogonies, 
i.  100  sq. 

JSsopf  his  date  and  writings,  i.  115 

Mther,  a  divinity,  according  to 
Hesiod,  i.  86 :  and  £pimeude8, 
i.  97 ;  derivation  of  the  word, 
ii.  356,  3;  how  regarded  by 
Heracleitos,  24, 26 ;  Empedocles, 
154,  1 ;  Anazagoras,  855,  366; 
possibly  the  &h  element  of 
the  Pythagoreans,  436.  4 ;  437, 1 

Agaihon,  ii.  415,  n. 

Air,  how  regarded  by  Anaximan* 
der,  i.  232,  241,  251  sq.,  256, 
258 ;  by  Anaximenes,  i.  267  sqq.; 
by  Hippo  and  Ideas,  284 ;  by 
Diogenes,  288  sq. ;  by  the  Py th^ 
goreans,  436,  467;  by  Xeno- 
phanes,  565  sq.,  678 ;  by  Parme- 
nides,  699 ;  by  Heradeitns,  ii. 
61,  3 ;  by  Empedocles,  125, 130, 
155;  by  Democritns,  234,  247 
sq.,  287,  289 ;  by  Metrodoros, 
316, 2 ;  by  Anazagoms,  355,  365 

Alc<nu,  a  lyric  poet  in.  7th  century 
B.C.,  i.  114;  118,  1 

Alcidanuu  the  Sophist,  ii.  426, 477 

Atcimw  cited  by  Diogenes  Laer- 


tins  in  regard  to  the  philosophy 
of  Epicharmus,  i.  529 ;  probably 
the  same  Sicilian  whose  2ticcXi«& 
are  mentioned  in  Athen.  zii. 
518  b,  cf.  vii.  322 ;  z.  441  a. 
See  General  Index  to  the  Ger- 
man text  of  the  present  work 

Mcmaon,  a  physician  influenced  by 
Pythagorean  philosophy,  i.  823, 
449,  #.,  621,  625 

Anaeharns,  sometimes  reckoned 
among  the  seven  wise  men,  i. 
119,1 

Anaereon,  a  Ijrio  poet,  i.  114;  on 
the  future  life.  i.  126 

Anaxofforas  of  ClazomeniB,  some- 
times reckoned  among  the  seven 
wise  men,  i.  1 19, 1 ;  his  supposed 
affinity  with  Judaism,  i.  35,  87 ; 
with  Oriental  philosophy,  ii.  385 ; 
his  relation  to  predecessors  and 
contemporaries,  i.  200  ac^q, ;  ii. 
330  sqq.,  373  sqq. ;  his  life  and 
writings^  ii.  321  sqq. ;  his  philo- 
sophy, ii.  329 ;  impossibihty  of 
Generation  and  Decay,  831 ; 
primitive  substances,  332 ;  -origi- 
nal mixture  of  matter,  338 ;  vovs, 
342  sqq. ;  question  of  its  person- 
ality, 346  sq. ;  efficient  activity  of 
rovSf  350  sq. ;  origin  and  system 
ofthe  Universe,  854  sq. ;  Meteo- 
rology, 362 ;  liring  creatures.  368 
sq.;  plants  and  animab,  366; 


618 


INDEX. 


ANA 

msD,  867 ;  the  fenses,  368 ; 
roatoii,370;  ethics,  371;  hieat- 
titnde  to  religion,  372 ;  general 
character  of  hie  philosophy,  383 
eq. ;  school  of.  387 

Jnaxarckui  of  Abden,  an  Ato- 
mist ;  his  heroism  under  torture, 
ii.  317,  6 

Anaximander  of  Miletus,  his  life 
and  date,  i.  227,  2 ;  author  of 
first  Oreek  work  on  philosophy, 
228 ;  his  &r«i^oy,  228  sqq.,  241 ; 
this  vas  not  a  mechanical  mix- 
ture, 238  sqq. ;  nor  a  determinate 
substance,  247 ;  its  eternity  and 
animate  nature,  248,  249 ;  cos- 
mology of  Anaximander,  250 
sqq. ;  alternate  construction  and 
destruction  of  the  world,  256  ; 
origin  of  animals,  255 ;  descent 
of  man,  256;  infinite  worlds, 
257;  the  soul,  256;  meteoro- 
logy, 256 ;  his  conne(*tion  with 
Thales,  266;  historical  position, 
265 

Anaximenea  of  Miletus,  i.  266 ;  his 
date,  266,  2 ;  primitive  matter, 
air,  267  sq. ;  rarefaction  and 
condensation,  271 ;  formation  of 
the  universe,  271  sqq. ;  meteor- 
ology, 271,  278;  the  soul,  278; 
historical  position,  278 

Animals,  origin  of,  according  to 
Anaximander,  i.  255;  Hippo, 
282 ;  IMogenes  of  ApoUonia,  296 ; 
the  Pythagoreans,  480;  nutri- 
tion of,  by  smell,  481,  n,;  opi- 
nions respecting,  of  Pythago- 
reans, 447,  n,;  484,  2;  of 
Alcmseon,  522,  2 ;  of  Epichar- 
mus,  530  ;  of  Xenophanes,  577  ; 
of  Parmenides,  601 ;  of  Empe- 
docles,ii.  160  sqq.,  174,  175;  of 
I)emocritus,253,254 ;  of  Anaxa- 
goras,  365,  366 ;  of  Archelaus, 
392 

Anthropology  y  ancient  Greek,  i .  1 28 ; 
of  the  various  philosophers ;  see 


the  summaries  of  their  doetiines 
under  their  names 

AnHmartu,  a  Sophist,  disciple  of 
Protagoras,  ii  426 

Antipkan,  a  Sophist,  ii.  861,  6; 
426 

ApoUoniui,  a  poet  of  Alexandria ; 
his  alluftions  to  Orphic  cosmo- 
gony, i.  99 

ArchanUius,  L  393 

Archelaus,  a  disciple  of  Anaxagoras, 
ii.  387 ;  his  doctrines,  389  sqq. 

Archilockus,  i.  122 

Arehytas,  his  life  and  writings,  L 
319-322,  366  sq.,  390 ;  his  sup- 
posed doctrine  of  Ideas,  820 

Aristodemus,  sometimes  included 
among  the  seven  wise  men,  i. 
118,  1;  119,1 

Aristotle,  standpoint  and  character 
of  his  philosophy,  i.  155,  162, 
172,  175,  182;  second  period  of 
Greek  philosophy  doses  with. 
164,  179;  on  the  Socratic  and 
pre^Socratic  philosophy,  185, 
189;  on  Thales,  217,  218; 
Anaximand<>r,  228  sqq. ;  Anaxi- 
menes,  271,  1;  275;  Diogenes, 
288,289,299;  thePytliagoreaas, 
306  sq.;  351,2;  418,  419  sq., 
476,  481.  509;  Eleatics,  533, 
640;  Xenophanes,  662,  5C6; 
Parmenides,  583, M.,  593 ;  606. 1 ; 
Zeno,  613,  622;  624,  1;  625; 
Melinsus,  534,  535,  630  sq. ; 
Heracleitus,  ii.  6, »..  12,  36,  59. 
65:  Empedocles,  119,».,  131,»., 
139,  144,  149.  153;  the  Atom- 
ists,  208,  #.,  210  sq.,  237-245, 
300,  313;  Anaxagoras,  333  sq.. 
340,  354,  357,  364 

Aristoxenus  of  Tarentum,  a  disciple 
of  Aristotle,  on  the  Pfthago- 
reans,  i.  329 ;  351,  2 ;  358,  n. ; 
361,  364  sqq.,  493 

Arithmetic,  supposed  discovery  of, 
by  Phoenicians,  i  215,  1 ;  in- 
cluded in  Greek  education,  78 


INDEX. 


519 


Max  > 
pTominence  in  I^hagoreaD  phi- 
losophy, 407,  419 
Art,  not  included  in  philosophy,  i. 
8;  inflnence  of^  on  philosophy, 
64 ;  religion  ministered  to,  54 ; 
connection  of,  with  politicalpros- 
perity,  81 ;  Oreek,  as    distin- 
gnished  from   modern,  i.  142- 
144;  some  arts  borrowed  from 
animals,  ii.  277;  of  happiness, 
280 ;  deriration  of,  according  to 
Heracleitus,  808, 1 
itfxh,  first  application  of  the  word 
to  a  first  principle  by  Anaxi- 
roander,  i.  248 
Astronomy;  see  Stars 
arapai^ia  of  the  Sceptics,  i.  159 
Athens  in  the  dth  century  B.C.,  ii. 

895,  401 
Atomistic  School,  ii.  207;  Atom- 
istic (Democriteao)  philosophy : 
principle  and  a  standpoint,  210 
sqq.;  Becomingaod  Decay,  215; 
Being  and  1)  on-Being,  217 ; 
Atoms  and  the  Void,  219 ;  quali- 
ties of  the  atoms,  219;  differences 
among  them,  228, 245 ;  the  Void, 
228 ;  changes,  reciprocal  rela- 
tion, and  qualities  of  things,  239 
sq. ;  primary  and  secondary  qui^ 
lities,  282;  the  elements,  234; 
movement  of  the  atoms,  235; 
denial  of  Chance,  239 ;  vortex, 
247 ;  formation  (xf  the  universe, 
244  sq.;  innumerable  worlds, 
245 ;  inorganic  nature,  252 ; 
meteorology,  253, 1 ;  plants  and 
animals,  253  sq.,  268;  man: 
his  body,  253 ;  suul,  258 ;  rela- 
tion of  soul  and  body,  261 ; 
universal  difihsien  of  soul,  263 ; 
cognition  and  sensation,  266, 
271  ;  sight  and  heariog,  268  sq. ; 
thought,  271,  275 ;  rational  and 
sensible  perception,  271,  272; 
supposed  scepticism  of  Demo- 
critus,  275 ;  opinion  as  to  the 
beginnings  of  human  culture. 


277;  ethics,  278  sqq.;  happi- 
ness, 279  ;  friendship,  283 ;  the 
state,  284;  marriage,  285;  re- 
ligion, 287;  €li»\a,  289  sq.; 
prognostics  and  magic,  290, 29 1 ; 
position  and  character  of  Ato- 
mistic philosophy,  292  sq. ;  not 
a  form  of  Sophistic  doctrine, 
294  sq. ;  relation  to  Eleatie  phi- 
losophy, 305  sq. ;  to  Heracleitus, 
309;  to  Empsdodee,  310;  to 
Pythagoreans,  312 ;  to  ancient 
lonians,  312;  to  Anaxagoras, 
813 ;  later  representatives,  Me- 
trodoms,  313 ;  Anaxarchus,  317 


J^EANS,  prohibition  of,  by  Py- 
-^     thagoras,  i.  381. 1 ;  344;  851, 

I  ;  byNuma,  519,  n.;  byEmpe- 
docles,  ii.  175,  3 

Becoming f  denial  of,  by  the  Eleatics, 
i.  203  ;  how  regarded  by  Hera- 
cleitus, Empedocles,  the  Ato« 
mists,  and  Anaxagoras,  208. 
See  the  account  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  several  philosophers  un- 
der their  names 

JBeinQf  how  apprehended  by  the 
earlier  and  Uter  Physicists,  i. 
187  sq.,  198,  206-208;  by  Par^ 
menides,  580  sqq. ;  by  Melissus, 
629  sqq.  ;  by  the  Eleatics  gene- 
rally, 640 ;  by  Heracleitus,  ii. 

II  sq.,  36  sq.,  107  sq^ ;  by  Em- 
pedocles, 195  sqq.;  by  the  Ato- 
mists,  21 7  sq.,  306  sqq. ;  by  Anax- 
agoras, 380,  382;  Protagoras, 
449  sq. ;  Oorgias,  461  sq. 

Bias^  one  of  the  seven  wise  men, 
i,  119;  said  to  have  asserted 
the  reality  of  motion.  120,  2; 
his  name  used  proverbially  foz 
a  wise  judge,  120,  3 

^<^y«,bookof,  i.41,  1 

Body,  souls  fettered  in  the,  i.  70  ; 
the  corporeal  not  distinguished 
from  the  spiritual  by  pre-Socra- 


520 


INDEX. 


ties,  149, 200  sq.,  208 ;  origin  of 
the,  see  doctrines  of  philoBophers 
referred  to  under  their  names 

B0<ricof,  sect  of  the,  i.  4 

Brontinust  a  Pythagorean,  i.  323, 
392 

Bu$iriSt  panegyric  on,  by  Isocrates, 
i.  332,  1 

Buthenu,  I  892 


(JALLICLE8,  a  Sophirt  in  the 
wider  sense,  ii.  427,  477 

Catws  of  things,  how  first  sought, 
i.  86 ;  question  of  natural,  tiie 
starting  point  of  philosophy. 
127,  128;  natural  phenomena 
explained  by  natural  c,  by  pre- 
Socratics,  182  ;  povs  in  relation 
to  natural,  220  ;  ii.  354,  383 

Central  fire,  of  the  Pythagoreans, 
i.  442  sqq.,  465  sqq. 

Cereopt,i,  311,  2;  340,  2 

Cham,  prophecy  of,  i.  96.  3 

Chance^  denied  by  Democritus  and 
Anaxagoras,  ii.  239 ;  345,  3 

Chaoi,  in  Hesiod,  i.  88;  Acusi- 
Ihus,  97 ;  in  Orphic  cosmogonies, 

99,  104 
Ckarondas,  i.  342,  1 

CMlony  sometimes  reckoned  among 
the  seven  wise  men,  i.  119,  1 

ChrUtianity,  called  ^iXoo'e^Ca,  i. 
4, 1  ;  breach  between  spirit  and 
nature  in,  139 ;  character  of 
(h-eek  philosophy  as  compared 
with,  131,  134  sqq.,  140  sq. 

Ckronoi  in  cosmogony  of  Phere- 
cydes,  i  90  sq. ;  of  the  Orphics, 

100,  101,  104 

Chrysippus,  the  Stoic,  his  defini- 
tion of  philosophy,  i.  3 

Chthan,  the  earth,  i.  90 

CleobvltUt  sometimes  reckoned 
among  the  seven  wise  men,  i. 
119,  1 

Cfidenius,  a  naturalist,  contempo- 
rary with  Democritus,  ii.  388,  1 


CUnias  of  Tarmtum,  a  later  Py- 
thagorean, i.  366,  892 

Co^nitioH,  faculty  of,  not  enquired 
into  hj  early  Greek  philoso- 
phers, i.  152;  Sophista  denied 
man's  capacity  for,  152,  182, 
202;  difference  between  mo- 
dern enquiries  into,  and  those 
'Of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  153- 
155;  of  conceptions  declared 
by  Socrates  the  only  true  know- 
ledge, 182  ;  with  the  pie-8ocFs- 
ties  the  discrimination  of  sden- 
tific,  &om  sensible  presentation 
was  the  consequence,  not  the  baas 
of  their  enquiries  into  nature,  L 
198 ;  Parmenides  opposes  cog- 
nition of  reason  to  that  of  sense, 
but  only  in  respect  of  their  con- 
tent, 591,  603;  Eleaties  deve- 
loped no  thf'ory  of,  641 ;  nor 
did  Heracleitus,  ii.  92;  nor 
Empedodee.  170;  opinions  on, 
and  perception,  of  Heracleitus, 
88-95;  Empedocles,  169,  195 
sq. ;  Democritus,  265  sq.,  270- 
274  sq. ;  Metrodorus,  316 ;  Anax- 
agoras, 367,  370;  of  the  So- 
phists, 445  sqq. 

Colonies,  Greek,  their  number  and 
extent,  i.  81 

Comets,  how  regarded  by  Diog«>nes 
of  ApoUonia,  i.  295,  2 ;  Pytha- 
goreans, 454 ;  Democritus,  ii. 
252 ;  Anaxagoras,  862 

Corax,  a  Sicilian  rhetorician,  ii. 
397 

Cosmology  before  Thales,  i.  83 ; 
of  Hesiod,  84;  of  Pherecydes, 
89  sq. ;  of  Epimenides,  96;  of 
Acusilaus,  97;  of  the  Orphic 
poems,  98-108 ;  of  Thales,  222, 
226  ;  of  Anaximander,  251  sqq. ; 
of  Anazimeoes,  273  sqq. ;  of 
Hippo,  283 ;  of  Diogenes  of 
ApoUonia,  293sq.;  of  the  Pytha- 
goreans, 438  sqq.;  of  Hera- 
cleitus, ii.  47  sqq.;  of  £mpe- 


INDEX. 


591 


ooa 

doeles,  145  sqq. ;  of  the  Ato- 
mists,  235  sqq.,  314;  of  Annx- 
agoras,  354  sqq. ;  of  ArcheUus^ 
389  sq. 

Counter^Eartht  Pythagorean  the- 
ory of  the,  i.  444,  450,  452  9q. 

CratyUtt  the  Heracleitean,  Plato 
instrocted  hj  him,  ii.  113  ;  play 
on  words,  114 

Critias,  ii.  427 ;  his  religious 
opinions,  481,  482 

CrUioal  method,  Greek  scieDce 
deficient  in,  i.  149 

Crasus,  remark  of,  ahont  philo- 
sophy, i.  1,  2 

Crtmos,  in  cosmogony  of  Heeiod, 
i.  87 

Crofona,  salubrity  of,  i,  387 ;  set- 
tlement of  Pythnf^ras  in,  840  ; 
attack  on  Pythagoreans  in,  357 
sq. 

Cybele,  rites  of,  i.  61 

Cylon,  author  of  the  attack  on  the 
Pythagoreans  at  Crotona,  i.  358, 
n.,  362,  fi. 

Cynic  philosophy,  character  of,  i. 
178 

CtiUuTt  of  Homeric  period,  i.  49 ; 
peculiarity  of  Greek,  188  sq. 

TlMMONB,  belief  in,  first  met 
with  in  He8iod,i.  125;  saying 
of  Theognis about,  123;  opinions 
respecting,  of  the  Pythagoreans, 
484,  6 ;  487  sq. ;  character  of 
man  is  his  demon,  581 ;  ii. 
98 ;  the  soul  is  the  abode  of 
the  dcemon,  ii.  278 ;  opinions  of 
Empedocles  respecting,  172  sq. ; 
1 76^  2 ;  1 79 ;  of  Democri  tus,  290 ; 
were  long-Uyed  but  not  immor- 
tol,  290,  2 

Damon  and  Phintias,  i.  345. 3  ;  the 
musician,  ii.  418.  2 ;  435, 1 

Death,  early  theories  about,  i.  68, 
6;  123  sq.;  of  Anaximander, 
256 ;  Anaximenes,  270.  271;  Dio- 
genes of  Apollonia,  297 ;  of  the 


Pythagoreans,  482,  4S4  sq. ; 
AlcmsBon,  524 ;  £picharmu8, 
581 ;  Parmenides,  602 ;  604,  1 ; 
Heracleitus,  ii.  79-87 ;  Empe- 
docles, 164,  172  sq. ;  Democri- 
tos,  259,  261, 263, 309  ;  Anaxa- 
goras,  366 ;  367.  1 ;  praise  of 
death  by  the  Thracians,  i.  73, 1  ; 
Theognis,  118;  Prodicus,  ii. 
473 

Decad,  the,  in  the  I^thagorean 
philosophy,  i.  426  sqq. 

Deity ;  see  God,  Gods 

/)<»R«^^r,  supposed  Egyptian  origin 
of  the  story  of,  i.  40,  4  ;  hymn 
to,  67  ;  mythus  and  cult  of,  68 ; 
69,  1;  75;  ii.  482,  3 

Democritus,  his  journeys,  i.  27, 
1 ;  33  ;  position  in  pre-Socratie 
philosophy,  207 ;  comparison 
of,  with  Anaximander,  263  ;  life 
of,  ii.  208;  doctrines  of,  yide 
Atomistic  school 

Destruction,  periodical,  and  con- 
struction of  the  world;  see 
World 

Diagoraa  of  Melos,  the  Atheist,  ii. 
3*20,  428 

Dia  lectio,  deyelopment  of,  by  Ele- 
atics,  i.  184 ;  Zeno,  the  dis- 
coverer of,  613  ;  unknown  to  the 
Pythagoreiins,  505 ;  of  the  So- 
phists, ii.  484 

Aiod^wcu,  date  of  the,  i.  65 

Diodes  the  Pythagorean,  i.  364,  5 

Di/oiorus  of  Aspendus,  inventor  of 
the  Cynic  dress  among  the  Py- 
thagoreans, i.  365 

Diogenes  of  Ajwllonia,  i.  285 ;  bis 
doctrines :  air  as  primitive  mat- 
ter, 286  sq. ;  rarefaction  and 
condensation,  290  sq. ;  different 
kinds  of  air,  292;  formation 
and  destruction  of  the  universe, 
298 ;  the  soul,  288,  292,  296 ; 
earth  and  stars,  294  sq. ;  ani- 
mals and  plants,  287,  296; 
metals,  298 ;  chaiacter  and  his- 


INDEX. 


DIO 

torioal  position  of  his  ijhiloso- 

phy,  800  sq. ;  oontradictions  in 

his  doctrine,  800;  relation  to 

Anazagons,  301 
JHogenn  the  Democritean,  ii.  317 
DUmifBodoTUM  the  Sophist,  ii.  424  ; 

467,8;  464.1 
I>Umf/su$t  worship  of,  introduced 

into  Greece,  i.  27.  30,  42,  60 ; 

rites  of  (mysteries),  64,  72,  »., 

333,  n.,  347,  n.,  865,  487,  497 ; 

Dionysus  Helios,  i.  107 ;  ii.  100, 

6 ;  story  of  Dionysns  Za^crens,  i. 

106  ;  opinion  of  Heradeitus  on 

rites  of,  ii.  103 
Doriana  and  lonians,  supposed  to 

represent  Realists  and  Idealists 

in  Oreek  philosophy,  i.  191  sq. 
Douht,  modern  philosophy  begins 

with,  i.  146 
Dreami,  Heradeitus  on,  ii.  82, 83  ; 

connected    with     prophecy    by 

Democritus,  v.  291 
Drunkenfieaaj  how  explained    by 

Diogenes,  i.  207;  Heradeitus, 

ii.  81 
Dualism  of  Greek  philosophy,  i. 

162 
Duality,  Unity  and,  with  Pytha- 

goreans,  i.  386  sqq. 
Dynandata  and  Mechanists,  Rit^ 

ter's    diyision    of   the    Ionian 

philosophers  into,  i.  240,  4 


JpAETHt  opinions  concerning 
"^  the,  in  Hesiod,  88 ;  in  Phere- 
cydes'  cosmogony,  i.  90  sq. ; 
in  Orphic  poems,  99  sqq. ;  of 
Thales.  226,  226;  Anaximau- 
der,  256 ;  Anaximenes,  273 ; 
Diogenes  of  Apol Ionia,  202-294; 
Pythagoreans,  439,  454  sqq. ; 
Xenophanes,  567  sq. ;  Parme- 
nides,  593, 2 ;  599 ;  Heradeitus, 
ii.  48  sq.,  56-68  sqq. ;  Empedo- 
do8, 154-156;  Democritus,  247, 
248;  Aoaxagoras,  364-360 


Earthguaket,  how  explained  by 
Thales,  i.  226;  Anaximenes, 
278;  Diogenes  of  Apollooia, 
295;  Pythagoras,  486,  3;  De- 
mocritus, ii.  253,  1 ;  Anazago- 
IBS,  ii.  362,  6 

Eagt,  the,  supposed  derivation  of 
Greek  philosophy  from,  i  28 
sqq. ;  points  of  contact  between 
Greek  philosophy  and  that  ot, 
42  sq. ;  supposed  jonraeys  in, 
of  Pythagoras,  328 ;  of  £mpe- 
dodes,  ii.  189 ;  of  Democritus, 
212,  fi. 

