Full text of "Early Greek philosophy"

A3i3>ia3g

VD 'A313>ia38 08/21 '^09 '900 'ON WdOd

E861 8 I

aadwvis sv ana

ajop anp o; joud sAop f spoui aq ADLU sa6jDLpaj

" ^ 6ui6uuq Aq pa6jOL)Daj aq ADLU suoo| L)4UOLu-y
7^9 6ui||DD Aq paMauaj aq ADLU suoo| qiuouj- [

SAVQ L uaijv aanvDaa aa AVW S)ioofl nv

3SPI 3WOH

I aOI^3d NVO1

Ajojqn

iN3wiavd3a

"EARLY
REEK PHILOSOPHY

JOHN BURNET, M.A., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNITED COLLEGE OF ST. SALVATOR
AND ST. LEONARD, ST. ANDREWS

Hepi /u^v T&V 6vr(j)v TTJV aXridfiav ecrKbirovv, ra 5' Qvra i/TAo/3oK
elvcu TO. alffdrira pbvov. ARISTOTLI.

SECOND EDITION

UNIVERS

fi U Nl

LONDON
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

I Q08

I 6 !

GENERAL

First Edition published April 1892.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

IT has been no easy task to revise this volume in such
a way as to make it more worthy of the favour with
which it has been received. Most of it has had to be
rewritten in the light of certain discoveries made since
the publication of the first edition, ^Eove all, that of
the extracts from Menon's "larpiKa, which have furnished,
as I believe, a clue to the history of Pythagoreanism.
I trust that all other obligations are duly acknowledged
in the proper place.

It did not seem worth while to eliminate all traces
of a certain youthful assurance which marked the first
edition. I should not write now as I wrote at the age
of twenty- five ; but I still feel that the main con-
tentions of the book were sound, so I have not tried
to amend the style. The references to Zeller and
" Ritter and Preller " are adapted throughout to the
latest editions. The Aristotelian commentators are
referred to by the pages and verses of the Berlin
Academy edition, and Stobaeus by those of Wachsmuth.

J. B.

ST. ANDREWS, 1908.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

No apology is needed for the appearance of a work
dealing with Early Greek Philosophy. The want of
one has long been felt ; for there are few branches of
philology in which more progress has been made in
the last twenty years, and the results of that progress
have not yet been made accessible to the English
reader. My original intention was simply to report
these results ; but I soon found that I was obliged to
dissent from some of them, and it seemed best to say
so distinctly. Very likely I am wrong in most of
these cases, but my mistakes may be of use in calling
attention to unobserved points. In any case, I hope
no one will think I have been wanting in the respect
due to the great authority of Zeller, who was the first
to recall the history of philosophy from the extrava-
gances into which it had wandered earlier in the century.
I am glad to find that all my divergences from his
account have only led me a little further in the path
that he struck out.

I am very sensible of the imperfect execution of
some parts of this work ; but the subject has become
so large, and the number of authorities whose testimony
must be weighed is so great, that it is not easy for any

vii

viii EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

one writer to be equally at home in all parts of the
field.

I have consulted the student's convenience by
giving references to the seventh edition of Ritter and
Preller (ed. Schultess) throughout. The references to
Zeller are to the fourth German edition, from which
the English translation was made. I have been able
to make some use also of the recently published fifth
edition (1892), and all references to it are distinguished
by the symbol Z 5 . I can only wish that it had appeared
in time for me to incorporate its results more thoroughly.

I have to thank many friends for advice and sugges-
tions, and, above all, Mr. Harold H. Joachim, Fellow of
Merton College, who read most of the work before it
went to press.

J. B. MV

OXFORD, 1892.

CONTENTS

PACKS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1-35

CHAPTER I

I/THE MILESIAN SCHOOL . . . 37-84

CHAPTER II
SCIENCE AND RELIGION 85-142

CHAPTER III

^JiERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS ... - 143-191

CHAPTER IV

\/PARMENIDES OF ELBA . . . .192-226

CHAPTER V
EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 227-289

. CHAPTER VI

y ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI . 290-318

CHAPTER VII

^ THE PYTHAGOREANS . . . 3* 9-356

x EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER VIII

PAGES

THE YOUNGER ELEATICS 357-379

CHAPTER IX

C^LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS 380-404

CHAPTER X
ECLECTICISM AND REACTION. .... 405-418

APPENDIX

THE SOURCES . 419-426

INDEX . . . 427-433

ABBREVIATIONS

Arch. Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie. Berlin,

1888-1908.
BEARE. Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition, by John I.

Beare. Oxford, 1906.

DlELS Dox. Doxographi graeci. Hermannus Diels. Berlin, 1879.
DIELS Vors. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, von Hermann

Diels, Zweite Auflage, Erster Band. Berlin, 1906.
GOMPERZ. Greek Thinkers, by Theodor Gomperz, Authorised

(English) Edition, vol. i. London, 1901.
JACOBY. Apollodors Chronik, von Felix Jacoby (Philol. Unters.

Heft xvi.). Berlin, 1902.
R. P. Historia Philosophiae Graecae, H. Ritter et L. Preller.

Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus Wellmann.

Gotha, 1898.
ZELLER. Die Philosophie der Griechen, dargestellt von Dr.

Eduard Zeller. Erster Theil, Fiinfte Auflage.

Leipzig, 1892.

ALiF

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

INTRODUCTION

I, IT was not till the primitive view of the world The cosmo-
and the customary rules of life had broken down, that acfer ofearly

the Greeks began to feel the needs which philosophies 2,
of nature and of conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were
those needs felt all at once. The traditional maxims
of conduct were not seriously questioned till the old
view of nature had passed away ; and, for this reason,
the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly
with speculations about the world around them. In
due season, Logic was called into being to meet a fresh
want. The pursuit of cosmological inquiry beyond a
certain point inevitably brought to light a wide diver-
gence between science and common sense, which was
itself a problem that demanded solution, and moreover
constrained philosophers to study the means of defending
their paradoxes against the prejudices of the unscientific
many. Later still, the prevailing interest in logical
matters raised the question of the origin and validity
of knowledge ; while, about the same time, the break-
down of traditional morality gave rise to Ethics. The
period which precedes the rise of Logic and Ethics has

gA.RLY -G'REEK PHILOSOPHY

thus a distinctive character of its own, and may fitly be
treated apart. 1
The primitive II. Even in the earliest times of which we have any

view of the , . . ..

world. record, the primitive view ofjhe__\yorld is fast passing

away. We are left to gather what manner of thing it
was from the stray glimpses we get of it here and there
in the older literature, to which it forms a sort of sombre
background, and from the many strange myths and
stranger rites that lived on, as if to bear witness of it to
later times, not only in out-of-the-way parts of Hellas,
but even in the " mysteries " of the more cultivated
states. So far as we can see, it must have been essen-
tially a thing of shreds and patches, ready to fall in
pieces as soon as stirred by the fresh breeze of a larger
experience and a more fearless curiosity. The only
explanation of the world it could offer was a wild tale
of the origin of things. Such a story as that of
Ouranos, Gaia, and Kronos belongs plainly, as Mr.
Lang has shown in Custom and Myth, to the same
level of thought as the Maori tale of Papa and Rangi ;
while in its details the Greek myth is, if anything, the
more savage of the two.

We must not allow ourselves to be misled by meta-
phors about " the childhood of the race," though even
these, if properly understood, are suggestive enough.
Our ideas of the true state of a child's mind are apt to be
coloured by that theory of antenatal existence which has
found, perhaps, its highest expression in Wordsworth's

1 It will be observed that Demokritos falls outside the period thus
limited. The common practice of treating this younger contemporary of
Sokrates along with the " pre-Socratic philosophers" obscures the true
course of historical development. Demokritos comes after Protagoras,
and his theory is already conditioned by the epistemological problem.
(See Brochard, " Protagoras et Democrite," Arch. ii. p. 368. ) He has also a
regular theory of conduct (E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. iv. 514 n.).

INTRODUCTION 3

Ode on the Intimations of Immortality. We transfer these
ideas to the race generally, and are thus led to think
of the men who made and repeated myths as simple,
innocent creatures who were somehow nearer than we are
to the beginning of things, and so, perhaps, saw with a
clearer vision. A truer view of what a child's thoughts
really are will help to put us on the right track. Left
to themselves, children are often tormented by vague
terrors of surrounding objects which they fear to confide
to any one. Their games are based upon an animistic
theory of things, and they are great believers in luck
and in the lot. They are devotees, too, of that" cult of
odds and ends " which is fetishism ; and the unsightly
old dolls which they often cherish more fondly than
the choicest products of the toy-shop, remind us
forcibly of the ungainly stocks and stones which
Pausanias found in the Holy of Holies of many a
stately Greek temple. At Sparta the Tyndaridai were
a couple of boards, while the old image of Hera at
Samos was a roughly-hewn log. 1

On the other hand, we must remember that, even
in the earliest times of which we have any record, the
world was already very old. Those Greeks who first
tried to understand nature were not at all in the
position of men setting out on a hitherto untrodden
path. There was already in the field a tolerably
consistent view of the world, though no doubt it was
rather implied and assumed in ritual and myth than
distinctly realised as such. The early thinkers did a
far greater thing than merely to make a beginning.
By turning their backs on the savage view of things,

1 See E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 64 ; Menzies, History of
Religion, pp. 272-276.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Traces of the
:>rimitive
new in early
iterature.

they renewed their youth, and with it, as it proved, the
youth of the world, at a time when the world seemed
in its dotage.

The marvel is that they were able to do this so
thoroughly as they did. A savage myth might be pre-
served here and there to the scandal of philosophers ;
fetishes, totems, and magic rites might lurk in holes and
corners with the moles and with the bats, to be unearthed
long afterwards by the curious in such matters. But
the all-pervading superstition, which we call primitive
because we know not how or whence it came, was gone
for ever ; and we find Herodotos noting with unfeigned
surprise the existence among " barbarians " of beliefs
and customs which, not so long ago, his own forefathers
had taught and practised quite as zealously as ever did
Libyan or Scyth. Even then, he might have found
most of them surviving on the " high places " of
Hellas.

III. In one respect the way had been -prepared
already. Long before history begins, the colonisation
of the islands and the coasts of Asia Minor had
brought about a state of things that was not favour-
able to the rigid maintenance of traditional customs and
ways of thought. A myth is essentially a local thing,
and though the emigrants might give the names of
ancestral sanctuaries to similar spots in their new homes,
they could not transfer with the names the old senti-
ment of awe. Besides, these were, on the whole, stir-
ring and joyful times. The spirit of adventure is not
favourable to superstition, and men whose chief
occupation is fighting are not apt to be oppressed
by that " fear of the world " which some tell us is the
normal state of the savage mind. Even the savage

INTRODUCTION c

becomes in great measure free from it when he is
really happy.

That is why we find so few traces of the primitive i. Homer.
view of the world in Homer. The gods have become
frankly human, and everything savage is, so far as may
be, kept out of sight. There are, of course, vestiges of
early beliefs and practices, but they are exceptional.
In that strange episode of the Fourteenth Book of
the Iliad known as The Deceiving of Zeus we find a
number of theogonical ideas which are otherwise quite
foreign to Homer, but they are treated with so little
seriousness that the whole thing has even been re-
garded as a parody or burlesque of some primitive
poem on the birth of the gods. That, however, is to
mistake the spirit of Homer. He finds the old myth
ready to his hand, and sees in it matter for a "joyous
tale," just as Demodokos did in the loves of Ares and
Aphrodite. There is no antagonism to traditional
views, but rather a complete detachment from them.

It has often been noted that Homer never speaks
of the primitive custom of purification for bloodshed.
The dead heroes are burned, not buried, as the kings of
continental Hellas were. Ghosts play hardly any part
In the Iliad we have, to be sure, the ghost of Patroklos,
in close connexion with the solitary instance of human
sacrifice in Homer. All that was part of the traditional
story, and Homer says as little about it as he can.
There is also the Nekyia in the Eleventh Book of the
Odyssey, which has been assigned to a late date on the
ground that it contains Orphic ideas. The reasoning
does not appear cogent. As we shall see, the Orphics
did not so much invent new ideas as revive old ones,
and if the legend took Odysseus to the abode of the

6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

dead, that had to be described in accordance with the
accepted views about it.

In fact, we are never entitled to infer from Homer's
silence that the primitive view was unknown to him.
The absence of certain things from the poems is due
to reticence rather than ignorance ; for, wherever
anything to his purpose was to be got from an old
story, he did not hesitate to use it. On the other
hand, when the tradition necessarily brought him into
contact with savage ideas, he prefers to treat them with
reserve. We may infer, then, that at least in a certain
society, that of the princes for whom Homer sang, the
primitive view of the world was already discredited by
a comparatively early date. 1

2. Hesiod. IV. When we come to Hesiod, we seem to be in
another world. We hear stories of the gods which are
not only irrational but repulsive, and these stories are
told quite seriously. Hesiod makes the Muses say :
" We know how to tell many false things that are like
the truth ; but we know too, when we will, to utter what
is true." 2 This means that he was quite conscious of
the difference between the Homeric spirit and his own.
The old light-heartedness is gone, and it is important
to tell the truth about the gods. Hesiod knows, too,
that he belongs to a later and a sadder time than
Homer. In describing the Ages of the World, he inserts
a fifth age between those of Bronze and Iron. That
is the Age of the Heroes, the age Homer sang of. It
was better than the Bronze Age which came before it,

1 On all this, see especially Rohde, Psyche, pp. 14 sqq.

2 Hes. Theog. 27. They are the same Muses who inspired Homer,
which means, in our language, that Hesiod wrote in hexameters and used
the Epic dialect. The new literary genre has not yet found its appropriate
vehicle, which is elegy.

INTRODUCTION 7

and far better than that which followed it, the Age of
' Iron, in which Hesiod lives. 1 He also feels that he is
singing for another class. It is to shepherds and
husbandmen he addresses himself, and the princes for
whom Homer sang have become Vemote persons who
give " crooked dooms." For common men there is no
hope but in hard, unceasing toil. It is the voice of the
people we now hear for the first time, and of a people
for whom the romance and splendour of the Greek
Middle Ages meant nothing. The primitive view of the
world had never really died out among them ; so it was
natural for their first spokesman to assume it in his
poems. That is why we find in Hesiod these old,
savage tales, which Homer disdained to speak of.

Yet it would be wrong to see in the Theogony a
mere revival of the old superstition. Nothing can ever
be revived just as it was ; for in every reaction there is
a polemical element which differentiates it completely
from the earlier stage it vainly seeks to reproduce.
Hesiod could not help being affected by the new
spirit which trade and adventure had awakened over the
sea, and he became a pioneer in spite of himself. The
rudiments of what grew into Ionic science and history
are to be found in his poems, and he really did more
than any one to hasten that decay of the old ideas which
he was seeking to arrest. The Theogony is an attempt
to reduce all the stories about the gods into a single
system, and system is necessarily fatal to so wayward
a thing as mythology. Hesiod, no less than Homer,
teaches a panhellenic polytheism ; the only difference

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

8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

is that with him this is more directly based on the
legends attached to the local cults, which he thus sought
to invest with a national significance. The result is that
the myth becomes primary and the cult secondary, a
complete inversion of the primitive relation. Herodotos
tells us that it was Homer and Hesiod who made a
theogony for the Hellenes, who gave the gods their
names, and distributed among them their offices and
arts, 1 and it is perfectly true. The Olympian pantheon
took the place of the old local gods in men's minds, and
this was as much the doing of Hesiod as of Homer.
The ordinary man had no ties to this company of gods,
but at most to one or two of them ; and even these
he would hardly recognise in the humanised figures,
detached from all local associations, which poetry had
substituted for the older objects of worship. The gods
of Greece had become a splendid subject for art ; but
they came between the Hellenes and their ancestral
religions. They were incapable of satisfying the needs
of the people, and that is the secret of the religious
revival which we shall have to consider in the sequel.
Cosmogony. V. Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows
himself a child of his time. His Theogony is at the
same time a Cosmogony, though it would seem that
here he was following others rather than working out
a thought of his own. At any rate, he only mentions
the two great cosmogonical figures, Chaos and Eros,
and does not really bring them into connexion with
his system. The conception of Chaos represents a
distinct effort to picture the beginning of things. It is
not a formless mixture, but rather, as its etymology
indicates, the yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as

1 Herod, ii. 53.

INTRODUCTION

yet. 1 We may be sure that this is not primitive.
Savage man does not feel called upon to form an idea
of the very beginning of all things ; he takes for
granted that there was something to begin with. The
other figure, that of Eros, was doubtless intended to
explain the impulse to production which gave rise to
the whole process. That, at least, is what the Maoris
mean by it, as may be seen from the following
remarkable passage 2 :

From the conception the increase,
From the increase the swelling,
From the swelling the thought,
From the thought the remembrance,
From the remembrance the desire.
The word became fruitful,
It dwelt with the feeble glimmering,
It brought forth the night.

Hesiod must have had some such primitive speculation
to work on, but he does not tell us anything clearly
on the subject.

We have records of great activity in the production
of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century
B.C., and we know something of the systems of
Epimenides, Pherekydes, 3 and Akousilaos. As there
were speculations of this kind even before Hesiod, we
need have no hesitation in believing that the earliest
Orphic cosmogony goes back to that century too. 4

1 The word x ao<s certainly means the " gape " or " yawn," the Orphic
Xdff/Jia irtKupiov. Grimm compared it with the Scandinavian Ginnunga- Gap.

2 Quoted from Taylor's New Zealand, pp. 110-112, by Mr. Andrew
Lang, in Myth, Ritual, and Religion, vol. ii. p. 52 (2nd ed.).

3 For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels, Vorsokratiker, pp. 506
sqq. (ist ed.), and the interesting account in Gomperz, Greek Thinkers,
vol. i. pp. 85 sqq.

4 This was the view of Lobeck with regard to the so-called " Rhapsodic
Theogony " described by Damaskios, and was revived by Otto Kern (Dt
Orphei Epimenidis Phcrecydis Theogoniis, 1888). Its savage character is
the best proof of its antiquity. Cf. Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion,
vol. i. chap. x.

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

General char-
acteristics of
early Greek
cosmology.

Ex nihilo
nihil.

The feature which is common to all these systems is
the attempt to get behind the gap, and to put Kronos
or Zeus in the first place. This is what Aristotle
has in view when he distinguishes the " theologians "
from those who were half theologians and half philo-
sophers, and who put what was best in the begin-
ning. 1 It is obvious, however, that this process is the
very reverse of scientific, and might be carried on
indefinitely ; so we have nothing to do with the
cosmogonists in our present inquiry, except so far
as they can be shown to have influenced the course of
more sober investigations. Indeed, these speculations
are still based on the primitive view of the world,
and so fall outside the limits we have traced for
ourselves.

VI. What, then, was the step that placed the Ionian
cosmologists once for all above the level of the Maoris ?
Grote_ and Zeller_make it consist in the substitution- of
impersonal causes acting according to law for personal
causes acting arbitrarily. But the distinction between
personal and impersonal was not really felt in antiquity,
and it is a mistake to lay much stress on it. It seems
rather that the real advance made by the scientific men
of Miletos was that they left off telling tales. They
gave up the hopeless task of describing what was when
as yet there was nothing, and asked instead what all
things really are now.

The great principle which underlies all their
thinking, though it is first put into words by
Parmenides, is that Nothing wines into being_out of
nothing and nothing passes away into nothing. They
saw, however, that particular things were always

1 Arist. Met. N, 4. 1091 b 8.

INTRODUCTION n

coming into being and passing away again, and from this
it followed that their existence was no true or stable
one. The only things that were real and eternal were
the original matter which passed through all these
changes and the motion which gave rise to them, to
which was soon added that law of proportion or compen-
sation which, despite the continual becoming and passing
away of things, secured the relative permanence and
stability of the various forms of existence that go to
make up the world. That these were, in fact, the
leading ideas of the early cosmologists, cannot, of course,
be proved till we have given a detailed exposition of
their systems ; but we can show at once how natural it
was for such thoughts to come to them. It is always
he problem of change and decay that first excites the
wonder which, as Plato says, is the starting-point of
all philosophy. Besides this, there was in the Ionic
nature a vein of melancholy which led it to brood
upon the instability of things. Even before the
time of Thales, Mimnermos of Kolophon sings the
sadness_jo_change ; and, at a later date, the lament
of Simonides, that the generations of men fall like the
leaves of the forest, touches a chord already struck by
the earliest singer of Ionia. 1 Now, so long as men
could believe everything they saw was alive like them-
selves, the spectacle of the unceasing death and new
birth of nature would only tinge their thoughts with a
certain mournfulness, which would find its expression
in such things as the Linos dirges which the Greeks
borrowed from their Asiatic neighbours ; 2 but when

1 Simonides, fr. 85, 2 Bergk. //. vi. 146.

2 On Adonis-Thammuz, Lityerses, Linos, and Osiris, see Frazer, Golden
Bough, vol. i. pp. 278 sqq.

12 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

primitive animism, which had seen conscious life every-
where, was gone, and polytheistic mythology, which
had personified at least the more striking natural
phenomena, was going, it must have seemed that there
was nowhere any abiding reality. Nowadays we are
accustomed, for good and for ill, to the notion of
dead things, obedient, not to inner impulses, but solely
to mechanical laws. But that is not the view of the
natural man, and we may be sure that, when first it
forced itself on him, it must have provoked a strong
sense of dissatisfaction. Relief was only to be had
from the reflexion that as nothing comes from nothing,
nothing can pass away into nothing. There must,
then, be something which always is, something funda-
mental which persists throughout all change, and
ceases to exist in one form only that it may reappear in
another. It is significant that this something is spoken
of as " deathless " and " ageless." l

VII. So far as I know, no historian of Greek
philosophy has clearly laid it down that the word
which was used by the early cosmologists to express
this idea of a permanent and primary substance was
none other than <f>va-i,<; ; and that the title Hepl <uo-e&>9,
so commonly given to philosophical works of the
sixth and fifth centuries B.C., 2 means simply Con-
cerning the Primary Substance. Both Plato and
Aristotle use the term in this sense when they are

1 The Epic phrase dddvaros /ecu ayf/pus seems to have suggested this.
Anaximander applied both epithets to the primary substance (R. P.
17 and 17 a). Euripides, in describing the blessedness of the scientific life
(fr. inc. 910), says ddavdrov . . . <f>v(rews K6<r/jt,ov dy/ipu (R. P. 148 c fin.).

2 I do not mean to imply that the philosophers used this title them-
selves ; for early prose writings had no titles. The writer mentioned his
name and the subject of his work in the first sentence, as Herodotos, for
instance, does.

INTRODUCTION 13

discussing the earlier philosophy, 1 and its history shows
clearly enough what its original meaning must have
been. In Greek philosophical language, fyvcns always
means that which is primary, fundamental, and
persistent, as opposed to what is secondary, derivative,
and transient ; what is " given," as opposed to that
which is made or becomes. It is what is there to '
begin with. It is true that Plato and his successors /
also identify (frixns with the best or most normal con-
dition of a thing ; but that is just because they held
the goal of any development to be prior to the process
by which it is reached. Such an idea was wholly un-
known to the . pioneers of philosophy. They sought
the explanation of the incomplete world we know, not
in the end, but in the beginning. It seemed to them
that, if only they could strip off all the modifications
which Art and Chance had introduced, they would get
at the ultimately real ; and so the search after <f>vcn,s,
first in the world at large and afterwards in human
society, became the chief interest of the age we have to
deal with.

The word dp^r), by which the early cosmologists
are usually said to have designated the object of their
search, is in this sense purely Aristotelian. It is
quite natural that it should be employed in the well-
known historical sketch of the First Book of the Meta-
physics] for Aristotle is there testing the theories of
earlier thinkers by his own doctrine of the four causes.
But Plato never uses the term in this connexion, and
it does not occur once in the genuine fragments of the

1 Plato, Laws, 892 c 2, (j>u<rii> povhovrat X^yeiv ytveviv (i.e. T& # o5
yiyverai) Tr\v irepi TO, irp&ra (i.e. rrfv rCov irpdrruv). Arist. Phys. B, I.
193 a 21, 5i6irep ol ptv irvp, ol 8t yrjv, oi 5' dtpa Qafflv, oi 8t tidup, ol d'
t-via TOVTUV, ol d Trdvra TO.VTO, TTJV <f>uffif elvai rty TUV tivruv.

I 4 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

early philosophers. It is confined to the Stoic and
Peripatetic handbooks from which most of our know-
ledge is derived, and these simply repeat Aristotle.
Zeller has pointed out in a footnote l that it would be
an anachronism to refer the subtle Aristotelian use
of the word to the beginnings of speculation. To
Anaximander ap^tj could only have meant " begin-
ning," and it was far more than a beginning that the
early cosmologists were looking for : it was the eternal
ground of all things.

There is one very important conclusion that follows
at once from the account just given of the meaning of
<u<7fc?, and it is, that the search for the primary sub-
stance really was the thing that interested the Ionian
philosophers. Had their main object been, as
Teichmiiller held it was, the explanation of celestial
and meteorological phenomena, their researches would
not have been called Tlepl (pvcrecos lo-ropirj, 2 but rather
Tlepl ovpavov or Hepl fjberewpwv. And this we shall
find confirmed by a study of the way in which Greek
cosmology developed. The growing thought which
may be traced through the successive representatives
of any school is always that which concerns the
primary substance, while the astronomical and other
theories are, in the main, peculiar to the individual
thinkers. Teichmiiller undoubtedly did good service
by his protest against the treatment of these theories
as mere isolated curiosities. They form, on the con-

1 Zeller, p. 217, n. 2 (Eng. trans, p. 248, n. 2). See below, Chap. I.
p. 57, n. i.

2 We have the authority of Plato for giving them this name. Cf. Phd.
96 a 7, Tcti/TTjs TTJS <ro</u'as ty dr] KaXovffL irepl 0u<rews Iffropiav. So, in the
fragment of Euripides referred to on p. 12, n. i, the man who discerns
"the ageless order of immortal <pv<rt.s" is referred to as Sorts r??s toro/ncts

INTRODUCTION 15-^

trary, coherent systems which must be looked at as
wholes. But it is none the less true that Greek
philosophy began, as it ended, with the search for what ^
was abiding in the flux of things.

VIII. But how. could this give back to nature the Motion and
life of which it had been robbed by advancing know-
ledge ? Simply by making it possible for the life
that had hitherto been supposed to reside in each
particular thing to be transferred to the one thing
of which all others were passing forms. The very
process of birth, growth, and decay might now be
regarded as the unceasing activity of the one ultimate
reality. Aristotle and his followers expressed this by
saying that the early cosmologists believed in an
" eternal motion," and in substance this is correct,
though it is not probable that they said anything
about the eternal motion in their writings. It is more
likely that they simply took it for granted. In early-
times, it is not movement but rest that has to be
accounted for, and we may be sure that the eternity
of motion was not asserted till it had been denied.
As we shall see, it was Parmenjdes who first denied
it. The idea of a single ultimate substance, when .
thoroughly worked out, seemed to leave no room for
motion ; and after the time of Parmenides, we do
find that philosophers were concerned to show how
it began. At first, this would not seem to require
explanation at all.

Modern writers sometimes give the name of
Hylozoisrn to this way of thinking, but the term is
apt to be misleading. It suggests theories which deny
the separate reality of life and spirit, whereas, in the
days of Thales, and even far later, the distinction

16 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

between matter and spirit had not been felt, still less
formulated in such a way that it could be denied.
The uncreated, indestructible reality of which these
early thinkers tell us was a body, or even matter, if we
choose to call it so ; but it was not matter in the
sense in which matter is opposed to spirit.

The downfall ViX. We have indicated the main characteristics of
ive view'of" tne primitive view of the world, and we have sketched
in outline the view which displaced it ; we must now
consider the causes which led to the downfall of the
one and the rise of the other. Foremost among these
was undoubtedly the widening of the Greek horizon
occasioned by the great extension of maritime enter-
prise which followed the decay of the Phoenician naval
supremacy. The scene of the old stories had, as a
rule, been laid just outside the boundaries of the world
known to the men who believed them. Odysseus does
not meet with Kirke or the Kyklpps or the Sirens
in the familiar Aegean, but in regions which lay
beyond the ken of the Greeks at the time the Odyssey
was composed. Now, however, the West was begin-
ning to be familiar too, and the fancy of the Greek
explorers led them to identify the lands which they
discovered with the places which the hero of the
national fairy-tale had come to in his wanderings. It
was soon discovered that the monstrous beings in
question were no longer to be found there, and the
belief grew up that they had never been there at all.
So, too, the Milesians had settled colonies all round the
Euxine. The colonists went out with 'A/xyob iraai
fj,e\ovcra in their minds ; and, at the same time as they
changed the name of the Inhospitable to the Hospit-
able Sea, they localised the " far country " (ala) of the

INTRODUCTION 17

primitive tale, and made Jason fetch the Golden Fleece
from Kolchis. Above all, the Phokaians had explored
the Mediterranean as far as the Pillars of Herakles, 1
and the new knowledge that the " endless paths " of
the sea had boundaries must have moved men's minds
in muchkhe same way as the discovery of America did
in later days. A single example will illustrate the
process which was always going on. According to the
primitive view, the heavens were supported by a giant
called Atlas. No one had ever seen him, though he
was supposed to live in Arkadia. The Phokaian ex-
plorers identified him with a cloud-capped mountain in
Africa, and once they had done this, the old belief was
doomed. It was impossible to go on believing in a
god who was also a mountain, conveniently situated
for the trader to steer by, x as he sailed to Tarshish in
quest of silver.

X. But by far the most important question we have Alleged

r r r Oriental origin

to face is that of the nature and extent of the influence O f philosophy,
exercised by what we call Eastern wisdom on the
Greek mind. It is a common idea even now that the
Greeks in some way derived their philosophy from
Egypt and Babylon, and we must therefore try to
understand as clearly as possible what such a state-
ment really means. To begin with, we must observe
that no writer of the period during which Greek
philosophy flourished knows anything at all of its
having come from the East. Herodotos would not
have omitted to say so, had he ever heard of it ; for it
would have confirmed his own belief in the Egyptian
origin of Greek religion and civilisation. 2 Plato, who

1 Herod, i. 163.

2 All he can say is that the worship of Dionysos and the doctrine of
transmigration came from Egypt (ii. 49, 123). We shall see that both these

1 8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

had a very great respect for the Egyptians on other
grounds, distinctly implies that they were a business-
like rather than a philosophical people. 1 Aristotle
speaks only of the origin of mathematics in Egypt 2 (a
point to which we shall return), though, if he had
known of an Egyptian philosophy, it would have suited
his argument better to mention that. It is not till a
far later date, when Egyptian priests and Alexandrian
Jews began to vie with one another in discovering the
sources of Greek philosophy in their own past, that we
first have definite statements to the effect that it came
from Phoenicia or Egypt. Here, however, we must
carefully note two things. In the first place, the word
" philosophy " had come by that time to include
theology of a more or less mystical type, and was even
applied to various forms of asceticism. 3 In the second
place, the so-called Egyptian philosophy was only
arrived at by a process of turning primitive myths into
allegories. We are still able to judge Philo's Old
Testament interpretation for ourselves, and we may be
sure that the Egyptian allegorists were even more
arbitrary ; for they had far less promising material to
work on. Nothing can be more savage than the myth
of Isis and Osiris ; 4 yet it is first interpreted accord-
statements are incorrect, and in any case they do not imply anything
directly as to philosophy.

1 In Rep. 435 e, after saying that rb 6v/j,oeidts is characteristic of the
Thracians and Scythians, and rb 0tAo/ua0^s of the Hellenes, he refers us to
Phoenicia and Egypt for r6 ^Xoxp'rifJ-arov. In the Laws, where the Egyptians
are so strongly commended for their conservatism in matters of art, he says
(747 b 6) that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove a.\lai>e\ev6epia
and <fn\o\pijft.oLTla from the souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce
travovpyia instead of cro<f>ia, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians,
and many other peoples do. 2 Arist. Met. A, I. 981 b 23.

3 See Zeller, p. 3, n. 2. Philo applies the term Trdrptos $t\ocro0ta to the
theology of the Essenes and Therapeutai.

4 On this, see Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, vol. ii. p. 135.

INTRODUCTION 19

ing to the ideas of later Greek philosophy, and then
declared to be the original source of that philosophy.

This method of interpretation may be said to
culminate with the Neopythagorean Noumenios, from
whom it passed to the Christian Apologists. It is
Noumenios who asks, " What is Plato, but Moses speak-
ing Attic ? " It seems likely, indeed, that he was think-
ing of certain marked resemblances between Plato's
Laws and the Levitical Code when he said this
resemblances due to the fact that certain primitive
legal ideas are similarly modified in both ; but in any
case Clement and Eusebios give the remark a far wider
application. 2 At the Renaissance, this absurd farrago
was revived along with everything else, and certain
ideas derived from the Praeparatio Evangelica continued
for long to colour accepted views on the subject
Even Cudworth speaks complacently of the ancient
" Moschical or Mosaical philosophy " taught by Thales
and Pythagoras. 3 It is important to realise the true
origin of this deeply- rooted prejudice against the
originality of the Greeks. It does not come from
j^Tmpdern researches into the beliefs of ancient peoples ;
'^Tor thes^e have disclosed absolutely nothing in the way of
v evidence for a Phoenician or Egyptian philosophy. It is
a mere residuum of the Alexandrian passion for allegory.

1 Noumenios, fr. 13 (R. P. 624), T/ ydp Am IlXdrajv ^ Mwwrijs drrtAc^wv ;

2 Clement (Strom, i. p. 8, 5, Stahlin) calls Plato 6 <? 'Eppalw

</>lX6(T000S.

3 We learn from Strabo (xvi. p. 757) that it was Poseidonios who
introduced Mochos of Sidon into the history of philosophy. He attributes
the atomic theory to him. His identification with Moses, however, is a
later tour de force. Philon of Byblos published what purported to be a
translation of an ancient Phoenician history by Sanchuniathon, which was
used by Porphyry and afterwards by Eusebios. How familiar all this
became, is shown by the speech of the stranger in the Vicar of WakefieldL,
chap. xiv.

20 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Of course no one nowadays would rest the case
for the Oriental origin of Greek philosophy on the
evidence of Clement or Eusebios ; the favourite
argument in recent times has been the analogy of the
arts and religion. We are seeing more and more, it is
said, that the Greeks derived their art and many of
their religious ideas from the East ; and it is urged
that the same will in all probability prove true of their
philosophy. This is a specious argument, but not
in the least conclusive. It ignores altogether the
essential difference in the way these things are trans-
mitted from people to people. Material civilisation
and the arts may pass easily from one people to
another, though they have not a common language,
and certain simple religious ideas can be conveyed by
ritual better than in any other way. Philosophy, on
the other hand, can only be expressed in abstract
language, and it ' can only be transmitted by educated
men, whether by means of books or oral teaching.
Now we know of no Greek, in the times we are dealing
with, who knew enough of any Oriental language to
read an Egyptian book or even to listen to the dis-
course of an Egyptian priest, and we never hear till
a late date of Oriental teachers who wrote or spoke in
Greek. The Greek traveller in Egypt would no doubt
pick up a few words of Egyptian, and it is certain that
somehow or other the priests could make themselves
understood by the Greeks. They were able to
rebuke Hekataios for his family pride, and Plato
tells a story of the same sort at the beginning of
the Timaeus} But they must have made use of
interpreters, and it is impossible to conceive of

1 Herod, ii. 143; Plato, Tim. 22 b 3.

INTRODUCTION 21

philosophical ideas being communicated through an
uneducated dragoman. 1

But really it is not worth while to ask whether the
communication of philosophical ideas was possible or
not, till some evidence has been produced that any of
these peoples had a philosophy to communicate. No
such evidence has yet been discovered, and, so far as
we know, the Indians were the only people besides the
Greeks who ever had anything that deserves the name.
No one now will suggest that Greek philosophy came
from India, and indeed everything points to the con-
clusion that Indian philosophy came from Greece.
The chronology of Sanskrit literature is an extremely
difficult subject ; but, so far as we can see, the great
Indian systems are later in date than the Greek '
philosophies which they most nearly resemble. Of
course the mysticism of the Upanishads and of
Buddhism were of native growth and profoundly in-
fluenced philosophy, but they were not themselves
philosophy in any true sense of the word. 2

XL It would, however, be another thing to say that Egyptian
Greek philosophy originated quite independently of
Oriental influences. The Greeks themselves believed

1 Gomperz's " native bride," who discusses the wisdom of her people
with her Greek lord (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 95), does not convince me
either. She would probably teach her maids the rites of strange goddesses ;
but she would not be likely to talk theology with her husband, and still
less philosophy or science. The use of Babylonian as an international
language will account for the fact that the Egyptians knew something of
Babylonian astronomy ; but it does not help us to explain how the Greeks
could communicate with the Egyptians. It is plain that the Greeks did
not even know of this international language ; for it is just the sort of
thing they would have recorded with interest if they had. In early days,
they may have met with it in Cyprus, but that was apparently forgotten.

2 For the possibility that Indian philosophy came from Greece, see
Weber, Die Griechen in Indien (Berl. Sitzb. 1890, pp. 901 sqq.), and
Goblet d'Alviella, Ce que rinde doit h la Greet (Paris, 1897).

22 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

their mathematical science to be of Egyptian origin,
and they must also have known something of Baby-
lonian astronomy. It cannot be an accident that

Cp*JL<C&,

philosophy originated in 7 Ionia just at the time when
communication with these two countries was easiest,
and it is significant that the very man who was said
to have introduced geometry from Egypt is also re-
garded as the first of the philosophers. It thus
becomes very important for us to discover, if we can,
what Egyptian mathematics meant. We shall see
that, even here, the Greeks were really original.

There is a papyrus in the Rhind collection at the
British Museum l which gives us an instructive glimpse
of arithmetic and geometry as these sciences were
understood on the banks of the Nile. It is the work
of one Aahmes, and contains rules for calculations both
of an arithmetical and a geometrical character. The
arithmetical problems mostly concern measures of corn
and fruit, and deal particularly with such questions as
the division of a number of measures among a given
number of persons, the number of loaves or jars of beer
that certain measures will yield, and the wages due
to the workmen for a certain piece of work. It
corresponds exactly, in fact, to the description of
Egyptian arithmetic which Plato has given us in the
Laws, where he tells us that the children learnt along
with their letters to solve problems in the distribution
of apples and wreaths to greater or smaller numbers of

1 I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor's
Vorlesungen iiber Gesckichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp. 46-63. See also
Gow's Short History of Greek Mathematics, 73-80 ; and Milhaud, La
science grecqtie, pp. 91 sqq. The discussion in the last-named work is oi
special value because it is based on M. Rodet's paper in the Bulletin de la
Socittt Mathtmatique, vol. vi., which in some important respects supplements
the interpretation of Eisenlohr, on which the earlier accounts depend.

INTRODUCTION 23

people, the pairing of boxers and wrestlers, and so
forth. 1 This is clearly the origin of the art which the
Greeks called \oyLcmfctf, and they certainly borrowed
that from Egypt ; but there is not the slightest trace
of what the Greeks called dpiOfjurjTiKi], or the scientific
study of numbers.

The geometry of the Rhind papyrus is of a similarly
utilitarian character, and Herodotos, who tells us that
Egyptian geometry arose from the necessity of measur-
ing the land afresh after the inundations, is obviously
far nearer the mark than Aristotle, who says that it
grew out of the leisure enjoyed by the priestly caste. 2
We find, accordingly, that the rules given for calculating
areas are only exact when these are rectangular. As
fields are usually more or less rectangular, this would
be sufficient for practical purposes. The rule for
finding what is called the seqt of a pyramid is, however,
on a rather higher level, as we should expect ; for the
angles of the Egyptian pyramids really are equal, and
there must have been some method for obtaining this
result. It comes to this. Given the " length across
the sole of the foot," that is, the diagonal of the base,
and that of the piremus or " ridge," to find a number
which represents 1 the ratio between them. This is done
by dividing half the diagonal of the base by the " ridge,"
and it is obvious that such a method might quite well
be discovered empirically. It seems an anachronism
to speak of elementary trigonometry in connexion with

Plato, Laws, 819 b 4, /iTjXwv rt TIVUV dia.vofj.al ical
Kal iKarroffiv ap/J.OTT6vTwi> dpi0/J.wv TUV ai/rwy, ical irvxruf Kal
0e3peJas re Kal eruXX^ews tv ptpfi Kal e^e^s *al ws re0/*ca<rt
yiyveffOai. Kal 5rj Kal iralovTes, 0idXas &/JM \pvffov Kal xaX*roO *cai dpytpov
Kal TOIOIJTWV nvCjv AXXwv KepavvvvTes, ol 3 Kal 5Xas TTWS 5ia5t56'Tf ?. In its
context, the passage implies that no more than this could be learnt in Egypt.
2 Herod, ii. 109; ArisL ..Met. ^,1^981 b 23.

24 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

a rule like this, and there is nothing to suggest that
the Egyptians went any further. 1 That the Greeks
learnt as much from them, we shall see to be highly
probable, though we shall see also that, from a com-
paratively early period, they generalised it so as to
make it of use in measuring the distances of inaccessible
objects, such as ships at sea. It was probably this
generalisation that suggested the idea of a science of
geometry, which was really the creation of the Pytha-
goreans, and we can see how far the Greeks soon
surpassed their teachers from a remark of Demokritos
which has been preserved. He says (fr. 299) : " I have
listened to many learned men, but no one has yet
surpassed me in the construction of figures out of lines
accompanied by demonstration, not even the Egyptian
harpedonapts, as they call them." 2 Now the word
apTreSovaTrrr)? is not Egyptian but Greek. It means
" cord-fastener," 3 and it is a striking coincidence that
the oldest Indian geometrical treatise is called the
(^ulvasutras or " rules of the cord." These things point
to the use of the triangle of which the sides are 3, 4, 5,
and which has always a right angle. We know that
this triangle was used from an early date among the
Chinese and the Hindus, who doubtless got it from
Babylon, and we shall see that Thales probably learnt
the use of it in Egypt. 4 There is no reason whatever
for supposing that any of these peoples had in any
degree troubled themselves to give a theoretical

1 For a fuller account of this method, see Gow, Short History of Greek
Mathematics, pp. 127 sqq. ; and Milhaud, Science grecque^ p. 99.

2 R. P. 1 88.

3 The real meaning of apTredovdTTTrjs was first pointed out by Cantor.
The gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of
the " harpedonapts."

4 See Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 103.

INTRODUCTION 25

demonstration of its properties, though Demokritos
would certainly have been able to do so. Finally,
we must note the highly significant fact that all
mathematical terms are of purely Greek origin. 1

XII. The other source from which the lonians Babylonian
directly or indirectly derived material for their cos- ^
mology was the Babylonian astronomy. There is no
doubt that the Babylonians from a very early date had
recorded all celestial phenomena like eclipses. They
had also studied the planetary motions, and determined
the signs of the zodiac. Further, they were able to
predict the recurrence of the phenomena they had
observed with considerable accuracy by means of
cycles based on their recorded observations. I can see
no reason for doubting that they had observed the
phenomenon of precession. Indeed, they could hardly
have failed to notice it ; for their observations went
back over so many centuries, that it would be quite
appreciable. We know that, at a later date, Ptolemy
estimated the precession of the equinoxes at one degree
in a hundred years, and it is extremely probable that
this is just the Babylonian value. At any rate, it
agrees very well with their division of the celestial
circle into 360 degrees, and made it possible for a
century to be regarded as a day in the " Great Year,"
a conception we shall meet with later on. 2

1 The word irvpa/jiis is often supposed to be derived from the term
piremus used in the Rhind papyrus, which does not mean pyramid, but
" ridge." It is really, however, a Greek word too, and is the name of a kind
of cake. The Greeks called crocodiles lizards, ostriches sparrows, and
obelisks meat-skewers, so they may very well have called the pyramids
cakes. We seem to hear an echo of the slang of the mercenaries that
carved their names on the colossus at Abu-Simbel.

2 Three different positions of the equinox are given in three different
Babylonian tablets, namely, 10, 8 15', and 8 o' 30" of Aries. (Kugler,
Mondrcchnung, p. 103 ; Ginzel, Klio, i. p. 205. ) Given knowledge of this

26 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

We shall see that Thales probably knew the cycle
which the Babylonians used to predict eclipses ( 3) ;
but it would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers
of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of the
Babylonian astronomy. It was not till the time
of Plato that even the names of the planets were
known, 1 and the recorded observations were only
made available in Alexandrian times. But, even if
they had known these, their originality would remain.
The Babylonians studied and recorded celestial
phenomena for what we call astrological purposes, not
from any scientific interest. There is no evidence at
all that their accumulated observations ever suggested
to them the least dissatisfaction with the primitive
view of the world, or that they attempted to account
for what they saw in any but the crudest way. The
Greeks, on the other hand, with far fewer data to go
upon, made at least three discoveries of capital
importance in the course of two or three generations.
In the first place, they discovered that the earth is a
sphere and does not rest on anything. In the second

kind, and the practice of formulating recurrences in cycles, it is scarcely
conceivable that the Babylonians should not have invented a cycle for
precession. It is equally intelligible that they should only have reached a
rough approximation ; for the precessional period is really about 27,600 years
and not 36,000. It is to be observed that Plato's "perfect year" is also
36,000 solar years (Adam's Repziblic^ vol. ii. p. 302), and that it is probably
connected with the precession of the equinoxes. (Cf. Tim. 39 d, a passage
which is most easily interpreted if referred to precession. ) This suggestion
as to the origin of the " Great Year " was thrown out by Mr. Adam (op. cit.
p. 305), and is now confirmed by Hilprecht, The Babylonian Expedition of
the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1906).

1 In classical Greek literature, no planets but "Eo-Trepos and 'Ewcr06pos are
mentioned by name at all. Parmenides (or Pythagoras) first identified these
as a single planet ( 93). Mercury appears for the first time by name in
Tim. 38 e, and the other divine names are given in Epin. 987 b sq., where
they are said to be " Syrian." The Greek names Qalvuv, $ateuv,
s, SrtX/3wv, may be older, but this cannot be proved.

INTRODUCTION 27

place, they discovered the true theory of lunar and
solar eclipses ; and, in close connexion with this, they
came to see, in the third place, that the earth is not
the centre of our system, but revolves round it like the
other planets. Not very much later, certain Greeks
even took, at least tentatively, the final step of identify-
ing the centre round which the earth and the planets
revolve with the sun. These discoveries will be dis-
cussed in their proper place ; they are only mentioned
here to show the gulf between Greek astronomy and
everything that had preceded it. The Babylonians
had as many thousand years as the Greeks had
centuries to make these discoveries, and it does not
appear that they ever thought of one of them. The
originality of the Greeks cannot be successfully
questioned till it can be shown that the Babylonians
had even an incorrect idea of what we call the solar
system.

We may sum up all this by saying that the Greeks
did not borrow either their philosophy or their science
from the East. They did, however, get from Egypt
certain rules of mensuration which, when generalised,
gave birth to geometry; while from Babylon they
learnt that the phenomena of the heavens recur in
cycles with the greatest regularity. This piece of
knowledge undoubtedly had a great deal to do with
the rise of science ; for to the Greek it suggested
further questions such as the Babylonian did not
dream of. 1

1 The Platonic account of this matter is to be found in the Epinomis,
986 e 9 sqq., and is summed up by the words Xd/Sw/iev 3 ws Srnrep &v
"EXXTji/es ^ap/Sdpaw TrapaXdjSaxn, KaXKiov TOVTO els rAos d-rrfpyd^ovrai (987 d 9).
The point is well put by Theon (Adrastos), Exp. p. i; 20 Killer, who
speaks of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians as &v< Aoyias dreXeij

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The scientific
character of
the early
Greek cos-
mology.

XIII. It is necessary to say something as to the
scientific worth of the philosophy we are about to
study. We have just seen that the Eastern peoples
were, at the time of which we write, considerably richer
than the Greeks in accumulated facts, though these
facts had certainly not been observed for any scientific
purpose, and their possession never suggested a revision
of the primitive view of the world. The Greeks, how-
ever, saw in them something that could be turned to
account, and they were never as a people slow to act
on the maxim, Chacun prend son bien partout oh, il le
trouve. The most striking monument of this spirit
which has come down to us is the work of Herodotos ;
and the visit of Solon to Croesus which he describes,
however unhistorical it may be, gives a very lively and
faithful picture of it. Croesus tells Solon that he has
heard much of "his wisdom and his wanderings," and
how, from love of knowledge (^>L\oao<^ewv} t he has
travelled over much land for the purpose of seeing
what was to be seen (OewpL^ eiveicev). The words
Oewpirj, (j)i\.ocro(f)['r), and laropir} are, in fact, the catch-
words of the time, though they had, we must remember,
a somewhat different meaning from that which they
were afterwards made to bear at Athens. 1 The idea
that underlies them all may, perhaps, be best rendered
in English by the word Curiosity ; and it was just this

iroiov/j-evot. rds fj.e66dovs, Stov ct/ia KCU (pvaiK&s Trepi
6'?re/5 ot irapa rots "EXX^triv dffTpo\oyr]a'avTes tTreipuvro Troieii', ras irapa
TOVTUV \afB6vTes apxfa KO.I rQ>v (paivofj-evuv Tr)prj<Teis. The importance of
this last passage is that it represents the view taken at Alexandria, where
the facts were accurately known.

1 Still, the word 0eupia never wholly lost its early associations, and the
Greeks always felt that the 0eu/>?7Tt/cds jStos meant literally "the life of the
spectator." Its special use, and the whole theory of the "three lives,"
seem to be of Pythagorean origin. See my edition of Aristotle's Ethics,
p. 19 n.

INTRODUCTION 29

great gift of curiosity, and the desire to see all the
wonderful things pyramids, inundations, and so forth
that were to be seen, which enabled the Greeks to pick
up and turn to their own use such scraps of knowledge
as they could come by among the barbarians. No
sooner did a Greek philosopher learn half a dozen
geometrical propositions, and hear that the phenomena
of the heavens recur in cycles, than he set to work to
look for law everywhere in nature, and, with a splendid
audacity, almost amounting to vftpis, to construct a
system of the universe. We may smile, if we please, at
the strange medley of childish fancy and true scientific
insight which these Titanic efforts display, and some-
times we feel disposed to sympathise with the sages of
the day who warned their more daring contemporaries
"to think the thoughts befitting man's estate" (dv0pa>7riva
<f>poveiv). But we shall do well to remember at the
same time that even now it is just such hardy anticipa-
tions of experience that make scientific progress possible,
and that nearly every one of the early inquirers whom
we are about to study made some permanent addition
to the store of positive knowledge, besides opening up
new views of the world in every direction.

There is no justification either for the idea that
Greek science was built up solely by more or less lucky
guesswork, instead of by observation and experiment.
The nature of our tradition, which mostly consists of
Placita that is, of what we call " results " tends, no
doubt, to create this impression. We are seldom told
why any early philosopher held the views he did, and
the appearance of a string of " opinions " suggests
dogmatism. There are, however, certain exceptions to
the general character of the tradition ; and we may

30 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

reasonably suppose that, if the later Greeks had been
interested in the matter, there would have been many
more. We shall see that Anaximander made some
remarkable discoveries in marine biology, which the
researches of the nineteenth century have fully con-
firmed ( 21), and even Xenophanes supported one
of his theories by referring to the fossils and petrifactions
of such widely separated places as Malta, Paros, and
Syracuse ( 59). This is enough to show that the
theory, so commonly held by the earlier philosophers,
that the earth had been originally in a moist state, was
not mythological in origin, but was based on, or at
any rate confirmed by, biological and palaeontological
observations of a thoroughly modern and scientific
type. It would surely be absurd to imagine that the
men who could make these observations had not the
curiosity or the ability to make many others of which
the memory is lost. Indeed, the idea that the Greeks
were not observers is almost ludicrously wrong, as is
proved by two simple considerations. The anatomical
accuracy of Greek sculpture bears witness to trained
habits of observation, and those of the highest order,
while the fixing of the seasons by the heliacal rising
and setting of the stars shows a familiarity with
celestial phenomena which is by no means common
at the present day: 1 We know, then, that the Greeks
could observe well in matters affecting agriculture,
^navigation, and the arts, and we know that they were
curious about the world. Is it conceivable that they
did not use their powers of observation to gratify that
curiosity ? It is true, of course, that they had not our

1 These two points are rightly emphasised by Staigmiiller, Beitragc zur
Gesch. der Naturwisscmchaften im klassischen Altertumc (Progr. Stuttgart,
1899, p. 8).

INTRODUCTION 31

instruments of precision ; but a great deal can be
discovered by the help of very simple apparatus. It is
not to be supposed that Anaximander erected his
gnomon merely that the Spartans might know the
seasons. 1

Nor is it true that the Greeks made no use or
experiment. The rise of the experimental method
dates from the time when the medical schools began
to influence the development of philosophy, and
accordingly we find that the first recorded experiment
of a modern type is that of Empedokles with the
klepsydra. We have his own account of this (fr. 100),
and we can see how it brought him to the verge of
anticipating both Harvey and Torricelli. It is once
more inconceivable that an inquisitive people should
have applied the experimental method in a single
case without extending it to the elucidation of other
problems.

Of course the great difficulty for us is the geocentric
hypothesis from which science inevitably started, though
only to outgrow it in a surprisingly short time. So
long as the earth is supposed to be in the centre of
the world, meteorology, in the later sense of the word,
is necessarily identified with astronomy. It ,is difficult
for us to feel at home in this point of view, and indeed
we have no suitable word to express what the Greeks
at first called an ovpavos. It will be convenient
to use the word " world " for it ; but then we must
remember that it does not refer solely, or even chiefly,

1 The gnomon was not a sundial, but an upright erected on a flat surface,
in the centre of three concentric circles. These were drawn so that the
end of the gnomon's shadow touched the innermost circle at midday on the
summer solstice, the intermediate circle at the equinoxes, and the outer-
most circle at the winter solstice. See Bretschneider, Die Geometric
vor Euklid, p. 60.

