---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,transcriber's ,note3 ,this version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects4 ,italics are delimited with the #8' character as italic4 ,the single instance of a superscript is given as #8,z#e'4 ,in the original text1 footnote references were numbered1 beginning with #8#a' on each page4 ,they have been renumbered consecutively for uniqueness and have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are referenced4 ,references to notes in the index and elsewhere have been changed to reflect the revised numbers4 ,minor errors1 attributable to the printer1 have been corrected4 ,please see the transcriber's note at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation4 ,,early ,,greek ,,philosophy ,,by ,,john ,,burnet1 ,m4,a41 ,,ll4,d4 ,,professor ,,of ,,greek ,,in ,,the ,,united ,,college ,,of ,,st4 ,,salvator ,,and ,,st4 ,,leonard1 ,,st4 ,,andrews 1 ' 4--,,aristotle4 ,,second ,,edition ,,london ,,adam ,,and ,,charles ,,black #aijh ,first ,edition published ,april #ahib4 ,,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 received4 ,most of it has had to be rewritten in the light of certain discoveries made since the publication of the first edition1 above all1 that of the extracts from ,menon's 1 which have furnished1 as ,i believe1 a clue to the history of ,pythagoreanism4 ,i trust that all other obligations are duly acknowledged in the proper place4 ,it did not seem worth while to eliminate all traces of a certain youthful assurance which marked the first edition4 ,i should not write now as ,i wrote at the age of twenty-five2 but ,i still feel that the main contentions of the book were sound1 so ,i have not tried to amend the style4 ,the references to ,zeller and 8,ritter and ,preller0 are adapted throughout to the latest editions4 ,the ,aristotelian commentators are referred to by the pages and verses of the ,berlin ,academy edition1 and ,stobaeus by those of ,wachsmuth4 ,j4 ,b4 ,,st4 ,,andrews1 #aijh4 ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,first ,,edition ,no apology is needed for the appearance of a work dealing with ,early ,greek ,philosophy4 ,the want of one has long been felt2 for there are few branches of philology in which more progress has been made in the last twenty years1 and the results of that progress have not yet been made accessible to the ,english reader4 ,my original intention was simply to report these results2 but ,i soon found that ,i was obliged to dissent from some of them1 and it seemed best to say so distinctly4 ,very likely ,i am wrong in most of these cases1 but my mistakes may be of use in calling attention to unobserved points4 ,in any case1 ,i hope no one will think ,i have been wanting in the respect due to the great authority of ,zeller1 who was the first to recall the history of philosophy from the extravagances into which it had wandered earlier in the century4 ,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 out4 ,i am very sensible of the imperfect execution of some parts of this work2 but the subject has become so large1 and the number of authorities whose testimony must be weighed is so great1 that it is not easy for any one writer to be equally at home in all parts of the field4 ,i have consulted the student's convenience by giving references to the seventh edition of ,ritter and ,preller 7ed4 ,schultess7 throughout4 ,the references to ,zeller are to the fourth ,german edition1 from which the ,english translation was made4 ,i have been able to make some use also of the recently published fifth edition 7#ahib71 and all references to it are distinguished by the symbol ,z#e4 ,i can only wish that it had appeared in time for me to incorporate its results more thoroughly4 ,i have to thank many friends for advice and suggestions1 and1 above all1 ,mr4 ,harold ,h4 ,joachim1 ,fellow of ,merton ,college1 who read most of the work before it went to press4 ,j4 ,b4 ,,oxford1 #ahib4 ,,contents ,,pages ,,introduction #a-ce ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,milesian ,,school #cg-hd ,,chapter ,,ii ,,science ,,and ,,religion #he-adb ,,chapter ,,iii ,,herakleitos ,,of ,,ephesos #adc-aia ,,chapter ,,iv ,,parmenides ,,of ,,elea #aib-bbf ,,chapter ,v ,,empedokles ,,of ,,akragas #bbg-bhi ,,chapter ,,vi ,,anaxagoras ,,of ,,klazomenai #bij-cah ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,pythagoreans #cai-cef ,,chapter ,,viii ,,the ,,younger ,,eleatics #ceg-cgi ,,chapter ,,ix ,,leukippos ,,of ,,miletos #chj-djd ,,chapter ,x ,,eclecticism ,,and ,,reaction #dje-dah ,,appendix ,,the ,,sources #dai-dbf ,,index #dbg-dcc ,,abbreviations ,arch4 ,archiv fr ,geschichte der ,philosophie4 ,berlin1 #ahhh-aijh4 ,,beare4 ,greek ,theories of ,elementary ,cognition1 by ,john ,i4 ,beare4 ,oxford1 #aijf4 ,,diels ,dox4 ,doxographi graeci4 ,hermannus ,diels4 ,berlin1 #ahgi4 ,,diels ,vors4 ,die ,fragmente der ,vorsokratiker1 von ,hermann ,diels1 ,zweite ,auflage1 ,erster ,band4 ,berlin1 #aijf4 ,,gomperz4 ,greek ,thinkers1 by ,theodor ,gomperz1 ,authorised 7,english7 ,edition1 vol4 i4 ,london1 #aija4 ,,jacoby4 ,apollodors ,chronik1 von ,felix ,jacoby 7,philol4 ,unters4 ,heft xvi474 ,berlin1 #aijb4 ,r4 ,p4 ,historia ,philosophiae ,graecae1 ,h4 ,ritter et ,l4 ,preller4 ,editio octava1 quam curavit ,eduardus ,wellmann4 ,gotha1 #ahih4 ,,zeller4 ,die ,philosophie der ,griechen1 dargestellt von ,dr4 ,eduard ,zeller4 ,erster ,theil1 ,fnfte ,auflage4 ,leipzig1 #ahib4 ,,early ,,greek ,,philosophy ,,introduction ,sidenote3 ,the cosmological character of early ,greek philosophy4 ,i4 ,it was not till the primitive view of the world and the customary rules of life had broken down1 that the ,greeks1 began to feel the needs which philosophies of nature and of conduct seek to satisfy4 ,nor were those needs felt all at once4 ,the traditional maxims of conduct were not seriously questioned till the old view of nature had passed away2 and1 for this reason1 the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly with speculations about the world around them4 ,in due season1 ,logic was called into being to meet a fresh want4 ,the pursuit of cosmological inquiry beyond a certain point inevitably brought to light a wide divergence between science and common sense1 which was itself a problem that demanded solution1 and moreover constrained philosophers to study the means of defending their paradoxes against the prejudices of the unscientific many4 ,later still1 the prevailing interest in logical matters raised the question of the origin and validity of knowledge2 while1 about the same time1 the breakdown of traditional morality gave rise to ,ethics4 ,the period which precedes the rise of ,logic and ,ethics has thus a distinctive character of its own1 and may fitly be treated apart4#a ,footnote #a3 ,it will be observed that ,demokritos falls outside the period thus limited4 ,the common practice of treating this younger contemporary of ,sokrates along with the 8pre-,socratic philosophers0 obscures the true course of historical development4 ,demokritos comes after ,protagoras1 and his theory is already conditioned by the epistemological problem4 7,see ,brochard1 8,protagoras et ,dmocrite10 ,arch4 ii4 p4 #cfh47 ,he has also a regular theory of conduct 7,e4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 iv4 #ead n474 ,sidenote3 ,the primitive view of the world4 ,,ii4 ,even in the earliest times of which we have any record1 the primitive view of the world is fast passing away4 ,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 literature1 to which it forms a sort of sombre background1 and from the many strange myths and stranger rites that lived on1 as if to bear witness of it to later times1 not only in out-of-the-way parts of ,hellas1 but even in the 8mysteries0 of the more cultivated states4 ,so far as we can see1 it must have been essentially a thing of shreds and patches1 ready to fall in pieces as soon as stirred by the fresh breeze of a larger experience and a more fearless curiosity4 ,the only explanation of the world it could offer was a wild tale of the origin of things4 ,such a story as that of ,ouranos1 ,gaia1 and ,kronos belongs plainly1 as ,mr4 ,lang has shown in ,custom and ,myth1 to the same level of thought as the ,maori tale of ,papa and ,rangi2 while in its details the ,greek myth is1 if anything1 the more savage of the two4 ,we must not allow ourselves to be misled by metaphors about 8the childhood of the race10 though even these1 if properly understood1 are suggestive enough4 ,our ideas of the true state of a child's mind are apt to be coloured by that theory of antenatal existence which has found1 perhaps1 its highest expression in ,wordsworth's ,ode on the ,intimations of ,immortality4 ,we transfer these ideas to the race generally1 and are thus led to think of the men who made and repeated myths as simple1 innocent creatures who were somehow nearer than we are to the beginning of things1 and so1 perhaps1 saw with a clearer vision4 ,a truer view of what a child's thoughts really are will help to put us on the right track4 ,left to themselves1 children are often tormented by vague terrors of surrounding objects which they fear to confide to any one4 ,their games are based upon an animistic theory of things1 and they are great believers in luck and in the lot4 ,they are devotees1 too1 of that 8cult of odds and ends0 which is fetishism2 and the unsightly old dolls which they often cherish more fondly than the choicest products of the toy-shop1 remind us forcibly of the ungainly stocks and stones which ,pausanias found in the ,holy of ,holies of many a stately ,greek temple4 ,at ,sparta the ,tyndaridai were a couple of boards1 while the old image of ,hera at ,samos was a roughly-hewn log4#b ,footnote #b3 ,see ,e4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #fd2 ,menzies1 ,history of ,religion1 pp4 #bgb-bgf4 ,on the other hand1 we must remember that1 even in the earliest times of which we have any record1 the world was already very old4 ,those ,greeks who first tried to understand nature were not at all in the position of men setting out on a hitherto untrodden path4 ,there was already in the field a tolerably consistent view of the world1 though no doubt it was rather implied and assumed in ritual and myth than distinctly realised as such4 ,the early thinkers did a far greater thing than merely to make a beginning4 ,by turning their backs on the savage view of things1 they renewed their youth1 and with it1 as it proved1 the youth of the world1 at a time when the world seemed in its dotage4 ,the marvel is that they were able to do this so thoroughly as they did4 ,a savage myth might be preserved here and there to the scandal of philosophers2 fetishes1 totems1 and magic rites might lurk in holes and corners with the moles and with the bats1 to be unearthed long afterwards by the curious in such matters4 ,but the all-pervading superstition1 which we call primitive because we know not how or whence it came1 was gone for ever2 and we find ,herodotos noting with unfeigned surprise the existence among 8barbarians0 of beliefs and customs which1 not so long ago1 his own forefathers had taught and practised quite as zealously as ever did ,libyan or ,scyth4 ,even then1 he might have found most of them surviving on the 8high places0 of ,hellas4 ,sidenote3 ,traces of the primitive view in early literature4 ,,iii4 ,in one respect the way had been prepared already4 ,long before history begins1 the colonisation of the islands and the coasts of ,asia ,minor had brought about a state of things that was not favourable to the rigid maintenance of traditional customs and ways of thought4 ,a myth is essentially a local thing1 and though the emigrants might give the names of ancestral sanctuaries to similar spots in their new homes1 they could not transfer with the names the old sentiment of awe4 ,besides1 these were1 on the whole1 stirring and joyful times4 ,the spirit of adventure is not favourable to superstition1 and men whose chief occupation is fighting are not apt to be oppressed by that 8fear of the world0 which some tell us is the normal state of the savage mind4 ,even the savage becomes in great measure free from it when he is really happy4 ,sidenote3 #a4 ,homer4 ,that is why we find so few traces of the primitive view of the world in ,homer4 ,the gods have become frankly human1 and everything savage is1 so far as may be1 kept out of sight4 ,there are1 of course1 vestiges of early beliefs and practices1 but they are exceptional4 ,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 ,homer1 but they are treated with so little seriousness that the whole thing has even been regarded as a parody or burlesque of some primitive poem on the birth of the gods4 ,that1 however1 is to mistake the spirit of ,homer4 ,he finds the old myth ready to his hand1 and sees in it matter for a 8joyous tale10 just as ,demodokos did in the loves of ,ares and ,aphrodite4 ,there is no antagonism to traditional views1 but rather a complete detachment from them4 ,it has often been noted that ,homer never speaks of the primitive custom of purification for bloodshed4 ,the dead heroes are burned1 not buried1 as the kings of continental ,hellas were4 ,ghosts play hardly any part4 ,in the ,iliad we have1 to be sure1 the ghost of ,patroklos1 in close connexion with the solitary instance of human sacrifice in ,homer4 ,all that was part of the traditional story1 and ,homer says as little about it as he can4 ,there is also the ,nekyia in the ,eleventh ,book of the ,odyssey1 which has been assigned to a late date on the ground that it contains ,orphic ideas4 ,the reasoning does not appear cogent4 ,as we shall see1 the ,orphics did not so much invent new ideas as revive old ones1 and if the legend took ,odysseus to the abode of the dead1 that had to be described in accordance with the accepted views about it4 ,in fact1 we are never entitled to infer from ,homer's silence that the primitive view was unknown to him4 ,the absence of certain things from the poems is due to reticence rather than ignorance2 for1 wherever anything to his purpose was to be got from an old story1 he did not hesitate to use it4 ,on the other hand1 when the tradition necessarily brought him into contact with savage ideas1 he prefers to treat them with reserve4 ,we may infer1 then1 that at least in a certain society1 that of the princes for whom ,homer sang1 the primitive view of the world was already discredited by a comparatively early date4#c ,footnote #c3 ,on all this1 see especially ,rohde1 ,psyche1 pp4 #ad sqq4 ,sidenote3 #b4 ,hesiod4 ,,iv4 ,when we come to ,hesiod1 we seem to be in another world4 ,we hear stories of the gods which are not only irrational but repulsive1 and these stories are told quite seriously4 ,hesiod makes the ,muses say3 8,we know how to tell many false things that are like the truth2 but we know too1 when we will1 to utter what is true40#d ,this means that he was quite conscious of the difference between the ,homeric spirit and his own4 ,the old light-heartedness is gone1 and it is important to tell the truth about the gods4 ,hesiod knows1 too1 that he belongs to a later and a sadder time than ,homer4 ,in describing the ,ages of the ,world1 he inserts a fifth age between those of ,bronze and ,iron4 ,that is the ,age of the ,heroes1 the age ,homer sang of4 ,it was better than the ,bronze ,age which came before it1 and far better than that which followed it1 the ,age of ,iron1 in which ,hesiod lives4#e ,he also feels that he is singing for another class4 ,it is to shepherds and husbandmen he addresses himself1 and the princes for whom ,homer sang have become remote persons who give 8crooked dooms40 ,for common men there is no hope but in hard1 unceasing toil4 ,it is the voice of the people we now hear for the first time1 and of a people for whom the romance and splendour of the ,greek ,middle ,ages meant nothing4 ,the primitive view of the world had never really died out among them2 so it was natural for their first spokesman to assume it in his poems4 ,that is why we find in ,hesiod these old1 savage tales1 which ,homer disdained to speak of4 ,footnote #d3 ,hes4 ,theog4 #bg4 ,they are the same ,muses who inspired ,homer1 which means1 in our language1 that ,hesiod wrote in hexameters and used the ,epic dialect4 ,the new literary genre has not yet found its appropriate vehicle1 which is elegy4 ,footnote #e3 ,there is great historical insight here4 ,it was ,hesiod1 not our modern historians1 who first pointed out that the 8,greek ,middle ,ages0 were a break in the normal development4 ,yet it would be wrong to see in the ,theogony a mere revival of the old superstition4 ,nothing can ever be revived just as it was2 for in every reaction there is a polemical element which differentiates it completely from the earlier stage it vainly seeks to reproduce4 ,hesiod could not help being affected by the new spirit which trade and adventure had awakened over the sea1 and he became a pioneer in spite of himself4 ,the rudiments of what grew into ,ionic science and history are to be found in his poems1 and he really did more than any one to hasten that decay of the old ideas which he was seeking to arrest4 ,the ,theogony is an attempt to reduce all the stories about the gods into a single system1 and system is necessarily fatal to so wayward a thing as mythology4 ,hesiod1 no less than ,homer1 teaches a panhellenic polytheism2 the only difference is that with him this is more directly based on the legends attached to the local cults1 which he thus sought to invest with a national significance4 ,the result is that the myth becomes primary and the cult secondary1 a complete inversion of the primitive relation4 ,herodotos tells us that it was ,homer and ,hesiod who made a theogony for the ,hellenes1 who gave the gods their names1 and distributed among them their offices and arts1#f and it is perfectly true4 ,the ,olympian pantheon took the place of the old local gods in men's minds1 and this was as much the doing of ,hesiod as of ,homer4 ,the ordinary man had no ties to this company of gods1 but at most to one or two of them2 and even these he would hardly recognise in the humanised figures1 detached from all local associations1 which poetry had substituted for the older objects of worship4 ,the gods of ,greece had become a splendid subject for art2 but they came between the ,hellenes and their ancestral religions4 ,they were incapable of satisfying the needs of the people1 and that is the secret of the religious revival which we shall have to consider in the sequel4 ,footnote #f3 ,herod4 ii4 #ec4 ,sidenote3 ,cosmogony4 ,v4 ,nor is it only in this way that ,hesiod shows himself a child of his time4 ,his ,theogony is at the same time a ,cosmogony1 though it would seem that here he was following others rather than working out a thought of his own4 ,at any rate1 he only mentions the two great cosmogonical figures1 ,chaos and ,eros1 and does not really bring them into connexion with his system4 ,the conception of ,chaos represents a distinct effort