Echecratea,  disdple  of  Philolaus, 
i.  364,  6 

EdeeHcisniy  period  of,  i.  893 

Edipaea,  prediction  of,  ascribed  to 
Thales,  i.  214,  n. ;  explanation 
of,  by  Anaximander,  262 ;  An- 
aximenes, 275;  Pythagoreans, 
456.  3 ;  456,  2  ;  Alcmnon,  623, 
1 ;  Xenophanes,  572 ;  JBmpe- 
docles,  ii.  167 ;  Atomists,  252 ; 
AnaxAgoras,  360,  361 ;  Anti- 
phon,  450,  3 

EcUpiiCf  inclination  of  the,  said 
to  have  been  discoyered  by 
Anaximander,  i.  254 ;  by  Py- 
thagoras, 455,  2 ;  theories  of 
Empedodes,  Democritus,  Anax- 
agoras,  ii.  376 

Eophaniua,  a  later  Pythagorean, 
1.  323 ;  explanation  of  Honads, 
416;  his  doctrines,  527,  628 

Education,  Greek,  i.  78,  79;  ii. 
394-396,  434;  Homer,  the 
Greek  handbook  of,  i.  1 1 1 

Effff  of  the  UniTerse,  in  ancient 
cosmogonies,  i.  97.  100 

Egypt,  supposed  debts  of  Greek 
philosophy  to,  i.  26,  27,  32; 
travels  in,  of  Thales,  216,  1 ;  of 
Pytliagoras,  331-334;  of  Demo- 
critus, ii.  211,  212;  of  Anaxa- 
goras,  327,  n. 

«n«»\a  of  Democritus,  ii.  266, 
268,  802,  304,  406 


INDEX. 


623 


EUatia  philosophy,  i.  533-642; 
character  andnistorical  position, 
188  sq..  202-204,  206,  638  sq. ; 
supposed  connection  with  Indian 
philosophy,  36  sq. ;  doctrines  of, 
authorities  for,  638  sq. ;  cf. 
Xenophanes,  Parmenides,  Zeno^ 
Melissus 

EUmentSf  five  lurxpl  of  Pherecjdes 
supposed  to  be  the,  i.  92,  1  ; 
theories  respecting  the,  of  Phi- 
lolaus,  i.  436  sq. ;  of  Heradeitus, 
ii.  61  sqq. ;  four,  of  £mpedocles, 
i.  438, 669;  ii.  125  sqq. ;  gradual 
development  of  the  doctrine  of, 
128 ;  term  first  Introduced  into 
scientific  language  bj  Plato, 
126,  1 ;  qualities  and  place  of 
the  several  elements  first  defined 
by  Plato  and  Aristotle,  131 

Elothalu  of  Cos,  i.  195,  196 

Emotions f  origin  of,  according  to 
Empedodes,  ii.  171 

Empeaocles,  life  and  writings,  ii. 
117;  teachers,  1 1 8, ».,  187  sqq. ; 
his  philosophy :  generation  and 
decay  =  combination  and  separa- 
tion of  substances,  122  sqq.; 
elements,  136;  mixture  of  mat- 
ter, 132;  pores  and  emanations, 
126;  Love  and  Hate,  187  sq. ; 
alternation  of  cosmic  periods, 
146  sq. ;  laws  of  nature  and 
chance,  144 ;  the  Sphairos, 
149  ;  formation  of  the  universe, 
160  sq.;  heavenly  bodies,  164 
sqq. ;  meteorology,  158 ;  plants 
and  animals,  159  sq.;  respira- 
tion, 164;  sense -perception, 
165  sq. ;  thought,  167  ;  percep- 
tion and  thought,  169 ;  desires 
and  emotions,  171 ;  transmi- 
gration and  pre-existence,  172 
sq. ;  prohibition  of  animal  food 
and  Killing  of  animals,  174, 
175:  Golden  Age,  177;  gods 
and  daemons,  179 ;  character  and 
historical  position  of  Empedo- 


clean  philosophy,  184  sq. ;  rela- 
tion to  Pythagoreanism,  ^91 
sq. ;  to  the  Eleatics,  IJiLfiqq. ; 
to  Heracleitus,  202  sq-Yfimpe- 
dodes  not  a  mere  Eclectic,  gp^: 
general  summary,  206-207 

Epicharmus^  the  comic  poet,  i. 
116,  1 ;  his  doctrines,  195, 196 ; 
how  far  a  Pythagorean,  529  sq. 

Epicureanism^  general  ch<iracter 
o^  i.  168,  178 

EpicuruSf  his  theory  of  the  deflec- 
tion of  the  atoms  compared  with 
the  doctrine  of  Democritus,  ii. 
240 

EptTnenides,  contemporary  with 
Solon,  i.  96,  6  ;  his  cosmogony, 
96  sq.,  353 

EricapauSf  derivation  of  the  name, 
i.  104,  2;  seePhanes 

ErinnOt  on  the  transitoriness  of 
fame,  i.  127 

Eros,  how  represented  by  Hesiod, 
i.  88 ;  Pherecydes,  92 ;  Epime- 
nides,  97 ;  Parmenides,  596,  1 ; 
Plato's  doctrine  of,  i.  156;  as 
Plastic  force,  193,  2 ;  in  the 
system  of  Empedodes,  ii.  196 

Essence  of  things,  how  sought  by 
lonians,  Pythagoreans,  Eleatics, 
i.  202,  207 

Ethics,  early  Greek,  i.  76,  77;  of 
Homeric  poems,  1 10 ;  of  Hesiod, 
112;  of  the  Gnomic  poets, 
116  sq. ;  of  the  seven  wise 
men,  120 ;  development  of,  121- 
123 ;  ancient  ana  modem,  160 
sq. ;  »sthetic  treatment  of,  by 
the  Greeks,  161 ;  Plato's,  166 ; 
Aristotle's,  156  ;  Socrates  foun- 
der of,  172;  of  Neo-Platonists, 
180;  ofP^thagoreans,  184,  481 
sqq. ;  of  Heradeitus,  ii.  97  fcqq.; 
of  Democritus,  277-287;  of 
Anaxagoras,  371 ;  of  the  So- 
phists, 469  sqq. 

Eudemus  the  Peripatetic,  Orphic 
cosmogony  used  by  him,  i.  98 


634 


INDEX, 


Endofut  on  Pythagorean  doctrioe 

of  Unitj  and  Dnalitir,  i.  388,  1 
Eurytuit  disciple  of  rhilolaus,  i. 

864,5 
Eiuriikeus,  on  snicide,  i.  483 
Eventu  of  P&ros,  rhetorician  and 

Sophist,  ii.  426 
Evm — odd,  category  of  numbers 

with  the  PyUiagoreans,  i.  377> 

405 


pAITff;  see  Religion 

FhUaoiM,  Sophistic,  ii.  462 
sq. ;  Aristotle's  treatise  on,  46S 

Fate,  in  Greek  religion,  i.  52, 101  ; 
in  Orphic  cosmology,  100 ;  in 
Theognis,  1 17  sq. ;  Arrhilochus, 
122;  Pythagoieans,  439,  2; 
465,  2;  Parmenides,  695,  2; 
relation  to  nature  and  Di\rine 
Providence,  Heradeitus,  ii.  39 
sqq. ;  Empedooles,  144 ;  Demo- 
crituB,  239,  301 ;  Anaxagoras, 
345,  350-354,  382 

i^gures,  relation  of,  to  numbers 
in  the  Pythagorean  philosophy, 
i.  434 ;  to  corporeal  tnings,  436 ; 
to  the  elemenU,  437,  438 

Fire;  see  Elements,  Cosmology;  of 
the  Periphery,  i.  444  sq.,  450, 
465 ;  central,  443,  527  ;  primi- 
tive, of  Hippasus,  526  ;  of  He- 
radeitus, ii.  21  sqq. 

Flux  of  all  things,  doctrine  of 
Heradeitus,  ii.  1 1  sqq. 

Food,  animal,  forbidden  by  Empe- 
dodes  and  the  Orphics,  i.  42 
Pythagoras,  344,  8;  447,  n. 
by  Empedodes,  ii.  174,  175 
fish  forbidden  as,  by  Anaxi- 
mander,  i.  256 

Force,  how  related  to  matter  by 
the  pre-Socratic  philosophers*,  i. 
200,  220,  221 ;  by  Empedodes, 
ii.  138, 179  ;  vov%  of  Anaxagoras 
conceived  as  a  natural,  ii.  345- 
349,  376,  384 


Form,  Qreek  sense  of,  its  effect  on 
Philosophy,  i.  5;  on  Ait,  142- 
144 ;  elementary  nature  of 
bodies  is  dependent  on  their, 
asserted  by  Pythagoreans,  486 
sq. ;  and  matter  how  regarded 
by  Archytas,  390 
Freewill,  necessity  and,  i.  14-30 
Friendship^  rites  of;  a  numbw, 
188  ;  how  regarded  by  the  Py- 
thagoreans, 345, 353 ;  («mi4  rk 
rw  ^IXmp,  345,  2 ;  495,  2)  ;  by 
Demooritus,  ii.  283 ;  by  Gk>rgiaay 
472,8 


QENERATION  and  D«say, 
opinions  respecting,  of  Par- 
menides, i.  585,  587,  591  ;  of 
Heradeitus,  ii.  17, 20,  37 ;  Em- 
pedodes, 1 22-125 ;  the  Atomists^ 
214-217,  229;  296,1;  Anaxa- 
goras, 331 

Geometry  discovered  by  the  EJgyp- 
tians,  i.  47»  n.,  215.  ». ;  figures 
of,  how  regarded  by  Archytas, 
890;  by  Pythagoreans,  407 
413,  416,  434;  proficiency  in, 
of  I^thsgoras,  381, ». ;  of  JDemo- 
critus,  ii.  212,  n.,  296 ;  of  Hip- 
pias,  423,  n. 

Geta,  a  people  of  Thrace:  their 
belief  in  immortality,  i.  73,  1 ; 
330,2;  337 

Gnomic  poets,  i.  115-118,  516 

God,  Greek  notion  of,  i.  54,  64 ; 
development  of  the  conception 
of,  121  sq. ;  Stoic  conception  of. 
220.  4  ;  opinions  respecting,  of 
Thales,  220-223;  of  Anaxi- 
mander,  249;  of  Anaximenes, 
270 ;  of  Diogenes,  287,  5 ;  of 
the  Pythagoreans,  886  sqq., 
397-407.  489  sqq.,  515 ;  of  Hip- 
pasus, 526 ;  in  the  treatise  on 
Melissus.  Xenophanes,  and  Gor- 
gias.  538,  539,  540.  547-560; 
of  Xenophanes,  555,  559-566, 


IIWEX. 


626 


OOD 

678;  of  Parmenides,  588;  of 
Helissas,  688;  of  Heracleitiiif, 
ii.  39,  42-47 ;  of  Empedoelee, 
179-184 ;  of  Anaxagoras,  349, 
2 ;  362 ;  of  the  S^phi8ts,  504 

GodSy  how  for  derived  by  Greece 
from  £|fQrpt,  i.  40 ;  in  Hom'^ric 
and  Hesiodic  poems,  60,  112; 
489  ;  661,  1 ;  in  Greek  religion, 
61,  52,  663;  their  worship  re- 
quired by  the  State,  67 ;  mys- 
teries connected  with  particular, 
60,  61  sqq.,  490  ;  of  the  ancient 
cosmology,  84,  89  sq.,  96  sqq. ; 
ideas  about  the,  of  Archilochus, 
Terpander,  Simonides,  Solon, 
Theognis,  122, 123 ;  attitude  of 
the  Greek  to  his,  140;  recog- 
nition of  the,  by  Thalos,  221- 
228 ;  innumerable  created,  of 
Anaximander  and  ^naximenes, 
268,  270 ;  recognition  of  the, 
by  Pythagoreans,  490,  406; 
Epicharmus,  530;  polemic  of 
Xenophanes  against  the,  558- 
661,  578;  of  Parmenides,  589, 
1 ;  596,  601 ;  attitude  towards 
the,  of  Heradeitus,  ii.  100-103 ; 
of  Empedocles,  179-184;  of 
Democritns,  286-290,  301-303, 
405 ;  of  Anaxagoras,  324,  328, 
872;  of  the  Sophists,  480-483, 
604;  neo-Platonists,  i.  160, 
161 ;  reason  given  by  Diagoras 
for  ceasing  to  believe  in,  ii.  320 

Golden  Age^  myths  of  the,  i.  29 ; 
how  employed  by  Empedocles, 
ii.  177,  178 

Golden  Poem,  authorship  of  the, 
i.  312,11.,  322;  438, 1 ;  on  gods, 
demons,  and  heroes,  487»  3 ; 
moral  precepts  of,  494 

Good,  the  beautiful  is  also  the,  i. 
114 ;  the,  according  to  Epichar- 
mus, 630;  the  highest,  according 
to  Solon,  116;  and  evil  among 
the  ten  fundamental  opposites, 
i.  881 ;  to  Epicuzns,  Democritus, 


Heradeitus,  ii.  98,  2 ;  see  Hap- 
piness 

Good8y  Plato's  theory  of,  i.  155; 
community  of,  among  the  Py- 
thagoriiiDS,  343,  354;  riches 
are  not  necessarily,  asserted 
by  Sappho,  114;  Solon,  116; 
equality  of,  first  advocated  by 
Phaleas,  ii.  428,  6  ;  Democritus, 
ii.  278,  281  ;  Prodicus,  473 ; 
Divine  and  human,  according  to 
Democritus,  278  ;  happiness  to 
be  sought  in  goods  of  the  soul, 
308  ;  all  pleasures  not^  471 

Gorgiaa  of  Leontini  (Leontium), 
the  Sophist,  ii.  412 ;  his  writings 
aud  lectures,  415,  2;  451,  489, 
492;  end  of  his  teaching,  431, 
471 ;  scepticism,  461  sq. ;  phy- 
sical theories,  460 ;  doctrine  of 
virtue,  471 ;  rhetoric,  485,  1 ; 
491,  492  sq. 

GrammaHeal  discussions  of  Prota- 
goras, ii.  489 

GravitcUum,  ii.  239 ;  cause  of  the 
mov(>ment  of  the  atoms  in  Ato- 
mistic system,  239  sqq.,  299 

Greeks,  in  Homeric  period,  i.  49- 
51 ;  their  religion,  53  sq. ;  dis- 
tinctive peculiarities  of  their 
genius,  138  sqq. ;  art,  142  sq. ; 
moral  and  political  life,  74,  75 
sq.,  140-142;  ethical  reflection 
until  the  6th  century  B.a,  109 
sqq. ;  circumstances  of  the  Greek 
nation  in  the  7th  and  6th  cen- 
turies B.C.,  80  sq. ;  in  the  5th 
century,  ii.  396. 401 ;  philosophy 
of  the;  see  Philosophy 

Gymnaatie,  prominence  of,  in  Greek 
education,  i.  78;  and  with  the 
Pythagoreans,  3 19,  353 

TTADES,  opinions  of  the  poets 
-"     on,  i.  124-127;   descent  of 
Pythagoras  into,  34,0;  punish- 
ments in,  485 ;  Hendeitus  on, 
ii.  86, 87;  Empedodes  on,  174; 


626 


INDEX, 


identity    of     Dionysus    with, 
100,6 
Hajfpinu9,  gwatast,  according  to 
Sappho,  i.   114;    the    Gnomic 
poets,   115;    Phocylides,   117; 
Theognis,  118  ;  the  Stoics,  168; 
Epicureans,  158, 178 ;  Cyreoaics, 
178 ;  Pythagoreans,  494 ;  495, 2 ; 
Heradeitus,  ii.  98 ;  Democritns, 
277  sqq. ;  the  highest  end  of 
haman  effort,  Anarchus,  318 
Harmony^  invented  by  Pythagoras, 
i.    848,   1;    by   Pythagoreans, 
348,  384  sq. ;  the  soul  a,  384, 
1 ;   developed,  of  the  spheres, 
460  sqq. ;  the  harmony  of  the 
body,  486 ;  virtue  is,  492 ;  har- 
monical   system    of  Philolaus, 
431-433;    how    regarded    by 
Heradeitus,  ii.  88-42,  56  ;  £m- 
pedodes,  143 
/TeffMiM;  see  Universe;  Anaximan- 
dei^s  innumerable  gods  called, 
i.  258 
Hefftsidemus,  said  to  have  been  the 
instructor  of  Hippias  the  So- 
phist, ii.  421,  2 
HeUanicus  of  Lesbos,  i.  102 
iftracleittUt    his    permanent  ele- 
ment, i.  190;  gave  new  direction 
to  philosophy,  204  ;  relation  to 
Eleatics,  206 ;  second  division  of 
pre-Socratic  philosophy  begins 
with,  208 ;  life  and  treatise,  ii. 
1  sqq. ;  opinions  on  the  ignor- 
ance of   man,   9;    flux  of  all 
things,  11  sq. ;  fire  as  primitive 
matter,  20  sq. ;  transformations 
of  primitive  fire,  27  sq.  (cf.  i. 
223,  4) ;   strife,  82  sqq. ;  har- 
mony, 38  sq. ;   unity  of  oppo- 
sites,  38  sq. ;   law  of  the  uni- 
verse, the  Deity,  42  sq. ;  ele- 
mentary forms  of  fire,  48  sqq. ; 
way  upward  and  downward,  50 ; 
astronomy  and  meteorology,  57 
sqq. ;  the  universe,  61  sq. ;  its 
eternity,  62;  conflagration  and   | 


mr 

renewal  of  the  world,  62  sq. ; 
evidence  for  this,  64  sq.;  ap- 
parently   contradictory    atate- 
menta,  «cp2   Budnp,   etc,   69; 
Plato,  78;  result,  76;  cosmic 
year,  77 ;  man :  soul  and  body,  79 
sq(|. ;  pre-exist enoe  and  immor- 
tality, 83  sq. ;  reason  and  sense- 
knowledge,  88  sq. ;  theory  not 
senaualistic,    93 ;    ethics    and 
politics,  97  sq. ;  relation  ot  to 
popular  religion,   100;  and  to 
Zoroaster,  115;  historical  posi- 
tion, 104  sq. ;  school,  113 
HeraoUs^  an  immigrant  grid  from 
the    East,    30,    42;    Chxonos- 
Herades    of  the    Orphic  oos- 
mogony,  i.   100;   story  of,   in 
Olympus  and    his   shadow  in 
Hades,   124,  it.;   story   of.  at 
the  cross-ways.  ii.  419,  2 ;   dis- 
course of  Prodicus  on,  473,  483 
Hermes    Trismegishu^  author   of 
sacred  Egyptian  books,  i.  40, 
41 ;  45,  1 
Hermodonu  of  Epheeus,  ii.  99.  3 
HermoHnntSy   said    to    hare    in- 
structed Auaxagoras,  i.  220 ;  iL 
384-386 
Heroes,  worshipped  by  the  I^rtha- 
goreans,  i.  487,  3  ;  488 ;  future 
ptate  of,  ii.  86 
Hesiod,    'Theogon^'    of,   84-89; 
moral  precepts  in  *  Works  and 
Days,'  112;  precursor  of  gnomic 
poets,  113 
Hierarchy,  absence  of,  in  Greece, 
i.  55-57 ;  influence  of  this  on 
philosophy,  58 
Hippasus,  a  later  Pythagorean,  i. 
195 ;  supposed  fragments  of  his 
writings,  313,  823;  doctrine  of 
numbers,  873,  ii. ;  combined  the 
doctrines  of  Heradeitus  with 
those  of  Pythagoras,  626,  527; 
ii.  188,  1 
Hippias  the  Sophist,  his  character, 
teaching,  ana  popuhiritj,  ii.  421, 


INDEX, 


527 


422 ;  his  yaried  a^qairements 
and  loTo  of  rhetorical  display, 
431,  458,  459 ;  his  reference  of 
the  'unwritten  laws*  to  the 
gods,  483;  explanation  of  the 
poets,  487;  rules  concerning 
rhythm  and  euphony,  491;  not 
opposed  to  ordinary  customs  and 
opinions,  472;  fint  enunciated 
the  Sophistic  distinction  between 
natural  and  positive  law,  475 

Hippo,  a  physicist  of  the  time  of 
Pericles,  who  resembled  Thales 
in  his  doctrines,  i.  281,  282; 
accused  of  atheism,  283 

HippodamuB,  the  famous  Milesian 
architect,  ii.  428;  included  by 
Hermann  among  the  Sophists, 
428,  6 ;  first  to  plan  pities  ar- 
tistically, 428 ;  first  theoretical 
politician  in  Greece,  470,  1 

Hiataiy,  sphere  of,  i.  11 ;  laws  and 
unity  of,  14  sq. ;  periods  of,  164 ; 
of  philosophy,  how  it  should  be 
written,  21-25 

HoiTMT,  Greek  life  and  character  in 
poems  of,  i.  49,  56;  place  in 
Greek  education,  78, 11 1 ;  ethics 
of,  110  sq. ;  on  future  retribu- 
tion, 125  ;  seen  by  Pythagoras 
in  Hades,  489  ;  his  statements 
about  the  gods  disapproved  by 
Xenophanee,  560,  661 ;  and  by 
Heracleicus,  ii.  10,  3;  102,2; 
allegorical  interpretation  of,  by 
Metrodorus,  372, 6 ;  387 ;  called 
an  astrologer  by  Heracleitus, 
102.2 

d/io(o/icpiy  of  Anazagoras,  i.  283, 
304 ;  ii.  332  sqq. 

JBYCU8,  represents  Eros  as 
springing  from  Chaos,  i.  98, 1 ; 
says  that  Diomede  became  im- 
mortal, 125,  3 

Idmta  of  Himera,  influenced  in  his 
doctrine  by  Anaximenes,  i.  284 

Idealum,   definition    of,    i.    187; 


IMT 

difference  between  modem  sub- 
jective, and  that  of  Plato,  153 

Idealists  and  Realists.  Division 
of  the  pre-Socratics  into,  how 
far  admissible,  i.  187  sqq. 

Ideas,  doctrine  of,  the  Platonic, 
i.  154  sq.,  397 ;  not  held  by 
the  Pythagoreans.  321,  322 

Ignorance  of  mankind  deplored  by 
Xenophanes,  i.  575. 2 ;  Heraclei- 
tus. li.  9;  Empedocles,  170, 
197  ;  said  by  Democritus  to  be 
the  cause  of  all  faults,  282,  283 ; 
regarded  as  a  natural  necessity 
by  ancient  scepticism,  i.  150 

ImrnortalUy,  doctrine  of,  not  ori- 
ginally, but  subsequently,  con- 
nected with  Eleusinian  mys- 
teries, i.  67,  68;  said  to  have 
been  first  Uught  by  Pherecjdes, 
69;  belief  of  Thracians  and 
Gauls  in,  73,  1 ;  first  placed  on 
a  philosophic  ba».i«  by  Plato, 
74 ;  Pindar  the  first  poet  who  ex- 
presses  belief  in,  127;  Herodo- 
tus says  it  first  came  from  Egypt, 
333,  1;  asserted  to  have  been 
held  by  Thales,  225;  opinions 
of  the  Pythagoreans  on,  477, 
481  Bqq. ;  Heracleitus,  ii,  76, 
83-87;  Empedocles,  172-177 

I^finiUf  the,  of  Anaximander,  i. 
229  sqq. ;  called  divine,  249 ; 
Anaximenes  calls  his  primitive 
air  infinite.  268 ;  of  the  Pytha- 
goreans, 467,  468 ;  Xenophanes 
said  to  have  called  both  the 
Deity  and  the  Universe  infinite, 
565,  566 ;  see  Unlimited 

Initiated,  the,  of  the  Orphic  and 
Eleusinian  mysteries,  i.  61,  67  ; 
final  destiny  of,  126;  among 
the  Pythagoreans,  342,  343,  356 

Inspiration,  poetic,  explanation  of, 
11.292;  of  the  Sibyl,  100 

Intellectual  faculty,  theory  of  Par- 
menides  and  Empedocles,  ii. 
197 ;  see  Cognition,  Novt 


528 


INDEX. 