32 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to the earth. The later word #007109 bears witness to
the growth of scientific ideas. It meant at first the
marshalling of an army, and next the ordered constitu-
tion of a state. It was transferred from this to the
world because in early days the regularity and
constancy of human life was far more clearly seen than
the uniformity of nature. Man lived in a charmed
circle of law and custom, but the world around him
still seemed lawless. That, too, is why, when the
regular course of nature was first realised, no better
word for it could be found than Si/crj. It is the same
metaphor which still lives on in the expression
" natural law." l

The science of the sixth century was mainly
concerned, then, with those parts of the world that
are " aloft " (ra perewpa), and these include, along
with the heavenly bodies, such things as clouds, rain-
bows, and lightning. That is how the heavenly bodies
came sometimes to be explained as ignited clouds, an
idea which seems astonishing to us. But we must
bear in mind that science inevitably and rightly began
with the most obvious hypothesis, and that it was
only the thorough working out of this that could show
its inadequacy. It is just because the Greeks were
the first people to take the geocentric hypothesis
seriously that they were able to go beyond it. Of
course the pioneers of Greek thought had no clear idea
of the nature of scientific hypothesis, and supposed
themselves to be dealing with ultimate reality. That
was inevitable before the rise of Logic. At the same

1 The term /c6oy>s seems to be Pythagorean in this sense. It was not
familiar even at the beginning of the fourth century. Xenophon speaks of
"what the sophists call the /cooyios" (Mem. i. n). For 8iKij, see below,
14, 72.

INTRODUCTION 33

time, a sure instinct guided them to the right method,
and we can see how it was the effort to " save appear-
ances " l that really operated from the first. It is,
therefore, to those men that we owe the conception of
an exact science which should ultimately take in the
whole world as its object. They fancied absurdly
enough, no doubt that they could work out this /
science at once. We sometimes make the same mistake
nowadays ; and it can no more rob the Greeks of the
honour of having been the first to see the true, though
perhaps unattainable, end of all science than it can rob
our own scientific men of the honour of having brought
that end nearer than it was. It is still knowledge of
the kind foreseen and attempted by the Greeks that
they are in search of.

XIV. Theophrastos, the first writer to treat the Schools of
history of Greek philosophy in a systematic way, 2
represented the early cosmologists as standing to one
another in the relation of master and scholar, and as
members of regular societies. This has been regarded
by many modern writers as an anachronism, and
some have even denied the existence of " schools " of
philosophy altogether. Such a reaction against the
older view was quite justified in so far as it was directed
against arbitrary classifications like the " Ionic " and
" Italian " schools, which are derived through Laertios
Diogenes from the Alexandrian writers of" Successions."
But the express statements of Theophrastos are not

1 This phrase originated in the school of Plato. The method of research
in use there was for the leader to "propound" (irpordvetv, irpopd\\f<r0ai)
it as a "problem" (jrpdpX'rjfj.a) to find the simplest "hypothesis" (rLvwv
viroTedtvTuv) on which it is possible to account for and do justice to all the
observed facts (<r<fav T& <pa.iv6fjt.eva'). It was in its French form, sauver Us
apparences, that the phrase acquired the meaning it usually has now.

2 See Appendix, 7.

34 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to be so lightly set aside. As this point is of great
importance, it will be necessary to elucidate it still
further before we enter upon our story.

The modern view really rests upon a mistaken idea
of the way in which civilisation develops. In almost
every department of life, we find that the corporation
at first is everything and the individual nothing. The
peoples of the East hardly got beyond this stage at
all ; their science, such as it is, is anonymous, the
inherited property of a caste or guild, and we still see
clearly in some cases that it was once the same among
the Hellenes. Medicine, for instance, was originally the
" mystery " of the Asklepiads, and it is to be supposed
that all craftsmen (brj^ovpyoi), amongst whom Homer
classes the bards (ao*Sot), were at first organised in
a similar way. What distinguished the Hellenes from
other peoples was that at a comparatively early date
these crafts came under the influence of outstanding
individuals, who gave them a fresh direction and a new
impulse. It is doubtless in some such way that we
should understand the relation of Homer to the
Homeridai. The Asklepiads at a later date produced
Hippokrates, and if we knew more of such guilds as the
Daidalids, it is likely we should find something of the
same kind. But this does not destroy the corporate
character of the craft ; indeed, it rather intensifies it
The guild becomes what we call a " school," and the
disciple takes the place of the apprentice. That is a
vital change. A close guild with none but official
heads is essentially conservative, while a band of
disciples attached to a master they revere is the
greatest progressive force the world knows.

It is certain that the later Athenian schools were

INTRODUCTION 35

organised corporations, the oldest of which, the
Academy, maintained its existence as such for some
nine hundred years, and the only question we have to
decide is whether this was an innovation made in the
fourth century B.C., or rather the continuance of an old
tradition. As it happens, we have the authority of
Plato for speaking of the chief early systems as handed
down in schools. He makes Sokrates speak of " the
men of Ephesos," the Herakleiteans, as forming a
strong body in his own day, 1 and the stranger of the
Sophist and the Statesman speaks of his school
as still in existence at Elea. 2 We also hear of
" Anaxagoreans," 3 and no one, of course, can doubt
that the Pythagoreans were a society. In fact, there
is hardly any school but that of Miletos for which we
have not external evidence of the strongest kind ; and
even as regards it, we have the significant fact that
Theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a later date
as having been "associates of the philosophy of
Anaximenes." 4 We shall see too in the first chapter
that the internal evidence in favour of the existence of
.a Milesian school is very strong indeed. It is from
this point of view, then, that we shall now proceed to
consider the men who created Hellenic science.

1 Tht. 179 e 4, avrois . . . rocs irepl TTJV *E(f><rov. The humorous denial
that the Herakleiteans had any disciples (180 b 8, IIo/ois /ia^^ratj, w
Sai/Jt,6vL ;) implies that this was the normal and recognised relation.

2 Soph. 242 d 4, rb . . . Trap" ijfjuv 'EXecm*^ tdvos. Cf. ib. 2l6 a 3,
T<upov 8 T&V d/i0i Hapfj.evld'iji' /ecu Z-/ivwva [eralpuv] (where ^ralptav is
probably interpolated, but gives the right sense) ; 21 7 a, I, ol irepi rbv KCI
rbtrov.

3 Crat. 409 b 6, etirep aXydrj ol ' A.va^ay6peioi \tyov<r<.y.

4 Cf. Chap. VI. 122 ; and, on the whole subject, see Diels, " Uber
die altesten Philosophenschulen der Griechen " in Philosophische Aufsatze
Eduard Zeller gewidmet (Leipzig, 1887).

CHAPTER I

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL

i. IT was at Miletos that the earliest school of Miletos and
scientific cosmology had its home. At the time it arose,
the Milesians were in an exceptionally favourable
position for scientific as well as commercial pursuits.
They had, indeed, come into conflict more than once
with the neighbouring Lydians, whose rulers were now
bent upon extending their dominion to the coast ; but,
towards the end of the seventh century B.C., Thrasy-
boulos, tyrant of Miletos, had succeeded in making terms
with King Alyattes, and an alliance was concluded
between them, which not only saved Miletos for the
present from a disaster like that which befell Smyrna,
but secured it against molestation for the future.
Even half a century later, when Croesus, resuming his
father's forward policy, made war upon and conquered
Ephesos, Miletos was still able to maintain the old
treaty-relation, and never, strictly speaking, became
subject to the Lydians at all. We can hardly doubt
that the sense of security which this exceptional position
would foster had something to do with the rise of
scientific inquiry. Material prosperity is necessary as a
foundation for the highest intellectual effort ; and at this

3 8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

time Miletos was in possession of all the refinements of
life to a degree unknown in continental Hellas.

Nor was it only in this way that the Lydian
connexion would favour the growth of science at
Miletos. What was called Hellenism at a later date
seems to have been traditional in the dynasty of the
Mermnadai. There may well be some truth in the
statement of Herodotos, that all the " sophists " of the
time flocked to the court of Safdeis. 1 The tradition
which represents^ Croesus as what we should call the
" patron " of Greek wisdom, was fully developed in the
fifth century ; and, however unhistorical its details may
be, it must clearly have some sort of foundation in
fact. Particularly noteworthy is " the common tale
among the Greeks," that Thales accompanied him on
his luckless campaign against Pteria, apparently in the
capacity of military engineer. Herodotos, indeed,
disbelieves the story that he diverted the course of
the Halys ; 2 but he does not attack it on the ground
of any antecedent improbability, and it is quite clear
that those who reported it found no difficulty in accept-
ing the relation which it presupposes between the
philosopher and the king.

1 Herod, i. 29. Some other points may be noted in confirmation of
what has been said as to the "Hellenism" of the Mermnadai. Alyattes
had two wives, one of whom, the mother of Croesus, was a Karian ; the
other was an Ionian, and by her he had a son called by the Greek name
Pantaleon (ib. 92). The offerings of Gyges were pointed out in the
treasury of Kypselos at Delphoi (ib. 14), and those of Alyattes were one
of the " sights" of the place (ib. 25). Croesus also showed great liberality
to Delphoi (ib. 50), and to many other Greek shrines (ib. 92). He gave most
of the pillars for the great temple at Ephesos. The stories pf Miltiades (vi.
37) and Alkmeon (ib. 125) should also be mentioned in this connexion.

2 Herod, i. 75. He disbelieves it because he had heard, probably from
the Greeks of Sinope, of the great antiquity of the bridge on the royal
road between Ankyra and Pteria (Ramsay, Asia Minor, p. 29). Xanthos
recorded a tradition that it was Thales who induced Croesus to ascend
his pyre when he knew a shower was coming (fr. 19).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 39

It should be added that the Lydian alliance would
greatly facilitate intercourse with Babylon and Egypt.
Lydia was an advanced post of Babylonian culture,
and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of
both Egypt and Babylon. It is noteworthy, too, that
Amasis of Egypt had the same Hellenic sympathies as
Croesus, and that the Milesians possessed a temple of
their own at Naukratis. 1

I. THALES

"~i""2. There can be no doubt that the founder of the Origin.
Milesian school, and therefore the first of the cosmo-
logists, was Thales ; 2 but all we can really be said to
know of him comes from Herodotos, and the romance
of the Seven Wise Men was already in existence when
he wrote. He tells us, in the first place, that Thales
was of Phoenician descent, a statement which other
writers explained by saying he belonged to the Thelidai,
a noble house descended from Kadmos and Agenor. 3
This is clearly connected with the view of Herodotos
that there were " Kadmeians " from Boiotia among the
original Ionian colonists, and it is certain that there
really were people called Kadmeians in several Ionic
cities. 4 Whether they were of Semitic origin is, of

1 Milesians at Naukratis, Herod, ii. 178, where Amasis is said to have
been <f>i\t\\riv. He subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at Delphoi
after the great fire (ib. 180).

2 Simplicius, indeed, quotes from Theophrastos the statement that
Thales had many predecessors (Dox. p. 475, n). This, however, need not
trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells us that
Theophrastos made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is merely an
application of Peripatetic literalism to a remark of Plato's (Phileb. 16 c 6).
Cf. Appendix, 2.

3 Herod, i. 170 (R. P. 9 d.) ; Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9).

4 Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. Priene was called
Kadme, and the oldest annalist of Miletos bore the name Kadmos. See
E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 158.

40 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

course, another matter. Herodotos probably mentions
the supposed descent of Thales simply because he was
believed to have introduced certain improvements in
navigation from Phoenicia. 1 At any rate, the name
Examyes, which his father bore, lends no support to
the view that he was a Semite. It is a Karian name,
and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated
by the lonians. On the monuments, we find Greek
and Karian names alternating in the same families, and
there is therefore no reason to suppose that Thales was
anything else than an ordinary Milesian citizen, though
perhaps with Karian blood in his veins. 2

The eclipse 3. By far the most remarkable statement that
Thales. y Herodotos makes about^SThales is that he foretold the
eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between
the Lydians and the Medes. 3 Now, we may be sure
that he was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses.
Anaximander and his successors certainly were so, 4 and
it is incredible that the right explanation should once
have been given and then forgotten so soon. Even
supposing, however, Thales had known the cause of
eclipses, no one can believe that such scraps of
elementary geometry as he picked up in Egypt would
enable him to calculate one from the elements of the
moon's path. Yet the evidence for the prediction is

1 Diog. i. 23, KaXXfyxaxos 5' avrbv oldev evperyv rrjs &PKTOV r?}s fj-ucpas
\tyuv tv rots 'Id/t/Joij OL/TWS

TOVS aarepur/covy, 17 TrAeoveri 3>oiViKe?.

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

3 Herod, i. 74.

4 For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see infra,
19, 71-

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 41

too strong to be rejected off-hand. The testimony of
Herodotos to an event which must have happened
about a hundred years before his own birth may,
perhaps, be deemed insufficient ; but that of Xeno-
phanes is a very different matter, and it is this we
have really to deal with. 1 According to Theophrastos,
Xenophanes was a disciple of Anaximander, and he
may quite well have seen and spoken with Thales. In
any case, he must have known scores of people who
were able to remember what happened, and he had no
conceivable interest in misrepresenting it. The pre-
diction of the eclipse is really better attested than any
other fact about Thales whatsoever, and the evidence
for it is about as strong as for anything that happened
in the early part of the sixth century B.C.

Now it is quite possible to predict eclipses without
knowing their true cause, and there is no doubt that
the Babylonians actually did so. On the basis of their
astronomical observations, they had made out a cycle
of 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun
and moon recurred at equal intervals of time. 2 This,
it is true, would not enable them to predict eclipses of
the sun for a given spot on the earth's surface ; for
these phenomena are not visible at all places where the
sun is above the horizon at the time. We do not
occupy a position at the centre of the earth, and what
astronomers call the geocentric parallax has to be

1 Diog. i." 23, done? 8 Kara TIVO.S irp&ros affrpoXoyTjeai Kal

Kal rpotras TrpoetTretv, ws <f)rf<nv EtfST^os tv rr/ irepi ruv aarpo-
\oyovfJLtvwt> io-ropia, 80ei> avrbv Kal tZevofpdvr)* Kal 'H/>65oTos dav/j.dei.

2 The first to call attention to the Chaldaean cycle in this connexion
seems to have been the Rev. George Costard, Fellow of Wadham College.
See his Dissertation on the Use of Astronomy in History (London, 1764),
p. 17. It is inaccurate to call it the Saras; that was quite another thing
(see Ginzel, A'tio, i. p. 377).

42 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

taken into account. It would only, therefore, be
possible to tell by means of the cycle that an eclipse
of the sun would be visible somewhere, and that it
might be worth while to look out for it. Now, if we
may judge from a report by a Chaldaean astronomer
which has been preserved, this was just the position of
the Babylonians. They watched for eclipses at the
proper dates ; and, if they did not occur, they announced
the fact as a good omen. 1 To explain what we are
told about Thales no more than this is required. He
simply said there would be an eclipse ; and, as good
luck would have it, it was visible in Asia Minor, and on
a striking occasion.

Date of 4. The prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw
much light upon the scientific attainments of Thales ;
but, if we can fix its date, it will give us a point from
which to start in trying to determine the time at which
he lived. Modern astronomers have calculated that
there was an eclipse of the sun, probably visible in
Asia Minor, on May 28 (O.S.), 585 B.C., 2 while Pliny
gives the date of the eclipse foretold by Thales as Ol.
XLVIII. 4 (585/4 B.C.). 3 This, it is true, does not

1 See George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875), P- 49- The inscrip-
tion which follows was found at Kouyunjik :

"To the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.

" Concerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king rr.y lord sent to
me ; in the cities of Akkad, Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they made,
and then in the city of Akkad, we saw part. . . . The observation was
made, and the eclipse took place.

"And when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation, the
observation was made and it did not take place. That which I saw with
my eyes to the king my lord I send."

2 For the literature of this subject, see R. P. 8 b, adding Ginzel, Spezieller
Ration, p. 171. See also Milhaud, Science grecque, p. 62.

3 Pliny, N.H. ii. 53.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 43

exactly tally; for May 585 belongs to the year 586/5
B.C. It is sufficiently near, however, to justify us in
identifying the eclipse as that of Thales, and this is
confirmed by Apollodoros, who fixed his floruit in the
same year. 1 The further statement that, according to
Demetrios Phalereus, Thales "received the name of
wise " in the archonship of Damasias at Athens, agrees
very well with this, and is doubtless based on the story
of the Delphic tripod ; for the archonship of Damasias
is the era of the restoration of the Pythian Games. 2

5. The introduction of Egyptian geometry into Thales in
Hellas is universally ascribed to Thales, and it is '
extremely probable that he did visit Egypt ; for he
had a theory of the inundations of the Nile. In a
well-known passage, 3 Herodotos gives three explana-

1 For Apollodoros, see Appendix, 20. The dates in our text of
Diogenes (i. 37 ; R. P. 8) cannot be reconciled with one another. That
given for the death of Thales is probably right ; for it is the year before the
fall of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., which is one of the regular eras used by
Apollodoros. It no doubt seemed natural to make Thales die the year
before the " ruin of Ionia" which he foresaw. Seventy-eight years before
this brings us to 625/4 B.C. for the birth of Thales, and this gives us 585/4
B.C. for his fortieth year. That is Pliny's date for the eclipse, and Pliny's
dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos. For a full discussion of the
subject, see Jacoby, pp. 175 sqq.

2 Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9). I do not discuss the Pythian era and the date
of Damasias here, though it appears to me that the last word has not yet
been said upon the subject. Jacoby (pp. 170 sqq.) argues strongly for 582/1,
the date now generally accepted. Others favour the Pythian year 586/5
B.C., which is the very year of the eclipse, and this would help to explain
how those historians who used Apollodoros came to date it a year too
late; for Damasias was archon for two years and two months. It is
even possible that they misunderstood the words Aa/iaa/ou TOV devrtpov,
which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier archon of the same
name, as meaning "in the second year of Damasias." Apollodoros gave
only Athenian archons, and the reduction to Olympiads is the work of
later writers. Kirchner, adopting the year 582/1 for Damasias, brings the
archonship of Solon down to 591/0 (Rh. Mus. liii. pp. 242 sqq.). But the
date of Solon's archonship can never have been doubtful. On Kirchner's
reckoning, we come to 586/5 B.C., if we keep the traditional date of
Solon. See also E. Meyer, Forschungen, ii. pp. 242 sqq.

3 Herod, ii. 20.

44 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tions of the fact that this alone of all rivers rises in
summer and falls in winter ; but, as his custom is in
such cases, he does not name their authors. The first
of them, however, that which attributes the floods to
the Etesian winds, is ascribed to Thales in the Placita^
and also by many later writers. Now, those statements
are derived from a treatise on the Rise of the Nile
attributed to Aristotle and known to the Greek
commentators, but now extant only in a Latin epitome
of the thirteenth century. 2 In this work the first of
the three theories mentioned by Herodotos is ascribed
to Thales, the second to Euthymenes of Massalia, and
the third to Anaxagoras. Where did Aristotle, or
whoever wrote the book, get these names ? We think
naturally once more of Hekataios, whom Herodotos so
often reproduces without mentioning his name ; and
this conjecture is much strengthened when we find that
Hekataios actually mentioned Euthymenes. 3 We may
conclude, then, that Thales really was in Egypt ; and,
perhaps, that Hekataios, in describing the Nile, took
account, as was only natural, of his distinguished
fellow-citizen's views.

Thales and 6. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical
etry> knowledge brought back by Thales from Egypt, it
seems desirable to point out that many writers have
seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition. 4
In his commentary on the First Book of Euclid,
Proclus enumerates, on the authority of Eudemos,

1 Act. iv. i. i (Dox. p. 384).

2 Dox. pp. 226-229. The Latin epitome will be found in Rose's edition
of the Aristotelian fragments.

3 Hekataios, fr. 278 (F.H.G. i. p. 19).

4 See Cantor, Vorlesungen iiber Geschichte der Mathematik, vol. i. pp.
112 sqq. ; Allman, " Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid " (Hermathcna,
iii. pp. 164-174).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 45

certain propositions which he says were known to
Thales. 1 One of the theorems with which he credits
him is that two triangles are equal when they have one
side and the two adjacent angles equal. This he must
have known, said Eudemos, as otherwise he could not
have measured the distances of ships at sea from a
watch-tower in the way he was said to have done. 2
Here we see how all these statements arose. Certain
remarkable feats in the way of measurement were
traditionally ascribed to Thales, and it was assumed
that he must have known all the propositions which
these imply. But this is quite an illusory method of
inference. Both the measurement of the distance of
ships at sea, and that of the height of the pyramids,
which is also ascribed to him, 3 are easy applications of

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

2 Proclus, p. 352, 14, Eti5t)fji.os d v TCUS yea}fj.TptKous IOTO/HCWS et'r
QaXijv TOVTO avdyei rb dewp^^a (Eucl. i. 26) TTJV yap rGiv ev
TrXoiW dirko-rao-iv dt 06 rpoTrov <pa<riv avrbv deiKvfoat retry

<jrr)<riv avaynauov. For the method adopted by Thales, see Tannery, Gtomttrie
grecque, p. 90. I agree, however, with Dr. Gow (Short History of
Greek Mathematics, 84) that it is very unlikely Thales reproduced and
measured on land the enormous triangle which he had constructed in a
perpendicular plane over the sea. Such a method would be too cumbrous
to be of use. It is much simpler to suppose that he made use of the
Egyptian seqt.

3 The oldest version of this story is given in Diog. i. 27, 6 5 'Ic/jtiw/xos
/cat ^K/j.cTpTJaai <f>rj(Tiv avrbv rds Trvpa/j,i8as, K rrjs ffKtas TrapaTtjp^cravTa fire
TJ/MV iaofj.ey^6r]S ta-riv. Cf. Pliny, H. Nat. xxxvi. 82, mens^^ram alti-
tudinis earutn deprehendere invent t Thales Mileslus umbram metiendo qua
hora par esse corpori solet. (Hieronymos of Rhodes was contemporary
with Eudemos. ) This need imply no more than the simple reflexion that
the shadows of all objects will probably be equal to the objects at the same
hour. Plutarch (Conv. sept. sap. 147 a) gives a more elaborate method,
TT\V fSaKTTjplav ffTrjffas iri rt$ irtpaTt rrjs cr/aas ty 17 7ri'pa/us ^Trot'et, ycvofj^vdiv
rrj ira(f)TJ rfjs d/crivos duoiv rpiyuvuv, 5etas 5v 17 tr/cta Trpbs rr\v ffKiav \6yov
elxf, TT]V irvpa.fji.i5a ?r/)6s TTJJ/ ^aKrrjpiav %x ov<rav ' This, as Dr. Gow points
out, is only another calculation of seqt> and may very well have been the
method of Thales.

46 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

what Aahmes calls the seqt. These rules of mensura-
tion may well have been brought from Egypt by
Thales, but we have no ground for supposing that he
knew any more about their rationale than did the
author of the Rhind papyrus. Perhaps, indeed, he
gave them a wider application than the Egyptians had
done. Still, mathematics, properly so called, did not
come into existence till some time after Thales.
Thales as a 7. Thales appears once more in the pages of
Herodotos some time before the fall of the Lydian
empire. He is said to have urged the Ionian Greeks
to unite in a federal state with its capital at Teos. 1
We shall have occasion to notice more than once in
the sequel that the early schools of philosophy were
in the habit of trying to influence the course of
political events ; and there are many things, for
instance the part played by Hekataios in the Ionian
revolt, which point to the conclusion that the scientific
men of Miletos took up a very decided position in
the stirring times that followed the death of Thales.
It is this political action which has gained the founder
of the Milesian school his undisputed place among the
Seven Wise Men ; and it is owing mainly to his
inclusion among those worthies that the numerous
anecdotes which were told of him in later days attached
themselves to his name. 2

Uncertain 8. If Thales ever wrote anything, it soon was lost,

the r tradTtion. ancl the works which were written in his name did

not, as a rule, deceive even the ancients. 3 Aristotle

1 Herod, i. 170 (R. P. 9 d).

2 The story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, Tht. 174 a) is nothing
but a fable teaching the uselessness of <ro^a ; the anecdote about the
"corner" in oil (Ar. Pol. A, n. 1259 a 6) is intended to inculcate the
opposite lesson. 3 See R. P. 9 e.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 49

professes to know something about the views of Thales ;
but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived
at, nor the arguments by which they were supported.
He does, indeed, make certain suggestions, which are
repeated by later writers as statements of fact ; but he
himself simply gives them for what they are worth. 1
There is another difficulty in connexion with the
tradition. Many a precise -looking statement in the
Placita has no other foundation than the habit of
ascribing any doctrine which was, roughly speaking,
characteristic of the whole Ionic " Succession " to
" Thales and his followers," and so producing the
appearance of a definite statement about Thales. But,
in spite of all this, we need not doubt that Aristotle
was correctly informed with regard to the leading
points. We have seen traces of reference to Thales in
Hekataios, and nothing can be more likely than that
later writers of the school should have quoted the
views of its founder. We may venture, therefore, upon
a conjectural restoration of his cosmology, in which we
shall be guided by what we know for certain of the
subsequent development of the Milesian school ; for
we should naturally expect to find its characteristic
doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of its
earliest representative. But all this must be taken for
just what it is worth ; speaking strictly, we do not
know anything about the teaching of Thales at all.

9. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to Conjectural

account of the

three : cosmology of

Thales.

(i) The earth floats on the water.

1 R. P. ib.

2 Arist. Met. A, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10) ; de Caelo, B, 13. 294 a 28 (R. P.
1 1 ). Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of earthquakes
(so Act. iii. 15, i) ; but this is probably due to a "Homeric allegorist"

46 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(2) Water is the material cause 1 of all things.

(3) All things are full of gods. The magnet is

alive ; for it has the power of moving iron. 2

The first of these statements must be understood in
the light of the second, which is expressed in Aristotelian
terminology, but would undoubtedly mean that Thales
had said water was the fundamental or primary thing,
of which all other things were mere transient forms.
It was, we shall see, just such a primary substance
that the Milesian school as a whole was seeking, and
it is unlikely that the earliest answer to the great
question of the day should have been the comparatively
subtle one given by Anaximander. We are, perhaps,
justified in holding that the greatness of Thales con-
sisted in this, that he was the first to ask, not what
was the original thing, but what is the primary thing
now ; or, more simply still, " What is the world made
of? " The answer he gave to this question was : Water.
Water. 10. Aristotle and Theophratos, followed by Sim-
plicius and the doxographers, suggest several explana-
tions of this answer. By Aristotle these explanations
are given as conjectural ; it is only later writers that
repeat them as if they were quite certain. 3 The most

(Appendix, n), who wished to explain the epithet evvoalyaLOs. Cf.
Diels, Dox, p. 225.

1 Met. A, 3. 983 b 20 (R. P. 10). I have said "material cause,"
because TTJS roia^Trjs dpxfy (b 19) means rrjs fr V'XTJS eifSet apxfy (b 7).

2 Arist. de An. A, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13) ; ib. 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13 a).
Diog. i. 24 (R. P. ib.) adds amber. This comes from Hesychios of
Miletos ; for it occurs in the scholium of Par. A on Plato, Rep. 600 a.

3 Met. A, 3. 983 b 22 ; Act. i. 3, I ; Simpl. Phys. p. 36, 10 (R. P. 10, 12,
12 a). The last of the explanations given by Aristotle, namely, that Thales
was influenced by early cosmogonical theories about Okeanos and Tethys,
has strangely been supposed to be more historical than the rest, whereas
it is merely a fancy of Plato's taken literally. Plato says more than once
(Tht. 1 80 d 2; Crat. 402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors
(ol ptovres) derived their philosophy from Homer (//. xiv. 201), and even

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 49

probable view of them seems to be that Aristotle simply
ascribed to Thales the arguments used at a later date
by Hippon of Samos in support of a similar thesis. 1
This would account for their physiological character.
The rise of scientific medicine had made biological
arguments very popular in the fifth century ; but, in the
days of Thales, the prevailing interest was not physio-
logical, but rather what we should call meteorological,
and it is therefore from this point of view we must try
to understand the theory.

Now it is not very hard to see how considerations of
a meteorological kind may have led Thales to adopt
the view he did. Of all the things we know, water
4 seems to take the most various shapes. It is familiar
to us in a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form, and so
Thales may well have thought that he saw the world- NA-
process from water and back to water again going on
before his very eyes. The phenomenon of evaporation
naturally suggests everywhere that the fire of the
heavenly bodies is kept up by the moisture which they
draw from the sea. Even at the present day, the
country people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as
" the sun drawing water." Water comes down again in
the rain ; and lastly, so the early cosmologists thought,

earlier sources (Orph. frag. 2, Diels, Vors. ist ed. p. 491). In quoting this
suggestion, Aristotle refers it to " some " a word which often means Plato
and he calls the originators of the theory 7ra/i7ra\cu'our, as Plato had
done {Met. 983 b 28 ; cf. Tht. 181 b 3). This is a characteristic
example of the way in which Aristotle gets history out of Plato. See
Appendix, 2.

1 Compare Arist. de An. A, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220) with the passages
referred to in the last note. The same suggestion is made in Zeller's fifth
edition (p. 188, n. i), which I had not seen when the above was written.
Doring, "Thales" (Zschr.f. Philos. 1896, pp. 179 sqq.), takes the same view.
We now know that, though Aristotle declines to consider Hippon as a
philosopher {Met. A, 3. 984 a 3 ; R. P. 219 a), he was discussed in the history
of medicine known as Menon's latrika. See Diels in Hermes, xxviii. p. 420.

50 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

it turns to earth. This seems strange to us, but it may
have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar
with the river of Egypt which had formed the Delta,
and with the torrents of Asia Minor, which bring down
unusually large alluvial deposits. At the present day
the Gulf of Latmos, on which Miletos used to stand, is
completely filled up. Lastly, they thought, earth turns
once more to water an idea derived from the obser-
vation of dew, night-mists, and subterranean springs.
For these last were not in early times supposed
to have anything at all to do with the rain. The
" waters under the earth " were regarded as an entirely
independent source of moisture. 1

Theology. 1 1 . The third of the statements mentioned above
is supposed by Aristotle himself to imply that Thales
believed in a " soul of the world," though he is careful
to mark this as no more than an inference. 2 The
doctrine of the world-soul is then attributed quite
positively to Thales by Aetios, who gives it in the
Stoic phraseology which he found in his immediate
source, and identifies the world -intellect with God. 3
Cicero found a similar account of the matter in the
Epicurean manual which he followed, but he goes a
step further. Eliminating the Stoic pantheism, he
turns the world-intellect into a Platonic demiourgos, and
says that Thales held there was a divine mind which
formed all things out of water. 4 All this is derived

1 The view here taken most resembles that of the ' ' Homeric allegorist "
Herakleitos (R. P. 12 a). That, however, is also a conjecture, probably of
Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.

2 Arist. de An. A, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13).

3 Act. i. 7, n = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred to,

see Appendix, 11, 12.

4 Cicero, de Nat. D. i. 25 (R. P. 13 b). On Cicero's source, see Dox.
pp. 125, 128. The Herculanean papyrus of Philodemos is, unfortunately

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 51

from the cautious statement of Aristotle, and can have
no greater authority than its source. We need not enter,
then, upon the old controversy whether . Thales was an
atheist or not. It is really irrelevant. If we may
judge from his successors, he may very possibly have
called water divine ; but, if he had any religious beliefs
at all, we may be sure they were quite unconnected
with his cosmological theory.

Nor must we make too much of the saying itself
that " all things are full of gods." It is often supposed
to mean that Thales attributed a "plastic life" to
matter, or that he was a "hylozoist." We have seen
already how misleading this way of speaking is apt to
be, 1 and we shall do well to avoid it. It is not safe to
regard such an apophthegm as evidence for anything ;
the chances are that it belongs to Thales as one of the
Seven Wise Men, rather than as founder of the
Milesian school. Further, such sayings are, as a rule,
anonymous to begin with, and are attributed now to
one sage and now to another. 2 On the other hand, it
is extremely probable that Thales did say that the
magnet and amber had souls. That is no apophthegm,
but something more on the level of the statement that
the earth floats on the water. It is, in fact, just the
sort of thing we should expect Hekataios to record
about Thales. It would be wrong, however, to draw
any inferences from it as to his view of the world ; for

defective just at this point, but it is not likely that the Epicurean manual
anticipated Cicero's mistake.

1 See Introd. VIII.

2 Plato refers to the saying iravra irX^prj 6eut> in Laws, 899 b 9 (R. P. 14 b),
without mentioning Thales. That ascribed to Herakleitos in the depart.
An. A, 5. 645 a 17 seems to be a mere variation on it. So in Diog. ix. 7
(R. P. 46 d) Herakleitos is credited with the saying irdvTa ^vx^" elvai KO.

52 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to say that the magnet and amber are alive is to imply,
if anything, that other things are not. 1

II. ANAXIMANDER

Life. 1 2. The next name that has come down to us is
that of Anaximander, son of Praxiades. He too was
a citizen of Miletos, and Theophrastos described him '
as an " associate " of Thales. 2 We have seen how that
expression is to be understood ( XIV.).

According to Apollodoros, Anaximander was sixty-
four years old in Ol. LVIII. 2 (547/6 B.C.); and this
is confirmed by Hippolytos, who says he was born in
Ol. XLII. 3 (610/9 B - c -)> and by Pliny, who assigns
his discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the same
Olympiad. 3 We seem to have here something more
than a mere combination of the ordinary type ; for,
according to all the rules of Alexandrian chronology,
Anaximander should have "flourished" in 565 B.C.,
that is, just half-way between Thales and Anaximenes,
and this would make him sixty, not sixty-four, in 546.
Now Apollodoros appears to have said that he had
met with the work of Anaximander ; and his reason
for mentioning this must be that he found in it some
indication which enabled him to fix its date without
having recourse to conjecture. Diels suggests that
Anaximander may have given his age at the time
of writing as sixty-four, and that the book may have

1 Baumker, Das Problem der Materie, p. 10, n. i.

2 R. P. 15 d. That th4 words TroXfr^s KCU ercu/>os, given by Simplicius,
de ttaeto, p. 615, 13, are the^ original words of Theophrastos is shown by the
agreement of Cic. Acad. ii. 118, popularis et sodalis. The two passages
represent quite independent branches of the tradition. See Appendix,
7, 12.

3 Diog. ii. 2 (R. P. 15); Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (Dox. p. 560); Plin. N.H.
ii. 31. Pliny's dates come from Apollodoro? through Nepos.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 53

contained some other statement showing it to have
been published in 547/6 B.C. 1 Perhaps, however, this
hardly does justice to the fact that the year given is
just that which preceded the fall of Sardeis and the
subjugation of the Lydian empire by the Persians. It
may be a more plausible conjecture that Anaximander,
writing some years later, incidentally mentioned what
his age had been at the time of that great crisis. We
know from Xenophanes that the question, " How old
were you when the Mede appeared ? " was considered
an interesting one in those days. 2 At all events, we
seem to be justified in believing that Anaximander was
a generation younger than Thales. When he died we
do not really know. 3

Like his predecessor, Anaximander distinguished
himself by certain practical inventions. Some writers
credited him with that of the gnomon ; but that can
hardly be correct. Herodotos tells us this instrument
came from Babylon, so perhaps it was Anaximander
who made it known among the Greeks. He was also
the first to construct a map, and Eratosthenes said this
was the map elaborated by Hekataios. 4

1 Rhein. Mus. xxxi. p. 24.

2 Xenophanes, fr. 22 (fr. 17, Karsten ; R. P. 95 a). Jacoby (p. 190)
thinks that Apollodoros fixed \htfloruit of Anaximander forty years before
that of Pythagoras, that is, in 572/1 B.C., and that the statement as to his
age in 547/6 is a mere inference from this.

3 The statement that he " died soon after " (Diog. ii. 2 ; R. P. 15) seems
to mean that Apollodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis (546/5), one
of his regular epochs. If this is so, Apollodoros cannot have said also that
he flourished in the days of Polykrates, and Diels is probably right in
supposing that this notice refers to Pythagoras and -has been inserted in
the wrong place.

4 For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 31, n. I ; and cf. Diog. ii. I (R. P. 15) ;
Herod, ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes the
invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes (N.H. ii. 87). The truth seems
to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally ascribed to
certain philosophers. That of Delos was referred to Pherekydes. For

54 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Theophrastos 1 3. Nearly all we know of Anaximander's system

on Anaximan- . _ _,, . l A

der's theory of is derived in the last resort from Theophrastos. As
to the credibility of what we are told on his authority,
it is enough to remark that the original work, which
was in the hands of Apollodoros, must certainly have
existed in the time of Theophrastos. Moreover, he
seems once at least to have quoted Anaximander's own
words, and he criticised his style. Here are the
remains of what he said of him in the First Book :

Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen
and associate of Thales, 2 said that the material cause and first
element of things was the Infinite, he being the first to intro-
duce this name for the material cause. He says it is neither
water nor any other of the so-called 3 elements, but a substance
different from them which is infinite, from which arise all the
heavens and the worlds within them. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (Dox.
p. 476; R. P. 16).

He says that this is eternal and ageless, and that it encom-
passes all the worlds. Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 1 7 a).

And into that from which things take their rise they pass
away once more, "as is ordained ; for they make reparation
and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according
to the appointed time," as he says 4 in these somewhat poetical
terms. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 16).

the map see Agathemeros, i. I, 'Ai>ai/j.av5pos 6 MtX^crtos CLKOVO-T^ GctXew
Trpwros er6\U7?(re TTJV olKov^vrjv tv -rrlvaKi ypdif/ai, ped' 6v 'E/caratos 6
MiXi^crios &VTJP TroXvrrXavTjs 5ir)Kpij3<*)(rev, ctarre 0av/j.a(rdijvai rb Trpay/JLa.
This is from Eratosthenes. Cf. Strabo, i. p. 7.

1 See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels,
Dox. p. 133 ; Vors. pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the words
of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given them
alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, 9 sqq.

2 Simplicius says "successor and disciple" (SidSoxos /cat /taflTjTiJs) in
his Commentary on the Physics ; but see above, p. 52, n. 2.

3 For the expression rd Ka\ov/jLeva <rroixeta, see Diels, JS/ementum,
p. 25, n. 4. In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading e/cu, instead
of writing vwi with Usener.

4 Diels ( Vors. p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the words ^ &v 5t
TJ yv<ris . . . The Greek practice of blending quotations with the text

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 55

And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course
of which was brought about the origin of the worlds. Hipp.
Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 17 a).

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

1 4. Anaximander taught, then, that there was one The primary
; eternal, indestructible substance out of which everything not one of the
arises, and into which everything once more returns ;
a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is
continually being made good. This is only the natural
development of the thought we have ventured to
ascribe to Thales, and there can be no doubt that
Anaximander at least distinctly formulated it. Indeed,
we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which
led him to do so. Thales had regarded water as the
most likely of all the things we know to be that of
which all others are forms ; Anaximander appears to
have asked himself how the primary substance could
be one of these particular things. His argument seems
to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following
passage in his discussion of the Infinite :

Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is
infinite, either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements,
which they then derive from it, nor without this qualification.
For there are some who make this (i.e. a body distinct from
the elements) the infinite, and not air or water, in order that
the other things may not be destroyed by their infinity. They
are in opposition one to another air is cold, water moist, and
fire hot and therefore, // any one of them were infinite, the
rest would have ceased to be by this time. Accordingly they

tells against this. It is very rare for a Greek writer to open a verbal
quotation abruptly. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the terms
and <t>6opd in their technical Platonic sense to Anaximander.

56 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

say that what is infinite is something other than the elements,
and from it the elements arise. Arist. Phys. P, 5. 204 b 22
(R. P. 1 6 b).

It is clear that in this passage Anaximander is con-
trasted with Thales and with Anaximenes. Nor is there
any reason to doubt that the account given of his
reasoning is substantially correct, though the form is
Aristotle's own. and the mention of " elements " is an
anachronism. 1 I Anaximander was struck, it would
seem, by the opposition and strife between the things
which go to make up the world ; the warm fire was
opposed to the cold air, the dry earth to the moist sea.
These opposites were at war, and any predominance of
one over the other was an " injustice " for which they
must make reparation to one another. 2 We may-
suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows.
If Thales had been right in saying that water was the
fundamental reality, it would not be easy to see how
anything else could ever have existed. One side of
the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had its
way unchecked, injustice would have prevailed, and the
warm and (Jry would have been driven from the field
long ago. >We must, then, have something which is
not itself one of the warring opposites we know, some-
thing more primitive, out of which they arise, and into
which they once more pass away. That Anaximander
called this something by the name of <t>van<;, is clear

1 The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles ( 106), and
the word oToixeta, which is properly translated by elcmenta, was first used
in this sense by Plato. For the history of the term, see Diels, Elementum
(1899)-

2 The important word dXX^Xois was omitted in the Aldine Simplicius,
but is in all the MSS. We shall see that in Herakleitos "justice" means
the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the
elements ( 72). See also Introd. p. 32, n. i.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 57

from the doxographers ; the current statement that the
word ap^r) in the sense of a " first principle " was^ intro-
duced by him, is probably due to a misunderstanding
of what Theophrastos said. 1

15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this Aristotle's
theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own fhetheorv
doctrine of " indeterminate matter." 2 He knew very
well, of course, that he himself was the author of that ;
but it is in accordance with his method to represent his
own theories as the distinct formulation of truths which
earlier thinkers had only guessed at. It was to be
expected, then, that he should sometimes express
the views of Anaximander in terms of the theory of
" elements." He knew too that the Boundless was a
body, 3 though in his own system there was no room
for anything corporeal prior to the elements ; so he had
to speak of it as a boundless body "alongside of" or
" distinct from " the elements (napa ra orroi-^ela). So

1 If the words quoted from Theophrastos by Simplicius, Phys. p. 24,

15 (R. P. 16), stood by themselves, no one would ever have supposed them
to mean that Anaximander called the Boundless o-pxn- They would
naturally be rendered : "having been the first to introduce this name (i.e.
TO Aireipov) for the dpxV 5 but the words of Hippolytos (Kef. i. 6, 2),
TrpujTos Totivopa. KaX^cras TTJS dpxfy, have led nearly all writers to take the
passage in the less obvious sense. We now know, however, that
Hippolytos is no independent authority, but rests altogether on Theo-
phrastos ; so the natural view to take is that either his immediate source,
or he himself, or a copyist, has dropped out TOVTO before ro^vo/xa, and
corrupted K-o^traj into ccaX&ras. It is not credible that Theophrastos made
both statements. The other passage from Simplicius compared by Usener
(p. 150, 23), Trpwros auros dpx^v dvofj-dvas rb viroKeL/mevov, does not seem
to me to have anything to do with the question. It means simply that
Anaximander was the first to name the substratum as the " material cause,"
which is a different point altogether. This is how Neuhauser takes the
passage (Anaximander, pp. 7 sqq. ) ; but I cannot agree with him in holding
that the word viroKel[j.evov is ascribed to the Milesian.

2 Arist. Met. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. i6c).

3 This is taken for granted in Phys. T, 4. 203 a 16 ; 204 b 22 (R. P.

16 b), and stated in T, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. Phys. p. 150,
20 (R. P. 18).

58 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

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

In a number of other places Aristotle speaks of a
thinker, whom he does not happen to name, who held
that the primary substance was something " inter-
mediate between " the elements or between two of them. 1
Nearly all the Greek commentators referred this to
Anaximander also, but most modern writers refuse to
follow them. It is, no doubt, easy to show that
Anaximander can have never meant to describe the
Boundless in this way, but that is no real objection to the
older interpretation. It is difficult to see that it is more.
of an anachronism to call the Boundless " intermediate
between the elements " than to say that it is " distinct
from the elements " ; and indeed, if once we introduce
the elements at all, the former description is in some
ways the more adequate of the two. At any rate, if
we refuse to understand these passages as referring to
Anaximander, we shall have to say that Aristotle,
paid a great deal of attention to some early thinker,
whose very name has been lost, and who not only
agreed with some of Anaximander's views, but also,
as is shown by one passage, used some of his most
characteristic expressions. 2 We may add that in one

1 Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire
and Air (Gen. Corr. B, i. 328 b 35 ; id. 5. 332 a 21 ; Phys. A, 4. 187 a 14 ;
Met. A, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something intermediate
between Water and Air (Met. A, 7. 988 a 13 ; Gen. Corr. B, 5. 332 a 21 ;
Phys. T, 4. 203 a 1 8 ; ib. 5. 205 a 27 ; de Caelo, T, 5. 303 b 12). Once
(Phys. A, 6. 189 b i) we hear of something between Water and Fire. This
variation shows at once that he is not speaking historically. If any one
ever held the doctrine of rb peraj-6, he must have known perfectly well
which two elements he meant.

2 Arist. de Caelo, T, 5. 303 b 12, vSaros ^v \eTTT6repov, d^poy d
irvKvbrepov, 8 irepi.tx l -v <t>o.al Trdvras TOJ)S otipavote direipov 6v. That
this refers to Idaios of Himera, as suggested by Zeller (p. 258), seems
very improbable. Aristotle nowhere mentions his name, and the tone

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 59

or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the
" intermediate " with the something " distinct from " the
elements. 1

There is even one place in which he appears to
speak of Anaximander's ^Boundless as a " mixture,"
though his words may perhaps admit of another inter-
pretation. 2 But this is of no consequence for our
interpretation of Anaximander himself. It is certain
that he cannot have said anything about "elements,"
which no one thought of before Empedokles, and no
one could think of before Parmenides. The question
has only been mentioned at all because it has been
the subject of a lengthy controversy, 3 and because
it throws great light on the historical value of Aristotle's
statements. From the point of view of his own system,
these are abundantly justified ; but we shall have to
remember in other cases that, when he seems to attribute
an idea to some earlier thinker, we are not in the least
bound to believe what he says in a historical sense.

1 6. Anaximander's reason for conceiving the The primary

substance is

of his reference to Hippon in Met. A, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a) shows m
that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the tirlyovot of the
Milesian school.

1 Cf. Phys. T, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers rb irapd.
ra cTTOixeta to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the whole
passage is summarised thus : /ecu 5td TOUT' ovdeis rb tv /ecu direipov wOp
iTToL-rjffcv oi/dt yrjv ruv (f>v<Ti.o\&yui>, d\X' 7} v8wp *) dfyct T) rb fj^ffov avruv.
In Gen. Corr. B, I. 328 b 35 we have first n ^erai> roinuv crw/id re 6> icai
Xtpi<Tr6v, and a little further on (329 a 9) f*.ia.v \>\T)V iraph TO. eipi)fdi>a.
In B, 5. 332 a 20 we have ou fi^v ovd' &\\o rl ye TrctpA ravra, olov i*t<rov
rt atpos KO.I v8aros 1j d^pos KO.1 irvp6s.

2 Met. A, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. i) assumes an
"easy zeugma." I should prefer to say that wl 'EfnredoK^ovs rb

was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant rd 'Avaay6pov tv . . .
Kai 'Ava&fMdvSpov. Phys. A, 4. 187 a 20 does not assign the "mixture"
to Anaximander.

3 For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. 15. A good deal of
light is thrown on this and similar questions by W. A. Heidel, "Qualitative
Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy " (Arch. xix. p. 333).

6o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, that
indicated by Aristotle, namely, " that becoming might .
not fail." ] It is not likely, however, that these words
are his own, though the doxographers speak as if they
were. It is enough for us to know that Theophrastos,
who had seen his book, attributed the thought to him.
And certainly the way in which he regarded the world
would bring home to him with more than common
force the need of a boundless stock of matter. The
" opposites " of which our world consists are, we have
seen, at war with one another, and their strife is marked
by " unjust " encroachments on either side. The warm
commits " injustice " in summer, the cold in winter.
To redress the balance, they must be absorbed once
more in their common ground ; and this would lead
in the long run to the destruction of everything but
the Boundless itself, if there were not an inexhaustible
supply of it from which opposites might continually
be separated out afresh. We must picture to ourselves,
then, an endless mass, which is not any one of the
opposites we know, stretching out without limit on
every side of the heavens which bound the world we
live in. 2 This mass is a body, and out of it our world

1 Phys. 1\ 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). That this refers to Anaximander
is shown by Act. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The same argument is given in Phys.
I 1 , 4. 203 b 1 8, a passage where Anaximander has just been quoted by
name, r($ OVTUS SLV fj.6vov ^ viroXeiireiv ytveffiv /ecu (pdopdv, el Aireipov eirj
odev a^cupeiTcu rb yiyvbuevov. * I cannot, however, believe that the
arguments given at the beginning of this chapter (203 b 7 ; R. P. 17) are
Anaximander's. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic dialectic, and are, in
fact, those of Melissos.

2 I have assumed that the word ti-ireipov means spatially infinite (though
not in any precise- mathematical sense), not qualitatively indeterminate, as
maintained by Teichmiiller and Tannery. The decisive reasons for holding
that the sense of the word is "boundless in extent" are as follows: (i)
Theophrastos said that the primary substance of Anaximander was aireipov
and contained all the worlds, and the word repttxtui everywhere means

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 61

once emerged by the " separating out " of the opposites,
which one day will all be absorbed again in the Bound-
less, and our world will cease to be.

17. The doxographers say it was the " eternalThe eternal
motion " that brought into being " all the heavens and all '"
the worlds within them." As we have seen ( VIII.),
it is not likely that Anaximander himself used the
phrase " eternal motion." That is rather Aristotle's own
version of what he found stated about the " separating
out " of opposites. We are not told expressly how
Anaximander conceived this to operate, but the term
" separating out " suggests some process of shaking and
sifting as in a sieve. Now it is just such a process that
Plato makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe, and the
most probable theory is certainly that here, as in many
other cases, he has reproduced a genuinely early view.
As we shall see, it is quite likely that the Pytha-
goreans should have followed Anaximander in this. 1 In
any case, it is wrong to identify the " eternal motion "
with the diurnal revolution of the heavens, as has
sometimes been done. That motion cannot possibly
be eternal, for the simple reason that the heavens
themselves are perishable. Aristotle says, indeed, that
all who believe the world has come into being represent

"to encompass," not, as has been suggested, "to contain potentially." (2)
Aristotle says (Phys. F, 4. 203 b 23) 5ia yap rb tv rrj vo^<rei n<rj viroXeiireiv
Kal 6 a.pi6fibs donei direipos eli/cu Kal TO. /j.adTj/j.ariKa (JLeytOy Kal rot w rov
ovpavov' direlpov 5' 8vros rov <fw, /cat (rujyiia atreipov elvat doKi Kal /c6<r/z<x.
(3) Anaximander's theory of the aireipov was adopted by Anaximenes,
and he identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate.

1 Plato, Tim. 52 e, where the elements are separated by being shaken,
stirred, and carried in different directions : "just as by sieves and instruments
for winnowing corn, the grain is shaken and sifted, and the dense and
heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are carried to a different
place and settle there." For the relation of Pythagoreanism to
Anaximander, see below, 5J.s

62 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the earth as having been forced into the centre by the
circular motion ; l but, though this doubtless refers to
Anaximander among others, it is quite irrelevant here.
It has to do only with the formation of the world after
it has been once for all separated off and enclosed in its
own heaven, and we shall have to remember it when
we come to that part of the theory. At present, we
have only to do with the motion of the Boundless
itself; and, if we wish to picture that, it is much safer
to regard it as a sort of shaking up and down which
sorts out the opposites from the infinite mass.

1 8. We are told more than once that Anaximander
believed there were " innumerable worlds in the Bound-
less," 2 and it is now usual to regard these with Zeller
as an infinite series succeeding one another in time.
It may be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea
that the worlds are coexistent and eternal is decisive.
To suppose that Anaximander regarded this or any
other world as eternal, is a flat contradiction of every-
thing we otherwise know, and of the Theophrastean
tradition that he taught the world was perishable. We
have, then, to decide between the view that, though all
the worlds are perishable, there may be an unlimited
number of them in existence at the same time, and the
view that a new world never comes into existence till

1 Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 a 9. The identification of the eternal
motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by Teichmiiller and
Tannery, and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation which
they give to the word &ireipov. It was obviously difficult to credit
Anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in a circle.
The whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite spherical
K6<r/J.os within the ovpaj>6s and the infinite Trep^x ov outside it.

2 [Plut.] Strom, fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b). The words O.VO,K\IK\Q\}^VWV iravruv
O.VT&V are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an ava.KiJK\r)<ri$ or
cycle of 76/60-15 and <pdopd in each of a multitude of coexistent worlds. It
would be a very strange phrase to use of a succession of single worlds.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 63

the old one has passed away. Now, Zeller allows l that
there is nothing in the first of these views that is
inconsistent with what we know of Anaximander ; but
he thinks all the statements which have come down to
us point rather to the second. It seems to me that
this is by no means the case, and, as the matter is
of fundamental importance, it will be necessary to
examine the evidence once more.

In the first place, the doxographical tradition proves
that Theophrastos discussed the views of all the early
philosophers as to whether there was one world or an
infinite number, and there can be no doubt that, when
he ascribed " innumerable worlds " to the Atomists,
he meant coexistent and not successive worlds. Now,
if he had really classed two such different views under

-x

one head, he would at least have been careful to point
out in what respect they differed, and there is no trace of
any such distinction in our tradition. On the contrary,
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaos, Xenophanes,
Diogenes, Leukippos, Demokritos, and Epicurus are
all mentioned together as holding the doctrine of
" innumerable worlds " on all sides of this one, 2 and the
only distinction drawn between their views is that,
while Epicurus made the distances between these
worlds unequal, Anaximander said all the worlds were
equidistant. 3 Zeller rejected this evidence, which he

1 Zeller, pp. 234 sqq.

2 Act. ii. I, 3 (Dox. p. 327). Zeller is wrong in understanding icard
Tra<rav irepiayuyriv here of the revolution of a cycle. It means simply " in
every direction we turn," and so does the alternative reading /card vaaav
irepiffraffiv. The six trepiffraffets are 7rp6crw, diri<ru t &vd), /cdrw, del-id, apiffrepd
(Nicom. Introd. p. 85, 1 1, Hoche), and Polybios uses Trfpl<rTa.<ris of sur-
rounding space.