to picture the beginning of things4 ,it is not a formless mixture1 but rather1 as its etymology indicates1 the yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as yet4#g ,we may be sure that this is not primitive4 ,savage man does not feel called upon to form an idea of the very beginning of all things2 he takes for granted that there was something to begin with4 ,the other figure1 that of ,eros1 was doubtless intended to explain the impulse to production which gave rise to the whole process4 ,that1 at least1 is what the ,maoris mean by it1 as may be seen from the following remarkable passage#h3-- ,from the conception the increase1 ,from the increase the swelling1 ,from the swelling the thought1 ,from the thought the remembrance1 ,from the remembrance the desire4 ,the word became fruitful1 ,it dwelt with the feeble glimmering1 ,it brought forth the night4 ,hesiod must have had some such primitive speculation to work on1 but he does not tell us anything clearly on the subject4 ,footnote #g3 ,the word certainly means the 8gape0 or 8yawn10 the ,orphic 4 ,grimm compared it with the ,scandinavian ,ginnunga-,gap4 ,footnote #h3 ,quoted from ,taylor's ,new ,zealand1 pp4 #aaj-aab1 by ,mr4 ,andrew ,lang1 in ,myth1 ,ritual1 and ,religion1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eb 7#bnd ed474 ,we have records of great activity in the production of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century ,b4,c41 and we know something of the systems of ,epimenides1 ,pherekydes1#i and ,akousilaos4 ,as there were speculations of this kind even before ,hesiod1 we need have no hesitation in believing that the earliest ,orphic cosmogony goes back to that century too4#aj ,the feature which is common to all these systems is the attempt to get behind the gap1 and to put ,kronos or ,zeus in the first place4 ,this is what ,aristotle has in view when he distinguishes the 8theologians0 from those who were half theologians and half philosophers1 and who put what was best in the beginning4#aa ,it is obvious1 however1 that this process is the very reverse of scientific1 and might be carried on indefinitely2 so we have nothing to do with the cosmogonists in our present inquiry1 except so far as they can be shown to have influenced the course of more sober investigations4 ,indeed1 these speculations are still based on the primitive view of the world1 and so fall outside the limits we have traced for ourselves4 ,footnote #i3 ,for the remains of ,pherekydes1 see ,diels1 ,vorsokratiker1 pp4 #ejf sqq4 7#ast ed471 and the interesting account in ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 pp4 #he sqq4 ,footnote #aj3 ,this was the view of ,lobeck with regard to the so-called 8,rhapsodic ,theogony0 described by ,damaskios1 and was revived by ,otto ,kern 7,de ,orphei ,epimenidis ,pherecydis ,theogoniis1 #ahhh74 ,its savage character is the best proof of its antiquity4 ,cf4 ,lang1 ,myth1 ,ritual1 and ,religion1 vol4 i4 chap4 x4 ,footnote #aa3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ajia b #h4 ,sidenote3 ,general characteristics of early ,greek cosmology4 ,,vi4 ,what1 then1 was the step that placed the ,ionian cosmologists once for all above the level of the ,maoris8 ,grote and ,zeller make it consist in the substitution of impersonal causes acting according to law for personal causes acting arbitrarily4 ,but the distinction between personal and impersonal was not really felt in antiquity1 and it is a mistake to lay much stress on it4 ,it seems rather that the real advance made by the scientific men of ,miletos was that they left off telling tales4 ,they gave up the hopeless task of describing what was when as yet there was nothing1 and asked instead what all things really are now4 ,sidenote3 ,ex nihilo nihil4 ,the great principle which underlies all their thinking1 though it is first put into words by ,parmenides1 is that ,nothing comes into being out of nothing1 and nothing passes away into nothing4 ,they saw1 however1 that particular things were always coming into being and passing away again1 and from this it followed that their existence was no true or stable one4 ,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 them1 to which was soon added that law of proportion or compensation which1 despite the continual becoming and passing away of things1 secured the relative permanence and stability of the various forms of existence that go to make up the world4 ,that these were1 in fact1 the leading ideas of the early cosmologists1 cannot1 of course1 be proved till we have given a detailed exposition of their systems2 but we can show at once how natural it was for such thoughts to come to them4 ,it is always the problem of change and decay that first excites the wonder which1 as ,plato says1 is the starting-point of all philosophy4 ,besides this1 there was in the ,ionic nature a vein of melancholy which led it to brood upon the instability of things4 ,even before the time of ,thales1 ,mimnermos of ,kolophon sings the sadness of change2 and1 at a later date1 the lament of ,simonides1 that the generations of men fall like the leaves of the forest1 touches a chord already struck by the earliest singer of ,ionia4#ab ,now1 so long as men could believe everything they saw was alive like themselves1 the spectacle of the unceasing death and new birth of nature would only tinge their thoughts with a certain mournfulness1 which would find its expression in such things as the ,linos dirges which the ,greeks borrowed from their ,asiatic neighbours2#ac but when primitive animism1 which had seen conscious life everywhere1 was gone1 and polytheistic mythology1 which had personified at least the more striking natural phenomena1 was going1 it must have seemed that there was nowhere any abiding reality4 ,nowadays we are accustomed1 for good and for ill1 to the notion of dead things1 obedient1 not to inner impulses1 but solely to mechanical laws4 ,but that is not the view of the natural man1 and we may be sure that1 when first it forced itself on him1 it must have provoked a strong sense of dissatisfaction4 ,relief was only to be had from the reflexion that as nothing comes from nothing1 nothing can pass away into nothing4 ,there must1 then1 be something which always is1 something fundamental which persists throughout all change1 and ceases to exist in one form only that it may reappear in another4 ,it is significant that this something is spoken of as 8deathless0 and 8ageless40#ad ,footnote #ab3 ,simonides1 fr4 #he1 #b ,bergk4 ,il4 vi4 #adf4 ,footnote #ac3 ,on ,adonis-,thammuz1 ,lityerses1 ,linos1 and ,osiris1 see ,frazer1 ,golden ,bough1 vol4 i4 pp4 #bgh sqq4 ,footnote #ad3 ,the ,epic phrase seems to have suggested this4 ,anaximander applied both epithets to the primary substance 7,r4 ,p4 #ag and #ag a74 ,euripides1 in describing the blessedness of the scientific life 7fr4 inc4 #iaj71 says 444 7,r4 ,p4 #adh c fin474 ,sidenote3 ,,vii4 ,so far as ,i know1 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 2 and that the title 1 so commonly given to philosophical works of the sixth and fifth centuries ,b4,c41#ae means simply ,concerning the ,primary ,substance4 ,both ,plato and ,aristotle use the term in this sense when they are discussing the earlier philosophy1#af and its history shows clearly enough what its original meaning must have been4 ,in ,greek philosophical language1 always means that which is primary1 fundamental1 and persistent1 as opposed to what is secondary1 derivative1 and transient2 what is 8given10 as opposed to that which is made or becomes4 ,it is what is there to begin with4 ,it is true that ,plato and his successors also identify with the best or most normal condition of a thing2 but that is just because they held the goal of any development to be prior to the process by which it is reached4 ,such an idea was wholly unknown to the pioneers of philosophy4 ,they sought the explanation of the incomplete world we know1 not in the end1 but in the beginning4 ,it seemed to them that1 if only they could strip off all the modifications which ,art and ,chance had introduced1 they would get at the ultimately real2 and so the search after 1 first in the world at large and afterwards in human society1 became the chief interest of the age we have to deal with4 ,footnote #ae3 ,i do not mean to imply that the philosophers used this title themselves2 for early prose writings had no titles4 ,the writer mentioned his name and the subject of his work in the first sentence1 as ,herodotos1 for instance1 does4 ,footnote #af3 ,plato1 ,laws1 #hib c #b1 7i4e4 7 7i4e4 74 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #a4 #aic a #ba1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 4 ,the word 1 by which the early cosmologists are usually said to have designated the object of their search1 is in this sense purely ,aristotelian4 ,it is quite natural that it should be employed in the well-known historical sketch of the ,first ,book of the ,metaphysics2 for ,aristotle is there testing the theories of earlier thinkers by his own doctrine of the four causes4 ,but ,plato never uses the term in this connexion1 and it does not occur once in the genuine fragments of the early philosophers4 ,it is confined to the ,stoic and ,peripatetic handbooks from which most of our knowledge is derived1 and these simply repeat ,aristotle4 ,zeller has pointed out in a footnote#ag that it would be an anachronism to refer the subtle ,aristotelian use of the word to the beginnings of speculation4 ,to ,anaximander could only have meant 8beginning10 and it was far more than a beginning that the early cosmologists were looking for3 it was the eternal ground of all things4 ,there is one very important conclusion that follows at once from the account just given of the meaning of 1 and it is1 that the search for the primary substance really was the thing that interested the ,ionian philosophers4 ,had their main object been1 as ,teichmller held it was1 the explanation of celestial and meteorological phenomena1 their researches would not have been called 1#ah but rather or 4 ,and this we shall find confirmed by a study of the way in which ,greek cosmology developed4 ,the growing thought which may be traced through the successive representatives of any school is always that which concerns the primary substance1 while the astronomical and other theories are1 in the main1 peculiar to the individual thinkers4 ,teichmller undoubtedly did good service by his protest against the treatment of these theories as mere isolated curiosities4 ,they form1 on the contrary1 coherent systems which must be looked at as wholes4 ,but it is none the less true that ,greek philosophy began1 as it ended1 with the search for what was abiding in the flux of things4 ,footnote #ag3 ,zeller1 p4 #bag1 n4 #b 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #bdh1 n4 #b74 ,see below1 ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #eg1 n4 #aje4 ,footnote #ah3 ,we have the authority of ,plato for giving them this name4 ,cf4 ,phd4 #if a #g1 4 ,so1 in the fragment of ,euripides referred to on p4 #ab1 n4 #ad1 the man who discerns 8the ageless order of immortal 0 is referred to as 4 ,sidenote3 ,motion and rest4 ,,viii4 ,but how could this give back to nature the life of which it had been robbed by advancing knowledge8 ,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 forms4 ,the very process of birth1 growth1 and decay might now be regarded as the unceasing activity of the one ultimate reality4 ,aristotle and his followers expressed this by saying that the early cosmologists believed in an 8eternal motion10 and in substance this is correct1 though it is not probable that they said anything about the eternal motion in their writings4 ,it is more likely that they simply took it for granted4 ,in early times1 it is not movement but rest that has to be accounted for1 and we may be sure that the eternity of motion was not asserted till it had been denied4 ,as we shall see1 it was ,parmenides who first denied it4 ,the idea of a single ultimate substance1 when thoroughly worked out1 seemed to leave no room for motion2 and after the time of ,parmenides1 we do find that philosophers were concerned to show how it began4 ,at first1 this would not seem to require explanation at all4 ,modern writers sometimes give the name of ,hylozoism to this way of thinking1 but the term is apt to be misleading4 ,it suggests theories which deny the separate reality of life and spirit1 whereas1 in the days of ,thales1 and even far later1 the distinction between matter and spirit had not been felt1 still less formulated in such a way that it could be denied4 ,the uncreated1 indestructible reality of which these early thinkers tell us was a body1 or even matter1 if we choose to call it so2 but it was not matter in the sense in which matter is opposed to spirit4 ,sidenote3 ,the downfall of the primitive view of the world4 ,,ix4 ,we have indicated the main characteristics of the primitive view of the world1 and we have sketched in outline the view which displaced it2 we must now consider the causes which led to the downfall of the one and the rise of the other4 ,foremost among these was undoubtedly the widening of the ,greek horizon occasioned by the great extension of maritime enterprise which followed the decay of the ,phoenician naval supremacy4 ,the scene of the old stories had1 as a rule1 been laid just outside the boundaries of the world known to the men who believed them4 ,odysseus does not meet with ,kirke or the ,kyklops or the ,sirens in the familiar ,aegean1 but in regions which lay beyond the ken of the ,greeks at the time the ,odyssey was composed4 ,now1 however1 the ,west was beginning to be familiar too1 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 wanderings4 ,it was soon discovered that the monstrous beings in question were no longer to be found there1 and the belief grew up that they had never been there at all4 ,so1 too1 the ,milesians had settled colonies all round the ,euxine4 ,the colonists went out with in their minds2 and1 at the same time as they changed the name of the ,inhospitable to the ,hospitable ,sea1 they localised the 8far country0 77 of the primitive tale1 and made ,jason fetch the ,golden ,fleece from ,kolchis4 ,above all1 the ,phokaians had explored the ,mediterranean as far as the ,pillars of ,herakles1#ai and the new knowledge that the 8endless paths0 of the sea had boundaries must have moved men's minds in much the same way as the discovery of ,america did in later days4 ,a single example will illustrate the process which was always going on4 ,according to the primitive view1 the heavens were supported by a giant called ,atlas4 ,no one had ever seen him1 though he was supposed to live in ,arkadia4 ,the ,phokaian explorers identified him with a cloud-capped mountain in ,africa1 and once they had done this1 the old belief was doomed4 ,it was impossible to go on believing in a god who was also a mountain1 conveniently situated for the trader to steer by1 as he sailed to ,tarshish in quest of silver4 ,footnote #ai3 ,herod4 i4 #afc4 ,sidenote3 ,alleged ,oriental origin of philosophy4 ,x4 ,but by far the most important question we have to face is that of the nature and extent of the influence exercised by what we call ,eastern wisdom on the ,greek mind4 ,it is a common idea even now that the ,greeks in some way derived their philosophy from ,egypt and ,babylon1 and we must therefore try to understand as clearly as possible what such a statement really means4 ,to begin with1 we must observe that no writer of the period during which ,greek philosophy flourished knows anything at all of its having come from the ,east4 ,herodotos would not have omitted to say so1 had he ever heard of it2 for it would have confirmed his own belief in the ,egyptian origin of ,greek religion and civilisation4#bj ,plato1 who had a very great respect for the ,egyptians on other grounds1 distinctly implies that they were a businesslike rather than a philosophical people4#ba ,aristotle speaks only of the origin of mathematics in ,egypt#bb 7a point to which we shall return71 though1 if he had known of an ,egyptian philosophy1 it would have suited his argument better to mention that4 ,it is not till a far later date1 when ,egyptian priests and ,alexandrian ,jews began to vie with one another in discovering the sources of ,greek philosophy in their own past1 that we first have definite statements to the effect that it came from ,phoenicia or ,egypt4 ,here1 however1 we must carefully note two things4 ,in the first place1 the word 8philosophy0 had come by that time to include theology of a more or less mystical type1 and was even applied to various forms of asceticism4#bc ,in the second place1 the so-called ,egyptian philosophy was only arrived at by a process of turning primitive myths into allegories4 ,we are still able to judge ,philo's ,old ,testament interpretation for ourselves1 and we may be sure that the ,egyptian allegorists were even more arbitrary2 for they had far less promising material to work on4 ,nothing can be more savage than the myth of ,isis and ,osiris2#bd yet it is first interpreted according to the ideas of later ,greek philosophy1 and then declared to be the original source of that philosophy4 ,footnote #bj3 ,all he can say is that the worship of ,dionysos and the doctrine of transmigration came from ,egypt 7ii4 #di1 #abc74 ,we shall see that both these statements are incorrect1 and in any case they do not imply anything directly as to philosophy4 ,footnote #ba3 ,in ,rep4 #dce e1 after saying that is characteristic of the ,thracians and ,scythians1 and of the ,hellenes1 he refers us to ,phoenicia and ,egypt for 4 ,in the ,laws1 where the ,egyptians are so strongly commended for their conservatism in matters of art1 he says 7#gdg b #f7 that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove all and from the souls of the learners4 ,otherwise1 we produce instead of 1 as we can see that the ,phoenicians1 the ,egyptians1 and many other peoples do4 ,footnote #bb3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #a4 #iha b #bc4 ,footnote #bc3 ,see ,zeller1 p4 #c1 n4 #b4 ,philo applies the term to the theology of the ,essenes and ,therapeutai4 ,footnote #bd3 ,on this1 see ,lang1 ,myth1 ,ritual1 and ,religion1 vol4 ii4 p4 #ace4 ,this method of interpretation may be said to culminate with the ,neopythagorean ,noumenios1 from whom it passed to the ,christian ,apologists4 ,it is ,noumenios who asks1 8,what is ,plato1 but ,moses speaking ,attic80#be ,it seems likely1 indeed1 that he was thinking 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 both2 but in any case ,clement and ,eusebios give the remark a far wider application4#bf ,at the ,renaissance1 this absurd farrago was revived along with everything else1 and certain ideas derived from the ,praeparatio ,evangelica continued for long to colour accepted views on the subject4 ,even ,cudworth speaks complacently of the ancient 8,moschical or ,mosaical philosophy0 taught by ,thales and ,pythagoras4#bg ,it is important