Jcman  and  Dorian  element  in  phi> 
losophj,  i.  184  eqq. ;  see  Dorian ; 
philoeophen,  211  iqq. ;  after 
Anaximenee,  280  oqq. ;  dietinc- 
tion  of  a  mechanical  and  dyna- 
mical tendency,  232  sq. 

Jsoeratea,  said  to  have  copied  the 
style  of  Gorgiae,  ii.  414,  4; 
mentions  Pythagoras  in  Egypt, 
1.  38  ;  331,  1 ;  the  Bwiris  of, 
ii.  488,  1 

Italian  and  Ionian,  diTision  of 
Greek  philosophy  by  some  an- 
cient historians  into,  i.  191 


TEW8,  Alexandrian,  their  deri- 
ration  of  Greek  philoeoj)hy, 
i.  26,  28;  64,  2;  supposed 
teachers  of  Pythagoras,  i.  830, 
1 ;  of  Analagoras.  35,  37  sq. ; 
ii.  327,  f». ;  385,  2,  & 
Justieet  exhortationn  to,  of  Homer 
and  Hesiod,  i.  Ill,  112  ;  Solon, 
116;  Pythagoras,  494;  Herar 
cleitns,ii.  98;  DemocritnR,282; 
the  ideal  sum  of  all  the  virtues, 
i.  117;  identified  vith  certain 
numbers  by  the  Pythagoreans, 
411,  420,  401  ;  described  as  a 
law  of  nature  by  Protagoras, 
ii.  470,  471 ;  as  an  unattainable 
good  by  Thrasymachus,  479,  1 ; 
Sophistic  distinction  of  natural 
and  positive,  ii.  471,  475-479; 
divine  retributive  in  poets,  i. 
112,  113;  122,2;  125;  Pfthar 
goreans,  483,  485,  489,  496 

TTNOWLEDGE;  see  Cognition 
KoBapfiol  of  Empedocles,   ii. 
172;  174,6 
K6pos  of  Heracleitns,  ii.  78, 1 

TA8U8  of  Hermione,  a   lyric 
poet  and  -writer  ou  music,  i. 
119,  1;  526,6 


Laurd,  use  of  the,  porofaibitcd  by 
Empedocles,  ii.  175,  3 

Leucipptis,  founder  of  Uie  Ato- 
mistic school,  ii.  207  sqq. ;  see 
Atomistic  school 

Limited  and  Unlimited,  identified 
by  the  Pythagoreans  with  the 
Odd  and  Even,  i.  378,  379, 
383;  how  regarded  by  Philo- 
lans,  371,  372  ;  nature  of  these 
principles,  400  sqq. 

lAnguiBtie  enquiries  and  disent- 
sions  falsely  ascribed  to  Pytha- 
goras, i.  506;  of  Protagoras 
and  ProdicuB,  ii.  489  ;  praetiaed 
by  Heradeitus,  97 ;  and  hia  fol- 
lowers, 114;  catches  popular 
with  the  Greeks,  ii.  466,  9 

IAnu9,  regarded  as  a  philosopher, 
i.4;  sometimes  reckoned  among 
the  seven  wise  men,  119,  1 

Logic,  Hegel's  definition  of,  i.  12; 
law  of  development  in,  difirent 
from  that  in  history.  1 3 

Xoyos  of  Heradeitus,  ii.  43,  I ; 
44,  4  ;  46,  1 

Love  and  Hate,  moving  forces  of 
Empedocles,  ii.  138  sqq.;  see 
Eros 

Lycopkron,  orator  of  the  school  of 
Goi^as,  ii.  426,  477 

LffHs,  the  Tarentine,  a  Pytha- 
gorean conjectured  to  be  the 
author  of  the  Golden  Poem,  i. 
322;  escaped  from  Crotona 
to  Thebes,  357,  2;  359,  ».; 
361,11.;  363,4;  364 


IjJAGI,  supposed  debts  of  Greek 
philoeoph^  to  the,  i.  32,  35 ; 
connection  with  the,  of  Pytha- 
goras, 828,  2,  3;  513  sq.;  of 
Heradeitus,  ii.  115,  116;  of 
Empedocles,  189,  5,  191;  of 
Democritus,  210,  it.,  211,  n^ 
32611. 

Moffie  and  miracles  ascribed  tc 


INDEX, 


v529 


FN^hagons,  i.  338, 389;  349,  2; 
362;  to  Empedocles,  it.  119, 
120;  prophecy  and,  how  re- 
^rded  by  Democritus,  289-292 ; 
Democritut  ealLed  father  of, 
210,  ». 

M^gna  MoraUa,  i.  492,  498 

Magnet^  a  soul  attributed  to  the, 
by  Thales,  i.  222 ;  attractioD  of 
the,  how  explained  by  Diogenf^s 
of  ApoUonia,  298;  by  £mpe- 
docles,  ii.  134,  1 ;  by  Bemo- 
critas,  230,  1 

Afon,  how  legarded  by  Onek  re- 
ligioD,  i.  63 ;  see  Anthropology, 
Soul,  Body ;  '  man  is  the  mea- 
sure of  all  things,'  asserted  by 
Protagoras,  ii.  400,  405,  449 

Marriage,  supposed,  of  Pythagoias, 
i.  341,  4;  347;  precepts  con- 
eerniog,  of  the  Pythagoreans, 
344,  347,  494,  496;  identified 
with  number  five  by  I^hago- 
reans,  i.  411,  420;  opinions  of 
Democritns  on,  ii.  284,  285 

Materialism  of  the  pre-Socratie 
philosophy,  i.  162,  199  sq.;  ii. 
399,  400  sqq. ;  of  the  AtomiRts, 
299,  309 ;  of  Anaxagoras,  346, 
381,  383,  384 

MatKematicay  not  indoded  in  Greek 
education,  i.  78 ;  how  regarded 
by  Plato,  204;  promioeDce  of, 
with  the  Pythagoreans,  347, 
376, 446, 600 ;  it.  104. 106 ;  pro- 
ficiency in,  of  Thales,  i.  2i;i,  3 ; 
Pythagoras,  328,  <i. ;  Archytas, 
866,  7;  of  Democritns,  ii.  212, 
n..  214,  n. ;  «f  Anaxagofas,  326 ; 
327,  i;  of  Hippias,  468; 
teachers  o£^  callod  Sophists, 
430,1 

Matter,  according  to  Aristotle,  the 
possibility  of  Being,  i.  176 ;  ac- 
cording to  Platio^  is  nnreal,  1 75 ; 
primitive,  how  regarded  by 
the  earlier  and  later  Physicists, 
202-209;  primslive,  <rf  Thales, 


226 ;  «f  Anaximander,  227  sqq. ; 
of  Anaximenes,  266  sqq.;  of 
Diogenes,  286 ;  of  Hippo,  282 ; 
IdmB,  284;  of  the  Pythago- 
reans, 370,  374,  390,  393  sqq. ; 
how  aipprehcttdsd  by  the  Elea- 
tics,  668,  639  sq. ;  by  Heroclei- 
tns,  ii.  20  sqq.,  64,  106  sq.,  112 
sq. ;  by  Empedodes,  126  sq.,  129, 
138  sq.,  193,  206 ;  by  the  Alo- 
mists,  218,  220,  222,  310  sq.; 
by  Anaxagoras,  330,  332  sqq., 
342,  383,  384 ;  raw  the  mover 
of,  i.  220 ;  iL  364,  384 ;  wevt  a 
subtle  kind  of;  346 

Meekamieal  explanation  of  nature, 
founded  by  Empedocles  and 
Leucippus,  11.  206 ;  logically 
carried  out  by  the  Atomists, 
311 

Medicine,  art  of,  practised  by  the 
Pythagoreans,  i.  328,  2;  348, 
363,  364 

Meleeagarae,  supposed  adherent  of 
Anaximenes,  i.  284,  8 

Melisatu,  life  and  writings  of,  i.  627, 
1 ;  doctrine  of  Being,  634,  636, 
629  sqq. ;  denial  of  motion  and 
change,  634  sq. ;  physical  and 
theological  theories  ascribed  to 
him,  637  sq. ;  conneetion  with 
Leucippus,  ii.  367 

Meliesue,  treatise  on,  Xenophanes 
and  iiorgias,  i.  633  sq. ;  first 
section,  634 ;  second  section 
concerns  Xenophanes  and  not 
Zeno,  636  sq. ;  but  does  not 
truly  represent  the  doctrines  of 
Xenophanes,  641 ;  this  treatise 
not  authentic,  661;  its  origin, 
664 

MetaU,  a  kind  of  respiration  at 
tribttted  to,  i.  298 

Metemp^okaeie,  first  introduction 
of,  into  Greece,  i.  42,  67. 69,  70  ; 
taught  in  the  mysteries,  74 ;  bj 
Pherecydcc  69;  96,  4;  327,  3 ; 
belief  of  the  Gania  in,  73,  I ; 


VOL.  n« 


H  K 


5:ia 


INDEX. 


eastern  or  Egyptian  origin  of, 
72;  derelopment  of,  126;  men- 
tion of,  by  HerodotoB,  833, 
1 ;  personal  transmigrations 
ot  Pythagoras,  340, 1 ;  483,  6  ; 
.  prominence  of,  in  Pythagorean 
philosophj,  366,  481  sqq. ;  held 
by  Empedocles,  ii.  177  ;  i.  484, 
3.4 

Meteoroloffioal  theories  of  Anazi- 
mander,  i.  266;  Anaximenes, 
278;  Diogenes  of  ApoUonia, 
296,  6 ;  Xenophanes,  671,  672 ; 
Heracleitns,  ii.  48,  67,  62 ;  £m- 
pedocles,  168 ;  Demooritus,  262, 
263 ;  Anaxagoras,  362 

Afitrodorus  of  Chios,  an  Atomist, 
ii.  313  ;  sceptical  view  of  know- 
ledge, 319,  820 

Metrodortu  of  Lampsaeus,  disciple 
of  Anaxagoras,  ii.  314,  1 ;  372 ; 

.  his  allegorical  interpretation  of 
the  Homeric  mytiis,  387 

Milky  W^aVf  connected  with  the 
central  ure,  i.  466 

Mimnermus,  ethical  contents  of 
his  poems,  i.  1 14 

Mixture  of  matter,  primitive, 
wrongly  ascribed  to  Anaziman- 
der,  i.  232  sqq.,  241 ;  with  £m- 
pedocles,  ii.  130  sqq.;  with 
Anaxagoras,  338  sq. 

Mn^sarehua,  &ther  of  Pythago- 
ras, i.  324 

Mochus  or  Mo9cku$,  a  Phoenician 
Atomist^  i.  34.  41,  48  ;  328,  1 ; 
Democritns  said  to  have  de- 
rived doctrine  of  atoms  from, 
ii.  212,  n. 

Monad,  alleged  Pythagorean  dis- 
tinction of  the,  from  the  One, 
i.  301;  called  Zoi^f  ^r^pyos, 
440,  1 

Moifofheitrn,  not  imported  into 
philosophy  from  the  mysteries, 
i.  63;  indications  of,  in  the 
poets,  121,  122;  of  the  Ko- 
ran,   how    opposed   to    Qreok 


religion,  136 ;  of  the  Pythago- 
reans, 404,  489,  490;  of  Xeno- 
phanes, 669,  I ;  661,  662  sqq. ; 
supposed,    of   Empedoclee,    ii. 
181-184;    not  connected  with 
Anaxagoras's  doctrine  of  amis, 
340,362.    Cf.  Vol.  L37 
Moan,  theories  rewpeeting  the,  of 
Thales :  receives  her  light  firom 
the  sun,  i.  226 ;  phases  of  the, 
214,  n.,  262;  of  i^naximander: 
shines  by  her  own  li^ht,  268; 
size  and  place  o^  263,  n. ;  264, 
2 ;   huw  first  formed,  274 ;   ii. 
361, 6 ;  is  an  aperture  in  a  fiery 
riug,  262,  ». ;  of  Anaximenes. 
who  is  said  to  have  first  dis- 
covered that  she  gets  her  lifrht 
from  the  sun,  274 ;  of  the  Py- 
thagoreans :    place   of,  in  the 
universe,  444;  said  to  be  the 
counter-earth,  462, 1 ;  conceived 
as   a    sphere,    464,    3 ;    466 ; 
466,  1 ;    noticed  in  eclipse  at 
her  setting  and  aflar   sunrise 
by  Pliny,  466,  n. ;  light  of,  de- 
rived fiom  son  and  central  fire. 
466,  2 ;  plants  and  living  crea- 
tures in  the,  &ixer  and  larger 
than  on  our  earth,  467 ;  length 
of  a  day  in  the  moon,  467.  1 : 
abode  of  departed  souls  and  of 
dsmons,  467 ;  place  of  the,  in 
the  spheral  harmony,  462,  «.; 
circles  above  and  beneath  the, 
471 ;   of  AlcniKon  :  plane  sur- 
face shaped  like  a  boat,  ascribed 
to  the,  623,  1 ;  called  divine. 
623,    3;    of    Xfnophanes :    a 
fieiy  doud  lighted  and  extin- 
guished at  rising  and  setting, 
and  moving  in  a  straight  line, 
672 ;  inhabited,  673,  1 ;  no  in- 
fluence on  the  earth,  673,  2 ;  of 
Parmenidea :    placed    midway 
between  Milky  Way  and  fixed 
stars,  600,   1;  produced  from 
the  denser  portion  of  the  Milky 


INDEX. 


681 


MOT 

Way,  600,  2 ;  mixed  nature  of 
the,  600, 2 ;  face  in  the,  600,  2 ; 
of  Hezaeleitns :  heat  and  light 
of  the,  why  less  than  thft  sun, 
and  greater  than  the  stars,  ii. 
67,  2 ;  ship  of  the,  68,  n. ;  of 
Empedodes:  made  of  crystal- 
line air,  166;  a  disc,  166;  gets 
light  from  the  son,  166;  dTS- 
tance  from  the  earth,  167; 
space  beneath  the,  theatre  of  evil, 
167;  of  Demoeritns:  consists 
of  smooth  and  round  atoms, 
249;  terrestrial  natore  of, 
mountains  in,  249:  origin  of, 
249,  260 ;  phtced  between  earth 
and  stars,  260 ;  motion  and  Te- 
locity of,  261;  placed  next 
highest  to  the  sun,  816;  of 
Anazagoms:  origin  of,  866; 
referred  to  in  an  obscure  pas- 
sage as  another  universe,  869 ; 
iuTisible  bodies  between,  and 
the  earth,  860 ;  shows  her  own 
light  in  eclipses,  861 ;  her  or- 
dinary light  reflected  from  the 
sun,  has  mountains,  valleys,  and 
living  inhabitants,  861 ;  called 
mother  of  plants,  666,  8 ;  Ne- 
mean  lion  conjectured  tu  have 
come  from,  861,  8 ;  Antiphon*s 
opinions  on,  469,  8 

Motion,  explanation  of,  bv  Dioge- 
nes, i.  290,  292 ;  by  fimpedo- 
cles,ii.  1808q. ;  by  the  Atomists, 
i.  208;  ii.  241 ;  byAnazagoras, 
842-846 ;  denial  of.  by  Parme- 
nides,  ii.  117,  118;  by  Zeno,  i. 
619  sqq.;  by  Melissus,  684  sq. ; 
all  tlungs  in  constant,  asserted 
by  Heradeiins,  ii.  11;  i.  207 ; 
how  regarded  by  Empedocles, 
118  sqq.,  130, 187»  146  sq.,  200, 
201,  206,  206;  by  Leacippus 
and  Demoeritus,  214,  216  sq., 
289  sqq.,  807,  808;  Anaxago- 
ras,  826,  880,  864,  864.  876 

Mulfiplieih/t    Zeno's    arguments 


NAT 

against,  i.  614,  626;  Gorgias 
on,  ii.  468-466;  according  to 
Heradeitus,  107;  Empedocleti, 
202;  Demoeritus,  800,  806; 
Anaxagoras,  876  so. 

Music,  place  in  Qreeic  education, 
i.  78;  theory  and  practice  of, 
with  the  I^agoreans,  348, 
868,  884,  886,  481  sq. ;  of 
The  spheres,  460  sq. ;  taught  by 
Hippias,  ii.  422,  2 

M^aon,  one  of  the  seven  sages, 
1.  119, 1 ;  declared  by  Apollo  to 
be  the  most  blameless  of  men, 
120,8 

My$terie$,  Greek,  i.  69,  60  sq.; 
Orphic,  64  sqq.;  Pythagorean, 
861,862,  866  sq.,  876,  490 

Myths,  of  Hesiod,  i.  84 ;  of  Phere- 
cydes,  89 ;  of  Epimenides,  96 ; 
of  the  Orphic  poems,  98  sqq. ; 
polemic  of  Xenophanes  againat, 
1.  661,  674;  of  Heradeitus,  ii. 
404;  of  Demoeritus,  287  sq.; 
the  Anaxagorean  interpreta- 
tions of;  872,  6;  887;  Pro- 
dicua  on,  482 ;  of  the  Goldetf 
Age,  177 ;  how  regarded  in  the 
Sophistic  period,  402  ;  myths  of 
Protagoras  quoted  by  Plato,  471 


JJAMES,  opinion  of  Demoeri- 
tus on,  ii.  276 ;  distinction 
of,  Uught  by  Prodicus,  419.  1 ; 
490,  491 ;  ambiguity  of,  subject 
ot  Sophistic  quibbling,  466-468 

yaturt^  unity  of  Spirit  with, 
characteristic  of  the  Greeks, 
188  sq.,  149;  in  the  systems 
of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  163; 
Greek  religion  a  worship  of, 
167;  all  pre-Soeratic  philoso- 
phy a  philosophy  of,  162,  186, 
197;  how  regarded  by  post- 
Aristotelian  schools,  167  sqq.; 
natural  truths,  167;  physical 
explanation  of,  when  abandoned, 


M  K  2 


632 


imyEX. 


209;  how  -explaiDed  hj  the 
Atomistf,  ii.  288,  239;  bj 
Aiiai«gorM,S60,  S51 ;  Sophistic 
new  of  laws  of,  476  eqq, 

yamnej/dei,  a  disciple  of  Demo- 
eritus,  li.  819,  6 

SoMtiphanm,  a  disciple  of  Demo- 
critms,  ii.  819 

JfBoemty  aod  free-will  in  historical 
phenomena,  i.  14-20 ;  in  Orphic 
eosmogonj,  100  sq. ;  in  the  Py- 
thagofoan  system,  465;  466,  2 ; 
wond-mling  goddess  of  Fu*- 
menidfSi  eidled  ipdlyini,  595; 
meaning  of,  with  Empedodes, 
ii  188,  301 ;  with  Democricns, 
237,  289,  801 ;  denial  of,  bj 
Anazagoias,  845.  382 

ym-HatSmsm,  i.  85  ;  compared 
with  philosophy  of  Middle  A^s 
and  with  ancient  Greek  philo- 
sophy, 160,  161 ;  constitutes  the 
turd  period  of  poet-Aristotelian 
philosophy,  179 ;  its  general 
characteristics  aod  tendency, 
182,  180-168 

ye^P^hagorwm^  statements  re- 
specting origin  of  philosophy, 
i.  28,  32;  respecting  Fythago- 
rean  philosophy,  892,  5U6  sqq. 

Jfetausy  a  disciple  of  Democritus, 
ii.  318 

Nigktt  in  ancient  Cosmology,  see 
Gosmology ;  canse  of,  sccording 
to  the  Pythagoreans,  i.  460 ;  day 
and,  the  SHme,  asserted  by 
Hendeitus,  ii.  15,  16 

Nam-Beitiff,  denial  of,  by  Parme- 
nides,  i.  584  sq. ;  his  accoant 
of  the  ordinary  riew  of,  592, 
605  sq. ;  denial  by  Zeno,  626; 
by  Melissus,  635;  Heraeleitus 
said  to  have  asserted  identity 
of  Being  and,  ii.  36,  37 ;  Being 
and  Non-Being,  two  moments 
of  Becoming,  309;  how  con- 
ceived by  the  Atomists— Being 
is  in  no  respect  more  real  than, 


6XM> 

ii.  217 sqq.;  the  Void,  217,4; 
306  ;  '  man  the  measure  of,' 
asserted  by  Protagoras,  449; 
Goigias  on  Being  and,  452,  454 

Nevf ,  division  of  the  sool  into  mw , 
^p4p9f,  Bv/Ut,  ascribed  to  Pytha- 
goreans, i.  479;  of  Anaxagoras, 
ii.  842  (see  Anazagons) ;  of  Ar- 
ehelans,  889  sq. ;  how  regarded 
by  Democritns,  299 ;  by  the  So- 
phists. 400 

Numa,  asserted  by  an  ancient 
tradition  to  hare  been  a  Pytha- 
gorean, i.  518,  2 

Nuimhgn,  Pythagorean  doctrine  of. 
i.  187,  369  sq,  407  sqq.,  419 
sqq.;  oomparad  with  Hato*8 
Ideas  and  Aristotle's  Causes, 
870;  both  form  and  substance 
of  things,  875  sqq. ;  symbolic 
and  lucky,  376 ;  certain  figures 
and  angles  assigned  to  particular 
gods,  422;  decnple  system  of,  427 

QATH8,    Pythagorean    respect 
fbr,  i.  495 ;  supposed  prolii- 

bition  of,  494,  6 ;   Xenopnanes 

disapproTsd  of,  674;  Sophistic 

quibble  about,  ii.  466, 7;  Pythsr- 

goreaa  oath.  420 
Objeetmiy,  characteristic  of  Greek 

art,  i.  144  ;  and  Greek  philoeo- 

phy,  145 
OnKi9»ttf,  in  the  Cosmogonies  of 

Hesiod,    Pherecydes    and    the 

Orpbics;  see  Cosmology,  myth 

of,  influence  on  ThaleS:  i.  219 
Ocellus,  of  Lucania,  his  work  on 

the  unirerse,  i.  319 
Octave,  in  Pythagorean  system  of 

Harmony,  see  Harmony,  i.  385, 

431,  460.  465 
Odd  €cnd  Evm,  in  the  Pythagorean 

system,  i.  377,  881  sq.,  116  sq., 

429 
Odeun,  some  animals  Uto  upon, 

a  Pythsgorean  opinion,  i.  475, 

4;   480,2 


INDEX. 