3 Aet. ii. I, 8 (Dox. p. 329), TWV dire/povs a.iro<t>^va^vuv TOI)J A: 607*01*
'A.va$;lfjuii>5pos rb tffov ai/roiis dir^x fl - v dXX^Xwv, 'JZiriKOVpos &VHTOV flvat TO
/u,erai> rCsv

64 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

supposed to be merely that of Stobaios, on the
ground that we can have no confidence in a writer
who attributes " innumerable worlds " to Anaximenes,
Archelaos, and Xenophanes. With regard to the first
two, I hope to show that the statement is quite correct,
and that it is not even incorrect in the case of the last. 1
In any case, it can be proved that the passage comes
from Aetios, 2 and there is no reason for doubting that,
in the last resort, it is derived from Theophrastos,
though the name of Epicurus may have been added
later. This is still further confirmed by what Simplicius
says in his commentary on the Physics?

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

It is probable that this too comes from Theophrastos
through Alexander. Simplicius does not invent such
things.

We come lastly to a very important statement
which Cicero has copied from Philodemos, the author
of the Epicurean treatise on Religion found at
Herculaneum, or perhaps from the immediate source
of that work. " Anaximander's opinion was," he makes
Velleius say, " that there were gods who came into
being, rising and passing away at, long intervals, and

1 For Anaximenes, see 30 ; Xenophanes, 59 ; Archelaos, Chap. X.

' 2 This is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by
Theodoret. See Appendix, 10.

3 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 5 (R. P. 21 b). Zeller says (p. 234, n. 4) that
Simplicius elsewhere (de Caelo, p. 273 b 43) makes the same statement
more doubtfully. But the words us doxei, on which he relies, are hardly an
expression of doubt, and refer, in any case, to the derivation of the doctrine
of "innumerable worlds" from that of the dbretpoj', not to the doctrine
itself.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 65

that these were the innumerable worlds " ; l and this
must clearly be taken along with the statement of
Aetios to the effect that, according to Anaximander,
the " innumerable heavens " were gods. 2 Now it is very
much more natural to understand the " long intervals "
which Cicero mentions as intervals of space than as in-
tervals of time ; 3 and, if we take the passage in this way,
we have a perfect agreement among all our authorities.
It may be added that it is very unnatural to under-
stand the statement that the Boundless "encompasses
all the worlds" of worlds succeeding one another in
time ; for on this view there is at a given time only
one world to "encompass." Moreover, the argument
mentioned by Aristotle that, if what is outside the
heavens is infinite, body must be infinite, and there
must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood
in this sense, and is certainly intended to represent
the reasoning of the Milesians; for they were the only
cosmologists who held there was a boundless body
outside the heavens. 4 Lastly, we happen to know that
Petron, one of the earliest Pythagoreans, held there
were just one hundred and eighty- three worlds arranged
in a triangle, 5 which shows that views of this sort

1 Cicero, de Nat. D. i. 25 (R. P. 21).

2 Aet. i. 7, 12 (R. P. 21 a). The reading of Stob., direlpovs ovpavofc, is
guaranteed by the direipovs K6ff/J.ovs of Cyril, and the direipovs vovs (i.e. ovvovs)
of the pseudo-Galen. See Dox. p. u.

3 It is simplest to suppose that Cicero found Siaonj/uacrtj/ in his Epicurean
source, and that is a technical term for the intcrmundia.

4 Arist. Phys. T, 4. 203 b 25, dtrdpov 8' 6vros TOV (fa (sc. roO otf/xwov),
KO.I o-w/ia tiireipov elvai 8oKei Kal K6<rfj.oi (sc. &ireipoi). It is to be observed
that the next words rl yap /tiaXXoi* TOV KCVOV IvravBo. r) vTav0a ; show
clearly that this refers to the Atomists as well ; but the Airetpov ffupa will
not apply to them. The suggestion is rather that both those who made the
Boundless a body and those who made it a Kfvbv held the doctrine of Hireipot
K6<T(j.oi in the same sense.

5 See below, 53. Cf. Diels, Elemcntum, pp. 63 sqq.

66 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

existed long before the Atomists, and looks like an
attempt to introduce some order into Anaximander's
universe.

Origin of the 1 9. The doxographers have not left us in the dark
bodies! y as to the process by which the different parts of the
world arose from the Boundless. The following state-
ment comes ultimately from Theophrastos :

He says that something capable of begetting hot and cold

was separated off from the eternal at the origin of this world.
From this arose a sphere of flame which grew round the air
encircling the earth, as the bark grows round a tree. When
this was torn off and enclosed in certain rings, the sun, moon,
and stars came into existence. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2
(R. P. 19).

We see from this that when a portion of the Bound-
less had been separated off from the rest to form a
world, it first of all differentiated itself into the two
opposites, hot and cold. The hot appears as a sphere
of flame surrounding the cold ; the cold, as earth with
air surrounding it. We are not told, however, in this
extract how the cold came to be differentiated into
earth, air, and water ; but there is a passage in
Aristotle's Meteorology which throws some light on
the subject. We read there :

But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an
origin for the sea. At first, they say, all the terrestrial region
was moist ; and, as it was dried up by the sun, the portion of
it that evaporated produced the winds and the turnings of the
sun and moon, while the portion left behind was the sea. So
they think the sea is becoming smaller by being dried up,
and that at last it will all be dry. ''Meteor. B, i. 353 b 5.

And the same absurdity arises for those who say that the
earth and the terrestrial part of the world at first were moist,

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 67

but that air arose from the heat of the sun, and that the
whole world was thus increased, and that this is the cause of
winds and the turnings of the heavens. 1 Jb. 2. 355 a 21
(R. P. 20 a).

In his commentary on the passage, Alexander tells
us that this was the view of Anaximander and
Diogenes ; and what he says is amply confirmed by
Anaximander's theory of the sea as it is given by the
doxographers ( 20). We conclude, then, that after
the first separation of the hot and the cold, the heat of
the sphere of flame turned part of the moist, cold
interior of the world into air or vapour it is all one
at this date and that the expansion of this mist
broke up the sphere of flame itself into rings. I give
the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of
the heavenly bodies from these rings as it has been
preserved by Hippolytos, with some supplements from
Aetios :

The heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from
the fire which encircles the world, and enclosed in air. And
they have breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which
the heavenly bodies are seen. For this reason, too, when the
breathing-holes are stopped, eclipses occur. And the moon
appears now to wax and now to wane because of the stopping
and opening of the passages. The circle of the sun is
twenty-seven times the size (of the earth, while that) of the
moon is eighteen times as large. 2 The sun is highest of all,
and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars. Hipp. Ref. i.
6 (R. P. 20).

1 Zeller's difficulty about the meaning of rpoiral here (p. 223, n. 2) seems
to be an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a movement in de-
clination and, therefore, rpo-rraL (Dreyer, Planetary Systems, p. 17, n. l).

2 I assume with Diels (Dox. p. 560) that something has fallen out in
our text of Hippolytos. I have, however, with Tannery, Science hellene,
p. 91, supplied "eighteen times" rather than "nineteen times." Zeller
(p. 224, n. 2) prefers the text of our MS. of Hippolytos to the testimony
of Aetios.

68 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of
air, full of fire, breathing out flames at a certain point from
orifices. The sun was highest of all, after it came the moon,
and below these the fixed stars and the planets. Aetios, ii.
13, 7; 15, 6 (R. P. 19 a).

Anaximander said the sun was a ring twenty-eight times
the size of the earth, like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow
and full of fire, showing the fire at a certain point, as if
through the nozzle of a pair of bellows. Aet. ii. 20, i
(R. P. 19 a).

Anaximander said the sun was equal to the earth, but the
ring from which it breathes out and by which it is carried round
was twenty-seven times as large as the earth. Aet. ii. 21, i
(Dox. p. 351).

Anaximander said the moon was a ring eighteen times the
size of the earth. . . . Aet. ii. 25, i (Dox. p. 355). 1

Anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused
by the blast. When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts
forth with violence, then the breakage of the cloud makes the
noise, and the rift gives the appearance of a flash by contrast
with the darkness of the cloud. Aet. iii. 3, i (Dox. p. 367).

Anaximander held that wind was a current of air (i.e.
vapour) which arose when its finest and moistest particles were
set in motion or dissolved by the sun. Aet. iii. 6, i (Dox.

P- 374)-

Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the
earth by the sun. Hipp. Ref. i. 6, 7 (Dox. p. 560).

We saw above that the sphere of flame was broken
up into rings by the expansion of the air or vapour
that its own heat had drawn up from the moist, cold
interior. We must remember that Anaximander knew
nothing of the ring of Saturn. There are three of
these rings, that of the sun, that of the moon, an

1 Aetios goes on to say that the moon also is like a hollow cart-whee
full of fire with an ^KTH/OTJ. The difference in the figures of Hippolytos and
Aetios is due to the fact that one refers to the internal and the other to the
external circumferences of the rings. Cf. Tannery, Science helttne, p. 91
and Diels, " Ueber Anaxirnanders Kosmos" (Arch. x. pp. 231 sqq.).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 69

lastly, nearest to the earth, the circle of the stars.
The circle of the sun was twenty-seven times, and that
of the moon eighteen times as large as -the earth, from
which we may perhaps infer that the circle of the stars
was nine times as large. The numbers nine, eighteen,
twenty-seven, play a considerable part in primitive
cosmogonies. 1 We do not see the rings of fire as
complete circles ; for the mist that formed them
encloses the fire, and becomes an outer ring of opaque
vapour. These outer rings, however, have openings at
one point of their circumference, through which the
fire escapes, and these are the heavenly bodies we
actually see. 2

It will be observed that we only hear of three
circles, and that the circle of the sun is the highest.
The circle of the stars presents some difficulty. It is,
in all probability, the Milky Way, the appearance of
which may well have suggested the whole theory. 3 It
seems that Anaximander must have thought it had
more " breathing-holes " than one, though the tradition
is silent on this point. There is not the slightest
reason for supposing that he regarded it as a sphere.
He could not have failed to see that a sphere so
placed would make the sun and moon permanently
invisible. What, then, are we to say of the fixed

1 As Diels points out (Arch. x. p. 229) the explanation given by
Gomperz, p. 53, cannot be right. It implies the fifth century theory of
fjt,68poi. Anaximander knew nothing of the " great mass " of the sun.

2 The true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by Diels (Dox.
pp. 25 sqq. ). The flames rush forth per magni tircum spiracula vtundi,
as Lucretius has it (vi. 493). The TrprjffTrjpos au\6s, to which these are
compared, is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows, a sense which the
word TrprjtTTrip has in Apollonios Rhodios (iv. 776), and has nothing to do
with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name, for which see Chap.
III. 71. It is not now necessary to refute the earlier interpretations.

3 It cannot be the Zodiac ; for the planets were not separately studied
yet.

70 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

stars that do not lie in the Milky Way? There seems
to be no way of accounting for them unless we assume
that they are the " innumerable worlds " which we
have just discussed. As the fire and air which
surrounded the world have been broken up into rings,
we must be able to see right out into the Boundless,
and the fixed stars must be just the worlds, each
surrounded by its fiery envelope. It does not seem
possible to explain all we are told in any other way ;
and, if this is right, the statement of some authors,
that Anaximander regarded the stars of heaven as gods,
may be more than the mere mistake which it is now
generally taken to be. 1

The explanation given of thunder and lightning
was very similar. They too were caused by fire
breaking through compressed air, that is to say, through
the storm-clouds. It seems probable that this is really
the origin of the theory, and that Anaximander
explained the heavenly bodies on the analogy of
lightning, not vice versa. That would be in perfect
agreement with the meteorological interest of the time.
Earth and 2O. We turn now to what we are told of the origin
of earth and sea from the moist, cold matter which
was "separated off" in the beginning, and which filled
the inside of the sphere of flame :

The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire
has dried up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching
it. Act. iii. 1 6, i (R. P. 20 a).

He says that the earth is cylindrical in form, and that its

1 The Placita and Eusebios both have TOVS dcrr^pas ovpaviovs instead of
rof>s dirdpovs ovpavofc (see above, p. 65, n. 2), and it seems just possible that
this is not a mere corruption of the text. The common source may have
had both statements. I do not, however, rest the interpretation given
above on this very insecure basis. Quite apart from it, it seems to be the
only way out of the difficulty.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 71

depth is as a third part of its. breadth. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2
(R. P. a.).

The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It
stays where it is because of its equal distance from everything.
Its shape is convex and round, and like a stone pillar. We
are on one of the surfaces, and the other is on the opposite
side. 1 Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 20).

Adopting for a moment the later theory of
" elements," we see that Anaximander put fire on one
side as " the hot," and all the rest on the other as " the
cold," which is also moist. This may explain how
Aristotle came to speak of the Boundless as inter-
mediate between fire and water. And we have seen
also that the moist element was partly turned into "air"
or vapour by the fire, which explains how he could say
the Boundless was something between fire and air, or
between air and water. 2

The moist, cold interior of the world is not, it will
be noticed, pure water. It is always called " the moist "
or " the moist state." That is because it has to be still
further differentiated under the influence of heat into
earth, water, and vapour. The gradual drying up of
the water by the fire is a good example of what Anaxi-
mander meant by " injustice." And we see how this
injustice brings about the destruction of the world.

1 The MSS. of Hippolytos have vypbv o-r/joyyuXoj'. Roeper read yvpbv
[<TTpoyyij\oi>], supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first ; but
Diels has shown (Dox. p. 218) that both are wanted. The first means
"convex," and applies to the surface of the earth; while the second
means " round," and refers to its circuit. As to KIOVI M0y, it is not easy
to say anything positive. It might, possibly, be a mere corruption of
KvMvdpv (cf. Plut. Strom, fr. 2 ; R. P. 20 a) ; but, if so, it is a very old
one. Aetios (iii. 10, 2), who is quite independent of Hippolytos, has XlOt?
KlovL ; Roeper suggested Kiovtri X0<^ ; Teichmuller, Klovos \10(? ; while
Diels doubtfully puts forward \i0$ Klovi, which he suggests might be a
Theophrastean modernisation of an original \i6ty Kiovi (Dox. p. 219).

2 See above, p. 58, n. i.

72 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The fire will in time dry up and burn up the whole of
the cold, moist element. But then it will not be fire
any longer ; it will simply be the " mixture," if we
choose to call it so, of the hot and cold that is, it will
be the same as the Boundless which surrounds it, and
will pass away into it.

The view which Anaximander takes of the earth is
a great advance upon anything we can reasonably
attribute to Thales, and Aristotle has preserved the
arguments by which he supported it. It is equally
distant from the extremes in every direction, and there
is no reason for it to move up or down or sideways. 1
Still, he does not attain to the idea that it is spherical.
He believes that we live on a convex disc, and from
this the cylindrical form follows as a matter of course.
The really remarkable thing is that he should have
seen, however dimly, that there is no absolute up and
down in the world.

Animals. 21. We have seen enough to show us that the
speculations of Anaximander about the world were of
an extremely daring character ; we come now to the
crowning audacity of all, his theory of the origin of
living creatures. The Theophrastean account of this
has been well preserved by the doxographers :

Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was
evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely,
a fish, in the beginning. Hipp. Ref. i. 6 (R. P. 22 a).

The first animals were produced in the moisture, each en-
closed in a prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came

1 Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 295 b IO, et'oi 54 rives ot dia TTJV 6fj.oi6Tr)Ta
<t>a.tnv avTTjv (TT?I> yrjv) fj.ei>eiv, tiffirep TUV apxa-luv 'Ava^lfj.avdpos' fj.a\\ov
fjLev yap ovdev &vw % /cdrw $i els ret Tr\dyia Qepeada.!. TrpoarjKeiv rb eirl TOV
fj.{ffov I8pvfj.evov no! 6/j.oius irpbs ra &rxara ?x"- That Aristotle is really
reproducing Anaximander seems to be shown by the use of 6fj.oi6Tijs in the
old sense of '" equality."

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 73

out upon the drier part. When the bark broke off, 1 they
survived for a short time. Aet. v. 19, i (R. P. 22).

Further, he says that originally man was born from animals
of another species. His reason is that while other animals
quickly find food by themselves, man alone requires a lengthy
period of suckling. Hence, had he been originally as he is
now, he would never have survived. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 2
(R. P. #.).

He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside
of fishes, and after having been reared like sharks, 2 and
become capable of protecting themselves, they were finally
cast ashore and took to land. Plut. Symp. Quaest. 730 f
(R. P. it.).

The importance of these statements has sometimes
been overrated and still more often underestimated.
Anaximander has been called a precursor of Darwin by
some, while others have treated the whole thing as a
mythological survival. It is therefore important to
notice that this is one of the rare cases where we have
not merely a placitum, but an indication, meagre
though it be, of the observations on which it was based,
and the line of argument by which it was supported.
It is clear from this that Anaximander had an idea of
what is meant by adaptation to environment and
survival of the fittest, and that he saw the higher
mammals could not represent the original type of
animal. For this he looked to the sea, and he naturally
fixed upon those fishes which present the closest
analogy to the mammalia. The statements of Aristotle

1 This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about ya\tol
below. Cf. Arist. Hist. An. Z, 10. 565 a 25, TO?S nlv odv ovciA/oty, ofs

vefiplas -yaXeotfs, STOP irepippayg xal ^Kir^vy rb
ylvovrai ol veoTToL.

- Reading uxrTrep ol yaXfoi for &<rirep ol iraXcuol with Doehner, who
compares Plut. de soil. anim. 982 a, where the QiKbffTopyov of the shark is
described. See p. 74, n. i.

74 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

about the galeus levis were shown long ago by Johannes
Miiller to be more accurate than those of later
naturalists, and we now know that these observations
were already made by Anaximander. The manner in
which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with
the very thing he required to explain the survival of
the earliest animals. 1

Theology. 22. In the course of our discussion of the "in-
numerable worlds " we saw that Anaximander regarded
these as gods. It is true, of course, as Zeller says, 2 that
to the Greeks the word 0eo? meant primarily an object
of worship, and he rightly adds that no one would think
of worshipping innumerable worlds. This, however, is
no real objection to our interpretation, though it serves
to bring out an interesting point in the development
of Greek theological ideas. The philosophers, in fact,
departed altogether from the received usage of the
word 0eo9. Empedokles called the Sphere and the
Elements gods, though it is not to be supposed that he
regarded them as objects of worship, and in the same

1 On Aristotle and the galeus levis, see Johannes Miiller, "Ueber den
glatten Hai des Aristoteles" (K. Preuss. Akad., 1842), to which my attention
has been directed by my colleague, Prof. D'Arcy Thomson. The precise
point of the words TpeQo/j.evoi iocnrep ol yaXcot appears from Arist. Hist. An.
Z, 10. 565 b I, ol 8 KaXotifjievoi. Xetbt T&V ya\e&v TO. /ULI> yd, fcrxouai /iera|i)
T&V vffrep&v Oyuoicjs rots (TKvXiots, irepiffTavTO. 8e TctCra e:'s eKar^pav TTJV SiKpdav
TT)S vortpas /cara^a^ei, Kal TO, ya ylveTcu rbv o/J,(j>a\bv tx VTa ^pos T V
vvrtpq., &ffre ava\L(TKO/j.{i>(i}v rdjv (wv ofMolus doKeiv ?xew rb f[j.{3pvoi> rots
TerpaTroffiv. It is not necessary to suppose that Anaximander referred to
the further phenomenon described by Aristotle, who more than once says
that all the ya\eoi except the aKavdias "send out their young and take
them back again " (ta(pta.<n Kal MXOVTO.I els eavrovs TOI)S VCOTTOIJS, ib. 565 b
23), for which compare also Ael. i. 17 ; Plut. de soil. anim. 982 a. The
placenta and umbilical cord described by Johannes Miiller will account
sufficiently for all he says. At the same time, I understand that deep-sea
fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also, and
two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they have seen
the thing happen with their own eyes.

2 Zeller, p. 230.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 75

way we shall find that Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of
Air as a god. 1 As we may learn from the Clouds of
Aristophanes, it was just this way of speaking that got
philosophers the name of being aOeoi. It is of great
importance to bear this point in mind ; for, when we
come to Xenophanes, we shall see that the god or gods
he spoke of meant just the world or worlds. It seems
also that Anaximander called the Boundless itself
divine, 2 which is quite in accordance with the language
of Empedokles and Diogenes referred to above.

III. ANAXIMENES

23. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was, Life,
according to Theophratos, an "associate" of Anaxi-
mander. 3 Apollodoros said, it appears, that he
"flourished" about the time of the fall of Sardeis
(546/5 B.C.), and died in Ol. LXIII. (528/524 B.C.). 4
In other words, he was born when Thales " flourished,"
and " flourished " when Thales died, and this means
that Apollodoros had no definite information about his
date at all. He most probably made him die in the
sixty-third Olympiad because that gives just a hundred
years, or three generations, for the Milesian school from
the birth of Thales. 5 We cannot, therefore, say any-

1 For Empedokles, see Chap. V. 119; and for Diogenes, Chap. X.
1 88, fr. 5. The cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists
in this. No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos.

2 Arist. Phys. T, 4. 203 b 13 (R. P. 17).

3 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

4 This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3 with Hipp. Ref. i. 7
(R. P. 23). In the latter passage we must, however, read rplrov for irpCrrov
with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros mentioned the
Olympiad without giving the number of the year is inadequate ; for
Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian archons.

8 Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date of his death into connexion with the
floruit of Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable. Lortzing (Jahresbcr.*
1898, p. 202) objects to my view on the ground that the period of a hundred

;6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

thing positive as to his date, except that he must have
been younger than Anaximander, and must have
flourished before 494 B.C., when the school was, of
course, broken up by the destruction of Miletos.

24. Anaximenes wrote a book which certainly sur-
vived until the age of literary criticism ; for we are told
that he used a simple and unpretentious Ionic, 1 very
different, we may suppose, from the poetical prose of
Anaximander. 2 We may probably trust this criticism,
which comes ultimately from Theophrastos ; and it
furnishes a good illustration of the truth that the
character of a man's thoughts is sure to find expression
in his style. We have seen that the speculations of
Anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood
and breadth ; those of Anaximenes are marked by just
the opposite quality. He appears to have thought out
his system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious
theories of his predecessor. The result is that^while
his view of the world is on the whole much less like
the truth than Anaximander's, it is more fruitful in
ideas that were destined to hold their ground.

25. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom
Theophrastos wrote a special monograph ; 3 and this
gives us an additional guarantee for the trustworthiness
of the tradition derived from his great work. The
following 4 are the passages which seem to contain the
fullest and most accurate account of what he had to
say on the central feature of the system :

years plays no part in Apollodoros's calculations. It will be seen, however,
from Jacoby, pp. 39 sqq. , that there is some reason for believing he made
use of the generation of 33 J years.

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

2 Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, 13.

3 On these monographs see Dox. p. 103.

4 See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in Dox. p. 135.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 77

Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been
an associate of Anaximander, said, like him, that the under-
lying substance was one and infinite. He .did not, however,
say it was indeterminate, like Anaximander, but determinate ;
for he said it was Air. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

From it, he said, the things that are, and have been, and
shall be, the gods and things divine, took their rise, while
other things come from its offspring. Hipp. Ref. i. 7
(R. P. 28).

" Just as," he said, " our soul, being air, holds us together,
so do breath and air encompass the whole world." Act. i. 3,
4 (R. P. 24).

And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most
even, it is invisible to our sight ; but cold and heat, moisture
and motion, make it visible. It is always in motion ; for, if
it were not, it would not change so much as it does. Hipp.
Ref. i. 7 (R. P. 28).

It differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction
and condensation. Phys. Op. fr. 2 (R. P. 26).

When it is dilated so as to be rarer, it becomes fire ; while
winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed
from Air by felting; 1 and this, still further condensed,
becomes water. Water, condensed still more, turns to earth ;
and when condensed as much as it can be, to stones. Hipp.
Ref. \. 7 (R. P. 2 8). 2

26. At the first glance, this undoubtedly looks like Rarefaction

/- 11 rr> r- /'IT- /-A ar >d condensa-

a falling oft from the more refined doctrine of Anaxi- t i on .
mander to a cruder view ; but a moment's reflexion will
show that this is not altogether the case. On the
contrary, the introduction of rarefaction and condensa-
tion into the theory is a notable advance. 3 In fact, it

1 "Felting" (TT/XTJCTIS) is the regular term for this process with all the
early cosmologists, from whom Plato has taken it (Tim. 58 b 4 ; 76 c 3).

2 A more condensed form of the same doxographical tradition is given
by Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 3 (R. P. 25).

3 Simplicius, Phys. p. 149, 32 (R. P. 26 b), says, according to the MSS.,
that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the case of
Anaximenes alone. We must either suppose with Zeller (p. 193, n. 2) that

78 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

makes the Milesian cosmology thoroughly consistent
for the first time ; since it is clear that a theory which
explains everything by the transformations of a single
substance is bound to regard all differences as purely
quantitative. % The infinite substance of Anaximander,
from which the opposites " in it " are " separated out,"
cannot, strictly speaking, be thought of as homogeneous,
and the only way to save the unity of the primary
substance is to say that all diversities are due to the
presence of more or less of it in a given space. And
when once this important step has been taken, it is no
longer necessary to make the primary substance some-
thing "distinct from the elements," to use Aristotle's
inaccurate but convenient phrase ; it may just as well
be one of them.

Air. 27. The air that Anaximenes speaks of includes a
good deal that we should not call by that name. In
its normal condition, when most evenly distributed, it is
invisible, and it then corresponds to our " air " ; it is
identical with the breath we inhale and the wind that
blows. That is why he called it irvev^a. On the
other hand, the old idea, familiar to us in Homer, that
mist or vapour is condensed air, is still accepted with-
out question. In other words, we may say that Anaxi-
menes supposed it to be a good deal easier to get liquid
air than it has since proved to be. It was Empedokles,
we shall see, who first discovered that what we call air
was a distinct corporeal substance, and was not identical
either with vapour or with empty space. In the earlier
cosmologists " air " is always a form of vapour, and

this means "alone among the oldest lonians" or read irp&rov for pbvov
with Usener. The regular terms are TrtiKvuffis and clpcu'uxrts or /j,dvii)ffis.
Plutarch, de prim. frig. 947 f (R. P. 27), says that Anaximenes used the
term rb aAaoi' for the rarefied air.

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 79

even darkness is a form of it. It was Empedokles who
cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is a
shadow. 1 ^/

It was natural for Anaximenes to fix upon Air in
this sense as the primary substance ; for, in the system
of Anaximander, it occupied an intermediate place
between the two fundamental opposites, the sphere of
flame and the cold, moist mass within it ( 19). We
know from Plutarch that he fancied air became warmer
when rarefied, and colder when condensed. Of this
he satisfied himself by a curious experimental proof.
When we breathe with our mouths open, the air is
warm ; when we breathe with our lips closed, it
is cold. 2

2 8. This argument from human breathing brings us The world
to an important point in the theory of Anaximenes,
which is attested by the single fragment that has come
down to us. 3 "Just as our soul, being air, holds us
together, so do breath and air encompass the whole
world." The primary substance bears the same relation
to the life of the world as to that of man. Now this,
we shall see, was the Pythagorean view ; 4 and it is also
an early instance of the argument from the microcosm
to the macrocosm, and so marks the first beginnings of

an interest in physiological matters. ^

1 For the meaning of a-fjp in Homer, see Schmidt, Synonomik, 35 ; and
for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, llepl atpwv, vddruv, r6iruv, 15,
a-fjp re 7roXi>s /carpet TTJV x^P 7 ?" &*& v vddTwv. Plato is still conscious of
the old meaning of the word ; for he makes Timaios say dfyos (ytvi)) ri> i^v
evay^aTarov TrlK\r)i> ai6r]p /caXo^/ac^oj, 6 5 OoXepwraros 6/i/x^ 7 ? Ka ^ ^KiSroj
( Tim. 58 d). The view given in the text has been criticised by Tannery,
" Une nouvelle hypothese sur Anaximandre" (Arch. viii. pp. 443 sqq.), and
I have slightly altered my expression of it to meet these criticisms. The
point is of fundamental importance, as we shall see, for the interpretation
of Pythagoreanism. 2 Plut. de prim* frig. 947 f (R. P. 27).

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

8o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The parts of 2 9. We turn now to the doxographical tradition
concerning the formation of the world and its parts :

He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came
into being. It is very broad and is accordingly supported by
the air. Ps.-Plut. Strom, fr. 3 (R. P. 25).

In the same way the sun and the moon and the other
heavenly bodies, which are of a fiery nature, are supported by
the air because of their breadth. The heavenly bodies were
produced from the earth by moisture rising from it. When
this is rarefied, fire comes into being, and the stars are com-
posed of the fire thus raised aloft. There were also bodies of
earthy substance in the region of the stars, revolving along
with them. And he says that the heavenly bodies do not move
under the earth, as others suppose, but round it, as a cap turns
round our head. The sun is hidden from sight, not because it
goes under the earth, but because it is concealed by the higher
parts of the earth, and because its distance from us becomes
greater. The stars give no heat because of the greatness of
their distance. Hipp. Ref. i. 7, 4-6 (R. P. 28).

Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes
along under propulsion ; but when it is concentrated and
thickened still more, clouds are generated ; and, lastly, it turns
to water. 1 Hipp. Ref. i. 7, 7 (Dox. p 561).

The stars are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the
heavens. Aet. ii. 14, 3 (Dox. p. 344).

They do not go under the earth, but turn round it. Ib.
1 6, 6 (Dox. p. 346).

The sun is fiery. Ib. 20, 2 (Dox. p. 348).

It is broad like a leaf. Ib. 22, i (Dox. p. 352).

The heavenly bodies are diverted from their courses by the
resistance of compressed air. Ib. 23, i (Dox. p. 352).

The moon is of fire. Ib. 25, 2 (Dox. p. 356).

Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding
as an illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which
flashes when divided by the oars. Ib. iii. 3, 2 (Dox. p. 368).

1 The text is very corrupt here. I retain e/cTreTrv/ci'aj/ieVos, because we
are told above that winds are condensed air, and I adopt Zeller's dpai$
(p. 246, n. i).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 81

Hail is produced when water freezes in falling; snow,
when there is some air imprisoned in the water. Act. iil 4, i
(Dox. p. 370).

The rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on
thick condensed air. Hence the anterior part of it seems red,
being burnt by the sun's rays, while the other part is dark,
owing to the predominance of moisture. And he says that a
rainbow is produced at night by the moon, but not often,
because there is not constantly a full moon, and because the
moon's light is weaker than that of the sun. Schol. Arat. 1
(Dox. p. 231).

The earth was like a table in shape. Aet. iii. 10, 3 (Dox.

P- 377).

The cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of
the earth, occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.
Id. 15, 3 (Dox. p. 379).

We have seen that Anaximenes was quite justified in
going back to Thales in regard to his general theory of
the primary substance ; but it cannot be denied that
the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was
unfortunate. The earth is once more imagined as a
table-like disc floating upon the air. The sun, moon,
and planets are also fiery discs which float on the air
"like leaves." It follows that the heavenly bodies
cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night,
but only as going round it laterally like a cap or a
millstone. 2 This curious view is also mentioned in
Aristotle's Meteorology? where the elevation of the
northern parts of the earth, which makes it possible for

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

2 Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like that
of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel. Diels (Dox. p.
46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively.
They come, of course, from Aetios (Appendix, 10), though they are
given neither by Stobaios nor in the Placita.

3 B, i. 354 a 28 (R. P. 28 c).

82 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight, is referred
to. In fact, whereas Anaximander had regarded the
orbits of the sun, moon, and stars as oblique with
reference to the earth, Anaximenes regarded the earth
itself as inclined. The only real advance is the
distinction of the planets, which float freely in the
air, from the fixed stars, which are fastened to the
" crystalline " vault of the sky. 1

The earthy bodies, which circulate among the
planets, are doubtless intended to account for eclipses
and the phases of the moon. 2

innumerable $o. As might be expected, there is the same
difficulty about the " innumerable worlds " ascribed to
Anaximenes as about those of Anaximander, and most
of the arguments given above ( 1 8) apply here also.
The evidence, however, is far less satisfactory. Cicero
says that Anaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds
that it came into being. 3 That there is some confusion
here is obvious. Air, as the primary substance, is
certainly eternal, and it is qui4wlikely that Anaximenes
called it " divine," as Anaximander did the Boundless ;
but it is certain that he also spoke of gods who came
into being and passed away. These arose, he said, from
the air. This is expressly stated by Hippolytos, 4 and
also by St. Augustine. 5 These gods are probably to

1 We do not know how Anaximenes imagined the " crystalline " sky.
It is probable that he used the word -n-dyos as Empedokles did. Cf. Chap.

V. 112.

2 See Tannery, Science hellene, p. 153. For the precisely similar bodies
assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. 135. See further Chap.
VII. 151.

3 Cic. de nat. D. i. 26 (R. P. 28 b). On what follows see Krische,
Forschungen, pp. 52 sqq.

4 Hipp. Ref. i. 7, i (R. P. 28).

5 Aug. de civ. D. viii. 2 : " Anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinite
ae'ri dedit : nee deos negavit aut tacuit ; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum,
sed ipsos ex acre ortos credidit " (R. P. 28 b).

THE MILESIAN SCHOOL 83

be explained like Anaximander's. Simplicius, indeed,
takes another view ; l but he may have been misled
by a Stoic authority.

31. It is not quite easy for us to realise that, influence of
in the eyes of his contemporaries, and for long after,
Anaximenes was a much more important figure than
Anaximander. And yet the fact is certain. We shall
see that Pythagoras, though he followed Anaximander
in his account of the heavenly bodies, was far more
indebted to Anaximenes for his general theory of
reality ( 53). We shall see further that when, at a
later date, science revived once more in Ionia, it
was " the philosophy of Anaximenes " to which it
attached itself ( 122). Anaxagoras adopted many of
his most characteristic views ( 135), and some of them
even found their way into the cosmology of the
Atomists. 2 Diogenes of Apollonia went back to the
central doctrine of Anaximenes, and once more made
Air the primary substance, though he also tried to
combine it with the theories of Anaxagoras ( 188).
We shall come to all this later on ; but it seemed
desirable to point out at once that Anaximenes marks
the culminating point of the line of thought which

1 Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12 (R. P. 28 a). The passage from the Placita is
of higher authority than this from Simplicius. Note, further, that it is only
to Anaximenes, Herakleitos, and Diogenes that successive worlds are
ascribed even here. With regard to Anaximander, Simplicius is quite
clear. For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see Chap. III. 78 ; and for
Diogenes, Chap. X. 188. That Simplicius is following a Stoic authority
is suggested by the words /cat tiffrepov ol dirb TTJS STOOJ. Cn-sHso Simpl.
tie Caelo, p. 202, 13.

2 In particular, the authority of Anaximenes was so great that both
Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth. Cf.
Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 (Ucpi ffxt/J-aros 777$), 'Avatiptriis rpaire^ofidfj (TTJF yrjv).
ACIV/CITTTTOJ Tvinravoeidij. ArjfjidKpiTOS diffKBtiSi) ptv T$ ir\aT, KoiXrjv W
T ptfffp. This, in spite of the fact thaW the spherical form of the earth
was already a commonplace in circles affected by Pythagoreanism.

84 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

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

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

t
32. So far we have not met with any trace of direct Migrations to

antagonism between science and popular beliefs, though
the views of the Milesian cosmologists were really as
inconsistent with the religions of the people as with
the mythology of the anthropomorphic poets. 1 Two
things hastened the conflict the shifting of the 'scene
to the West, and the religious revival which swept over
Hellas in the sixth century B.C.

The chief figures in the philosophical history of the
period were Pythagoras of Samos and Xenophanes of
Kolophon. Both were lonians by birth, and yet both
spent the greater part of their lives in the West. We
see from Herodotos how the Persian advance in Asia
Minor occasioned a series of migrations to Sicily and
Southern Italy ; 2 and this, of course, made a great
difference to philosophy as well as to religion. The
new views had probably grown up so naturally and
gradually in Ionia that the shock of conflict and
reaction was avoided ; but that could no longer be so,
when they were transplanted to a region where men
were wholly unprepared to receive them.

1 For the theological views of Anaximander and Anaximenes, see
22 and 30.

- Cf. Herod, i. 170 (advice of Bias) ; vi. 22 sqq. (Kale Akte).

86 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Another, though a somewhat later, effect of these
migrations was to bring Science into contact with
Rhetoric, one of the most characteristic products of
Western Hellas. Already in Parmenides we may note
the presence of that dialectical and controversial spirit
which was destined to have so great an influence on
Greek thought, and it was just this fusion of the art of
arguing for victory with the search for truth that
before long gave birth to Logic.

The religious 33 Most important of all in its influence on
philosophy was the religious revival which culminated
about this time. The religion of continental Hellas
had developed in a very different way from that of
Ionia. In particular, the worship of Dionysos, which
came from Thrace, and is barely mentioned in Homer,
contained in germ a wholly new way of looking at
man's relation to the world. It would certainly be
wrong to credit the Thracians themselves with any
very exalted views ; but there can be no doubt that, to
the Greeks, the phenomenon of ecstasy suggested that
the soul was something more than a feeble double of
the self, and that it was only when " out of the body "
it could show its true nature. 1 To a less extent, such
ideas were also suggested by the worship of Demeter,
whose mysteries were celebrated at Eleusis ; though, in
later days, these came to take the leading place in
men's minds. That was because they were incorporated
in the public religion of Athens.

Before the time with which we are dealing, tradition
shows us dimly an age of inspired prophets Bakides

1 On all this, see Rohde, Psyche, pp. 327 sqq. It is probable that he
exaggerated the degree to which these ideas were already developed among
the Thracians, but the essential connexion of the new view of the soul with
Northern worships is confirmed by the tradition over and over again.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 87

and Sibyls followed by one of strange medicine-men
like Abaris and Aristeas of Prokonnesos. With
Epimenides of Crete, we touch the fringe of history,
while Pherekydes of Syros is the contemporary of the
early cosmologists, and we still have some fragments
of his discourse. It looked as if Greek religion were
about to enter upon the same stage as that already
reached by the religions of the East ; and, but for the
rise of science, it is hard to see what could have checked
this tendency. It is usual to say that the Greeks were
saved from a religion of the Oriental type by their
having no priesthood ; but this is to mistake the effect
for the cause. Priesthoods do not make dogmas,
though they preserve them once they are made ; and
in the earlier stages of their development, the Oriental
peoples had no priesthoods either in the sense intended. 1
It was not so much the absence of a priesthood as the
existence of the scientific schools that saved Greece.

34. The new religion for in one sense it was new, The Orphic
though in another as old as mankind reached its re
highest point of development with the foundation of
the Orphic communities.- So far as we can see, the
original home of these was Attika ; but they spread
with extraordinary rapidity, especially in Southern
Italy and Sicily. 2 They were first of all associations
for the worship of Dionysos ; but they were dis-
tinguished by two features which were new among the
Hellenes. They looked to a revelation as the source

1 See Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 461. The exaggerated role
often attributed to priesthoods is a survival of French eighteenth century
thinking.

2 See E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 453 -460, who rightly
emphasises the fact that the Orphic theogony is the continuation of
Hesiod's work. As we have seen, some of it is even older than
Hesiod.

88 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of religious authority, and they were organised as
artificial communities. The poems which contained
their theology were ascribed to the Thracian Orpheus,\/
who had himself descended into Hades, and was
therefore a safe guide through the, perils which beset
the disembodied soul in the next world. We have
considerable remains of this literature, but they are
mostly of late date, and cannot safely be used as
evidence for the beliefs of the sixth century. We do
know, however, that the leading ideas of Orphicism
were quite early. A number of thin gold plates with
Orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered
in Southern Italy ; l and though these are somewhat
later in date than the period with which we are
dealing, they belong to the time when Orphicism was
a living creed and not a fantastic revival. What can
be made out from them as to the doctrine has a
startling resemblance to the beliefs which were
prevalent in India about the same time, though it
seems impossible that there should have been any
actual contact between India and Greece at this date.
The main purpose of the Orgia 2 was to " purify " the
believer's soul, and so enable it to escape from the
" wheel of birth," and it was for the better attainment of
this end that the Orphics were organised in communities.
Religious associations must have been known to the
Greeks from a fairly early date ; 3 but the oldest of

1 For the gold plates of Thourioi and Petelia, see the Appendix to Miss
Harrison's Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, where the text of
them is discussed and a translation given by Professor Gilbert Murray.

2 This was the oldest name for these '"' mysteries," and it simply means
"sacraments" (cf. Zopya). Orgia are not necessarily " orgiastic." That
association of ideas merely comes from the fact that they belonged to the
worship of Dionysos.

3 Herodotos mentions that Isagoras and those of his 76/05 worshipped

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 89

these were based, at least in theory, on the tie of
kindred blood. What was new was the institution of
communities to which any one might be admitted by
initiation. 1 This was, in fact, the establishment of
churches, though there is no evidence that these were
connected with each other in such a way that we
could rightly speak of them as a single church. The
Pythagoreans came nearer to realising that.

35. We have to take account of the religious Philosophy as
revival here, chiefly because it suggested the view that a
philosophy was above all a " way of life." Science too
was a " purification," a means of escape from the
" wheel." This is the view expressed so strongly in
Plato's Phaedo, which was written under the influence
of Pythagorean ideas. 2 Sokrates became to his
followers the ideal " wise man," and it was to this side
of his personality the Cynics mainly attached themselves.
From them proceeded the Stoic sage and the Christian
saint, and also the whole brood of impostors whom
Lucian has pilloried for our edification. 8 Saints and
sages are apt to appear in questionable shapes, and

the Karian Zeus (v. 66), and it is probable that the Orgeones attached by
Kleisthenes to the Attic phratriai were associations of this kind. See
Foucart, Les associations religieuses chez les Grecs.

1 A striking parallel is afforded to all this by what we are told in
Robertson Smith's Religion of the Semites, p. 339. " The leading feature
that distinguished them" (the Semitic mysteries of the seventh century
B.C.) "from the old public cults with which they came into competition, is
that they were not based on the principle of nationality, but sought
recruits from men of every race who were willing to accept initiation
through the mystic sacraments."

2 The Phaedo is dedicated, as it were, to Echekrates and the
Pythagorean society at Phleious, and it is evident that Plato in his youth
was impressed by the religious side of Pythagoreanism, though the
influence of Pythagorean science is not clearly marked till a later period.
Note specially the &Tpairos of Phd. 66 b 4. In Rep. x. 600 b I, Plato
speaks of Pythagoras as the originator of a private 6Ws TU fitov.

3 Cf. especially the point of view of the Auction of Lives (Btwt vpavu).

9 o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Apollonios of Tyana showed in the end where this
view may lead. It was not wholly absent from any
Greek philosophy after the days of Pythagoras.
Aristotle is as much possessed by it as any one, as we
may see from the Tenth Book of the Ethics, and as we
should see still more distinctly if we possessed such
works as the Protreptikos in their entirety. 1 Plato,
indeed, tried to make the ideal wise man of service to
the state and mankind by his doctrine of the philosopher
king. It was he alone, so far as we know, that
insisted on philosophers descending by turns into the
cave from which they had been released and coming
to the help of their former fellow-prisoners. 2 That was
not, however, the view that prevailed, and the " wise
man " became more and more detached from the
world. Apollonios of Tyana was quite entitled to
regard himself as the spiritual heir of Pythagoras ; for
the theurgy and thaumaturgy of the late Greek schools
was but the fruit of the seed sown in the generation
before the Persian Wars.

3 6. On the other hand, it would be wrong to
su PP s e that Orphicism or the Mysteries suggested any
definite doctrines to philosophers, at least during the
period which we are about to consider. We have
admitted that they really implied a new view of the
soul, and we might therefore have expected to find
that they profoundly modified men's theory of the
world and their relation to it. The striking thing is

1 For the UpoTpetrTiicds of Aristotle, see Bywater in J. Phil. ii. p. 55 ;
Diels in Arch. i. p. 477 ; and the notes on Ethics, i. 5, in my edition.

2 Plato, Rep. 520 c I, KaTafiartov o$v tv ^pet. The allegory of the
Cave seems to be Orphic, and I believe Professor Stewart's suggestion
(Myths of Plato, p. 252, n. 2), that Plato had the /carci/Sacris els "Aidov in
mind, to be quite justified. The idea of rescuing the "spirits in prison"
is thoroughly Orphic.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 91

that this did not happen. Even those philosophers
who were most closely in touch with the religious
movement, like Empedokles and the Pythagoreans,
held views about the soul which really contradicted
the theory implied by their religious practices. 1 There
is no room for an immortal soul in any philosophy of
this period. Up to Plato's time immortality was
never treated in a scientific way, but merely assumed
in the Orphic rites, to which Plato half seriously turns
for confirmation of his own teaching. 2

All this is easily accounted for. With us a
religious revival generally means the vivid realisation
of a new or forgotten doctrine, while ancient religion
has properly no doctrine at all. "The initiated,"
Aristotle said, " were not expected to learn anything,
but merely to be affected in a certain way and put
into a certain frame of mind." 3 Nothing was required
but that the ritual should be correctly performed, and
the worshipper was free to give any explanation of
it he pleased. It might be as exalted as that of
Pindar and Sophokles, or as material as that of the
itinerant mystery-mongers described by Plato in the
Republic. The essential thing was that he should
duly sacrifice his pig.

I. PYTHAGORAS OF SAMOS
37. It is no easy task to give an account of Pytha- Character ot

J the tradition.

goras that can claim to be regarded as history. Our

1 For Empedokles, see 119 ; for the Pythagoreans, see 149.

- Cf. Phd. 69 C 2, Kal Kivdvvevovfft Kal oi rds reXerdj four o&roi
KaTao-nrjcravTes ov <f>av\oi rivet clvai, d\\a r<$ 6vrt ird\ai ali>lTTc<r0at
K.T.X. The gentle irony of this and similar passages ought to be
unmistakable.

3 Arist. fr. 45, 1483 a 19, rows TeXovptvovs ov /iafletV TI 5r, dXXd
l diaredfjvai.

92 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

principal sources of information l are the Lives com-
posed by lamblichos, Porphyry, and Laertios Diogenes.
That of lamblichos is a wretched compilation, based
chiefly on the work of the arithmetician Nikomachos
of Gerasa in Judaea, and the romance of Apollonios
of Tyana, who regarded himself as a second Pythagoras,
and accordingly took great liberties with his materials. 2
Porphyry stands, as a writer, on a far higher level than
lamblichos ; but his authorities do not inspire us with
more confidence. He, too, made use of Nikomachos,
and of a certain novelist called Antonius Diogenes,
author of a work entitled Marvels from beyond Thule?
Diogenes quotes, as usual, a considerable number of
authorities, and the statements he makes must be
estimated according to the nature of the sources from
which they were drawn. 4 So far, it must be con-
fessed, our material does not seem promising. Further
examination shows, however, that a good many
fragments of two much older authorities, Aristoxenos
and Dikaiarchos, are embedded in the mass. These
writers were both disciples of Aristotle; they were
natives of Southern Italy, and contemporary with the
last generation of the Pythagorean school. Both

1 See E. Rohde's admirable papers, " Die Quellen des lamblichus in
seiner Biographic des Pythagoras" (Rh, Mtis. xxvi., xxvii.).

2 lamblichos was a disciple of Porphyry, and contemporary with
Constantine. The Life of Pythagoras has been edited by Nauck (1884).
Nikomachos belongs to the beginning of the second century A. D. There is
no evidence that he added anything to the authorities he followed, but these
were already vitiated by Neopythagorean fables. Still, it is to him \ve
chiefly owe the preservation of the valuable evidence of Aristoxenos.

3 Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras is the only considerable extract from his
History of Philosophy, in four books, that has survived. The romance of
Antonius is the original parodied by Lucian in his Vera Historia.

4 The importance of the life in Laertios Diogenes lies in the fact that
it gives us the story current at Alexandria before the rise of Neopytha-
goreanism and the promulgation of the gospel according to Apollonios
of Tyana.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 93

wrote accounts of Pythagoras ; and Aristoxenos, who
was personally intimate with the last representatives
of scientific Pythagoreanism, also made a collection
of the sayings of his friends. Now the Neopythagorean
story, as we have it in lamblichos, is a tissue of
incredible and fantastic myths ; but, if we sift out
the statements which go back to Aristoxenos and
Dikaiarchos, we can easily construct a rational narrative,
in which Pythagoras appears not as a miracle-monger
and religious innovator, but simply as a moralist and
statesman. We might then be tempted to suppose
that this is the genuine tradition ; but that would be
altogether a mistake. There is, in fact, a third and
still earlier stratum in the Lives, and this agrees with
the latest accounts in representing Pythagoras as a
wonder-worker and a religious reformer.

Some of the most striking miracles of Pythagoras
are related on the authority of Andron's Tripod, and
of Aristotle's work on the Pythagoreans. 1 Both these
treatises belong to the fourth century B.C., and
are therefore untouched by Neopythagorean fancies.
Further, it is only by assuming the still earlier
existence of this view that we can explain the allusions
of Herodotos. The Hellespontine Greeks told him
that Salmoxis or Zamolxis had been a slave of
Pythagoras, 2 and Salmoxis is a figure of the same
class as Abaris and Aristeas.

1 Andron of Ephesos wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, called
The Tripod, in allusion to the well-known story. The feats ascribed to
Pythagoras in the Aristotelian treatise remind us of an ecclesiastical legend.
For example, he kills a deadly snake by biting it ; he was seen at Kroton
and Metapontion at the same time; he exhibited his golden thigh at
Olympia, and was addressed by a voice from heaven when crossing the
river Kasas. The same authority stated that he was identified by the
Krotoniates with Apollo Hyperboreios (Arist. fr. 186).

a Herod, iv. 95.

94 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It seems, then, that both the oldest and the latest
accounts agree in representing Pythagoras as a man
of the class to which Epimenides and Onomakritos
belonged in fact, as a sort of " medicine-man " ; but,
for some reason, there was an attempt to save his
memory from this imputation, and that attempt
belonged to the fourth century B.C. The significance
of this will appear in the sequel.

38. We may be said to know for certain that
Pythagoras passed his early manhood at Samos, and
was the son of Mnesarchos ; * and he " flourished," we
are told, in the reign of Polykrates. 2 This date
cannot be far wrong ; for Herakleitos already speaks
of him in the past tense. 3

The extensive travels attributed to Pythagoras by
late writers are, of course, apocryphal. Even the
statement that he visited Egypt, though far from
improbable if we consider the close relations between
Polykrates of Samos and Amasis, rests on no sufficient
authority. 4 Herodotos, it is true, observes that the

1 Cf. Herod, iv. 95, and Herakleitos, fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). Herodotos
represents him as living at Samos. On the other hand, Aristoxenos said
that he came from one of the islands which the Athenians occupied after
expelling the Tyrrhenians (Diog. viii. i). This suggests Lemnos, from
which the Tyrrhenian " Pelasgians " were expelled by Miltiades (Herod, vi.
140), or possibly some other island which was occupied at the same time.
There were also Tyrrhenians at Imbros. This explains the story that he
was an Etrurian or a Tyrian. Other accounts bring him into connexion
with Phleious, but that is perhaps a pious invention of the Pythagorean
society which flourished there at the beginning of the fourth century B.C.
Pausanias (ii. 13, i) gives it as a Phleiasian tradition that Hippasos, the
great-grandfather of Pythagoras, had emigrated from Phleious to Samos.

2 Eratosthenes identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor of Ol.
XLVIII. i (588/7 B.C.), but Apollodoros gave \i\sfloruit as 532/1, the era
of Polykrates. He doubtless based this on the statement of Aristoxenos
quoted by Porphyry ( V. Pyth. 9), that Pythagoras left Samos from dislike
to the tyranny of Polykrates (R. P. 53 a). For a full discussion, see Jacoby,
pp. 215 sqq. 3 Herakl. fr. 16, 17 (R. P. 31, 31 a).

4 It occurs first in the Bousiris of Isokrates, 28 (R. P. 52).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 95

Egyptians agreed in certain practices with the rules
called Orphic and Bacchic, which are really Egyptian,
and with the Pythagoreans ; J but this does not imply
that the Pythagoreans derived these directly from
Egypt. He says also in another place that the belief
in transmigration came from Egypt, though certain
Greeks, both at an earlier and a later date, had passed
it off as their own. He refuses, however, to give their
names, so he can hardly be referring to Pythagoras. 2
Nor does it matter ; for the Egyptians did not believe
in transmigration at all, and Herodotos was simply
deceived by the priests or the symbolism of the
monuments.

Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras left Samos in
order to escape from the tyranny of Polykrates. 3 It
was at Kroton, a city already famous for its medical
school, 4 that he founded his society. How long he
remained there we do not know ; he died at Meta-
pontion, whither he had retired on the first signal of
revolt against his influence. 5

1 Herod, ii. 81 (R. P. 52 a). The comma at Ai-yvTrrtWi is clearly right.
Herodotos believed that the worship of Dionysos was introduced from
Egypt by Melampous (ii. 49), and he means to suggest that the Orphics got
these practices from the worshippers of Bakchos, while the Pythagoreans
got them from the Orphics.

2 Herod, ii. 123 (R. P. ib.}. The words "whose names I know, but
do not write " cannot refer to Pythagoras ; for it is only of contemporaries
that Herodotos speaks in this way (cf. i. 51 ; iv. 48). Stein's suggestion that
he meant Empedokles seems to me convincing. Herodotos may have met
him at Thourioi. Nor is there any reason to suppose that ol t^v irpbrepov
refers specially to the Pythagoreans. If Herodotos had ever heard of
Pythagoras visiting Egypt, he would surely have said so in one or other of
these passages. There was no occasion for reserve, as Pythagoras must
have died before Herodotos was born.

3 Porph. V. Pyth. 9 (R. P. 53 a).

4 From what Herodotos tells us of Demokedes (iii. 131) we can see that
the medical school of Kroton was founded before the time of Pythagoras.
Cf. Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniata, p. 91.

5 It may be taken as certain that Pythagoras spent his last days at

9 6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The Order. 39. There is no reason to believe that the detailed
statements which have been handed down with regard
to the organisation of the Pythagorean Order rest upon
any historical basis, and in the case of many of them
we can still see how they came to be made. The
distinction of grades within the Order, variously called
Mathematicians and Akousmatics, Esoterics and Exoterics,
Pythagoreans and Pythagorists^ is an invention designed
to explain how there came to be two widely different
sets of people, each calling themselves disciples of
Pythagoras, in the fourth century B.C. So, too, the
statement that the Pythagoreans were bound to
inviolable secrecy, which goes back to Aristoxenos, 2
is intended to explain why there is no trace of the
Pythagorean philosophy proper before Philolaos.

The Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, a
religious fraternity of the type described above, and not,
as has sometimes been maintained, a political league. 3
Nor had it anything to do with the " Dorian aristocratic

Metapontion ; Aristoxenos said so (ap. Iambi. V. Pyth. 249), and Cicero
(De Fin. v. 4) speaks of the honours which continued to be paid to his
memory in that city (R. P. 57 c). Cf. also Andron, fr. 6 (F.H.G. ii. 347).

1 For these distinctions, see Porphyry ( V. Pyth. 37) and lamblichos
( V. Pyth. 80), quoted R. P. 56 and 56 b. The name dKovoytartKot is clearly
related to the d/coi/o-^ara, with which we shall have to deal shortly ( 44).

2 For the "mystic silence," see Aristoxenos, ap. Diog. viii. 15 (R. P. 55 a).
Tannery, " Sur le secret dans 1'ecole de Pythagore" (Arch. i. pp. 28sqq.),
thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets of the school, and
that these were divulged by Hippasos ; but the most reasonable view is
that there were no secrets at all except of a ritual kind.

3 Plato, Rep. x. 600 a, implies that Pythagoras held, no public office.
The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, maintained in
modern times by Krische (De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo politico,
1830), goes back, as Rohde has shown (loc. cif.), to Dikaiarchos, the
champion of the " Practical Life," just as the view that it was primarily a
scientific society goes back to the mathematician and musician Aristoxenos.
The former antedated Archytas, just as the latter antedated Philolaos (see
Chap. VII. 138). Grote's good sense enabled him to see this quite clearly
(vol. iv. pp. 329 sqq.).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 97

ideal." Pythagoras was an Ionian, and the Order was
originally confined to Achaian states. 1 Nor is there the
slightest evidence that the Pythagoreans favoured the
aristocratic rather than the democratic party. 2 The
main purpose of the Order was to secure for its own
members a more adequate satisfaction of the religious
instinct than that supplied by the State religion. It
was, in fact, an institution for the cultivation of holi-
ness. In this respect it resembled an Orphic society,
though it seems that Apollo, rather than Dionysos,
was the chief Pythagorean god. That is doubtless
why the Krotojiiates identified Pythagoras with Apollo
Hyperboreios. 3 From the nature of the case, however,
an independent society within a Greek state was apt
to be brought into conflict with the larger body. The

1 Meyer, Gesch, des Alterth. ii. 502, Anm. It is still necessary
to insist upon this, as the idea that the Pythagoreans represented the
"Dorian ideal" dies very hard. In his Kulturhistorische Beitrdge (Heft
i- P- 59)> Max C. P. Schmidt imagines that later writers call the founder
of the sect Pythagoras instead of Pythagores, as he is called by Herakleitos
and Demokritos, because he had become "a Dorian of the Dorians."
The fact is simply that Hvdaybpas is the Attic form of H.vda.'ybpris, and
that the writers in question wrote Attic. Similarly, Plato calls Archytas,
who did belong to a Dorian state, Archytes, though Aristoxenos and others
retained the Dorian form of his name.

2 Kylon, the chief opponent ot the Pythagoreans, is described by
Aristoxenos (Iambi. V. Pyth. 248) as ytvei /cal 56fl KOLL TrXot/ry irpureijuv
TU>I> TroXiTwi'. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans, was a
democracy. The truth is that, at this time, the new religion appealed to
the people rather than the aristocracies, which were apt to be " free-
thinking" (Meyer, Gesch. des Alt. iii. 252). Xenophanes, not Pyth-
agoras, is their man.

3 We have the authority of Aristotle, fr. 186, 1510 b 20, for the identifica-
tion of Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios. The names of Abaris and
Aristeas stand for a mystical movement parallel to the Orphic, but based
on the worship of Apollo. The later tradition makes them predecessors of
Pythagoras ; and that this has some historical basis, appears from Herod,
iv. 13 sqq., and above all from the statement that Aristeas had a statue at
Metapontion, where Pythagoras died. The connexion of Pythagoras with
Zamolxis belongs to the same order of ideas. As the legend of the Hyper-
boreans is Delian, we see that the religion taught by Pythagoras was
genuinely Ionian in its origin.

98 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

only way in which it could then assert its right to
exist was by identifying the State with itself, that is,
by securing the control of the sovereign power. The
history of the Pythagorean Order, so far as it can be
traced, is, accordingly, the history of an attempt to
supersede the State ; and its political action is to be
explained as a mere incident of that attempt.
Downfall of 4-0. For a time the new Order seems actually to
' have succeeded in securing the supreme power, but
reaction came at last. Under the leadership of Kylon,
a wealthy noble, Kroton was able to assert itself
victoriously against the Pythagorean domination. This,
we may well believe, had been galling enough. The
" rule of the saints " would be nothing to it ; and we
can still imagine and sympathise with the irritation felt
by the plain man of those days at having his legislation
done for him by a set of incomprehensible pedants, who
made a point of abstaining from beans, and would not
let him beat his own dog because they recognised in
its howls the voice of a departed friend '(Xenophanes,
fr. 7). This feeling would be aggravated by the private
religious worship of the Society. Greek states could
never pardon the introduction of new gods. Their
objection to this was not, however, that the gods in
question were false gods. If they had been, it would
not have mattered so much. What they could not
tolerate was that any one should establish a private
means of communication between himself and the
unseen powers. That introduced an unknown and
incalculable element into the arrangements of the
State, which might very likely be hostile to those citizens
who had no means of propitiating the intruding divinity.
Aristoxenos's version of the events which led to the

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 99

downfall of the Pythagorean Order is given at length
by lamblichos. According to this, Pythagoras had
refused to receive Kylon into his Society, and he there- Y
fore became a bitter foe of the Order. From this
cause Pythagoras removed from Kroton to Metapontion,
where he died. The Pythagoreans, however, still
retained possession of the government of Kroton, till
at last the partisans of Kylon set fire to Milo's house,
where they were assembled. Of those in the house
only two, Archippos and Lysis, escaped. Archippos
retired to Taras ; Lysis, first to Achaia and then to
Thebes, where he became later on the teacher of
Epameinondas. The Pythagoreans who remained
concentrated themselves at Rhegion ; but, as things went
from bad to worse, they all left Italy except Archippos. 1 ^

This account has all the air of being historical.
The mention of Lysis proves, however, that those
events were spread over more than one generation.
The coup d'etat of Kroton can hardly have occurred
before 450 B.C., if the teacher of Epameinondas
escaped from it, and it may well have been even later.
But it must have been before 410 B.C. that the
Pythagoreans left Rhegion for Hellas ; Philolaos was
certainly at Thebes about that time. 2

1 See Rohde, Rh. Mus. xxvi. p. 565, n. I. The narrative in the text
(Iambi. V. Pyth. 250 ; R. P. 59 b) 'goes back to Aristoxenos and
Dikaiarchos (R. P. 59 a). There is no reason to suppose that their view of
Pythagoras has vitiated their account of what must have been a perfectly
well-known piece of history. According to the later story, Pythagoras
himself was burned to death in the house of Milo, along with his disciples.
This is merely a dramatic compression of the whole series of events into a
single scene ; we have seen that Pythagoras died at Metapontion before the
final catastrophe. The valuable reference in Polybios ii. 39 (R. P. 59) to
.the burning of Pythagorean <rwt8pia certainly implies that the disturbances
-went on for a very considerable time.

2 Plato, Phd. 61 d 7, e 7.

zoo EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The political power of the Pythagoreans as an
Order was now gone for ever, though we shall see that
some of them returned to Italy at a later date. In
exile they seem to have dropped the merely magical
and superstitious parts of their system, and this enabled
them to take their place as one of the scientific schools
of Hellas.

want of 41. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even

the teaching of less than of his life. Aristotle clearly knew nothing
:hagoras. f or certa j n o f ethical or physical doctrines going back
to the founder of the Society himself. 1 Aristoxenos
only gave a string of moral precepts. 2 Dikaiarchos is
quoted by Porphyry as asserting that hardly anything
of what Pythagoras taught his disciples was known
except the doctrine of transmigration, the periodic
cycle, and the kinship of all living creatures. 3 The
fact is, that, like all teachers who introduce a new way
of living rather than a new view of the world, Pythagoras
preferred oral instruction to the dissemination of his
opinions by writing, and it was not till Alexandrian
times that any one ventured to forge books in his

1 When discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers it to
" the Pythagoreans," not to Pythagoras himself. That this was intentional
seems to be proved by the phrase ol ica\oij/u.et>oi. Hv6ay6peLOi, which occurs
more than once (e.g. Met. A, 5. 985 b 23 ; de Caelo, B, 13. 293 a 20).
Pythagoras himself is only thrice mentioned in the whole Aristotelian corpus,
and in only one of these places (M. Mor. 1182 a n) is any philosophical
doctrine ascribed to him. We are told there that he was the first to discuss
the subject of goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its
various forms with numbers. But this is just one of the things which prove
the late date of the Magna Moralia. Aristotle himself is quite clear that
what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days
of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos ; for, after mentioning these,
he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as " contemporary with and earlier
than them " (iv d TOIJTOLS Kal trpb rotruv, Met. A, 5. 985 b 23).

2 The fragments of the HvdayopiKal diro^daeis of Aristoxenos are given,
by Diels, Vors. pp. 282 sqq.

3 V. Pyth. 19 (R. P. 55).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 101

name. The writings ascribed to the earliest Pytha-
goreans were also forgeries of the same period. 1 The
early history of Pythagoreanism is, therefore, wholly
conjectural ; but we may still make an attempt to
understand, in a very general way, what the position
of Pythagoras in the history of Greek thought must
have been.

42. In the first place, then, there can be no doubt Transmigra
that he really taught the doctrine of transmigration. 2
The story told by the Greeks of the Hellespont and
Pontos as to his relations with Salmoxis could never
have gained currency by the time of Herodotos if he
had not been known as a man who taught strange
views of the life after death. 3 Now the doctrine of
transmigration is most easily to be explained as a
development of the savage belief in the kinship of men
and beasts, as all alike children of the Earth, 4 a view
which Dikaiarchos said Pythagoras certainly held.
Further, among savages, this belief is commonly
associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of
food, and the Pythagorean rule is best known for its
prescription of similar forms of abstinence. This in
itself goes far to show that it originated in the same
ideas, and we have seen that the revival of these would
be quite natural in connexion with the foundation of
a new religious society. There is a further considera-

1 See Diels, Dox. p. 150; and "Ein gefalschtes Pythagorasbuch "
(Arch. iii. pp. 451 sqq.). Cf. also Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe,
n. i.

2 The proper Greek term for this is iraXiyyeveffia, and the inaccurate
/iere/Ai/'uxwcns only occurs in late writers. Hippolytos and Clement of
Alexandria say /lerei/o'aj/xdTaxris, which is accurate but cumbrous. See
Rohde, Psyche, p. 428, n. 2.

3 On the significance of this, see above, p. 93.

4 Dieterich, " Mutter Erde " (Archivfiir Religionswisscnschaft, viii. pp.
29 and 47).

102 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tion which tells strongly in the same direction. In
India we have a precisely similar doctrine, and yet it
is not possible to assume any actual borrowing of
Indian ideas at this date. The only explanation
which will account for the facts is that the two systems
were independently evolved from the same primitive
ideas. These are found in many parts of the world ;
but it seems to have been only in India and in Greece
that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine.
Abstinence. 43- It has indeed been doubted whether we have
a right to accept what we are told by such late writers
as Porphyry on the subject of Pythagorean abstinence.
Aristoxenos, whom we have admitted to be one of our
earliest witnesses, may be cited to prove that the
original Pythagoreans knew nothing of these restric-
tions on the use of animal flesh and beans. He
undoubtedly said that Pythagoras did not abstain from
animal flesh in general, but only from that of the
ploughing ox and the ram. 1 He also said that Pytha-
* goras preferred beans to every other vegetable, as being
the most laxative, and that he was partial to sucking-
pigs and tender kids. 2 Aristoxenos, however, is a witness
who very often breaks down under cross-examination,
and the palpable exaggeration of these statements
shows that he is endeavouring to combat a belief

1 Aristoxenos ap. Diog. viii. 20, Trdvra p.tv ra a\\a 0-i>7X w P e " /

t^uxa, /AOVOV 5' d,7r^xe<r#ai /Soos dpor^pos Kal Kpiov.

2 Aristoxenos ap. Cell. iv. H,-5, ILv6ay6pas 5 TUIV dvirpiwv yud\i<rra TOV
Ktiafj.ov e5oKifj.a<rv \ei.avTiK6i> re yap elvat Kal Siax^pf}TiK6v ' 5io Kal
/xaXicrra K^X/^TCU aur< ; ib. 6, " porculis quoque minusculis et haedis teneri-
oribus victitasse, idem Aristoxenus refert." It is, of course, possible that
Aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on beans. We know that it
was Orphic, and it may have been transferred to the Pythagoreans by
mistake. That, however, would not affect the general conclusion that at
least some Pythagoreans practised abstinence from various kinds of food,
which is all that is required.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 103

which existed in his own day. We are therefore able
to show, out of his own mouth, that the tradition which
made the Pythagoreans abstain from animal flesh and
beans goes back to a time long before there were any
Neopythagoreans interested in upholding it. Still, it
may be asked what motive Aristoxenos could have had
for denying the common belief ? The answer is simple
and instructive. He had been the friend of the last
of the Pythagoreans ; and, in their time, the merely
superstitious part of Pythagoreanism had been dropped,
except by some zealots whom the heads of the Society
refused to acknowledge. That is why he represents
Pythagoras himself in so different a light from both
the older and the later traditions ; it is because he
gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the
Order. Those who clung faithfully to the old practices
were now regarded as heretics, and all manner of
theories were set on foot to account for their existence.
It was related, for instance, that they descended from
one of the " Akousmatics," who had never been initiated -
into the deeper mysteries of the " Mathematicians." l
All this, however, is pure invention. The satire of the
poets of the Middle Comedy proves clearly enough
that, even though the friends of Aristoxenos did not
practise abstinence, there were plenty of people in the
fourth century, calling themselves followers of Pytha-
goras, who did. 2 History has not been kind to the

1 The sect of the "Akousmatics" was said to descend from Hippasos
(Iambi. V. Pyth. 8 1 ; R. P. 56). Now Hippasos was the author of a
Mwrrt/cds \6yos (Diog. viii. 7 ; R. P. 56 c), that is to say, of a superstitious
ceremonial or ritual handbook, probably containing Akousmata like those
we are about to consider ; for we are told that it was written <?*! 5ta/3oX]7
Hvdaybpov.

2 Diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form ( Vors. pp. 291
sqq.). For our purpose the most important passages are Antiphanes, fr. 135,

104 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Akousmatics, but they never wholly died out. The
names of Diodoros of Aspendos and Nigidius Figulus
help to bridge the gulf between them and Apollonios
of Tyana.

We know, then, that Pythagoras taught the kinship

of beasts and men, and we infer that his rule of

\ abstinence from flesh was based, not upon humanitarian

or ascetic grounds, but on taboo. This is strikingly

confirmed by a fact which we are told in Porphyry's

Defence of Abstinence. The statement in question does

not indeed go back to Theophrastos, as so much of

Porphyry's tract certainly does ; * but it is, in all

probability, due to Herakleides of Pontos, and is to the

^effect that, though the Pythagoreans did as a rule

v abstain from flesh, they nevertheless ate it when they

^ sacrificed to the gods. 2 Now, among savage peoples,

we often find that the sacred animal is slain and eaten

Kock, uKT7re/> Hvdayoplfav ecrdlei \ fy\f/vxov ovdfr ; Alexis, fr. 22O, ol ILvQayopi-
frvres ydp, u>s aKoto/j-ev, \ oflr' 6\f/ov ear6Lov<nv otir &\\' ovd v \ 2fj,i{/vxov ;
fr. 196 (from the Hvdayopifrvo-a), 17 5' e<rrla<ns tVx^Ses Kal <rr^u0iAa | Kal
rvpbs &TTCU * ravra yap dtieiv v6/j.os \ TOIS TlvBayopeiois ; Aristophon, fr. 9
(from the Hvdayopi<rT-f)s) , irpbs TUV de&v ottfteQa TOI)S TrdXai TTOT^, | TOI>S
TLvdayopiffTas yevo/j^vovs 8vT(>)5 pvirav \ eKdvras i) Qopeiv rptjSwvas ^S^ws ;
Mnesimachos, fr. I, d>s Hvdayopurrl 66oiJ.ev r<p Ao^iq. \ ?/j.\t/vxov otdtv
tadiovres Tra^reXcDs. See also Theokritos, xiv. 5, TOIOVTOS Kal irpav TIS
d(f)iKfro HvdayopiKrds, \ &XP&S /cdfU7ro5ijr6s ' 'AOyva'cos 8' ^tpar' 3)/j.ei>.

1 See Bernays, Theophrastos 1 Schrift iiber Frommigkeit. Porphyry's
tract, Hepl dTox^s tfj.\J/tx (l}V , was doubtless saved from the general destruc-
tion of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic tendencies of the age.
Even St. Jerome made constant use of it in his polemic against lovianus,
though he is careful not to mention Porphyry's name ( Theophr. Schr. n. 2).
The tract is addressed to Castricius Firmus, the disciple and friend of
Plotinos, who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the
Pythagoreans.

2 The passage occurs De Abst. p. 58, 25 Nauck : Iffropovcri 64 rti/es Kal
atirofc airreffdai r&v e/j.\f/ijx<^v TOI)S HvOayopetovs, ore 06oiev dcois. The
part of the work from which this is taken comes from one Clodius, on
whom see Bernay, Theophr. Schr. p. n. He was probably the rhetorician
Sextus Clodius, and a contemporary of Cicero. Bernays has shown that he
made use of the work of Herakleides of Pontos (id. n. 19). On "mystic
sacrifice " generally, see Robertson Smith, Rel. Sem. i. p. 276.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 105

sacramentally by its kinsmen on certain solemn
occasions, though in ordinary circumstances this would
be the greatest of all impieties. Here, again, we have
to do with a very primitive belief; and we need not
therefore attach any weight to the denials of
Aristoxenos. 1

44. We shall now know what to think of the various
Pythagorean rules and precepts which have come down
to us. These are of two kinds, and have very different
sources. Some of them, derived from the collection of
Aristoxenos, and for the most part preserved by

lamblichos, are mere precepts of morality. They do
not pretend to go back to Pythagoras himself; they
are only the sayings which the last generation of
" Mathematicians " heard from their predecessors. 2 The
second class is of a very different nature, and the sayings
which belong to it are called Akousmata? which points^
to their being the property of that sect of Pythagoreans
which had faithfully preserved the old customs. Later
writers interpret them as " symbols " of moral truth ;
but their interpretations are extremely far-fetched, and
it does not require a very practised eye to see that
they are genuine taboos of a thoroughly primitive type.

1 Porphyry ( V. Pyth. c 15) has preserved a tradition to the effect that
Pythagoras recommended a flesh diet for athletes (Milo?). This story
must have originated at the same time as those related by Aristoxenos,
and in a similar way. In fact, Bernays has shown that it comes from
Herakleides of Pontos (Theophr. Schr. n. 8). lamblichos ( V. Pyth. 5. 25)
and others (Diog. viii. 13, 47) got out of this by supposing it referred to a
gymnast of the same name. We see here very distinctly how the
Neoplatonists for their own ends endeavoured to go back to the original
form of the Pythagorean legend, and to explain away the fourth century
reconstruction.

2 For these see Diels, Vors. pp. 282 sqq.

3 There is an excellent collection of 'Awto/wra <al (rtf/i/SoXa in Diels,
Vors. pp. 279 sqq., where the authorities will be found. It is impossible
to discuss these in detail here, but students of folklore will see at once to
what order of ideas they belong.

io6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

I give a few examples in order that the reader may
judge what the famous Pythagorean rule of life was
really like.

1. To abstain from beans.

2. Not to pick up what has fallen.

3. Not to touch a white cock.

4. Not to break bread.

5. Not to step over a crossbar.

6. Not to stir the fire with iron.

7. Not to eat from a whole loaf.

8. Not to pluck a garland.

9. Not to sit on a quart measure.

10. Not to eat the heart.

11. Not to walk on highways.

12. Not to let swallows share one's roof.

13. When the pot is taken off the fire, not to leave the
mark of it in the ashes, but to stir them together.

14. Do not look in a mirror beside a light.

15. When you rise from the bedclothes, roll them together
and smooth out the impress of the body.

It would be easy to multiply proofs of the close
connexion between Pythagoreanism and primitive
modes of thought, but what has been said is really
sufficient for our purpose. The kinship of men and
beasts, the abstinence from flesh, and the doctrine of
transmigration all hang together and form a perfectly
intelligible whole from the point of view which has been
indicated, ,i

Pythagoras 45- Were this all, we should be tempted to delete
" f the name of Pythagoras from the history of philosophy
altogether, and relegate him to the class of " medicine-
men " (7077x65) along with Epimenides and Onomakritos.
This, however, would be quite wrong. As we shall see,
the Pythagorean Society became one of the chief scientific
schools of Hellas, and it is certain that Pythagorean

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 107

science as well as Pythagorean religion originated with
the master himself. Herakleitos, who is not partial to
him, says that Pythagoras had pursued scientific
investigation further than other men, though he also
says that he turned his much learning into an art of
mischief. 1 Herodotos called Pythagoras "by no
means the weakest sophist of the Hellenes," a title
which at this date does not imply the slightest
disparagement. 2 Aristotle even said that Pythagoras
first busied himself with mathematics and numbers, and
that it was later on he attached himself to the miracle-
mongering of Pherekydes. 3 Is it possible for us to
trace any connexion between these two sides of his
activity ?

We have seen that the aim of the Orphic and other
Orgia was to obtain release from the " wheel of birth "
by means of " purifications," which were generally of
a very primitive type. The new thing in the Society
founded by Pythagoras seems to have been that, while
it admitted all these half-savage customs, it at the
same time suggested a more exalted idea of what
" purification " really was. Aristoxenos tells us that
the Pythagoreans employed music to purge the soul
as they used medicine to purge the body, and it is
abundantly clear that Aristotle's famous theory of
is derived from Pythagorean sources. 4 Such

1 Herakl. fr. 17 (R. P. 31 a). The word Joropfy is in itself quite general.
What it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by
lamblichos, V. Pyth. 89, <?/caXetTo S T) yewnerpla irpds HvOay6pov laropia.
Tannery's interpretation of this statement is based on a misunderstanding,
and need not be discussed here.

2 Herod, iv. 95.

3 Arist. Hepi TUV HvBayopetw, fr. 186, 1510 a 39, IIi;0a76pas Mvi7<r<px oy
i'I6s rd /jv irp&rov difTrovelro irepl rb. /xa^^/zara Kal TOI)S dpitf/ioi/s, txrrfpov
5^ Trore Kail TT/S Qepextidov Teparoiroitas OVK aTrforr).

4 Its immediate source is to be found in Plato, Laws, 790 d 2 sqq.,

io8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

methods of purifying the soul were familiar in the Orgia
of the Korybantes, and will serve to explain the
Pythagorean interest in Harmonics. But there is more
than this. If we can trust Herakleides so far, it was
Pythagoras who first distinguished the " three lives,"
the Theoretic, the Practical, and the Apolaustic, which
Aristotle made use of in the Ethics. The general
theory of these lives is clear, and it is impossible to
doubt that in substance it belongs to the very beginning
of the school. It is to this effect. We are strangers in
this world, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet
we must not seek to escape by self-murder ; for we are
the chattels of God who is our herdsman, and without
his command we have no right to make our escape. 1
In this life, there are three kinds of men, just as there
are three sorts of people who come to the Olympic
Y Games. The lowest class is made up of those who
/ come to buy and sell, and next above them are those
who come to compete. Best of all, however, are those
^7 who come simply to look on (Oewpelv). The greatest
purification of all is, therefore, disinterested science, and u
it is the man who devotes himself to that, the true
philosopher, who has most effectually released himself l^
from the " wheel of birth." It would be rash to say
that Pythagoras expressed himself exactly in this
manner ; but all these ideas are genuinely Pythagorean,
and it is only in some such way that we can bridge
the gulf which separates Pythagoras the man of science

where the Korybantic rites are adduced as an instance. For a full account
see Rohde, Psyche ', p. 336, n. 2.

1 Plato gives this as the Pythagorean view in Phd. 62 b, for the
interpretation of which cf. Espinas in Arch. viii. pp. 449 sqq. Plato
distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of Philolaos, but
something older.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 109

from Pythagoras the religious teacher. 1 We must now
endeavour to discover how much of the later Pythagorean
science may reasonably be ascribed to Pythagoras
himself.

46. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said Arithmetic.
that Pythagoras was the first to carry that study
beyond the needs of commerce, 2 and his statement is
confirmed by everything we otherwise know. By the
end of the fifth century B.C., we find that there is a
widespread interest in such subjects and that these are
studied for their own sake. Now this new interest
cannot have been wholly the work of a school ; it must
have originated with some great man, and there is no
one but Pythagoras to whom we can refer it. As,
however, he wrote nothing, we have no sure means of
distinguishing his own teaching from that of his
followers in the next generation or two. All we can
safely say is that, the more primitive any Pythagorean
doctrine appears, the more likely it is to be that of
Pythagoras himself, and all the more so if it can be
shown to have points of contact with views which we

1 See Boring in Arch. v. pp. 505 sqq. There seems to be a reference to
the theory of the "three lives" in Herakleitos, fr. in. It was apparently
taught in the Pythagorean Society of Phleious ; for Herakleides made
Pythagoras expound it in a conversation with the tyrant of Phleious
(Cic. Tusc. v. 3; Diog. pr. 12, viii. 8), and it is developed by Plato in a
dialogue which is, as it were, dedicated to Echekrates. If it should be
thought that this is interpreting Pythagoras too much in the light of
Schopenhauer, it may be answered that even the Orphics came very near
such a theory. The soul must not drink of Lethe, but go past it and
drink of the water of Memory, before it can claim to become one of the
heroes. This has obvious points of contact with Plato's dvd/AV7;<rtj, and the
only question is how much of the Phaedo we are to ascribe to Pythagorean
sources. A great deal, I suspect. See Prof. Stewart's Myths of Plato,
pp. 152 sqq.

2 Stob. i. p. 2O, I, K rCJv 'Apiffro^vov Trept dpiOfjLrrriKrjs, T^v 3 rept
TOI)S dpt^oi)s wpay/jiaTeiav ftdXiaTa TTO.VTUV TtfJLTJ<rat 5oKei Hvday6pas KOI
irpoa.ya.yeiv trl rb trpbffdev airayayuiv CLTT& TTJS ruv

no EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

know to have been held in his own time or shortly
before it. In particular, when we find the later
Pythagoreans teaching things that were already some-
thing of an anachronism in their own day, we may be
reasonably sure that we are dealing with survivals
which only the authority of the master's name could
have preserved. Some of these must be mentioned at
once, though the developed system belongs to a later
part of our story. It is only by separating its earliest
form from its later that the true place of Pythagoreanism
in Greek thought can be made clear, though we must
always remember that no one can now pretend to
draw the line between its successive stages with any
certainty.

The figures. 47. Now one of the most remarkable statements
that we have about Pythagoreanism is what we are told
of Eurytos on the unimpeachable authority of Archytas.
Eurytos was the disciple of Philolaos, and Aristoxenos
expressly mentioned him along with Philolaos as
having taught the last of the Pythagoreans, the men
with whom he himself was personally acquainted. He
therefore belongs to the beginning of the fourth century
B.C., by which time the Pythagorean system was fully
developed, and he was no eccentric enthusiast, but one
of the foremost men in the school. 1 We are told
of him, then, that he used to give the number of
all sorts of things, such as horses and men, and
that he demonstrated these by arranging pebbles
in a certain way. It is to be noted further that
Aristotle compares his procedure to that of those

1 Apart from the story in lamblichos ( V, Pyth. 148) that Eurytos heard
the voice of Philolaos from the grave after he had been many years dead, it
is to be noticed that he is mentioned after him in the statement of
Aristoxenos referred to (Diog. viii. 46 ; R. P. 62).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION in

who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and
the square. 1

Now these statements, and especially the remark of
Aristotle last quoted, seem to imply the existence at
this date, and earlier, of a numerical symbolism quite
distinct from the alphabetical notation on the one hand
and from the Euclidean representation of numbers by
lines on the other. The former was inconvenient for
arithmetical purposes, just because the zero was one of
the few things the Greeks did not invent, and they
were therefore unable to develop a really serviceable
numerical symbolism based on position. The latter,
as will appear shortly, is intimately bound up with
that absorption of arithmetic by geometry, which is at
least as old as Plato, but cannot be primitive. 2 It
seems rather that numbers were represented by dots
arranged in symmetrical and easily recognised patterns,
of which the marking of dice or dominoes gives us the
best idea. And these markings are, in fact, the best
proof that this is a genuinely primitive method of
indicating numbers ; for they are of unknown antiquity,
and go back to the time when men could only count by
arranging numbers in such patterns, each of which became,
as it were, a fresh unit. This way of counting may well
be as old as reckoning with the fingers, or even older.

1 Arist. Met. N, 5. 1092 b 8 (R. P. 76 a). Aristotle does not quote the
authority of Archytas here, but the source of his statement is made quite
clear by Theophr. Met. p. vi. a 19 (Usener), TOVTO yap (sc. rb /JLTJ

TOV irpo\66i>Ta 7raue<r0cu) reX^ou /ecu Qpovovvros, tiirep 'Apxvras KO
TroifLV Etfpvroit diaTtdfrra Tivas t/^0ous ' \tyeiv yap ws 55e (j
o api0/t6s, 55e 5t tirirov, 6'5e 5' AXXou rtvbs rvyxavei.

2 Arithmetic is older than geometry, and was much more advanced in
Egypt, though still in the form which the Greeks called \oyi<rrucj rather
than as dpttf/iTjrt^ proper. Even Plato puts Arithmetic before Geometry
in the Republic in deference to the tradition. His own theory of number,
however, suggested the inversion of this order which we find carried out
in Euclid.

H2 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

It is, therefore, very significant that we do not find
any adequate account of what Aristotle can have meant
by " those who bring numbers into figures like the
triangle and the square " till we come to certain late
writers who called themselves Pythagoreans, and
revived the study of arithmetic as a science inde-
pendent of geometry. These men not only abandoned
the linear symbolism of Euclid, but also regarded the
alphabetical notation, which they did use, as something
conventional, and inadequate to represent the true
nature of number. Nikomachos of Gerasa says ex-
pressly that the letters used to represent numbers are
only significant by human usage and convention. The
most natural way would be to represent linear or prime
numbers by a row of units, polygonal numbers by units
arranged so as to mark out the various plane figures,
and solid numbers by units disposed in pyramids and
so forth. 1 He therefore gives us figures like this :

a a a a

a a a aaa

a aa a a aaa

a a a a aaa

a a aaa

Now it ought to be obvious that this is no innovation,
but, like so many things in Neopythagoreanism, a
reversion to primitive usage. Of course the employ-
ment of the letter alpha to represent the units is derived
from the conventional notation ; but otherwise we are
clearly in presence of something which belongs to the
very earliest stage of the science something, in fact,

1 Nikomachos of Gerasa, Introd. Arithm. p. 83, 12, Hoche, TLpbrepov d
tiriyvwffTtov OTL ZKCUTTOV ypd/u./j.a $ a-r)fji.eioijfj.e6a dpi.6fj.6f, olov r6 i, y TO
dtica, TO K, $ ret etxoffi, TO u, $ rd. 6KTaK6<ri.a, vb^tf nal a\ivQ-i]^o.Ti
dv6pb)Trlv({), d\\' ou <f>ijcrei <rrifj.a,vTiKbv 4<TTi TOV dpidjjiov K.r.X. The same
symbolism is used by Theo, Expositio, pp. 31 sqq. Cf. also Iambi. Introd.
p. 56, 27, Pistelli, iffTtov yap ws TO TraXaibv QvaiK&repov ol wpbffdev
rds TOV dpi6/j.ov iroaorrjTa^, dXX' oi>x tixrirep oi vvv <TV/j.(3o\iK<

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 113

which gives the only possible clue to the meaning of
Aristotle's remark, and to what we are told of the
method of Eurytos.

48. This is still further confirmed by the tradition Triangular,
which represents the great revelation made by Pytha- STong *'
goras to mankind as having been precisely a figure of m
this kind, namely the tetraktys^ by which the Pytha-
goreans used to swear, 1 and we have no less an
authority than Speusippos for holding that the whole
theory which it implies was genuinely Pythagorean. 2
In later days there were many kinds of tetraktys? but
the original one, that by which the Pythagoreans
swore, was the "tetraktys of the dekad." It was a
figure like this

and represented the number ten as the triangle of four.
In other words, it showed at a glance that I + 2 + 3 +
4 = i o. Speusippos tells us of several properties
which the Pythagoreans discovered in the dekad. It
is, for instance, the first number that has in it an equal
number of prime and composite numbers. How much

1 Cf. the formula Qv /id rbv ct/ieWpp yeveq. irapad6t>Ta Terpaicrtv,
which is all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of
Pythagoras by the forger of the Xpv<ra 71-77, thus making him swear by him-
self ! See Diels, Arch. iii. p. 457. The Doric dialect shows, however,
that it belongs to the later generations of the school.

2 Speusippos wrote a work on the Pythagorean numbers, based chiefly
on Philolaos, and a considerable fragment of it is preserved in the
Theologwnena Arithmetica. It will be found in Diels, Vorsokratiker^
P- 2 35 X 5> an( l is discussed by Tannery, Science hellene> pp. 374 sqq.

3 For these see Theon, Expositio, pp. 93 sqq. Hiller. The rerpaicrvt
used by Plato in the Timaeus is the second described by Theon (Exp.
p. 94, 10 sqq.). It is no doubt Pythagorean, but hardly as old as
Pythagoras.

114 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of this goes back to Pythagoras himself, we cannot
tell ; but we are probably justified in referring to him
the conclusion that it is " according to nature " that all
Hellenes and barbarians count up to ten and then
begin over again.

It is obvious that the tetraktys may be indefinitely
extended so as to exhibit the sums of the series of
successive numbers in a graphic form, and these sums
are accordingly called " triangular numbers."

For similar reasons, the sums of the series of
successive odd numbers are called "square numbers,"
and those of successive even numbers "oblong." If
odd numbers are added to the unit in the form of
gnomons , the result is always a similar figure, namely a
square, while, if even numbers are added, we get a
series of rectangles, 1 as shown by the figure :

Square Numbers. Oblong Numbers.

It is clear, then, that we are entitled to refer the
study of sums of series to Pythagoras himself; but

1 Cf. Milhaud, Philosophes gfrmetres, pp. 115 sqq. Aristotle puts the
matter thus (Phys. F, 4. 203 a 13) : irepLTi.defji.evuv yap TUV yvufj-bvuv -jrepl
rd eV Kal x w /^ s or /jv &\\o del yiyvevdaL rb eiSos, ore Se ev. This is
more clearly stated by Ps.-Plut. (Stob. i. p. 22, i6),"ETi 5e TT; fj.ovd8i TWV
e*0ev7S TrepLffff&v irepLTi.6eiJ.evwv b yLv6fj.evos del TeTpdy<av6s e<rrf rtov 5e
aprluv ofiolws irepLTrfefievwv erepo/ioj/ceis Kal avLffoi Trdvres dirof3ati>ov(Ti.v,
tews 5e tVd/as ovSels. I cannot feel satisfied with any of the explanations
which have been given of the words /cat xwpJs in the Aristotelian passage
(see Zeller, p. 351, n. 2), and I would therefore suggest TCUS x^P aiS > compar-
ing Boutheros (Stob. i. p. 19, 9), who says, according to the MS. reading,
Kai 6 fjv (b Tre/Jicra^s), OTrbrav yevv&vrai. dvd \6yov Kal Trpbs fiovddas,
TCUS auTou x^P ats Kara\afJij3dvei. TOI)S TCUS ypa/j.fji.ais TrepiexofJ.&ovs (sc.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 115

whether he went beyond the oblong, and studied
pyramidal or cubic numbers, we cannot say. 1

49. It is easy to see how this way of representing Geometry and
numbers would suggest problems of a geometrical
nature. The dots which stand for the pebbles are
regularly called " boundary -stones " (opoi, termini,
" terms "), and the area which they occupy, or rather
mark out, is the "field " (%(opa). 2 This is evidently
a very early way of speaking, and may therefore be
referred to Pythagoras himself. Now it must have
struck him that " fields " could be compared as well as
numbers, 3 and it is even likely that he knew the rough
methods of doing this which were traditional in Egypt,
though certainly these would fail to satisfy him.
Once more the tradition is singularly helpful in suggest-
ing the direction that his thoughts must have taken.
He knew, of course, the use of the triangle 3, 4, 5 in
constructing right angles. We have seen (p. 24) that
it was familiar in the East from a very early date, and
that Thales introduced it to the Hellenes, if they did
not know it already. In later writers it is actually
called the " Pythagorean triangle." Now the Pytha-
gorean proposition par excellence is just that, in a right-
angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal

1 In the fragment referred to above (p. 113, n. 2), Speusippos speaks
of four as the first pyramidal number ; but this is taken from Philolaos, so
we cannot safely ascribe it to Pythagoras.

2 We have Spot of a series (&c0e<ns), then of a proportion, and in later
times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, and .'. are a survival of the original
use. The term x^P a is often used by the later Pythagoreans, though Attic
usage required xuptov for a rectangle. The spaces between the ypa/jmal
of the abacus and the chess-board were also called x^P at -

3 In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority
of Eudemos that the irapafto\^ t IXXet^ts, and u7rep/3oX^ of x.upla. were
Pythagorean inventions. For an account of these and the subsequent
application of the terms in Conic Sections, see Milhaud, Philosopher

S) pp. 81 sqq.

n6 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to the squares on the other two sides, and the so-
called Pythagorean triangle is the application of its
converse to a particular case. The very name
"hypotenuse" affords strong confirmation of the in-
timate connexion between the two things. It means
literally " the cord stretching over against," and this is
surely just the rope of the " harpedonapt." l An early
tradition says that Pythagoras sacrificed an ox when
he discovered the proof of this proposition, and indeed
it was the real foundation of scientific mathematics. 2
incom- 50. One great disappointment, however, awaited

Pythagoras. It follows at once from the Pythagorean
proposition that the square on the diagonal of a square
is double the square on its side, and this ought surely
to be capable of numerical expression. As a matter
of fact, however, there is no square number which can
be divided into two equal square numbers, and so the
problem cannot be solved. In this sense, it is doubtless
true that Pythagoras discovered the incommensurability
of the diagonal and the side of a square, and the proof
mentioned by Aristotle, namely, that, if they were
commensurable, we should have to say that an even
number was equal to an odd number, is distinctly
Pythagorean in character. 3 However that may be, it

1 The verb virorelveiv is, of course, used intransitively. The explana-
tion suggested in the text seems to me much simpler than that of Max
C. P. Schmidt (Kulturhistorische Beitrdge, Heft i. pp. 64 sqq. ). He explains
the hypotenuse as the longest string in a triangular harp ; but my view seems
more in accordance with analogy. So ^ /cdfleros is, literally, a plumb-line.

2 The statement comes from Eudemos ; for it is found in Proclus's
commentary on Euclid i. 47. Whether historical or not, it is no Neo-
pythagorean fancy.

3 Arist. An. Pr. A, 23. 41 a 26, 6'ri dff^jj.fj.eTpos 17 dtd/j-erpos 5td TO
yLyvfffdai TO. irepirra tea roty d/m'ois (rvfifi^rpov redden)*. The proofs
given at the end of Euclid's Tenth Book (vol. iii. pp. 408 sqq., Heiberg) turn
on this very point. They are not Euclidean, and may be substantially-
Pythagorean. Cf. Milhaud, Philosophes gtometres, p. 94.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 117

is certain that Pythagoras did not care to pursue the
subject any further. He had, as it were, stumbled
on the fact that the square root of two is a surd, but
we know that it was left for Plato's friends, Theodoros
of Kyrene and Theaitetos, to give a complete theory
of the matter. 1 The fact is that the discovery of the
Pythagorean proposition, by giving birth to geometry,
had really superseded the old view of quantity as a
sum of units ; but it was not till Plato's time that the
full consequences of this were seen. 2 For the present,
the incommensurability of the diagonal and the square
remained, as has been said, a " scandalous exception."
Our tradition says that Hippasos of Metapontion was
drowned at sea for revealing this skeleton in the
cupboard. 3

51. These last considerations show that, while it is Proportionand

harmony.

quite safe to attribute the substance of the First Book
of Euclid to Pythagoras, the arithmetic of Books VII.-
IX., and the "geometrical algebra" of Book II. are
certainly not his. They operate with lines or with
areas instead of with units, and the relations which they
establish therefore hold good whether they are capable
of numerical expression or not. That is doubtless why
arithmetic is not treated in Euclid till after plane
geometry, a complete inversion of the original order.
For the same reason, the doctrine of proportion which
we find in Euclid cannot be Pythagorean, and is

1 Plato, Tkeaet. 147 d 3 sqq.

2 How novel these consequences were, is shown by the fact that in Laws,
819 d 5, the Athenian Stranger says that he had only realised them late
in life.

3 This version of the tradition is mentioned in lamblichos, V. Pyth. 247,
and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later ( 148).
Hippasos is the enfant terrible of Pythagoreanism, and the traditions about
him are full of instruction.

n8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

indeed the work of Eudoxos. Yet it is clear that the
early Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself,
studied proportion in their own way, and that the three
" medieties " in particular go back to the founder,
especially as the most complicated of them, the
" harmonic," stands in close relation to his discovery of
the octave. If we take the harmonic proportion
12 : 8 : 6, 1 we find that 12:6 is the octave, 12:8 the
fifth, and 8 : 6 the fourth, and it can hardly be doubted
that it was Pythagoras himself who discovered these
intervals. The stories which have come down to us
about his observing the harmonic intervals in a smithy,
and then weighing the hammers that produced them,
or of his suspending weights corresponding to those of
the hammers to equal strings, are, indeed, impossible
and absurd ; but it is sheer waste of time to, rationalise
them. 2 For our purpose their absurdity is their chief
merit. They are not stories which any Greek
mathematician or musician could possibly have in-
vented, but genuine popular tales bearing witness to
the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was
the author of this momentous discovery.

Things are 52. It was this too, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to
numbers. gay all things were numDe rs. We shall see that, at a

later date, the Pythagoreans identified these numbers
with geometrical figures ; but the mere fact that they

1 Plato (Tim. 36 a 3) defines the harmonic mean as TTJV . . . TO.VT$ fj-tpei
TUJV &Kpwv avT&v virep^ovaav Kal vTrepexofj.evr)v. The harmonic mean of
12 and 6 is therefore 8; for 8 = i2-^ = 6 + |.

2 For these stories and a criticism of them, see Max C. P. Schmidt,
Kulttirhistorische Beitrdge, i. pp. 78 sqq. The smith's hammers belong
to the region of Mdrchen, and it is not true either that the notes would
be determined by the weight of the hammers, or that, if they were,
the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes. These
inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, &tudes sur le Timfe,
i. p. 391).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 119

called them " numbers," when taken in connexion with
what we are told about the method of Eurytos, is
sufficient to show this was not the original sense of
the doctrine. It is enough to suppose that Pythagoras
reasoned somewhat as follows. If musical sounds can
be reduced to numbers, why should not everything
else ? There are many likenesses to number in things,
and it may well be that a lucky experiment, like that
by which the octave was discovered, will reveal their
true numerical nature. The Neopythagorean writers,
going back in this as in other matters to the earliest
tradition of the school, indulge their fancy in tracing
out analogies between things and numbers in endless
variety ; but we are fortunately dispensed from
following them in these vagaries. Aristotle tells us
distinctly that the Pythagoreans explained only a
few things by means of numbers, 1 which means that
Pythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the sub-
ject, while the Pythagoreans of the fifth century did not
care to add anything of the sort to the school tradition.
Aristotle does imply, however, that, according to them
the " right time " (icaipos} was seven, justice was four,
and marriage three. These identifications, with a few
others like them, we may safely refer to Pythagoras or
his immediate successors ; but we must not attach
much importance to them. They are mere sports of
the analogical fancy. If we wish to understand the
cosmology of Pythagoras, we must start, not from
them, but from any statements we can find that
present points of contact with the teaching of the

1 Arist. Met. M, 4. 1078 b 21 (R. P. 78) ; Zeller, p. 390, n. 2. The
Theologumena Arithmttica, wrongly attributed to Nikomachos of Gerasa,
is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject (R. P. 78 a). Alexander in Met.
P- 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old (R. P. 78 c )-

120 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Milesian school. These, we may fairly infer, belong
to the system in its most primitive form.

Cosmology. 5 3. Now the most striking statement of this kind is
one of Aristotle's. The Pythagoreans held, he tells us,
that there was " boundless breath " outside the heavens,
and that it was inhaled by the world. 1 In substance,
this is the doctrine of Anaximenes, and it becomes
practically certain that it was that of Pythagoras,
when we find that Xenophanes denied it. 2 We may
infer, then, that the further development of the idea is
also due to Pythagoras himself. We are told that, after
the first unit had been formed however that may
have taken place the nearest part of the Boundless
was first drawn in and limited ; 3 and further, that it is
1 just the Boundless thus inhaled that keeps the units
separate from each other. 4 It represents the interval
between them. This is a very primitive way of
describing the nature of discrete quantity.
* In the passages of Aristotle just referred to, the
Boundless is also spoken of as the void or empty.
This identification of air and the void is a confusion
which we have already met with in Anaximenes, and
it need not surprise us to find it here too. 5 We find

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

2 Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true that Diogenes is here drawing
from a biographical rather than a doxographical source (Dox. p. 168), but
this touch can hardly be an invention.

3 Arist. Met. M, 3. 1091 a 13 (R. P. 74).

4 Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 b 23 (R. P. 75 a). The words Siopifr raj
0tfcrets have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been supposed
to attribute the function of limiting to the direipov. Aristotle makes it quite
clear that his meaning is that stated in the text. Cf. especially the words
Xwpicr/ioO nvos T&V ^0e?}s Kal 5to/>urews. The term SiupLffptvov is the
proper antithesis to GVV ex^s. In his work on the Pythagorean philosophy,
Aristotle used instead the phrase Sioplfa rds xupas (Stob. i. p. 156, 8 ;
R' P- 75)> which is also quite intelligible if we remember what the Pytha-
goreans meant by x^P a ( c ^ P* JI 5> n - 2 )

5 Cf. Arist. Phys. A, 6. 213 a 27, ot 5' &v6puiroi . . . <f>afflv tv f 6Xws

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 121

also, as we might expect, distinct traces of the other
confusion, that of air and vapour. It seems certain,
in fact, that Pythagoras identified the Limit with fire,
and the Boundless with darkness. We are told by
Aristotle that Hippasos made Fire the first principle, 1
and we shall see that Parmenides, in discussing the
opinions of his contemporaries, attributes to them the
view that there were two primary " forms," Fire and
Night 2 We also find that Light and Darkness appear
in the Pythagorean table of opposites under the heads
of the Limit and the Unlimited respectively. 3 The
identification of breath with darkness here implied is a
strong proof of the primitive character of the doctrine ;
for in the sixth century darkness was supposed to be a
sort of vapour, while in the fifth, its true nature was
well known. Plato, with his usual historical tact,
makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe mist and
darkness as condensed air.* We must think, then, of
a " field " of darkness or breath marked out by luminous
units, an imagination which the starry heavens would
naturally suggest^ It is even probable that we should
ascribe to Pythagoras the Milesian view of a plurality
of worlds, though it would not have been natural for
him to speak of an infinite number. We know, at
least, that Petron, one of the early Pythagoreans, said ,
there were just a hundred and eighty-three worlds
arranged in a triangle ; 5 and Plato makes Timaios

fjt.i)8tv <rri, TOUT' eli/cu Kev6v, dib rb Tr\ijpes dtpos Ktvbv en/at ; a5? Part. An. B,
IO. 656 b 15, rb yap Kevbv KaXotpevov d^/>os Tr\ijpts ten ; de An. B, IO. 419
b 34, 8oKei yap eli>ai Kfvbv b a-fjp.

1 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c).

2 See Chap. IV. 91.

3 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 25 (R. P. 66).

4 Plato, Tim. 58 d 2.

5 This is quoted by Plutarch, de def. orac. 422 b, d, from Phanias of
Eresos, who gave it on the authority of Hippys of Rhegion. If we may

122 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

admit, when laying down that there is only one world,
that something might be urged in favour of the view
that there are five, as there are five regular solids. 1

54. Anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies
as wheels of "air" filled with fire which escapes
through certain openings ( 19), and there is evidence
that Pythagoras adopted the same view. 2 We have
seen that Anaximander only assumed the existence of
three such wheels, and held that the wheel of the sun
was the lowest It is extremely probable that
Pythagoras identified the intervals between these rings
with the three musical intervals which he had
discovered, the fourth, the fifth, and the octave. That
would be the most natural beginning for the later
doctrine of the " harmony of the spheres," though that
expression would be doubly misleading if applied to
any theory we can properly ascribe to Pythagoras
himself. The word appovia does not mean harmony,
and the " spheres " are an anachronism. We are still
at the stage when wheels or rings were considered
sufficient to account for the motions of the heavenly
bodies. It is also to be observed that sun, moon,
planets, and fixed stars must all be regarded as moving
in the same direction from east to west. Pythagoras
certainly did not ascribe to the planets an orbital motion
of their own from west to east. The old idea was rather
that they were left behind more or less every day. As
compared with the fixed stars, Saturn is left behind
least of all, and the Moon most ; so, instead of saying

follow Wilamowitz (Hermes, xix. p. 444) in supposing that this really
means Hippasos of Metapontion (and it was in Rhegion that the
Pythagoreans took refuge), this is a very valuable piece of evidence.

1 Plato, Tim. 55 c 7 sqq.

2 This will be found in Chap. IV. 93.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 123

that the Moon took a shorter time than Saturn to
complete its path through the signs of the Zodiac, men
said Saturn travelled quicker than the Moon, because
it more nearly succeeds in keeping up with the signs.
Instead of holding that Saturn takes thirty years to
complete its revolution, they said it took the fixed stars
thirty years to pass Saturn, and only twenty-nine days
and a half to pass the Moon. This is one of the
most important points to bear in mind regarding the
planetary systems of the Greeks, and we shall return
to it again. 1

The account just given of the views of Pythagoras
is, no doubt, conjectural and incomplete. We have
simply assigned to him those portions of the Pythagorean
system which appear to be the oldest, and it has not
even been possible at this stage to cite fully the
evidence on which our discussion is based. It will
only appear in its true light when we have examined
the second part of the poem of Parmenides and the
system of the later Pythagoreans. 2 For reasons which
will then be apparent, I do not venture to ascribe to
Pythagoras himself the theory of the earth's revolution
round the central fire. It seems safest to suppose
that he still adhered to the geocentric hypothesis of
Anaximander. In spite of this, however, it will be
clear that he opened a new period in the development
of Greek science, and it was certainly to his school that
its greatest discoveries were directly or indirectly due.

1 For a clear statement of this view (which was still that of
Demokritos), see Lucretius, v. 621 sqq. The view that the planets had
an orbital motion from west to east is attributed by Aetios, ii. 16, 3, to
Alkmaion ( 96), which certainly implies that Pythagoras did not hold it.
As we shall see ( 152), it is far from clear that any of the Pythagoreans
did. It seems rather to be Plato's discovery.

2 See Chap. IV. 92-93, and Chap. VII. 150-152.

I2 4 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

When Plato deliberately attributes some of his own
most important discoveries to the Pythagoreans, he
was acknowledging in a characteristic way the debt he
owed them.

II. XENOPHANES OF KOLOPHON

Life. 5 5. We have seen how Pythagoras identified himself
with the religious movement of his time ; we have now
to consider a very different manifestation of the reaction
against that view of the gods which the poets had
made familiar to every one. Xenophanes denied the
anthropomorphic gods altogether, but was quite
unaffected by the revival of more primitive ideas that
was going on all round him. We still have a fragment
of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the
doctrine of transmigration. " Once, they say, he was
passing by when a dog was being ill-treated. c Stop ! '
he said, ' don't hit it ! It is the soul of a friend ! I
knew it when I heard its voice.' " We are also told
that he opposed the views of Thales and Pythagoras,
and attacked Epimenides, which is likely enough,
though no fragments of the kind have come down to
us. 2 His chief importance lies in the fact that he was
the author of the quarrel between philosophy and
poetry which culminated in Plato's Republic.

It is not easy to determine the date of Xenophanes.
Timaios said he was a contemporary of Hieron
and Epicharmos, and he certainly seems to have

1 See fr. 7 ( = 18 Karst.), ap. Diog. viii. 36 (R. P. 88).

2 Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). We know that Xenophanes referred to the
prediction of an eclipse by Thales (Chap. I. p. 41, n. i). We shall see that
his own view of the sun was hardly consistent with the possibility of such
a prediction, so it may have been in connexion with this that he opposed
him.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 125

played a part in the anecdotical romance of Hieron's
court which amused the Greeks of the fourth century
much as that of Croesus and the Seven Wise Men
amused those of the fifth. 1 As Hieron reigned
from 478 to 467 B.C., that would malce~it impossible
to date the birth of Xenophanes much earlier than 5 70
B.C., even if we suppose him to have lived till the
age of a hundred. On the other hand, both Sextus
and Clement say that Apollodoros gave Ol. XL. (620-
6 1 6 B.C.) as the date of his birth, and the former adds
that his days were prolonged till the time of Dareios
and Cyrus. 2 Again, Diogenes, whose information
on such matters mostly comes from Apollodoros,
says that he flourished in Ol. LX. (540-537 B.C.), and
Diels holds that Apollodoros really said so. 3 How-
ever that may be, it is evident that the date 540 B.C.
is based on the assumption that he went to Elea in
the year of its foundation, and is, therefore, a mere
combination. 4

1 Timaios ap. Clem. Strom. L p. 533 (R. P. 95). There is only one
anecdote which actually represents Xenophanes in conversation with
Hieron (Plut. Reg. apophth. 175 e), but it is natural to understand Arist.
Met. F, 5. loioa 4 as an allusion to a remark made by Epicharmos to
him. Aristotle has more than one anecdote about Xenophanes, and it
seems most likely that he derived them from the romance of which
Xenophon's Huron is an echo.