to realise the true origin of this deeply-rooted prejudice against the originality of the ,greeks4 ,it does not come from modern researches into the beliefs of ancient peoples2 for these have disclosed absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for a ,phoenician or ,egyptian philosophy4 ,it is a mere residuum of the ,alexandrian passion for allegory4 ,footnote #be3 ,noumenios1 fr4 #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #fbd71 2 ,footnote #bf3 ,clement 7,strom4 i4 p4 #h1 #e1 ,sthlin7 calls ,plato 4 ,footnote #bg3 ,we learn from ,strabo 7xvi4 p4 #geg7 that it was ,poseidonios who introduced ,mochos of ,sidon into the history of philosophy4 ,he attributes the atomic theory to him4 ,his identification with ,moses1 however1 is a later tour de force4 ,philon of ,byblos published what purported to be a translation of an ancient ,phoenician history by ,sanchuniathon1 which was used by ,porphyry and afterwards by ,eusebios4 ,how familiar all this became1 is shown by the speech of the stranger in the ,vicar of ,wakefield1 chap4 xiv4 ,of course no one nowadays would rest the case for the ,oriental origin of ,greek philosophy on the evidence of ,clement or ,eusebios2 the favourite argument in recent times has been the analogy of the arts and religion4 ,we are seeing more and more1 it is said1 that the ,greeks derived their art and many of their religious ideas from the ,east2 and it is urged that the same will in all probability prove true of their philosophy4 ,this is a specious argument1 but not in the least conclusive4 ,it ignores altogether the essential difference in the way these things are transmitted from people to people4 ,material civilisation and the arts may pass easily from one people to another1 though they have not a common language1 and certain simple religious ideas can be conveyed by ritual better than in any other way4 ,philosophy1 on the other hand1 can only be expressed in abstract language1 and it can only be transmitted by educated men1 whether by means of books or oral teaching4 ,now we know of no ,greek1 in the times we are dealing with1 who knew enough of any ,oriental language to read an ,egyptian book or even to listen to the discourse of an ,egyptian priest1 and we never hear till a late date of ,oriental teachers who wrote or spoke in ,greek4 ,the ,greek traveller in ,egypt would no doubt pick up a few words of ,egyptian1 and it is certain that somehow or other the priests could make themselves understood by the ,greeks4 ,they were able to rebuke ,hekataios for his family pride1 and ,plato tells a story of the same sort at the beginning of the ,timaeus4#bh ,but they must have made use of interpreters1 and it is impossible to conceive of philosophical ideas being communicated through an uneducated dragoman4#bi ,footnote #bh3 ,herod4 ii4 #adc2 ,plato1 ,tim4 #bb b #c4 ,footnote #bi3 ,gomperz's 8native bride10 who discusses the wisdom of her people with her ,greek lord 7,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #ie71 does not convince me either4 ,she would probably teach her maids the rites of strange goddesses2 but she would not be likely to talk theology with her husband1 and still less philosophy or science4 ,the use of ,babylonian as an international language will account for the fact that the ,egyptians knew something of ,babylonian astronomy2 but it does not help us to explain how the ,greeks could communicate with the ,egyptians4 ,it is plain that the ,greeks did not even know of this international language2 for it is just the sort of thing they would have recorded with interest if they had4 ,in early days1 they may have met with it in ,cyprus1 but that was apparently forgotten4 ,but really it is not worth while to ask whether the communication of philosophical ideas was possible or not1 till some evidence has been produced that any of these peoples had a philosophy to communicate4 ,no such evidence has yet been discovered1 and1 so far as we know1 the ,indians were the only people besides the ,greeks who ever had anything that deserves the name4 ,no one now will suggest that ,greek philosophy came from ,india1 and indeed everything points to the conclusion that ,indian philosophy came from ,greece4 ,the chronology of ,sanskrit literature is an extremely difficult subject2 but1 so far as we can see1 the great ,indian systems are later in date than the ,greek philosophies which they most nearly resemble4 ,of course the mysticism of the ,upanishads and of ,buddhism were of native growth and profoundly influenced philosophy1 but they were not themselves philosophy in any true sense of the word4#cj ,footnote #cj3 ,for the possibility that ,indian philosophy came from ,greece1 see ,weber1 ,die ,griechen in ,indien 7,berl4 ,sitzb4 #ahij1 pp4 #ija sqq471 and ,goblet d',alviella1 ,ce que l',inde doit la ,grce 7,paris1 #ahig74 ,sidenote3 ,egyptian mathematics4 ,,xi4 ,it would1 however1 be another thing to say that ,greek philosophy originated quite independently of ,oriental influences4 ,the ,greeks themselves believed their mathematical science to be of ,egyptian origin1 and they must also have known something of ,babylonian astronomy4 ,it cannot be an accident that philosophy originated in ,ionia just at the time when communication with these two countries was easiest1 and it is significant that the very man who was said to have introduced geometry from ,egypt is also regarded as the first of the philosophers4 ,it thus becomes very important for us to discover1 if we can1 what ,egyptian mathematics meant4 ,we shall see that1 even here1 the ,greeks were really original4 ,there is a papyrus in the ,rhind collection at the ,british ,museum#ca which gives us an instructive glimpse of arithmetic and geometry as these sciences were understood on the banks of the ,nile4 ,it is the work of one ,aahmes1 and contains rules for calculations both of an arithmetical and a geometrical character4 ,the arithmetical problems mostly concern measures of corn and fruit1 and deal particularly with such questions as the division of a number of measures among a given number of persons1 the number of loaves or jars of beer that certain measures will yield1 and the wages due to the workmen for a certain piece of work4 ,it corresponds exactly1 in fact1 to the description of ,egyptian arithmetic which ,plato has given us in the ,laws1 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 people1 the pairing of boxers and wrestlers1 and so forth4#cb ,this is clearly the origin of the art which the ,greeks called 1 and they certainly borrowed that from ,egypt2 but there is not the slightest trace of what the ,greeks called 1 or the scientific study of numbers4 ,footnote #ca3 ,i am indebted for most of the information which follows to ,cantor's ,vorlesungen ber ,geschichte der ,mathematik1 vol4 i4 pp4 #df-fc4 ,see also ,gow's ,short ,history of ,greek ,mathematics1 #gc-hj2 and ,milhaud1 ,la science grecque1 pp4 #ia sqq4 ,the discussion in the last-named work is of special value because it is based on ,m4 ,rodet's paper in the ,bulletin de la ,socit ,mathmatique1 vol4 vi41 which in some important respects supplements the interpretation of ,eisenlohr1 on which the earlier accounts depend4 ,footnote #cb3 ,plato1 ,laws1 #hai b #d1 1 4 1 1 4 ,in its context1 the passage implies that no more than this could be learnt in ,egypt4 ,the geometry of the ,rhind papyrus is of a similarly utilitarian character1 and ,herodotos1 who tells us that ,egyptian geometry arose from the necessity of measuring the land afresh after the inundations1 is obviously far nearer the mark than ,aristotle1 who says that it grew out of the leisure enjoyed by the priestly caste4#cc ,we find1 accordingly1 that the rules given for calculating areas are only exact when these are rectangular4 ,as fields are usually more or less rectangular1 this would be sufficient for practical purposes4 ,the rule for finding what is called the seqt of a pyramid is1 however1 on a rather higher level1 as we should expect2 for the angles of the ,egyptian pyramids really are equal1 and there must have been some method for obtaining this result4 ,it comes to this4 ,given the 8length across the sole of the foot10 that is1 the diagonal of the base1 and that of the piremus or 8ridge10 to find a number which represents the ratio between them4 ,this is done by dividing half the diagonal of the base by the 8ridge10 and it is obvious that such a method might quite well be discovered empirically4 ,it seems an anachronism to speak of elementary trigonometry in connexion with a rule like this1 and there is nothing to suggest that the ,egyptians went any further4#cd ,that the ,greeks learnt as much from them1 we shall see to be highly probable1 though we shall see also that1 from a comparatively early period1 they generalised it so as to make it of use in measuring the distances of inaccessible objects1 such as ships at sea4 ,it was probably this generalisation that suggested the idea of a science of geometry1 which was really the creation of the ,pythagoreans1 and we can see how far the ,greeks soon surpassed their teachers from a remark of ,demokritos which has been preserved4 ,he says 7fr4 #bii73 8,i have listened to many learned men1 but no one has yet surpassed me in the construction of figures out of lines accompanied by demonstration1 not even the ,egyptian harpedonapts1 as they call them40#ce ,now the word is not ,egyptian but ,greek4 ,it means 8cord-fastener10#cf and it is a striking coincidence that the oldest ,indian geometrical treatise is called the ulvasutras or 8rules of the cord40 ,these things point to the use of the triangle of which the sides are #c1 #d1 #e1 and which has always a right angle4 ,we know that this triangle was used from an early date among the ,chinese and the ,hindus1 who doubtless got it from ,babylon1 and we shall see that ,thales probably learnt the use of it in ,egypt4#cg ,there is no reason whatever for supposing that any of these peoples had in any degree troubled themselves to give a theoretical demonstration of its properties1 though ,demokritos would certainly have been able to do so4 ,finally1 we must note the highly significant fact that all mathematical terms are of purely ,greek origin4#ch ,footnote #cc3 ,herod4 ii4 #aji2 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #a4 #iha b #bc4 ,footnote #cd3 ,for a fuller account of this method1 see ,gow1 ,short ,history of ,greek ,mathematics1 pp4 #abg sqq42 and ,milhaud1 ,science grecque1 p4 #ii4 ,footnote #ce3 ,r4 ,p4 #ahh4 ,footnote #cf3 ,the real meaning of was first pointed out by ,cantor4 ,the gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of the 8harpedonapts40 ,footnote #cg3 ,see ,milhaud1 ,science grecque1 p4 #ajc4 ,footnote #ch3 ,the word is often supposed to be derived from the term piremus used in the ,rhind papyrus1 which does not mean pyramid1 but 8ridge40 ,it is really1 however1 a ,greek word too1 and is the name of a kind of cake4 ,the ,greeks called crocodiles lizards1 ostriches sparrows1 and obelisks meat-skewers1 so they may very well have called the pyramids cakes4 ,we seem to hear an echo of the slang of the mercenaries that carved their names on the colossus at ,abu-,simbel4 ,sidenote3 ,babylonian astronomy4 ,,xii4 ,the other source from which the ,ionians directly or indirectly derived material for their cosmology was the ,babylonian astronomy4 ,there is no doubt that the ,babylonians from a very early date had recorded all celestial phenomena like eclipses4 ,they had also studied the planetary motions1 and determined the signs of the zodiac4 ,further1 they were able to predict the recurrence of the phenomena they had observed with considerable accuracy by means of cycles based on their recorded observations4 ,i can see no reason for doubting that they had observed the phenomenon of precession4 ,indeed1 they could hardly have failed to notice it2 for their observations went back over so many centuries1 that it would be quite appreciable4 ,we know that1 at a later date1 ,ptolemy estimated the precession of the equinoxes at one degree in a hundred years1 and it is extremely probable that this is just the ,babylonian value4 ,at any rate1 it agrees very well with their division of the celestial circle into #cfj degrees1 and made it possible for a century to be regarded as a day in the 8,great ,year10 a conception we shall meet with later on4#ci ,footnote #ci3 ,three different positions of the equinox are given in three different ,babylonian tablets1 namely1 #aj1 #h #ae1 and #h #j #cj of ,aries4 7,kugler1 ,mondrechnung1 p4 #ajc2 ,ginzel1 ,klio1 i4 p4 #bje47 ,given knowledge of this kind1 and the practice of formulating recurrences in cycles1 it is scarcely conceivable that the ,babylonians should not have invented a cycle for precession4 ,it is equally intelligible that they should only have reached a rough approximation2 for the precessional period is really about #bg1fjj years and not #cf1jjj4 ,it is to be observed that ,plato's 8perfect year0 is also #cf1jjj solar years 7,adam's ,republic1 vol4 ii4 p4 #cjb71 and that it is probably connected with the precession of the equinoxes4 7,cf4 ,tim4 #ci d1 a passage which is most easily interpreted if referred to precession47 ,this suggestion as to the origin of the 8,great ,year0 was thrown out by ,mr4 ,adam 7op4 cit4 p4 #cje71 and is now confirmed by ,hilprecht1 ,the ,babylonian ,expedition of the ,university of ,pennsylvania 7,philadelphia1 #aijf74 ,we shall see that ,thales probably knew the cycle which the ,babylonians used to predict eclipses 7 #c72 but it would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers of ,greek science had any detailed knowledge of the ,babylonian astronomy4 ,it was not till the time of ,plato that even the names of the planets were known1#dj and the recorded observations were only made available in ,alexandrian times4 ,but1 even if they had known these1 their originality would remain4 ,the ,babylonians studied and recorded celestial phenomena for what we call astrological purposes1 not from any scientific interest4 ,there is no evidence at all that their accumulated observations ever suggested to them the least dissatisfaction with the primitive view of the world1 or that they attempted to account for what they saw in any but the crudest way4 ,the ,greeks1 on the other hand1 with far fewer data to go upon1 made at least three discoveries of capital importance in the course of two or three generations4 ,in the first place1 they discovered that the earth is a sphere and does not rest on anything4 ,in the second place1 they discovered the true theory of lunar and solar eclipses2 and1 in close connexion with this1 they came to see1 in the third place1 that the earth is not the centre of our system1 but revolves round it like the other planets4 ,not very much later1 certain ,greeks even took1 at least tentatively1 the final step of identifying the centre round which the earth and the planets revolve with the sun4 ,these discoveries will be discussed in their proper place2 they are only mentioned here to show the gulf between ,greek astronomy and everything that had preceded it4 ,the ,babylonians had as many thousand years as the ,greeks had centuries to make these discoveries1 and it does not appear that they ever thought of one of them4 ,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 system4 ,footnote #dj3 ,in classical ,greek literature1 no planets but and are mentioned by name at all4 ,parmenides 7or ,pythagoras7 first identified these as a single planet 7 #ic74 ,mercury appears for the first time by name in ,tim4 #ch e1 and the other divine names are given in ,epin4 #ihg b sq41 where they are said to be 8,syrian40 ,the ,greek names 1 1 1 1 1 may be older1 but this cannot be proved4 ,we may sum up all this by saying that the ,greeks did not borrow either their philosophy or their science from the ,east4 ,they did1 however1 get from ,egypt certain rules of mensuration which1 when generalised1 gave birth to geometry2 while from ,babylon they learnt that the phenomena of the heavens recur in cycles with the greatest regularity4 ,this piece of knowledge undoubtedly had a great deal to do with the rise of science2 for to the ,greek it suggested further questions such as the ,babylonian did not dream of4#da ,footnote #da3 ,the ,platonic account of this matter is to be found in the ,epinomis1 #ihf e #i sqq41 and is summed up by the words 1 7#ihg d #i74 ,the point is well put by ,theon 7,adrastos71 ,exp4 p4 #agg1 #bj ,hiller1 who speaks of the ,chaldaeans and ,egyptians as 1 1 4 ,the importance of this last passage is that it represents the view taken at ,alexandria1 where the facts were accurately known4 ,sidenote3 ,the scientific character of the early ,greek cosmology4 ,,xiii4 ,it is necessary to say something as to the scientific worth of the philosophy we are about to study4 ,we have just seen that the ,eastern peoples were1 at the time of which we write1 considerably richer than the ,greeks in accumulated facts1 though these facts had certainly not been observed for any scientific purpose1 and their possession never suggested a revision of the primitive view of the world4 ,the ,greeks1 however1 saw in them something that could be turned to account1 and they were never as a people slow to act on the maxim1 ,chacun prend son bien partout o il le trouve4 ,the most striking monument of this spirit which has come down to us is the work of ,herodotos2 and the visit of ,solon to ,croesus which he describes1 however unhistorical it may be1 gives a very lively and faithful picture of it4 ,croesus tells ,solon that he has heard much of 8his wisdom and his wanderings10 and how1 from love of knowledge 771 he has travelled over much land for the purpose of seeing what was to be seen 7 74 ,the words 1 1 and are1 in fact1 the catchwords of the time1 though they had1 we must remember1 a somewhat different meaning from that which they were afterwards made to bear at ,athens4#db ,the idea that underlies them all may1 perhaps1 be best rendered in ,english by the word ,curiosity2 and it was just this great gift of curiosity1 and the desire to see all the wonderful things--pyramids1 inundations1 and so forth--that were to be seen1 which enabled the ,greeks to pick up and turn to their own use such scraps of knowledge as they could come by among the barbarians4 ,no sooner did a ,greek philosopher learn half a dozen geometrical propositions1 and hear that the phenomena of the heavens recur in cycles1 than he set to work to look for law everywhere in nature1 and1 with a splendid audacity1 almost amounting to 1 to construct a system of the universe4 ,we may smile1 if we please1 at the strange medley of childish fancy and true scientific insight which these ,titanic efforts display1 and sometimes we feel disposed to sympathise with the sages of the day who warned their more daring contemporaries 8to think the thoughts befitting man's estate0 7 74 ,but we shall do well to remember at the same time that even now it is just such hardy anticipations of experience that make