£33 


OLD 

(Mt  sabordizntion  of  the  young  to 
the,  eojoined  by  the  I^tha- 
gDreans,  i.  493,  495 

6Kviiwos,  ic6<rfunt  oifpeu^s,  diyision 
of  the  univene  into,  i.  47 1»  472 

One  and  Many  in  Pythagorean 
table  of  oppoeitee,  i.  381 ;  the, 
and  duality,  386  sqq. ;  the,  and 
Deity,  391-394,  401  sqq.,  406  ; 
the,  and  matter,  410,  412 ;  the, 
designated  as  the  sonl,  and  the 
point,  418 ;  the  first  number, 
429 ;  central  fire  called  the,  442 ; 
Xenophaoes  declares  Deity  to 
be  the,  566,  669  sq.,  664 ;  Beins 
of  Parmenides,  583  j  (cf.  Vol.  IL 
196,  199;)  of  Melissns,  634; 
Eleatic  doctrine  of  the,  ii.  112 ; 
comes  fh>m  all,  and  all  from, 
Heradeitns,  ii.  36;  39;  and 
Hany,  Zeno.  i.  613-616 ;  Par- 
menides, 689  sqq. ;  with  Xeno- 
phanes,  556,  679  ;  with  Hera- 
cleitiis  as  compared  with 
Eleatics,  ii.  107;  with  Empe- 
dodes,  201 ;  with  the  Atomists, 
216;  pre-Socratics  generally, 
398,  406;  Gorgias  asserts 
Being  to  be  neither,  nor  Many, 
462,  463,  466;  dispntations  of 
Athenian  youths  about  the,  and 
Many,  466,  1  ;  Aristotle  calls 
the  Sphairos  of  Empedodes  the 
One,  149 

Onomaeritui,  collector  of  Orphic 
and  Homeric  poems,  i.  62,  1, 
66.363 

Ophioneus,  i.  91,  2;  93  S(j.,  106 

C^inum^  number  two  assigned  by 
Pythagoreans  to,  i.  411,  420; 
the  region  of  the  earth,  421 ,  1 ; 
knowledge  and,  riew  of  Xeno- 
phanes  respecting,  i.  676;  of 
Parmenides,  691,  603;  (his  ex- 
planation of  the  world  accord- 
ing to  ordinary,  692  sqq.,  606 
sq. ;)  of  Heradeitns,  iL  7-10, 
88-96;    of  Empedodes,  167, 


171;  of  Democritns,  270-274 
sq.,  298 ;  of  Metrodoms,  816, 
317  ;  of  Anazagoras,  369,  370 ;. 
knowledge  is  merely,  asserted 
by  Protagoras,  449-461,  468; 
Gorgias,  464 ;  morality,  justiee, 
and  religion,  matters  of,  476  sqq. 

Oppotites,  Pythagorean  table  of, 
i.  381,  609;  all  things  consist 
of,  maintained  by  P^hagoreans, 
i.  883 ;  and  Heradeitus,  ii.  80 
sqq.,  106, 309 ;  present  unireree 
as  compared  with  the  Sphaiios 
called  by  Empedodes,  world  of; 
175,  201,  202 

Oracles,  i.  66 

Oriental  philosophy,  i.  43  sq.,  133 
sq.;  supposed  deriTation  of 
Greek  from,  26  sq. 

Orpheus,  considered  by  Keo-Plato- 
nists  the  first  of  philosophers, 
i.  4 ;  reckoned  among  the  ssTen 
wise  men,  i.  119,  1 

Orphic  poems,  L  62;  thepgonies, 
1.  98  sqq. ;  fragments  of  Jewish 
origin,  64,  2  ;  xard^a^ii,  340, 2 


pAMPHILUS,  reckoned  among 
the  ssTen  wise  men,  L  119,  1 

Pan,  supposed  deriTation  of  Uie 
name,  i.  40,  3 ;  appears  as  Zeus 
in  the  Orphic  theoeooy,  i.  101 

PatUhtdtm  odT  the  Orjmie  poems,  i. 
64,  66 ;  germ  o^  in  Greek  re- 
ligion, 101;  of  Xenophanes, 
602-664 ;  of  Heradeitus,  ii.  106 

ParmenideSt  life  and  doctrines,  i. 
680  sq. ;  relation  to  Xenophanes, 
682  sq. ;  doctrine  of  Being;  684 
sq. ;  corporeality  of  Being,  687 
sq.,  690 ;  reason  and  sense,  691 ; 

Shere  of  opinion,  physics,  692  ; 
ling  and  non-Being,  the  light 
and  the  dark,  694 ;  cosmology, 
697  sq. ;  anthropology,  601 ; 
meaning  of  the  Parmenidean 
Physics,  606  sq.     * 


534 


INDEX. 


Pereepium ;  sea  Senae,  Senaes 

Periander,  reckoned  among  the 
seven  wiae  men,  i.  119,  1 

PeriocUt  diTision  of,  in  histoiy,  i. 
164  sq. 

Psraephane,  i.  40,  8,  4 

Per8<malUy,  humsn,  validity  and 
importance  of,  first  adequately 
conceived  in  Christianity  and 
modem  science,  i.  160 

PhaUoithe  Ohalcedonian,ii.  428,6 

Phanes  ErioapmUf  story  of,  i.  65, 
66,  101,  104,  106;  another 
name  for  Helios,  106 

PhaiUm,  i.  864,  6 

Phenomena^  see  Senses ;  atmosphe- 
rical, see  Mf>teorological  theories 

PKerecydM  of  Syros ;  tanght  trans- 
migration, i.  69,  71.  198,  194; 
his  cosmogony,  89-96;  connec- 
tion of  Pytibagoras  with,  327, 2, 8 

Philo  of  BybluB,  i.  95 ;  96,  4 

PhUolau9,  author  of  first  Pythago- 
rean imtings,  i.  813,  314  sq.; 
his  date  and  place  of  residence, 
368-866;  his  disciples,  364; 
account  of  ^thagorean  doc- 
trines: number,  871,  876,  876  ; 
Limited  and  Unlimited,  379  sq. ; 
harmonv,  384,  885,  896;  the 
One  and  Deity,  401  sq. ;  mean- 
ing of  numbers  and  figures,  428 
sqq.,  481  sqq.;  the  elements, 
438 ;  formation  of  the  world, 
489  sq. ;  central  fire,  450  sq. ; 
the  moon,  466,  2;  forms  and 
qualities  of  things,  475  sq. ;  the 
soul,  475  sqq. 

PhUoMtphy,  name  and  conception 
of,  i.  1-9 ;  extent  and  limits  of 
Greek,  9 ;  history  of,  not  a  phi- 
losophic construction,  10;  but 
an  exposition  of  its  course  and 
interconnection,  14;  philosophy 
and  the  histoiy  of,  22 ;  sophistic 
view  of  the  problem  of,  152 ; 
ii.  444,  445 

PkUo9ophf^  Cfre^i,  origin  of,  i.  26- 


1 28 ;  derivation  of,  firom  Oriental 
speculation,   26 ;  ancient  opi- 
nions concerning  this,  26  sq. ; 
statement  of  the  question,  30 ; 
external   testimonies,    81  sq. ; 
internal  evidence  :   theories  of 
Oladisch  and  Roth.  35 ;  positive 
reasons  against  Oriental  origin, 
48  sq.  Native  sources  of :  ( 1 )  Be- 
liffum,  49  sq. ;  affinity  of  Greek 
religion  with,  51  ;  freedom  of 
science  in  re^^ud  to  religion  in 
Greece,  58 ;  supposed  connection 
of,  with  the  mysteries,  59;  in 
respect  of  monothesim,  68,  and 
metempsychosis,  67  ;  (2)  MomU 
I^fe,  CioU  amd  PoUHeai  GmM- 
tionst  75 ;  general  character  of 
Greek  moral  and  politieal  life, 
75 ;  forms  of  government,  80 ; 
colonies,    81  ;    (8)    Onmology. 
88  (see  Cosmology)  (4)  BtMeai 
Sfflection;    Tksoloffy  amd  Jm- 
thropology  m  rtlation  to  SUUa, 
109    (see     Ethics,     Religion, 
Gods);    character  of,  129  aq.; 
in  relation  to  philosophy  of  the 
East  and  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
133    sq.;    and    modem,    137; 
distinctive  peculiarity  of  Greek 
spirit,   138 ;    manifeetation    of 
tnis  in  Greek  philosophy  as  a 
whole,  144 ;  and  in  ita  partieo- 
lar  forms  of  developmeot,  151 
sq^. ;  general  result.  161  aq. ; 
principal  periods  in,  164  aqq.; 
meaning  and  value  of  perioaic 
division,  164;  first  period,  166 
(against  Ast,  Rixner,  Branias. 
166 ;  against  Hegal.  169) ;  seeood 
period,  174 ;  third  period,  179 
Philosophy,  pr$'Socraiie,  rharartiwr 
and    devwopment   of,    i.    184- 
210.     Various   representatioDa 
of,  184 ;  distinction  of  teniencies 
in,  184,  1 ;  (dialectical,  ethical, 
184;    realistic   and    idealiatie, 
185 ;  Ionian  and  Dorian,  191 ;) 


INDEX. 


635. 


FHO 

division  of,  of  Braniss,  193; 
PeteneD,  194 ;  Steinhart,  106, 1 ; 
a  philosophy  of  nature,  197; 
deTelopment  of,  198-200 ;  three 
most  ancient  schools,  202  ;  phy- 
sicists of  the  fifth  centozy,  204 
i^q. ;  the  Sophists,  209 

Phocylide$,l  115,  117 

^va-tmi,  ^iNTioX^Toc,  designation  of 
philosophers,  especially  of  the 
Ionian  sehooL,  down  to  the  time 
of  Socrates,  i.  2,  4 

Phyne§,  how  &r  theology  the 
precursor  of,  L  108;  when 
first  separated  from  meta- 
physics, 172;  development  of, 
by  lonians;  treatment  of,  by 
the  varioos  philosophers,  see 
their  names 

Pindar^  i.  68 ;  his  eschatology,  70, 
4;  127 

PuistrcUus,  \.  62,  1;  110,  1 

PUtaeui,  i.  119,  1 

P^jwte;  see  Stars 

Plants,  souls  of,  i.  69, 1 ;  opinions 
concerning,  of  Hippo,  1.  284,  fi. ; 
of  Diogenes,  298 ;  of  Philolaus, 
480,  1 ;  of  Pythagoras,  495;  of 
£mpedocles,  L  484,  4 ;  ii.  169, 
160,  164,  174,  175;  of  Demo- 
critos,  263 ;  of  Anazagozas, 
36.3 ;  of  Clidemus,  388,  1 

Plato,  his  travels  in  E^^t,  i.  34 ; 
relation  to  modem  phdosophy, 
153-157;  to  Archytas,  319, 320 ; 
to  the  Pythagoreans,  354,  370, 
375,  305, 481-483, 486,  506 ;  to 
the  Eleatics,  606  sq.,  627,  630 
sq. ;  on  Heraeleitns,  il  104,  and 
his  school,  118-115;  on  Empe- 
dodes,  185, 203 ;  on  Anaxagoms, 
345  ;  351,  1 ;  the  Sophists,  429 . 
sqq.,  462,  490  sqq. 

PUoittre  and  aversion,  how  re- 
garded by  Democritus,  ii.  278, 
803;  origin  oi^  with  Empedo- 
des,  171 

Plenum;  see  Void 


Poetry,  relation  of,  to  Philoeopby, 
i.  130 

Polue  of  Agrigentam,  pupil  of 
Gorgias,  ii.  424 ;  cf.  388, 1 

Polycratee,  ii.  488,  1 

Polt/theiem ;  see  GKods,  Religion 

Pre-exietemce  of  the  soul,  held  by 
the  Pythagoreans,  i.  483 ;  flera- 
cleitus,  ii.  87 ;  Empedocles, 
172  sq. 

Prieete;  see  Hierarchy 

Prodicue^  ii.  416  sq.;  aim  of  his 
instructions,  431,  460 ;  his  doc- 
trine of  Virtue,  Heracles,  473; 
on  death,  473 ;  religious  belief, 
483 ;  rhetoric,  484,  486,  488  ; 
distinctions  of  synonymous 
words,  489-491,  512;  relation 
to  Socrates,  500,  501 

Prophecy,  practised  by  Pythagoras 
and  his  school,  i.  338,  339,  n  ; 
349,  2;  488;  Empedocles,  ii. 
182;  Democritus  on,  in  dreams, 
291 

Propoaitious,  diflferent  kinds  of, 
according  to  Protagoras,  ii.  490 

Prorve,  a  Pythagorean  contem- 
porary of  Phiiolaus,  i.  366,  6 

Protagoras,  ii.  407  sqq. ;  his  wri- 
tings, 416,  480,  481;  485,  1; 
aim  of  his  instructions,  431, 
470  sq.;  sceptical  theory  of 
knowledge,  446  sq.,  458  ;  on  the 
Eristic  art,  461 ;  doctrine  uf 
virtue,  470  sq.;  on  the  gods, 
481  eq.;  rhetoric,  485,  1;  486- 
491 ;  grammatical  enquiries,  489 

Pythagoras,  his  date,  i.  325 ;  life 
and  travels  previous  to  his  ar- 
rival in  Italy,  27,  1 ;  33 ;  327 
sqq. ;  teachers,  326  sq.,  334, 335, 
517;  residence  in  Samos,  336; 
emigration  to  and  residence  in 
Italy,  386  sqq.,  352  sqq. ;  death, 
357, 359 ;  supposed  writings,  3 1  u 
tqq.;  313,  2  ;  doctrine  of  trans- 

,  migration,  355,  481 ;  desires  to 
be  called  ^ixiao^s  instead  of 


5d6 


INDEX. 


B  wise  man,  491,  2 ;  called  a 
Sophist,  2,  3;  said  to  have 
called  himself  a  god,  488,  2 ; 
how  fat  he  maj  be  marded  as 
the  founder  of  the  Pyuiagorean 
philosophy,  608  sq. ;  reckoned 
among  the  ssfren  wise  men,  i. 
119,  1 
PytkagcreoH  PhUo§ophj/t  distinc- 
tion of  Pjthagoreanism  and,  i. 
368,869.  I.  b'lmdameQtal  con- 
ceptions of,  368 ;  number  the  ee- 
(ience  of  things,  369  ;  apparent 
diversity  of  views  respecting 
this.  870  sq. ;  result,  876.  The 
Odd  and  Even :  Limited  and  Un- 
limited, 377  eqq. ;  fundamental 
oppositee,  881;  harmonj,  883 
sq.  Kxamination  of  different 
theories:  1.  Unity  and  Duality, 
God  and  Matter,  886  sqq.  (state- 
ments of  the  ancients,  887  eq. ; 
criticism  of  these,  892  sq. ;  de- 
velopment of  God  in  the  world, 
404  sq.)  2.  Reduction  of  the 
Pythagorean  principles  to  space- 
relations,  407.  8.  The  original 
starting-point  of  the  system, 
414.  II.  Systematic  develop- 
ment of  the  number  theory  and 
Its  application  to  physics,  419  ; 
the  number  system,  426  sq. ; 
system  of  harmony,  481 ;  figures, 
433;  the  elements,  486  sq. ; 
genesis  of  the  world,  489  sqq. ; 
the  universe.  444  sqq.  (ten 
heavenly  bodies,  444 ;  central 
fire  and  world-soul,  444,  448 ; 
earth  and  counter  earth,  460; 
stars,  466  sq. ;  harmony  of  the 
fipheres,  460  sqq. ;  fire  of  the 
periphery  and  the  Unlimited, 
466  sqq. ;  time,  468 ;  upper 
and  under  regions  of  the  uni- 
verse, 471);  cosmic  periods, 
473  Bq<|. ;  graduated  scale  of 
terrestrial  nature,  476;  man: 
the  soul,  476  sqq. ;  Metempsy- 


chosis, 481  sqq.,  610 ; 
487 ;  the  gods,  prophecy,  488 ; 
theology,  490;  ethics,  490;  ac- 
cording to  aneient  aathoritiea, 
490  sq.  ;  according  to  Arie- 
toxenus  and  later  writers,  493 
sq.  General  summary,  496; 
Pythagorean  Philosophy  aa 
such  sprang  neither  fix>m  ethiea, 
497;  nor  from  dialectic,  502; 
but  from  physics,  607.  Gra- 
dual formation  of  the  system, 
608 ;  share  of  Pythagoras  in 
it,  609  sq. ;  its  origin  not 
Oriental,  613 ;  but  Greek,  616. 
Question  of  Italian  influence. 
618.  Pythagorean  Phtloeopby 
in  combination  with  other  ele- 
ments, 621 ;  Alerason,  521  ; 
Hippasos,  626 ;  Eephantus,  527 ; 
Epicharmns,  629.  See  their 
names. 
PythagormnSt  originally  a  political 
or  religious  party  deaienation. 
i.  368,  2 ;  authorities  for  their 
history,  306  sqq. ;  Pythagorean 
society,  342  sqq.;  its  poliUral 
character,  349,  864;  itn  perse- 
cution, 867  eq. ;  dispenden,  361 
sq..  366 ;  biter,  363 ;  last  of  the, 
366,  367  ;  PythagoreHn  and 
pseudo-Pythagorean  writings. 
310  sqq. 


QUALITIES  of  things  derived 

^    from   the  form,   msgnitade,. 

and  relations  of  atoms.  Demo- 

critus,  ii.  229  sq. ;  primary  aod 

secondary,  232  sq. 


J?AIN;  see  Meteoiological  theo- 
ries 
Kainbow,  i.  278,  2 ;  481,  ».    See 

Meteorological  theories 
Bare/action  and   coudensntion  of 

primitive  matter,  held  by  ihe 


INDEX. 


637 


lonians,  i.  207;  Tliales,  218; 
Anaximenes,  271,  280;  Dio- 
genes. 291,  299;  Id»t»,  284; 

.    Archftlaus,  ii.  390 

Healum  and  Idealism,  i.  187  tq^- 

Reason,  placed  bj  PhUolaus  in  tne 
brain,  i.  480 ;  how  regarded  bj 
Parmenidee,  i.  188,  691  ;  bj 
Diogenes  and  AnazagoraSy  801 ; 
ii.  342  sq.,  see  vevs ;  r.  and  sense, 
see  Sense  and  Sense  Pefeep- 
(ion 

BeHffioHf  Qreek,  influenced  hj  the 
Ettst,  i.  27, 1 ;  relation  of  Gieek, 
to  Greek  philosophy,  51 ;  cha- 
racter of  (jreek,  52-65;  liree- 
dom  of  Oreek  science  in  respect 
to,  68 ;  dependence  of  fiastem, 
Mohammedan,  and  Christian 
philosophy  on,  69  ;  attitude  of 
Xieo-Platonism  to,  180  ;  rebition 
to,  of  Thales,  220^  281 ;  the  Py- 
thagoreans, 489;  Xenopbanes, 
668  sqq. ;  Hendeitus,  ii.  100- 
103;  Empedocles,  172, 179 sqq.. 
184;  Demoeritus,  287  s(^q. ; 
Anaxagoras,  373  ;  the  Sophists, 
481 ;  resemblance  of  Boman,  to 
Pythsgoreanism,  i.  618,  2 

BetrilHUion,  future,  with  the  an- 
cient poets,  i.  125;  Pytha- 
Sreans,  483  sq.,  494  sq.  Cf. 
Ath,  Metempsychosis 

Rhetoric  of  the  Sophists,  ii.  481 
sq. 

Right,  natural  and  positite,  ii. 
476  sq. 


CJANCHUXUTHOK,  i.  48 

*^    Sappka.\.  114 

Scepticum,  difference  between  an- 
cient and  modern,  i.  169;  sup- 
posed, of  Xenophaoes,  676; 
of  the  Sophists,  ii.  476 

Sciences,  special,  first  recognition 
of,  i.  6,  8 

Sea,  the,  represented  by  Hemod  as 


brought  ibrth  by  the  earth,  i. 
86,  88;  hj  Pher«)cydes  as  the 
creation  of  Zens,  93 ;  in  Orphic 
cosmogonies,  98. 6 ;  99  ;  Auaxi- 
mander,  gradual  drying  up  of, 
261,  1;  260;  origin  of,  266; 
Diogenes,  origin  of,  reason  of 
its  saltness»  294 ;  g^tnl  dry- 
ing up  of,  298;  HeracleitUB^ 
primitive  fire  first  chaqged  into, 
li.  48 ;  newformafeion  of  the  earth 
in,  66,  1 ;  £mp?docle8,  exnded 
from  the  earth  by  solar  heat. 
168,  6;  Demoeritus,  origin  of, 
248  ;  will  in  time  dry  up  from 
evaporation,  248,  3 ;  Anaxa- 
goras, why  salt  and  bitter, 
367*  1 ;  formed  by  nxndation 
from  the  earth,  367, 1 ;  Hippias, 
the  sante  opinion,  469,  3 ;  called 
by  P^'thagoreans  the  tears  of 
Cronos.  190^  2 

Self  examination,  daily,  enjoined 
on  Pythagoreans,  i.  349,  496 

Senses,  the.  and  sense-perception, 
opinions  of  philosophers  on: 
Parmenides,i.69] ;  ii.  Heradei- 
tus,  88sqq.;  Empedodes,  167- 
171  ;  Demoeritus,  266-267  ; 
Anaxagoras,  367  sq.;  ClidemuSy 
388^  1 ;  Protagoras,  448,  449 

Separatum  of  particular  kinds  of 
natter  from  the  Infinite;  see 
Anaximander,  Empedodes,  An- 
axagoras 

Seven,  the  number  of  reason,  i. 
475 

Silence,  period  of,  in  ^thagorean 
noviciate,  i.  342;  as  to  secret 
doctrines,  361,  1 

Simonides  of  Amorgos,  leligioca 
and  ethical  reflections  in  his 
poems,  i.  114,  122. 

Six,  the  number  of  the  sonl,  i.  475 

Slavery  contmry  to  nature,  as- 
serted by  Alcidamas,  ii.  477 

&eep,  explanation  of,  by  Diogenes, 
i.   297  ;  Parmenides,  602,   1 ; 


538 


INDEX. 


•oc 

Hexueleitus,  ii.  82 ;  EmpedodM, 
164  ;  DemocritoB,  260,  809  ; 
Anaxagona,  366,  6 

SocfcUm^  his  place  in  Greek  philo- 
sophy, i.  162,  171  sqq.;  ii.  406, 
407,  516 

Soeratie  sehooU,  i.  177 

SoUm,  called  a  Sophist^  i.  2,  3; 
remark  of  CroMQs  to,  1,  2 ;  hie 
poems  and  ethics,  115  sq. ;  one 
of  the  sevfii  wise  men,  119,  1 ; 
fiime  as  a  law-giver,  120,  8 

Soothsaying ;  see  prophecy 

Sophist,  meaning  of  the  name,  i.  2  ; 
li.  429;  history  of  particular 
Sophists,  407  sqq. 

SopiUsfie  opmum  and  tfacHng, 
origin,  ii.  394 ;  previous  relation 
of  philosophy  to  practical  life, 
394  sq. ;  necessity  of  scientific 
culture,  395 ;  cancelling  of  the 
ancient  philosophy,  898 ;  revolu- 
tion in  Greek  thoughts  the  Greek 
'  Illumination,'  401, 403 ;  points 
of  contact  in  the  previous 
systems,  404;  (>xtemal  history 
of,  407  sq.;  Protagoras,  408; 
Goigias,  412;  Prodicus,  416; 
Hippias.  421  ;  Thrasymachus, 
Euthydemos,  etc.,  423  ;  how 
regarded  by  the  ancients,  420 ; 
the  Sophists  as  professional 
teachers,  434  ;  their  payment 
for  instruction,  436;  scientific 
character  of,  444 ;  theory  of 
knowledge,  445  ;  of  Prota- 
goras, 446 ;  Gorgia8,451 ;  Xeni- 
ades,  Eutbydemus,  466,  457 ; 
Eristic  disputation  involves  neg- 
lect of  physics,  460  ;  Sophistic 
art  of  disputation,  462 ;  ethics, 
469  ;  earlier  SophisU,  470  ; 
moral  consequences  of.  474  ; 
opinions  of  the  later  Sophists 
on  right,  475 ;  relation  of,  to 
religion,  481 ;  Sophistic  rhetoric, 
485 ;  various  tendencies  of,  496 ; 
historical  importance  and  charac- 


ter of,  497 ;  distinction  of  de- 
finite Sophistic  nchools,  606  aq. 

vo^a,  original  meaning  of,  i.  1 

Soil,  the,  ancient  ideiis  about,  i. 
78,2;  128, 124;281,2  ;  doctrines 
concerning,  of  Thalea.  226,  7  ; 
Anaximander,256;  Anaximooes, 
278  ;  Diogenes  of  ApoUonia, 
286, 292  296 ;  the  Pythagoreaaa, 
188,  448,  475  sq.,  482  sq. ;  Ale- 
maeon.  524,  525 ;  Hippasus,526 ; 
Heracleitus,  ii.  79,  80 ;  Empe- 
dodes  167,  2  ;  Democritns,  256 
sq.,  262  ;  Anazagoras,  364,  366 

Space ;  sea  the  Void 

t^kairos  of  Empedodea,  ii.  149 
sqq. 