2 Clem. , loc. cit. ; SexL Math. i. 257. The mention of Cyrus is confirmed
by Hipp. Kef. L 94. Diels thinks that Dareios was mentioned first for
metrical reasons ; but no one has satisfactorily explained why Cyrus should
be mentioned at all, unless the early date was intended. On the whole
subject, see Jacoby, pp. 204 sqq., who is certainly wrong in supposing that
&XP 1 TUV Aaoetov Kal Kvpov xP"uv can mean " during the times of
Dareios and Cyrus."

* Rh. Afus. xxxi. p. 22. He assumes an early corruption of N into M.
As Apollodoros gave the Athenian archon, and not the Olympiad, we
might with more probability suppose a confusion due to two archons
having the same name.

4 As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left
Phokaia (Herod. L 164 sqq.) its date is just 54039 B.C. Cf. the way in
which Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi ( 98).

126 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

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

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

It is tempting to suppose that in this passage
Xenophanes was referring to the conquest of Ionia by
Harpagos, and that he is, in fact, answering the ques-
tion asked in another poem 2 (fr. 22 = 17 Karst. ; R. P.
95 a):

This is the sort of thing we should say by the fireside in
the winter-time, as we lie on soft couches after a good
meal, drinking sweet wine and crunching chickpeas : "Of
what country are you, and how old are you, good sir ? And
how old were you when the Mede appeared ? "

We cannot, however, be sure of this, and we must
be content with what is, after all, for our purpose the
main fact, namely, that he refers to Pythagoras in the
past tense, and is in turn so referred to by Herakleitos. 3

Theophrastos said that Xenophanes had " heard "
Anaximander, 4 and we shall see that he was certainly
acquainted with the Ionian cosmology. When driven

1 Bergk (Litteraturgesch. ii. p. 418, n. 23) took <f>povri$ here to mean
the literary work of Xenophanes, but it is surely an anachronism to suppose
that at this date it could be used like the Latin cura.

2 It was certainly another poem ; for it is in hexameters while the
preceding fragment is in elegiacs.

3 Xenophanes, fr. 7 (above, p. 124, n. i); Herakleitos, frs. 16, 17
<below, p. 147).

4 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 96 a).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 127

from his native city, he lived in Sicily, chiefly, we are
told, at Zankle and Katana. 1 Like Archilochos before
him, he unburdened his soul in elegies and satires, which
he recited at the banquets where, we may suppose, the
refugees tried to keep up the usages of good Ionian
society. The statement that he was a rhapsode has
no foundation at all. 2 The singer of elegies was no
professional like the rhapsode, but the social equal of
his listeners. In his ninety-second year he was still,
we have seen, leading a wandering life, which is hardly
consistent with the statement that he settled at Elea
and founded a school there, especially if we are to think
of him as spending his last days at Hieron's court. It
is quite probable that he visited Elea, and it is just
possible that he wrote a poem of two thousand hexa-
meters on the foundation of that city, which was
naturally a subject of interest to all the Ionic emigres?
But it is very remarkable that no ancient writer ex-
pressly says that he ever was at Elea, and the only thing
besides the doubtful poem referred to which connects
him with it is a single anecdote of Aristotle's as to the
answer he gave the Eleates when they asked whether
they should sacrifice to Leukothea and lament her or
not. " If you think her a goddess," he said, " do not

1 Diog. ix. 1 8 (R. P. 96). The use of the old name Zankle, instead of
the later Messene, points to an early source for this statement probably
the elegies of Xenophanes himself.

2 Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97) says O.VT&S fy/m^y5ei ra eairoy, which is a very
different thing. Nothing is said anywhere of his reciting Homer, and the
word pa^Seo/ is used quite loosely for "to recite." Gomperz's imaginative
picture (Greek Thinkers, vol. i. p. 155) has no further support than this single
word. Nor is there any trace of Homeric influence in the fragments.
They are in the usual elegiac style.

3 The statement is justly suspected by Hiller (Kh. Mus. xxxiii. p. 529)
to come from Lobon of Argos, who provided the Seven Wise Men,
Epimenides, etc. , with stichometric notices, all duly recorded in Diogenes,
Even if true, however, it proves nothing.

128 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

lament her ; if not, do not sacrifice to her." That is
absolutely all, and it is only an apophthegm. 1 It
is strange there should be no more if Xenophanes
had really found a home at last in the Phokaian
colony.

Poems. 56. According to a notice preserved in Diogenes,
Xenophanes wrote in hexameters and also composed
elegies and iambics against Homer and Hesiod. 2 No
good authority says anything about his having written
a philosophical poem. 3 Simplicius tells us he had never
met with the verses about the earth stretching infinitely
downwards (fr. 28), 4 and this means that the Academy
possessed no copy of such a poem, which would be very
strange if it had ever existed. Simplicius was able to
find the complete works of much smaller men. Nor does
internal evidence lend any support to the view that he
wrote a philosophical poem. Diels refers about twenty-
eight lines to it, but they would all come in quite
as naturally in his attacks on Homer and Hesiod, as I
have endeavoured to show. It is also significant that a
considerable number of them are derived from com-

1 Arist. Rhet. B, 26. 1400 b 5 (R. P. 98 a). Anecdotes like this are
really anonymous. Plutarch transfers the story to Egypt (P. Ph. Fr. p. 22,
13), and others tell it of Herakleitos. It is hardly safe to build on such
a foundation.

2 Diog. ix. 1 8 (R. P. 97). The word C7rifc67rrw^ is a reminiscence of
Timon, fr. 60 ; Diels, Setvo^cij/Tjs i>ir&Tv<f>o$ 'O/^paTraTTjs tTnKbirTijs.

3 The oldest reference to a poem Hepi (pfaews is in the Geneva scholium
on //. xxi. 196 (quoting fr. 30), and this goes back to Krates of Mallos.
We must remember, however, that such titles are of later date than Xeno-
phanes, and he had been given a place among philosophers long before
the time of Krates. All we can say, therefore, is that the Pergamene
librarians gave the title JQept (f>t<reus to some poem of Xenophanes.

4 Simpl. afc Caelo, p. 522, 7 (R. P. 97 b). It is true that two of our
fragments (25 and 26) are preserved by Simplicius, but he got them from
Alexander. Probably they were quoted by Theophrastos ; fo'r it is plain
that Alexander had no first-hand knowledge of Xenophanes either. If he
had, he would not have been taken in by M. X. G. (See p. 138, n. 4.)

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 129

mentators on Homer. 1 It seems probable, then, that
Xenophanes expressed his theological and philosophical
views incidentally in his satires. That would be quite
in the manner of the time, as we can see from the
remains of Epicharmos.

The satires themselves are called Silloi by late writers,
and this name may go back to Xenophanes himself.
It is also possible, however, that it originates in the
fact that Timon of Phleious, the " sillographer " (c. 259
B.C.), put much of his satire upon philosophers into the
mouth of Xenophanes. Only one iambic line has been
preserved, and that is immediately followed by a hexa-
meter (fr. 14=5 Karst). This suggests that Xeno-
phanes inserted iambic lines among his hexameters in
the manner of the Margites, which would be a very
natural thing for him to do. 2

57. I give all the fragments of any importance The fragments.
according to the text and arrangement of Diels.

ELEGIES

Now is the floor clean, and the hands and cups of all ; one
sets twisted garlands on our heads, another hands us fragrant
ointment on a salver. The mixing bowls stand ready, full
of gladness, and there is more wine at hand that promises
never to leave us in the lurch, soft and smelling of flowers in
the jars. In the midst the frankincense sends up its holy
smoke, and there is cold water, sweet and clean. Brown
loaves are set before us and a lordly table laden with cheese and
rich honey. The altar in the midst is clustered round with
flowers ; song and revel fill the halls.

1 Three fragments (27, 31, 33) come from the Homeric Allegories > two
(3> 3 2 ) are from Homeric scholia.

2 Cf. Wilamowitz, Progr. Gryphiswald. 1880.

1 3 o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

But first it is meet that men should hymn the god with
joyful song, with holy tales and pure words ; then after libation
and prayer made that we may have strength to do right for
that is in truth the better way no sin is it to drink as much
as a man can take and get home without an attendant, so he
be not stricken in years. And above all men is he to be
praised who after drinking gives goodly proof of himself in the
trial of skill, as memory and voice will serve him. Let him not
sing of Titans and Giants those fictions of the men of old
nor of turbulent civil broils in which is no good thing at all ;
but ever give heedful reverence to the gods.

What if a man win victory in swiftness of foot, or in the
pentathlon^ at Olympia, where is the precinct of Zeus by Pisa's
springs, or in wrestling, what if by cruel boxing or that
fearful sport men call pankration he become more glorious in
the citizens' eyes, and win a place of honour in the sight of all
at the games, his food at the public cost from the State, and
a gift to be an heirloom for him, what if he conquer in the
chariot-race, he will not deserve all this for his portion so
much as I do. Far better is our art than the strength of men
and of horses ! These are but thoughtless judgments, nor is it
fitting to set strength before our art. Even if there arise a
mighty boxer among a people, or one great in the pentathlon
or at wrestling, or one excelling in swiftness of foot and that
stands in honour before all tasks of men at the games the
city would be none the better governed for that. It is but
little joy a city gets of it if a man conquer at the games by
Pisa's banks ; it is not this that makes fat the store-houses of
a city.

(3)

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

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 131

SATIRES

(10)

Since all at first have learnt according to Homer. . . .

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

They have uttered many, many lawless deeds of the gods,
stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another.
R. P. ib.

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

(is)

Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could
paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do,
horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen
like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several
kinds. R. P. ib.

(16)

The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed ; the
Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. i oo b.

(18)

The gods have not revealed all things to men from the
beginning, but by seeking they find in time what is better.
R. P. 104 b.

1 I formerly, with Zeller, preferred Theodoret's reading alaQ-rp"* but
both Clement and Eusebios have t<r8ijTa, and Theodoret is entirely
dependent on them.

132 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

One god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form
like unto mortals nor in thought. ... R. P. 100.

(24)
He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over. R. P.

IO2.

(*5)

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

(26)

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

(27)

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

(28)

This limit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with
the air; 1 below it reaches down without a limit. R. P. 103.

All things are earth and water that come into being and
grow. R. P. 103.

(3)

The sea is the source of water and the source of wind ; for
neither in the clouds (would there be any blasts of wind
blowing forth) from within without the mighty sea, nor rivers'
streams nor rain-water from the sky. The mighty sea is father
of clouds and of winds and of rivers. 2 R. P. 103.

1 Reading ytpi for /cat pet with Diels.

2 This fragment has been recovered in its entirety from the Geneva
scholia on Homer (see Arch. iv. p. 652). The words in brackets are added
by Diels. See also Praechter, ' ' Zu Xenophanes " (PhiloL xviii. p. 308).

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 133

The sun swinging over 1 the earth and warming it ...

(32)

She that they call Iris is a cloud likewise, purple, scarlet
and green to behold. R. P. 103.

(33)
For we all are born of earth and water. R. P. ib.

(34)

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

(35)

Let these be taken as fancies 2 something like the truth.
R. P. 104 a.

(36)
All of them 3 that are visible for mortals to behold.

(37)
And in some caves water drips. . . .

(38)

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

58. The intention of one of these fragments (fr. 32) The heavenly
is perfectly clear. " Iris too " is a cloud, and we may
infer that the same thing had just been said of the sun,

1 The word is uTrept^ievoy. This is quoted from the Allegories as an
explanation of the name Hyperion, and doubtless Xenophanes so meant it.

2 Reading 5e5odo-0w with Wilamowitz.

3 As Diels suggests, this probably refers to the stars, which Xenophanes
held to be clouds.

134 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

moon, and stars ; for the doxographers tell us that these
were all explained as " clouds ignited by motion." l To
the same context clearly belongs the explanation of the
St. Elmo's fire which Aetios has preserved. " The
things like stars which appear on ships," we are told,
" which some call the Dioskouroi, are little clouds made
luminous by motion." 2 In the doxographers this
explanation is repeated with trifling variations under
the head of moon, stars, comets, lightning, shooting
stars, and so forth, which gives the appearance of a
systematic cosmology. 3 But the system is due to the
arrangement of the work of Theophrastos, and not to
Xenophanes ; for it is obvious that a very few hexa-
meters added to those we possess would amply account
for the whole doxography.

What we hear of the sun presents some difficulties.
We are told, on the one hand, that it too was an ignited
cloud ; but this can hardly be right. The evaporation
of the sea from which clouds arise is distinctly said to
be due to the sun's heat. Theophrastos stated that the
sun, according to Xenophanes, was a collection of sparks
from the moist exhalation ; but even this leaves the
exhalation itself unexplained. 4 That, however, matters
little, if the chief aim of Xenophanes was to discredit
the anthropomorphic gods, rather than to give a

1 Cf. Diels ad loc. (P. Ph. Fr. p. 44), "ut Sol et cetera astra, quae
cum in nebulas evanescerent, deorum simul opinio casura erat." Cf. Arch.

x- p. 533-

2 Aet. ii. 1 8, I (Dox. p. 347), Sfo^dv^s TOI)S tiri TWV TrAofow (paLvo/j-evovs
olov affrtpas, oOj icai Atocr/cotf/DOus Ka\ov<rL rives, vefaXia elvai Kara TJ\V iroiav

3 The passages from Aetios are collected in P. Ph. Fr. pp. 32 sqq.
( Vors. p. 42).

4 Aet. ii. 2O, 3 (Dox. p. 348), %vo<j)<ivr)s CK ve(p&v ireirvpwfji.^ui> elvau
rbv i\iov. 0e60pa<rTos v rois $v<ri.Kots ytypafav GK irvpi.5i(i}v ptv rCov

v K T^S vypas dvaOv/j.ido'euis, ffvva6poi6vT<i)v d rbv ij\iov.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 135

scientific theory of the heavenly bodies. The important
thing is that Helios too is a temporary phenomenon.
The sun does not go round the earth, as Anaxi-
mander taught, but straight on, and the appearance of
a circular path is solely due to its increasing distance.
So it is not the same sun that rises next morning, but
a new one altogether ; while the old one " tumbles into
a hole" when it comes to certain uninhabited regions
of the earth. Besides that, there are many suns and
moons, one of each for every region of the earth. 1 It
is obvious that things of that kind cannot be gods.

The vigorous expression " tumbling into a hole "
seems clearly to come from the verses of Xenophanes
himself, and there are others of a similar kind, which
we must suppose were quoted by Theophrastos. The
stars go out in the daytime, but glow again at night
" like charcoal embers." 3 The sun is of some use in
producing the world and the living creatures in it, but
the moon "does no work in the boat." 4 Such ex-
pressions can only be meant to make the heavenly
bodies appear ridiculous, and it will therefore be well to
ask whether the other supposed cosmological fragments
can be interpreted on the same principle.

1 Act. ii. 24, 9 (Dox. p. 355), iroXXofo elvai i]\lovs Kal (reXij^aj Kara
K\i/j.ara TTJS vys Kal aTroro/ids Kal fcivas, Kara 6t nva Kaipbv ^TrLirrfiV rbv
diffKov efs nva airoro^v TT}S 7175 O&K olKOvntvyv v<p' TJ/JLUV Kal oirrws uxrTrep
KevefjLJSarovvTa %K\euf/iv UTro(f>ali>iv 6 d' airrd? rbv ifKiov e/j aireipov ptv
irpoitvai, SoKelv 5t KVK\ei(rdai 5td TT]V aTr6(rTa<riv. It is clear that in this
notice ^/cXei^ti/ has been erroneously substituted for 86<riv t as it has also in
Act. ii. 24, 4 (Dox. p. 354).

2 That this is the meaning of wcrirep Kcvefj-paTovvra appears sufficiently
from the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott.

3 Act. ii. 13, l$(Dox. p. 343), avafatrvpeiv vvKrwp KaQdirep roi)s avOpaKM.
* Act. ii. 30, 8 (Dox. p. 362), rbv ntv tf\iov xpfow e ^ vat *$* T V

TOU K6<r/j.ov Kal TTJV rCjv tv avrQ fawv ytvefflv re *cai 5io//CTj<rt>', rJjr W
<re\-fivr)v irapt\Keiv. The verb Trapt\Keiv means "to cork." Cf. Aristo-
phanes, Pax, 1306.

136 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Earth and 59. In fr. 29 Xenophanes says that _^_all things^ are
garth and water^ and Hippolytos has preserved the
account given by Theophrastos of the context in which
this occurred. It was as follows :

Xenophanes said that a mixture of the earth with the sea
is taking place, and that it is being gradually dissolved by the
moisture. He says that he has the following proofs of this.
Shells are found in midland districts and on hills, and he says
that in the quarries at Syracuse has been found the imprint of
a fish and of seaweed, at Pares the form of an anchovy in the
depth of the stone, and at Malta flat impressions of all marine
animals. These, he says, were produced when all things were
formerly mud, and the outlines were dried in the mud. All
human beings are destroyed when the earth has been carried
down into the sea and turned to mud. This change takes
place for all the worlds. Hipp. Ref. i. 14 (R.P. 103 a).

This is, of course, the theory of Anaximander, and
we may perhaps credit him rather than Xenophanes
with the observations of fossils. 1 Most remarkable of
all, however, is the statement that this change applies to
" all the worlds." It really seems impossible to doubt
that Theophrastos attributed a belief in " innumerable
worlds " to Xenophanes. As we have seen already,
Aetios includes him in his list of those who held this
doctrine, and Diogenes ascribes it to him also. 2 In
this place, Hippolytos seems to take it for granted.

1 There is an interesting note on these in Gomperz's Greek Thinkers
(Eng. trans, i. p. 551). I have translated his conjecture QVK&V instead of
the MS. <}>WKU>J>, as this is said to involve a pabeontological impossibility,
and impressions of fucoids are found, not indeed in the quarries of Syracuse,
but near them. It is said also that there are no fossils in Paros, so the
anchovy must have been an imaginary one.

2 Act. ii. i, 2 (Dox, p. 327) ; Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true,
of course, that this passage of Diogenes comes from the biographical
compendium (Dox. p. 168) ; but, for all that, it is a serious matter to deny
the Theophrastean origin of a statement found in Aetios, Hippolytos, and
Diogenes.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 137

We shall also find, however, that in another connexion
he said the World or God was one. If our interpreta-
tion of him is correct, there is no difficulty here. The
main point is that, so far from being a primeval goddess,
and " a sure seat for all things ever," Gaia too is a
passing appearance. That belongs to the attack upon
Hesiod, and, if in this connexion Xenophanes spoke,
with Anaximander, of "innumerable worlds," while
elsewhere he said that God or the World was one,
that is probably connected with a still better attested
contradiction which we have now to examine.

60. Aristotle tried without success to discover from Finite or
the poems of Xenophanes whether he regarded the m
world as finite or infinite. " He made no clear pro-
nouncement on the subject," he tells us. 1 Theophrastos,
on the other hand, decided that he regarded it as
spherical and finite because he said it was " equal every
way." 2 This, however, leads to very serious difficulties.
We have seen already that Xenophanes said the sun'"
went right on to infinity, and this agrees with his view
of the earth as an infinitely extended plain. Still
more difficult to reconcile with the idea of a spherical
and finite world is the statement of fr. 2S that, while
the earth has an upper limit which we see, it has no
limit below. This is attested by Aristotle, who speaks
of the earth being " infinitely rooted," and adds that
Empedokles criticised Xenophanes for holding this

1 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 b 23 (R. P. 101), o6$to

2 This is given as an inference by Simpl. Phys. p. 23, 18 (R. P. 108 b),
dia r6 ira.vra.xMfv &JJ.OLOV. It does not merely come from M.X.G.
(R. P. 108), TTO.VT-Q 5' 8fj.oiov 6vra <r<f>aipoei5ij dvai. Hippolytos has it
too (.#<?/. i. 14 ; R. P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos. Timon
of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way ; for he makes
him call the One taov cnrd^rri (fr. 60, Diels = 40 Wachsm. ; R. P.
102 a).

1 38 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

view. 1 It further appears from the fragment of
Empedokles quoted by Aristotle that Xenophanes said
the vast Air extended infinitely upwards. 2 We are
therefore bound to try to find room for an infinite
earth and an infinite air in a spherical and finite world !
That comes of trying to find science in satire. If, on
the other hand, we regard these statements from the
same point of view as those about the heavenly bodies,
we shall at once see what they most probably mean.
The story of Ouranos and Gaia was always the chief
.scandal of the Theogony l and the infinite air gets rid of
Ouranos altogether. As to the earth stretching
infinitely downwards, that gets rid of Tartaros, which
Homer described as situated at the bottommost limit
of earth and sea, as far beneath Hades as heaven is
above the earth. 3 This is pure conjecture, of course ;
but, if it is even possible, we are entitled to disbelieve
that such startling contradictions occurred in a
cosmological poem.

A more subtle explanation of the difficulty
commended itself to the late Peripatetic who wrote an
account of the Eleatic school, part of which is still
extant in the Aristotelian corpus, and is generally
known now as the treatise on Melissos^ Xenophanes, and
Gorgias? He said that Xenophanes declared the

1 Arist. de Caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21 (R. P. 103 b).

2 I take ai/a\6s as an attribute and direipova. as predicate to both
subjects.

3 //. viii. 13-16, 478-481, especially the words 'oW e? ice ret veiara
irelpad' t'/o/cu | yatrjs xal irbvroio K.T.\. Iliad viii. must have seemed a
particularly bad book to Xenophanes.

4 In Bekker's edition this treatise bears the title Hepl tZevo^dvovs,
trepl Ti-fjvuvos, Trepl Topylov, but the best MS. gives as the titles of its
three sections: (l) Hepl Zfywvos, (2) Hepl Eevofidvovs, (3) Hepl Topyiov.
The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so the whole treatise
is now entitled De Melissa, Xenophane, Gorgia (M.X.G.). It has been
edited by Apelt in the Teubner Series, and more recently by Diels (Abk.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 139

world to be neither finite nor infinite, and he composed
a series of arguments in support of this thesis, to
which he added another like it, namely, that the world
is neither in motion nor at rest. This has introduced
endless confusion into our sources. Alexander used
this treatise as well as the great work of Theophrastos,
and Simplicius supposed the quotations from it to be
from Theophrastos too. Having no copy of the poems
he was completely baffled, and until recently all accounts
of Xenophanes were vitiated by the same confusion.
It may even be suggested that, but for this, we
should have heard very little of the " philosophy of
Xenophanes," a way of speaking which is in the main
a survival from the days before this scholastic exercise
was recognised as having no authority.

6 1. In the passage of the Metaphysics just referred
to, Aristotle speaks of Xenophanes as "the first
partisan of the One," 1 and the context shows that
he means to suggest he was the first of the Eleatics.
We have seen already that the certain facts of his life
make it very unlikely that he settled at Elea and
founded a school there, and it is probable that, as
usual in such cases, Aristotle is simply reproducing

der k. Preuss. Akad. 1900), who has also given the section dealing with
Xenophanes in P. Ph. Fr. pp. 24-29 (Vors. pp. 36 sqq.). He has now
withdrawn the view maintained in Dox. p. 108 that the work belongs to
the third century B.C., and holds that it was a Peripatetico edectico (i.e.
sceptica, platonica, stoica admiscente} circa Christi natalem conscriptum.
If that is so, there is no reason to doubt, as I formerly did, that the
second section is really meant to deal with Xenophanes. The writer would
have no first-hand knowledge of his poems, and the order in which the
philosophers are discussed is that of the passage in the Metaphysics which
suggested the whole thing. It is possible that a section on Parmenides
preceded what we now have.

1 Met. A, 5. 986 b 21 (R. P. 101), TrpGyrosTotrwv tolircu. The verb Mfeir
occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of /M^ffeus
0tXnr/ftv, and the like. It is not likely that it means " to unify."
Aristotle could easily have said extras if he had meant that.

140 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

certain statements of Plato. At any rate, Plato had
spoken of the Eleatics as the " partisans of the
Whole," l and he had also spoken of the school as
" starting with Xenophanes and even earlier." 2 The
last words, however, show clearly enough what he
meant. Just as he called the Herakleiteans " followers
of Homer and still more ancient teachers," 3 so he
attached the Eleatic school to Xenophanes and still
earlier authorities. We have seen in other instances
how these playful and ironical remarks of Plato were '
taken seriously by his successors, and we need not let
this fresh instance of the same thing influence our
general view of Xenophanes unduly.

Aristotle goes on to tell us that Xenophanes,
" referring to the whole world, 4 said the One was god."
This clearly alludes to frs. 23-26, where all human
attributes are denied of a god who is said to be one
and " the greatest among gods and men." It may be
added that these verses gain very much in point if we
may think of them as closely connected with frs.

1 Tht. 181 a 6, TOV 8\ov ffTcun&Tai. The noun (rrcKrtc&TTjs has no other
meaning than " partisan." There is no verb a-rao-iouf " to make stationary,"
and such a formation would be against all analogy. The derivation
<rra<riwras . . . awo TTJS crracrews appears first in Sext. Math. x. 46, from
which passage we may infer that Aristotle used the word, not that he
gave the derivation.

2 Soph. 242 d 5 (R. P. 101 b). If the passage implies that Xenophanes
settled at Elea, it equally implies this of his predecessors. But Elea was
not founded till Xenophanes was in the prime of life.

3 Tht. 179 63, T&V 'HpaK\eiTib>v ij, Sxnrep <rv X^yets, 'OfMypeluv Kal ZTI
iraXaiortpwv. In this passage, Homer stands to the Herakleiteans in
exactly the same relation as Xenophanes does to the Eleatics in the
Sophist.

4 Met. 981 b 24. The words cannot mean "gazing up at the whole
heavens," or anything of that sort. They are taken as I take them by
Bonitz (im Hinblicke auf 'den ganzen Himmel] and Zeller (im Hinblickauf
das Weltganze). The word d-jropxtireiv had become much too colourless
to bear the other meaning, and ovpavds, as we know, means what was later
called K6<r/j.os.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION 141

1 1 - 1 6, instead of referring the one set of verses to the
Satires and the other to a cosmological poem. It was
probably in the same context that Xenophanes called
the world or god " equal every way " l and denied that
it breathed. 2 The statement that there is flo master-
ship among the gods 3 also goes very well with fr. 26.
A god has no wants, nor is it fitting for one god to be
the servant of others, like Iris and Hermes in Homer.

62. That this "god" is just the world, Aristotle Monotheism

'. or polytheism.

tells us, and the use of the word veos is quite in
accordance with Anaximander's. Xenophanes regarded
it as sentient, though without any special organs of
sense, and it sways all things by the thought of its
mind. He also calls it "one god," and, if that is
monotheism, then Xenophanes was a monotheist,
though this is surely not how the word is generally
understood. The fact is that the expression " one
god " wakens all sorts of associations in our mind
which did not exist at all for the Greeks of this time.
His contemporaries would have been more likely to
call Xenophanes an atheist than anything else. As
Eduard Meyer excellently says : " In Greece the question
of one god or gods many hardly plays any part.
Whether the divine power is thought of as a unity
or a plurality, is irrelevant in comparison with the
question whether it exists at all, and how its nature
and its relation to the world is to be understood." 4

1 See above, p. 137, n. 2.

2 Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c), o\ov 5' opav Kal 8\ov a.KOveii', ^ (drroi
dvairveiv. See above, p. I2O ? n. 2.

3 [Plut.] Strom, fr. 4, airoQalvcTai 8t Kal vepl 6euv u>J ovScfjuas
ijyefAovias tv en/rots oftnjs ' ov yap tfinov 8e<nr6feff6al TWO. TUV Oewr,
<?7ride?cr0cU re fjLi)8ei>bs avruv wdtva. fj.i)8' SXws, aKoteiv 5t Kal opav ica06\ov
Kai fj.T) Kara /j.tpos.

4 Gesch. des Alterth. ii. 466.

142 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

On the other hand, it is wrong to say with Freuden-
thal that Xenophanes was in any sense a polytheist. 1
That he should use the language of polytheism in his
elegies is only what we should expect, and the other
references to " gods " can be best explained as incidental
to his attack on the anthropomorphic gods of Homer
and Hesiod. In one case, Freudenthal has pressed a
proverbial way of speaking too hard. 2 Least of all
can we admit that Xenophanes allowed the existence
of subordinate or departmental gods ; for it was just
the existence of such that he was chiefly concerned
to deny. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that
Freudenthal was more nearly right than Wilamowitz,
who says that Xenophanes " upheld the only real
monotheism that has ever existed upon earth." a Diels,
I fancy, comes nearer the mark, when he calls it a
" somewhat narrow pantheism." 4 But all these views
would have surprised Xenophanes himself about equally.
He was really Goethe's Weltkind, with prophets to
right and left of him, and he would have smiled if
he had known that one day he was to be regarded
as a theologian.

1 Freudenthal, Die Theologie des Xenophanes.

2 Xenophanes calls his god "greatest among gods and men," but this is
simply a case of "polar expression," to which parallels will be found in
Wilamowitz's note to the Herakles, v. 1 106. Cf. especially the statement
of Herakleitos (fr. 20) that "no one of gods or men" made the world.

3 Gricchische Literatur, p. 38.

4 Parmenides Lchrgcdicht, p. 9.

CHAPTER III

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS

63. HERAKLEITOS of Ephesos, son of Ely son, is said to Life of
have "flourished" in Ol. LXIX. (504/3-501/0 B.C.); 1 "
that is to say, just in the middle of the reign of
Dareios, with whom several traditions connected him. 2
We shall see that Parmenides was assigned to the same
Olympiad, though for another reason ( 84). It is more
important, however, for our purpose to notice that, while
Herakleitos refers to Pythagoras and Xenophanes by
name and in the past tense (fr. 16), he is in turn
referred to by Parmenides (fr. 6). These references
are sufficient to mark his proper place in the history
of philosophy. Zeller holds, indeed, that he cannot
have published his work till after 478 B.C., on the
ground that the expulsion of his friend Hermodoros,
alluded to in fr. 114, could not have taken place
before the downfall of Persian rule. ' If that were
so, it might be hard to see how Parmenides could
have known the views of Herakleitos ; but there is
surely no difficulty in supposing that the Ephesians
may have sent one of their foremost citizens into
banishment at a time when they were still paying

1 Diog. ix. I (R. P. 29), no doubt from Apollodoros through some inter-
mediate authority. Jacoby, pp. 227 sqq.

2 Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Brief e t pp. 13 sqq.

143

144 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

tribute to the Great King. The Persians never took
their internal self-government from the Ionian cities,
and the spurious Letters of Herakleitos show the
accepted view was that the expulsion of Hermodoros
took place during the reign of Dareios. 1

Sotion said that Herakleitos was a disciple of
Xenophanes, 2 which is not probable ; for Xenophanes
seems to have left Ionia for ever before Herakleitos
was born. More likely he was not a disciple of
any one ; but it is clear, at the same time, that he
was acquainted both with the Milesian cosmology
and with the poems of Xenophanes. He also
knew something of the theories taught by Pythagoras
(fr. 17).

Of the life of Herakleitos we really know nothing,
except, perhaps, that he belonged to the ancient royal
house and resigned the nominal position of Basileus
in favour of his brother. 3 The origin of the other
statements bearing on it is quite transparent. 4
His book. 64. We do not know the title of the work of
Herakleitos 5 if, indeed, it had one at all and it

1 Bernays, op. cit. pp. 20 sqq.

2 Sotion ap. Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 29 c).

3 Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).

4 See Patin, Heraklits Einheitslehrc, pp. 3 sqq. Herakleitos said (fr.
68) that it was death to souls to become water ; and we are told accord-
ingly that he died of dropsy. He said (fr. 114) that the Ephesians should
leave their city to their children, and (fr. 79) that Time was a child play-
ing draughts. We are therefore told that he refused to take any part in
public life, and went to play with the children in the temple of Artemis.
He said (fr. 85) that corpses were more fit to be cast out than dung ; and
we are told that he covered himself with dung when attacked with dropsy.
Lastly, he is said to have argued at great length with his doctors because
of fr. 58. For these tales see Diog. ix. 3-5, and compare the stories about
Empedokles discussed in Chap. V. IOO.

5 The variety of titles enumerated in Diog. ix. 12 (R. P. 30 b) seems to
show that none was authentically known. That of " Muses" comes from
Plato, Soph. 242 d 7. The others are mere "mottoes" (Schuster) prefixed

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 145

is not very easy to form a clear idea of its contents.
We are told that it was divided into three discourses :
one dealing with the universe, one political, and one
theological. 1 It is not likely that this division is
due to Herakleitos himself; all we can infer from the
statement is that the work fell naturally into these
three parts when the Stoic commentators took their
editions of it in hand.

The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure,
and, at a later date, got him the nickname of "the
Dark." 2 Now the fragments about the Delphic god
and the Sibyl (frs. n and 12) seem to show that
he was quite conscious of writing an oracular style,
and we have to ask why he did so. In the first place,
it was the manner of the time. 3 The stirring events
of the age, and the influence of the religious revival,
gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders
of thought. Pindar and Aischylos have it too. They
all feel that they are in some measure inspired. It is
also the age of great individualities, who are apt to be
solitary and disdainful. Herakleitos at" least was so.
If men cared to dig for the gold they might find it
(fr. 8) ; if not, they must be content with straw (fr.
5 1 ). This seems to have been the view taken by
Theophrastos, who said that the headstrong tempera-
ment of Herakleitos sometimes led him into incomplete-
ness and inconsistencies of statement. 4 But that is

by Stoic editors, and intended to emphasise their view that the subject of
the work was ethical or political (Diog. ix. 15 ; R. P. 30 c).

1 Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 30). By water has followed this hint in his arrange-
ment of the fragments. The three sections are 1-90, 91-97, 98-13-

2 R. P. 30 a. The epithet 6 <r/coTj/6s is of late date, but Timon of Phleious
already called him alvucrip (fr. 43, Diels).

8 See the valuable observations of Diels in the Introduction to his
Herakleitos von Ephesos, pp. iv. sqq.
4 Cf. Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).

146 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

a very different thing from studied obscurity and the
disciplina arcani sometimes attributed to him ; if
Herakleitos does not go out of his way to make his
meaning clear, neither does he hide it (fr. 1 1).
The frag- 65. I give a version of the fragments according to
the arrangement of Mr. Bywater's exemplary edition. 1

(1) It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my' Word, and
to confess that all things are one. 2 R. P. 40.

(2) Though this Word 3 is true evermore, yet men are as
unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as
before they have heard it at all. For, though all things come
to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they
had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and
deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its
nature and showing how it truly is. But other men know not
what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they
do in sleep. R. P. 32.

1 In his edition, Diels has given up all attempt to arrange the fragments
according to subject, and this makes his text unsuitable for our purpose.
I think, too, that he overestimates the difficulty of an approximate arrange-
ment, and makes too much of the view that the style of Herakleitos was
"aphoristic." That it was so, is an important and valuable remark; but
it does not follow that Herakleitos wrote like Nietzsche. For a Greek,
however prophetic in his tone, there must always be a distinction between
an aphoristic and an incoherent style. See the excellent remarks of Lortzing
in BerL Phil. Wochenschr. 1896, pp. I sqq.

2 Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk's \6yov for dby/jLaros and Miller's
dva.L for elStvai. Cf. Philo, leg. all. iii. c, quoted in Bywater's note.

3 The Xo7os is simply the discourse of Herakleitos himself ; though, as
he is a prophet, we may call it "the Word." It can neither mean a
discourse addressed to Herakleitos nor yet "reason." (Cf. Zeller, p. 630,
n. I ; Eng. trans, ii. p. 7, n. 2. ) A difficulty has been raised about the words
ebvros cue/. How could Herakleitos say that his discourse had always
existed? The answer is that in Ionic t&v means "true" when coupled
with words like \6yos. Cf. Herod, i. 30, T$ 6vri xpTjcrd^ei'os Xe"yet ; and
even Aristoph. Frogs, 1052, OVK 6vra \6yov. It is only by taking the words
in this way that we can understand Aristotle's hesitation as to the proper
punctuation of the fragment (Rhet. F 5. 1407 b 15 ; R. P. 30 a). The Stoic
interpretation given by Marcus Aurelius, iv. 46 (R. P. 32 b), must be
rejected altogether. The word \6yos was never used like that till post-
Aristotelian times.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 147

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

(4) Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if they have
souls that understand not their language. R. P. 42.

(5) The many do not take heed of such things as those
they meet with, nor do they mark them when they are taught,
though they think they do.

(6) Knowing not how to listen nor how to speak.

(7) If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find
it j for it is hard to be sought out and difficult. 1

(8) Those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a
little. R. P. 44 b.

(10) Nature loves to hide. R. P. 34 f.
(n) The lord whose is the oracle at Delphoi neither utters
nor hides his meaning, but shows it by a sign. R. P. 30 a.

(12) And the Sibyl, with raving lips uttering things mirth-
less, unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand
years with her voice, thanks to the god in her. R. P. 30 a.

(13) The things that can be seen, heard, and learned are
what I prize the most. R. P. 42.

(14) . . . bringing untrustworthy witnesses in support of
disputed points.

(15) The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears. 2
R. P. 42 c.

(16) The learning of many things teacheth not understand-
ing, else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and
again Xenophanes and Hekataios. R. P. 31.

(17) Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised inquiry
beyond all other men, and choosing out these writings, claimed
for his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many
things and an art of mischief. 3 R. P. 31 a.

1 I have departed from the punctuation of Bywater here, and supplied a
fresh object to the verb as suggested by Gomperz (Arch. i. 100).

z Cf. Herod, i. 8. The application is, no doubt, the same as that of
the last two fragments. Personal inquiry is better than tradition.

3 See Chap. II. p. 107, n. i. The best attested reading is ^-otTfa-aTo,
not tTTolr)ffcv, and ^7ron?<ra,To eavroO means "claimed as his own." The words
K\ed/j.vos rcti/ras rets <r try/pa </>ds have been doubted since the time of
Schleiermacher, and Diels has now come to regard the whole fragment as

148 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

( 1 8) Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one
who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all.
R. P. 32 b.

(19) Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by
which all things are steered through all things. R. P. 40.

(20) This world, 1 which is the same for all, no one of gods
or men has made ; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be
an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling, and measures
going out. R. P. 35.2

(21) The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea ; and
half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind. 3 . . . R. P. 35 b.

(22) All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for
all things, even as wares for gold and gold for wares.

R. P. 35-

(23) It becomes liquid sea, and is measured by the same
tale as before it became earth. 4 R. P. 39.

(24) Fire is want and surfeit. R. P. 36 a.

spurious. This is because it was used to prove that Pythagoras wrote
books (cf. Diels, Arch. iii. p. 451). As Mr. Bywater has pointed out,
however, the fragment itself makes no such statement ; it only says that
he read books, which we may presume he did. I would further suggest
that the old-fashioned <rvyypa<j>ds is rather too good for a forger, and that
the omission of the very thing to be proved is remarkable. The last
suggestion of a book by Pythagoras disappears with the reading ^Troiijtraro
for tiroi-rjirej'. Of course a late writer who read of Pythagoras making
extracts from books would assume that he put them into a book of his own,
just as people did in his own days. For the rest, I understand io-Topiy of
science, which is contrasted with the KaKorexvlrj which Pythagoras derived
from the (rvyypa<f>at of men like Pherekydes of Syros.

1 The word /c6<r/u,os must mean " world " here, not merely " order" ; for
only the world could be identified with fire. This use of the word is
Pythagorean, and there is no reason to doubt that Herakleitos may have
known it.

2 It is important to notice that /xerpa is internal accusative with airrbnevov,
"with its measures kindling and its measures going out."

3 On the word Trprjimrip, see below, p. 165, n. 2.

4 The subject of fr. 23 is 777, as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 36),
iraXiv re aD TTJV yrjv x ">"0cu ; and Act. i. 3, II (Dox. p. 284 a I ; b 5),
e?7reiTa dj'axaXaj/i^j'Tji' TTJV yijv VTTO TOV irvpos x&rei (Diibner : (fiijffei, libri)
v8wp airoTeXeicrdai. Herakleitos might quite well say yij BdXaffira Siax&rcu,
and the context in Clement {Strom, v. p. 7 12 ) seems to imply this. The
phrase /Ker/^ercu els TOV atrbv \6yov can only mean that the proportion of
the measures remains constant. So practically Zeller (p. 690, n. i), zic
derselben Grosse.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 149

(25) Fire lives the death of air, 1 and air lives the death of
fire ; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water.
R. P. 37.

- (26) Fire in its advance will judge and convict 2 all things.
R. P. 36 a.

(27) How can one hide from that which never sets?

(28) It is the thunderbolt that steers the course of all
things. R. P. 35 b.

(29) The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does,
the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice, will find him out
R P. 39-

(30) The limit of East and West is the Bear ; and opposite
the Bear is the boundary of bright Zeus. 3

(31) If there were no sun it would be night, for all the
other stars could do. 4

(32) The sun is new every day.

(33) See above, Chap. I. p. 41, n. i.

(34) . . . the seasons that bring all things.

(35) Hesiod is most men's teacher. Men think he knew
very many things, a man who did not know day or night !
They are one. 5 R. P. 39 b.

(36) God is day and night, winter and summer, war and
peace, surfeit and hunger ; but he takes various shapes, just as
fire, 6 when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the
savour of each. R. P. 39 b.

1 With Diels I adopt the transposition (proposed by Tocco) of dtpos and

2 I understand 4Tre\06v of the irvp&s 0o5os, for which see below, p. 168.
Diels has pointed out that KaraKanfiaveiv is the old word for " to convict."
It is, literally, " to overtake," just as aipeiv is "to catch."

3 In this fragment it is clear that oSpos = r^pnara, and therefore means
" boundary," not "hill." As aWpios Zeys means the bright blue sky, I do
not think its oPpos can be the South Pole, as Diels says. It is more likely
the horizon. I am inclined to take the fragment as a protest against the
Pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere.

4 We learn from Diog. ix. 10 (quoted below, p. 164) that Herakleitos
explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon, and this
is doubtless a 'fragment of that passage. I now think the words ?xe*co rwr

AffTpuv are from Herakleitos. So Diels.

5 Hesiod said Day was the child of Night (Theog. 124).

6 Reading Sicuxnrep irvp for SKWirep with Diels.

ISO EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(37) If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would
distinguish them.

(38) Souls smell in Hades. R. P. 46 d.

(39) Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools;
what is wet dries, and the parched is moisted.

(40) It scatters and it gathers ; it advances and retires.
(41, 42) You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for

fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. R. P. 33.

(43) Homer was wrong in saying: "Would that strife
might perish from among gods and men ! " He did not see
that he was praying for the destruction of the universe ; for, if
his prayer were heard, all things would pass away. 1 . . . R. P.
34 d.

(44) War is the father of all and the king of all ; and some
he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free.

R. P. 34-

(45) Men do not know how y what is at variance agrees with
itself. It is an attunement of opposite tensions, 2 like that of
the bow and the lyre. R. P. 34.

(46) It is the opposite which is good for us. 3

(47) The hidden attunement is better than the open.

R. P. 34-

(48) Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest
things.

(49) Men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very
many things indeed.

(50) The straight and the crooked path of the fuller's comb
is one and the same.

(51) Asses would rather have straw than gold. R. P. 31 a.

1 //. xviii. 107. I add the words oi'xjjffecrda.i yap iravTa from Simpl. in
Cat. (88 b 30 schol. Br. ). They seem to me at least to represent something
that was in the original.

2 I cannot think it likely that Herakleitos said both iraXlvrovos and
iraXlvrpoiros ap/jLovir), and I prefer Plutarch's TTO.\LVTOVOS (R. P. 34 b) to the
jraXivrpoiros of Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of Parmenides
decides the question in favour of iraKlvrpoiro^ ; but see below, p. 184, n. I,
and Chap. IV. p. 198, n. 4.

3 This, I now think, is the medical rule ai 5' tarpetcu Sid, TWV tvavrluv,
e.g. ^orjde'if ry Qepw <hri TO tyvxpbv (Stewart on Arist. Eth. 1104
b 16).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 151

(5 1 a) Oxen are happy when they find bitter vetches to
eat. 1 R. P. 48 b.

(52) The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish
can drink it, and it is good for them ; to men it is undrinkable
and destructive. R. P. 47 c.

(53) Swine wash in the mire, and barnyard fowls in dust.

(54) ... to delight in the mire.

(55) Every beast is driven to pasture with blows. 2

(56) Same as 45.

(57) Good and ill are one. R. P. 47 c.

(58) Physicians who cut, burn, stab, and rack the sick,
demand a fee for it which they do not deserve to get. R. P.

47 c- 3

(59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what
is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious
and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and
all things issue from the one. 4

(60) Men would not have known the name of justice if
these things were not. 5

(61) To God all things are fair and good and right, but
men hold some things wrong and some right. R. P. 45.

(62) We must know that war is common to all and strife
is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away (?)
through strife.

(64) All the things we see when awake are death, even as
all we see in slumber are sleep. R. P. 42 c. 6

(65) The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to
be called by the name of Zeus. R. P. 40.

(66) The bow (/?io's) is called life (/3ios), but its work is
death. R. P. 49 a.

1 Fr. 510 was recovered by By water from Albertus Magnus. See
fonrn. Phil. ix. p. 230.

2 On fr. 55 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb. 1901, p. 188.

3 I now read tirairtovTcu with Bernays and Diels.

4 On fr. 59 see Diels in Berl. Sitzb. 1901, p. 1 88. The reading <rwdfie
seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. It is not, however,
correct to say that the optative could not be used in an imperative sense.

5 By " these things," he probably meant all kinds of injustice.

6 Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on 66<ra 5 reflvT/Kdrej fwij. " Life,
Sleep, Death is the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics Fire,
Water, Earth."

152 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(67) Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the
one living the others' death and dying the others' life. R. P. 46.

(68) For it is death to souls to become water, and death
to water to become earth. But water comes from earth ; and
from water, soul. R. P. 38.

(69) The way up and the way down is one and the same.
R. P. 36 d.

(70) In the circumference of a circle the beginning and
end are common.

(71) You will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling
in any direction, so deep is the measure of it. 1 R. P. 41 d.

(72) It is pleasure to souls to become moist. R. P. 46 c.

(73) A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless
lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul
moist. R. P. 42.

(74-76) The dry soul is the wisest and best. 2 R. P. 42.

(77) Man is kindled and put out like a light in the night-
time.

(78) And it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead,
awake and asleep, young and old ; the former are shifted 3 and

1 I think now with Diels that the words oflrw fiadvv \6yov tx i are
probably genuine. They present no difficulty if we remember that X6yos
means "measurement," as in fr. 23.

2 This fragment is interesting because of the great antiquity of the
corruptions which it has suffered. According to Stephanus, who is followed
by Bywater and Diels, we should read : Atfij ^fX^ <ro0wTci,T77 /ecu dpior?;,
77/577 (or rather %r)pd the Ionic form would only appear when the word got
into the text) being a mere gloss upon the somewhat unusual atiy. When
once T?/>^ got into the text, atiy became aty/i, and we get the sentence :
"the dry light is the wisest soul," whence the siccum lumen of Bacon.
Now this reading is certainly as old as Plutarch, who, in his Life of Romulus
(c. 28), takes avyfi to mean lightning, as it sometimes does, and supposes
the idea to be that the wise soul bursts through the prison of the body like
dry lightning (whatever that may be) through a cloud. I do not think that
Clement's making the same mistake proves anything at all (Zeller, p. 705,
n. 3 ; Eng. trans, i. p. 80, n. 2), except that he had read his Plutarch.
Lastly, it is worth noticing that, though Plutarch must have written aiy/i,
the MSS. vary between avrrj and aiir-/}. The next stage is the corruption
of the corrupt 0,1)717 into ov 777. This yields the sentiment that " where the
earth is dry, the soul is wisest," and is as old as Philo (see Mr. By water's
notes).

3 I understand fiTairo-6vra here as meaning " moved " from one ypa/j,fj.ri
or division of the draught-board to another.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 153

become the latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and
become the former. R. P. 47.

(79) Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is
a child's. R. P. 40 a.

(80) I have sought for myself. R. P. 48.

(81) We step and do not step into the same rivers ; we are
and are not. R. P. 33 a.

(82) It is a weariness to labour for the same masters and
be ruled by them.

J (83) It rests by changing.

(84) Even the posset separates if it is not stirred.

(85) Corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung.
-(86) When they are born, they wish to live and to meet

with their dooms or rather to rest and they leave children
behind them to meet with their dooms in turn.

(87-89) A man may be a grandfather in thirty years.

(90) Those who are asleep are fellow-workers. . . .

(910) Thought is common to all.

(91^) Those who speak with understanding must hold fast
to what is common to all as a city holds fast to its law, and
even more strongly. For all human laws are fed by the one
divine law. It prevails as much as it will, and suffices for all
things with something to spare. R. P. 43.

(92) So we must follow the common, 1 yet the many live as
if they had a wisdom of their own. R. P. 44.

(93) They are estranged from that with which they have
most constant intercourse. 2 R. P. 32 b.

(94) It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep.

(95) The waking have one common world, but the sleeping
turn aside each into a world of his own.

1 Sext. Math. vii. 133, dib del ZireffQai rip vv$. It seems to me that
these words must belong to Herakleitos, though Bywater omits them. On
the other hand, the words TOV \6yov dt 6rros woO (so, not 8' ^VTOJ, the
best MSS.) seem clearly to belong to the Stoic interpreter whom Sextus is
following, and who was anxious to connect this fragment with fr. 2 (&\iy*
irpoffdtcXewv 4m<t>tpei) in order to get the doctrine of the /cou^y X<ty>j. The
whole context in Sextus should be read.

2 The words X&yy TI? ra 8\a SIOIKOVVTI, which Diels prints as part of
this fragment, seem to me to belong to Marcus Aurelius and not to
Herakleitos.

154 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(96) The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has.

R. P. 45-

(97) Man is called a baby by God, even as a child by a
man. R. P. 45.

(98, 99) The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just
as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.

(100) The people must fight for its law as for its walls.
R. P. 43 b.

(101) Greater deaths win greater portions. R. P. 49 a.

(102) Gods and men honour those who are slain in battle.
R. P. 49 a.

(103) Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a
house on fire. R. P. 49 a.

(104) It is not good for men to get all they wish to get.
It is sickness that makes health pleasant ; evil, 1 good ; hunger,
plenty; weariness, rest. R. P. 48 b.

(105-107) It is hard to fight with one's heart's desire. 2
Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul.
R. P. 49 a.

(108, 109) It is best to hide folly; but it is hard in times
of relaxation, over our cups.

(no) And it is law, too, to obey the counsel of one.
R. P. 49 a.

(in) For what thought or wisdom have they? They
follow the poets and take the crowd as their teacher, knowing
not that there are many bad and few good. For even the
best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal
glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like
beasts. 3 R. P. 31 a.

(112) In Priene lived Bias, son of Teutamas, who is of
more account than the rest. (He said, " Most men are bad.")

(113) One is ten thousand to me, if he be the best. R. P.
31 a.

(114) The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves,

1 Adopting Heitz's KdKbv for /ecu with Diels.

2 The word 0u/*6s has its Homeric sense. The gratification of desire
implies the exchange of dry soul-fire (fr. 74) for moisture (fr. 72). Aristotle
understood dvpfc here as anger (Eth. Nic. B 2, 1105 a 8).

3 This seems to be a clear reference to the "three lives." See Chap.
II. 45, P. 108.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 155

every grown man of them, and leave the city to beardless
lads ; for they have cast out Hermodoros, the best man among
them, saying, " We will have none who is best among us ; if
there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others."
R. P. 29 b.

(115) Dogs bark at every one they do not know. R. P.
31 a.

(116) . . . (The wise man) is not known because of men's
want of belief.

(117) The fool is fluttered at every word. R. P. 44 b.

(118) The most esteemed of them knows but fancies; 1
yet of a truth justice shall overtake the artificers of lies and
the false witnesses.

(119) Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped,
and Archilochos likewise. R. P. 31.

(120) One day is like any other.

( 1 2 1 ) Man's character is his fate. 2

(122) There awaits men when they die such things as they
look not for nor dream of. R. P. 46 d.

(123) . . . 3 that they rise up and become the wakeful
guardians of the quick and dead. R. P. 46 d.

(124) Night-walkers, Magians, priests of Bakchos and
priestesses of the wine-vat, mystery-mongers. . . .

(125) The mysteries practised among men are unholy
mysteries. R. P. 48.

(126) And they pray to these images, as if one were to
talk with a man's house, knowing not what gods or heroes are.
R. P. 49 a.

(127) For if it were not to Dionysos that they made a
procession and sang the shameful phallic hymn, they would be
acting most shamelessly. But Hades is the same as Dionysos

1 Reading do^ovra with Schleiermacher (or SOK^OVT uv with Diels). I
have omitted (j>v\d(r<reiv, as I do not know what it means, and none of the
conjectures commends itself.

2 On the meaning of 5a.lfj.wv here, see my edition of Aristotle's Etkt'is,
pp. i sq. As Professor Gildersleeve puts it, the dal/jur is the individual
form of TVXIJ, as Krjp is of Qavaros.

3 I have not ventured to include the words tvBa 5' ibvri. at the beginning,
as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels's interesting
note.

156 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

in whose honour they go mad and keep the feast of the wine-
vat. R. P. 49.

(129, 130) They vainly purify themselves by defiling them-
selves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud
were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him
doing thus, would deem him mad. R. P. 49 a.

The doxo- 66. It will be seen that some of these fragments

graphical

tradition, are far from clear, and there are probably not a few of
which the meaning will never be recovered. We
naturally turn, then, to the doxographers for a clue ;
but, as ill-luck will have it, they are far less instructive
with regard to Herakleitos than we have found them
in other cases. We have, in fact, two great difficulties
to contend with. The first is the unusual weakness of
the doxographical tradition itself. Hippolytos, upon
whom we can generally rely for a fairly accurate
account of what Theophrastos really said, derived the
material for his first four chapters, which treat of ,
Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not*"
from the excellent epitome which he afterwards used,
but from a biographical compendium, 1 which consisted
for the most part of apocryphal anecdotes and apo-
phthegms. It was based, further, on some writer of
Successions who regarded Herakleitos and Empedokles
as Pythagoreans. They are therefore placed side
by side, and their doctrines are hopelessly mixed up
together. The link between Herakleitos and the
Pythagoreans was Hippasos of Metapontion, in whose
system, as we know, fire played an important part.