scientific progress possible1 and that nearly every one of the early inquirers whom we are about to study made some permanent addition to the store of positive knowledge1 besides opening up new views of the world in every direction4 ,footnote #db3 ,still1 the word never wholly lost its early associations1 and the ,greeks always felt that the meant literally 8the life of the spectator40 ,its special use1 and the whole theory of the 8three lives10 seem to be of ,pythagorean origin4 ,see my edition of ,aristotle's ,ethics1 p4 #ai n4 ,there is no justification either for the idea that ,greek science was built up solely by more or less lucky guesswork1 instead of by observation and experiment4 ,the nature of our tradition1 which mostly consists of ,placita--that is1 of what we call 8results0--tends1 no doubt1 to create this impression4 ,we are seldom told why any early philosopher held the views he did1 and the appearance of a string of 8opinions0 suggests dogmatism4 ,there are1 however1 certain exceptions to the general character of the tradition2 and we may reasonably suppose that1 if the later ,greeks had been interested in the matter1 there would have been many more4 ,we shall see that ,anaximander made some remarkable discoveries in marine biology1 which the researches of the nineteenth century have fully confirmed 7 #ba71 and even ,xenophanes supported one of his theories by referring to the fossils and petrifactions of such widely separated places as ,malta1 ,paros1 and ,syracuse 7 #ei74 ,this is enough to show that the theory1 so commonly held by the earlier philosophers1 that the earth had been originally in a moist state1 was not mythological in origin1 but was based on1 or at any rate confirmed by1 biological and palaeontological observations of a thoroughly modern and scientific type4 ,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 lost4 ,indeed1 the idea that the ,greeks were not observers is almost ludicrously wrong1 as is proved by two simple considerations4 ,the anatomical accuracy of ,greek sculpture bears witness to trained habits of observation1 and those of the highest order1 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 day4#dc ,we know1 then1 that the ,greeks could observe well in matters affecting agriculture1 navigation1 and the arts1 and we know that they were curious about the world4 ,is it conceivable that they did not use their powers of observation to gratify that curiosity8 ,it is true1 of course1 that they had not our instruments of precision2 but a great deal can be discovered by the help of very simple apparatus4 ,it is not to be supposed that ,anaximander erected his gnomon merely that the ,spartans might know the seasons4#dd ,footnote #dc3 ,these two points are rightly emphasised by ,staigmller1 ,beitrge zur ,gesch4 der ,naturwissenschaften im klassischen ,altertume 7,progr4 ,stuttgart1 #ahii1 p4 #h74 ,footnote #dd3 ,the gnomon was not a sundial1 but an upright erected on a flat surface1 in the centre of three concentric circles4 ,these were drawn so that the end of the gnomon's shadow touched the innermost circle at midday on the summer solstice1 the intermediate circle at the equinoxes1 and the outermost circle at the winter solstice4 ,see ,bretschneider1 ,die ,geometrie vor ,euklid1 p4 #fj4 ,nor is it true that the ,greeks made no use of experiment4 ,the rise of the experimental method dates from the time when the medical schools began to influence the development of philosophy1 and accordingly we find that the first recorded experiment of a modern type is that of ,empedokles with the klepsydra4 ,we have his own account of this 7fr4 #ajj71 and we can see how it brought him to the verge of anticipating both ,harvey and ,torricelli4 ,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 problems4 ,of course the great difficulty for us is the geocentric hypothesis from which science inevitably started1 though only to outgrow it in a surprisingly short time4 ,so long as the earth is supposed to be in the centre of the world1 meteorology1 in the later sense of the word1 is necessarily identified with astronomy4 ,it is difficult for us to feel at home in this point of view1 and indeed we have no suitable word to express what the ,greeks at first called an 4 ,it will be convenient to use the word 8world0 for it2 but then we must remember that it does not refer solely1 or even chiefly1 to the earth4 ,the later word bears witness to the growth of scientific ideas4 ,it meant at first the marshalling of an army1 and next the ordered constitution of a state4 ,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 nature4 ,man lived in a charmed circle of law and custom1 but the world around him still seemed lawless4 ,that1 too1 is why1 when the regular course of nature was first realised1 no better word for it could be found than 4 ,it is the same metaphor which still lives on in the expression 8natural law40#de ,footnote #de3 ,the term seems to be ,pythagorean in this sense4 ,it was not familiar even at the beginning of the fourth century4 ,xenophon speaks of 8what the sophists call the 0 7,mem4 i4 #aa74 ,for 1 see below1 #ad1 #gb4 ,the science of the sixth century was mainly concerned1 then1 with those parts of the world that are 8aloft0 7 71 and these include1 along with the heavenly bodies1 such things as clouds1 rainbows1 and lightning4 ,that is how the heavenly bodies came sometimes to be explained as ignited clouds1 an idea which seems astonishing to us4 ,but we must bear in mind that science inevitably and rightly began with the most obvious hypothesis1 and that it was only the thorough working out of this that could show its inadequacy4 ,it is just because the ,greeks were the first people to take the geocentric hypothesis seriously that they were able to go beyond it4 ,of course the pioneers of ,greek thought had no clear idea of the nature of scientific hypothesis1 and supposed themselves to be dealing with ultimate reality4 ,that was inevitable before the rise of ,logic4 ,at the same time1 a sure instinct guided them to the right method1 and we can see how it was the effort to 8save appearances0#df that really operated from the first4 ,it is1 therefore1 to those men that we owe the conception of an exact science which should ultimately take in the whole world as its object4 ,they fancied--absurdly enough1 no doubt--that they could work out this science at once4 ,we sometimes make the same mistake nowadays2 and it can no more rob the ,greeks of the honour of having been the first to see the true1 though perhaps unattainable1 end of all science than it can rob our own scientific men of the honour of having brought that end nearer than it was4 ,it is still knowledge of the kind foreseen and attempted by the ,greeks that they are in search of4 ,footnote #df3 ,this phrase originated in the school of ,plato4 ,the method of research in use there was for the leader to 8propound0 71 7 it as a 8problem0 77 to find the simplest 8hypothesis0 7 7 on which it is possible to account for and do justice to all the observed facts 7 74 ,it was in its ,french form1 sauver les apparences1 that the phrase acquired the meaning it usually has now4 ,sidenote3 ,schools of philosophy4 ,,xiv4 ,theophrastos1 the first writer to treat the history of ,greek philosophy in a systematic way1#dg represented the early cosmologists as standing to one another in the relation of master and scholar1 and as members of regular societies4 ,this has been regarded by many modern writers as an anachronism1 and some have even denied the existence of 8schools0 of philosophy altogether4 ,such a reaction against the older view was quite justified in so far as it was directed against arbitrary classifications like the 8,ionic0 and 8,italian0 schools1 which are derived through ,laertios ,diogenes from the ,alexandrian writers of 8,successions40 ,but the express statements of ,theophrastos are not to be so lightly set aside4 ,as this point is of great importance1 it will be necessary to elucidate it still further before we enter upon our story4 ,footnote #dg3 ,see ,appendix1 #g4 ,the modern view really rests upon a mistaken idea of the way in which civilisation develops4 ,in almost every department of life1 we find that the corporation at first is everything and the individual nothing4 ,the peoples of the ,east hardly got beyond this stage at all2 their science1 such as it is1 is anonymous1 the inherited property of a caste or guild1 and we still see clearly in some cases that it was once the same among the ,hellenes4 ,medicine1 for instance1 was originally the 8mystery0 of the ,asklepiads1 and it is to be supposed that all craftsmen 771 amongst whom ,homer classes the bards 771 were at first organised in a similar way4 ,what distinguished the ,hellenes from other peoples was that at a comparatively early date these crafts came under the influence of outstanding individuals1 who gave them a fresh direction and a new impulse4 ,it is doubtless in some such way that we should understand the relation of ,homer to the ,homeridai4 ,the ,asklepiads at a later date produced ,hippokrates1 and if we knew more of such guilds as the ,daidalids1 it is likely we should find something of the same kind4 ,but this does not destroy the corporate character of the craft2 indeed1 it rather intensifies it4 ,the guild becomes what we call a 8school10 and the disciple takes the place of the apprentice4 ,that is a vital change4 ,a close guild with none but official heads is essentially conservative1 while a band of disciples attached to a master they revere is the greatest progressive force the world knows4 ,it is certain that the later ,athenian schools were organised corporations1 the oldest of which1 the ,academy1 maintained its existence as such for some nine hundred years1 and the only question we have to decide is whether this was an innovation made in the fourth century ,b4,c41 or rather the continuance of an old tradition4 ,as it happens1 we have the authority of ,plato for speaking of the chief early systems as handed down in schools4 ,he makes ,sokrates speak of 8the men of ,ephesos10 the ,herakleiteans1 as forming a strong body in his own day1#dh and the stranger of the ,sophist and the ,statesman speaks of his school as still in existence at ,elea4#di ,we also hear of 8,anaxagoreans10#ej and no one1 of course1 can doubt that the ,pythagoreans were a society4 ,in fact1 there is hardly any school but that of ,miletos for which we have not external evidence of the strongest kind2 and even as regards it1 we have the significant fact that ,theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a later date as having been 8associates of the philosophy of ,anaximenes40#ea ,we shall see too in the first chapter that the internal evidence in favour of the existence of a ,milesian school is very strong indeed4 ,it is from this point of view1 then1 that we shall now proceed to consider the men who created ,hellenic science4 ,footnote #dh3 ,tht4 #agi e #d1 444 4 ,the humorous denial that the ,herakleiteans had any disciples 7#ahj b #h1 1 27 implies that this was the normal and recognised relation4 ,footnote #di3 ,soph4 #bdb d #d1 444 ' 4 ,cf4 ib4 #baf a #c1 7where is probably interpolated1 but gives the right sense72 #bag a1 #a1 4 ,footnote #ej3 ,crat4 #dji b #f1 4 ,footnote #ea3 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #abb2 and1 on the whole subject1 see ,diels1 8ber die ltesten ,philosophenschulen der ,griechen0 in ,philosophische ,aufstze ,eduard ,zeller gewidmet 7,leipzig1 #ahhg74 ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,milesian ,,school ,sidenote3 ,miletos and ,lydia4 #a4 ,it was at ,miletos that the earliest school of scientific cosmology had its home4 ,at the time it arose1 the ,milesians were in an exceptionally favourable position for scientific as well as commercial pursuits4 ,they had1 indeed1 come into conflict more than once with the neighbouring ,lydians1 whose rulers were now bent upon extending their dominion to the coast2 but1 towards the end of the seventh century ,b4,c41 ,thrasyboulos1 tyrant of ,miletos1 had succeeded in making terms with ,king ,alyattes1 and an alliance was concluded between them1 which not only saved ,miletos for the present from a disaster like that which befell ,smyrna1 but secured it against molestation for the future4 ,even half a century later1 when ,croesus1 resuming his father's forward policy1 made war upon and conquered ,ephesos1 ,miletos was still able to maintain the old treaty-relation1 and never1 strictly speaking1 became subject to the ,lydians at all4 ,we can hardly doubt that the sense of security which this exceptional position would foster had something to do with the rise of scientific inquiry4 ,material prosperity is necessary as a foundation for the highest intellectual effort2 and at this time ,miletos was in possession of all the refinements of life to a degree unknown in continental ,hellas4 ,nor was it only in this way that the ,lydian connexion would favour the growth of science at ,miletos4 ,what was called ,hellenism at a later date seems to have been traditional in the dynasty of the ,mermnadai4 ,there may well be some truth in the statement of ,herodotos1 that all the 8sophists0 of the time flocked to the court of ,sardeis4#eb ,the tradition which represents ,croesus as what we should call the 8patron0 of ,greek wisdom1 was fully developed in the fifth century2 and1 however unhistorical its details may be1 it must clearly have some sort of foundation in fact4 ,particularly noteworthy is 8the common tale among the ,greeks10 that ,thales accompanied him on his luckless campaign against ,pteria1 apparently in the capacity of military engineer4 ,herodotos1 indeed1 disbelieves the story that he diverted the course of the ,halys2#ec but he does not attack it on the ground of any antecedent improbability1 and it is quite clear that those who reported it found no difficulty in accepting the relation which it presupposes between the philosopher and the king4 ,footnote #eb3 ,herod4 i4 #bi4 ,some other points may be noted in confirmation of what has been said as to the 8,hellenism0 of the ,mermnadai4 ,alyattes had two wives1 one of whom1 the mother of ,croesus1 was a ,karian2 the other was an ,ionian1 and by her he had a son called by the ,greek name ,pantaleon 7ib4 #ib74 ,the offerings of ,gyges were pointed out in the treasury of ,kypselos at ,delphoi 7ib4 #ad71 and those of ,alyattes were one of the 8sights0 of the place 7ib4 #be74 ,croesus also showed great liberality to ,delphoi 7ib4 #ej71 and to many other ,greek shrines 7ib4 #ib74 ,he gave most of the pillars for the great temple at ,ephesos4 ,the stories of ,miltiades 7vi4 #cg7 and ,alkmeon 7ib4 #abe7 should also be mentioned in this connexion4 ,footnote #ec3 ,herod4 i4 #ge4 ,he disbelieves it because he had heard1 probably from the ,greeks of ,sinope1 of the great antiquity of the bridge on the royal road between ,ankyra and ,pteria 7,ramsay1 ,asia ,minor1 p4 #bi74 ,xanthos recorded a tradition that it was ,thales who induced ,croesus to ascend his pyre when he knew a shower was coming 7fr4 #ai74 ,it should be added that the ,lydian alliance would greatly facilitate intercourse with ,babylon and ,egypt4 ,lydia was an advanced post of ,babylonian culture1 and ,croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of both ,egypt and ,babylon4 ,it is noteworthy1 too1 that ,amasis of ,egypt had the same ,hellenic sympathies as ,croesus1 and that the ,milesians possessed a temple of their own at ,naukratis4#ed ,footnote #ed3 ,milesians at ,naukratis1 ,herod4 ii4 #agh1 where ,amasis is said to have been 4 ,he subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at ,delphoi after the great fire 7ib4 #ahj74 ,i4 ,,thales ,sidenote3 ,origin4 #b4 ,there can be no doubt that the founder of the ,milesian school1 and therefore the first of the cosmologists1 was ,thales2#ee but all we can really be said to know of him comes from ,herodotos1 and the romance of the ,seven ,wise ,men was already in existence when he wrote4 ,he tells us1 in the first place1 that ,thales was of ,phoenician descent1 a statement which other writers explained by saying he belonged to the ,thelidai1 a noble house descended from ,kadmos and ,agenor4#ef ,this is clearly connected with the view of ,herodotos that there were 8,kadmeians0 from ,boiotia among the original ,ionian colonists1 and it is certain that there really were people called ,kadmeians in several ,ionic cities4#eg ,whether they were of ,semitic origin is1 of course1 another matter4 ,herodotos probably mentions the supposed descent of ,thales simply because he was believed to have introduced certain improvements in navigation from ,phoenicia4#eh ,at any rate1 the name ,examyes1 which his father bore1 lends no support to the view that he was a ,semite4 ,it is a ,karian name1 and the ,karians had been almost completely assimilated by the ,ionians4 ,on the monuments1 we find ,greek and ,karian names alternating in the same families1 and there is therefore no reason to suppose that ,thales was anything else than an ordinary ,milesian citizen1 though perhaps with ,karian blood in his veins4#ei ,footnote #ee3 ,simplicius1 indeed1 quotes from ,theophrastos the statement that ,thales had many predecessors 7,dox4 p4 #dge1 #aa74 ,this1 however1 need not trouble us2 for the scholiast on ,apollonios ,rhodios 7ii4 #abdh7 tells us that ,theophrastos made ,prometheus the first philosopher1 which is merely an application of ,peripatetic literalism to a remark of ,plato's 7,phileb4 #af c #f74 ,cf4 ,appendix1 #b4 ,footnote #ef3 ,herod4 i4 #agj 7,r4 ,p4 #i d472 ,diog4 i4 #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #i74 ,footnote #eg3 ,strabo1 xiv4 pp4 #fcc1 #fcf2 ,pausan4 vii4 #b1 #g4 ,priene was called ,kadme1 and the oldest annalist of ,miletos bore the name ,kadmos4 ,see ,e4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #aeh4 ,footnote #eh3 ,diog4 i4 #bc1 ' -- 1 4 ,footnote #ei3 ,see ,diels1 8,thales ein ,semite80 7,arch4 ii4 #afe sqq471 and ,immisch1 8,zu ,thales ,abkunft0 7ib4 p4 #eae74 ,the name ,examyes occurs also in ,kolophon 7,hermesianax1 ,leontion1 fr4 #b1 #ch ,bgk471 and may be compared with other ,karian names such as ,cheramyes and ,panamyes4 ,sidenote3 ,the eclipse foretold by ,thales4 #c4 ,by far the most remarkable statement that ,herodotos makes about ,thales is that he foretold the eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between the ,lydians and the ,medes4#fj ,now1 we may be sure that he was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses4 ,anaximander and his successors certainly were so1#fa and it is incredible that the right explanation should once have been given and then forgotten so soon4 ,even supposing1 however1 ,thales had known the cause of eclipses1 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 path4 ,yet the evidence for the prediction is too strong to be rejected off-hand4 ,the testimony of ,herodotos to an event which must have happened about a hundred years before his own birth may1 perhaps1 be deemed