Spheres,  the  heavenly,  of  Anaxi- 
mander,  i.  254. 258 ;  the  ^ha- 
goreans,  445,  1 ;  Pannenides, 
598. 

Stars,  the,  theories  concerning :  of 
Thales,  are  fiery  masses,  i.  224, 
6 ;  Little  Bear,  Pleiades,  Hyadra, 
214,  fi.,  215,  ». ;  Anaximan- 
der:  form<^  of  fire  and  air.  252, 
258;  spheres,  254;  are  innu- 
menible,  257 ;  created  gods. 
258;  Anaximenes,  are  broad 
and  flat,  and  float  upon  the  air, 
274;  origin,  274;  from  con- 
densed vapours,  motion,  275; 
created  gods,  276  ;  Diogenes  of 
Apolionia,  origin,  292,  294, 
295 ;  are  porous  bodies  like 
pumice-stone,  the  hollows  of 
which  are  filled  with  fire,  295 ; 
the  I^thagoreana,  names  for 
particular  constellations,  490, 
2 ;  spheres  and  revolution  of, 
444  sq. ;  are  like  the  eartlu 
and  surrounded  by  an  atmo- 
sphere, 456;  revolve  around 
central  fire,  and  determine  eoe- 
mical  year,  458;  are  divine, 
458 ;  morning  and  evening  srar 
the  same,  458, 1 ;  Aicmseon,  are 
divine,  because  their  motion  re- 


INDEX. 


639 


turot  into  itself  and  is  eternal, 
62S,  524;  Xenophanes,  origi* 
nate  from  Tapours  of  earth  and 
water,  568;  are  fiery  donds, 
and  move  in  an  endless  straight 
line  aboTe  the  earth,  572 ;  circa- 
lar  motion  is  an  optical  ddosion, 
672 ;  F^rmenides,  are  fiery  mas- 
ses of  Tupoiir,  600,  2;  heaven 
of  fixed,  699;  Heracleitus, 
hiB  opinion  of,  ii.  o9, 60  ;  Empe- 
docles,  are  fastened  to  the  skj, 
while  planets  moTS  freely,  157 ; 
Bemocritas,  are  masses  of  stone 
heated  by  the  revolution  of  the 
heavens,  248,  «.,  249;  their 
motion,  251 ;  Milky  Way  com- 
posed of  many,  252, 2;  Metrodo- 
ms,  315, 1 ;  816,  fi.;  Anazagoras, 
are  masses  of  stone  torn  away 
from  the  earth  by  the  force  of 
the  original  rotation  of  matter, 
356;  bc^me  incandescent  in  the 
»ther,  866;  courses  and  motion, 
etc,  860,  362 

State,  views  concerning  the,  of  the 
Pythagoreans,  i.  310,  493  sq. ; 
Heracieitas,  ii.  98  sq. ;  Bemo- 
critas, 283  sq. ;  the  Sophists, 
475  «j. 

Stoic  philosophy,  character  and 
results  of.  i.  158,  159 

Suicide  forbidden  by  the  Pythar 
goreans,  i.  483.  1;  491 

SuH,  the,  in  the  Orphic  cos- 
mogonies, i.  64,  99,  106 ; 
theories  and  discoveries  re- 
specting, of  Thales,  the  sol- 
stices, 214  ;  foretold  eclipse 
of,  214, ». ;  size  of,  214 ;  Anaxi- 
mander,  is  an  aperture  in  a 
ring  formed  of  air  and  filled 
with  fire,  252,  253;  size,  253; 
influence  on  earth  and  sky  and 
origin  of  animals,  253,  255; 
Anaximenes,  is  flat  and  broad, 
and  supported  by  the  air,  273, 
274 ;  origin  o^  274 ;  disappears 


at  night  behind  the  northern 
mountains,  275,  276 ;  solstices, 
277,  M. ;  Diogenes  of  Apollonia, 
is  a  porous  body,  arising  from, 
and  sustained  by  terrestrial  va- 
pours, 295;  I^thagoreans,  is 
a  vitreous  sphere,  455  sq. ;  re- 
volves around  the  central  fire, 
444  ;  aod  reflects  its  light, 
450-452,  455,  466  ;  sphere  of, 
452,  2 ;  eclipses  of,  455  ;  place 
of,  in  the  spheral  harmony,  462, 
n. ;  motes  of  the,  are  souls,  476 ; 
Alcm8Bon,shapeX)f,523, 1 ;  Xeno- 
phanee,  is  a  fiery  cloud  kindled 
and  extinguished  at  rising  and 
setting,  572 ;  moves  in  a  straight 
line,  572 ;  Parmenides,  is  of  a 
fiery  nature,  and  produced  from 
theMilk^  Way,600,  2;  infiuence 
of,  on  ongin  of  man,  601 ;  Hera- 
cleitus, daily  renewal  of,  ii. 
57  BQ.;  Empedocles,  agrees 
with  Pythagoreans  respecting 
nature  and  light  of,  166 ;  course 
of,  157 ;  Democritus,  origin  of, 
249;  250,  2;  motion  and  velo- 
eitv,  261 ;  fixed  stars  reflect 
light  of,  252,  2;  Metrodorus, 
is  a  precipitate  from  the  air, 
315,  2;  daily  renewal  of,  316, 
fi. ;  Anazagoras,  is  a  red-hot 
stony  mass,  356,  3 ;  father  of 
plants,  365,  3 ;  motion  and  size 
of,  360-362;  eclipstts  of;  see 
Eclipses. 
erupHpiOf  the  Pythagorean,  i.  357 


qiELA  UGE8,  son  of  Pythagoras, 

•^     ii.  188,  1 

Terpander,  i.  122 

Tetraciyet  the,  Pjrthagoras  called 

the  revealer  o^  i.  428 
llkalee,  supposed  visit  to  ^gypt, 

i.   83;    history  of   philosophy 

begins  with,  84,  1;  127,  166; 

among  the  seven  wise  men,  119, 


540 


INDEX. 


1,213;  and  the  wiseet  of  them, 
121;  his  life,  211-216;  sup- 
posed writings,  216,  2;  philo- 
sophy, 216  sqq.;  WAter  as  pri- 
mi  tire  matter,  217  fq. ;  orga- 
nising  force,  220 ;  origin  of  all 
things  from  water,  228;  other 
theories  ascribed  to  him,  224 
sq. 

TheanOf  wife  or  daughter  of  Py- 
thngorss,  i.  341,4;  372,  4 

Theognit,  i.  116,  117,  122,  123 

Theogony  of  Hesiod,  i.  84 ;  not  a 
philosophy,  89 

Thought^  Democritus  on,  and 
perception,  ii.  270  sqq.;  see 
Cognition,  Npvi 

Tknugmachut,  the  Sophist,  ii.  423, 
460;  464,  6;  481 

ThundeTf  see  Meteorological  The- 
ories ;  frightens  sinners  in 
Tartarus,  according  to  Pytha- 
goras, 1.  483.  3 

Titnaus  the  Locrian,  treatise  on 
the  world-soul  attribated  to  him, 
i.  310 ;  date  according  to  Plato, 
364 

Time,  Ghronos  of  Pheiecydes,  i. 
01,  2;  according  to  the  Pytha- 
goreans, 460 

Tmas,  his  school  of  rhetoric  in 
Sicily,  ii.  489 

Tones,  see  Harmony,  Pythago- 
rean system  of,  i.  431-483. 

TransmigrcUion  of  souls ;  see  Me- 
tempsychosis 

TgrUfus,  Spartan  elegiac  poet,  i. 
114,  127 


TJNlTYai  History,  see  History ; 
of  spirit  with  nature,  see 
Nature;  of  primitive  matter 
with  motive  force,  i.  200,  220, 
249;  and  duality,  with  the 
Pythagoreans,  387  sqq.,  394 
sq. ;  of  all  Being  asfterted  by 
Xenophanes,    661,    682;    and 


Parmenides,  proved  bj  2Seno, 
611  sq.;  Melissus,  632;  of 
Beinfc  and  Thought,  held  hj 
Pumenides,  683,  690;  of  the 
world,  by  Anaxagoras,  ii.  388» 
369 

UnioenBt  the,  opinions  oonoeming, 
of  the  Pythagoreans,  i.  443  sq. ; 
Parmenides,  698;  Heracfeitos, 
ii.  62;  Democritus,  247;  An- 
axagoras, 860 

Unlimited^  the,  of  Anaximaoder, 
i.  227  sqq. ;  of  the  Pythagoreans, 
466  sq. 

UnlimUedness,  of  the  atoms  as 
to  number,  and  of  the  Void, 
maintained  by  the  Atomists,  ii. 
223,  228,  246 


JTEINS,  called  the  bonds  of  the 

*       soul,  1 482,  1 

Virtue f  a  number,  L  188 ;  a  har- 
mony, 491 ;  Sophistie  doctxine 
of.  ii.  470  sqq. ;  opinions  of  the 
philosophers  on ;  see  Ethics 

Void,  the,  maintained  by  the 
Pythagoreans,  i.  468;  Ecphan 
tus,  628 ;  the  Atomista,  ii.  228 ; 
denied  by  Parmenides,  i.  586 ; 
Melissus,  634-636 ;  Empedodet, 
ii.  136;  Anaxagoras,  842 


IXTATER  as  primitive  matter,  i. 

^^      217, 226 

?Fum2,  connection  of  souls  with  the. 
i.  486,  2  ;  theories  respecting ; 
see  Meteorological  Theories 

Wise  men,  the  seven,  called  So- 
phists, i.  2,  3;  their  names 
variously  given,  119,  2;  their 
ethics,  119  ;  relation  to  philoso- 
phy, 120,  121;  judgment  (^ 
Heradeitus  on,  ii.  10 

Women,  education  of,  neglected  by 
the  Greeks,  i.  77;  among  the 
disciples  of  Pjrthsgoras,  i.  841, 


INDEX. 


541 


4  ;  Theano  on  the  duty  and 
position  of,  495,  2 ;  low  opinion 
of  Democritns  of,  ii.  285 ;  haye 
wanner  nature  tlum  men  and 
originally  spmng  from  the 
south,  according  to  Ptomenides, 
i.  601,  8  ;  this  theory  zeversed 
by  Empedocles,  ii.  162 

Works  and  Day$,  ethics  of  He- 
siod's,  i.  112 

World-Moul^  resemblance  of  Ad- 
rastea  in  Orphic  poems  to 
Plato's,  i.  101  ;  not  held  by 
Thales,  222 ;  supposed  Pytha- 
gorean doctrine  of  the,  485,  1 ; 
486 

World,  the,  is  to  Plato  the  visible 
God,  i.  154;  formation  of,  ac- 
cording to  Thales,  223,  224; 
Anazimander,  248  sq. ;  Anaxi- 
menes,  273  sq. ;  Hippo,  282; 
Diogenes,  292;  the  Pythago- 
reans, 439  sq. ;  Empedocles,  ii. 
150  sq.;  Bemocritus,  244  sq. ; 
Anazagoras,  345  sq. ;  Arche- 
laus,  390;  was  without  be- 
ginning, according  to  Xeno- 
phanes,  i.  565  sq. ;  Heradeitus, 
li.  21,  76,  77 ;  periodicHl  coo- 
struction  and  destruction  of, 
held  by  Aoazimander,  i.  256 ; 
Anazimenes,  278 ;  Diogenes, 
298;  Heradeitus,  ii.  76,  77; 
Empedocles,  145  sq.,  151,  152; 
unity  of,  held  by  Heracleitas, 
61,  74;  animate  nature  of,  ac- 
cording to  Thales,  i.  222 ;  innu- 
merable worlds,  spoken  of  by 
Anazimander,  i.  257  sqq. ;  Anazi- 
menes, 277 ;  Democritus,  ii.  245 ; 
ascribed  to  Xenophanes,  i.  571 ; 
relation  of,  to  Ood,  cf.  God ;  world 
above  and  beneath  the  moon,  i. 
471 


VEyiADES,    the    Sophist,    ii. 
^^     426, 456 


A^nopAoMM,  sources  in  regard  to 
his  doctrine,  i.  538;  lil'e  and 
writings,  556  sq.;  theology, 
polemic  against  polytheism, 
558 ;  unity  of  all  Being,  561 ; 
more  precise  definition  of  this, 
564,  565;  no  denial  of  Be- 
coming, 566 ;  physical  theories, 
567  sq. ;  ethics,  574 ;  supposed 
scepticism,  574  sq. ;  character 
of  his  philosophy,  577 

XenophilM^  a  musician,  disciple  of 
Eurytus,  the  Pythagori^an,  said 
to  have  lived  to  105  in  perfect 
health,  i.  864,  5,  end 


YEAR,    cosmic,     according    to 

the  Pythagoreans,    i.   458; 

according  to  Heradeitus,  ii  77 

^AGBEUS,  myth  of,  i,  64,  1 ; 
105 

Zaleitctu,  said  to  have  been  in- 
structed by  Pythagoras,  i.  842, 1 

Zalmoxis,  story  of,  and  I^tha- 
goras,i.  73,  1;  330,3;  387 

Zaratas,  i.  328,  3 

Zeno  of  Elea,  life  and  writings,  i. 
609  sq.;  relation  to  Parme- 
nides,  61 1  sq. ;  physical  theories 
ascribed  to  him,  611, 612;  refu- 
tation of  ordinary  presentation, 
612;  dialectic,  539  sq.;  argu- 
ment against  multiplicity,  614 
sq. ;  against  motion,  619  sq. ; 
historical  importance  of  these 
demonstrations,  625 

Zeu8,  meaning  of,  with  Pherecydes, 
L  91  sq. ;  in  Hesiodic  and  Or- 
phic myths,  64,  66,  100,  101, 
104  sq.,  107 ;  sayings  of  the 
poets  concerning,  112,  122 

^Zoroaster,  supposed  connection 
with  Pytba^ras,  i.  328,  3; 
515 ;  with  Heradeitus,  ii.  1 15 


Miirovt  FftimB  Br 
•roTTUwoooa  amo  od.,  vavr-trBsir  ■qvabu 


The  Authorieed  English  TraruilaHon  of 

DR.  E.  ZELLER'S  WORK  OH  THE  PHILOSOPHT  OF  THE  GREEKS. 


SOCRATES  and  the  SOCBATIO  SCHOOLS.    Translated 

bj  O.  J.  Bbcrxl,  M.A.  B.C.L.  tometlme  Bcbolar  of  Quern's  (College,  Oxford.   SmoiuI 
liiion,  enlazised  from  Materials  f upplied  by  the  Anther.    Grown  Sro.  lOi.  9d. 


*  ThtB  is  a  whollj  new  translation  from 
the  third  German  edition,  and  the  trans- 
later  has  done  his  work  with  snch  exceed- 
ing corefnlness,  and  yet  with  soch  success 
in  rendering  the  sometimrs  crabbed  and 
often  inTolTed  German  into  Idiomattc 
English,  that  his  workmanship  reads  with 


all  the  ilowing  ease  of  a  wsU-wtitten  ori- 
ginal composition.  .  .  .  Taken  as  a  whole, 
the  book  is  one  of  profoond  yalne  and 
interest,  and  while  specially  so  to  the  pbl- 
loeophloal  student,  mav  be  oommeuded  to 
all  thongbtfnl  readers.' 

Bbituh  Quastbrlt  Rsvnw. 


PLATO   and  the    OLDER    ACADEMY.      Translated    bj 

Sarah  F.  Allbtkk,  and  Atjtrbd  (Jooowxh,  BA.  Fellow  and  Lectoxv,  Balliol 

CoUege,  Oxford.    Crown  8td.  18«. 

'  The  work  must  become  Indispensable 
to  the  student  of  Plato.  It  oon«ists  of 
sixteen  chapters,  in  which  Plato's  life,  the 
order  of  his  writings,  tbe  character  of  his 
PhiloAophy.  his  Phyitics.  his  Bthics,and  his 
Religion,  are  treated  with  great  detail  and 
minuteness.  It  is,  of  nouiae,  impossible  in 
these  pages  to  do  more  with  so  vast  a 
work— not  rsst,  howerer,  in  bulk,  being  a 
book  of  hOO  pages— than  to  call  attention 
to  it,  and,  if  possible,  to  gire  some  idea  of 
its  style.'  Educatiokal  Turn. 

*In  all  its  departments  Dr.  Zbluir's 
book  is  both  comprehf^nsiYe  and  tmst- 
worthy.  Ho  seems  to  hare  said  the  last 
word  on  Greek  phUoeophy ;  and  his  volnmes 
are  among  those  monuments  of  nineteenth 
century  German  research  which  make  one 
wonder  what  will  remain  for  the  scholars 
of  the  twentieth  century  to  do.  He  beings 
to  his  tssk  the  two  eswntlal  qualities— 
-vast  learning,  and  thenower  of  moTlng  at 
pleasure  In  the  rariflea  atmosphere  of  ab- 
stractions. ...  It  is  erident  that  Mr. 
GooDWXH.  to  whom  this  part  of  the  under- 
taking fell,  had  no  sinecure  in  his  work  of 
translation  and  yerifloation.  He  has  gone 
brarely  through  with  It,  bowerer,  and 
both  his  work  and  that  of  lOss  Allrxb, 
who  trsaslated  the  text,  leaye  almost 
nothing  to  be  deslrsd.* 

Satubdat  Bsvixw. 

The  STOICS,  EPIGUBEAKS,  and  SCEPTICS.    Trauslated 

by  O.  J.  BnoHSL.  M. A.  B.C.L.  rometime  Scholar  of  Queen's  Ooll«ge,  Oxford.    Second 
Edition,  thoroughly  revised.    Crown  8to.  \6*. 

The    PRE-SOC  RATIO    SOHOOLS.     Being  a  History  of 

Greek  PhUoeophy  from  the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Time  of  SOCRATE&    TrausUted 
from  tbe  German  of  Dr.  K  Zkllbr  by  Sabah  F.  Alurvk.    2  vols,  crown  8to.  80f. 

ARISTOTLE  and  the  ELDER  PERIPATETICS.     Trans- 

lated  from  tbe  German  of  Dr.  B.  ZnxBB  by  B.  F.  0.  Costbulok,  Balliol  College, 
Oxford.    Crown  8?o.  [Intheprtu, 

%*  The  Tolume  announced  abore  win  oomplete  the  English  Translation  of 
Dr.  Zblucr's  Work  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  Greeks. 


*  The  compliment  of  translation  is  well 
deserved  by  the  patient  erudition  and 
masteily  arrangement  of  the  original, 
which  is  an  indispensable  aid  to  the  readera 
of  Plato  and  Arwtotlb.  Of  this  trans- 
lation it  can  be  said  that  in  aU  essential 
respects  it  may  be  relied  on  as  an  equivalent 
of  ZnxsR'B  book.'  Academy. 

*  This  is  a  translation  of  Dr.  Eduard 
Zsllrr'b  Pfo/o  vnd  die  dUere  Akademie, 
a  work  of  groat  value  to  students  of  Plato, 
but  hitherto  only  in  port  accessible  to 
English  readers.  The  text  has  been  admir- 
ably  translated  by  Miss  At.lkvkk.  wliohas 
proved  herself  fully  competent  to  deal 
with  the  phllosopbiOBl  termlnok)gy  of  the 
German  original,  and  to  execute  a  transla- 
tion which  does  not,  like  some  translations, 
proclaim  itself  as  snch  by  any  un-Englifth 
struotm«  of  its  phrases  and  sentences. 
GoploQs  notss  and  raferenoes  have  been 
added  by  Mr.  Goodwin,  Fallow  or  Balliol 
College,  who  shares  with  If  lis  Allbthb 
the  responsibility  of  the  work.  The  value 
of  Dr.  Zrllkr's  work  has  been  amply 
acknowledged  by  Professor  Jownr  in  the 
Preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  Plato  ; 
and  this  translation  of  it  will  be  a  great 
boon  to  many  students  of  Plato  who  (ss 
its  Authors  suggest  in  their  Preface)  are 
less  familiar  with  German  than  the  Greek.' 

OUARDLAN. 


London,  LONGMANS  &  CO. 


89  Patkbnostib  Bow,  Lombox,  E.O. 
A    SBLEOTION    OF    WORKS 


nr 


GENERAL   LITERATURE 

PUBUSHaD  BT 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO. 


HBSSRS.    L0KGMAN8,    GKBBN,    k   00. 
&MM  At  —  iwmrtfnt^  l^ff  9f  Atfir  PuUimtlmu,  wkkh  mnv  tf  A«tf 

L  MomTOT  IfflT  CT  Kwr  Woao 

ijn>  Nvw  BDRiomi 
fl.  QuABiBBLT  Lvr  ov  Ajnovsov- 

Kum  AVO  NSW  Wou. 
I.  Kom  OB    Booai ;   "«»•  am 

▲HAlilHB  OV  THB  WOBBI  VO«- 
UBBB>  DVMmi  BIOVQUAREB. 

4h  CUtaumvi    ov    BoBDnmo 
fk  Gasammb  ov  Mini f I   Aa» 


t.  (UxALOcini  ev 

f .  OATALO0VB  09 


rii  akdFvixl 


HISTORY,   P0UTI08,  HI8TORIOAL  MEM0lfl8|  Apo. 


AttbtfMidOmtei^lNniACIkaxohlBtteBlfMMBftkOentary.  Ol.8?it.T<.M, 

jjXJtI'i  DtiriiTini  TTi^" *  ^ — *-  *'  *  T     OrewA  9t«.  tn  M. 

—     Hillary  af  Giwoa.    Bwt  l,aiowB  tT«.10«.€4.    PftrtS,l»<A«j»vit. 
iMi  uA  BmmmmI^  HAoAlMWk  Ik  OvWim  «f  tb«  PoUtf oid  HltUHy  of  BnelaaA 
tolWT.    Oiown9vo.t«. 

r  (TIM)  for  Ui«  Tmt  1889.    •?*•.  18i.    TIm  Tola,  for  18«»-UM 
MBiMllteliAd. 
jjBoUrkLMlonionlfiodamHMory.    SvaTi^M. 
AAM  iDglUh  BeoBomlo  Htotary  uiA  ThMxy.    Plut  1,  Tko  IClddlo  JLfW. 

drown  Syo.6«. 
BMWvU'iInludniidirtteTndoa.    VolklMidS.    SmUi.   YoL  I.    tro.  lit. 
Bttll'toLifl^MiToQrikmialzelABd.nrS-lSOO.    tvo. ««. 
—   TteB^DnMdOluireko<InlMd,lMr-lMf.    8Ti.7«.<tf. 

r «( tbo  OhuQh  o<  InglHA,  PMJIifloKBMtiMi  PMlod.  ITV.  lilL 


LOH0][AN8»  eSKKH,  *  00^  London  ud  New  Tork, 


A  Selection  of  Works 


Bright*!  (J.  Pnnok)  History  of  Bngland.     Or.  8vo.    ToL  1. 44»-14n,  U,  M. 