1 On the source used by Hippolytos in the first four chapters of Ref. i.
see Diels, Dox. p. 145. We must carefully distinguish Ref. i. and Ref. ix.
as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter book is an
attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was derived from
Herakleitos instead of from the Gospel, and is a rich mine of Herakleitean
fragments.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 157

Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had spoken of the
two in the same sentence, and this was enough to put
the writers of Successions off the track. 1 We are forced,
then, to look to the more detailed of the two accounts
of the opinions of Herakleitos given in Diogenes, 2 which
goes back to the Vetusta Placita, and is, fortunately,
pretty full and accurate. All our other sources are
more or less tainted.

The second difficulty which we have to face is
even more serious. Most of the commentators on
Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were Stoics, 3 and
it is certain that their paraphrases were sometimes
taken for the original. Now, the Stoics held the
Ephesian in peculiar veneration, and sought to
interpret him as far as possible in accordance with
their own system. Further, they were fond of " accom-
modating " 4 the views of earlier thinkers to their own,
and this has had serious consequences. In particular,
the Stoic theories of the Xoyo? and the eWi^&xrt? are
constantly ascribed to Herakleitos by our authorities,
and the very fragments are adulterated with scraps of
Stoic terminology.

67. Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass The discovery

of Herakleitos

of men, but on all previous inquirers into nature.

1 Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c) : Theophr. ap. Simpl. Phys. 23,
33 (R. P. 36 c).

2 For these double accounts see Dox. pp. 163 sqq. and Appendix, 15.

3 Diog. ix. 15 (R. P. 30 c). Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this.

4 The word ffwouceiouv is used of the Stoic method of interpretation by
Philodemos (cf. Dox. 547 b, n.), and Cicero (N.D. i. 41) renders it by
accomniodare. Chrysippos in particular gave a great impulse to this sort
of thing, as we may best learn from Galen, de Plcu. Hippocr. et Plat.
Book Hi. Good examples are Act. i. 13, 2 ; 28, I ; iv. 3, 12, where
distinctively Stoic doctrines are ascribed to Herakleitos. What the Stoics
were capable of, we see' from Kleanthes, fr. 55, Pearson. He proposed to
read Zei) dvaSuSwvcue in //. xvi. 233, wj rbv tic TJJJ 7775

dtpa Sta TT]V dvd5o<ru> '

158 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

This must mean that he believed himself to have
attained insight into some truth which had not
hitherto been recognised, though it was, as it were,
staring men in the face (fr. 93). Clearly, then, if we
wish to get at the_central thing in his teaching, we
must JQMtoJmcLiHiJLwJiat he was thinking of when he
launched into those enunciations of human dulness

and ignorance. 1 The answer seems to be given in two
/I fragments, i_8^ and 45. From them we gather that
the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently
independent and conflicting things we know are really
ojie, and that, on the other hand, this one is alsqjnany.
The " strife of opposites " is really an " attunement "
(apfjiovia). From this it follows that wisdom is not
a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the
underlying unity of the warring opposites. That this
really was the fundamental thought of Herakleitos is
stated by Philo. He says : " For that which is made
up of both the opposites is one ; and, when the one is
divided, the opposites are disclosed. Is not this just
what the Greeks say their great and much belauded
Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as
summing it all up, and boasted of as a new dis-
covery ? " We shall take the elements of this theory
one by one, and see how they are to be understood.
The One and 68. Anaximander had taught already that the
opposites were separated out from the Boundless, but
passed away into it once more, so paying the penalty
for their unjust encroachments on one another. It is

1 See Patin, Heraklits Einheitslehre (1886). To Patin undoubtedly
belongs the credit of showing clearly that the unity of opposites was the
central doctrine of Herakleitos. It is not always easy, however, to follow
him when he comes to details.

2 Philo, Rer. Div. Her. 43 (R. P. 34 c).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 159

here implied that there is something wrong in the war
of opposites, and that the existence of the Many is a
breach in the unity of the One. The truth which
Herakleitos proclaimed was that there is no One
without the Many, and no Many without the One.
The world is at once one and many, and it is just the
" opposite tension " of the Many that constitutes the
unity of the One.

The credit of having been the first to see this is
expressly assigned to Herakleitos by Plato. In the
Sophist (242 d), the Eleatic stranger, after explaining
how the Eleatics maintained that what we call many
is really one, proceeds :

But certain Ionian and (at a later date) certain Sicilian
Muses remarked that it was safest to unite these two things,
and to say that reality is both many and one, and is kept
together by Hate and Love. " For," say the more severe
Muses, " in its division it is always being brought together "
(cf. fr. 59); while the softer Muses relaxed the requirement
that this should always be so, and said that the All was _
alternately one and at peace through the power of Aphrodite,
and many and at war with itself because of something they
called Strife.

In this passage the Ionian Muses stand, of course,
for Herakleitos, and the Sicilian for Empedokles. We
remark also that the differentiation of the one into
many, and the integration of the many into one, are
both eternal and simultaneous, and that this is the
ground upon which the systenVof Herakleitos is con-
trasted with that of Empedokles. We shall come
back to that point again. Meanwhile we confine our-
selves to this, that, according to Plato, Herakleitos
taught that reality was at once many and one.

We must be careful, however, not to imagine that

160 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

what Herakleitos thus discovered was a logical principle.
This was the mistake of Lassalle's book. 1 The identity
in and through difference which he proclaimed was
purely physical ; logic did not yet exist, and as the
principle of identity had not been formulated, it would
have been impossible to protest against an abstract
application of it. The identity which he explains as
consisting in difference is simply that of the primary
substance in all its manifestations. This identity had
been realised already by the Milesians, but they had
found a difficulty in the difference. Anaximander had
treated the strife of opposites as an " injustice," and
what Herakleitos set himself to show was that, on the
contrary, it was the highest justice (fi\ 62).

69. All this made it necessary for him to seek out a
new primary substance. He wanted not merely some-
thing out of which the diversified world we know might

1 The source of his error was Hegel's remarkable statement that there
was no proposition of Herakleitos that he had not taken up into his own
logic (Gesch. d. Phil. i. 328). The example which he cites is the state-
ment that Being does not exist any more than not-Being, for which he
refers to Arist. Met. A, 4. This, however, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos
at all, but to Leukippos or Demokritos, with whom it meant that space was
as real as matter ( 175). Aristotle does, indeed, tell us in the Metaphysics
that "some" think Herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not
be ; but he adds that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says
(Met. F 3. 1005 b 24). I take this to mean that, though Herakleitos
did make this assertion in words, he did not mean by it what the same
assertion would naturally have meant at a later date. Herakleitos was
speaking only of nature ; the logical meaning of the words never occurred
to him. This is confirmed by K, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by
being questioned in a certain manner Herakleitos could be made to admit
the principle of contradiction ; as it was, he did not understand what he
said. In other words, he was unconscious of its logical bearing.

Aristotle was aware, then, that the theories of Herakleitos were not
to be understood in a logical sense. On the other hand, this does not
prevent him from saying that according to the view of Herakleitos, every-
thing would be true (Met. A, 7. 1012 a 24). If we remember his constant
attitude to earlier thinkers, this will not lead us to suspect either his good
faith or his intelligence. (See Appendix, 2. )

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 161

conceivably be made, or from which opposites could be
" separated out," but something which pf its own nature
would pass into everything else, while everything else
would pass in turn into it. This he found in Fire, and
it is easy to see why, if we consider the phenomenon
of combustion, even as it appears to the plain man.
The quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears
to remain the same, the flame seems to be what we
call a " thing." And yet the substance of it is con-
tinually changing. It is always passing away in
smoke, and its place is always being taken by fresh
matter from the fuel that feeds it. This is just what
we want. If we regard the world as an "ever-living
fire" (fr. 20), we can understand how it is always
becoming all things, while all things are always return-
ing to it. 1

70. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of Flux.

1 That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the
"Air "of Anaximenes and not a "symbol," is clearly implied in such
passages as Arist. Met. A, 3. 984 a 5. In support of the view that some-
thing different from common fire is meant, Plato, Crat. 413 b, is some-
times quoted ; but a consideration of the context shows that the passage
will not bear this interpretation. Plato is discussing the derivation of dlKcuov
from 5ta-i6v, and certainly Slier) was a prominent Herakleitean conception,
and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the
school* Sokrates goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which
"goes through" everything, he gets very inconsistent answers. One says
it is the sun. Another asks if there is no justice after sunset, and says it is
simply fire. A third says it is not fire itself, but the heat which is in fire.
A fourth identifies it with Mind. Now all we are entitled to infer from
this is that different accounts were given in the Herakleitean school.
These were a little less crude than the original doctrine of the master, but
for all that not one of them implies anything immaterial or symbolical.
The view that it was not fire itself, but Heat, which " passed through "
all things, is related to the theory of Herakleitos as Hippo's Moisture is
related to the Water of Thales. It is quite likely, too, that some Hera-
kleiteans attempted to fuse the system of Anaxagoras with their own, ju>t
as Diogenes of Apollonia tried to fuse it with that of Anaximcnes.
shall see, indeed, that we still have a work in which this attempt is made
(p. 167, n. 2).

162 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

looking at the change and movement of the world.
Fire burns continuously and without interruption. It
is therefore always consuming fuel and always liberating
smoke. Everything is either mounting upwards to
serve as fuel, or sinking downwards after having
nourished the flame. It follows that the whole of
reality is like an ever-flowing stream, and that nothing
is ever at rest for a moment. The substance of the
things we see is in constant change. Even as we look
at them, some of the matter of which they are composed
has already passed into something else, while fresh
matter has come into them from another source. This
theory is usually summed up, appropriately enough,
in the phrase " All things are flowing " (irdvra peT),
though, as it happens, it cannot be proved that this is
a quotation from Herakleitos. Plato, however, expresses
the idea quite clearly. " Nothing ever is, everything is
becoming " ; " All things are in motion like streams " ;
" All things are passing, and nothing abides " ; " Hera-
kleitos says somewhere that all things pass and naught
abides ; and, comparing things to the current of a river,
i he says that you cannot step twice into the same stream "
(cf. fr. 41) these are the terms in which he describes
the system. And Aristotle says the same thing, " All
things are in motion," " nothing steadfastly is." l
Herakleitos held, in fact, that any given thing, however
stable in appearance, was merely a section in the
stream, and that the matter composing it was never
the same in any two consecutive moments of time.
We shall see presently how he conceived this process
to operate ; meanwhile we remark that the idea was

1 Plato, Tht. 152 e i ; Crat. 401 d 5, 402 a 8 ; Arist. Top. A, u. 104
b 22 ; de Caelo, T, i. 298 b 30 ; Phys. 0, 3. 253 b 2.

HERA&LEITOS OF EPHESOS 163

not altogether novel, and that it is hardly the central
point in the system of Herakleitos. ,The Milesians
held a similar view. The flux of Herakleitos was at
most more unceasing and universal.

71. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the The Upward
details of the perpetual flux with reference to the path.
theories of Anaximenes. 1 It is unlikely, however, that
he explained the transformations of matter by means
of rarefaction and condensation. 2 Theophrastos, it
appears, suggested that he did ; but he allowed it was
by no means clear. The passage from Diogenes which
we are about to quote has faithfully preserved this
touch. 3 In the fragments, at any rate, we find
nothing about rarefaction and condensation. The
expression used is "exchange" (fr. 22); and this is
certainly a very good name for what happens when
fire gives out smoke and takes in fuel instead.

It has been pointed out that, in default of Hippolytos,
our best account of the Theophrastean doxography of
Herakleitos is the fuller of the two accounts given in
Laertios Diogenes. It is as follows :

His opinions on particular points are these:
He held that Fire was the element, and that all things
were an exchange for fire, produced by condensation and
rarefaction. But he explains nothing clearly. All things were
produced in opposition, and all things were in flux like a river.
The all is finite and the world is one. It arises from
fire, and is consumed again by fire alternately through all
eternity in certain cycles. This happens according to fate.
That which leads to the becoming of the opposites is called
War and Strife ; that which leads to- the final conflagration is
Concord and Peace.

1 See above, Chap. I. 29.

2 See, however, the remark of Diels quoted R. P. 36 c.
3 Diog. ix. 8, (7a0u;s 5' oudtv

1 64 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

He called change the upward and the downward path, and
held that the world comes into being in virtue of this. When
fire is condensed it becomes moist, and when compressed it
turns to water; water being congealed turns to earth, and
this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in
turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that
everything else; for he refers almost everything to the
evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards.
R. P. 36.

He held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea and
the land; some bright and pure, others dark. Fire was
nourished by the bright ones, and moisture by the others.

He does not make it clear what is the nature of that which
surrounds the world. He held, however, that there were
bowls in it with the concave sides turned towards us, in which
the bright exhalations were collected and produced flames.
These were the heavenly bodies.

The flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest ; for
the other heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth ;
and for that reason gave less light and heat. The moon, on
the other hand, was nearer the earth ; but it moved through
an impure region. The sun moved in a bright and unmixed
region, and at the same time was at just the right distance
from us. That is why it gives more heat and light. The
eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the
bowls upwards, while the monthly phases of the moon were
produced by a gradual turning of its bowl.

Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and
winds, and things like these, were due to the different
exhalations. The bright exhalation, when ignited in the
circle of the sun, produced day, and the preponderance of the
opposite exhalations produced night. The increase of warmth
proceeding from the bright exhalation produced summer, and
the preponderance of moisture from the dark exhalation
produced winter. He assigns the causes of other things in
conformity with this.

As to the earth, he makes no clear statement about its
nature, any more than he does about that of the bowls.

These, then, were his opinions. R. P. 39 b. \

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 165

It is obvious that, if we can trust this passage, it is
of the greatest possible value ; and that, upon the whole,
we can trust it is shown by the fact that it follows the
exact order of topics to which all the doxographies
derived from the great work of Theophrastos adhere.
First we have the primary substance, then the world,
then the heavenly bodies, and lastly, meteorological
phenomena. We conclude, then, that it may be accepted
with the exceptions, firstly, of the probably erroneous
conjecture of Theophrastos as to rarefaction and
condensation mentioned above ; and secondly, of some
pieces of Stoical interpretation which come from the
Vetusta Placita.

Let us look at the details of the theory. The pure
fire, we are told, is to be found chiefly in the sun.
This, like the other heavenly bodies, is a trough or
bowl, or perhaps a sort of boat, with the concave side
turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations from
the sea collect and burn. How does the fire of the sun
pass into other forms? If we look at the fragments
which deal with the downward path, we find that the
first transformation that it undergoes is into sea, and
we are further told that half of the sea is earth and
half of it Trprjo-Tijp (fr. 21). The full meaning of this
we shall see presently, but we must settle at once
what irpfjo-rrfp is. Many theories have been advanced
upon the subject ; but, so far as I know, no one * has
yet proposed to take the word in the sense which it
always bears elsewhere, that, namely, of hurricane
accompanied by a fiery waterspout.- Yet surely this is

1 This was written in 1890. In his HerakUitos von Ephtsos (1901)
Diels takes it as I did, rendering Glut-wind.

~ Cf. Herod, vii. 42, and Lucretius, vi. 424. Seneca (Quatst. Nat.
ii. 56) calls it igneus turbo. The opinions of early philosophers on these

166 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

just what is wanted. It is amply attested that
Herakleitos explained the rise of the sea to fire by
means of the bright evaporations ; and we want a
similar meteorological explanation of the passing of
the fire back into sea. We want, in fact, something
which will stand equally for the smoke produced by the
burning of the sun and for the immediate stage between
fire and water. What could serve the turn better than
a fiery waterspout ? It sufficiently resembles smoke to
be accounted for as the product of the sun's combustion,
and it certainly comes down in the form of water.
And this interpretation becomes practically certain
when taken in connexion with the report of Aetios as
to the Herakleitean theory of Trprja-Trjpes. They were
due, we are told, "to the kindling and extinction of
clouds." ] In other words, the bright vapour, after
kindling in the bowl of the sun and going out again,
reappears as the dark fiery storm-cloud, and so passes
once more into sea. At the next stage we find water
continually passing into earth. We are already
familiar with this idea ( I o), and no more need be said
about it. Turning to the " upward path," we find that
the earth is liquefied in the same proportion as the sea
becomes earth, so that the sea is still " measured by
the same tale " (fr. 23). Half of it is earth and half of
it is Trprjo-rrjp (fr. 21). This must mean that, at any
given moment, half of the sea is taking the downward

phenomena are collected in Aetios, iii. 3. The irp^a-T^p of Anaximander
(Chap. I. p. 69, n. 2) is a different thing altogether, but it is quite likely that
Greek sailors named the meteorological phenomenon after the familiar
bellows of the smith.

1 Act. iii. 3, 9, irprjffTripas d Kara vefi&v fjnrpri<reis KO.L <r/3&rets
(sc. 'Hpd/cXeiros dtro^aiverai ylyvf<r6ai.). Diels (Herakleitos, p. v.) seems to
regard the TrpTjerrip as the form in which water ascends to heaven. But
the Greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and come down.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 167

path, and has just been fiery storm-cloud, while half of
it is going up, and has just been earth. In proportion
as the sea is increased by rain, water passes into earth ;
in proportion as the sea is diminished by evaporation,
it is fed by the earth. Lastly, the ignition of the
bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun com-
pletes, the circle of the " upward and downward path."

72. The question now arises, How is it that, in spite Measure for
of this Constant flux, things_appear relatively stable ? m
The answer of Herakleitos was that it is owing to the
observance of the " measures," in virtue of which the
aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run
remains the same, though its substance is Constantly
changing, Certain " measures " of the " ever-living fire "
are always being kindled, while like " measures " are
always going out (fr. 20) ; and these measures the sun
will not exceed. All things are "exchanged" for fire
and fire for all things (fr. 22), and this implies that for
everything it takes, fire will give as much. " The sun
will not exceed his measures" (fr. 29). ^vi^uv^

And yet the " measures " are not to be regarded as
absolutely fixed. We gather from the passage of
Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke of an
alternate preponderance of the bright and dark
exhalations, and Aristotle 'speaks of Herakleitos as
explaining all things" by evaporation. 1 In particular,
the alternation of day and night, summer and winter,
were accounted for in this way. Now, in a passage of
the pseudo-Hippokratean treatise Tlepl Stair?;? which is
almost certainly of Herakleitean origin, 2 we read of an

1 Arist. <fe An. B, 2. 405 a 26, i> avadvfdaw % fr rdXAo

2 The presence of Herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out
by Gesner, but Bernays was the first to make any considerable use of it in
reconstructing the system. The older literature of the subject has been in

168 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

" advance of fire and water " in connexion with day and
night and the courses of the sun and moon. 1 In fr. 26,
again, we read of fire " advancing," and all these things
seem to be intimately connected. We must therefore
try to see whether there is anything in the remaining
fragments that bears upon the subject.

Man. 73. In studying this alternate advance of fire
and water, it will be convenient to start with the
microcosm. We have more definite information about
the two exhalations in man than about the analogous
processes in the world at large, and it would seem that
Herakleitos himself explained the world by man rather
than man by the world. In a well-known passage,
Aristotle implies that soul is identical with the dry
exhalation, 2 and this is fully confirmed by the fragments.

the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs' Hippokratische Untersuchungen
(1899), where also a satisfactory text of the sections which concern us is
given for the first time. Fredrichs shows that (as I said already in the
first edition) the work belongs to the period of eclecticism and reaction
which I have briefly characterised in 184, and he points out that c 3, which
was formerly supposed to be mainly Herakleitean, is really from some work
which was strongly influenced by Empedokles and Anaxagoras. I think,
however, that he goes wrong in attributing the section to a nameless
* Physiker " of the school of Archelaos, or even to Archelaos himself; it is
far more like what we should expect from the eclectic Herakleiteans whom
Plato describes in Crat, 413 c (see p. 161, n. i). He is certainly wrong in
holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be Herakleitean,
and there is no justification for separating the remark quoted in the text
from its context because it happens to agree almost verbally with the
beginning of c. 3. As we shall see, that passage too is of Herakleitean
origin.

1 Ilepi 5iar?7S, i. 5. I should read thus : yfdpi] /cat ev<t>p6vr) CTTI rb ^Kiarov
ical Ad^ier-roV -^Xtos, ffe\-f]vrj (irl TO fir/Kto'Tov /cat eXaxurroi'* irvpbs t<f>odos
Kal v8a.Tos. In any case, the meaning is the same, and the sentence
occurs between xwpet 5e travra Kal 0eta Kal avdpAinva avw Kal /cdrw
a/j.eij36/j.va and Trdvra rai/rd Kal 01) TO, airrd, which are surely Herakleitean
utterances.

2 Arist. de An. A, 2. 405 a 25 (R. T. 38). Diels attributes to Herakleitos
himself the words /cat ij/vxal 5<: OTTO rQ>v vypwv dvaQvfjuwvTai, which are
found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe, however, that
the word avadv/juaais is Herakleitean. He seems rather to have called the
two exhalations Kairvbs and drip (cf. fr. 37).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 169

Man is made up of three things, fire, water, and earth.
But, just as in the macrocosm fire is identified with
the one wisdom, so in the microcosm the fire alone is
conscious. When it has left the body, the remainder,
the mere earth and water, is altogether worthless (fr. 85).
Of course, the fire which animates man is subject to
the " upward and downward path," just as much as the
fire of the world. The Hepl bialr^s has preserved the
obviously Herakleitean sentence : " All things are pass-
ing, both human and divine, upwards and downwards
by exchanges." l We are just as much in perpetual
flux as anything else in the world. We are and are
not the same for two consecutive instants (fr. Si).
The fire in us is perpetually becoming water, and the
water earth ; but, as the opposite process goes on^
simultaneously, we appear to remain the same. 2

74. This, however, is not all. Man is subject to a (*) Sleeping

J and waking.

certain oscillation in his " measures " of fire and water,
and this gives rise to the alternations of sleeping and
waking, life and death. The locus dassicus on this
subject is a passage of Sextus Empiricus, ^ which
reproduces the account of the Herakleitean psychology
given by Ainesidemos (Skeptic, c. 80-50 B.C.). 3 It
is as follows (R. P. 41) :

Uepl SialT-rjs, i. 5, x w P s * TT&VTO. /coi deta

2 We seem to have a clear reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels
(170 b, Kaibel) : " Look now at men too. One grows and another panes
away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance (cord
<f>v<riv) and never abides in the same spot, will already be something different
from what has passed away. So thou and I were different yesterday, and
are now quite other people, and again we shall become others and never
the same again, and so on in the same way." This is put into the mouth
of a debtor who does not wish to pay. See Bernays on the ai^a^/wro*
\6yos (Ges. Abh. i. pp. 109 sqq.).

3 Sextus quotes "Ainesidemos according to Herakleitos." Natorp
holds (Forschungen, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine

i;o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds
us l is rational and endowed with consciousness. According
to Herakleitos, when we draw in this divine reason by means
of respiration, we become rational. In sleep we forget, but
at our waking we become conscious once more. For in sleep,
when the openings of the senses close, the mind which is in
us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds us, and
only our connexion with it by means of respiration is pre-
served as a sort of root (from which the rest may spring again) ;
and, when it is thus separated, it loses the power of memory
that it had before. When we awake again, however, it looks
out through the openings of the senses, as if through windows,
and coming together with the surrounding mind, it assumes
the power of reason. Just, then, as embers, when they are
brought near the the fire, change and become red-hot, and go
out when they are taken away from it again, so does the
portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body
become irrational when it is cut off, and so does it become of
like nature to the whole when contact is established through
the greatest number of openings.

In this passage there is obviously a very large
admixture of later phraseology and of later ideas. In
particular, the identification of " that which surrounds
us " with the air cannot be Herakleitean ; for Herak-
leitos can have known nothing of air, which in his day
was regarded as a form of water ( 27). The
reference to the pores or openings of the senses is
probably foreign to him also ; for the theory of pores
is due to Alkmaion ( 96). Lastly, the distinction
between mind and body is far too sharply drawn. On
the other hand, the important role assigned to
respiration may very well be Herakleitean ; for we

Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels, on the other hand (Dox. pp.
210, 21 1), insists that Ainesidemos only gave an account of the theories of
Herakleitos. This controversy does not affect the use we make of the
passage.

1 r6 7re/x^x oj/ ^M^s, opposed to but parallel with TO Trepityov rbv KO<TIJ.OV.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 171

have met with it already in Anaximenes. And we can
hardly doubt that the striking simile, of the embers
which glow when they are brought near the fire is
genuine (cf. fr. 77). The true Herakleitean doctrine
doubtless was, that sleep was produced by the
encroachment of moist, dark exhalations from the
water in the body, which cause the fire to burn low.
In sleep, we lose contact with the fire in the world
which is common to all, and retire to a world of our
own (fr. 95). In a soul where the fire and water
are evenly balanced, the equilibrium is restored in the
morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation.

75. But in no soul are the fire and water thus (<*) Life and
evenly balanced for long. One or the other acquires
predominance, and the result in either case is death.
Let us take each of these cases in turn. It is death, we
know, to souls to become water (fr. 68) ; but that is
just what happens to souls which seek after pleasure.
For pleasure is a moistening of the soul (fr. 72), as
may be seen in the case of the drunken man, who, in
pursuit of it, has moistened his soul to such an extent
that he does not know where he is going (fr. 73).
Even in gentle relaxation over our cups, it is more
difficult to hide folly than at other times (fr. 108).
That is why it is so necessary for us to quench
wantonness (fr. 103); for whatever our heart's desire
insists on it purchases at the price of life, that is, of the
fire within us (fr. 105). Take now the other case.
The dry soul, that which has least moisture, is the best
(fr. 74) ; but the preponderance of fire causes death as
much as that of water. It is a very different death,
however, and wins " greater portions " for those who
die it (fr. 101). Apparently those who fall in battle

172 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

share their lot (fr. 102). We have no fragment which
tells us directly what it is, but the class of utterances we
are about to look at next leaves little doubt on the
subject. Those who die the fiery and not the watery
death, become, in fact, gods, though in a different sense
from that in which the one Wisdom is god. It is
probable that the corrupt fragment 123 refers to this
unexpected fate (fr. 122) that awaits men when they die.
Further, just as summer and winter are one, and
necessarily reproduce one another by their "opposite
tension," so do life and death. They, too, are one, we
are told ; and so are youth and age (fr. 78). It follows
that the soul will be now living and now dead ; that it
will only turn to fire or water, as the case may be, to
recommence once more its unceasing upward and
downward path. The soul that has died from excess
of moisture sinks down to earth ; but from the earth
comes water, and from water is once more exhaled a
soul (fr. 68). So, too, we are told (fr. 67) that gods
and men are really one. They live each others' life,
and die each others' death. Those mortals that die
the fiery death become immortal, 1 they become the
guardians of the quick and the dead (fr. I23); 2 and

1 The popular word is used for the sake of its paradoxical effect.
Strictly speaking, they are all mortal from one point of view and immortal
from another.

2 We need not hesitate to ascribe to Herakleitos the view that the dead
become guardian demons of the living ; it appears already in Hesiod,
Works and Days, 121, and the Orphic communities had popularised it.
Rohde, Psyche (pp. 442 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos believed
the soul survived after death. Strictly speaking, it is no doubt an
inconsistency ; but I believe, with Zeller and Diels, that it is one of a kind
we may well admit. Many thinkers have spoken of a personal immortality,
though there was really no room for it in their systems. It is worthy of
note in this connexion that the first argument which Plato uses to
establish the doctrine of immortality in the Phaedo is just the Herakleitean
parallelism of life and death with sleeping and waking.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 173

those immortals become mortal in their turn. Every-
thing is really the death of something else (fr. 64).
The living and the dead are always changing places
(fr. 78), like the pieces on a child's draught-board
(fr. 79), and this applies not only to the souls that

| have become water, but to those that have become fire
and are now guardian spirits. The real weariness is

^ xjpntinuance in the same state (fr. 82), and the real rest
is change (fr. 83). Rest in any other sense is
tantamount to dissolution (fr. 84). 1 So they too are
born once more. Herakleitos estimated the duration
of the cycle which preserves the balance of life and
death as thirty years, the shortest time in which a man
may become a grandfather (frs. 87-89) . 2

76. Let us turn now to the world. Diogenes tells The day and
us that fire was kept up by the bright vapours from land l
and sea, and moisture by the dark. 3 What are these
" dark " vapours which increase the moist element ? If
we remember the " Air " of Anaximenes, we shall be
inclined to regard them as darkness itself. We know
that the idea of darkness as privation of light is not
natural to the unsophisticated mind. We sometimes
hear even now of darkness " thick enough to cut with
a knife." I suppose, then, that Herakleitos believed

1 These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, lamblichos, and Noumenios
in this very connexion (see R. P. 46 c), and it does not seem to me possible
to hold, with Rohde, that they had no grounds for so interpreting them.
They knew the context and we do not.

2 Plut. def. orac. 415 d, ZTI) rpidKovra irotovfft TT\V ycvcav Ka.0"UpdK\firoi' t
iv $ XP^V yfvvuvra irap^x^ f^ v Q avrov yeyevvrjfj^yov 6 yenr/pat.
Philo, fr. Harris, p. 2O, 5vva.rbv tv Tpia.KOffT$ (ret at r&v arffpuwov ir&rro*
yevtaOat /c.r.X. Censorinus, de die nat. 17, 2, " hoc enim tempus (triaginta
annos) genean vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio :
orbem autem vocat aetatis, dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim
revertitur." The words orbis aetatis seem to mean aluvot <ci/*X<w, " the circle
of life." If so, we may compare the Orphic KVK\OS ycrfoevt.

3 Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 39 b).

174 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

night and winter to be produced by the rise of dark-
ness from earth and sea, he saw, of course, that the
valleys were dark before the hill-tops, and that this
darkness, being moist, so increased the watery element
as to put out the sun's light. This, however, destroys
the power of darkness itself. It can no longer rise
upwards unless the sun gives it motion, and so it
becomes possible for a fresh sun (fr. 32) to be kindled,
and to nourish itself at the expense of the moist
element for a time. But it can only be for a time.
The sun, by burning up the bright vapour, deprives
himself of nourishment, and the dark vapour once more
gets the upper hand. It is in this sense that " day and
night are one" (fr. 35). Each implies the other, and
they are therefore to be regarded as merely two sides
of the one, in which alone their true ground of explana-
tion is to be found (fr. 36).

Summer and winter were easily to be explained in
the same way. We know that the " turnings " of the
sun were a subject of interest in those days, and it was
natural for Herakleitos to see in its retreat further to
the south the gradual advance of the moist element,
caused by the heat of the sun itself. This, however,
diminishes the power of the sun to cause evaporation,
and so it must return to the north once more that it
may supply itself with nourishment. Such was, at any
rate, the Stoic doctrine on the subject, 1 and that it
comes from Herakleitos seems to be proved by its

1 See Kleanthes, fr. 29, Pearson, uKeavbs 5' tari <KCU yrf> fy rr}v ai>a(?v-
fj.la<riv ^iW/iercu (6 ??Xto$). Cf. Cic. N.D. iii. 37 : "Quid enim? noneisdem
vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nee permanere ullo modo posse,
nisi alitur : ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus (from
the earth), alia marinis ? eamque causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat
nee longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat
a cibo."

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 175

occurrence in the Hepl Bialrr}?. It seems impossible to
refer the following sentence to any other source :

And in turn each (fire and water) prevails and is prevailed
over to the greatest and least degree that is possible. For
neither can prevail altogether for the following reasons. If fire
advances towards the utmost limit of the water, its nourish-
ment fails it. It retires, then, to a place where it can get
nourishment. And if water advances towards the utmost limit
of the fire, movement fails it. At that point, then, it stands
still ; and, when it has come to a stand, it has no longer power
to resist, but is consumed as nourishment for the fire that falls
upon it. For these reasons neither can prevail altogether.
But if at any time either should be in any way overcome,
then none of the things that exist would be as they are now.
So long as things are as they are, fire and water will always be
too, and neither will ever fail. 1

77. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which The Great

Year.

is identified with the " Great Year," and is variously
described as lasting 18,000 and 10,800 years. 2 We
have no definite statement, however, of what process
Herakleitos supposed to take place in the Great Year.
We have seen that the period of 36,000 years was, in
all probability, Babylonian, and was that of the revolu-
tion which produces the precession of the equinoxes. 3

1 For the Greek text of this passage, see below, p. 183, n. I. Fredrichs
allows that it is from the same source as that quoted above (p. 169), and,
as that comes from Hepl SICUTTJS, i. 3, he denies the Herakleitean origin of
this too. He has not taken account of the fact that it gives the Stoic
doctrine, which raises a presumption in favour of that being Herakleitean.
If I could agree with Fredrichs' theory, I should still say that the present
passage was a Herakleitean interpolation in the Physiker rather than that
the other was an interpolation from the Physiker in the Herakleitean section.
As it is, I find no difficulty in believing that both passages give the
Herakleitean doctrine, though it becomes mixed up with other theories in
the sequel. See p. 167, n. 2.

2 Act. ii. 32, 3, 'H/xUXeiroj e/c nvplwv drraKurxMon' iruurruv ^Xitutwr
(rbv ntyav ^viavrbv el^ai). Censorinus, de die nat. 1 1, Heraclitus et Linus,
XDCCC.

3 See Introd. XII. p. 25, n. 2.

1 76 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Now 1 8,000 years is just half that period, a fact which
may be connected with Herakleitos's way of dividing
all cycles into an " upward and downward path." It is
not at all likely, however, that Herakleitos, who held
with Xenophanes that the sun was "new every day,"
would trouble himself about the precession of the
equinoxes, and we seem forced to assume that he
gave some new application to the traditional period.
The Stoics, or some of them, held that the Great Year
was the period between one world-conflagration and
the next. They were careful, however, to make it a
good deal longer than Herakleitos did, and, in any
case, we are not entitled without more ado to credit
him with the theory of a general conflagration. 1 We
must try first, if possible, to interpret the Great Year
on the analogy of the shorter periods discussed
already.

Now we have seen that a generation is the shortest
time in which a man can become a grandfather, it is
the period of the upward or downward path of the soul,
and the most natural interpretation of the longer period
would surely be that it represents the time taken by a
" measure " of the fire in the world to travel on the
downward path to earth or return to fire once more by
the upward path. Plato certainly implies that such a
parallelism between the periods of man and the world

1 For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, de nat. horn. 38 (R. P. 503).
Mr. Adam allowed that no destruction of the world or conflagration
marked the end of Plato's year, but he declined to draw what seems to me
the natural inference that the connexion between the two things belongs to
a later age, and should not, therefore, be ascribed to Herakleitos in the
absence of any evidence that he did so connect them. Nevertheless,
his treatment of these questions in the second volume of his edition of
the Republic, pp. 302 sqq., must form the basis of all further discussion on
the subject. It has certainly helped me to put the view which he rejects
(p. 303, n. 9) in what I hope will be found a more convincing form.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 177

was recognised, 1 and this receives a curious confirmation
from a passage in Aristotle, which is usually supposed
to refer to the doctrine of a periodic conflagration. He
is discussing the question whether the " heavens," that
is to say, what he calls the " first heaven," is eternal or
not, and he naturally enough, from his own point of
view, identifies this with the Fire of Herakleitos. He
quotes him along with Empedokles as holding that the
" heavens " are alternately as they are now and in some
other state, one of passing away ; and he goes on to
point out that this is not really to say they pass away,
any more than it would be to say that a man ceases to
be, if we said that he turned from boy to man and then
from man to boy again. 2 It is surely clear that this is
a reference to the parallel between the generation and
the Great Year, and, if so, the ordinary interpretation of
the passage must be wrong. It is true that it is not
quite consistent with the theory to suppose that a
" measure " of Fire could preserve its identity through-
out the whole of its upward and downward path ; but
it is exactly the same inconsistency that we have felt
bound to recognise with regard to the continuance
of individual souls, a fact which is really in favour
of our interpretation. It should be added that, while
18,000 is half 36,000, 10,800 is 360x30, which

1 This is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the
periods of the &v6puireiov and the Beiov ycvvrjrbv, however we may under-
^and the details. See Adam, Republic, vol. ii. pp. 288 sqq.

- Arist. < Caelo, A, 10. 279 b 14, ol 5' ^aXXdf ort tfv ofrruw &rt to
AXXus *x" <f>0ip{>fj.vov, . . . wcnrep 'Efj.ire5oK\i)s 6 'AKpayaTios Kal
' Hpd K \eiTos 6 'E<#icrtos. Aristotle points out that this really amounts only
to saying that it is eternal and changes its form, uffirep ft rts fie TeuSdj &*&pa
yiyvfafvov Kal # dvfyds ircuda 6rt ^v <0e/pe<r0cu, or* 5' efrcu otw.ro (280 a
14). The point of the reference to Empedokles will appear from de Gen.
Corr. B, 6. 334 a I sqq. What Aristotle finds fault with in both theories i
that they do not regard the substance of the heavens as something outside
the upward and downward motion of the elements.

i;8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

would make each generation a day in the Great

Year. 1

Did Hera- \) 78. Most modern writers, however, ascribe to
a general Herakleitos the doctrine of a periodical conflagration or

conflagration? ^^ to use the Stoic term> 2

sistent with the theory, as we have interpreted it, is
obvious, and is indeed admitted by Zeller. To his
paraphrase of the statement of Plato quoted above
(p. 1 5 9) he adds the words : " Herakleitos did not intend
to retract this principle in the doctrine of a periodic
change in the constitution of the world ; if the two
doctrines are not compatible, it is a contradiction which
he has not observed." Now, it is in itself quite likely
that there were contradictions in . the discourse of
Herakleitos, but it is very unlikely that there was this
particular one. In the first place, it is a contradiction
of the central idea of his system, the thought that pos-
sessed his whole mind ( 67), and we can only admit
the possibility of that, if the evidence for it should
prove irresistible. In the second place, such an inter-
pretation destroys the whole point of Plato's contrast
between Herakleitos and Empedokles ( 68), which is
just that, while Herakleitos said the One was always
man^ and the Many always one, Empedokles said the
All was many and one by turns. Zeller's interpretation
obliges us, then, to suppose that Herakleitos flatly con-
tradicted his own discovery without noticing it, and
that Plato, in discussing this very discovery, was also
blind to the contradiction. 3

1 This is practically Lassalle's view of the Great Year, except that he
commits the anachronism of speaking of ' ' atoms " of fire instead of
"measures."

2 Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels,
and Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos believed in the icjr6pu<ri$.

3 In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to feel this last difficulty ; for

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 179

Nor is there anything in Aristotle to set against
Plato's emphatic statement. We have .seen that the
passage in which he speaks of him along with
Empedokles as holding that the heavens were
alternately in one condition and in another refers not
to the world in general, but to fire, which Aristotle
identified with the substance of his own " first heaven." l
It is also quite consistent with our interpretation when
he says that all things at one time or another become
fire. This does not necessarily mean that they all
become fire at the same time, but is merely a statement
of the undoubted Herakleitean doctrine of the upward
and downward path. 2

The only clear statements to the effect that
Herakleitos taught the doctrine of a general conflagra-
tion are posterior to the rise of Stoicism. It is
unnecessary to enumerate them, as there is no doubt
about their meaning. The Christian apologists too
were interested in the idea of a final conflagration, and
reproduce the Stoic view. The curious thing, however,
is that there was a difference of opinion on the subject

he now says : " It is a contradiction which he, and -which probably Plato too
(und den wahrscheinlich auch Plato} has not observed." This seems to me
still less arguable. Plato may or may not be mistaken ; but he makes the
perfectly definite statement that Herakleflos says def, while Empedokles
says tv /dpei. The Ionian Muses are called ffwrovuTepat and the Sicilian
jtaXaKurepai just because the latter " lowered the pitch " (IgtiXaffai') of the
doctrine that this is always so (r6 del ravra. otfrws fx (lv )'

1 See above, p. 177, n. 2.

2 Phys. T 5, 205 a 3 (Met. K, 10. 1067 a 4), &<rircp 'EpdK\eirot <fayi
ti.ira.vTa. ylvevdaL wore irvp. Even in his filth edition (p. 691) Zeller
translates this cs werde alles dereinst zu Feuer werdtn ; but that would
require yev/iaeffdai. Nor is there anything in his suggestion that dTorro
("not merely irdvTa") implies that all things become fire at one-
Aristotle's day, there was no distinction of meaning between TOJ and araj.
Even if he had said ffvpTravra., we could not press it. What is really
noticeable is the present infinitive ytvcffQat, which surely suggests a con-
tinuous process, not a series of conflagrations.

i8o EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

even among the Stoics. In one place, Marcus Aurelius
says : " So that all these things are taken up into
the Reason of the universe, whether by a periodical
conflagration or a renovation effected by external
exchanges." ' Indeed, there were some who said there
was no general conflagration at all in Herakleitos. " I
hear all that," Plutarch makes one of his personages
say, " from many people, and I see the Stoic conflagra-
tion spreading over the poems of Hesiod, just as it
does over the writings of Herakleitos and the verses of
Orpheus." 2 We see from this that the question was
debated, and we should therefore expect that any state-
ment of Herakleitos which could settle it would be
quoted over and over again. It is highly significant
that not a single quotation of the kind can be produced.
On the contrary, the absence of anything to show
that Herakleitos spoke of a general conflagration only
becomes more patent when we turn to the few fragments
which are supposed to prove it. The favourite is fr. 24,
where we are told that Herakleitos said Fire was Want
and Surfeit. That is just in his manner, and it has a
perfectly intelligible meaning on our interpretation,,
which is further confirmed by fr. 36. On the other
hand, it seems distinctly artificial to understand the

1 Marcus Aurelius, x. 7, wo-re Kal ravra ava\y<j>6riva.i ds rbv rov 8\ov
\6yov, eifre /caret ireplodov ^KTrvpov/j-frov, etre aidiois d/>totj3a?s avaveov^vov.
The anoifiaL are specifically Herakleitean, and the statement is the more
remarkable as Marcus elsewhere follows the usual Stoic interpretation.

2 Plut. de def. orac. 415 f, Kal 6 K\e6/*/3/>oros, 'A/totfw raOr', t&rj, TTO\\UV
Kal 6/><3 TTJV ZTWt/cV tinrvpucriv ticrirep ra 'H/aa/cXei'rou /cat '0/><^ws
^irtvefji.ofj.^vr)v giri) oiirw Kal ra 'H<ri6dov Kal avvc^a.irTOva'av. As Zeiler admits
(p. 693 n.), this proves that some opponents of the Stoic tKirvpuais tried
to withdraw the support of Herakleitos from it. Could they have done
so if Herakleitos had said anything about it, or would not some one
have produced a decisive quotation ? We may be sure that, if any one
had, it would have been reiterated ad nauseam, for the indestructibility of
the world was one of the great questions of the day.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 181

Surfeit as referring to the fact that fire has burnt every-
thing else up, and still more so to interpret Want as
meaning that fire, or most of it, has turned into a
world. The next is fr. 26, where we read that fire in
its advance will judge and convict all things. There
is nothing in this, however, to suggest that fire will
judge all things at once rather than in turn, and,
indeed, the phraseology reminds us of the advance of
fire and water which we have seen reason for attribut-
ing to Herakleitos, but which is expressly said to be
limited to a certain maximum. 1 These appear to be
the only passages which the Stoics and the Christian
apologists could discover, and, whether our interpreta-
tion of them is right or wrong, it is surely obvious that
they cannot bear the weight of their conclusion, and
that there was certainly nothing more definite to be
found.

It is much easier to find fragments which are on
the face of them inconsistent with a general conflagra-
tion. The " measures " of fr. 20 and fr. 29 must be
the same thing, and they must surely be interpreted
in the light of fr. 23. If this be so, fr. 20, and more
especially fr. 29, directly contradict the idea of a
general conflagration. " The sun will not overstep his
measures." 2 Secondly, the metaphor of " exchange,"
which is applied to the transformations of fire in fr. 22,
points in the same direction. When gold is given in
exchange for wares and wares for gold, the sum or
"measure" of each remains constant, though they
change owners. All the wares and gold do not come

1 Hepl SialT-ns, i. 3, to ntpci 5t ^drepov Kparel ical KparciTai *t rd

fl^KKTTOV KO.I (\dxWTOV U)S &VV<TT6v.

a If any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the " measures,"
let him compare the use of the word by Diogenes of Apollonia, fr. 3.

1 82 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

into the same hands. In the same way, when anything
becomes fire, something of equal amount must cease to
be fire, if the " exchange " is to be a just one ; and
that it will be just, we are assured by the watchfulness
of the Erinyes (fr. 29), who see to it that the sun does
not take more than he gives. Of course there is, as we
have seen, a certain variation ; but this is strictly con-
fined within limits, and is compensated in the long run
by a variation in the other direction. Thirdly, fr. 43,
in which Herakleitos blames Homer for desiring the
cessation of strife, is very conclusive. The cessation of
strife would mean that all things should take the
upward or downward path at the same time, and cease
to " run in opposite directions." If they all took the
upward path, we should have a general conflagration.
Now, if Herakleitos had himself held that this was the
appointment of fate, would he have been likely to
upbraid Homer for desiring so necessary a consumma-
tion ? l Fourthly, we note that in fr. 20 it is this world, 2
and not merely the " ever-living fire," which is said to
be eternal ; and it appears also that its eternity
depends upon the fact that it is always kindling and
always going out in the same " measures," or that
an encroachment in one direction is compensated by
a subsequent encroachment in the other. Lastly,
Lassalle's argument from the concluding sentence of
the passage from the Hepl Bialrr)?, quoted above, is

1 This is just the argument which Plato uses in the Phaedo (72 c) to
prove the necessity of avTcnrodoins, and the whole series of arguments in that
passage is distinctly Herakleitean in character.

2 However we understand the term K6o>cos here, the meaning is the
same. Indeed, if we suppose with Bernays that it means " order," the
argument in the text will be all the stronger. In no sense of the word
could a /c6(Tyuos survive the ^/cTrtfpaxrts, and the Stoics accordingly said the

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 183

really untouched by Zeller's objection, that it cannot
be Herakleitean because it implies that all things are
fire and water. It does not imply this, but only that
man, like the heavenly bodies, oscillates between fire
and water ; and that is just what Herakleitos taught.
It does not appear either that the measures of earth
varied at all. Now, in this passage we read that
neither fire nor water can prevail completely, and a
very good reason is given for this, a reason too which
is in striking agreement with the other views of
Herakleitos. 1 And, indeed, it is not easy to see how,
in accordance with these views, the world could ever
recover from a general conflagration if such a thing
were to take place. The whole process depends, so
far as we can see, on the fact that Surfeit is also Want,
or, in other words, that an advance of fire increases the
moist exhalation, while an advance of water deprives
the fire of the power to cause evaporation. The con-
flagration, though it lasted but for a moment, 2 would
destroy the opposite tension on which the rise of a
new world depends, and then motion would become
impossible.

1 Hepi dialTTjs, i. 3 (see above, p. 167, n. 2), ovdtrepov y&p
TravreXus Stvarcu 5ta rdSe r6 <re> irvp f-jre^ibv twl TO fffxarov TOV
4vt\lvi 77 rpo^-f)' dTror^Trerat ovv 66 fv /iAXei rptyeaeat ' TO vdup re
TOV Trvpbs tirl rb ^xaro^, tiri\direi i) KlvTjffts' iVrarat oiV 4v TOVTI?, &ra*
yKparts <TTIV, d\\' ijd-r} T 4/j.wlirTOVTi irvpl & r^v rpoQty
ovdtrepov dt 5ta raura Svvarai Kparrjffai ireu'TeXwj, ft 64
iroTe Kpar-rjed-r] Kal bjrbrepov, ovStv &v ctrj TUV vvv tbvrwv Sxrvcp ^x '*'
O(/TW 8t (?x6irw/ del &TTCU rd ai/rd Kal ovdtrcpov ovda/jib. AnXe^ei.

z In his note on fr. 66 ( = 26 Byw.), Diels seeks to minimise the difficulty
of the ^irfywa-is by saying that it is only a little one, and can last but a
moment ; but the contradiction noted above remains all the same. Diels
holds that Herakleitos was "dark only in form," and that "he himse
was perfectly clear as to the sense and scope of his ideas " (AvAMfc*
p. i.). To which I would add that he was probably called "the Dark
just because the Stoics sometimes found it hard to read their own ideas
into his words.

1 84 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Strife and 79. We are now in a position to understand more

clearly the law of strife or opposition which manifests
itself in the " upward and downward path." At any
given moment, each of the three forms of matter, Fire,
Water, and Earth, is made up of two equal portions,
subject, of course, to the oscillation described above,
one of which is taking the upward and the other the
downward path. Now, it is just the fact that the
two halves of everything are being " drawn in opposite
directions," this " opposite tension," that " keeps things
together," and maintains them in an equilibrium which
can only be disturbed temporarily and within certain
limits. It thus forms the " hidden attunement " of the
universe (fr. 47), though, in another aspect of it, it is
Strife. Bernays has pointed out that the word ap/jLovia
meant originally " structure," and the illustration of the
bow and the lyre shows that this idea was present.
On the other hand, that taken from the concord of
high and low notes shows that the musical sense of the
word, namely, an octave, was not wholly absent. As
to the " bow and the lyre " (fr. 45), I think that Professor
Campbell has best brought out the point of the simile.
" As the arrow leaves the string," he says, " the hands
are pulling opposite ways to each other, and to the
different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, Rep. 4. 439) ; and
the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension
and retention. The secret of the universe is the same." 1
War, then, is the father and king of all things, in the

1 Campbell's Theaetetus (2nd ed.), p. 244. See above, p. 150, n. 2.
Bernays explained the phrase as referring to the shape of the bow and lyre,
but this is much less likely. Wilamowitz's interpretation is substantially
the same as Campbell's. "Es ist mit der Welt wie mit dem Bogen, den
man auseinanderzieht, damit er zusammenschnellt, wie mit der Sake, die
man ihrer Spannung entgegenziehen muss, damit sie klingt " (Lesebztch, ii.
p. 129).

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 185

world as in human society (fr. 44) ; and Homer's wish
that strife might cease was really a prayer for the
destruction of the world (fr. 43).

We know from Philo that Herakleitos supported
his theory of the attainment of harmony through strife
by a multitude of examples ; and, as it happens, some
of these can be recovered. There is a remarkable
agreement between a passage of this kind in the pseudo-
Aristotelian treatise, entitled The Kosmos, and the
Hippokratean work to which we have already referred.
That the authors of both drew from the same source,
namely, Herakleitos, is probable in itself, and is made
practically certain by the fact that this agreement
extends in part to the Letters of Herakleitos, which,
though spurious, were certainly composed by some one
who had access to the original work. The argument
was that men themselves act just in the same way as
Nature, and it is therefore surprising that they do not
recognise the laws by which she works. The painter
produces his harmonious effects by the contrast of
colours, the musician JDy that of high and low notes.
" If one were to make all things alike, there would
be no delight in them." There are many similar
examples in the Hippokratean tract, some of which
must certainly come from Herakleitos ; but it is not
easy to separate them from the later additions. 1

1 See on all this Patin's Quellenstudien zit Heraklit (1881). The
sentence (Hepi SicUr^s, i. 5) : Kal TOL fj.tv irprfffffowiv OVK otdaviv, a 8 oft

Trpr)<rffovffi 5oKtovau> eldtvat' Kal TO, pkv optovcriv ov yivuo'Kovo'U', d\X'
avroiffi iravra. ylverat . . . Kal & fSotiXovrai Kal a /rrj (3oij\ovTai, has the
true Herakleitean ring. This, too, can hardly have had another author :
"They trust to their eyes rather than to their understanding, though their
eyes are not fit to judge even of the things that are seen. But I speak
these things from understanding." These words are positively grotesque in
the mouth of the medical compiler ; but we are accustomed to hear such
things from the Ephesian. Other examples which may be Herakleitean are

1 86 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Correlation of 80. There are a number of Herakleitean fragments
tes ' which form a class by themselves, and are among the
most striking of all the utterances that have come
down to us. Their common characteristic is, that
they assert in the most downright way the identity of
various things which are usually regarded as opposites.
The clue to their meaning is to be found in the account
already given of the assertion that day and night are
one. We have seen that Herakleitos meant to say,
not that day was night or that night was day, but
that they were two sides of the same process, namely,
the oscillation of the " measures " of fire and water,
and that neither would be possible without the other.
Any explanation that can be given of night will also be
an explanation of day, and vice versa ; for it will be
an account of that which is common to both, and
manifests itself now as one and now as the other.
Moreover, it is just because it has manifested itself in
the one form that it must next appear in the other ;
for this is required by the law of compensation or
Justice.

This is only a particular application of the universal
principle that the primary fire is one even in its
division. It itself is, even in its unity, both surfeit
and want, war and peace (fr. 36). In other words, the
" satiety " which makes fire pass into other forms, which
makes it seek "rest in change" (frs. 82, 83), and "hide
itself" (fr. 10) in the " hidden attunement " of opposition,
is only one side of the process. The other is the
" want " which leads it to consume the bright vapour as
fuel. The upward path is nothing without the down-

the image of the two men sawing wood "one pushes, the other pulls"
and the illustration from the art of writing.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 187

ward (fr. 69). If either were to cease, the other would
cease too, and the world would disappear ; for it takes
both to make an apparently stable reality.

All other utterances of the kind are to be explained
in the same way. If there were no cold, there would
be no heat ; for a thing can only grow warm if, and in
so far as, it is already cold. And the same thing applies
to the opposition of wet and dry (fr. 39). These, it
will be observed, are just the two primary oppositions
of Anaximander, and Herakleitos is showing that the
war between them is really peace, for it is the common
element in them (fr. 62) which appears as strife, and
that very strife is justice, and not, as Anaximander had
taught, an injustice which they commit one against the
other, and which must be expiated by a reabsorption of
both in their common ground. 1 The strife itself is the
common ground (fr. 62), and is eternal.