insufficient2 but that of ,xenophanes is a very different matter1 and it is this we have really to deal with4#fb ,according to ,theophrastos1 ,xenophanes was a disciple of ,anaximander1 and he may quite well have seen and spoken with ,thales4 ,in any case1 he must have known scores of people who were able to remember what happened1 and he had no conceivable interest in misrepresenting it4 ,the prediction of the eclipse is really better attested than any other fact about ,thales whatsoever1 and the evidence for it is about as strong as for anything that happened in the early part of the sixth century ,b4,c4 ,footnote #fj3 ,herod4 i4 #gd4 ,footnote #fa3 ,for the theories held by ,anaximander and ,herakleitos1 see infra1 #ai1 #ga4 ,footnote #fb3 ,diog4 i4 #bc1 1 1 4 ,now it is quite possible to predict eclipses without knowing their true cause1 and there is no doubt that the ,babylonians actually did so4 ,on the basis of their astronomical observations1 they had made out a cycle of #bbc lunar months1 within which eclipses of the sun and moon recurred at equal intervals of time4#fc ,this1 it is true1 would not enable them to predict eclipses of the sun for a given spot on the earth's surface2 for these phenomena are not visible at all places where the sun is above the horizon at the time4 ,we do not occupy a position at the centre of the earth1 and what astronomers call the geocentric parallax has to be taken into account4 ,it would only1 therefore1 be possible to tell by means of the cycle that an eclipse of the sun would be visible somewhere1 and that it might be worth while to look out for it4 ,now1 if we may judge from a report by a ,chaldaean astronomer which has been preserved1 this was just the position of the ,babylonians4 ,they watched for eclipses at the proper dates2 and1 if they did not occur1 they announced the fact as a good omen4#fd ,to explain what we are told about ,thales no more than this is required4 ,he simply said there would be an eclipse2 and1 as good luck would have it1 it was visible in ,asia ,minor1 and on a striking occasion4 ,footnote #fc3 ,the first to call attention to the ,chaldaean cycle in this connexion seems to have been the ,rev4 ,george ,costard1 ,fellow of ,wadham ,college4 ,see his ,dissertation on the ,use of ,astronomy in ,history 7,london1 #agfd71 p4 #ag4 ,it is inaccurate to call it the ,saros2 that was quite another thing 7see ,ginzel1 ,klio1 i4 p4 #cgg74 ,sidenote3 ,date of ,thales4 #d4 ,the prediction of the eclipse does not1 then1 throw much light upon the scientific attainments of ,thales2 but1 if we can fix its date1 it will give us a point from which to start in trying to determine the time at which he lived4 ,modern astronomers have calculated that there was an eclipse of the sun1 probably visible in ,asia ,minor1 on ,may #bh 7,o4,s471 #ehe ,b4,c41#fe while ,pliny gives the date of the eclipse foretold by ,thales as ,ol4 ,,xlviii4 #d 7#ehe_/d ,b4,c474#ff ,this1 it is true1 does not exactly tally2 for ,may #ehe belongs to the year #ehf_/e ,b4,c4 ,it is sufficiently near1 however1 to justify us in identifying the eclipse as that of ,thales1 and this is confirmed by ,apollodoros1 who fixed his floruit in the same year4#fg ,the further statement that1 according to ,demetrios ,phalereus1 ,thales 8received the name of wise0 in the archonship of ,damasias at ,athens1 agrees very well with this1 and is doubtless based on the story of the ,delphic tripod2 for the archonship of ,damasias is the era of the restoration of the ,pythian ,games4#fh ,footnote #fd3 ,see ,george ,smith1 ,assyrian ,discoveries 7#ahge71 p4 #dji4 ,the inscription which follows was found at ,kouyunjik3-- 8,to the king my lord1 thy servant ,abil-,istar4 99 99 99 99 99 8,concerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to me2 in the cities of ,akkad1 ,borsippa1 and ,nipur1 observations they made1 and then in the city of ,akkad1 we saw part4444 ,the observation was made1 and the eclipse took place4 99 99 99 99 99 8,and when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation1 the observation was made and it did not take place4 ,that which ,i saw with my eyes to the king my lord ,i send40 ,footnote #fe3 ,for the literature of this subject1 see ,r4 ,p4 #h b1 adding ,ginzel1 ,spezieller ,kanon1 p4 #aga4 ,see also ,milhaud1 ,science grecque1 p4 #fb4 ,footnote #ff3 ,pliny1 ,n4,h4 ii4 #ec4 ,footnote #fg3 ,for ,apollodoros1 see ,appendix1 #bj4 ,the dates in our text of ,diogenes 7i4 #cg2 ,r4 ,p4 #h7 cannot be reconciled with one another4 ,that given for the death of ,thales is probably right2 for it is the year before the fall of ,sardeis in #edf_/e ,b4,c41 which is one of the regular eras used by ,apollodoros4 ,it no doubt seemed natural to make ,thales die the year before the 8ruin of ,ionia0 which he foresaw4 ,seventy-eight years before this brings us to #fbe_/d ,b4,c4 for the birth of ,thales1 and this gives us #ehe_/d ,b4,c4 for his fortieth year4 ,that is ,pliny's date for the eclipse1 and ,pliny's dates come from ,apollodoros through ,nepos4 ,for a full discussion of the subject1 see ,jacoby1 pp4 #age sqq4 ,footnote #fh3 ,diog4 i4 #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #i74 ,i do not discuss the ,pythian era and the date of ,damasias here1 though it appears to me that the last word has not yet been said upon the subject4 ,jacoby 7pp4 #agj sqq47 argues strongly for #ehb_/a1 the date now generally accepted4 ,others favour the ,pythian year #ehf_/e ,b4,c41 which is the very year of the eclipse1 and this would help to explain how those historians who used ,apollodoros came to date it a year too late2 for ,damasias was archon for two years and two months4 ,it is even possible that they misunderstood the words 1 which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier archon of the same name1 as meaning 8in the second year of ,damasias40 ,apollodoros gave only ,athenian archons1 and the reduction to ,olympiads is the work of later writers4 ,kirchner1 adopting the year #ehb_/a for ,damasias1 brings the archonship of ,solon down to #eia_/j 7,rh4 ,mus4 liii4 pp4 #bdb sqq474 ,but the date of ,solon's archonship can never have been doubtful4 ,on ,kirchner's reckoning1 we come to #ehf_/e ,b4,c41 if we keep the traditional date of ,solon4 ,see also ,e4 ,meyer1 ,forschungen1 ii4 pp4 #bdb sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,thales in ,egypt4 #e4 ,the introduction of ,egyptian geometry into ,hellas is universally ascribed to ,thales1 and it is extremely probable that he did visit ,egypt2 for he had a theory of the inundations of the ,nile4 ,in a well-known passage1#fi ,herodotos gives three explanations of the fact that this alone of all rivers rises in summer and falls in winter2 but1 as his custom is in such cases1 he does not name their authors4 ,the first of them1 however1 that which attributes the floods to the ,etesian winds1 is ascribed to ,thales in the ,placita1#gj and also by many later writers4 ,now1 those statements are derived from a treatise on the ,rise of the ,nile attributed to ,aristotle and known to the ,greek commentators1 but now extant only in a ,latin epitome of the thirteenth century4#ga ,in this work the first of the three theories mentioned by ,herodotos is ascribed to ,thales1 the second to ,euthymenes of ,massalia1 and the third to ,anaxagoras4 ,where did ,aristotle1 or whoever wrote the book1 get these names8 ,we think naturally once more of ,hekataios1 whom ,herodotos so often reproduces without mentioning his name2 and this conjecture is much strengthened when we find that ,hekataios actually mentioned ,euthymenes4#gb ,we may conclude1 then1 that ,thales really was in ,egypt2 and1 perhaps1 that ,hekataios1 in describing the ,nile1 took account1 as was only natural1 of his distinguished fellow-citizen's views4 ,footnote #fi3 ,herod4 ii4 #bj4 ,footnote #gj3 ,aet4 iv4 ,i4 #a 7,dox4 p4 #chd74 ,footnote #ga3 ,dox4 pp4 #bbf-bbi4 ,the ,latin epitome will be found in ,rose's edition of the ,aristotelian fragments4 ,footnote #gb3 ,hekataios1 fr4 #bgh 7,f4,h4,g4 i4 p4 #ai74 ,sidenote3 ,thales and geometry4 #f4 ,as to the nature and extent of the mathematical knowledge brought back by ,thales from ,egypt1 it seems desirable to point out that many writers have seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition4#gc ,in his commentary on the ,first ,book of ,euclid1 ,proclus enumerates1 on the authority of ,eudemos1 certain propositions which he says were known to ,thales4#gd ,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 equal4 ,this he must have known1 said ,eudemos1 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 done4#ge ,here we see how all these statements arose4 ,certain remarkable feats in the way of measurement were traditionally ascribed to ,thales1 and it was assumed that he must have known all the propositions which these imply4 ,but this is quite an illusory method of inference4 ,both the measurement of the distance of ships at sea1 and that of the height of the pyramids1 which is also ascribed to him1#gf are easy applications of what ,aahmes calls the seqt4 ,these rules of mensuration may well have been brought from ,egypt by ,thales1 but we have no ground for supposing that he knew any more about their rationale than did the author of the ,rhind papyrus4 ,perhaps1 indeed1 he gave them a wider application than the ,egyptians had done4 ,still1 mathematics1 properly so called1 did not come into existence till some time after ,thales4 ,footnote #gc3 ,see ,cantor1 ,vorlesungen ber ,geschichte der ,mathematik1 vol4 i4 pp4 #aab sqq42 ,allman1 8,greek ,geometry from ,thales to ,euclid0 7,hermathena1 iii4 pp4 #afd-agd74 ,footnote #gd3 ,proclus1 in ,eucl4 pp4 #fe1 #g2 #aeg1 #aj2 #bej1 #bj2 #bii1 #a2 #ceb1 #ad2 7,friedlein74 ,eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and mathematics1 just as ,theophrastos wrote the first history of philosophy4 ,footnote #ge3 ,proclus1 p4 #ceb1 #ad1 7,eucl4 i4 #bf7 ' 4 ,for the method adopted by ,thales1 see ,tannery1 ,gomtrie grecque1 p4 #ij4 ,i agree1 however1 with ,dr4 ,gow 7,short ,history of ,greek ,mathematics1 #hd7 that it is very unlikely ,thales reproduced and measured on land the enormous triangle which he had constructed in a perpendicular plane over the sea4 ,such a method would be too cumbrous to be of use4 ,it is much simpler to suppose that he made use of the ,egyptian seqt4 ,footnote #gf3 ,the oldest version of this story is given in ,diog4 i4 #bg1 1 4 ,cf4 ,pliny1 ,h4 ,nat4 xxxvi4 #hb1 mensuram altitudinis earum deprehendere invenit ,thales ,milesius umbram metiendo qua hora par esse corpori solet4 7,hieronymos of ,rhodes was contemporary with ,eudemos47 ,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 hour4 ,plutarch 7,conv4 sept4 sap4 #adg a7 gives a more elaborate method1 1 1 1 4 ,this1 as ,dr4 ,gow points out1 is only another calculation of seqt1 and may very well have been the method of ,thales4 ,sidenote3 ,thales as a politician4 #g4 ,thales appears once more in the pages of ,herodotos some time before the fall of the ,lydian empire4 ,he is said to have urged the ,ionian ,greeks to unite in a federal state with its capital at ,teos4#gg ,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 events2 and there are many things1 for instance the part played by ,hekataios in the ,ionian revolt1 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 ,thales4 ,it is this political action which has gained the founder of the ,milesian school his undisputed place among the ,seven ,wise ,men2 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 name4#gh ,footnote #gg3 ,herod4 i4 #agj 7,r4 ,p4 #i d74 ,footnote #gh3 ,the story of ,thales falling into a well 7,plato1 ,tht4 #agd a7 is nothing but a fable teaching the uselessness of 2 the anecdote about the 8corner0 in oil 7,ar4 ,pol4 1 #aa4 #abei a #f7 is intended to inculcate the opposite lesson4 ,sidenote3 ,uncertain character of the tradition4 #h4 ,if ,thales ever wrote anything1 it soon was lost1 and the works which were written in his name did not1 as a rule1 deceive even the ancients4#gi ,aristotle professes to know something about the views of ,thales2 but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived at1 nor the arguments by which they were supported4 ,he does1 indeed1 make certain suggestions1 which are repeated by later writers as statements of fact2 but he himself simply gives them for what they are worth4#hj ,there is another difficulty in connexion with the tradition4 ,many a precise-looking statement in the ,placita has no other foundation than the habit of ascribing any doctrine which was1 roughly speaking1 characteristic of the whole ,ionic 8,succession0 to 8,thales and his followers10 and so producing the appearance of a definite statement about ,thales4 ,but1 in spite of all this1 we need not doubt that ,aristotle was correctly informed with regard to the leading points4 ,we have seen traces of reference to ,thales in ,hekataios1 and nothing can be more likely than that later writers of the school should have quoted the views of its founder4 ,we may venture1 therefore1 upon a conjectural restoration of his cosmology1 in which we shall be guided by what we know for certain of the subsequent development of the ,milesian school2 for we should naturally expect to find its characteristic doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of its earliest representative4 ,but all this must be taken for just what it is worth2 speaking strictly1 we do not know anything about the teaching of ,thales at all4 ,footnote #gi3 ,see ,r4 ,p4 #i e4 ,footnote #hj3 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 ,sidenote3 ,conjectural account of the cosmology of ,thales4 #i4 ,the statements of ,aristotle may be reduced to three3 7#a7 ,the earth floats on the water4#ha 7#b7 ,water is the material cause#hb of all things4 7#c7 ,all things are full of gods4 ,the magnet is alive2 for it has the power of moving iron4#hc ,footnote #ha3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihc b #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #aj72 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bid a #bh 7,r4 ,p4 #aa74 ,later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of earthquakes 7so ,aet4 iii4 #ae1 #a72 but this is probably due to a 8,homeric allegorist0 7,appendix1 #aa71 who wished to explain the epithet 4 ,cf4 ,diels1 ,dox4 p4 #bbe4 ,footnote #hb3 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihc b #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #aj74 ,i have said 8material cause10 because 7b #ai7 means 7b #g74 ,footnote #hc3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #e4 #daa a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ac72 ib4 #b4 #dje a #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #ac a74 ,diog4 i4 #bd 7,r4 ,p4 ib47 adds amber4 ,this comes from ,hesychios of ,miletos2 for it occurs in the scholium of ,par4 ,a on ,plato1 ,rep4 #fjj a4 ,the first of these statements must be understood in the light of the second1 which is expressed in ,aristotelian terminology1 but would undoubtedly mean that ,thales had said water was the fundamental or primary thing1 of which all other things were mere transient forms4 ,it was1 we shall see1 just such a primary substance that the ,milesian school as a whole was seeking1 and it is unlikely that the earliest answer to the great question of the day should have been the comparatively subtle one given by ,anaximander4 ,we are1 perhaps1 justified in holding that the greatness of ,thales consisted in this1 that he was the first to ask1 not what was the original thing1 but what is the primary thing now2 or1 more simply still1 8,what is the world made of80 ,the answer he gave to this question was3 ,water4 ,sidenote3 ,water4 #aj4 ,aristotle and ,theophratos1 followed by ,simplicius and the doxographers1 suggest several explanations of this answer4 ,by ,aristotle these explanations are given as conjectural2 it is only later writers that repeat them as if they were quite certain4#hd ,the most 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 thesis4#he ,this would account for their physiological character4 ,the rise of scientific medicine had made biological arguments very popular in the fifth century2 but1 in the days of ,thales1 the prevailing interest was not physiological1 but rather what we should call meteorological1 and it is therefore from this point of view we must try to understand the theory4 ,footnote #hd3 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihc b #bb2 ,aet4 i4 #c1 #a2 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #cf1 #aj 7,r4 ,p4 #aj1 #ab1 #ab a74 ,the last of the explanations given by ,aristotle1 namely1 that ,thales was influenced by early cosmogonical theories about ,okeanos and ,tethys1 has strangely been supposed to be more historical than the rest1 whereas it is merely a fancy of ,plato's taken literally4 ,plato says more than once 7,tht4 #ahj d #b2 ,crat4 #djb b #d7 that ,herakleitos and his predecessors 7 7 derived their philosophy from ,homer 7,il4 xiv4 #bja71 and even earlier sources 7,orph4 frag4 #b1 ,diels1 ,vors4 #ast ed4 p4 #dia74 ,in quoting this suggestion1 ,aristotle refers it to 8some0--a word which often means ,plato--and he calls the originators of the theory 1 as ,plato had done 7,met4 #ihc b #bh2 cf4 ,tht4 #aha b #c74 ,this is a characteristic example of the way in which ,aristotle gets history out of ,plato4 ,see ,appendix1 #b4 ,footnote #he3 ,compare ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje b #b 7,r4 ,p4 #bbj7 with the passages referred to in the last note4 ,the same suggestion is made in ,zeller's fifth edition 7p4 #ahh1 n4 #a71 which ,i had not seen when the above was written4 ,dring1 8,thales0 7,zschr4 f4 ,philos4 #ahif1 pp4 #agi sqq471 takes the same view4 ,we now know that1 though ,aristotle declines to consider ,hippon as a philosopher 7,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #c2 ,r4 ,p4 #bai a71 he was discussed in the history of medicine known as ,menon's ,iatrika4 ,see ,diels in ,hermes1 xxviii4 p4 #dbj4 ,now it is not very hard to see how considerations of a meteorological kind may have led ,thales to adopt the view he did4 ,of all the things we know1 water seems to take the most various shapes4 ,it is familiar to us in a solid1 a liquid1 and a vaporous form1 and so ,thales may well have thought that he saw the world-process from water and back to water again going on before his very eyes4 ,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 sea4 ,even at the present day1 the country people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as 8the sun drawing water40 ,water comes down again in the rain2 and lastly1 so the early cosmologists thought1 it turns to earth4 ,this seems strange to us1 but it may have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar with the river of ,egypt which had formed the ,delta1 and with the torrents of ,asia ,minor1 which bring down unusually large alluvial deposits4 ,at the present day the ,gulf of ,latmos1 on which ,miletos used to stand1 is completely filled