Tol.  S,  1486-1688,  tt.    YoL  f ,  1689-18S7,  7«.  9d,    YoL  4.  lftS7-18aO,  6c 
Bookle'i  HinoTj  of  OIvlliMtloa.    t  rok.  oiown  8va  Nt. 
Ohnrch  (Sir  Biobuzd) :  a  Memoir.    By  Stanley  Lane  Poola.    SvOb  fa. 
Ooz't  (Sir  Q.  W.)  Oeneral  Histoiy  of  Chmoo.    Grown  9ro,  Mapa,  7«.  M. 
Crake'B  History  of  the  Ohuich  under  the  Roman  Bmpire,  ajx  30-476.  Orown 

8vo.  It.  6d. 
Orelghton'i  Papeioy  during  the  BeComaltOD.  Btq.  Yola.  Ilk  S,  tti.  Yola.  B  *4, 94i. 
Conon't  BusBia  in  Oentral  Ada  in  1888.    With  ICape.    ninstrated.    Sro.  Sic. 
De  B«dcUfle'i  (YtMoont  Stratfoid)  lite.    By  Stanloiy  Ijuie-Booleu  A.bHdg9i 

Edition,  1  toL  orown  8vo.  7«.  6J. 
De  TMqoevlIle'i  DenaoorMf  in  ▲meiftaa.    fl  Tdi.  orown  8to.  18f. 
OoflB'ilBgliditeAmerlai:  Ylxglnia,  ICaiyland,  and  the  OaraUnai,  tm.  Uc 

—  —  —         The  Puritan  Oolonies,  S  Tola.  8to.  86a. 

Boaay  Introdaetory  to  the  Study  of  BngUeh  Oonstitnttonal  Histoiy.    Bditod 

by  H.  0.  Wakeman  and  A.  Haaiall.    Orown  8to.  6f. 
■waM*!  Antlqnitlee  of  In«el,  traiiBlatad  by  Solly.    8val»c64. 

—     HlatotyoCIiraaL  tranilatedlvOarpenterABiBith.   $y6k,9fo,  Yela. 
1  *  fl,  fl4i.   Yoli.  8  Ik  i,  SU  YeL  8,  18c   YoL  8, 18c   YiL  T,  flic 
YoL  8;  18c 
freeBua'f  matorioal  Geography  «(  Inrope.   fl  vob.  tro.  8Ic  64. 
rraadaTe  Bnglirii  in  Ireland  in  the  18th  Oanbiiiy.   8  toIc  oiown  avob  liii 
rofBngland.  18  tola,  orown  8ro.  Sc  <d.  each. 
k  Btodiee  on  Oreat  Snbjooti.   OaUnet  Bdition,  4  vtds.  erawn  Svou 
fldi.    Cheap  Edition,  4  role,  orown  87a  i*»  M.  each. 
Churdlner^  Hiitoiy  of  Bngland  from  the  Aooeerion  of  Jamea  L  to  the  Outfareak 
of  the  OItU  War.  .  10  toIc  orown  8to.  60c 

—  Hletoryof  the  Great  OlTil  War,  1648-1649  rivolc^    YoL  1, 1649-1644, 

8vo.  (01*/  qr  print).     YoL  S,  1644-1647, 8m  84c 

—  Btndent*!  History  of  Bngland.   lUnBtrated.   (8  toIc)    YoL  1,  crown 

870. 4i. 
GrefUle^  Jonmal  of  the  Belgni  of  King  George  lY.,  King  WUnam  IY«  tad 

Qneen  Ylotoria.    Cabinet  Hdition.    8  Tok.  orown  8fo.  6c  each. 
Harri8on*B  The  Ooutemporary  History  of  the  FTeneh  BoTOlatioa.  Or.  8to.  8c  6d. 
HiswEle  Towns.     Bdlted  by  B.  A.  Freeman,  D.aL.  andtbe  Beir.  WOUnin  Honk 
ILA.    With  Xapa  and  Plana.   Orown  8vo.  8c  6d.  ewih. 

ByfheBav.l.L.Oatte. 


By  W.  J.Jioftje. 
9y  B.  A I  ^^eeman* 
Oinqoe  Ports,    By  Montsgs 


Oxford. 


BytfaeBoT.W.HoBft. 
BytbsBefT.aW.Boasei 


Oailisla.    ByiheBeT.lI.areitffatoB. 
Winohester.  By  G.  W.  Kltohin.  D  J). 
York.    By  the  Be7.  James  Baine. 
NewTofic   By  Theodore  Booeerelt. 
a  History  of  the  Choroh  of  Cbriat  in  Bngland. 


Jennings*  Eodesia  AnglJoatia : 

Crown  8yo.  7c  6<i. 

LeoiTi  fiiitoKy  of  Bngkad  in  the  Eighteenth  Osntory.    Ydic  1*8, 1700-1780^ 
870.86c  Yolc8  44,176a-1784fe8?«.88c   Yola.8  Ik  8»  1784-1788,  88c 
Yols.  7  A  8, 1793-1800,  86c 
«       History  of  Bnropean  Morals    8  Tolc  arawn  tro.  18c 
—  ~     .  Batlonalism  is  Baropo.    8  Toils,  onwn  8f«.  18c 

Leger's  History  of  Anstoo-Hnngary.    Orown  Sto.  lOt.  6d. 
Liddell't  Memoirs  ef  the  Tenth  Boyal  Htissarc    1  toL  im|K  870i 
Lyde's  Introduction  to  Anolent  History.    Orown  870.  Sc 

LONGMANS,  GBEEN,  ft  00^  London  awl  H«w  Toik. 


in  Otneral  Literature, 


MMkOliqr^OomptotoWflKki.   lAniyBdttioB.   8 iroli. tvo. M^ Ifc 

-  -  —         OaUxHlBdltiM.    ltTOla.c 

—  Hislofy  oC  Bngteod  ^* 
Riinaar  Sdltioa.  S  Toto.  or. JTO.  ft.  |  O^jiiet  BdMoa.  8  tota.  poll  tro.  tfi. 


Btadont'feBdltloB.STOlB.or.STO.lSi.     Ubnury  SdltioBi  f  folib 
Pwple'i  Bdltkm.  4Tola.oc.8TO.lte.  | 
ICmmUU*!  OUttoa  and  milcnlo*!  iMVi,  wtth  Li^i  oC 


InOM 


FttpntarldMoni  ai.8f«.U.<A 


libniy  BdMiOB. 


4T0llLMll8TO.f4i. 

8Toii.8?o.8«i. 


1 TOL  orawB  8T0.  if.  edi 


Asthoctaed  SdltioB.   Or.  8t«.  I«.  <d.  I 

or8«.<d.8UtedgM.  | 

KAonlagTa  OrlOoal  and  Historloal  Bflsaji 

Btatoit'a  BditloQ.  1  ToLor.8TO.e«. 

TnTdyan  BdltUm.  STDli.er.8T0.  Hi. 

FBQidA  BUMOB.    8ToIfl.or.8TO.8i. 
MMovloy'B  IdMcUaiMOfU  WrtUngi.   S  Tola.  Sto.  fl«. 

—  IflBoaUanooaa  Wzltizigiaad  Bpeochaa :— 

Fopolar  Bdltlon.    Or.  8to.  Si.  8d.     |   Stodenfk  MitloB.  Or.8T0.8«. 

—  jfiawnaneooa  Wrttfnga,  SpaedlMab   Is^  of  AnoltBl  Bona^Ao. 

OaUnat  Bdltlon.    4  Tolk  orown  8to.  84i. 

—  Wriltiiga,  Salootiona  from.    Glroim8T0.8f. 

—  Bpaaobaa  oorraoted  by  HJmaalt    OroiwB  8to.  8i.  84. 
Mi^BiiiraOatllnaaof  JtwIahHlatory.    Vop.  8Ta  8«.  ed. 
liidiiiaaliary'a  (Barl  of)  MMMiTB  of  aa  Bs-Miiiiatar.    OtowB8?o.7i.8d. 
Ifaij^Oonatltatkmal  Hlatoiy  of  Bnetand,  1780-1870.    8  Tola,  acovn  8to.  18i. 
ltatTato'innottlioBoaiaiiB«imtill&    Umo.7«.8d. 

—  GooflnU  Hlrtory  of  Bono,  B.0. 763-AA  476.    Oiowb  8to.  ft.  64. 

'       Hiaiory  of  tha  Bomana  iixid«r  «ho  Bmpln.    Oablnet  Bdltkm.  8  toIl 
poal  8T0. 48i.    Popalar  Bdition.  8  Tola.  8i.  td.  eooh. 
ICflea  (W.  Aagoatoa),  Tho  Oorreapondenoe  of,  on  tha  French  BeTOlntton,  1789- 

1817.    8ToU.8Ta 
Mnrdook^  Baoonatmotloii  of  Bnropo,  from  tba  Bfaa  to  ilia  lUl  of  the  Seoond 

Vreneh  Hmpbo.    Grown  8to.  9t, 
Oman'i  HIatofy  of  Greeoa  from  the  BarUeat  Tlmea  to  the  Macedonfaui  Oonqneat. 

Grown  8to.  4«.  6d. 
Banaome'a  Tba  Riae  of  Oonatltattonal  Ckyremment  In  Bngland.   Orown  8to.  9t. 
BawUnaon'k  Tha  History  of  PhOBnida.    8to.S4«. 
Bogot^i  Hiatory  of  tba '  CM  Watar-Colonr '  Society.    S  TOla.  loy.  8to. 
BnaBeU*a  (Lord  John)  life.    Br  Bpenoer  Walpola.    8  Tola.  8t»,  S8t.    Oablnet 

Bdltlon,  3  Tola,  orown  8to.  lU. 
Baabohm'a  Oifocd  Bel  onnen— Oolatk  Braamoa,  A  Horo.   8T0.14f. 
Bborlli  Hlatocy  of  the  Ohnxoh  of  Bngland.    Grown  8Ta  7i.  8di 
Bmlth'a  4?nrtHgf  —*  *'''»  n>>teifi«iMi«.    Grown  8Ta8i. 
Stephflna*  (H.  Moiae)  Hiatory  of  the  Ftenoh  BoTolotlon.    8  Tda.  8tol    YoL  1. 

18«.    YcL  8,  In /A«f»r«tt. 
Btnbba*  Hiatory  of  tha  UnlToraity  of  DnbUn.    8to.  lit.  8d. 
BymeaT  Pralode  to  Modem  Hlatoiy.    VithMapa.  Grown  8to.  ti.  6d. 
Tfeylor^  Maamd  of  tho  Hlatoty  of  India.    Orown  8to.  7i.  8d. 
Toytthee'a  Leotoxea  on  tho  Indoatrlal  BoTolntton  of  tho  18th  Gentnry  In 

Bngland.    8TO.10f.8d. 
WalpoVaHlatoiy  of  Bngload,  from  1818.   libraiy  Bdltlaa.   BTOlk8?o.M.10i. 

GahtaetBdittoii.    8  Tolik  8i.  each. 


lOHeXAHB,  eBBSR,  *  00..  LoadoD  Bud  How  Torib 


k 


A  SelaetliiL  ef  Woiki 

EPOCHS  OF  ANOIENT   HISTORY. 

bf  «te  Bff .  Bb  O.  W.  Om,  BHllLl.  uid  I7  a  Bimr,  IL4. 

10  ▼oloBM,  fop.  ITV.  wl«h  Ifapi,  pilM  Si.  M.  aa^ 

ntOn0OIil,lUrlai,HidMto.   If  A.  S.  BaMty,  K^    WitfaSllMi. 

nt BMr\j BoBum Impii*.   Bjtbiltafr.W. WdUtOuMiilLA.   WHfitlUH. 

-~    ~       iplTCortbiBeooiidCtaatoiy.  Sy  tbi  Bc<r.  W.  WoUi  OipM,  iLA. 

_    OliTtaia,M.^  WlthSX^vi. 
r.aca.W.O^B«rt.  Wtthilfapc 
toltaOaptanfeftheOMli.   B7  WObdn  IhiMb   Wi«h  a  1U|». 
Th6  BoBAB  TiiomTlzaftM.  BjtbiVa7]tor.<ftMdMltelTtiit,DJ).  Wttblbp. 
The  Bpuftin  wd  Tbataa  BopnanMln.  Bj  Ghalta  Snto,  1C.A.  Wlttii" 
BaBMUid0vllM8«,«te  Panto  Wan.   Bj  B.  Bomwih  Bmlth.   Wltli9~ 


WltfaSMapi. 
Tha  Athenian  BmirfTC  froB  «ba  VUgfet  aC  Xaixai  to  tha  lUl  o<  Al 

Bar. HrO.W.Ooz, Bart. ILA.  HtlhiHaiia. 
Tka  Blaa  af  tha  Maoadontaa  BBAptoa.  ^  Aittrar  X. 
na  Graaki  and  the  Pvilana. 


laAfai.  Bj«haTar7B0T.B.W.Obordh.WHkt]C«a. 
By  Ba?.  A.  H.  JohnaoB,  lUL    WlthSHapa. 
rT.BtrO.W.Oos,Bartl[.A.    WitbaMap. 


EPOOHS  OF   MODERN   HISTORY. 
BdltoAhyaOotooclLA.  »ToluDMB,lep.tTO.wllhHa|ia.  Prioali,M.a 

ThaBaglnnlBgoCthaiaddlai 
TiM  Bomuuu  In  Bn    . 

Thadnuadea.    By  the  Bar.  Btr  O.  W.  Cos,  Bart.  I[.A.    WitbaMa*: 
ThaBarbrPlantagoDatk    By  the Blgh* Ber.  W. StabKDJ).    WltkSXBVC 
Bdwart  fiia  Third.    By  the  BeT.  W.  Warbarton,  MJL   IHCh  8  Hapa. 
The  HouBi  of  Laaoaater  and  York.    By  Jamea  Gairdnar.   WlthSlfapa. 
The  Bady  Todon.    By  the  Bar.  G.  B.  Moberly,  ILA. 
The  Bra al file  PiotaalantBevolntlon.    By  F. Baabobm.   WlllidlLni. 
The  Age  of  BUiaboth.    By  the  Bar.  M.  (kaii^ita^ M.A.  LLJ).    WHkfl_ 
The  nnt  Two  BtaartL    By  Bamoal  Bavaon  GcraMr.    With  4  Mapa. 
The  Thirty  Tean' War,  in8-1648.  ByBumal  Bawaon  Oazdinar.  "Wtthal 
The  Bnffttah  Beatoratton  and  Looifl  ZIY.,  164ft-16rB.    ByOnnndAfey. 
ThaiuiaflheBtaarti.    By  the  BeT.  Bdmocd  Bala,  ICJ.    WtthUlbpa. 
ThaA«aof Anna.    By B. & Morria, BLA.   WMh 7 Hapa and PlaB& 
ThebxlyEanovariana.   By B. BrkflRlB, M.A.    With* lCa|ia and Raaa. 
Frederick  the  Great  and  tba  Bavan  TaaiT  War.  By  F.  W.  Loadun.  WBIi  S  Hapa. 
TlMWara<AnMrioanIndepMidenoe,lT7i.l7tl.  ByJ.H-Lndlaw.  WBhiXtta. 
The Frmah Barolnlioa.  178».17U.    S^ Mxa. a B. Qaidinat;    Wllk7r 
ira,18S<^-lW0.    ByJnatlnXdCtetlly,lLP. 


Tha^poobaCBaCora,! 


EPOOHS   OF  OHURCH    HISTORY. 
BdlladbythaBoT.MAnnLLGUBMiov.    If  toIb.  Iq^  8?ia.  pitoa  9«.  M.  Mh. 
The  Bngllah  Oknroh  in  otbar  Landi.   By  ttMBar.R.  W.AiAar. 
The  Hiatonr  of  the  Belanaatiou  in  Bncland.    By  the  Bar.  GeoKfa  G.  Any. 
The  Ohoroh  of  tba  Barly  F^tiun.    By  Alfred  Ploniniar,  IXD. 
The  BnmgeUoal  Beriyal  In  the  Bighieenth  Oentqiy.  By  tha  Bar.  J.  H.  Otarloa. 
A  Hiatory  of  the  UnlTerfllty  of  Oxford.    By  tha  Hon.  CT.  0.  BrodriolL  DjQLL, 
A  Hiatocy  of  the  UnlTarsity  of  Oambridga.   By  J.  Baaa  Mallinfar,  itA. 
Tha  ftifJtah  Ohnroh  in  the  Middle  Afea.    By  Ber.  W.  Hnnt»  ILA. 
Tha  Adan  Oontroreny.    By  R.  K.  OwaCUn,  MJL 
WyattflaaadKoTanMiatiteBefarm.   By  BaglBaU  U  Baala. 
ThaOautor-BefmMllaB.    ByA.W.lML 
ThaaharriiandthaBaaMnBMfra.   By  tte  Bi¥.  A.  Ovr. 

ThaGhUQhaBdthaParflBaa,im.lt~^ ^^    ■ 

Tha  Gh»*  and  tha] 


Tha  Papal  and  Iht 

&0He]ujn.« 


-IMIi  lyHauFOfliTWal 
I.  ^yttaBorLFTTaM. 
iBar.W.B.W.-'-"- 


ri*oo. 


IHfwTBdE. 


ia  a«B«ral  Uteratut. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  WORK8. 

AnBitiong*8  (B.  JO  Lite  And  lAtten.  Idited  ^  «.  F.  AxBBatrww.  le^  t^ 
BaoMi'i  Life  and  Lrtton,  by  Bpeddiitg.    7  fola.  9f,  §4, 4s, 
BiWahoriBloflnphlaalStadifli.    iTOLtmlti. 
Ourlyto'k  (Thomas)  Lite.  BjJnam  A.fkviida.  (kmmtftt.   ITM-IW, fl iroli. 

7«.    18U-1881,STolf.7«. 
lin(0h«rlMJaiiMi)TlMBar]7Histec7al.  ByBkOwaftafdyM.   Qr.tf«ilii 
lirauds^Onnr:  aSketoh.   Otewn  Sro.  S«.  64. 
Hudlton'B  (Star  W.B.)  Life,  by  0mm.   t  toll.  8?«.  lit,  MOlk 
Batctodk*!  Utei  by  Hanhnum.   Okrofim  8?o.  U  M. 
MaoMilay^CLMd)  life  and  Lattan.    By  lik  Napbaw,  Mr  0. 0.  Tlrmlyui,  Bui 

Popular  BdHioii,  1  vol.  or.  8to.  U  M.    StadenU  ■dlMoo,  1  toL  or.  Sva.  Ifc 

OabtawtBdltlon^tToUu  poet  8to.  114.    LIbnry  IdlttoB,  fl  toli.  8f«.  ISi. 
XoDeogaU'e  Kemoln  (Biahop  oC  lAboaa).    By  a  J.  Banyan.   tT0.14i.: 
XteddanhnNiLattan.   Trandated  by  Ludy  WaDaoa.   fl  vdfc  or.  tie.  Ii.  MOlk 
KooiBli  Dante  and  bla  Barly  Biosraphen.    Grown  8vo.  if.  64. 
HcmanNi  Apologia  pro  YilA  Bui.  Oroum  Sra  e«.  OtaaapBdilloa,«.8f«it<.M. 

—       Lettan  and  Oomapondenoe    dnrlag    hta  life  In  tha  IngliA 
Oharoh.   STolfl.8To.t0f.net. 
Bbakaflpeai^OotlfeaortheUfeot    By  J.  a  HaUiwoU-PUmppi.   ntartnlid. 

S  Tola,  royal  STa  SU. 

BhakaapaaiaraTnieLife.  By  Jamea  Walter.  With iOOlllnrtmllflaa.  lB».»f«.Slf. 
■wtlUj'a  Oomapondanee  witb  OMoUne  Bowtofc    8f«.14i. 
■fepban^BimyB  in  loalerfartloal  Biography,   drawn  tf«i  fii  IA 
WiDliglon'fLlfebbyOMg*   (kown8?n.U  M. 


MENTAL  AND   POLITIOAL  PHILOSOPHY    FINANCE,   Ac. 

ABM^PrinMroCtbalnglUhOonatitBtlon.   OTOwntT«.ff. 
Baocnii fcaiyi, with  Anafttathmi by Whately.   •vo.lQi.Wi 

—  Worka,  edited  by  Spedding.    7  toll.  8?n.  TU  M. 
Btodiei^  edited  by  Hntton.   •ro.lOi.M. 

LogtoiDadnoltTtandlnduattTib  (koim8fn.lfe.ed. 

PAMrLDodnoMan,4f.       |       Pisf  IL  Zndnoltai,  ti.  84i 
*    MantalandMbnlBoianoa.   Cteown  8?o.  lOf.  id. 

—  TbaBaaBMaadthelntaUeot.   8vo.lfe. 

—  Tba  Bmoliena  and  the  Wffl.   810.  Iff. 

BkkaPi  Tablea  far  the  OonTorsion  o<  •  par  oanl  IntarMt  froM  .V  to  7  par  oant. 

8TO,lfe.M. 
QMt^FbyrioalBeallam.   8T0.1fe. 
(knqpPlBhort  Aa^dliy  intethe  VorniatfenoC  AigliihNllferiOplnlfln.  8^ 

—     OaaaeaofthaOrMtfUllnPrloM.   8To.8f. 
BminAHlalQryoCltentteaadTueilnliWiaBA.   8?o.  Yok.  1 A 1^  llf. 

Yola.  8  *  4,  SU. 
QfMi*i(TbanaaHm)WoilBi.  (Btdi.)  Yohil*!^ 

YflL8,lllMdlaBki.   Wlttilfenolr.   8f«.SIUi 


LOHeXAn,  eBm.  ft  00^  Loato  aad  Vfv  To*. 


A  Seleetion  of  Works 


Snm^lWMdltodtaf  OfMB^OnM.   fl  TOta,  Sro.  !••, 

-  TTCitlnfllHiinMiNMare,«dlledbf OfMB*OflOMb   Sf«ta.tf«iMfi 

Itfidd*!  llttiiMBta  at  PhjiiolQgifld  PnyoholQgj.    8to.  3U. 
UBoriOiMlaBMidlCyfh:  StodlMflfBwlyUMgviiidBdliL    (kont«D.T«.M. 
bMli«^BH»jitiiPotttlttUBooiionj.   tmlOiuM. 
iMWt^B  Hlitofy  fli  Pblldnpbj.    fl  yola,  tro.  tSf. 
LBblKMk*feOrf|liief  OTOtetloB.    Blvstnted.    8fo.Ua. 
MadMd'i  TtonflBMntaoHknkiiis.   GtawntfaCi. 

.      TktnMOTuAVkMtioeolBaiikliif.   ToL  1,  tvo.  Uc  ToL  1. 14t. 

*      The  Theory  olOradtt.    (STOlfcSTo.)    yoLl,Tt.M.    ToL  S,  Ftet  1, 
4«.6d. 

Huiaala  of  OatboUo  FhUoeophr,  orown  8to.  :— 
Clarke's  Logio.   ii. 
Eiokabf't  nm  Prlnoiplei  of  Knowledge.    §§, 

^        MonlPhlkeophy.    k. 

—        Qenenl  KetaphTiloa.   fi. 
Meher'ePvfeholocy.    te  64. 
Boeddir'eNetanl  Theology.    (/«<ft«prcMO 
Den^  PoUliDal  looiMmy.    (/»  jfrqMmMoii.) 

lluclCVIkff^The8flieMi«(Thoiight.   8to.SU 

lfm'k(JeB«)AiiA]]piiio<fhePhaMaieneltbeHii]iiulCiiidU  lfvta.titt.Mai 
im (Jttta MdwI) OB BeptiMiftattve GoffMunenfe.   GE«v&8fttila. 
<-i         ^  onUbar^.   Orown  Svou  U.  M. 

—  —  annlnnttoa  o<  HMBfltonNi  FhlloMpiiy.   •vo.Uh 

—  ^  Logia   Orown 8T0.U. 