The most startling of these sayings is that which
affirms that good and evil are the same (fr. 5 7). This
does not mean in the least, however, that good is evil
or that evil is good, but simply that they are the two
inseparable halves of one and the same thing. A
thing can become good only in so far as it is already
evil, and evil only in so far as it is already good, and
everything depends on the contrast. The illustration
given in fr. 5 8 shows this clearly. Torture, one would
say, was an evil, and yet it is made a good by the
presence of another evil, namely, disease ; as is shown
by the fact that surgeons expect a fee for inflicting
it upon their patients. Justice, on the other hand,
which is a good, would be altogether unknown were
it not for the existence of injustice, which is an evil
1 Chap. I. 16.

1 88 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(fr. 60). And that is why it is not good for men to
get everything they wish (fr. 104). Just as the cessa-
tion of strife in the world would mean its destruction,
so the disappearance of hunger, disease, and weariness
would mean the disappearance of satisfaction, health,
and rest.

I This leads to a theory of relativity which prepares
the way for the doctrine of Protagoras, that " Man is
the measure of all things." 1 Sea-water is good for fish
and bad for men (fr. 52), and so with many other
things. At the same time, Herakleitos is not a believer
in absolute relativity. The process of the world is not
merely a circle, but an " upward and downward path."
At the upper end, where the two paths meet, we have
the pure fire, in which, as there is no separation, there
is no relativity. We are told expressly that, while
to man some things are evil and some things are good,
all things are good to God (fr. 61). Now by God there
is no doubt that Herakleitos meant Fire. He also
calls it the "one wise," and perhaps said that it
" knows all things." There can hardly be any question
that what he meant to say was that in it the opposi-
tion and relativity which are universal in the world
disappear. It is doubtless to this that frs. 96, 97, and
98 refer.

The Wise. 8 1. Herakleitos speaks of " wisdom " or the " wise "
in two senses. We have seen already that he said
wisdom was " something apart from everything else "

1 Plato's exposition of the relativity of knowledge in the Theaetetiis (152
d sqq. ) can hardly go back to Herakleitos himself, but is meant to show
how Herakleiteanism might naturally give rise to such a doctrine. If the
soul is a stream and things are a stream, then of course knowledge is relative.
Very possibly the later Herakleiteans had worked out the theory in this
direction, but in the days of Herakleitos himself the problem of know-
ledge had not yet arisen.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 189

(fr. 1 8), meaning by it the perception of the unity of the
many ; and he also applies the term to that unity itself
regarded as the "thought that directs the course of all
things." This is synonymous with the pure fire which
is not differentiated into two parts, one taking the
upward and the other the downward path. That alone
has wisdom ; the partial things we see have not We
ourselves are only wise in so far as we are fiery (fr. 74).

82. With certain reservations, Herakleitos was pre- Theology,
pared to call the one Wisdom by the name of Zeus.
Such, at least, appears to be the meaning of fr. 65.
What these reservations were, it is easy to guess. It is
not, of course, to be pictured in the form of a man. In
saying this, Herakleitos would only have been repeating
what had already been laid down by Anaximander and
Xenophanes. \ He agrees further with Xenophanes in
holding that this " god," if it is to be called so, is one ;
but his polemic against popular religion was directed
rather against the rites and ceremonies themselves
than their mere mythological outgrowth. He gives a
list (fr. 124) of some of the most characteristic
religious figures of his time, and the context in
which the fragment is quoted shows that he in some
way threatened them with the wrath to come. He
comments upon the absurdity of praying to images
(fr. 126), and the strange idea that blood-guiltiness can
be washed out by the shedding of blood (fr. 130). He
seems also to have said that it was absurd to celebrate
the worship of Dionysos by cheerful and licentious
ceremonies, while Hades was propitiated by gloomy rites
(fr. 127). According to the mystic doctrine itself, the
two were really one ; and the one Wisdom ought to be
worshipped in its integrity.

190 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The few fragments which deal with theology and
religion hardly suggest to us that Herakleitos was in
sympathy with the religious revival of the time, and yet
we have been asked to consider his system " in the
light of the idea of the mysteries." J Our attention
is called to the fact that he was " king " of Ephesos,
that is, priest of the branch of the Eleusinian mysteries
established in that city, which was also connected in
some way with the worship of Artemis or the Great
Mother. 2 These statements may be true ; but, even if
they are, what follows ? We ought surely to have
learnt from Lobeck by this time that there was no
" idea " in the mysteries at all ; and on this point
the results of recent anthropological research have
abundantly confirmed those of philological and
historical inquiry.
Ethics of 83. The moral teaching of Herakleitos has some-

Herakleitos. , -.- r ,1

times been regarded as an anticipation of the " common-
sense " theory of Ethics. 3 The " common " upon which
Herakleitos insists is, nevertheless, something very
different from common sense, for which, indeed, he
had the greatest possible contempt (fr. 1 1 1 ). It is,
in fact, his strongest objection to " the many," that
they live each in his own world (fr. 95), as if they
had a private wisdom of their own (fr. 92) ; and public
opinion is therefore just the opposite of "the common."
The Ethics of Herakleitos are to be regarded as
a corollary of his anthropological and cosmological
views. Their chief requirement is that we keep our

1 E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophic des Heraklit von Ephesus ini Lichte der
Mysterienidce ( 1 886) .

2 Antisthenes (the writer of Successions] ap. Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).
Cf. Strabo, xiv. p. 633 (R. P. 31 b).

3 Kostlin, Gesch. d. Ethik, i. pp. 160 sqq.

HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS 191

souls dry, and thus assimilate them to the one Wisdom,
which is fire. That is what is really " common," and
the greatest fault is to act like men asleep (fr. 94),
that is, by letting our souls grow moist, to cut our-
selves off from the fire in the world. We do not
know what were the consequences which Herakleitos
deduced from his rule that we must hold fast to
what is common, but it is easy to see what their
nature must have been. The wise man would not try
to secure good without its correlative evil. He would
not seek for rest without exertion, nor expect to enjoy
contentment without first suffering discontent. He
would not complain that he had to take the bad with
the good, but would consistently look at things as a
whole.

Herakleitos prepared the way for the Stoic world-
state by comparing " the common " to the laws of a
city. And these are even more than a type of the
divine law : they are imperfect embodiments of it.
They cannot, however, exhaust it altogether ; for in
all human affairs there is an element of relativity
(fr. 91). "Man is a baby compared to God" (fr. 97).
Such as they are, however, the city must fight for
them as for its walls ; and, if it has the good fortune
to possess a citizen with a dry soul, he is worth ten
thousand (fr. 113); for in him alone is " the common "
embodied.

CHAPTER IV

PARMENIDES OF ELEA

Life. 84. PARMENIDES, son of Pyres, was a citizen of
Hyele, Elea, or Velia, a colony founded in Oinotria
by refugees from Phokaia in 540-39 B.C. 1 Diogenes
tells us that he "flourished" in Ol. LXIX. (504-500
B.C.), and this was doubtless the date given by
Apollodoros. 2 On the other hand, Plato says that
Parmenides came to Athens in his sixty- fifth year,
accompanied by Zeno, and conversed with Sokrates,
who was then quite young. Now Sokrates was just
over seventy when he was put to death in 399 B.C. ;
and therefore, if we suppose him to have been an
ephebos, that is, from eighteen to twenty years old,
at the time of his interview with Parmenides, we get
451-449 B.C. as the date of that event. I do not
hesitate to accept Plato's statement, 3 especially as

1 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. in). For the foundation of Elea, see Herod, i.
165 sqq. It was on the coast of Lucania, south of Poseidonia (Paestum).

2 Diog. ix. 23 (R. P. in). Cf. Diels, Rhein. Mus. xxxi. p. 34; and
Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq.

3 Plato, Farm. 127 b (R. P. ill d). There are, as Zeller has shown, a
certain number of anachronisms in Plato, but there is not one of this
character. In the first place, we have exact figures as to the ages of
Parmenides and Zeno, which imply that the latter was twenty-five years
younger than the former, not forty as Apollodoros said. In the second
place, Plato refers to this meeting in two other places (Tht. 183 e 7 and
Soph. 217 c 5), which do not seem to be mere references to the dialogue

192

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 193

we have independent evidence of the visit of Zeno
to Athens, where Perikles is said to have " heard "
him. 1 The date given by Apollodorbs, on the other
hand, depends solely on that of the foundation of Elea,
which he had adopted as the floruit of Xenophanes.
Parmenides is born in that year, just as Zeno is born
in the year when Parmenides " flourished." Why any
one should prefer these transparent combinations to
the testimony of Plato, I am at a loss to understand,
though it is equally a mystery why Apollodoros him-
self should have overlooked such precise data.

We have seen already ( 55) that Aristotle
mentions a statement which made Parmenides the
disciple of Xenophanes ; but the value of this testi-
mony is diminished by the doubtful way in which
he speaks, and it is more than likely that he is
only referring to what Plato says in the Sophist?
It is, we also saw, very improbable that Xenophanes
founded the school of Elea, though it is quite possible
he visited that city. He tells us himself that, in his
ninety-second year, he was still wandering up and down
(fr. 8). At that time Parmenides would be well advanced
in life. And we must not overlook the statement
of Sotion, preserved to us by Diogenes, that, though
Parmenides ." heard " Xenophanes, he did not " follow "
him. According to this account, our philosopher was
the " associate " of a Pythagorean, Ameinias, son of
Diochaitas, "a poor but noble man to whom he
afterwards built a shrine as to a hero." It was

entitled Parmenides. No parallel can be quoted for an anachronism so
glaring and deliberate as this would be. E. Meyer (Gesch. des Alterth. iv.
509, Anm.) also regards the meeting of Sokrates and Parmenides as
historical.

1 Plut. Per. 4, 3. See below, p. 358, n. 2.

3 See above, Chap. II. p. 140, n. 2.

194 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

Ameinias and not Xenophanes that " converted "
Parmenides .to the philosophic life. 1 This does not
read like an invention, and we must remember that the
Alexandrians had information about the history of
Southern Italy which we have not. The shrine erected
by Parmenides would still be there in later days, like
the grave of Pythagoras at Metapontion. It should
also be mentioned that Strabo describes Parmenides
and Zeno as Pythagoreans, and that Kebes talks of a
" Parmenidean and Pythagorean way of life." 2 Zeller
explains all this by supposing that, like Empedokles,
Parmenides approved of and followed the Pythagorean
mode of life without adopting the Pythagorean system.
It is possibly true that Parmenides believed in a
"philosophic life" ( 35), and that he got the idea
from the Pythagoreans ; but there is very little
trace, either in his writings or in what we are told
about him, of his having been in any way affected
by the religious side of Pythagoreanism. The writing
of Empedokles is obviously modelled upon that of
Parmenides, and yet there is an impassable gulf between
the two. The touch of charlatanism, which is so
strange a feature in the copy, is altogether absent
from the model. It is true, no doubt, that there
are traces of Orphic ideas in the poem of Parmenides ; 3

1 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. ill), reading 'Afteivlq. Aioxcuro, with Diels (Hermes,
xxxv. p. 197). Sotion, in his Successions, separated Parmenides from
Xenophanes and associated him with the Pythagoreans (Dox. pp. 146,
148, 166).

2 Strabo, vi. I, p. 252 (p. 195, n. i) ; Ceb. Tab. 2 (R. P. ill c). This
Kebes is not the Kebes of the Phaedo ; but he certainly lived some time
before Lucian, who speaks of him as a well-known writer. A Cynic of
the name is mentioned by Athenaios (156 d). The statements of Strabo
are of the greatest value ; for they are based upon historians now lost.

3 O. Kern in Arch. iii. pp. 173 sqq. We know too little, however, of
the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century B.C. to be sure of the details.
All we can say is that Parmenides has taken the form of his poem from

PAUMENIDES OF ELEA 195

but they are all to be found either in the allegorical
introduction or in the second part of the poem, and
we need not therefore take them very seriously. Now
Parmenides was a western Hellene, and he had
probably been a Pythagorean, so it is not a little
remarkable that he should be so free from the common
tendency of his age and country. It is here, if any-
where, that we may trace the influence of Xenophanes.
As regards his relation to the Pythagorean system, we
shall have something to say later on. At present we
need only note further that, like most of the older
philosophers, he took part in politics ; and Speusippos
recorded that he legislated for his native city. Others
add that the magistrates of Elea made the citizens
swear every year to abide by the laws which Parmenides
had given them. 1

85. Parmenides was really the first philosopher to The poem,
expound his system in metrical language. As there is
some confusion on this subject, it deserves a few words
of explanation. In writing of Empedokles, Mr. J. A.
Symonds said : " The age in which he lived had not
yet thrown off the form of poetry in philosophical
composition. Even Parmenides had committed his
austere theories to hexameter verse." Now this is
wrongly put. The earliest philosophers, Anaximander,
Anaximenes, and Herakleitos, all wrote in prose, and
the only Greeks who ever wrote philosophy in verse

some such source. See Diels, " Ueber die poetischen Vorbilder des
Parmenides" (Berl. Siizb. 1896), and the Introduction to his Panncnides
Lehrgedicht) pp. 9 sqq.

1 Diog, ix. 23 (R. P. III). Plut. adv. Col. 1226 a, UapneviSrjs dt r^v
favrov ira.Tpl8a 8iK6<Tjj.ijff v6/tois dpto-rots, wcrre rdj dpxAs KO.&' txaffrov
tviavrbv t^opKOvv TOI)S TroXtras t/j./j.fve'iv rots Ilapfjuvidov i/6/xoty. Strabo, vi.
I. p. 252, ('EMcn/) t ?)* Hapfj.evl5-r)s /ecu T^vdiv cytvovro AvBpfs
dt fj.01 Acai 5i' txeivovs Kal (TI irpbrepov cvvofj.i]0r)i>ai.

196 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

at all were just these two, Parmenides and Empedokles ;
for Xenophanes was not primarily a philosopher
any more than Epicharmos. Empedokles copied
Parmenides ; and he, no doubt, was influenced by
Xenophanes and the Orphics. But the thing was an
innovation, and one that did not maintain itself.

The fragments of Parmenides are preserved for the
most part by Simplicius, who fortunately inserted them
in his commentary, because in his time the original
work was already rare. 1 I follow the arrangement of
Diels.

The car that bears me carried me as far as ever my heart
desired, since it brought me and set me on the renowned
way of the goddess, which alone leads the man who knows
through all things. On that way was I borne along ; for on
5 it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my car, and maidens
showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the socket for
it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each end
gave forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the
Sun, hasting to convey me into the light, threw back their

10 veils from off their faces and left the abode of Night.

There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day, 2 fitted
above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone.
They themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors,
and Avenging Justice keeps the keys that fit them. Her did

15 the maidens entreat with gentle words and cunningly persuade
to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates.
Then, when the doors were thrown back, they disclosed a
wide opening, when their brazen posts fitted with rivets and
nails swung back one after the other. Straight through them,

20 on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the

1 Simpl. Phys. 144, 25 (R. P. 117). Simplicius, of course, had the
library of the Academy at his command. Diels notes, however, that
Proclus seems to have used a different MS.

2 For these see Hesiod, Theog. 748.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 197

car, and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right
hand in hers, and spake to me these words :

Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car
that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers ! It is no ill 25
chance, but right and justice that has sent thee forth to
travel on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten
track of men ! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things,
as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth, as the
opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet 30
none the less shalt thou learn these things also, how they
should have judged that the things which seem to them
are, as thou goest through all things in thy journey. 1

But do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry,
nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon
this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue ; but 35
judge by argument the much disputed proof uttered by me.
There is only one way left that can be spoken of. 2 ... R. P.
x *3-

THE WAY OF TRUTH

<*)

Look steafdastly with thy mind at things though afar as
if they were at hand. Thou canst not cut off what is from
holding fast to what is, neither scattering itself abroad in
order nor coming together. R. P. 118 a.

(3)

It is all one to me where I begin ; for I shall come back
again there.

(4,5)

Come now, I will tell thee and do thou hearken to my
saying and carry it away the only two ways of search that
can be thought of. The first, namely, that It is, and that it
is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is

1 See below, p. 211, n. I.

2 I read /xC0oj as in the parallel passage fr. 8 ad inif. Diels's inter-
pretation of 0u/*6s 65<uo (the MS. reading here) as ein UbenJiger

not convince me, and the confusion of the two words is fairly common.

I 9 8 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

5 its companion. The other, namely, that // ts not, and that
it must needs not be, that, I tell thee, is a path that none can
learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not that
is impossible nor utter it ; for it is the same thing that can
be thought and that can be. 1 R. P. 114.

(6)

It needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of
is ; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for
what is nothing to be. 2 This is what I bid thee ponder. I
hold thee back from this first way of inquiry, and from this
5 other also, upon which mortals knowing naught wander
two-faced ; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in
their breasts, so that they are borne along stupefied like men
deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes it is r
and is not, the same and not the same, 3 and all things travel
in opposite directions ! 4 R. P. 1 1 5.

(7)

For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not

1 I read with Zeller (p. 558 n. I, Eng. trans, p. 584, n. l) TO yap avrb
voelv t(rri.v re /ecu elvat. Apart from the philosophical anachronism of
making Parmenides say that " thought and being are the same," it is a
grammatical anachronism to make him use the infinitive (with or without
the article) as the subject of a sentence. On the other hand, he does use
the active infinitive after dvat in the construction where we usually use a
passive infinitive (Monro, H. Gr. 231 sub Jin. ). Cf. fr. 4, eiVt vorjffai, " are
for thinking," i.e. " can be thought."

2 The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note.
It is surprising that good scholars should acquiesce in the translation of TO
\tyeiv re voelv re as " to say and think this." Then OTI yap elvat means
"it can be," not "being is," and the last phrase should be construed
owe &m /jnjdtv (eZiccu).

3 I construe ots vei>6fJUffTai TO irtXeiv re /ecu OVK clvat ravrov /ecu ov
ravrbv. The subject of the infinitives TrtXeiv /ecu OVK elvai is the it, which
has to be supplied also with 'tariv and OVK HCTTI.V. This way of taking the
words makes it unnecessary to believe that Parmenides said (TO) OVK elvac
instead of (TO) /XT? dvai. for "not-being." There is no difference between
irtXeiv and elvai except in rhythmical value.

4 I take irdvrcav as neuter and understand irdXivrpoiros Kt\ev6os as
equivalent to the 656s &vw Ko.ru of Herakleitos. I do not think it has
anything to do with the iraKivrovos (or iraXivrpoiros) ap/j-ofi-rj. See Chap.
III. p. 150, n. 2.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 199

are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of
inquiry. R. P. 116.

(8)

One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is.
In it are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and
indestructible ; for it is complete, 1 immovable, and without
end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now it is, all at',
once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it wilt 5
thou look for? In what way and from what source could it
have drawn its increase ? I shall not let thee say nor think
that it came from what is not ; for it can neither be thought
nor uttered that anything is not. And, if it came from nothing,
what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner ? 10
Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all. Nor
will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from
that which is not. 2 Wherefore, Justice doth not loose her
fetters and let anything come into being or pass away, but
holds it fast. Our judgment thereon depends on this : "Is 15
// or is it no/?" Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must be,
that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and
nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is
real and true. How, then, can what is be going to be in the
future ? Or how could it come into being ? If it came into 20
being, it is not ; nor is it if it is going to be in the future.
Thus is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be
heard of. R. P. 117.

Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more s

1 I still prefer to read ftm yhp ov\one\ts with Plutarch (adv. Col.
11140). Proklos (in Farm. 1152, 24) also read ovXo/ieX^s. Simplicius,
who has fiowoyevts here, calls the One of Parmenides oXoyueX^s elsewhere
(Phys. p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.] Strom. 5, povvov novvoyft*
helps to explain the confusion. We have only to suppose that the letters
H, v, y were written above the line in the Academy copy of Parmenides
by some one who had Tim. 31 b 3 in mind.

a Diels formerly read (K TTTJ I6rros, "from that which in any way is" ;
but he has now reverted to the reading K /u^ 6vrot, supposing that the
other horn of the dilemma has dropped out. In any case, " nothing but
what is not can arise from what is not " gives a perfectly good sense.

3 For the difficulties which have been felt about n<i\\oi> here, see Diels's
note. If the word is to be pressed, his interpretation is admissible ; but it

200 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding
together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is.

25 Wherefore it is wholly continuous ; for what is, is in contact
with what is.

Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains,
without beginning and without end ; since coming into being
and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has
cast them away. It is the same, and it rests in the self-same

30 place, abiding in itself. And thus it remaineth constant in
its place ; for hard necessity keeps it in the bonds of the
limit that holds it fast on every side. Wherefore it is not per-
mitted to what is to be infinite ; for it is in need of nothing ;
while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything. 1
R. P. 118.

The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of

35 which the thought exists is the same ; 2 for you cannot find
thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered. 3
And there is not, and never shall be, anything besides what
is, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable.
Wherefore all these things are but names which mortals have

40 given, believing them to be true coming into being and
passing away, being and not being, change of place and
alteration of bright colour. R. P. 1 1 9.

Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every
side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from

45 the centre in every direction ; for it cannot be greater or
smaller in one place than in another. For there is no nothing

seems to me that this is simply an instance of "polar expression." It is
true that it is only the case of there being less of what is in one place than
another that is important for the divisibility of the One ; but if there is less
in one place, there is more in another than in that place. The Greek
language tends to express these implications. The position of the relative
clause makes a difficulty for us, but hardly for a Greek.

1 Simplicius certainly read /X.TJ ed? 5' &v iravrbs eSetro, which is metrically
impossible. I have followed Bergk in deleting fj.-fi, and have interpreted
with Zeller. So too Diels.

2 For the construction of &m voeiv, see above, p. 198, n. I.

3 As Diels rightly points out, the Ionic <f>a.Tleii> is equivalent to
6vojj.6.^eLv. The meaning, I think, is this. We may name things as we
choose, but there can be no thought corresponding to a name that is not
the name of something real.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 201

that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor can aught
that is be more here and less there than what is, since it is all
inviolable. For the point from which it 'is equal in every
direction tends equally to the limits. R. P. 120.

THE WAY OF OPINION

Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought 50
about the truth. Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals,
giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.

Mortals have made up their minds to name two forms,
one of which they should not name, 1 and that is where they
go astray from the truth. They have distinguished them as 55
opposite in form, and have assigned to them marks distinct
from one another. To the one they allot the fire of heaven,
gentle, very light, in every direction the same as itself, but not
the same as the other. The other is just the opposite to it,
dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these I tell thee 60
the whole arrangement as it seems likely ; for so no thought
of mortals will ever outstrip thee. R. P. 121.

(9)

Now that all things have been named light and night, and
the names which belong to the power of each have been
assigned to these things and to those, everything is full at
once of light and dark night, both equal, since neither has
aught to do with the other.

(10, ii)

And thou shalt know the substance of the sky, and all the
signs in the sky, and the resplendent works of the glowing
sun's pure torch, and whence they arose. And thou shalt learn
likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced moon, and

1 This is Zeller's way of taking the words, and still seems to me the
best. Diels objects that ertprjv would be required, and renders nur cine
derselben, das sei uncrlatibt, giving the words to the "mortals." This
seems to me to involve more serious grammatical difficulties than the use
of /j-iav for Tty ertpav, which is quite legitimate when there is an emphasis
on the number. Aristotle must have taken it so ; for he infers that one of
the fJLOp<pai is to be identified with rb tbv.

202 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

5 of her substance. Thou shalt know, too, the heavens that sur-
round us, whence they arose, and how Necessity took them and
bound them to keep the limits of the stars . . . how the earth,
and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is common to all,
and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos, and the

10 burning might of the stars arose. R. P. 123, 124.

(M)

The narrower rings are filled with unmixed fire, and those
next them with night, and in the midst of these rushes their
portion of fire. In the midst of these circles is the divinity
that directs the course of all things ; for she is the beginner of
5 all painful birth and all begetting, driving the female to the
embrace of the male, and the male to that of the female.
R. P. 125.

First of all the gods she contrived Eros. R. P. 125.

Shining by night with borrowed light, 1 wandering round
the earth.

(15)

Always looking to the beams of the sun.

(16)

'For just as thought finds at any time the mixture of its
erring organs, so does it come to men ; for that which thinks
is the same, namely, the substance of the limbs, in each and
every man ; for their thought is that of which there is more in
them. 2 R. P. 128.

1 Note the curious echo of //. v. 214. Empedokles has it too (v. 154).
It appears to be a joke, made in the spirit of Xenophanes, when it was-
first discovered that the moon shone by reflected light.

2 This fragment of the theory of knowledge which was expounded in
the second part of the poem of Parmenides must be taken in connexion with
what we are told by Theophrastos in the " Fragment on Sensation" (Dox.
p. 499 ; cf. p. 222). It appears from this that he said the character of
men's thought depended upon the preponderance of the light or the dark
element in their bodies. They are wise when the light element predominates,
and foolish when the dark gets the upper hand.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 203

On the right boys ; on the left girls. 1

(19)

Thus, according to men's opinions, did things come into
being, and thus they are now. In time they will grow up
and pass away. To each of these things men have assigned
a fixed name. R. P. 129 b.

86. In the First Part of his poem, we find "it is.
Parmenides chiefly interested to prove that it is ; but
it is not quite obvious at first sight what it is precisely
that is. He says simply, What is, is. To us this does
not seem very clear, and that for two reasons. In the
first place, we should never think of doubting it, and
we cannot, therefore, understand why it should be
asserted with such iteration and vigour. In the second
place, we are accustomed to all sorts of distinctions
between different kinds and degrees of reality, and we
do not see which of these is meant. Such distinctions,
however, were quite unknown in those days. " That
which is," with Parmenides, is primarily what, in
popular language, we call matter or body ; only it is
not matter as distinguished from anything else. It is
certainly regarded as spatially extended ; for it is quite
seriously spoken of as a sphere (fr. 8, 40). Moreover,
Aristotle tells us that Parmenides believed in none but
a sensible reality, which does not necessarily mean with
him a reality that is actually perceived by the senses,
but includes any which might be so perceived if the
senses were more perfect than they are. 2 Parmenides

1 This is a fragment of Parmenides's embryology. Diels's fr. 18 is a
retranslation of the Latin hexameters of Caelius Aurelianus quoted
R. r. 127 a.

2 Arist. cU Caelo, T, i. 298 b 21, ef/teii/ot Si (ol ircpl M^cro-ir re *cU

dv &\\o

204 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

does not say a word about " Being " anywhere. 1 The
assertion that it is arnnnnts jllpt to this, that the
universe is a plenum ; and that there is no such L _thnig
as empty space, either inside or outside the world.
From this it follows that there can be no such thing as
motion. Instead of endowing the One with an impulse
to change, as Herakleitos had done, and thus making
it capable of explaining the world, Parmenides dis-
missed change as an illusion. He showed once for all
that if you take the One seriously you are bound to
deny everything else. All previous solutions of the
question, therefore, had missed the point Anaximenes,
who thought to save the unity of the primary substance
by his theory of rarefaction and condensation, did not
observe that, by assuming there was less of what is in
one place than another, he virtually affirmed the exist-
ence of what is not (fr. 8, 42). The Pythagorean
explanation implied that empty space or air existed
outside the world, and that it entered into it to separate
the units ( 53). It, too, assumes the existence of
what is not. Nor is the theory of Herakleitos any
more satisfactory ; for it is based upon the contradiction
that fire both is and is not (fr. 6).

The allusion to Herakleitos in the verses last referred

ii7roXa/i/3cii/eii/ eli/at /c.r.X. So too Eudeinos, in the first book of his Physics
(ap. Simpl. Phys. p. 133, 25), said of Parmenides : rb fiv otiv KOIVOV OVK &v
X^yoi. otfre yap efyreiTd TTO> ret rotaOra, dXX' vvrepov K TUV \6yuv
TrpOTJXBef, ofjre eTriS^xoiro &v 8. T$ 8vn eTrtX^yei. TTOJS y&p &TTCU roOro
" iJ.(r<roOev tVoTraXes " /cat TO, TOiatrra ; ry 5e ovpavip (the world) <rxf5o*'
jrdvTes 6(papfj.6(rov<ru> ol rotourot X67ot. The Neoplatonists, of course, saw
in the One the voyrbs K6<r/u,os, and Simplicius calls the sphere a "mythical
figment." See especially Baiimker, "Die Einheit des Parmenideischen
Seiendes " (Jahrb. f. kl. Phil. 1886, pp. 541 sqq.), and Das Problem der
Materie, pp. 50 sqq.

1 We must not render rb tov by " Being," das Sein or ?$tre. It is
" what is," das Seicnde, ce qui est. As to (rb) elvcu it does not, and could
not, occur. Cf. p. 198, n. I, above.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 205