up4 ,lastly1 they thought1 earth turns once more to water--an idea derived from the observation of dew1 night-mists1 and subterranean springs4 ,for these last were not in early times supposed to have anything at all to do with the rain4 ,the 8waters under the earth0 were regarded as an entirely independent source of moisture4#hf ,footnote #hf3 ,the view here taken most resembles that of the 8,homeric allegorist0 ,herakleitos 7,r4 ,p4 #ab a74 ,that1 however1 is also a conjecture1 probably of ,stoic1 as the others are of ,peripatetic1 origin4 ,sidenote3 ,theology4 #aa4 ,the third of the statements mentioned above is supposed by ,aristotle himself to imply that ,thales believed in a 8soul of the world10 though he is careful to mark this as no more than an inference4#hg ,the doctrine of the world-soul is then attributed quite positively to ,thales by ,aetios1 who gives it in the ,stoic phraseology which he found in his immediate source1 and identifies the world-intellect with ,god4#hh ,cicero found a similar account of the matter in the ,epicurean manual which he followed1 but he goes a step further4 ,eliminating the ,stoic pantheism1 he turns the world-intellect into a ,platonic demiourgos1 and says that ,thales held there was a divine mind which formed all things out of water4#hi ,all this is derived from the cautious statement of ,aristotle1 and can have no greater authority than its source4 ,we need not enter1 then1 upon the old controversy whether ,thales was an atheist or not4 ,it is really irrelevant4 ,if we may judge from his successors1 he may very possibly have called water divine2 but1 if he had any religious beliefs at all1 we may be sure they were quite unconnected with his cosmological theory4 ,footnote #hg3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #e4 #daa a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ac74 ,footnote #hh3 ,aet4 i4 #g1 #aa ,stob4 i4 #ef 7,r4 ,p4 #ad74 ,on the sources here referred to1 see ,appendix1 #aa1 #ab4 ,footnote #hi3 ,cicero1 de ,nat4 ,d4 #a4 #be 7,r4 ,p4 #ac b74 ,on ,cicero's source1 see ,dox4 pp4 #abe1 #abh4 ,the ,herculanean papyrus of ,philodemos is1 unfortunately1 defective just at this point1 but it is not likely that the ,epicurean manual anticipated ,cicero's mistake4 ,nor must we make too much of the saying itself that 8all things are full of gods40 ,it is often supposed to mean that ,thales attributed a 8plastic life0 to matter1 or that he was a 8hylozoist40 ,we have seen already how misleading this way of speaking is apt to be1#ij and we shall do well to avoid it4 ,it is not safe to regard such an apophthegm as evidence for anything2 the chances are that it belongs to ,thales as one of the ,seven ,wise ,men1 rather than as founder of the ,milesian school4 ,further1 such sayings are1 as a rule1 anonymous to begin with1 and are attributed now to one sage and now to another4#ia ,on the other hand1 it is extremely probable that ,thales did say that the magnet and amber had souls4 ,that is no apophthegm1 but something more on the level of the statement that the earth floats on the water4 ,it is1 in fact1 just the sort of thing we should expect ,hekataios to record about ,thales4 ,it would be wrong1 however1 to draw any inferences from it as to his view of the world2 for to say that the magnet and amber are alive is to imply1 if anything1 that other things are not4#ib ,footnote #ij3 ,see ,introd4 ,,viii4 ,footnote #ia3 ,plato refers to the saying in ,laws1 #hii b #i 7,r4 ,p4 #ad b71 without mentioning ,thales4 ,that ascribed to ,herakleitos in the de part4 ,an4 1 #e4 #fde a #ag seems to be a mere variation on it4 ,so in ,diog4 ix4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #df d7 ,herakleitos is credited with the saying 4 ,footnote #ib3 ,bumker1 ,das ,problem der ,materie1 p4 #aj1 n4 #a4 ,,ii4 ,,anaximander ,sidenote3 ,life4 #ab4 ,the next name that has come down to us is that of ,anaximander1 son of ,praxiades4 ,he too was a citizen of ,miletos1 and ,theophrastos described him as an 8associate0 of ,thales4#ic ,we have seen how that expression is to be understood 7 ,,xiv474 ,according to ,apollodoros1 ,anaximander was sixty-four years old in ,ol4 ,,lviii4 #b 7#edg_/f ,b4,c472 and this is confirmed by ,hippolytos1 who says he was born in ,ol4 ,,xlii4 #c 7#faj_/i ,b4,c471 and by ,pliny1 who assigns his discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the same ,olympiad4#id ,we seem to have here something more than a mere combination of the ordinary type2 for1 according to all the rules of ,alexandrian chronology1 ,anaximander should have 8flourished0 in #efe ,b4,c41 that is1 just half-way between ,thales and ,anaximenes1 and this would make him sixty1 not sixty-four1 in #edf4 ,now ,apollodoros appears to have said that he had met with the work of ,anaximander2 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 conjecture4 ,diels suggests that ,anaximander may have given his age at the time of writing as sixty-four1 and that the book may have contained some other statement showing it to have been published in #edg_/f ,b4,c4#ie ,perhaps1 however1 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 ,persians4 ,it may be a more plausible conjecture that ,anaximander1 writing some years later1 incidentally mentioned what his age had been at the time of that great crisis4 ,we know from ,xenophanes that the question1 8,how old were you when the ,mede appeared80 was considered an interesting one in those days4#if ,at all events1 we seem to be justified in believing that ,anaximander was a generation younger than ,thales4 ,when he died we do not really know4#ig ,footnote #ic3 ,r4 ,p4 #ae d4 ,that the words 1 given by ,simplicius1 de ,caelo1 p4 #fae1 #ac1 are the original words of ,theophrastos is shown by the agreement of ,cic4 ,acad4 ii4 #aah1 popularis et sodalis4 ,the two passages represent quite independent branches of the tradition4 ,see ,appendix1 #g1 #ab4 ,footnote #id3 ,diog4 ii4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #ae72 ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,dox4 p4 #efj72 ,plin4 ,n4,h4 ii4 #ca4 ,pliny's dates come from ,apollodoros through ,nepos4 ,footnote #ie3 ,rhein4 ,mus4 xxxi4 p4 #bd4 ,footnote #if3 ,xenophanes1 fr4 #bb 7fr4 #ag1 ,karsten2 ,r4 ,p4 #ie a74 ,jacoby 7p4 #aij7 thinks that ,apollodoros fixed the floruit of ,anaximander forty years before that of ,pythagoras1 that is1 in #egb_/a ,b4,c41 and that the statement as to his age in #edg_/f is a mere inference from this4 ,footnote #ig3 ,the statement that he 8died soon after0 7,diog4 ii4 #b2 ,r4 ,p4 #ae7 seems to mean that ,apollodoros made him die in the year of ,sardeis 7#edf_/e71 one of his regular epochs4 ,if this is so1 ,apollodoros cannot have said also that he flourished in the days of ,polykrates1 and ,diels is probably right in supposing that this notice refers to ,pythagoras and has been inserted in the wrong place4 ,like his predecessor1 ,anaximander distinguished himself by certain practical inventions4 ,some writers credited him with that of the gnomon2 but that can hardly be correct4 ,herodotos tells us this instrument came from ,babylon1 so perhaps it was ,anaximander who made it known among the ,greeks4 ,he was also the first to construct a map1 and ,eratosthenes said this was the map elaborated by ,hekataios4#ih ,footnote #ih3 ,for the gnomon1 see ,introd4 p4 #ca1 n4 #dd2 and cf4 ,diog4 ii4 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #ae72 ,herod4 ii4 #aji 7,r4 ,p4 #ae a74 ,pliny1 on the other hand1 ascribes the invention of the gnomon to ,anaximenes 7,n4,h4 ii4 #hg74 ,the truth seems to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally ascribed to certain philosophers4 ,that of ,delos was referred to ,pherekydes4 ,for the map see ,agathemeros1 i4 #a1 1 ' 1 4 ,this is from ,eratosthenes4 ,cf4 ,strabo1 i4 p4 #g4 ,sidenote3 ,theophrastos on ,anaximander's theory of the primary substance4 #ac4 ,nearly all we know of ,anaximander's system is derived in the last resort from ,theophrastos4#ii ,as to the credibility of what we are told on his authority1 it is enough to remark that the original work1 which was in the hands of ,apollodoros1 must certainly have existed in the time of ,theophrastos4 ,moreover1 he seems once at least to have quoted ,anaximander's own words1 and he criticised his style4 ,here are the remains of what he said of him in the ,first ,book3-- ,anaximander of ,miletos1 son of ,praxiades1 a fellow-citizen and associate of ,thales1#ajj said that the material cause and first element of things was the ,infinite1 he being the first to introduce this name for the material cause4 ,he says it is neither water nor any other of the so-called#aja elements1 but a substance different from them which is infinite1 from which arise all the heavens and the worlds within them4--,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #b 7,dox4 p4 #dgf2 ,r4 ,p4 #af74 ,he says that this is eternal and ageless1 and that it encompasses all the worlds4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ag a74 ,and into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more1 8as is ordained2 for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to the appointed time10 as he says#ajb in these somewhat poetical terms4--,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #af74 ,and besides this1 there was an eternal motion1 in the course of which was brought about the origin of the worlds4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ag a74 ,he did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in matter1 but said that the oppositions in the substratum1 which was a boundless body1 were separated out4--,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aej1 #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #ah74 ,footnote #ii3 ,see the conspectus of extracts from ,theophrastos given by ,diels1 ,dox4 p4 #acc2 ,vors4 pp4 #ac sqq4 ,in this and other cases1 where the words of the original have been preserved by ,simplicius1 ,i have given them alone4 ,on the various writers quoted1 see ,appendix1 #i sqq4 ,footnote #ajj3 ,simplicius says 8successor and disciple0 7 7 in his ,commentary on the ,physics2 but see above1 p4 #eb1 n4 #b4 ,footnote #aja3 ,for the expression 1 see ,diels1 ,elementum1 p4 #be1 n4 #d4 ,in view of this1 we must keep the ,,ms4 reading 1 instead of writing with ,usener4 ,footnote #ajb3 ,diels 7,vors4 p4 #ac7 begins the actual quotation with the words 4444 ,the ,greek practice of blending quotations with the text tells against this4 ,it is very rare for a ,greek writer to open a verbal quotation abruptly4 ,further1 it is safer not to ascribe the terms and in their technical ,platonic sense to ,anaximander4 ,sidenote3 ,the primary substance is not one of the 8elements40 #ad4 ,anaximander taught1 then1 that there was one eternal1 indestructible substance out of which everything arises1 and into which everything once more returns2 a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is continually being made good4 ,this is only the natural development of the thought we have ventured to ascribe to ,thales1 and there can be no doubt that ,anaximander at least distinctly formulated it4 ,indeed1 we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which led him to do so4 ,thales had regarded water as the most likely of all the things we know to be that of which all others are forms2 ,anaximander appears to have asked himself how the primary substance could be one of these particular things4 ,his argument seems to be preserved by ,aristotle1 who has the following passage in his discussion of the ,infinite3-- ,further1 there cannot be a single1 simple body which is infinite1 either1 as some hold1 one distinct from the elements1 which they then derive from it1 nor without this qualification4 ,for there are some who make this 7i4e4 a body distinct from the elements7 the infinite1 and not air or water1 in order that the other things may not be destroyed by their infinity4 ,they are in opposition one to another--air is cold1 water moist1 and fire hot--and therefore1 if any one of them were infinite1 the rest would have ceased to be by this time4 ,accordingly they say that what is infinite is something other than the elements1 and from it the elements arise4--,arist4 ,phys4 1 #e4 #bjd b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #af b74 ,it is clear that in this passage ,anaximander is contrasted with ,thales and with ,anaximenes4 ,nor is there any reason to doubt that the account given of his reasoning is substantially correct1 though the form is ,aristotle's own1 and the mention of 8elements0 is an anachronism4#ajc ,anaximander was struck1 it would seem1 by the opposition and strife between the things which go to make up the world2 the warm fire was opposed to the cold air1 the dry earth to the moist sea4 ,these opposites were at war1 and any predominance of one over the other was an 8injustice0 for which they must make reparation to one another4#ajd ,we may suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows4 ,if ,thales had been right in saying that water was the fundamental reality1 it would not be easy to see how anything else could ever have existed4 ,one side of the opposition1 the cold and moist1 would have had its way unchecked1 injustice would have prevailed1 and the warm and dry would have been driven from the field long ago4 ,we must1 then1 have something which is not itself one of the warring opposites we know1 something more primitive1 out of which they arise1 and into which they once more pass away4 ,that ,anaximander called this something by the name of 1 is clear from the doxographers2 the current statement that the word in the sense of a 8first principle0 was introduced by him1 is probably due to a misunderstanding of what ,theophrastos said4#aje ,footnote #ajc3 ,the conception of elements is not older than ,empedokles 7 #ajf71 and the word 1 which is properly translated by elementa1 was first used in this sense by ,plato4 ,for the history of the term1 see ,diels1 ,elementum 7#ahii74 ,footnote #ajd3 ,the important word was omitted in the ,aldine ,simplicius1 but is in all the ,,mss4 ,we shall see that in ,herakleitos 8justice0 means the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the elements 7 #gb74 ,see also ,introd4 p4 #cb1 n4 #de4 ,footnote #aje3 ,if the words quoted from ,theophrastos by ,simplicius1 ,phys4 p4 #bd1 #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #af71 stood by themselves1 no one would ever have supposed them to mean that ,anaximander called the ,boundless 4 ,they would naturally be rendered3 8having been the first to introduce this name 7i4e4 7 for the 02 but the words of ,hippolytos 7,ref4 i4 #f1 #b71 1 have led nearly all writers to take the passage in the less obvious sense4 ,we now know1 however1 that ,hippolytos is no independent authority1 but rests altogether on ,theophrastos2 so the natural view to take is that either his immediate source1 or he himself1 or a copyist1 has dropped out before 1 and corrupted into 4 ,it is not credible that ,theophrastos made both statements4 ,the other passage from ,simplicius compared by ,usener 7p4 #aej1 #bc71 1 does not seem to me to have anything to do with the question4 ,it means simply that ,anaximander was the first to name the substratum as the 8material cause10 which is a different point altogether4 ,this is how ,neuhuser takes the passage 7,anaximander1 pp4 #g sqq472 but ,i cannot agree with him in holding that the word is ascribed to the ,milesian4 ,sidenote3 ,aristotle's account of the theory4 #ae4 ,it was natural for ,aristotle to regard this theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own doctrine of 8indeterminate matter40#ajf ,he knew very well1 of course1 that he himself was the author of that2 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 at4 ,it was to be expected1 then1 that he should sometimes express the views of ,anaximander in terms of the theory of 8elements40 ,he knew too that the ,boundless was a body1#ajg though in his own system there was no room for anything corporeal prior to the elements2 so he had to speak of it as a boundless body 8alongside of0 or 8distinct from0 the elements 7 74 ,so far as ,i know1 no one has doubted that1 when he uses this phrase1 he is referring to ,anaximander4 ,footnote #ajf3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #b4 #ajfi b #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #af c74 ,footnote #ajg3 ,this is taken for granted in ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #af2 #bjd b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #af b71 and stated in 1 #h4 #bjh a #h 7,r4 ,p4 #af a74 ,cf4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aej1 #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #ah74 ,in a number of other places ,aristotle speaks of a thinker1 whom he does not happen to name1 who held that the primary substance was something 8intermediate between0 the elements or between two of them4#ajh ,nearly all the ,greek commentators referred this to ,anaximander also1 but most modern writers refuse to follow them4 ,it is1 no doubt1 easy to show that ,anaximander can have never meant to describe the ,boundless in this way1 but that is no real objection to the older interpretation4 ,it is difficult to see that it is more of an anachronism to call the ,boundless 8intermediate between the elements0 than to say that it is 8distinct from the elements02 and indeed1 if once we introduce the elements at all1 the former description is in some ways the more adequate of the two4 ,at any rate1 if we refuse to understand these passages as referring to ,anaximander1 we shall have to say that ,aristotle paid a great deal of attention to some early thinker1 whose very name has been lost1 and who not only agreed with some of ,anaximander's views1 but also1 as is shown by one passage1 used some of his most characteristic expressions4#aji ,we may add that in one or two places ,aristotle certainly seems to identify the 8intermediate0 with the something 8distinct from0 the elements4#aaj ,footnote #ajh3 ,aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between ,fire and ,air 7,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a4 #cbh b #ce2 ib4 #e4 #ccb a #ba2 ,phys4 1 #d4 #ahg a #ad2 ,met4 1 #g4 #ihh a #cj74 ,in five places we have something intermediate between ,water and ,air 7,met4 1 #g4 #ihh a #ac2 ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #e4 #ccb a #ba2 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #ah2 ib4 #e4 #bje a #bg2 de ,caelo1 1 #e4 #cjc b #ab74 ,once 7,phys4 1 #f4 #ahi b #a7 we hear of something between ,water and ,fire4 ,this variation shows at once that he is not speaking historically4 ,if any one ever held the doctrine of 1 he must have known perfectly well which two elements he meant4 ,footnote #aji3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #e4 #cjc b #ab1 1 1 4 ,that this refers to ,idaios of ,himera1 as suggested by ,zeller 7p4 #beh71 seems very improbable4 ,aristotle nowhere mentions his name1 and the tone of his reference to ,hippon in ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #c 7,r4 ,p4 #bai a7 shows that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the of the ,milesian school4 ,footnote #aaj3 ,cf4 ,phys4 1 #e4 #bjd b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #af b71 where ,zeller rightly refers to ,anaximander4 ,now1 at the end 7#bje a #be7 the whole passage is summarised thus3 ' 1 ' 4 ,in ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a4 #cbh b #ce we have first 1 and a little further on 7#cbi a #i7 4 ,in 1 #e4 #ccb a #bj we have ' 1 4 ,there is even one place in which he appears to speak of ,anaximander's ,boundless as a 8mixture10 though his words may perhaps admit of another interpretation4#aaa ,but this is of no consequence for our interpretation of ,anaximander himself4 ,it is certain that he cannot have said anything about 8elements10 which no one thought of before ,empedokles1 and no one could think of before ,parmenides4 ,the question has only been mentioned at all because it has been the subject of a lengthy controversy1#aab and because it throws great light on the historical value of ,aristotle's statements4 ,from the point of view of his own system1 these are abundantly justified2 but we shall have to remember in other cases that1 when he seems to attribute an idea to some earlier thinker1 we are not in the least bound to believe what he says in a historical sense4 ,footnote #aaa3 ,met4 1 #b4 #ajfi b #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #af c74 ,zeller 7p4 #bje1 n4 #a7 assumes an 8easy zeugma40 ,i should prefer to say that was an afterthought1 and that ,aristotle really meant 444 4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ahg a #bj does not assign the 8mixture0 to ,anaximander4 ,footnote #aab3 ,for the literature of this controversy1 see ,r4 ,p4 #ae4 ,a good deal of light is thrown on this and similar questions by ,w4 ,a4 ,heidel1 8,qualitative ,change in ,pre-,socratic ,philosophy0 7,arch4 xix4 p4 #ccc74 ,sidenote3 ,the primary substance is infinite4 #af4 ,anaximander's reason for conceiving the primary substance as boundless was1 no doubt1 that indicated by ,aristotle1 namely1 8that becoming might not fail40#aac ,it is not likely1 however1 that these words are his own1 though the doxographers speak as if they were4 ,it is enough for us to know that ,theophrastos1 who had seen his book1 attributed the thought to him4 ,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 matter4 ,the 8opposites0 of which our world consists are1 we have seen1 at war with one another1 and their strife is marked by 8unjust0 encroachments on either side4 ,the warm commits 8injustice0 in summer1 the cold in winter4 ,to redress the balance1 they must be absorbed once more in their common ground2 and this would lead in the long run to the destruction of everything but the ,boundless itself1 if there were not an inexhaustible supply of it from which opposites might continually be separated out afresh4 ,we must picture to ourselves1 then1 an endless mass1 which is not any one of the opposites we know1 stretching out without limit on every side of the heavens which bound the world we live in4#aad ,this mass is a body1 and out of it our world once emerged by the 8separating out0 of the opposites1 which one day will all be absorbed again in the ,boundless1 and our world will cease to be4 ,footnote #aac3 ,phys4 1 #h4 #bjh a #h 7,r4 ,p4 #af a74 ,that this refers to ,anaximander is shown by ,aet4 i4 #c1 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #af a74 ,the same argument is given in ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc b #ah1 a passage where ,anaximander has just been quoted by name1 1 4 ,i cannot1 however1 believe that the arguments given at the beginning of this chapter 7#bjc b #g2 ,r4 ,p4 #ag7 are ,anaximander's4 ,they bear the stamp of the ,eleatic dialectic1 and are1 in fact1 those of ,melissos4 ,footnote #aad3 ,i have assumed that the word means spatially infinite 7though not in any precise mathematical sense71 not qualitatively indeterminate1 as maintained by ,teichmller and ,tannery4 ,the decisive reasons for holding that the sense of the word is 8boundless in extent0 are as follows3 7#a7 ,theophrastos said that the primary substance of ,anaximander was and contained all the worlds1 and the word everywhere means 8to encompass10 not1 as has been suggested1 8to contain potentially40 7#b7 ,aristotle says 7,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc b #bc7 ' 1 4 7#c7 ,anaximander's theory of the was adopted by ,anaximenes1 and he identified it with ,air1 which is not qualitatively indeterminate4 ,sidenote3 ,the eternal motion4 #ag4 ,the doxographers say it was the 8eternal motion0 that brought into being 8all the heavens and all the worlds within them40 ,as we have seen 7 ,,viii71 it is not likely that ,anaximander himself used the phrase 8eternal motion40 ,that is rather ,aristotle's own version of what he found stated about the 8separating out0 of opposites4 ,we are not told expressly how ,anaximander conceived this to operate1 but the term 8separating out0 suggests some process of shaking and sifting as in a sieve4 ,now it is just such a process that ,plato makes the ,pythagorean ,timaios describe1 and the most probable theory is certainly that here1 as in many other cases1 he has reproduced a genuinely early view4 ,as we shall see1 it is quite likely that the ,pythagoreans should have followed ,anaximander in this4#aae ,in any case1 it is wrong to identify the 8eternal motion0 with the diurnal revolution of the heavens1 as has sometimes been done4 ,that motion cannot possibly be eternal1 for the simple reason that the heavens themselves are perishable4 ,aristotle says1 indeed1 that all who believe the world has come into being represent the earth as having been forced into the centre by the circular motion2#aaf but1 though this doubtless refers to ,anaximander among others1 it is quite irrelevant here4 ,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 heaven1 and we shall have to remember it when we come to that part of the theory4 ,at present1 we have only to do with the motion of the ,boundless itself2 and1 if we wish to picture that1 it is much safer to regard it as a sort of shaking up and down which sorts out the opposites from the infinite mass4 ,footnote #aae3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #eb e1 where the elements are separated by being shaken1 stirred1 and carried in different directions3 8just as by sieves and instruments for winnowing corn1 the grain is shaken and sifted1 and the dense and heavy parts go one way1 and the rare and light are carried to a different place and settle there40 ,for the relation of ,pythagoreanism to ,anaximander1 see below1 #ec4 ,footnote #aaf3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bie a #i4 ,the identification of the eternal motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by ,teichmller and ,tannery1 and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation which they give to the word 4 ,it was obviously difficult to credit ,anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in a circle4 ,the whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite spherical within the and the infinite outside it4 ,sidenote3 ,the innumerable worlds4 #ah4 ,we are told more than once that ,anaximander believed there were 8innumerable worlds in the ,boundless10#aag and it is now usual to regard these with ,zeller as an infinite series succeeding one another in time4 ,it may be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea that the worlds are coexistent and eternal is decisive4 ,to suppose that ,anaximander regarded this or any other world as eternal1 is a flat contradiction of everything we otherwise know1 and of the ,theophrastean tradition that he taught the world was perishable4 ,we have1 then1 to decide between the view that1 though all the worlds are perishable1 there may be an unlimited number of them in existence at the same time1 and the view that a new world never comes into existence till the old one has passed away4 ,now1 ,zeller allows#aah that there is nothing in the first of these views that is inconsistent with what we know of ,anaximander2 but he thinks all the statements which have come down to us point rather to the second4 ,it seems to me that this is by no means the case1 and1 as the matter is of fundamental importance1 it will be necessary to examine the evidence once more4 ,footnote #aag3 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #ba b74 ,the words are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an or cycle of and in each of a multitude of coexistent worlds4 ,it would be a very strange phrase to use of a succession of single worlds4 ,footnote #aah3 ,zeller1 pp4 #bcd sqq4 ,in the first place1 the doxographical tradition proves that ,theophrastos discussed the views of all the early philosophers as to whether there was one world or an infinite number1 and there can be no doubt that1 when he ascribed 8innumerable worlds0 to the ,atomists1 he meant coexistent and not successive worlds4 ,now1 if he had really classed two such different views under one head1 he would at least have been careful to point out in what respect they differed1 and there is no trace of any such distinction in our tradition4 ,on the contrary1 ,anaximander1 ,anaximenes1 ,archelaos1 ,xenophanes1 ,diogenes1 ,leukippos1 ,demokritos1 and ,epicurus are all mentioned together as holding the doctrine of 8innumerable worlds0 on all sides of this one1#aai and the only distinction drawn between their views is that1 while ,epicurus made the distances between these worlds unequal1 ,anaximander said all the worlds were equidistant4#abj ,zeller rejected this evidence1 which he supposed to be merely that of ,stobaios1 on the ground that we can have no confidence in a writer who attributes 8innumerable worlds0 to ,anaximenes1 ,archelaos1 and ,xenophanes4 ,with regard to the first two1 ,i hope to show that the statement is quite correct1 and that it is not even incorrect in the case of the last4#aba ,in any case1 it can be proved that the passage comes from ,aetios1#abb and there is no reason for doubting that1 in the last resort1 it is derived from ,theophrastos1 though the name of ,epicurus may have been added later4 ,this is still further confirmed by what ,simplicius says in his commentary on the ,physics4#abc ,those who assumed innumerable worlds1 e4g4 ,anaximander1 ,leukippos1 ,demokritos1 and1 at a later date1 ,epicurus1 held that they came into being and passed away ad infinitum1 some always coming into being and others passing away4 ,footnote #aai3 ,aet4 ii4 #a1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cbg74 ,zeller is wrong in understanding here of the revolution of a cycle4 ,it means simply 8in every direction we turn10 and so does the alternative reading 4 ,the six are 1 1 1 1 1 7,nicom4 ,introd4 p4 #he1 #aa1 ,hoche71 and ,polybios uses of surrounding space4 ,footnote #abj3 ,aet4 ii4 #a1 #h 7,dox4 p4 #cbi71 1 4 ,footnote #aba3 ,for ,anaximenes1 see #cj2 ,xenophanes1 #ei2 ,archelaos1 ,chap4 ,x4 ,footnote #abb3 ,this is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by ,theodoret4 ,see ,appendix1 #aj4 ,footnote #abc3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aaba1 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #ba b74 ,zeller says 7p4 #bcd1 n4 #d7 that ,simplicius elsewhere 7de ,caelo1 p4 #bgc b #dc7 makes the same statement more doubtfully4 ,but the words 1 on which he relies1 are hardly an expression of doubt1 and refer1 in any case1 to the derivation of the doctrine of 8innumerable worlds0 from that of the 1 not to the doctrine itself4 ,it is probable that this too comes from ,theophrastos through ,alexander4 ,simplicius does not invent such things4 ,we come lastly to a very important statement which ,cicero has copied from ,philodemos1 the author of the ,epicurean treatise on ,religion found at ,herculaneum1 or perhaps from the immediate source of that work4 8,anaximander's opinion was10 he makes ,velleius say1 8that there were gods who came into being1 rising and passing away at long intervals1 and that these were the innumerable worlds02#abd and this must clearly be taken along with the statement of ,aetios to the effect that1 according to ,anaximander1 the 8innumerable heavens0 were gods4#abe ,now it is very much more natural to understand the 8long intervals0 which ,cicero mentions as intervals of space than as intervals of time2#abf and1 if we take the passage in this way1 we have a perfect agreement among all our authorities4 ,footnote #abd3 ,cicero1 de ,nat4 ,d4 i4 #be 7,r4 ,p4 #ba74 ,footnote #abe3 ,aet4 i4 #g1 #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #ba a74 ,the reading of ,stob41 1 is guaranteed by the of ,cyril1 and the 7i4e4 7 of the pseudo-,galen4 ,see ,dox4 p4 #aa4 ,it may be added that it is very unnatural to understand the statement that the ,boundless 8encompasses all the worlds0 of worlds succeeding one another in time2 for on this view there is at a given time only one world to 8encompass40 ,moreover1 the argument mentioned by ,aristotle that1 if what is outside the heavens is infinite1 body must be infinite1 and there must be innumerable worlds1 can only be understood in this sense1 and is certainly intended to represent the reasoning of the ,milesians2 for they were the only cosmologists who held there was a boundless body outside the heavens4#abg ,lastly1 we happen to know that ,petron1 one of the earliest ,pythagoreans1 held there were just one hundred and eighty-three worlds arranged in a triangle1#abh which shows that views of this sort existed long before the ,atomists1 and looks like an attempt to introduce some order into ,anaximander's universe4 ,footnote #abf3 ,it is simplest to suppose that ,cicero found in his ,epicurean source1 and that is a technical term for the intermundia4 ,footnote #abg3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc b #be1 ' 7sc4 71 7sc4 74 ,it is to be observed that the next words-- 2--show clearly that this refers to the ,atomists as well2 but the will not apply to them4 ,the suggestion is rather that both those who made the ,boundless a body and those who made it a held the doctrine of in the same sense4 ,footnote #abh3 ,see below1 #ec4 ,cf4 ,diels1 ,elementum1 pp4 #fc sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,origin of the heavenly bodies4 #ai4 ,the doxographers have not left us in the dark as to the process by which the different parts of the world arose from the ,boundless4 ,the following statement comes ultimately from ,theophrastos3-- ,he says that something capable of begetting hot and cold was separated off from the eternal at the origin of this world4 ,from this arose a sphere of flame which grew round the air encircling the earth1 as the bark grows round a tree4 ,when this was torn off and enclosed in certain rings1 the sun1 moon1 and stars came into existence4--,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #ai74 ,we see from this that when a portion of the ,boundless had been separated off from the rest to form a world1 it first of all differentiated itself into the two opposites1 hot and cold4 ,the hot appears as a sphere of flame surrounding the cold2 the cold1 as earth with air surrounding it4 ,we are not told1 however1 in this extract how the cold came to be differentiated into earth1 air1 and water2 but there is a passage in ,aristotle's ,meteorology which throws some light on the subject4 ,we read there3-- ,but those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an origin for the sea4 ,at first1 they say1 all the terrestrial region was moist2 and1 as it was dried up by the sun1 the portion of it that evaporated produced the winds and the turnings of the sun and moon1 while the portion left behind was the sea4 ,so they think the sea is becoming smaller by being dried up1 and that at last it will all be dry4--,meteor4 1 #a4 #cec b #e4 99 99 99 99 99 ,and the same absurdity arises for those who say that the earth and the terrestrial part of the world at first were moist1 but that air arose from the heat of the sun1 and that the whole world was thus increased1 and that this is the cause of winds and the turnings of the heavens4#abi--;,ib4 #b4 #cee a #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #bj a74 ,in his commentary on the passage1 ,alexander tells us that this was the view of ,anaximander and ,diogenes2 and what he says is amply confirmed by ,anaximander's theory of the sea as it is given by the doxographers 7 #bj74 ,we conclude1 then1 that after the first separation of the hot and the cold1 the heat of the sphere of flame turned part of the moist1 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 rings4 ,i give the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of the heavenly bodies from these rings as it has been preserved by ,hippolytos1 with some supplements from ,aetios3-- ,the heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from the fire which encircles the world1 and enclosed in air4 ,and they have breathing-holes1 certain pipe-like passages at which the heavenly bodies are seen4 ,for this reason1 too1 when the breathing-holes are stopped1 eclipses occur4 ,and the moon appears now to wax and now to wane because of the stopping and opening of the passages4 ,the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times the size 7of the earth1 while that7 of the moon is eighteen times as large4#acj ,the sun is highest of all1 and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #bj74 ,anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of air1 full of fire1 breathing out flames at a certain point from orifices4 ,the sun was highest of all1 after it came the moon1 and below these the fixed stars and the planets4--,aetios1 ii4 #ac1 #g2 #ae1 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ai a74 ,anaximander said the sun was a ring twenty-eight times the size of the earth1 like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow and full of fire1 showing the fire at a certain point1 as if through the nozzle of a pair of bellows4--,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #ai a74 ,anaximander said the sun was equal to the earth1 but the ring from which it breathes out and by which it is carried round was twenty-seven times as large as the earth4--,aet4 ii4 #ba1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cea74 ,anaximander said the moon was a ring eighteen times the size of the earth4444--,aet4 ii4 #be1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cee74aca ,anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused by the blast4 ,when it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts forth with violence1 then the breakage of the cloud makes the noise1 and the rift gives the appearance of a flash by contrast with the darkness of the cloud4--,aet4 iii4 #c1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cfg74 ,anaximander held that wind was a current of air 7i4e4 vapour7 which arose when its finest and moistest particles