—  -5  Rtediika  al  FoUtknl  loonony.  8f«ta.tfttiMi 

Mlllan,  1  foL  aiown  tftti  ft. 
.—         — i  YnmiaibHilnL   •vo.ft. 

—  —  Time  iMvya  on  BeUgloB,  IM.   tfo.  ftb 
Monok'a  Introdootlon  to  Loglo.   Orown  Sra  ft. 
Mnihaaii  Hlflocy  of  Prloaa  linoe  18M.   Grown  tro.  ft. 
BnndaM'Inatltateeof  JwtlniAn,wlthBngliahHolaa.   tftt.]ftb 
Beeboha'^anglMh  VUtageOommnnily.   •ftt.lft. 
Ba]]y*aOQtU]Mio<Fi7ohologj.   •to.IScM. 

—  TMflhart  Handbook  of  Piy<Aologj.   Qnvn  tvo.  ft.  W. 
iPloftreLoglo.    FMlSvObft. 
■  ▲Bjitflmof Payohology.   STota.8vo.lft. 

—  The  Problem  of  BvIL    8T0.lft.64. 
-i        The BeUgloaaaentlnentaaf the Hnaan Mind.   8TO.ra.84L 

—  Bootal  Prograai :  on  baay.   SfO.  f§,  84. 
WAVa  The  Vail «(  lata.    8T0.lft.84. 
Whntel]f^ltaBBanta  of  Loglo.   QTown  8to.  ft^  84L 

—  —      —  Rhefeodo.    Orown  8va  ft.  84. 

Seltar^HtatoiyefBoleotloinilnOzoakFhlkMophj.   Qbowh  8VB.  18i.  84. 
—     PtaloudtheOklarAoademy.   Gkown  8to.  IBi. 


(kovn8ftt.I8i.84. 


lovexAm,  esEKH,  *  oa, 


IHowTok. 


ixt  General  literature. 


Ee|]ar*B  Stoloi,  BpioniMiii,  and  BoepMon    Osovn  8fOb  lii. 

OatUiUBOtttwHIftasyoCanaPhfloiopliy.   GtoWB8fV.10i.ei. 


CLASSICAL   LANGUAGES  AND   LITERATURE. 

Mnhjlva,  The  Imiwnidei  off.     Tezft,  witb  MeMoal  IngUah  TnuulatioB,  W 

J.F.DayiM.    8m  7«. 
Aitotophantf  The  Antiwnlaiw,  tranriatad  ly  B.  T.Tyntfli    Qrown  8to.  li. 
Axiatotle'B  Tba  Bthios,  Ttzt  and  NotM»  by  Bir  Atoz.  Ozant,  Barl  S  vols.  8to.  SI«. 

—  Tb0  Ntoomadheaa  Ethioi,  Iniulated  by  WiIUama>  oiown  8to.  7«.  fd. 

—  Tha  FoUtfcB,  Books  1,  UL  IV.  (Vn.)  with  Thuudatton.  Aa  by 

BoUand  and  Lang.    Grown  8vo.  7«.  8d. 
Baoker'BCA^rieicfand^aaiM.byllotcalfa.    FMI  8to.  7«.  8A  «Mh. 
Olatra'aGorveapondenoa.  Text  and  Notes,  by  B.T.Tyn«U.  Yob.  1,  t,  Ik  i,  8to. 

ll«.eaeb. 
Famell'i  The  Greek  Lyrlo  Poeta.    8to. 

Hanlflon'i  ICytha  of  the  Odyuey  in  Art  and  literatare.    Blnatrated.    8to.  184. 
HeUentoa :  a  G6Ueetlon  of  Beaaya  on  Greek  Poetry,  fta    Bdlted  by  Bvelyn 

Abbott.    8to.1««. 
UmckalTn  Seleat  Bplgrams  from  the  Greek  Anthology.    8to.  18«. 
Plaao^  Parmankte,  vtth  Notei,  Ao.  by  J.  Magnira.    8m  U.  9d. 
Sophoolfla.    Ttanalated  Into  BngUsh  rerae  by  Bobert  Whltelaw.  Gr.  8to.  8#.  6d. 
▼Irgll'a  Works,  Latin  Text,  with  Gommeotary,  by  Kennedy.  Grown  ero.  iOi.  ea 

—  Aisid,  tnuislatsd  Into  Bnglish  Veise,  by  Oonlngton.      Grown  8to.  8«. 

—  —  —  ———     byW.J.ThornhiIl.Gr.8vo.7«.ed 

—  Poaaui       —  —       —     Fnaa,  by  OoDington.     Grown  8tow8« 

—  BdognesandOeorgtosotyiigO.    Translated  by  J.  W.  Haokail.  Boyal 
16mo.B<, 

WlirBMythaelHcl]ao,tniisla8edbyF.M.YoanghOBbaBd.   0feown8vo.U84 

—  The  Ttn^an  War,  —  —  lop.  8to.  If. 

^    TheWandsrlngsofUlyBBSS,  —  Grown  8ve.  8«.  8tf 

—  The  Betnat  of  the  Ten  Tbooaaad,       —  Grown  8to. 


ENCYCLOPAEDIAS,   DICTICNARIES.  AND   BCCKS   CF 
REFERENCE. 

AolOB'sllodsfBOootaiyfftePriTatelamfflM.   Vop.  8fOb  4«.  8d. 

AyrafaTieaBUijof  Bible  Enowtodgs.    ¥ep,  8?o.  8«, 

Bkke^B  Tables  for  the  GonTarsloD  of  f  per  Cent.  Interest,  fto.    8to.  lit.  6i. 

Ghishohn's  Handbook  of  Oonunerclal  Geography.    89  Haps.    8to.  16f. 

Gwflt'ianeyokipadiaaf  Arehlteotora.    8T0.fS«.8d. 

LongmaniT  New  Atlas.    861Ca|Nk    Bdlted  by  G.  G.  GhUholm.   ito.  or  Imperial 

8mlS«.8d. 
ITGiiUooh'kDkiUooaryorGQmiiinootDdGQmmndalVAtigi^   •f«.88«. 
Kaandar'a  fitographSoal  TreasDiy.  rop.8Ta8f. 

—       HMortoal  Treaaary.    VBp.8Ta8j. 


LQROMAirS,  GBBlfiN,  *  CO.,  London  and  New  Teik. 


A  Meotion  of  Worki 


—       Tliiu J  ol  BoiMy^ •dttid  by  Mndi^y  ifc  Mmw.    TwPM^Uii 
'  flt  O^ognpliy.    Vo|k  8tow  tiu 
o<  BBowlidftMAXAnfyof  BrtmMi.   He^trnti. 
o<  KMoml  BMoty.    f9^.  tvo.  <c 

o<  Bonui Md  enak ijBilqattlM.   (kowm9rB.UM. 
I «(  hgllih  W«di  Md  Phmna.   Ortim  tfo.  lOi.  M. 
IIPipalirTMMHyfefltartoML   Cteown8To.l«i.M. 


NATURAL   HI8T0RYp  BOTANY,  AND   QARDENINQ. 


■adMtenj^Bjuidbookof  CkyptagMBloBotoy.   •ro.ltfc 
■irtiririAfftaliraild.    With tS nh»tnll<mfl.  •vo.lOt.M. 

—  BoteW«M.    Wtth M ZUastrntiom.  tTO.10«.M. 

*      InudMiUTtacWoiiAn.    Wltb  BU  BtaMlnMoiM.   •te.lli.fdL 

—  BalilmMUiW«diL    With  tO IBartntlcnM.   tm.ll«bi& 

—  TrnylwJWflrtd.    WlCh  ISO BliBatntleM.   tmlMbWi 

8f«ifUt 


CkowK  8v^  St* 

HMiiyoCBKMrtiBlida.    OMwb  »f».  Ii.  ML 
WM«"iBIUtAidMilL    WMimmiirtnllMA    8f«.10i.M, 

With  140  OlHlRllOM.    •vo.lOi.fdL 
AhRMd.    WltkiOOIlliMfemttoML   8f«.lifcM, 
latHoma.    WMk  100 nimttMlaM.   tvis.  lOi.  W. 
—    OitofPoon.    With  11  mnstrnttou.    Ckown  tv».  tf.  #& 
«    giiliBll  Ifi^ttd.   With  It  mnrtmiouL   CkoimOTo.8iiW 
li    WiMiiPiitfiip    With oomiim ■III—.  Ommfn^UML 


THEOLOQIOAL  AND   REUGIOUS  WORKS. 

OBtteFMntfttBoohuidBookaC  JoduM.   Qmr&ti«,afc 
Dt  k  BuMnye'to  Muiwl  •!  tht  Bd«M  a(  Bdiglon. 
H0hunM«dlflilI«i«iii«eof  BkLote.    tmlSi; 

MiMilnMi WNi  (ft.)  PmpoIcmi  Biiiom.  Flx«tMMlBaoeBilKl«.  aro«Btv«ili.W. 
•idu    ThMflarlML   Onwm  Sro.  7«.  M. 

—  Tha  lOnolM  af  oar  LoKd.    Otowb  tro.  ti.  M. 

idMfoanaftar  the  Ohrtatlui  Lite.    GtowB  iro.  Ti.  M. 
—        Hymw  oC  PndM  and  Pmrvr.    Orawa  Orok  te.  64.   tteOhliLfA 
^         Tha  8«t  «l  Authority  In  Bellfloii.    Bm  lAi; 
Is        iKaom,  Aavn  of  ThMffht  OB  Baond  Thlnfi,    S  toIil  r&  M.  aMlt 


LDirailANB,  CBIBB,  *  00^  LoMlon  ud  N«w  Toik. 


in  Oeneral  Literatare.  9 

ICutlnmn'i  Buayi,  Rarltwi,  aad  Addww,    4  toIs.  crown  8yo.  7«.  <d.  eaoh. 

MaxKtUlecliOxlglAHidQfowtliofBdielon.   Orown  tro.  rt.  64. 

—  —      Botonee  of  BaUgion.    Otown  8vo,  7«.  64. 

—  ~     OUtotd  LaotaTM  on  NfttozAl  ReUgion.   Grown  8vo.  lOi.  64. 
HfwnialApologlApcoVIIABiiA.  Cko«B6T0.6i.  Oh8ApBdition,or.8T0.8«.64. 

—  The  Axianf  ol  tba  Vonrth  Oantiny.    Onmn  Bra  6f.    Ohwp  Edition, 

erown  Srow  6i.  64. 
<-      ThdldenolnUniTenityDiflnedandlUnBtented.   GtoWBtvo.T«. 

—  HIitalialBlcolQliai.   lYoli.anwn6TO.6f.eMli.     • 

—  SieeiUBloaM  ni  AzgimMntB  on  Vedone  Babjeoli.    Oolilnflt  Bditlon, 

omwn6?n.6«.    GheAp  Bdlttcm,  erown  6to.  8«.  64. 
~      An Bmj on  tbo DeTolopmenl of  Ohiistian  Dootelno.   Oioim8m6«. 

Ofceef  Bdtttlen,  erown  Sm.  84. 64. 
-^      OvMn  IMIIIonMee  FeM  bj  Ai>yHn^»^  |b  CMhollo  TtedUng  Oo». 

Meced.    TeL  1,  ertwn  8vo.  r«.  64.    ToL  S,  erown  Sim.  if.  64. 

^      IteTiillMlftoC  ttwAnglioenCninnJ^JllHlralea  In  iMta^ 
S  YOli.  ecnwn  8v«.  6f.  eedu 

—  BMOV^Mtkia  And  Hietoriori.SToliLOniwn  tins  lSf.Glm 

K      iMTi  on  BMleol  Mi  on  ■ooleeMbol  Htafllig.   Oimm  tvo,  6i. 
Oheep  Mttten,  OTown  8T0.  8f.  64L 

—  Pweenft  POMMen  of  OelbeMei  in  Inglead.    CArawn  8t^  r«.64. 

*-      An  iMj  to  AideCAanouwrefAonat.   CMtaet  Bditlon,  ft.  64. 
Aeep  MMen,  OTOwn  8vn.  8«.  64. 

—  Bdert  TriiMin  of  Bl  AttMmoeine  in  Oonlrofwy  Witt  tho  Ailani 

ThnAHed.  8  fnta.  Mown  Sm.  lif. 
r«tag^no*W«A«id»iVo'eCMeeei.  8f.64. 
■ep^  Ik.  IdftMborn  BH9&   Ir  «te  Avthor  of  *  Bvpenatonl  BeHglon.' 


o(€8rtludHliApoillei.   8fn.l8». 
BeDgton.   CtavMeMMen.   8 toIil 8fn. 86f. 


*"!ii  JftSL^*^  "•  ■'•■^  LongBume,  Omen,  *  Oo.*i  (Mtologiio  of 
TRAVELS,  ADVENTURES,  fto. 


■gHTeuiliOiVloa.  drown 8^. 8f. 64. 
—     Bifle  end  Hound  In  Oiflen.   Onwn8fo.U6A 


iyttfWm.    CAmr7Mlll0B,8T0.IU 
i8Tn.re.6A    Pepniw Iditton, Moi. 64. 

or.  6mr4.6A    8ohoolHit.lBp.8To.8f.    Pepoka  1411^460.647 

^       In thoTtodee, the Tropwe,ett6 the' Booting finmM/  TTnMnH BfltMin 
erown  ffo.  If f.  64.    Fbpulor  Btttlon,  Mo.  8A  ^^ 

—       InetJonnMlB.  1886-7.    lUnecnced.    8Tn.81f. 
liTdeB'k  Kloof  end  Karoo.  Bport,  Legend,  fto.,  in  Oopo  Oolony.    8TO.10f.64. 
OtaiMvhnok^TheBhlpperinATCHoBeea.   martrotod.   Grown  8to.  16e.  64. 


Loveium^ eiiKHar, *  00.. LoBdoBuia N«w ToFk. 


10  A  MeotioiL  of  Worki 

Delandli  Florid*  Dtyi.    mutntad.    4to.t]j. 
fkoiidarBOoMaft;or,Sn«l«ndiiidbflrCUIoBl«t.   0^.tTD,ii.bat>di;Iiili.MiiiHi 

-  TbeBngltahlntlMWflrtliidlat.   down  •?«.  If .  bovte  {  Ik  <&  «lBlhi 
BowIWi  Visits  to  BemtfkAblt  PlaoM.   Cko«B8mU.64. 

JuMs's  Tbs  Long  White  KooBtsin ;  or,  s  Jonmagr  la  Mswdimlfc   tvsk  Sdfc 

Knight's  ▲  Treasnrs  Hont.    Grown  8to. 

Lbss  and  Olattartmok'B  B.a  1887 :  s  Bambls  In  British  OohuMtu  Ck.tm  tn 

Nsnsen'i  The  lint  Grossing  of  Qreenlftiid.    8  vols.  Srou  88a. 

&i]«7*B  Athos;  or, Tbo Mdontshi of  ths Mbuks.   tvo. Sit. 

Thres  in  Norwsj.    By  Two  of  TheoL   ORVwn  tvo*  Is.  bMidig  tfcMidalk. 

WiUooghby's  But  Afrioa  and  its  Big  Oamt.    8tow  SU. 

WoUTs  Bambles  in  the  BIsdk  Fonsk .  Grown  8to  7s.  84. 

WORKS    BY   RICHARD   A.   PROCTOR. 

Tks Orbs ArooBd  Us.    With Ohsit nnd  XMagzsins.    OkovaSvOals. 

Othor  Worlds thsn Ours.    With  14 niostntions.    Grown •ro.ff. 

The  Moon.    With  Plntes,  Ohirts,  Woodoats,  and  fliBtogrspiiSL    Onmm  tVtt.  H, 

UnlYOTMolBtaiB.    With SS  Charts  and 88  Diacms.  8vQ^lQs.8«. 

I^tBodanoeforLslsDnHoais.    8  vols,  oown  8fOb  ic  Mdb 

Ohanos  and  Look.   Grown  8fo.  i«.  boazds ;  Ss.  84.  oMh. 

lATger  Star  Atlas  for  thsUbnuT, in  IS GiroolarMapfl.    Mto^lis. 

Vow  Star  Atlas,  in  IS  Ginnlsr  Maps  (with  SIndsKFlals«).   Qnma9f,§t. 

Tha  Stodent's  Atlas.    IS  Giroular  Maps.    Sro.  8s. 

How  to  PIsj  Whist,  with  the  Laws  and  BtiqxietteoCWhlrti   ChvvB  •«■.  Is.  8dL 

Home  Whist:  an  lasy  Onide  to Goireot  Flaj.    ISaOb  U, 

Dm  Stan  in  their  Seasons.    Imperial  8to.  8«. 

Strength.    With  8  niostratioQs.    Grown  8to.S«. 

Strength  and  Happiness.  Witb  8  lUnstratlooa.   GMwntvi.iCi 

Boogh  Ws^  Made  Smooth.    Grown  8to.  it. 

Onr  Plaoe  Among  Tnflnitles.   Grown  8to.8i. 

Ths  Bzpanss  of  Hsavan :  Bsssjs  on  tha  Wondsn  of  tfaa  Umamani*  €nm 

8^0. 8«. 
Pleasant  Ws^  in  Soisnoa.   Grown  8vow  8a. 
Myths  and  Maryels  of  Astronomy.    Grown  8to.  8a. 
Tha  Gnat  Pyramid :  Obserratory,  Tomb,  and  Temple.    0kown8vB.ifc 

AGRICULTURE,    HORSES,   DOQS,   AND   CATTLE. 

Fltawygrsm'k  Hones  and  Stables.   8to.  is. 

Lloyd's  The  Bolenoe  of  Agrionltore.   8vd.  ISa. 

London's  InoyolopeBdla  ot  Agriooltan^   Sis. 

Prothsro's  Pionaen  and  Progrees  of  Kiglish  Fanning.   Okown  Sw.  U, 

Stsd'sDfcwsaesof  tfaaOx.aManmJof  B0TinaPa8hatogy.   9n,l»$, 

^         .       —        Dog.    8vo.  10a.8d. 

—        —       —       Sheep.    8yo.  18a. 
BtondMBgsli  Dog  in  Health  and  Disease.   SqBaieonwii8f«.Ts.8dL 
THIS  OB  Artlflelal  Mannrss,  by  Grookss.   8t«.  tU. 
TooaOrsWoAonftheDog.  8^0.81. 

—  «..-.—  Horse,    8to.  7a.  84. 


LONGMANS.  GEEEN,  ft  00.»  London  and  N«w  Tofk. 


in  General  Literatnife. 


11 


WORKS   OF   FIOTION. 

By  H.  BmxB  Raoqabd.  By  Q.  IL  Jhbop. 


She.    8<.  64. 
Allan   Quater- 
main.  U,  64. 
Cneopatxa.8i.6d. 
Beatrice.     U. 


lCalwa'8  Bemiwe. 
S4.  bds. ;  ti.  6d. 


Oolonel  QnultolL 


ByHJUDBBHAOOABOJkAllDBXWLANa. 

The  Worid*B  Deaire.    U, 


Sffl"- 


By  the  Babl  ov  BBAOomvoELD. 
VlTiaa  Qrqr.     Alroy,  Iztos,  Aa 
Badymlon. 
TheToongDoka. 
Oonteriai  Fleming. 
Hsnilette  Tttnple. 
Sytaa. 
Fkloe  U.  eadh,  bde. ;  U  64.  eaoh,  oloth. 
The  HueHmmr  BDmoir.    With 
S  Portnlti  Md    U   Yigoettei. 
llftidi.   Orown  Svo.  iS«. 


9y  O.  J.  WHm-]CH.TXLLI. 

TheOladiatoiii  I   K*ta Oofentiy. 
Thelnterpcetar.  I   DigbyOnnd. 
Hotanl^  uooae.  |   GenenI  Boqnoe. 
Good  far  Nothing.  Qaeen'i  ICaries. 
Filoe  U.  SMih,  bdi. ;  Ij.  64.  eaoh,  oloth. 

By  Blbabsth  M.  BnwMUU 

AniyHertoert>    |  OlovoBUL 

Gettradib  I   Itoci. 

Unnhu  Bwl'ft  DMi^ifter. 

ThoBz]MrtaMM«(LiflB. 

▲  OUmpaeoC  the  World. 

Katbarbw  Aflhfan. 

ICargant  FwdTid. 

Laneton  Puaonage. 
li.64Laaoh,oloak;U64Moh,gfltedgaL 

By  Uxa.  KoLuwomH. 
ICarryfng  and  OiTtng  In  Marriage. 

Ba^erthonis.  U  |  Ndghbonn.   6». 
The  Palace  in  the  aarden.    S«. 
The  Third  ICin  St.  Qaeutiu.    6«. 
The  Story  of  a  Spring  Morning.  U, 


By  Mat  KxNDALL. 
Snohlalile.    6«. 


9y  Mil.  OUFHABT. 

InTnuL  I       wumu. 

IMoe  lj.eaoh,bdfl.  I U.  14.  eaofa,do«h. 


JndgeLynoh.    6<. 

Gerald  nrench^  Friendi.   di. 

ByA.0.  DoTLB. 
Mioah  Cnarke.  8i.  84. 
The  Oaptain  of  the  FOIeetar,  Ac  U, 


By  G.  G.  ▲.  MuBSAT. 
GoUorSham6.    6«. 


By  a  PHILUPPfl-WOLLIT. 

Snap.   U. 


By  BlAHUff  J.  WSIMAV. 

The  Houe  of  the  Wolf.    6c 


Hj  Jamb  Path. 
The  Look  of  the  DamOE 
Thicker  than  Water. 
1«.  eaoh.  boazdi ;  U.  64.  Mah,  elolh. 


By  AnHORT  TBOUAVii 
The  Warden. 
Baceheeter  Towen. 
U.  eadh,  board! ;  U 14.  «Mh,  doth. 


ByBBSrHABn. 
In  the  Ouqnlnea  Woodi. 

Price  U.  board! ;  U  64.  doth. 
On  the  Frontier.    U. 
By  Shore  and  Sedgak   Ui 


By  BoBOT  U  Bnnmaom, 
The Pynamltar.  Icmd.  1«. 64.01 
Strange  Oaee  of  Dr.  Jekyll  and  Mr. 
BjdM,    Uwwed;U.  64.010th. 


By  B.  Ifc  Bnvnnov  and  L.  OnomnL 
The  Wrong  Box.   U. 


By  Bdma  Ltau. 
AstoUographyefftSlandK.   iJ. 

ByF.Ajmnr. 

Tho  Blaok  Poodle,  and  other  StorlM. 
Pdoeti.  board! :  ti.  64.  doth. 


By  Mil.  Dkahd. 
John  Ward, 
lf.64.ototh. 


PreaohM.    toboiiii; 


IiOir0MAin9.  eSBEV,  *  OO.,  Londn  «id  Htw  Tiik. 


u 


A  MMtioB  of  Work! 


Ir  ^te  ▲VTHOlk  or  *  TEB  JLTILDBBV 

Ln.' 
ThtAMkrdntyi.    U.U, 
Iffidamofaelto Mod.  Si.64. 
la  Um  OldflD  Tlmt.    ti.C4. 
Haftar^  Yentnze.    1«.M. 
Th»tOhikL    l«.  6d. 
Under  a  Cload.    U,  td, 
Flddlflr  of  Logan.    U.  9d. 
A  Ohild  of  the  Betolatdon.    U,U, 


9y  OBxara  KubkatA  Ht.  HmLAX. 
WUdDuite.  I«.bds    S«.64.ok(feh. 


By  Ohbibtib  Mubbat  A  Ht.  MnmAT, 


J.  ▲.  FBOUD& 

iM  Two  OhlflCi  of  DoBboy.  Oi 

9y  Mm  HuoH  BiUto 
WmoPtfaaWtap.    UM. 