to has been doubted, though upon insufficient grounds.
Zeller points out quite rightly that Herakleitos never
says Being and not-Being are the same (the common
translation of fr. 6, 8) ; and, v/ere there nothing more
than this, the reference might well seem doubtful.
The statement, however, that, according to the view in
question, "all things travel in opposite directions," can
hardly be understood of anything but the " upward and
downward path" of Herakleitos ( 71). And, as we
have seen, Parmenides does not attribute the view that
Being and not-Being are the same to the philosopher
whom he is attacking ; he only says that it is and is not

* ~~~~ '^/

the same and not the same. 1 That is the natural
meaning of the words ; and it furnishes a very accurate
description of the theory of Herakleitos.

87. The great novelty in the poem of Parmenides The method
is the method of argument. He first asks what is the
common presupposition of all the views with which he
has to deal, and he finds that this is the existence of
what is not. The next question is whether this can be
thought^andjthe answer is that it cannot. If you think
at all, you must think of something. Therefore there
*s__no nothing^ Philosophy had not yet learned to
make the admission that a thing might be unthinkable
and nevertheless exist. Only that can be which can '
be thought (fr. 5); for thought exists for the sake of
what is (fr. 8, 34).

^This method Parmenides carries out with the utmost
rigour. He will not have us pretend that we think
what we must admit to be unthinkable. It is true that
if we resolve to allow nothing but what we can under-
stand, we come into direct conflict with the evidence
1 See above, p. 198, n. 3.

206 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of our senses, which present us with a* world of change
and decay. So much the worse for the senses, says
Parmenides. To many this will doubtless seem a
mistake on his part, but let us see vfhat history has to
say on the point. The theory of Parmenides is the
inevitable outcome of a corporeal monism, and his bold
declaration of it ought to have destroyed that theory
for ever. If he had lacked courage to work out the
prevailing views of his time to their logical conclusion,
and to accept that conclusion, however paradoxical it
might seem to be, men might have gone on in the
endless circle of opposition, rarefaction and condensa-
tion, one and many, for ever. It was the thorough-
going dialectic of Parmenides that made progress
possible. Philosophy must now cease to be monistic
or cease to be corporealist. It could not cease to be
corporealist ; for the incorporeal was still unknown. It
therefore ceased to be monistic, and arrived at the
atomic theory, which, so far as we know, is the last
word of the view that the world is matter in motion.
Having worked out its problems on those conditions,
philosophy next attacked them on the other side. It
ceased to be corporealist, and found it possible to be
monistic once more, at least for a time. This progress
would have been impossible but for that faith in reason
which gave Parmenides the courage to reject as untrue
what was to him unthinkable, however strange the
result might be.

The results. 88. He goes on to develop all the consequences of
the admission that it is. It must be uncreated and
indestructible. It cannot have arisen out of nothing ;
forjthere is no such thing as nothing. Nor can it have
arisen from something ; for there is no room for any-

PARMENIDES QF ELEA 207

thing but itself. -Whcit is cannot have beside it any
empty space in which something else might arise ; for
empty space is nothing, nothing cannot 'be thought, and
therefore cannot exist. What is, never" came into being,
nor is anything going'to come into being in the future.
"Is it or is it not?" .If it is, then it is now, all at
once.

That Parmenides was really denying the existence
of empty space was quite well known to Plato. He
says that Parmenides held " all things were one, and
that the one remains at rest in itself, having no place in
which to move" 1 ' Aristotle is' no less clear. In the
de Caelo he lays it down that Parmenides was driven
to take up the position that the One was immovable
just because no one had yet imagined that there was
any reality other than sensible reality. 2

That which is, is ; and it cannot be more or less.
There is, therefore, as much of it in one place as in
another, and^ the world is a continuous, indivisible
plenum. From this it follows at once that it must be
immovable. If it moved, it must move into an empty
space, and there is no empty space. It is hemmed in
by what is, by the real, on every side. For the same
reason, it must be finite, and can have nothing beyond \
it. It is complete in itself, and has no need to stretch
out indefinitely into an empty space that does not exist.
Hence, too, it is spherical. It is equally real in every
direction, and the sphere is the only form which meets
this condition. Any other would be in one direction
more than in another. And this sphere cannot even

1 Plato, Tht. 1 80 e 3, u>$ '<tv re ira.vra. tari Kal %ffTi)K.ev ai/rd tv airy
OVK (x ov X ( * > P a - v * v V KLveirai.

2 Arist. de Caelo, T, i. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 203, n. 2.

208 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

move round its own axis ; for there is nothing outside
of it with reference to which it could be said to move.
Parmenides 89. To sum up. What is, is a finite, spherical/ 1 ,

materialism, motionless corporeal //#;;/, and there is nothing beyond
it. The appearances of multiplicity and motion, empty
space and time, are illusions. We see from this that
the primary substance of which the early cosmologists
were in search has now become a sort of "thing in
itself." It never quite lost this character again. What
appears later as the elements of Empedokles, the so-
called " homoeomeries " of Anaxagoras and the atoms
of Leukippos and Demokritos, is just the Parmenidean
" being." Parmenides is not, as some have said, the
" father of idealism " ; on the contrary, all materialism
depends on his view of reality.

The beliefs of 9O. It is commonly said that, in the Second Part of
his poem, Parmenides offered a dualistic theory of the
origin of things as his own conjectural explanation of
the sensible world, or that, as Gomperz says, " What
he offered were the Opinions of Mortals ; and this
description did not merely cover other people's opinions.
It included his own as well, as far as they were not
confined to the unassailable ground of an apparent
philosophical necessity." * Now it is true that in one
place Aristotle appears to countenance a view of this
sort, but nevertheless it is an anachronism. 2 Nor is it
really Aristotle's view. He was perfectly well aware

1 Greek Thinkers, pp. 180 sqq.

2 Met. A, 5. 986 b 31 (R. P. 121 a). Aristotle's way of putting the matter
is due to his interpretation of fr. 8, 54, which he took to mean that one of
the two " forms " was to be identified with TO 6v and the other with TO /JLTJ
6v. Cf. Gen. Corr. A, 3. 318 b 6, tiairep Hap/j-evidys \tyei Stio, TO ftv Kal r6
/AT) dv elvai Q&GKUV. This last sentence shows clearly that when Aristotle
says Uap/j.evl5r)Sy he means what we should call " Parmenides." He cannot
have supposed that Parmenides admitted the being of TO /J.TJ ov in any sense
whatever (cf. Plato, Soph. 241 d 5).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 209

that Parmenides did not admit the existence of " not-
being " in any degree whatever ; but it was a natural
way of speaking to call the cosmology of the Second
Part of the poem that of Parmenides. His Hearers
would understand at once in what sense this was
meant. At any rate, the Peripatetic tradition was that
Parmenides, in the Second Part of the poem, meant
to give the belief of "the many." This is how
Theophrastos put the matter, and Alexander seems to
have spoken of the cosmology as something which
Parmenides himself regarded as wholly false. 1 The
other view comes from the Neoplatonists, and especially
Simplicius, who very naturally regarded the Way of
Truth as an account of the intelligible world, and the
Way of Opinion as a description of the sensible. It
need hardly be said that this is almost as great an
anachronism as the Kantian parallelism suggested by
Gomperz. 2 Parmenides himself tells us in the most
unequivocal language that there is no truth at all in
the theory which he expounds, and he gives it merely
as the belief of "mortals." It was this that led
Theophrastos to speak of it as the opinion of "the
many."

His explanation however, though preferable to that
of Simplicius, is not convincing either. " The many "

1 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a), Kara d6$av 5t TUV

TTO\\<JJV els rb ytveviv dirodovi>a.i TUV ^aivo^vuv Svo iroiuv ras dpxds. For
Alexander cf. Sitnpl. Phys. p. 38, 24.

2 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 10 (R. P. 121 b). Gomperz, Greek Thinkers,
p. 180. E. Meyer says (Gesch. des Alterlh. iv. 510, Anm.) : "How
too can we think that a teacher of wisdom taught his disciples nothing
as to the way in which they must take the existing sensible world, even
if only as a deception?" This implies (i) that the distinction between
Appearance and Reality had been clearly grasped ; and (2) that a certain
hypothetical and relative truth was allowed to Appearance. These are
palpable anachronisms. Both views are Platonic, and they were not held
even by Plato in his earlier writings.

210 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

are as far as possible from believing in an elaborate
dualism such as Parmenides expounded, and it is a
highly artificial hypothesis to assume that he wished
to show how the popular view of the world could best
be systematised. " The many " would hardly be
convinced of their error by having their beliefs
presented to them in a form which they would certainly
fail to recognise. This, indeed, seems the most
incredible interpretation of all. It still, however, finds
adherents, so it is necessary to point out that the
beliefs in question are called " the opinions of mortals "
simply because the speaker is a goddess. % Further,
we have to note that Parmenides forbids two ways of
research, and we have seen that the second of these,
which is also expressly ascribed to " mortals," must be
the system of Herakleitos. We should surely expect,
then, to find that the other way too is the system of
some contemporary school, and it seems hard to
discover any of sufficient importance except the
Pythagorean. Now it is admitted by every one that
there are Pythagorean ideas in the Second Part of the
poem, and it is therefore to be presumed, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, that the whole system
comes from the same source. It does not appear that
Parmenides said any more about Herakleitos than the
words to which we have just referred, in which he
forbids the second way of inquiry. He implies, indeed,
that there are really only two ways that can be thought
of, and that the attempt of Herakleitos to combine
them was futile. 1 In any case, the Pythagoreans

1 Cf. frs. 4 and 6, especially the words a'lirep odoi ftouvai 5ifri<ri6s etVt
voriffai. The third way, that of Herakleitos, is only added as an after-
thought aurct/) ^Tretr' airb TTJS /c.r.X.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 211

were far more serious opponents at that date in Italy,
and it is certainly to them that we should expect
Parmenides to define his attitude. ^

It is still not quite clear, however, why he should
have thought it worth while to put into hexameters a
view which he believed to be false. Here it becomes
important to remember that he had been a Pythagorean
himself, and that the poem is a renunciation of his
former beliefs. In such cases men commonly feel the
necessity of showing where their old views were wrong.
The goddess tells him that he must learn of those
beliefs also " how men ought to have judged that the
things which seem to them really are." l That is clear
so far; but it does not explain the matter fully. We
get a further hint in another place. He is to learn
these beliefs " in order that no opinion of mortals may
ever get the better of him " (fr. 8, 61). If we remember
that the Pythagorean system at this time was handed
down by oral tradition alone, we shall perhaps see
what this means. Parmenides was founding a dissi-
dent school, and it was quite necessary for him to
instruct his disciples in the system they might be called
upon to oppose. In any case, they could not reject
it intelligently without a knowledge of it, and this
Parmenides had to supply himself. 2

1 I read XPW 8oKtpu<r' elvai in fr. I, 32 with Diels, but I do not feel
able to accept his rendering wie man bei griindlicher Durchforschung
annehmen musstc, dass sick jenes Scheitvwesen verhalte. We must, I

think, take x/"7" SoKtuuacu (i.e. Solder at) quite strictly, and XPW w ^h the
infinitive means "ought to have." The most natural subject for the
infinitive in that case is fiporofo, while efrat will be dependent on 3o/ct/iuJ<rai,
and have TO. SOKOVVTO. for its subject. This way of taking the words is
confirmed by fr. 8, 54, TUV fj.lav ov xptuv forty, if taken as I have taken
it with Zeller. See above, p. 201, n. i.

2 The view that the opinions contained in the Second Part are those of
others, and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever, is that of Diels.
The objections of Wilamowitz (Hermes, xxxiv. pp. 203 sqq.) do not appear

212 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The dualist 9 1 The view that the Second Part of the poem
ology * of Parmenides was a sketch of contemporary Pytha-
gorean cosmology is, doubtless, incapable of rigorous
demonstration, but it can, I think, be made extremely
probable. The entire history of Pythagoreanism up to
the end of the fifth century B.C. is certainly conjectural ;
but, if we find in Parmenides ideas which are wholly
unconnected with his own view of the world, and if we
find precisely the same ideas in later Pythagoreanism,
the most natural inference will surely be that the later
Pythagoreans derived these views from their pre-
decessors, and that they formed part of the original
stock-in-trade of the society to which they belonged.
This will only be confirmed if wjiipnd that they are
developments of certain feature^m the old Ionian
cosmology. Pythagoras came from Samos, which always
stood in the closest relations with Miletos ; and it was
not, so far as we can see, in his cosmological views that
he chiefly displayed his originality. It has been pointed
out above (53) that the idea of the world breathing
came from Anaximenes, and we need not be surprised to
find traces of Anaximander as well. Now, if we were

to me cogent. If we interpret him rightly, Parmenides never says that
" this hypothetical explanation is ... better than that of any one else"
(E. Meyer, iv. 510, Anm.). What he does say is that it is untrue
altogether. It seem to me, however, that Diels has weakened his case by
refusing to identify the theory here expounded with Pythagoreanism, and
referring it mainly to Herakleitos. Herakleitos was emphatically not a
dualist, and I cannot see that to represent him as one is even what Diels
calls a "caricature" of his theory. Caricatures must have some point
of likeness. It is still more surprising to me that Patin, who makes
v Trdvra eli>ai the corner-stone of Herakleiteanism, should adopt this view
(Parmenides im Kampfe gegen Heraklit, 1899). E. Meyer (loc. cit.)
seems to think that the fact of Zeno's having modified the 56a 01
Parmenides in an Empedoklean sense (Diog. ix. 29; R.P. 140) proves
that it was supposed to have some sort of truth. On the contrary, it would
only show, if true, that Zeno had other opponents to face than Parmenides
had.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 213

confined to what Aristotle tells us on this subject, it
would be almost impossible to make put a case ; but
his statements require, as usual, to be examined with
a certain amount of care. He says, first of all, that the
two elements of Parmenides were the Warm and the
Cold. 1 In this he is so far justified by the fragments
that, since the Fire of which Parmenides speaks is, of
course, warm, the other " form," which has all the
opposite qualities, must of necessity be cold. But, never-
theless, the habitual use of the terms " the warm " and
" the cold " is an accommodation to Aristotle's own
system. In Parmenides himself they were simply one
pair of attributes amongst others.

Still more misleading is Aristotle's identification of
these with Fire and Earth. It is not quite certain that
he meant to say Parmenides himself made this identifica-
tion ; but, on the whole, it is most likely that he did,
and Theophastros certainly followed him in this. 2 It is
another question whether it is accurate. Simplicius,
who had the poem before him ( 85), after mentioning
Fire and Earth, at once adds " or rather Light and
Darkness " ; 3 and this is suggestive enough. Lastly,
Aristotle's identification of the dense element with
" what is not," 4 the unreal of the First Part of the poem,
is not very easy to reconcile with the view that it is

1 Mef&, 5. 986 b 34, Otpfibv Kal ^vxjpbv ; Phys. A, 5. 188 a 20 ; Gen.
Corr. A, 3: 318 b 6 ; B, 3. 330 b 14.

2 Phys. A, 5. 1 88 a 21, ravra 5 (Qcpy^v Kal ^vxphv) irpwrayopcvei rvp
ical yijv ; Met. A, 5. 986 b 34, olov irvp Kal yyv \tywv. Cf. Theophr. Phys.
Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a). [Plut.] Strom, fr. 5 (Dox. p. 581),
X^yei 5k T^V yrjv rov TTVKVOV Karappv^vros (Upos -yrycWvcu. Teller, p. 568,
n. i (Eng. trans, p. 593, n. 2).

3 Phys. p. 25, 15, ws HapfJLevlSrjs (v rots Trpdj $6a? fvp Kal yTJv
(T) yttdXXov 0wj Kal <ric6TOj).

4 Met. A, 5. 986 b 35, Totfrwv 5 Kara fv rb ov rb 6fpf^bv rdrret, Bdrepw
5t Kara rb /xrj 6v. See above, p. 208, n. 2.

214 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

earth. On the other hand, if we suppose that the
second of the two " forms," the one which should not
have been " named," is the Pythagorean Air or Void, we
get a very good explanation of Aristotle's identifica-
tion of it with " what is not." We seem, then, to be
justified in neglecting the identification of the dense
element with earth for the present. At a later stage,
we shall be able to see how it may have originated. 1
The further statement of Theophrastos, that the Warm
was the efficient cause and the Cold the material or
passive, 2 is intelligible enough if we identify them with
the Limit and the Unlimited respectively ; but is not,
of course, to be regarded as historical.

We have seen that Simplicius, with the poem of
Parmenides before him, corrects Aristotle by substituting
Light and Darkness for Fire and Earth, and in this he
is amply borne out by the fragments which he quotes.
Parmenides himself calls one " form " Light, Flame, and
Fire, and the other Night, and we have now to consider
whether these can be identified with the Pythagorean
Limit and Unlimited. We have seen good reason to
believe ( 58) that the idea of the world breathing
belonged to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism, and
there can be no difficulty in identifying this " bound-
less breath " with Darkness, which stands very well
for the Unlimited. " Air " or mist was always regarded
as the dark element. 3 And that which gives definite-

1 See below, Chap. VII. 147.

2 Theophr. Phys. Op. fr. 6 (Dox. p. 482 ; R. P. 121 a), followed by
the doxographers.

3 Note the identification of the dense element with "air" in [Plut.]
Strom., quoted p. 213, n. 2; and for the identification of this "air"
with " mist and darkness," cf. Chap. I. 27, and Chap. V. 107. It is to
be observed further that Plato puts this last identification into the mouth of
a Pythagorean ( Tim. 52 d).

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 215

ness to the vague darkness is certainly light or fire,
and this may account for the prominence given to that
element by Hippasos. 1 We may probably conclude,
then, that the Pythagorean distinction between the
Limit and the Unlimited, which we shall have to
consider later (Chap. VII.), made its first appearance in
this crude form. If, on the other hand, we identify
darkness with the Limit, and light with the Unlimited,
as most critics do, we get into insuperable difficulties.

92. We must now look at the general cosmical view The heavenly
expounded in the Second Part of the poem. The
fragments are scanty, and the doxographical tradition

hard to interpret ; but enough remains to show that
here, too, we are on Pythagorean ground. All
discussion of the subject must start from the following
important passage of Aetios :

Parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one
another 2 and encircling one another, formed of the rare and
the dense element respectively, and that between these there
were other mixed crowns made up of light and darkness.
That which surrounds them all was solid like a wall, and
under it is a fiery crown. That which is in the middle of all
the crowns is also solid, and surrounded in turn by a fiery
circle. The central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause
of movement and becoming to all the rest. He calls it
" the goddess who directs their course," " the Holder of Lots,"
and "Necessity." Aet. ii. 7. i (R. P. 126).

93. The first thing we have to observe is that it is The "crowns,
quite unjustifiable to regard these " crowns " as spheres.

The word vrefyavai can mean " rims " or brims " or
anything of that sort, but it seems incredible that it

1 See above, p. 121.

- It seems most likely that ^ra\\7?Xouj here means "crossing one
another," as the Milky ,Way crosses the Zodiac. The term ^rdXXT/Xw is
opposed to 7rap<iXX77Xof.

216 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

should be used of spheres. It does not appear, either,
that the solid circle which surrounds all the crowns is
to be regarded as spherical. The expression "like a
wall " would be highly inappropriate in that case.
We seem, then, to be face to face with something of the
same kind as the " wheels " of Anaximander, and
it is obviously quite likely that Pythagoras should
have taken this theory from him. Nor is evidence
altogether lacking that the Pythagoreans did regard the
heavenly bodies in this way. In Plato's Myth of Er,
which is certainly Pythagorean in its general character,
we do not hear of spheres, but of the " lips " of
concentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of
boxes. 1 Even in the Timaeus there are no spheres,
but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle. 2
Lastly, in the Homeric Hymn to Ares, which seems to
have been composed under Pythagorean influence, the
word used for the orbit of the planet is az/ruf,

must mean " rim." 3

The fact is, there is really no evidence that ariy one
ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres at all, till
Aristotle turned the geometrical construction which
Eudoxos had set up as a hypothesis " to save
appearances " (o-wfew ra (fraivo/jbeva) into real things. 4

1 Rep. x. 616 d 5, Kadairep ot /cddoi ot et's aXXrjXovs ap/j-drrovTes ; e I,
KIJK\OVS aivwOev rd X'X?7 (fiaivovTas (<r(f>ovdti\ov5).

2 Tim. 36 b 6, raiJTr)v odv ryv avaraaiv Traffav 8nr\TJv /card fjt-iJKOS <r%i(ras,

-jrpbs (j.a"r)v eKartpav aXX^Xcus olov "X.el (the letter X) Tr/xxr/SaXwv
els v /ctf/cXy.

3 Hymn to Ares, 6 :

TTVpauyea KV/tAov eAi'<7<r<ov

aifle'pos eirTflurdpoi? i>! Tetpe<riv, evQa. tre TrwAni.
^a^Afye'es rpiraTTj? vTrep ai/TVyos aiev exovtri.

So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says to the
planet Venus (h. iv. 17) :

eire KCU e^ra KVK\tav VTrep ai/Tuyas al9epa vateis.

4 On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Dreyer, Planetary Systems,

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 217

From that time forward we hear a great deal about
spheres, and it was natural that later writers should
attribute them to the Pythagoreans ; but there is no
occasion to do violence to the language of Parmenides by
turning his " crowns " into anything of the sort. At this
date, spheres would not have served to explain anything
that could not be explained more simply without them.
We are next told that these " crowns " encircle one
another or are folded over one another, and that they
are made of the rare and the dense element. We
also learn that between them are " mixed crowns "
made up of light and darkness. Now it is to be
observed, in the first place, that light and darkness are
exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense, and
it looks as if there was some confusion here. It may
be doubted whether these statements are based on
anything else than fr. 12, which might certainly be
interpreted to mean that between the crowns of fire
there were crowns of night with a portion of fire in
them. That may be right ; but I think it is rather
more natural to understand the passage as saying that
the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of
night, each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst
of it. These last words would then be a simple
repetition of the statement that the narrower circles
are filled with unmixed fire, 1 and we should have a

chap. iv. It is unfortunate that the account of Plato's astronomy given in
this work is wholly inadequate, owing to the writer's excessive reliance on
Boeckh, who was led by evidence now generally regarded as untrustworthy
to attribute all the astronomy of , the Academy to their predecessors, and
especially to Philolaos.

1 Such a repetition (Tra\iv8pofj.la) is characteristic of all Greek style, but
the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch to the
statement at the opening. The new touch is here given in the word
tercu. I do not press this interpretation, but it seems to me much the
simplest.

218 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fairly exact reproduction of the planetary system of
Anaximander. It is, however, possible, though I think
less likely, that Parmenides represented the space
between the circles as occupied by similar rings in
which the fire and darkness were mixed instead of
having the fire enclosed in the darkness.

The goddess. 94- " ^ n tne middle of those," says Parmenides,
" is the goddess who steers the course of all things."
Aetios, that is, Theophrastos, explains this to mean in
the middle of the mixed crowns, while Simplicius
declares that it means in the middle of all the crowns,
that is to say, in the centre of the world. 1 It is not
very likely that either of them had anything better to
go upon than the words of Parmenides just quoted, and
these are ambiguous. Simplicius, as is clear from the
language he uses, identified this goddess with the
Pythagorean Hestia or central fire, while Theophrastos
could not do this, because he knew and stated that
Parmenides held the earth to be round and in the
centre of the world. 2 In this very passage we are told
that what is in the middle of all the crowns is solid.
The data furnished by Theophrastos, in fact, exclude
the identification of the goddess with the central fire
altogether. We cannot say that what is in the middle
of all the crowns is solid, and that under it there is
again a fiery crown. 3 Nor does it seem fitting to

1 Simpl. Phys. p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 b).

2 Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 126 a).

3 I do not discuss the interpretation of trepl 6 Trd\Li> Trvpudrjs which
Diels gave in Parmenides Lehrgedicht, p. 104, and which is adopted in
R. P. 162 a, as it is now virtually retracted. In the second edition of his
Vorsokratiker (p. Ill) he reads KO! TO fj-eaairarov iraffuiv (rrepeov, <i;0' <>
irdXiv irvp&Srjs [sc. 0Te(f>a.v'ti\. That is a flat contradiction. It is of interest
to observe that Mr. Adam also gets into the interior of the earth in his
interpretation of the Myth of Er. It is instructive, too, because it shows
that we are really dealing with the same order of ideas. The most heroic

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 219

relegate a goddess to the middle of a solid spherical
earth. We must try to find a place for her elsewhere.
We are further told by Aetios that this goddess was
called Ananke and the " Holder of Lots." l We know
already that she steers the course of all things, that is,
that she regulates the motions of the celestial crowns.
Simplicius adds, unfortunately without quoting the
actual words, that she sends souls at one time from
the light to the unseen world, at another from the
unseen world to the light. 2 It would be difficult to
describe more exactly what the goddess does in the
Myth of Er, and so here once more we seem to be on
Pythagorean ground. It is to be noticed further that
in fr. 10 we read how Ananke took the heavens and
compelled them to hold fast the -fixed courses of the
stars, and that in fr. 12 we are told that she is the
beginner of all pairing and birth. Lastly, in fr. 1 3 we
hear that she created Eros first of all the gods. Modern
parallels are dangerous, but it is not really going much
beyond what is written to say that this Eros is the Will
to Live, which leads to successive rebirths of the soul.
So we shall find that in Empedokles it is an ancient

attempt to save the central fire for Pythagoras was my own hypothesis of
an annular earth (ist ed. p. 203). This has met with well - deserved
ridicule ; but all the same it is the only possible solution on these lines.
We shall see in Chap. VII. that the central fire belongs to the later
development of Pythagoreanism.

1 R. P. 126, where Fulleborn's ingenious emendation /cXflSoS/xov for
K\rjpovxoi> is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Aetios (or
Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the
Proem (fr. I, 14). I now think that the K\r)poi of the Myth of Er
are the true explanation of the name. Philo uses the term K\i)povx<>s
Beds.

3 Simpl. Phys. p. 39, 19, xal raj ^fX< irtiurtu> irari fitv tic TOV tfutwofc
efr rd dei5?s (i.. didts), TTOT* dt dvdiraXiv frffiv. We should probably
connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22 (R. P. 127) that men arose
from the sun (reading TjXlov with the MSS. for the conjecture i\vos in the
Basel edition).

220 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

oracle or decree of Ananke that causes the gods to fall
and become incarnate in a cycle of births. 1

We should, then, be more certain of the place which
this goddess occupies in the universe if we could be
quite sure where Ananke is in the Myth of Er.
Without, however, raising that vexed question, we may
lay down with some confidence that, according to
Theophrastos, she occupied a position midway between
the earth and the heavens. Whether we believe in the
" mixed crowns " or not makes no difference in this
respect ; for the statement of Aetios that she was in
the middle of the mixed crowns undoubtedly implies
that she was in that region. Now she is identified with
one of the crowns in a somewhat confused passage of
Cicero, 2 and we have seen above (p. 69) that the whole
theory of wheels or crowns was probably suggested by
the Milky Way. It seems to me, therefore, that we
must think of the Milky W T ay as a crown intermediate
between the crowns of the Sun and the Moon, and this
agrees very well with the prominent way in which it is
mentioned in fr. 1 1. It is better not to be too
positive about the other details of the system, though it
is interesting to notice that according to some it was
Pythagoras, and according to others Parmenides, who
discovered the identity of the evening and morning
star. That fits in exactly with our general view. 3

1 Empedokles, fr. 115.

2 Cicero, de nat. D.'\. 1 1, 28 : " Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium
quiddam coronae simile efficit (ar^vt]v appellat), continente ardore lucis
orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum." We may connect with
this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, rbv ij\tov /cat rrjv <re\!)vr\v IK TOV
ya\at-iov KIJK\OV a-JTOKpid^vai.

3 Diog. ix. 23, Kal SOKL (Hap[j.fvi5r}s) TrptZros ire^wpaKfrat rbv avrbv
ctvat " 1 E(nrepov Kal 3?ti)(r<t>6pov, #s (prjcri Qafiupivos v TT^TTT^ 'A7rofj.vrjfj.ovev-
paTuv ' ol 5 Uvdaybpav. If, as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of Rhegion
had anticipated Parmenides in announcing this discovery, that is to be

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 221

Besides all this, it is quite certain that Parmenides
went on to describe how the other gods were born and
how they fell, an idea which we know to be Orphic,
and which may well have been Pythagorean. We
shall come to it again in Empedokles. In Plato's
Symposium, Agathon couples Parmenides with Hesiod
as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence committed
by the gods. 1 If Parmenides was expounding the
Pythagorean theology, all this is just what we should
expect ; but it seems hopeless to explain it on any
of the other theories which have been advanced on
the purpose of the Way of Belief. Such things do
not follow naturally from the ordinary view of the
world, and we have no reason to suppose that
Herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and
downward path of the soul in this form. He certainly
did hold that the guardian spirits entered into human
bodies ; but the whole point of his theory was that he
gave a naturalistic rather than a theological account
of the process. Still less can we think it probable
that Parmenides made up these stories himself in
order to show what the popular view of the world
really implied if properly formulated. We must ask,
I think, that any theory on the subject shall account
for what was evidently no inconsiderable portion of
the poem.

95. In describing the views of his contemporaries, Physiology.
Parmenides was obliged, as we see from the fragments,

explained by the fact that Rhegion had become the chief seat of the
Pythagorean school.

1 Plato, Symp. 195 c I. It is implied that these iraXcuA rpdyfMTa were
TroXXd xal /St'aia, including such things as CKTO/J.O.I and Stffpoi. The
Epicurean criticism of all this is partially preserved in Philodemos, cU
pietate, p. 68, Gomperz ; and Cicero, de nat. D. i. 28 (Dox. p. 534 ; R. P.
126 b).

222 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

to say a good deal about physiological matters. Like
everything else, man was composed of the warm and
the cold, and death was caused by the removal of the
warm. Some curious views with regard to generation
were also stated. In the first place, males came from
the right side and females from the left. Women had
more of the warm and men of the cold, a view which
we shall find Empedokles contradicting. 1 It is just
the proportion of the warm and cold in men that
determines the character of their thought, so that
even corpses, from which the warm has been removed,
retain a perception of what is cold and dark. 2 These
fragments of information do not tell us much when
taken by themselves ; but they connect themselves
in a most interesting way with the history of medicine,
and point to the fact that one of its leading schools
stood in close relation with the Pythagorean Society
Even before the days of Pythagoras, we know that
Kroton was famous for its doctors. A Krotoniate,
Demokedes, was court physician to the Persian king,
and married Milo the Pythagorean's daughter. 3 We
also know the name of a very distinguished medical
writer who lived at Kroton in the days between
Pythagoras and Parmenides, and the few facts we are
told about him enable us to regard the physio-
logical views described by Parmenides not as isolated
curiosities, but as landmarks by means of which we
can trace the origin and growth of one of the most
influential of medical theories, that which explains
health as a balance of opposites.

1 For all this, see R. P. 127 a, with Arist. de Part. An. B, 2. 648 a 28 ;
.de Gen. An. A, I. 765 b 19.

2 Theophr. de sens. 3, 4 (R. P. 129).

3 Herod, iii. 131, 137.

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 223

96. Aristotle tells us that Alkmaion of Kroton l was Alkmaion of
a young man in the old age of Pythagpras. He does
not actually say, as later writers do, that he was a
Pythagorean, though he points out that he seems
either to have derived his theory of opposites from
the Pythagoreans or they theirs from him. 2 In any
case, he was intimately connected with the society,
as is proved by one of the scanty fragments of his
book. It began as follows : " Alkmaion of Kroton,
son of Peirithous, spoke these words to Brotinos and
Leon and Bathyllos. As to things invisible and things
mortal, the gods have certainty ; but, so far as men
may infer ..." The quotation unfortunately ends
in this abrupt way, but we learn two things from it.
In the first place, Alkmaion possessed that reserve
which marks all the best Greek medical writers ; and
in the second place, he dedicated his work to the heads
of the Pythagorean Society. 4

Alkmaion's chief importance in the history of
philosophy really lies in the fact that he is the founder
of empirical psychology. 5 It is certain that he regarded

1 On Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, De Alcmaeone Crotoniata
(Leipzig, 1896).

2 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66). In a 30 Diels reads, with
great probability, tytvero TTJV -rjXtKLav <vtos> tirl ytpovTi Hvday6pa. Cf.
Iambi. V. Pytk. 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the <rvyxpovt-
(ravres Kal (jLadijTefoavTes T<$ Hv6ay6pa TrpefffivrTj vtoi.

3 'A\KfJ.aluv KpuTuvirjTrjs rdSe \ee HetpiOov vlbs Eportvy Kal A^OVTI Kal
J$adv\\tp ' Trepl TUIV aQav^wv, irepl TUV dvrjTwv, ffa<f)rjveiav fj.tv deol UXOVTI, ws
8t dvdpuirois TK/j.alpffdai Kal ra e^s. The fact that this is not written
in conventional Doric, like the forged Pythagorean books, is a strong proof
of genuineness.

4 Brotinos (not Brontinos) is variously described as the son-in-law or
father-in-law of Pythagoras. Leon is one of the Metapontines in the
catalogue of lamblichos (Diels, Vors.'p. 268), and Bathyllos is presumably
the Poseidoniate Bathylaos also mentioned there.

5 Everything bearing on the early history of this subject is brought
together and discussed in Prof. Beare's Greek Theories of Elementary
Cognition, to which I must refer the reader for all details.

224 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the brain as the common sensorium, an important
discovery which Hippokrates and Plato adopted from
him, though Empedokles, Aristotle, and the Stoics
reverted to the more primitive view that the heart
performs this function. There is no reason to doubt
that he made this discovery by anatomical means.
We have some authority for saying that he practised
dissection, and, though the nerves were not yet re-
cognised as such, it was known that there were certain
" passages " which might be prevented from com-
municating sensations to the brain by lesions. 1 He
also distinguished between sensation and understanding,
though we have no means of knowing exactly where he
drew the line between them. His theories of the special
senses are of great interest. We find in him already,
what is characteristic of Greek theories of vision as a
whole, the attempt to combine the view of vision as an act
proceeding from the eye with that which attributes it to
an image reflected in the eye. He knew the importance of
air for the sense of hearing, though he called it the void, a
thoroughly Pythagorean touch. With regard to the other
senses, our information is more scanty, but sufficient to
show that he treated the subject systematically. 2

His astronomy seems surprisingly crude for one
who stood in close relations with the Pythagoreans.
We are told that he adopted Anaximenes' theory
of the sun and Herakleitos's explanation of eclipses. 3

1 Theophr. de sens. 26 (Beare, p. 252, n. i). Our authority for the
dissections of Alkmaion is only Chalcidius, but he gets his information on
such matters from far older sources. The irbpOL and the inference from
lesions are vouched for by Theophrastos.

2 The details will be found in Beare, pp. 1 1 sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq.
(hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq. (taste).

3 Aet. ii. 22, 4, TT\O.TVV elvai rbv ij\wv ; 29, 3, /caret TT\V TOV cr/ca$oei5oOs

al ras

PARMENIDES OF ELEA 225

It is all the more remarkable that he is credited with
originating the idea, which it required all Plato's
authority to get accepted later, that the planets have
an orbital motion in the opposite direction to the
diurnal revolution of the heavens. 1 This, if true,
probably stood in close connexion with his saying
that soul was immortal because it resembled immortal
things, and was always in motion like the heavenly
bodies. 2 He seems, in fact, to be the real author
of the curious view which Plato put into the mouth
of the Pythagorean Timaios, that the soul has circles
revolving just as the heavens and the planets do. This
too seems to be the explanation of his further state-
ment that man dies because he cannot join the
beginning to the end. 3 The orbits of the heavenly
bodies always come full circle, but the circles in the
head may fail to complete themselves. This new
version of the parallelism between the microcosm
and the macrocosm would be perfectly natural for
Alkmaion, though it is, of course, no more than a
playful fancy to Plato,

Alkmaion's theory of health as "isonomy" is at
once that which most clearly connects htm with earlier
inquirers like Anaximander, and also that which had
the greatest influence on the subsequent development
of philosophy. He observed, to begin with, that " most
things human were two," and by this he meant that
man was made up of the hot and the cold, the moist and

1 Act. ii. 16, 2, (TUV iJLO.e-nnaTi.KQv xtm) TOI)S irXav^ras rots
et7r6 Svfffwv ^TT' dparoXAj dvTt<t>tpe<Tda.t. TOI/TV 5 <rvvofj.o\oyci xal

3 Arist. flfe An. A, 2. 405 a 30 (R. P. 66 c).

3 Arist. Probl. 17, 3. 916 a 33, rote drflpunroi/s <ftviv 'A\KfJ.alui>
TOVTO dir6\\vff6ai, 3n ov Stivavrcu rr)v Apxty T V T ^ et ir/xwd^aj.

226 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

the dry, and the rest of the opposites. 1 Disease was
just the " monarchy " of any one of these the same
thing that Anaximander had called " injustice "
while health was the establishment in the body of
a free government with equal laws. 2 This was the
leading doctrine of the Sicilian school of medicine
which came into existence not long after, and we
shall have to consider in the sequel its influence
on the development of Pythagoreanism. Taken along
with the theory of " pores," 3 it is of the greatest
importance for later science.

1 Arist. Met. A, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66).

2 Act. v. 30, I, 'A\K/jLaiuv rrjs ptv vyielas flvat ffwcKTiKyv ryv i<ro-
vofilav r&v 8vvdfj.euv, vypov, fypov, \^v^pov, 6ep/j,ov, iriKpov, y\viceos, Kal
r(av XotTrwv, rty 5' & ai/roiis fj,ovapxiav vbffov TroirjTiKrjv ' (pOopoTroibv yap

3 My colleague, Dr. Fraser Harris, points out to me that Alkmaion's
Tropoi. may have been a better guess than he knew. The nerve-fibres, when
magnified 1000 diameters, "sometimes appear to have a clear centre, as if
the fibrils were tubular." Schafer, Essentials of Physiology (;th edition),
p. 132-

CHAPTER V

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS

97. THE belief that all things are one was common Pluralism.
to the philosophers we have hitherto studied ; but
now Parmenides has shown that, if this one thing
really is, we must give up the idea that it can take
different forms. The senses, which present to us a ,
world of change and multiplicity, are deceitful. From
this there was no escape ; the time was still to come
when men would seek the unity of the world in
something which, from its very nature, the senses could
never perceive.

We find, accordingly, that from the time of
Parmenides to that of Plato, all thinkers in whose
hands philosophy made real progress abandoned ..the
gionistic hypothesis. Those who still held by it
adopted a critical attitude, and confined themselves
to a defence of the theory of Parmenides against the
new views. Others taught the doctrine of Herakleitos
in an exaggerated form ; some continued to expound
the systems of the early Milesians. This, of course,
showed want of insight ; but even those thinkers who
saw that Parmenides could not be left unanswered,
were by no means equal to their predecessors in power
and thoroughness. The corporealist hypothesis had

227

228 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

proved itself unable to bear the weight of a monistic
structure ; but a thorough-going pluralism such as the
atomic theory might have some value, if not as a
final explanation of the world, yet at least as an
intelligible view of a part of it. Any pluralism, on
the other hand, which, like that of Empedokles and
Anaxagoras, stops short of the atoms, will achieve no
permanent result, however many may be the brilliant
apergus which it embodies. It will remain an attempt
to reconcile two things that cannot be reconciled,
and may always, therefore, be developed into con-
tradictions and paradoxes.

Date of Em- 98. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in
Sicily, and his father's name, according to the best
accounts, was Meton. 1 His grandfather, also called
Empedokles, had won a victory in the horse-race at
Olympia in Ol. LXXI. (496-95 B.C.), 2 and Apollodoros
fixed fat floruit of Empedokles himself in Ol. LXXXIV.
I (444-43 B.C.). This is the date of the foundation of
Thourioi ; and it appears from the quotation in
Diogenes that the almost contemporary biographer,
Glaukos of Rhegion, 3 said Empedokles visited the

1 Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), Apollodoros ap. Diog. viii. 52 (R. P. 162).
The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a careful criticism
of the sources, by Bidez, La biographic d 1 Emptdocle (Gand, 1894).

2 For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52;
R. P. 162), who follows the Olympic Victors of Eratosthenes, who in turn
appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his IIe/>i vbtruv (see
below, p. 233, n. 3), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a "breeder of
horses" (R. P. 162 a) ; and Timaios mentioned him as a distinguished
man in his Fifteenth Book.

3 Glaukos wrote Ilept r&v ap-xai-uv iroir)T&v /cat (lovffiKuv, and is said to
have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros adds
(R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides, Empedokles died
at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however, that the words TI d'
' Hpa,K\ei8r)s are Sturz's conjecture, the MSS. having en 5' 'Hpd/cXeiroi', and
Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the
other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the He/at TTOLTITI/JV, it is

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 229

new city shortly after its foundation. But we are
in no way bound to believe that he was just forty years
old at the time of the event in his life which can
most easily be dated. That is the assumption, made
by Apollodoros ; but there are reasons for thinking
that his date is too late by some eight or ten years. 1
It is, indeed, most likely that Empedokles did not go
to Thourioi till after his banishment from Akragas,
and he may well have been more than forty years old
when that happened. All, therefore, we can be said
to know of his date is, that his grandfather was still
alive in 496 B.C. ; that he himself was active at
Akragas after 472, the date of Theron's death ; and
that he died later than 444.

Even these indications are enough to show that
he must have been a boy in the reign of Theron,
the tyrant who co-operated with Gelon of Syracuse
in the repulse of the Carthaginians from Himera.
His son and successor, Thrasydaios, was a man of
another stamp. Before his accession to the throne
of Akragas, he had ruled in his father's name at
Himera, and completely estranged the affections of its
inhabitants. Theron died in 472 B.C., and Thrasydaios
at once displayed all the vices and follies usual in
the second holder of a usurped dominion. After a
disastrous war with Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven
out ; and Akragas enjoyed a free government till it

not obvious why he should mention Herakleitos at all ; and Herakleides was
one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles.

1 See Diels, " Empedokles und Gorgias," 2 (Berl. Sitzb., 1884). Theo-
phrastos said that Empedokles was born " not long after Anaxagoras " (Dox.
P- 477. 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno under Par-
menides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, n. 5). Now Gorgias
was a little older than Antiphon (b. Ol. LXX.), so it is clear we must go
back at least to 490 B.C. for the birth of Empedokles.

230 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fell before the Carthaginians more than half a century
later. 1
Empedokies 99. In the political events of the next few years,

as a politician.

Empedokies certainly played an important part ; but
our information on the subject is of a very curious
kind. The Sicilian historian Timaios told one or
two stories about him, which are obviously genuine
traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years
afterwards ; but, like all popular traditions, they are
a little confused. The picturesque incidents are
remembered, but the essential parts of the story
are dropped. Still, we may be thankful that the
" collector of old wives' tales," 2 as sneering critics
called him, has enabled us to measure the historical
importance of Empedokies for ourselves by showing
us how he was pictured by the great-grandchildren
of his contemporaries.

We read, then, 3 that once he was invited to sup
with one of the " rulers." Tradition delights in such
vague titles. " Supper was well advanced, but no
wine was brought in. The rest of the company said
nothing, but Empedokies was righteously indignant, and
insisted on wine being served. The host, however,
said he was waiting for the serjeant of the Council.
When that official arrived, he was appointed ruler of
the feast. The host, of course, appointed him.
Thereupon he began to give hints of an incipient
tyranny. He ordered the company either to drink or
have the wine poured over their heads. At the time,
Empedokies said nothing ; but next day he led both

1 E. Meyer, Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 508.

2 He is called ypaoffvXXfKrpia in Souidas, s.v. The view taken in the
text as to the value of his evidence is that of Holm.

3 Timaios ap. Diog. viii. 64 (F.H.G. i. p. 214, fr. 88 a).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 231

of them before the court, and had them condemned
and put to death both the man who asked him to
supper and the ruler of the feast. 1 This was the
beginning of his political career." The next tale is
that Empedokles prevented the Council from granting
his friend Akron a piece of land for a family sepulchre
on the ground of his eminence in medicine, and
supported his objection by a punning epigram. 2
Lastly, he broke up the assembly of the Thousand
perhaps some oligarchical association or club. 3 It
may have been for this that he was offered the king-
ship, which Aristotle tells us he refused. 4 At any
rate, we see that Empedokles was the great democratic
leader at Akragas in those days, though we have no
clear knowledge of what he did.

100. But there is another side to his public char- Empedokles

as a religious

acter which Timaios found it hard to reconcile with his teacher.
political views. He claimed to be a god, and to
receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity.
The truth is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman ;
he had a good deal of the " medicine-man " about him.
According to Satyros, 5 Gorgias affirmed that he had

1 In the first edition, I suggested the analogy of accusations for
incivisme. Bidez says (p. 127), "J'imagine qu'un Jacobin aurait mieux
juge 1'histoire" (than Karsten and Holm); "sous la Terreur, on etait
suspect pour de moindres vetilles."

2 Diog. viii. 65. The epigram runs thus :

afcpoc irjrpbi/ 'A.Kp<av' '\tepayavrlvov jrarpo? "Aicpov
axpo? rrarpCSo? eucpOTeiTiT*.

On Akron, see M. Wellmann, op. cit. p. 235, n. I.

8 Diog. viii. 66, fortpov 5' 6 'E/ATreSoKXifr /coi rb T&V \i\Luv AQpourpa
(carAi/cre ffvveffrus M try rpla. The word Adpoiff/j-a hardly suggests a
legal council, and a\]v(ara.<jQo.i suggests a conspiracy.

4 Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his Sophist.
Cf. Diog. viii. 57.

8 Diog. viii. 59 (R. P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas.
Diels suggests (Emp. u. Gorg. p. 358) that the 0i/<ri/c6$ of Alkidamas was

232 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

been present when his master was performing sorceries.
We can see what this means from the fragments of
the Purifications. Empedokles was a preacher of the
new religion which sought to secure release from the
" wheel of birth " by purity and abstinence ; but it is
not quite certain to which form of it he adhered. On
the one hand, Orphicism seems to have been strong at
Akragas in the days of Theron, and there are even
some verbal coincidences between the poems of
Empedokles and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar
addressed to that prince. 1 There are also some points
of similarity between the Rhapsodic Theogony, as we
know it from Damaskios, and certain fragments of
Empedokles, though the importance of these has been
exaggerated. 2 On the other hand, there is no reason
to doubt the statement of Ammonios that fr. 134
refers to Apollo ; 3 and, if that is so, it would point
to his having been an adherent of the Ionic form of
the mystic doctrine, as we have seen ( 39) that
Pythagoras was. Further, Timaios already knew the
story that he had been expelled from the Pythagorean
Order for " stealing discourses," 4 and it is probable on
the whole that fr. 129 refers to Pythagoras. 5 It would
be very hazardous to dogmatise on this subject ; but
it seems most likely that Empedokles had been
influenced by Orphic ideas in his youth, and that, in
later life, he preached a form of Pythagoreanism which

a dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker. In that case, the
statement would have little historical value.

1 See Bidez, p. 115, n. I.

2 O. Kern, " Empedokles und die Orphiker" (Arch. i. pp. 489 sqq.).
For the Rhapsodic Theogony, see Introd. p. 9, n. 4.

3 See below, note in loc.

4 Diog. viii. 54 (R. P. 162).

5 See below, note in loc.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 233

was not considered orthodox by the heads of the
Society. In any case, it seems far more probable that
his political and scientific activity belong to the same
period of his life, and that he only became a wandering
prophet after his banishment, than that his scientific
work belonged to his later days when he was a solitary
exile. 1

We hear of a number of marvels performed by
Empedokles, which are for the most part nothing but
inferences from his writings. Timaios told how he
weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging
bags of asses' skins on the trees to catch them. He
had certainly said, in his exaggerated way, that the
knowledge of science as taught by him would enable
his disciples to control the winds (fr. 1 1 1) ; and this,
along with the fabled windbags of Aiolos, is enough
to account for the tale. 2 We are also told how he
brought back to life a woman who had been breathless
and pulseless for thirty days. The verse where he
asserts that his teaching will enable Pausanias to bring
the dead back from Hades (fr. 1 1 1) shows how this
story may have arisen. 3 Again, we hear that he
sweetened the pestilent marsh between Selinous and
the sea by diverting the rivers Hypsas and Selinos
into it. We know from coins that this purification

1 The latter view is that of Bidez (pp. 161 sqq.) ; but Diels has shown
(BerL Sitzb., 1898, pp. 406 sqq.) that the former is psychologically more
probable.

2 I follow the wilder form of the story given by Diog. viii. 60, and not
the rationalised version of Plutarch (adv. Col. 1126 b). The epithets
dXffaj'^Ltaj and KuXvyav^as were perhaps bestowed by some sillographer
in mockery ; cf. avefj.oKotTT)s.

3 The Ilepi voffwv of Herakleides, from which it is derived, seems to
have been a sort of medico -philosophical romance. The words are
(Diog. viii. 60) : 'Hpa/cXe^Tjj re >.tv ' T$*Hfpl vbewv \<f>ijffl /cat] Hawraj'fp
ixprjy^ffaa&at avrbv rd ire pi rty Hirvovv. It was a case of hysterical
suffocation.

234 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

of the marshes actually took place, but we may doubt
whether it was attributed to Empedokles till a later
time. 1

Rhetoric and ioi. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the
inventor of Rhetoric ; 2 and Galen made him the founder
of the Italian school of Medicine, which he puts on a
level with those of Kos and Knidos. 3 Both these
statements must be considered in connexion with his
political and scientific activity. It seems to be certain
< that Gorgias was his disciple in physics and medicine,
and some of the peculiarities which marked his style
are to be found in the poems of Empedokles. 4 It is
not to be supposed, of course, that Empedokles wrote
a formal treatise on Rhetoric ; but it is in every way
probable, and in accordance with his character, that
the speeches, of which he must have made many, were
~ ' marked by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced
to Athens at a later date, and which gave rise to the
idea of an artistic prose. The influence of Empedokles
on the development of medicine was, however, far
more important, as it affected not only medicine itself,
but through it, the whole tendency of scientific and
philosophical thinking. It has been said that
Empedokles had no successors, 5 and the remark is

1 For these coins see Head, Historia Numorzim, pp. 147 sqq.

2 Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 g).

3 Galen, x. 5, -rjpifov d' avrois (the schools of Kos and Knidos) ... /cat
01 IK TTJs 'IraXias larpol, ^iXiffrlcav re /cat 'E/i7re5o/cX?}$ Kal Havcravias xal
ol rotrwv eraipot K.r.A. Philistion was the contemporary and friend of
Plato ; Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles addressed his poem.

4 See Diels, "Empedokles und Gorgias" (Berl. Sttzb., 1884, pp.
343 sqq.). The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple
of Empedokles is Satyros ap. Diog. viii. 58 (R. P. 162) ; but he seems to
have derived his information from Alkidamas, who was the disciple of
Gorgias himself. In Plato's Meno (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean theory
of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.

5 Diels (Berl. Sitzb., 1884, p. 343).

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 235

true if we confine ourselves strictly to philosophy.
On the other hand, the medical school which he
founded was still living in the days of Plato, and it
had considerable influence on him, and still more on
Aristotle. 1 Its fundamental doctrine was the identifica-
tion of the four elements with the hot and the cold/
the moist and the dry. It also held that we breathe
through all the pores of the body, and that the act of
respiration is closely connected with the motion of the
blood. The heart, not the brain, was regarded as the
organ of consciousness. 2 A more external character-
istic of the medicine taught by the followers of
Empedokles is that they still clung to ideas of a
magical nature. A protest against this by a member
of the Koan school has been preserved. He refers to
them as " magicians and purifiers and charlatans and
quacks, who profess to be very religious." 3 Though
there is some truth in this, it hardly does justice to
the great advances in physiology that were due to the^
Sicilian school.

1 02. In the biography of Empedokles, we hear Relation to
very little of his theory of nature. The only hints we
get are some statements about his teachers. Alkidamas,
who had good opportunities of knowing, made him a

1 See M. Wellmann, Fraginentsammlung drr griechischen Artzte, vol.
i. (Berlin, 1901). According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the Timaeus)
and Diokles of Karystos depend upon Philistion. It is impossible to
understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without
keeping the history of medicine constantly in view.

2 For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon's latrika),
4>i\ioT/wj> 5' ofrrcu e/c 5' ideuv crvveffrdvai fyxa*, TOVT (trnv K 6' vroixflw '
7Ti/p6j, d^pos, tfSaros, 7775. eli>cu 5 Kal tK&vrov dvvdfj.eis, TOV fttv vvpbs TO
Bepn6v t TOV 3 dfyos rd \f/vxp6v, TOV S CJSaros TO vypbv, TTJJ 3 7771 rd
%T)p6j>. For the theory of respiration, see Wellmann, pp. 82 sqq. ; and for
the heart as the seat of consciousness, ib. pp. 15 sqq.

3 Hippokr. Ilepi Je/jTjs vtxrov, c I , /xd7oi re Kal Kaddprai Kal dyvprat KOI

The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.

236 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fellow-student of Zeno under Parmenides. That is
both possible and likely. Theophrastos too made him
a follower and imitator of Parmenides. But the further
statement that he had " heard " Pythagoras cannot be
right. Probably Alkidamas said " Pythagoreans." ]

Some writers hold that certain parts of the system
of Empedokles, in particular the theory of pores and
effluvia ( 1 1 8), which do not seem to follow very
naturally from his own principles, were due to the
influence of Leukippos. 2 This, however, is not neces-
sarily the case. We know that Alkmaion ( 96) spoke
of " pores " in connexion with sensation, and it may
equally well be from him that Empedokles got the
theory. It may be added that this is more in
accordance with the history of certain other physio-
logical views which are common to Alkmaion and
the later Ionian philosophers. We can generally see
that those reached Ionia through the medical school
which Empedokles founded. 3

JOS- We are told that Empedokles leapt into the
crater of Etna that he might be deemed a god. This
appears to be a malicious version 4 of a tale set on foot
by his adherents that he had been snatched up to
heaven in the night. 5 Both stories would easily get

1 Diog. viii. 54-56 (R. P. 162).

2 Diels, Verhandl. d. 35 PhilologenversammL pp. 104 sqq., Zeller, p. 767.
It would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if it could be
proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope to show
that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean doctrine (Chap.
IX. 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles (Chap. VII. 147).

3 For irbpoi in Alkmaion, cf. Arist. de Gen. An. B, 6. 744 a 8 ; Theophr.
de sens. 26 ; and for the way in which his embryological and other views
were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian physicists, cf.
Fredrich, Hippokratische Untcrsuchungcn, pp. 126 sqq.

4 R. P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.

5 R. P. ib. This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the
end of his romance about the Airvovs.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 237

accepted ; for there was no local tradition. Empedokles
did not die in Sicily, but in the Peloponnese, or,
perhaps, at Thourioi. He had gone to Olympia to
have his religious poem recited to the Hellenes ; his
enemies were able to prevent his return, and he was
seen in Sicily no more. 1

104. Empedokles was the second philosopher to writings,
expound his system in verse, if we leave the satirist
Xenophanes out of account. He was also the last
among the Greeks ; for the forged Pythagorean poems
may be neglected. 2 Lucretius imitates Empedokles
in this, just as Empedokles imitated Parmenides. Of
course, the poetical imagery creates a difficulty for the
interpreter ; but it would be wrong to make too much
of it. It cannot be said that it is harder to extract
the philosophical kernel from the verses of Empedokles
than from the prose of Herakleitos.

There is some divergence of opinion as to the
poetical merit of Empedokles. The panegyric of
Lucretius is well known. 3 Aristotle says in one place
that Empedokles and Homer have nothing in common
but the metre ; in another, that Empedokles was " most
Homeric." 4 To my mind, there can be no question
that he was a genuine poet, far more so than Parmenides.
No one doubts nowadays that Lucretius was one, and
Empedokles really resembles him very closely.

1 Timaios took the trouble to refute the common stories at some length
(Diog. viii. 71 sqq. ; R. P. ib.}. He was quite positive that Empedokles
never returned to Sicily. Nothing can be more likely than that, when
wandering as an exile in the Peloponnese, he should have seized the
opportunity of joining the colony at Thourioi, which was a harbour for
many of the " sophists " of this time.

2 See Chap. IV. 85.
8 Lucr. i. 716 sqq.

4 Poet. i. 1447 b 18 ; cf. Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162. i).

238 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

The remains. 1 05. We have more abundant remains of Em-
pedokles than of any other early Greek philosopher.
If we may trust our manuscripts of Diogenes and of
Souidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the Poem
on Nature and the Purifications together as 5600 verses,
of which about 2000 belonged to the former work. 1
Diels gives about 350 verses and parts of verses from
the cosmological poem, or not a fifth of the whole. It
is important to remember that, even in this favourable
instance, so much has been lost. Besides the two
poems, the Alexandrian scholars possessed a prose work
of 600 lines on medicine ascribed to Empedokles.
The tragedies and other poems which were sometimes
attributed to him seem really to belong to a younger
writer of the same name, who is said by Souidas to
have been his grandson. 2

I give the remains as they are arranged by
Diels :

(')
And do thou give ear, Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise !

For straitened are the powers that are spread over their
bodily parts, and many are the woes that burst in on them and

1 Diog. viii. 77 (R. P. 162); Souidas s.v. 'E/iTreSo/cXiJs * /cat

Hep! 0i5(rews TWV fivruv /Si^SXta /3', KCU Zanv 77-77 ws 5t<rx'Xia. It
hardly seems likely, however, that the KaOapfjiol extended to 3000 verses,
so Diels proposes to read Trdvra rptax/Xta for Trepra/acrxiXia in Diogenes.
It is to be observed that there is no better authority than Tzetzes for
dividing the Ilept 0&rews into three books. See Diels, " Uber die
Gedichte des Empedokles " (Berl. Sitzb., 1898, pp. 396 sqq.).

2 Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog. viii. 58) that he had met with
forty-three of these tragedies ; but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on the
Persian Wars, which Hieronymos also refers to (Diog. viii. 57), seems to
have arisen from an old corruption in the text of Arist. ProbL 929 b 1 6,
where Bekker still reads tv rots nepcrt/cots. The same passage, however, is
said to occur tv rots 0v<riKots, in Meteor. A, 4. 382 a I, though there too E
reads

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 239

blunt the edge of their careful thoughts ! They behold but a
brief span of a life that is no life, 1 and, doomed to swift
death, are borne up and fly off like smoke. Each is
convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon as he is 5
hurried to and fro, and idly boasts he has found the whole.
So hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by
the ears of men, so hardly grasped by their mind ! Thou, 2
then, since thou hast found thy way hither, shalt learn no
more than mortal mind hath power. R. P. 163.

(3)
... to keep within thy dumb heart.

(4)

But, O ye gods, turn aside from my tongue the madness
of those men. 3 Hallow my lips and make a pure stream flow
from them ! And thee, much -wooed, white -armed Virgin
Muse, do I beseech that I may hear what is lawful for the
children of a day ! Speed me on my way from the abode of 5
Holiness and drive my willing car ! Thee shall no garlands of
glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift them
from the ground, on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond
that which is lawful and right, and so to gain a seat upon
the heights of wisdom.

Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each
thing is clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as 10
compared with thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear
above the clear instructions of thy tongue ; 4 and do not
withhold thy confidence in any of thy other bodily parts by
which there is an opening for understanding, 5 but consider
everything in the way it is clear. R. P. 163.

1 The MSS. of Sextus have fw^at piov. Diels reads fays idiov. I still
prefer Scaliger's fwi/s d/3iou. Cf. fr. 15, rb dr) fttoTov Ka\tov<ri.

2 The person here addressed is still Pausanias, and the speaker Em-
pedokles. Cf. fr. in.

3 No doubt mainly Parmenides.

4 The sense of taste, not speech.

5 Zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after ro^reu, thus
getting almost the opposite sense : " Withhold all confidence in thy bodily
senses" ; but he admits in his fifth edition (p. 804, n. 2) that the context is
in favour of Stein, who put only a comma at VOTJCCLI and took dXAw* closely

240 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(S)

But it is ever the way of low minds to disbelieve their
betters. Do thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse
bid thee, dividing the argument in thy heart. 1

(6)

Hear first the four roots of all things : shining Zeus, life-
bringing Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis whose tear-drops are a
well-spring to mortals. R. P. i64. 2

(7)
. . . uncreated.

(*)

And I shall tell thee another thing. There is no coming
into being of aught that perishes, nor any end for it in baneful
death ; but only mingling and change of what has been
mingled. Coming into being is but a name given to these by
men. R. P. 165.

(9)

But, when the elements have been mingled in the fashion
of a man and come to the light of day, or in the fashion of the
race of wild beasts or plants or birds, then men say that these
come into being ; and when they are separated, they call
that woeful death. They call it not aright ; but I too follow
5 the custom, and call it so myself.

(to)

Avenging death.

(n, 12)

Fools I for they have no far-reaching thoughts who
deem that what before was not comes into being, or that

with 71HWV. So too Diels. The paraphrase given by Sextus (R. P. ib.) is
substantially right.

1 There is no difficulty in the MS. Siar/xTj^^Tos if we take \byoio as
"discourse," "argument" (cf. diaipeiv). Diels conjectures 8iacr<rr)6frTos f
rendering "when their words have passed through the sieve of thy mind."
Nor does it seem to me necessary to read xa/> T * f r Kapra in the first line.

2 The four elements are introduced under mythological names, for which
see below, p. 264, n. I. Diels is clearly right in removing the comma after
rtyyei, and rendering Nestis quae lacrimis suis laticem fundit mortalibus
destination.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 241

aught can perish and be utterly destroyed. For it cannot be
that aught can arise from what in no way is, and it is
impossible and unheard of that what is should perish ; for it
will always be, wherever one may keep putting it. R. P. 165 a,

And in the All there is naught empty and naught too full.

In the All there is naught empty. Whence, then, could
aught come to increase it ?

(is)

A man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in
his heart that as long as mortals live what they call their life,
so long they are, and suffer good and ill ; while before they
were formed and after they have been dissolved they are just
nothing at all. R. P. 165 a.

(16)

For of a truth they (Strife and Love) were aforetime and
shall be ; nor ever, methinks, will boundless time be emptied
of that pair. R. P. 166 c.

("7)

I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be
one only out of many ; at another, it divided up to be many
instead of one. There is a double becoming of perishable
things and a double passing away. The coming together of
all things brings one generation into being and destroys
it ; the other grows up and is scattered as things become $
divided. And these things never cease continually changing
places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at another
each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife.
Thus, as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many,
and to become many once more when the one is parted 10
asunder, so far they come into being and their life abides not
But, inasmuch as they never cease changing their places
continually, so far they are ever immovable as they go round
the circle of existence.

242 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that

15 increaseth wisdom. As I said before, when I declared the
heads of my discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At
one time it grew together to be one only out of many, at
another it parted asunder so as to be many instead of one ;
Fire and Water and Earth and the mighty height of
Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to

20 each, and Love among them, equal in length and breadth.
Her do thou contemplate with thy mind, nor sit with dazed
eyes. It is she that is known as being implanted in the frame
of mortals. It is she that makes them have thoughts of love
and work the works of peace. They call her by the names of

25 Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet marked moving
round among them, 1 but do thou attend to the undeceitful
ordering of my discourse.

For all these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a

30 different prerogative and its own peculiar nature. And nothing
comes into being besides these, nor do they pass away ; for,
if they had been passing away continually, they would not be
now, and what could increase this All and whence could it
come? How, too, could it perish, since no place is empty of
these things ? They are what they are ; but, running through

35 one another, they become now this, now that, 2 and like things
evermore. R. P. 166.

(18)
Love.

(19)

Clinging Love.

(20)

This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the

mass of mortal limbs. At one time all the limbs that are the

body's portion are brought together by Love in blooming life's

high season ; at another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander

5 each alone by the breakers of life's sea. It is the same with

1 Reading /ierd roiaiv. I still think, however, that Knatz's palaeo-
graphically admirable conjuncture yttera deoio-iv (i.e. among the elements)
deserves consideration.

2 Keeping &\\ore with Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 243

plants and the fish that make their homes in the waters, with
the beasts that have their lairs on the hills and the seabirds
that sail on wings. R. P. 173 d.

Come now, look at the things that bear witness to my
earlier discourse, if so be that there was any shortcoming as
to their form in the earlier list. Behold the sun, everywhere
bright and warm, and all the immortal things that are bathed in
heat and bright radiance. 1 Behold the rain, everywhere dark
and cold ; and from the earth issue forth things close-pressed
and solid. When they are in strife all these are different
in form and separated ; but they come together in love,
and are desired by one another.

For out of these have sprung all things that were and are
and shall be trees and men and women, beasts and birds
and the fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that
live long lives and are exalted in honour. R. P. 166 i.

For these things are what they are ; but, running through
one another, they take different shapes so much does mixture
change them. R. P. 166 g.

For all of these sun, earth, sky, and sea are at one with
all their parts that are cast far and wide from them in mortal
things. And even so all things that are more adapted for
mixture are like to one another and united in love by
Aphrodite. Those things, again, that differ most in origin,
mixture and the forms imprinted on each, are most hostile,
being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very sorry by
the bidding of Strife, since it hath wrought their birth.

Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men
whom wisdom hath well taught their art, they, when they
have taken pigments of many colours with their hands, mix

1 Reading A/x/Spora 5' fare' (Set with Diels. For the word 75o$, cf. frs.
62, 5> 73> 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of
solidified Air, and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere. See
below, 113.

244 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

them in due proportion, more of some and less of others, and

5 from them produce shapes like unto all things, making trees

and men and women, beasts and birds and fishes that dwell in

the waters, yea, and gods, that live long lives, and are exalted

in honour, so let not the error prevail over thy mind, 1 that

there is any other source of all the perishable creatures that

10 appear in countless numbers. Know this for sure, for thou

hast heard the tale from a goddess. 2

(34)

Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one
path to the end. . . .

What is right may well be said even twice.

(26)

For they prevail in turn as the circle comes round, and
pass into one another, and grow great in their appointed turn.
R. P. 1 66 c.

They are what they are ; but, running through one another,

they become men and the tribes of beasts. At one time they

5 are all brought together into one order by Love ; at another,

they are carried each in different directions by the repulsion

of Strife, till they grow once more into one and are wholly

subdued. Thus in so far as they are wont to grow into one

out of many, and again divided become more than one, so

10 far they come into being and their life is not lasting ; but in

so far as they never cease changing continually, so far are

they evermore, immovable in the circle.

(37)

There are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun,
no, nor the shaggy earth in its might, nor the sea, so fast
was the god bound in the close covering of Harmony,

1 Reading with Blass (fahrb.f. kL Phil., 1883, p. 19) :

OUTW ju>j &' aTrdrrj <f>peVa /couvuTto K.T.A..

Cf. Hesychios : KCUVVTW' VIKO.. This is practically what the MSS. of
Simplicius give, and Hesychios has many Empedoklean glosses.

2 The " goddess" is, of course, -the Muse. Cf. fr. 5

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 245

spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude. 1
R. P. 167.

(2 7 a)

There is no discord and no unseemly strife in his limbs.

(28)

But he was equal on every side and quite without end,
spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.

Two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet,
no swift knees, no fruitful parts; but he was spherical and
equal on every side.

(3, 3i)

But when Strife was grown great in the limbs of the god
and] sprang forth to claim his prerogatives, in the fulness of
the alternate time set for them by the mighty oath, ... for
all the limbs of the god in turn quaked. R P. 167.

(3*)

The joint binds two things. 1 ,

(33)
Even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk. . . .

(34)
Cementing 2 meal with water. . . .

(35, 36)

But now I shall retrace my steps over the paths of song
that I have travelled before, drawing from my saying a new
saying. When Strife was fallen to the lowest depth of the
vortex, and Love had reached to the centre of the whirl, in it do

1 The word povlri, if it is right, cannot mean " rest," but only solitude.
There is no reason for altering irepnrytt., though Simplicius has ircpiyijffti.

2 The masculine Ko\XiJ<ras shows that the subject cannot have been
4>iX<Sr?7s; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles
introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take
illustrations from human arts.

246 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

5 all things come together so as to be one only ; not all at once,
but coming together at their will each from different quarters ;
and, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures were
scattered abroad. Yet many things remained unmixed, alter-
nating with the things that were being mixed, namely, all that

10 Strife not fallen yet retained ; for it had not yet altogether retired
perfectly from them to the outermost boundaries of the circle.
Some of it still remained within, and some had passed out from
the limbs of the All. But in proportion as it kept rushing
out, a soft, immortal stream of blameless Love kept running
in, and straightway those things became mortal which had

15 been immortal before, those things were mixed that had been
unmixed, each changing its path. And, as they mingled,
countless tribes of mortal creatures were scattered abroad
endowed with all manner of forms, a wonder to behold.
R. P. 169.

(37)

Earth increases its own mass, and Air swells the bulk of
Air.

(38)

Come, I shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of
the sun, 1 and the sources from which have sprung all the
things we now behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the
damp vapour and the Titan air that binds his circle fast
round all things. R. P. 170 a.

(39)

If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a
foolish saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of
many mortals, though they have seen but a little of the
All. . . . 2 R. P. 103 b.

1 The MSS. of Clement have ijXiov &px~n v , and the reading ^Xt'ou

is a mere makeshift. Diels reads ^\t/cd r' dpx^v, "the first (elements)
equal in age."

2 The lines are referred to Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them
de Caelo, B, 13. 294 a 21. See above, Chap. II. p. 137.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 247

(40)
The sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon.

(41)

But (the sunlight) is gathered together and circles round
the mighty heavens.

(42)

And she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a
shadow on as much of the earth as is the breadth of the
pale-faced moon. 1

(43)

Even so the sunbeam, having struck the broad and mighty
circle of the moon, returns at once, running so as to reach
the sky.

(44)

It flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance.
R. P. 170 c.

(45, 46)

There circles round the earth a round borrowed light, as
the nave of the wheel circles round the furthest (goal).

(47)
For she gazes at the sacred circle of the lordly sun opposite.

(48)

It is the earth that makes night by coming before the lights.

(49)
... of solitary, blind-eyed night.

(5)
And Iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.

(5')
(Fire) swiftly rushing upwards . . .

1 I have translated Diels's conjecture dTrcmtyaffcv 84 ol atydi, | trr'
&v tr} KaBfaepeev. The MSS. have d.ire<TKCvaffei> and t<rre alar.

248 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(52)
And many fires burn beneath the earth. R. P. 171 a.

(53)

For so as it ran, it met them at that time, though often
otherwise. R. P. 171 a.

(54)

But the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots.
R. P. 171 a.

(55)
Sea the sweat of the earth. R. P. 170 b.

(56)
Salt was solidified by the impact of the sun's beams.

(57)

On it (the earth) many heads sprung up without necks and
arms wandered bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes strayed up
and down in want of foreheads. R. P. 173 a.

(58)

Solitary limbs wandered seeking for union.

(59)

But, as divinity was mingled still further with divinity, these
things joined together as each might chance, and many other
things besides them continually arose.

(60)

Shambling creatures with countless hands.

(61)

Many creatures with faces and breasts looking in different
directions were born ; some, offspring of oxen with faces of
men, while others, again, arose as offspring of men with the
heads of oxen, and creatures in whom the nature of women

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 249

and men was mingled, furnished with sterile 1 parts. R. P. 5
173 b.

(62)

Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused
the night-born shoots of men and tearful women to arise ;
for my tale is not off the point nor uninformed. Whole-
natured forms first arose from the earth, having a portion
both of water and fire. 2 These did the fire, desirous of 5
reaching its like, send up, showing as yet neither the charming
form of women's limbs, nor yet the voice and parts that are
proper to men. R. P. 173 c.

(63)

. . . But the substance of (the child's) limbs is divided
between them, part of it in men's and part in women's (body).

(64)

And upon him came desire reminding him through sight.

(65)

. . . And it was poured out in the pure parts ; and when
it met with cold women arose from it.

(66)
The divided meadows of Aphhrodite.

For in its warmer part the womb brings forth males, and
that is why men are dark and more manly and shaggy.

(68)

On the tenth day of the eighth month the white putrefaction
arises. 8

1 Reading <rreipou with Diels, Hermes, xv. loc. cit.

2 Retaining e?5cos (i.e. tSeos), which is read in the MSS. of Simplicius.
Cf. above, p. 243, n. I.

3 That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by
Aristotle (de Gen. An. A, 8. 777 a 7). The word irtov means pus. There
may be a punning allusion to irv6s, " beestings," but that has its vowel
long.

2JO EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(69)
Double bearing. 1

(7o)
Sheepskin. 2

But if thy assurance of these things was in any way
deficient as to how, out of Water and Earth and Air and Fire
mingled together, arose the forms and colours of all those
mortal things that have been fitted together by Aphrodite, and
so are now come into being. . . .

(72)
How tall trees and the fishes in the sea ...

(73)

And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth, 3 after
she had moistened the Earth in water, gave it to swift fire to
harden it. ... R. P. 171.

(74)
Leading the songless tribe of fertile fish.

(75)

All of those which are dense within and rare without,
having received a moisture of this kind at the hands of
Kypris. . . .

(76)

This thou mayest see in the heavy-backed shell-fish that
dwell in the sea, in sea-snails and the stony-skinned turtles.
In them thou mayest see that the earthy part dwells on the
uppermost surface.

(77-78)

It is the air that makes evergreen trees flourish with
abundance of fruit the whole year round.

1 Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth
months.

2 Of the membrane round the foetus.

3 Reading i'Seo, tronrvtiovcra with Diels.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 251

(79)
And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs. . . .

(so)

Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.

(81)
Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.

(8.)

Hair and leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the scales
that grow on mighty limbs, are the same thing.

(83)

But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp -pointed and bristles
on their backs.

(84)

And even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a
stormy night, gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing
fire, fastening to it horn plates to keep out all manner of
winds, and they scatter the blast of the winds that blow, but
the light leaping out through them, shines across the threshold
with unfailing beams, as much of it as is finer ; l even so did
she (Love) then entrap the elemental fire, the round pupil,
confined within membranes and delicate tissues, which are
pierced through and through with wondrous passages. They
keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil, but they
let through the fire, as much of it as is finer. R. P. 1 7 7 b.

(85)

But the gentle flame (of the eye) has but a scanty portion
of earth.

(86)
Out of these divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.

1 See Beare, p. 16, n. I, where Plato, Tim. 45 b 4 (rov irvptts 8<rov rb pi*
KO.CI.V of/K l-ffx^i T & ^ iraptxeiv $ws tf/jiepov), is aptly quoted. Alexander
ad loc. understand? KO.TCI. fir}\6i> to mean KO.T ovpavdv, which seems
improbable.

252 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

(8?)
Aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love.

(88)
One vision is produced by both the eyes.

(89)

Know that effluences flow from all things that have come
into being. R. P. 166 h.

(9)

So sweet lays hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter ;
acid comes to acid, and warm couples with warm.

Water fits better into wine, but it will not (mingle) with oil.
R. P. 1 66 h.

(92)
Brass mixed with tin.

(93)
The berry of the blue elder is mingled with scarlet.

(94)

And the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from
the shadow. The same is seen in hollow caves.

(95)

Since they (the eyes) first grew together in the hands of
Kypris.

(96)

The kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of
gleaming Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaistos. So
arose white bones divinely fitted together by the cement of
proportion. R. P. 175.

(97)
The spine (was broken).

(98)

And the earth, anchoring in the perfect harbours of
Aphrodite, meets with these in nearly equal proportions,

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 253

with Hephaistos and Water and gleaming Air either a little
more of it, or less of them and more of it. From these did
blood arise and the manifold forms of flesh. R. P. 175 c.

(99)
The bell ... the fleshy sprout (of the ear). 1

(100)

Thus 2 do all things draw breath and breathe it out again.
All have bloodless tubes of flesh -extended over the surface of
their bodies; and at the mouths of these the outermost
surface of the skin is perforated all over with pores closely
packed together, so as to keep in the blood while a free 5
passage is cut for the air to pass through. Then, when the
thin blood recedes from these, the bubbling air rushes in with
an impetuous surge; and when the blood runs back it is
breathed out again. Just as when a girl, playing with a
water-clock of shining brass, puts the orifice of the pipe upon J o
her comely hand, and dips the water-clock into the yielding
mass of silvery water, the stream does not then flow into the
vessel, but the bulk of the air inside, pressing upon the close-
packed perforations, keeps it out till she uncovers the com-
pressed stream; but then air escapes and an equal volume 15
of water runs in, just in the same way, when water occupies
the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and passage
is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving to
get in, holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding
neck, pressing upon its surface, till she lets go with her hand. 20
Then, on the contrary, just in the opposite way to what

1 On fr. 99, see Beare, p. 96, n. i.

2 This passage is quoted by Aristotle (de Respir, 473 b 9), who makes
the curious mistake of taking pcv&v for the genitive of pis instead of pivbs.
The loctis classicus on the subject of the klepsydra is Probl. 914 b 9 sqq.
(where read auXoO for dXXou, b 12). The klepsydra was a metal vessel
with a narrow neck (cuJX6s) at the top and with a sort of strainer (7?0/i6s)
pierced with holes (i-pi^tcn-d, rpw^/j-ara) at the bottom. The passage in
the Problems just referred to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to
Anaxagoras, and we shall see later that he also made use of a similar
experiment ( 131).

254 EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

happened before, the wind rushes in and an equal volume of
water runs out to make room. 1 Even so, when the thin blood
that surges through the limbs rushes backwards to the interior,
25 straightway the stream of air comes in with a rushing swell ;
but when the blood returns the air breathes out again in equal
quantity.

(101)

(The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the
beast's limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave
in the soft grass. 2

(.02)

Thus all things have their share of breath and smell.

(103, 104)

Thus have all things thought by fortune's will. . . . And
inasmuch as the rarest things came together in their fall.

(105)

(The heart), dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in
opposite directions, where chiefly is what men call thought ;
for the blood round the heart is the thought of men. R. P.
178 a.

(106)

For the wisdom of men grows according to what is before
them. R. P. 177.

(107)
For out of these are all things formed and fitted together,

1 This seems to be the experiment described in Probl. 914 b 26, far
ydp TIS avTTjs (rrjs K\\j/vdpas) avTyv rrjv Kwdiav ^/iTrX^aas vdaros, eiriXafiuv
rbv avXbv, KaTaffTptyy tiri TOV av\6t>, ov foperai TO vdup 5ta TOV av\ov
tiri ffTb^a. dpoixfl^ros 8 TOV <rr6/iTos, OVK evdvs tKpei /card, rbv av\6v,
dXXd /j-iKpoTtpy vtrrepov, us OVK 'di> tnl T$ (7T6/iari TOV av\ov, d\X' OiffTepov
5td TOVTOV <pep6/j.evov ai>oixd&Tos. The epithet dva-rjxeos applied to iV0/toto
is best explained as a reference to the tpvyubs or " belching " referred to
at 915 a 7 as accompanying the discharge of water through the auX6s.
Any one can produce this effect with a water-bottle. If it were not for
this epithet, it would be tempting to read 9?fyioto for IvQiuoio. Sturz
conjectured this, and it is actually the reading of a few MSS.

2 On fr. 101, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.

EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS 255

and by these do men think and feel pleasure and pain.
R. P. 178.

(108)

And just so far as they grow to be different, so far do
different thoughts ever present themselves to their minds (in
dreams). 1 R. P. 177 a.

(109)

For it is with earth that we see Earth, and Water with
water ; by air we see bright Air, by fire destroying Fire. By
love do we see Love, and Hate by grievous hate. R. P. 176.

(no)

For if, supported on thy steadfast mind, thou wilt
contemplate these things with good intent and faultless care,
then shalt thou have all these things in abundance throughout
thy life> and thou shalt gain many others from them. For
these things grow of themselves into thy heart, where is each 5
man's true nature. But if thou strivest after things of another
kind, as is the way with men, ten thousand woes await thee
to blunt thy careful thoughts. Soon will these things desert
thee when the time comes round ; for they long to return
once more to their own kind ; for know that all things have 10
wisdom and a share of thought.

(in)

And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence
against ills and old age ; since for thee alone will I accomplish
all this