9y  WniiAM  O'BBm,  MJP. 
WiMBira wwt Boyi.    9f.M, 


th«  A.17THOB  OF  *  THOTBi' 
6«. 


Iht  Wfliteni  BatL    te 


W.  B.  NOBBO. 

Intoii :  B  Ikstolu  U, 


ByA.D.  Okakb. 
Hint>BicAL  Talb,  piloeSi.  oieh  :— 
BdwytteSUr.   (The     Hooae     of 
▲IfgBrtlMDaae.       Walderae. 
TheBifmlHetaL  |  BrianFttB-Oount, 

Bj  AOXB8  aiBBBVBL 

Balpb  HanlcMUe'i  Wm.    fi. 
Nigel  BrowBiag.    ii. 


By  JBAir  IwoBLOW. 
Ytty  Tomg,  and  Qalli  lAotlMr 
Btoy. 

By  ▲.  Ibb  KmABr. 
AdTentnrM  of  b  MMAIpmlte.    Ik 

ByL.  T.  MBiliik 
The  ODonneUf  of  laahfavB.    •■. 
Daddy's  Boy.    fti. 
Deb  and  the  DnohoM.    It. 
HooM  of  aanrlMi.   UM. 
TheBerMfMFkln.   U. 


By  Mn.  0*Bb[LLT. 
HnnfeMghDeM. 


By  O.  OOLMOBB. 

▲  UTinglpitmh.    Cf. 


By  L.  H.  OOMTH. 
Atheratoie  Prtofy.    ><.«. 

By  0.  M.  YoB«^  M.  Bbamhw.  Ao. 
Aitray:  a  Tale  of  b  Oovntiy  Towb. 
IkU. 

By  W.  H.  Pollock  *  X«dj  Fouook. 
TheSealofFBtc 


Ii 
•vo.41. 


JBhllai 
«to.St.<tf. 


POETRY  AND  THE   DRAMA. 
KUDPoaUflBlWoclBi.   l«.tf«ili. 
(O.  F.)  Foetloal  Worfei:— 
I^zteBl  lad  DzBMlio.  1^        MorlMof 

Unna:  Bftogady.   lQ^tvB.li. 
▲  Qaitend  bom  Oieaoi.  Fop.  troJi. 
KiBg8aaL    Vap.aTo^ia. 
KlngDaTld.fbp.8Tio.Cc 

▲noId'k(airBdirfB)llieUgfatoflheWoiU.   OrowB  SrOb  U  M.  bi*. 

BaUadiofBoeki.   Bdited by Andnw Laag.   lio|».tf«btfc 

Bdro  Ohamber  Oomedlee:  a  OoUeotkin  of  Playi  aad  MoB^logiWi 

Drawing  Boom.    Grown  Sto.  U, 
Bowdtar*!  Ikmlly  EDiakeqiearo,    Madlam  tvo.  14f.    •  Tvk.  fop.  tfB.  fU. 
Clark-KflDnedy*!  PlotarM  In  Bhyme.    With  moBferatlOBi.   0ko«B8?B. 
CllTa*a  (Mn.  Arohar)  C  V  *)  Poema    Oiowb  Stb.  i$, 
Dante,  Le  Oommedla dL   A  Mew Tait, oanfaUy  larlMd.    Fip.tvo.Cfc 
DetauDd'eThaOMQaidBB. aad  other TcBM.   Fep.«TO.I«. 
QoelhrtlNHtitnaalBtidbyBiida.    (kowBtvo.    PttIL  ti.;  PivlILI 

.        .     traneMedhyWebb.   8vo.U«.M. 

p.        —     edited  by  fietaik   OMwatfO.!*. 


!  a 

IB 


for  tha 


lamotMASB,  esuN,  *  cni.. 


MdVfvTiik. 


in  Oeneral  Literature. 


18 


Eaggwd^  (HOft)  Lite  uid  ita  Author.    With  Memoir,  Ao.   Ckown  8vo.  ti.  64. 
IiigtlQ(W^FioaBi&   S  YolB.  top.  Brow  Iti. ;  YoLA  'op>  ^^o.  fi. 

—  LTiloal  md  oibflr  FOeoBi.   F  op.  Iva.  li.  6d.  dolb,  ^alB }  b.  oloth, 

gflfeedgn. 
KiBdaU*!  (ICaj)  Dxeuni  to  BdL    Vq;i.9T0.<ij 
Lsng*!  OnwB  of  PmiMRn.    Top.  Svo.  9», 
Layard*!  (Nina  F.)  Poems.    Grown  8^0.  (U. 

Maoanlaj^  Lajm  of  Anotant  Borne,    ninstnited  by  Bohait    4to.  lOi.  td.   Bifon 
■dftion,fpi»  6mS«.<d.  Popular SdJl,fto]>.4to.M.flwd.,l«.ol0lili. 

—  layi  of  ABdent  Borne,  with  Ittj  and  the  Armada,    ninstnted  bj 

Wagnelln.   Grown  8vo.U.6d.  gilt  adgaa. 
HedMt^i  Layi  and  Leranda.    Gkown8vo.fc 

—  LeaTM  of  Lla.   Gkown  Svo.  U, 

HowmaB*a  The  Dream  of  Gerontina.    16mo.  6d.  aewed ;  li.flkth« 

—  Tttaea  on  Yarlona  Ocoadoni.  Fop.  Sro.  9t,  Obeap  Edit.  or.  8ro.  Zt,  6d. 
Beadar^  Voioei  from  Flowerland :  a  Birthday  Book.  U,  fd.  doth.  Si.  «d.  roan. 

—  Bohoes  of  Thonght :  a  Medley  of  Yeree.   Grown  Sra  tt. 
BoaettTs  A  Shadow  of  I>ante  :  an  Baeay.    Ulnetrated.    Grown  8to.  10«.  ed. 
Smith'!  (Gregory)  Fra  Angelloo,  and  other  short  Poema.   Grown  8to.  4s,  6d. 
BouthsT^Foetiaal  Works.    Medlnm8ml4i. 

Stevanwn'a  A  Ohild'a  Garden  of  Yenea.   Fop.  tfo.  U, 

Tomaon'a  The  Bbd  Brlda.   Tc(p,Bro.U, 

Ylfgil'i  JhMid,  kanslated  by  Oonlngton.    Grown  8va.di. 

"         ■ "loBni^Pnae.   Grown8vo.€i. 


8PORT8  AND   PASTIMES. 

Amertoaa  Whlflk.    ninstrated.    ByG.  W.P.    Fop.  8to.  6«.  64. 
Oaaipbea'Walkv'BGonnefeGazd.or.HdwtoFlayatWhM.   Fopi  8vo.  S«.  6d. 
Ghetwynd'i  (Badng)  Beminlsoences,  &o.    87o. 
ItatfBlbeoKyandPtactloeof  A»)h«ry,seTlaedbyW.Biiftt.   8to.14i. 
ftandili  Tveatiaa  on  Flflhlng  in  all  Its  Branohei.    Post8T0.1li. 
Ganwey*!  Letters  to  Tonng  Shooters.    Grown  Sro.  7f.  6d. 
Hntohiaaon's  Some  Cheat  Golf  Links.    lUnstrated. 
Longman*!  Gheai  Opaningi.   Fop.  8to.  fl«.  6d. 

FoVftTlwQiyoCthaMddenSdentlfloGameof  Whkt   Fopb  Sfo.  tt .  M. 
PnatoiElsHowtoPlayWhM.    Grown  8to.  8«.  6d. 

—      Home  Whisb    18mo.  li.  sewed. 
Bfludds^Fly.Flabfli'aBntomoIonr.    6to.14i. 
Wnoooks'aBea-FUlMnnan.   FostJro.  6«. 


A.K.H.B.,Th0 

Antmui] 

Changed 


AntmuiHolldayael  aOoontey  Parson 
-         ■      *       -         ■     01 

Tratha. 


MISCELLANEOUS   WORKS- 

lya  and  Oonlarlbcttione  off.    Grovn  8toi  Zt»  M. 

Letaize  Hours  In  Town. 

Lessons  of  Middle  Ago. 


Oonunon-FlBoa  Phfloaopbar 
aadOoimtry< 


inohanged 
In   Town 


Gritloai  Bhmi  of  a  Ooimtry  Parson. 


Oomfnrt  spoioBn  from  a 
Pnlplt. 
__.  Joaat  Day!  and  Memories. 
Qntu  Thooght!  of  a  Ooontry  Parson. 

Three  Seiies. 
Landjoapea,  Ghnrehee,  and  Morslltlea. 


Ot^PnlpI 
laatGoaatl 


Oar  Homely  Gomedy ;  and  Tragedy. 
Onr  Little  Life.     Bssays  Gonsolatory 

andDomestla  TwoSertasi 
PraKent*day  Thooghts. 
Beoreatlons  of  a  Goontey  Parson. 

Three  Series. 
Seaside  Mnslngs  on  Sondayi  andWeek- 

Days. 
Sunday  Afternoons  In   the  Parish 

Ghuroh  of  a  UnlTeisity  Glty. 


« Tto  Meet  the  Day '  through  the  Ghrlstlan  Year,    it,  Sd, 
L0HQ1CAN8,  OBSEN,  *  00.,  London  and  New  Tork. 


14  A  Meotioii  <rf  Works 

AatttTn  Totm  T9P9KL   BqrtB«8d  Han  Ane*.  WtthlO 

4tO.il. 

▲mwtrong*!  (Id.  J.)  hnji  and  Bkslaiita    lop.  •?«.  Ifc 

Arnold't  (Dr.  ThoDM)  MltMllMtou  Wocki.    Sro  7i.  M, 

Bagehot*!  Utnuy  acndloi,  adtled  I7  HnMoB.    SvQte.8?«.ni^ 

Baker*!  War  with  Oriina.    Reprinted  Fapen.    tra  ISc  U. 

Blue  Fairy  Book  (The).    Edited  by  Andrew  Lang.    Blnitrated.  Ovwatvo.  •& 

Book  (The)  of  Wedding  Days.    Illiutrated  bj  Walter  Oraoo.    4ta.  Sliu 

famuc'i  Tangnage  and  Langoageg.   CkownSvo^et. 

Hnth*8  Tho  Marrlaga  of  Rear  Kin.    Boyal  »vo.  fl«. 

Jefferiei'  Field  and.Hed8erow :  Laat  Boayi.    Oiown  S?o.  In  W. 

Lang*!  Book!  and  Bookman.  ONwn8TO.9t.edi 

—  Letten  on  litaratora.    lop.  8vo.  Ci.  «d. 

—  Old  Friendfl  :  BBeays  In  Bplitolaiy  Parody.    Grown  8?o.  ft.  ML 
Kaaon'H  Stepe  of  the  San :  Daily  Readings  of  Proee.    ICmo.  Sa.  M. 

Max  MUller^B  Leotorea  on  the  Boienoe  of  Langnagn.    t  vobi  orowa  8to,  IMl, 

—  —      Laotarea on IndiiL    8TalSi.M. 

—  *      BtognphtoaofWavdaandthaHoBUofthaAiyia.  drown  •vtJfJd, 
Koon*f  The  Eing's  Bngllah.    Fop.  8to.  t$,  9d, 

—  The  ReTisers*  Bngllah.    Fcp.  Sto.  8«.  8d, 
Mozley'a  Letters  from  Rome.    9  vols,  crown  8to. 

Bed  Fairy  Book  (The).    Edited  by  Andrew  Lang.    Ulutrmted.   drawn  Sro.  «•, 
Rendle  and  Norman's  Inns  d  Old  Sonthwark.    lUintratod.    Royal  8vo.  n$, 
Shakespeare  (The)  Birthday  Book.    By  Mary  F.  Donbar.    SSmo.  Ijl  6d.  doth. 

With  Photographs,  32mo.  fi.    Drawing-room  Bditlon,  with  Photogiaphi, 

fop.  870.  lOi.  6<i. 
StrongandLogeman'slntrodnotlontotbaStadyoftlioHlBtoryofLattgvaga.  8n>* 
Wendt'i  Papen  on  ICaritlmo  Legtolation.    Royal  8tow  £1.  lU.  M, 


WORKS   BY    MR.   SAMUEL   BUTLER. 


Opi  1.  Brewhon.    it. 
Op.  8.  The  Fair  Haron.    7«.  8d. 
Op.  8.  Ufa  and  Habit.    7«.  M. 
Op.  4.  Brolntlon,   Old    and   New. 

10«.  6d. 
Op.  9.  Unconsoions  Memory.  7«.  64t. 


Op.6.  AJpaandSanotoailagot  Pied- 
mont and  the  Oantoa  TUnDb 
10ii.6d. 
Op.  7.  Sdeottoni  fromOpa.l-d.7a.64 
Op.  8.  Loc^  or  Onnning.    fa.  8d. 

gp.  8.  Bz  Yoto.    lOf.  94, 
olbeln's'LnDKnaa.'    U, 


WORKS    BY   MRS.   DE  8ALI8. 


Oakea  and  (^onfeotiona.    Lr.  6d. 
Batrdea  A  la  Mode.    Fop.  8to.  la.  6d. 
Game  and  Poultry  k  la  Mode.    It.  8d. 
Oystera  k  la  Mode.    Fop.  8to.  It.  6d. 
Paddlngi  and  Pastry  A  la  Mode.  lt.e<l. 
BnTonztoa  A  la  Modo.    Fop.  8vo.  It.  6dL 


8oapa  and  DreMd  Flih  i  li  Mbda. 

Fop.  8T0.  la.  8di 
Bweetad^Snppor  DiahaiftlnMioda.  UJ4 
Tempting  Didiea  for  Small  Incomes, 

VasetaUeaAlnMbda.  Fop.  8m  la.  dd. 
Wrinkles  and  Kofeiona  ft»r  Bvefy  r 
hold.   Grown  8?o.  It.  «d. 


LONGMANS,  GBBB^A  00.,  LoDdoB  and  N«w  Toik. 


in  Q«nenl  Uteratnre.  15 


THE  BADMINTON  UBRART. 


I  bf  tba  Dun  ov  UMAXjwosn,  K.O.  and  A.  1.  T.  Watsov. 

OrowB  8to.    Prloo  10>.  9d,  e»oh  YolxiiDe. 
Huntlllg.    By  the  Duke  of  Beanfort,  K.O.  and  Mowbray  Morris.    With  Oob- 
tribationB  by  the  Barl  of  Suffolk  and  Berksbire,  BeT.  B.  W.  L.  Davici, 
Digby  Oottim,  and  Alfred  B.  T.  Watton.    With  Fnmtlspieee  and  U  IUim- 
tratJona  by  J.  Bbatgem,  J.  Obarlton,  and  Agnea  M.  Biddnlph. 

FlsUnff.    By  H.  Chotanondeky-Penndl.    With  Oontribotione  by  the  Maranii 
of  fixBter,  Henry  B.  Francia,  M^  Major  John  P.  T^rahame,  O.  OhxiatopiMr 
Daviea,  B.  B.  Manton,  Ac 
YoL  I.  Salmon,  Trout,  and  OrayUng.    With  168  lUutrationi. 
ToL  n.  Pike  aad  other  Ooane  Fleh.   With  ISS  Dlnsteratloni. 

Baeing  and  Steeple-Chasing.  Badng :  By  the  Barl  of  Suffolk  and  W.  O. 
OraTen.  With  a  Contribution  by  the  Hon.  F.  Lawley.  Steeple-obaeing :  By 
ArthnrOomitEy  and  A.  B.  T.  Wataoa.  With  M  Dlustrationi  tff  J.  StargeiL 

Shooting.  By  Lord  Walsingham  and  Star  Balph  Payne-CWlw^y.  With  Oon- 
tributiona  Ij  Lord  Lovat,  Lord  Oharles  Lennox  Kerr,  the  Hon.  O.  LaacelleL 
aad  A.  J.  Stoart-Worttey.  With  U  Plates,  and  14»  Woodonts,  by  A.  J; 
Stnart-Wortley,  Harper  Pennington,  0.  Whymper,  J.  O.  Mfllals,  €K  1. 
Lodge,  and  J.  H.  Oswald  Brown. 
TeL  L  Field  and  Oorert.  |  VoL  IL  Moor  and  Martfu 

Cyellng.  ByYIseeantBory,  K.O.M.O.  and  G.  I^i^Hmier.  Withl»Plalei, 
and  61  Woodenta,  by  Viaoount  Buy  uid  Joseph  PennelL 

Athletiei  and  PootbalL  By  Montague  Shearman.  With  an  IhtrodiMtloB 
by  Sir  Richard  Webster,  Q.O.  M.P.  and  a  Contribution  on  *  P^mt  Ohaaing* 
by  Walter  Rye.    With  6  Plates  and  4S  Woodcuts. 

Boating.  By  W.  B.  WoodgAte.  With  an  Introduction  by  the  Boy.  Bdmond 
Warre,  D.D.  And  a  Chapter  on  '  Bowing  at  Bton  *  by  B.  Hanf<ay  Mason. 
With  10  Plates,  and  89  Woodoats,  by  Frank  Dadd. 

Crieket.  By  A.  O.  steel  and  the  Hon.  B*  H.  I^yttelton.  With  Oontrlbntloiis 
by  Andrew  Lang,  B.  A.  H.  Mitchell,  W.  O.  Oiaoa,  and  F.  Gala.  With  11 
Ptatea  and  88  Woodenta. 

Driving.  By  the  Duke  of  Beaufort^  K.O. ;  with  Oontribntions  by  ether 
Anthoritiea,  PbotORraTure  Intaglio  Portrait  of  his  Grace  the  Dnka  of 
Beanfort,  11  full-page  lUnstraUons,  and  84  Woodents  In  the  Tezt^  after 
Drawings  by  G.  D.  Giles  and  J.  Stnigess.   Seoond  Bditioa.  Or.  8to  .10c  8d. 

Fenelng,  Boxing,  and  WrestUng.  By  Walter  H.  PoUoek,  F.  a  Gro^ 
CanuUe  Prevost,  Maltre  d'Aimes,  B.  B.  Mlofaell,  and  Walter  Armstrong. 
With  a  oomplete  Bibliography  of  the  Art  of  Fencing  by  Bgerton  Castle, 
MJL.  FJ9A.    With  18  IntagUo  Plates  and  84  Woodcuts. 

Tennis,  Lawn  Tennis,  Rackets,  and  Fives.  ByJ.  M.  and  0.  G, 
Heathcote,  K  O.  FleydsU-bouverie,  A.  0.  AingBr,  Aa  With  18  Plates  and 
67  Woodcuts,  Ac  by  Lnden  Davis  and  from  Photographs. 

Golf.  By  Horace  Hutchinson,  the  Bight  Hon.  A.  J.  Balfour,  MJP.  Sir  Waltsr 
6.  BtmpMn  Bart.  Lord  Wellwood,  H.  S.  C.  Byerard,  Andrew  Lang,  and 
other  Writers.    With  88  Plates  and  69  Woodcuts,  Ac. 

In  BrepurmHan, 

Riding.  ByW.B.  Wslr,  the  Bariof  Suffolk  and  Berkshire,  the  Duke  of  Beaufarlk 
and  A.  B.  T.  Watson.    With  a  Ohaptar  on  Pdo,  by  Oapt.  Moray  Brown. 

[/a  the  freti, 
Taehttng.  iJn  prepanuUm, 

LONGHiJrB,  OBBXN,  k  00.,  London  and  New  York. 


16     A  Selection  of  Worki  in  General  Idteratnre. 

THE 'SILVER    LIBRARY. 


Orown  8to.  priot  B«.  6d.  mdh. 


Cardinal  Newman*!  Apo- 
logia pro^iUSui.. 

Cardlnat  Nawman*!  Cal- 
Uita.a  Tato  of  tba  Third 
Omtmj       

Cardinal  Nawmaa*i  An 
Bbmv  on  the  Detolopment 
of  OhiirtlMi  Dooferlne 

CardlnaiNawman's  Bssayt, 
OrltioBl  Mid  BlatorioaL    t 


f.  d. 
8  6 


8  6 


8  6 


7  0 


Cardinal  Newman*!  Tha 
AriABi  of  tlM  Foarth  Oen- 
toiy 8  0 

Cardinal  Newman's  Vertef 

OD  Varioos  Oooutoni       ..8  0 

Cardinal   Newman*!  Two 

EMayt     ou    Bibliosl     aod 
BooluiMtloy  Minol6B     ..    3  0 

Cardinal  Newman*!  Paro- 
chial and  Plain  Sermons. 
BtoIb. each    8  0 

Cardinal  Newman*!  Dis- 
cuMions  and  Argnmanto  on 
Yarloua Bobjecti    ..        ..8  0 

Cardinal  Newman*!  An 
Boaj  In  Aid  of  tho 
Grammar ol Am ent         ..3   0 

She !  a  Hiitory  of  Adreatiire. 
B7H.Rldflr  Haggard.  With 
tS  DlnitiBtiaiia  ..SO 

Allan  Quatermaln.    Bj  H. 

Rider   Haggard.     With  90 
Dlnfltratlont SO 

Colonel  Quariteh,  V.C. :  a 
iiilf  or  coontr;  Ufa.  By 
H.BJdar  Haggard..        ..8  0 

Cleopatra.     By    H.    Bider 

H.gKard.    t9  lUaatratioua    3  0 

Hleali  Clarke :  his  statement. 
A  Tale  of  Monmonth'i  Re- 
bellion. By  A.  Conan  Dof  1«.    8  0 

PeUand  Revisited.  By  the 
Rev.  J.  O.  Wood.  With  81 
IllastratioDs 8  0 

Strange  Dwellings :  a  De- 
scription or  the  Habitations 
of  Animals.  By  the  Btrr, 
J.  Q.Wood.  WltheOXUos- 

SO 


Out  of  Doors:  Orfgiiia]  Ar- 
tiolei  on  PraoUoal  Natural 
History.  By  theRer.J.  O. 
Wood.    With    11   niostra- 


«.d. 


S  0 


Familiar  Hlstonr  of  Birds. 
By  the  late  Edward  Btanlej, 
D.D.  Lord  Bishop  of  Nor- 
widh.    With  ISO  Woodoats    8  0 


S  • 


Rifle  and  Hoond  In  Ceylon. 
By  Star  S.  W.  Baksr.  Wtth 
•  mutratkM 

Biffht  Tears  In  Ceylon,  By 
sir  &  W.  Baker.  With  • 
lUostraMona SO 

Memoirs  of  HivJor-Oenera] 
Sir  Henry  HaToIock,  K.G.B. 
By  John  Olark  Marshmsn     S  0 

Visits  to  Remarkable  Places: 

By  WUliAm  Howitt.    With 

80  lUiMferationi  ..SO 

Field  and  Hedgerow.  Last 
Bnaya  of  Riohard  JefEeriea. 
WithPgrtralt  ..SO 

Story  of  Creation :  a  Plain 
Aoooont  of  Brolnlioa.   By 


Bdward  Olodd.     With 


S  0 


LtfiD  Of  the  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington. By  the  lie?.  Q.  R. 
01eig.M.A.    With  Portrait    3  0 

History  of  the  Romans 
mnder  the  Empire.  By  the 
Very  Rot.  Charles  Merivale, 
D.aL.  Dean  of  Rly.    8to1s. 

eaoh    S  0 

Short   Studies   on   Great 

-Subjeotc.     By    James    A. 
Froode.    AtoIs.     ..    each    3  0 

Caesar:  a  Sket^   By  James 

A.FroDde 8  0 

Thomas  Carlyle :  a  History 
of  his  LUei  By  J.  A. 
-  Ftonda,  ICJL 

17M->18Si.    9Tdl.     ..        ..    7  A 
18M-18SL    STOli.     ..        ..    7  0 


LONGMANS,  GRBEN,  &  00.,  London  and  New  Toiic. 


V 


t