were set in motion or dissolved by the sun4--,aet4 iii4 #f1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cgd74 ,rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the earth by the sun4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f1 #g 7,dox4 p4 #efj74 ,footnote #abi3 ,zeller's difficulty about the meaning of here 7p4 #bbc1 n4 #b7 seems to be an imaginary one4 ,the moon has certainly a movement in declination and1 therefore1 7,dreyer1 ,planetary ,systems1 p4 #ag1 n4 #a74 ,footnote #acj3 ,i assume with ,diels 7,dox4 p4 #efj7 that something has fallen out in our text of ,hippolytos4 ,i have1 however1 with ,tannery1 ,science hellne1 p4 #ia1 supplied 8eighteen times0 rather than 8nineteen times40 ,zeller 7p4 #bbd1 n4 #b7 prefers the text of our ,,ms4 of ,hippolytos to the testimony of ,aetios4 ,footnote #aca3 ,aetios goes on to say that the moon also is like a hollow cart-wheel full of fire with an 4 ,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 rings4 ,cf4 ,tannery1 ,science hellne1 p4 #ia2 and ,diels1 8,ueber ,anaximanders ,kosmos0 7,arch4 x4 pp4 #bca sqq474 ,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 moist1 cold interior4 ,we must remember that ,anaximander knew nothing of the ring of ,saturn4 ,there are three of these rings1 that of the sun1 that of the moon1 and1 lastly1 nearest to the earth1 the circle of the stars4 ,the circle of the sun was twenty-seven times1 and that of the moon eighteen times as large as the earth1 from which we may perhaps infer that the circle of the stars was nine times as large4 ,the numbers nine1 eighteen1 twenty-seven1 play a considerable part in primitive cosmogonies4#acb ,we do not see the rings of fire as complete circles2 for the mist that formed them encloses the fire1 and becomes an outer ring of opaque vapour4 ,these outer rings1 however1 have openings at one point of their circumference1 through which the fire escapes1 and these are the heavenly bodies we actually see4#acc ,footnote #acb3 ,as ,diels points out 7,arch4 x4 p4 #bbi7 the explanation given by ,gomperz1 p4 #ec1 cannot be right4 ,it implies the fifth century theory of 4 ,anaximander knew nothing of the 8great mass0 of the sun4 ,footnote #acc3 ,the true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by ,diels 7,dox4 pp4 #be sqq474 ,the flames rush forth per magni circum spiracula mundi1 as ,lucretius has it 7vi4 #dic74 ,the 1 to which these are compared1 is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows1 a sense which the word has in ,apollonios ,rhodios 7iv4 #ggf71 and has nothing to do with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name1 for which see ,chap4 ,,iii4 #ga4 ,it is not now necessary to refute the earlier interpretations4 ,it will be observed that we only hear of three circles1 and that the circle of the sun is the highest4 ,the circle of the stars presents some difficulty4 ,it is1 in all probability1 the ,milky ,way1 the appearance of which may well have suggested the whole theory4#acd ,it seems that ,anaximander must have thought it had more 8breathing-holes0 than one1 though the tradition is silent on this point4 ,there is not the slightest reason for supposing that he regarded it as a sphere4 ,he could not have failed to see that a sphere so placed would make the sun and moon permanently invisible4 ,what1 then1 are we to say of the fixed stars that do not lie in the ,milky ,way8 ,there seems to be no way of accounting for them unless we assume that they are the 8innumerable worlds0 which we have just discussed4 ,as the fire and air which surrounded the world have been broken up into rings1 we must be able to see right out into the ,boundless1 and the fixed stars must be just the worlds1 each surrounded by its fiery envelope4 ,it does not seem possible to explain all we are told in any other way2 and1 if this is right1 the statement of some authors1 that ,anaximander regarded the stars of heaven as gods1 may be more than the mere mistake which it is now generally taken to be4#ace ,footnote #acd3 ,it cannot be the ,zodiac2 for the planets were not separately studied yet4 ,footnote #ace3 ,the ,placita and ,eusebios both have instead of 7see above1 p4 #fe1 n4 #b71 and it seems just possible that this is not a mere corruption of the text4 ,the common source may have had both statements4 ,i do not1 however1 rest the interpretation given above on this very insecure basis4 ,quite apart from it1 it seems to be the only way out of the difficulty4 ,the explanation given of thunder and lightning was very similar4 ,they too were caused by fire breaking through compressed air1 that is to say1 through the storm-clouds4 ,it seems probable that this is really the origin of the theory1 and that ,anaximander explained the heavenly bodies on the analogy of lightning1 not vice versa4 ,that would be in perfect agreement with the meteorological interest of the time4 ,sidenote3 ,earth and sea4 #bj4 ,we turn now to what we are told of the origin of earth and sea from the moist1 cold matter which was 8separated off0 in the beginning1 and which filled the inside of the sphere of flame3-- ,the sea is what is left of the original moisture4 ,the fire has dried up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching it4--,aet4 iii4 #af1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bj a74 ,he says that the earth is cylindrical in form1 and that its depth is as a third part of its4 breadth4--,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,the earth swings free1 held in its place by nothing4 ,it stays where it is because of its equal distance from everything4 ,its shape is convex and round1 and like a stone pillar4 ,we are on one of the surfaces1 and the other is on the opposite side4#acf--;,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #bj74 ,footnote #acf3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,hippolytos have 4 ,roeper read 1 supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first2 but ,diels has shown 7,dox4 p4 #bah7 that both are wanted4 ,the first means 8convex10 and applies to the surface of the earth2 while the second means 8round10 and refers to its circuit4 ,as to 1 it is not easy to say anything positive4 ,it might1 possibly1 be a mere corruption of 7cf4 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #b2 ,r4 ,p4 #bj a72 but1 if so1 it is a very old one4 ,aetios 7iii4 #aj1 #b71 who is quite independent of ,hippolytos1 has 2 ,roeper suggested 2 ,teichmller1 2 while ,diels doubtfully puts forward 1 which he suggests might be a ,theophrastean modernisation of an original 7,dox4 p4 #bai74 ,adopting for a moment the later theory of 8elements10 we see that ,anaximander put fire on one side as 8the hot10 and all the rest on the other as 8the cold10 which is also moist4 ,this may explain how ,aristotle came to speak of the ,boundless as intermediate between fire and water4 ,and we have seen also that the moist element was partly turned into 8air0 or vapour by the fire1 which explains how he could say the ,boundless was something between fire and air1 or between air and water4#acg ,footnote #acg3 ,see above1 p4 #eh1 n4 #dh4 ,the moist1 cold interior of the world is not1 it will be noticed1 pure water4 ,it is always called 8the moist0 or 8the moist state40 ,that is because it has to be still further differentiated under the influence of heat into earth1 water1 and vapour4 ,the gradual drying up of the water by the fire is a good example of what ,anaximander meant by 8injustice40 ,and we see how this injustice brings about the destruction of the world4 ,the fire will in time dry up and burn up the whole of the cold1 moist element4 ,but then it will not be fire any longer2 it will simply be the 8mixture10 if we choose to call it so1 of the hot and cold--that is1 it will be the same as the ,boundless which surrounds it1 and will pass away into it4 ,the view which ,anaximander takes of the earth is a great advance upon anything we can reasonably attribute to ,thales1 and ,aristotle has preserved the arguments by which he supported it4 ,it is equally distant from the extremes in every direction1 and there is no reason for it to move up or down or sideways4#ach ,still1 he does not attain to the idea that it is spherical4 ,he believes that we live on a convex disc1 and from this the cylindrical form follows as a matter of course4 ,the really remarkable thing is that he should have seen1 however dimly1 that there is no absolute up and down in the world4 ,footnote #ach3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bie b #aj1 7 7 1 4 ,that ,aristotle is really reproducing ,anaximander seems to be shown by the use of in the old sense of 8equality40 ,sidenote3 ,animals4 #ba4 ,we have seen enough to show us that the speculations of ,anaximander about the world were of an extremely daring character2 we come now to the crowning audacity of all1 his theory of the origin of living creatures4 ,the ,theophrastean account of this has been well preserved by the doxographers3-- ,living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun4 ,man was like another animal1 namely1 a fish1 in the beginning4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #bb a74 ,the first animals were produced in the moisture1 each enclosed in a prickly bark4 ,as they advanced in age1 they came out upon the drier part4 ,when the bark broke off1#aci they survived for a short time4--,aet4 v4 #ai1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bb74 ,further1 he says that originally man was born from animals of another species4 ,his reason is that while other animals quickly find food by themselves1 man alone requires a lengthy period of suckling4 ,hence1 had he been originally as he is now1 he would never have survived4--,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,he declares that at first human beings arose in the inside of fishes1 and after having been reared like sharks1#adj and become capable of protecting themselves1 they were finally cast ashore and took to land4--,plut4 ,symp4 ,quaest4 #gcj f 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,footnote #aci3 ,this is to be understood in the light of what we are told about below4 ,cf4 ,arist4 ,hist4 ,an4 1 #aj4 #efe a #be1 1 1 1 4 ,footnote #adj3 ,reading for with ,doehner1 who compares ,plut4 de soll4 anim4 #ihb a1 where the of the shark is described4 ,see p4 #gd1 n4 #ada4 ,the importance of these statements has sometimes been overrated and still more often underestimated4 ,anaximander has been called a precursor of ,darwin by some1 while others have treated the whole thing as a mythological survival4 ,it is therefore important to notice that this is one of the rare cases where we have not merely a placitum1 but an indication1 meagre though it be1 of the observations on which it was based1 and the line of argument by which it was supported4 ,it is clear from this that ,anaximander had an idea of what is meant by adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest1 and that he saw the higher mammals could not represent the original type of animal4 ,for this he looked to the sea1 and he naturally fixed upon those fishes which present the closest analogy to the mammalia4 ,the statements of ,aristotle about the galeus levis were shown long ago by ,johannes ,mller to be more accurate than those of later naturalists1 and we now know that these observations were already made by ,anaximander4 ,the manner in which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with the very thing he required to explain the survival of the earliest animals4#ada ,footnote #ada3 ,on ,aristotle and the galeus levis1 see ,johannes ,mller1 8,ueber den glatten ,hai des ,aristoteles0 7,k4 ,preuss4 ,akad41 #ahdb71 to which my attention has been directed by my colleague1 ,prof4 ,d',arcy ,thomson4 ,the precise point of the words appears from ,arist4 ,hist4 ,an4 1 #aj4 #efe b #a1 1 1 1 4 ,it is not necessary to suppose that ,anaximander referred to the further phenomenon described by ,aristotle1 who more than once says that all the except the 8send out their young and take them back again0 7 1 ib4 #efe b #bc71 for which compare also ,ael4 i4 #ag2 ,plut4 de soll4 anim4 #ihb a4 ,the placenta and umbilical cord described by ,johannes ,mller will account sufficiently for all he says4 ,at the same time1 ,i understand that deep-sea fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also1 and two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they have seen the thing happen with their own eyes4 ,sidenote3 ,theology4 #bb4 ,in the course of our discussion of the 8innumerable worlds0 we saw that ,anaximander regarded these as gods4 ,it is true1 of course1 as ,zeller says1#adb that to the ,greeks the word meant primarily an object of worship1 and he rightly adds that no one would think of worshipping innumerable worlds4 ,this1 however1 is no real objection to our interpretation1 though it serves to bring out an interesting point in the development of ,greek theological ideas4 ,the philosophers1 in fact1 departed altogether from the received usage of the word 4 ,empedokles called the ,sphere and the ,elements gods1 though it is not to be supposed that he regarded them as objects of worship1 and in the same way we shall find that ,diogenes of ,apollonia spoke of ,air as a god4#adc ,as we may learn from the ,clouds of ,aristophanes1 it was just this way of speaking that got philosophers the name of being 4 ,it is of great importance to bear this point in mind2 for1 when we come to ,xenophanes1 we shall see that the god or gods he spoke of meant just the world or worlds4 ,it seems also that ,anaximander called the ,boundless itself divine1#add which is quite in accordance with the language of ,empedokles and ,diogenes referred to above4 ,footnote #adb3 ,zeller1 p4 #bcj4 ,footnote #adc3 ,for ,empedokles1 see ,chap4 ,v4 #aai2 and for ,diogenes1 ,chap4 ,x4 #ahh1 fr4 #e4 ,the cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists in this4 ,no one worshipped ,okeanos and ,tethys1 or even ,ouranos4 ,footnote #add3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc b #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #ag74 ,,iii4 ,,anaximenes ,sidenote3 ,life4 #bc4 ,anaximenes of ,miletos1 son of ,eurystratos1 was1 according to ,theophrastos1 an 8associate0 of ,anaximander4#ade ,apollodoros said1 it appears1 that he 8flourished0 about the time of the fall of ,sardeis 7#edf_/e ,b4,c471 and died in ,ol4 ,,lxiii4 7#ebh_/ebd ,b4,c474#adf ,in other words1 he was born when ,thales 8flourished10 and 8flourished0 when ,thales died1 and this means that ,apollodoros had no definite information about his date at all4 ,he most probably made him die in the sixty-third ,olympiad because that gives just a hundred years1 or three generations1 for the ,milesian school from the birth of ,thales4 ,we cannot1 therefore1 say anything positive as to his date1 except that he must have been younger than ,anaximander1 and must have flourished before #did ,b4,c41 when the school was1 of course1 broken up by the destruction of ,miletos4 ,footnote #ade3 ,theophr4 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #bf74 ,footnote #adf3 ,this follows from a comparison of ,diog4 ii4 #c4 with ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #bc74 ,in the latter passage we must1 however1 read for with ,diels4 ,the suggestion in ,r4 ,p4 #bc e that ,apollodoros mentioned the ,olympiad without giving the number of the year is inadequate2 for ,apollodoros did not reckon by ,olympiads1 but ,athenian archons4 ,jacoby 7p4 #aid7 brings the date of his death into connexion with the floruit of ,pythagoras1 which seems to me less probable4 ,lortzing 7,jahresber41 #ahih1 p4 #bjb7 objects to my view on the ground that the period of a hundred years plays no part in ,apollodoros's calculations4 ,it will be seen1 however1 from ,jacoby1 pp4 #ci sqq41 that there is some reason for believing he made use of the generation of #cc years4 ,sidenote3 ,his book4 #bd4 ,anaximenes wrote a book which certainly survived until the age of literary criticism2 for we are told that he used a simple and unpretentious ,ionic1#adg very different1 we may suppose1 from the poetical prose of ,anaximander4#adh ,we may probably trust this criticism1 which comes ultimately from ,theophrastos2 and it furnishes a good illustration of the truth that the character of a man's thoughts is sure to find expression in his style4 ,we have seen that the speculations of ,anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood and breadth2 those of ,anaximenes are marked by just the opposite quality4 ,he appears to have thought out his system carefully1 but he rejects the more audacious theories of his predecessor4 ,the result is that1 while his view of the world is on the whole much less like the truth than ,anaximander's1 it is more fruitful in ideas that were destined to hold their ground4 ,footnote #adg3 ,diog4 ii4 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #bc74 ,footnote #adh3 ,cf4 the statement of ,theophrastos above1 #ac4 ,sidenote3 ,theory of the primary substance4 #be4 ,anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom ,theophrastos wrote a special monograph2#adi and this gives us an additional guarantee for the trustworthiness of the tradition derived from his great work4 ,the following#aej 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 system3-- ,anaximenes of ,miletos1 son of ,eurystratos1 who had been an associate of ,anaximander1 said1 like him1 that the underlying substance was one and infinite4 ,he did not1 however1 say it was indeterminate1 like ,anaximander1 but determinate2 for he said it was ,air4--,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #bf74 ,from it1 he said1 the things that are1 and have been1 and shall be1 the gods and things divine1 took their rise1 while other things come from its offspring4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #bh74 8,just as10 he said1 8our soul1 being air1 holds us together1 so do breath and air encompass the whole world40--,aet4 i4 #c1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #bd74 ,and the form of the air is as follows4 ,where it is most even1 it is invisible to our sight2 but cold and heat1 moisture and motion1 make it visible4 ,it is always in motion2 for1 if it were not1 it would not change so much as it does4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #bh74 ,it differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction and condensation4--,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #bf74 ,when it is dilated so as to be rarer1 it becomes fire2 while winds1 on the other hand1 are condensed ,air4 ,cloud is formed from ,air by felting2#aea and this1 still further condensed1 becomes water4 ,water1 condensed still more1 turns to earth2 and when condensed as much as it can be1 to stones4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #bh74aeb ,footnote #adi3 ,on these monographs see ,dox4 p4 #ajc4 ,footnote #aej3 ,see the conspectus of extracts from ,theophrastos given in ,dox4 p4 #ace4 ,footnote #aea3 8,felting0 77 is the regular term for this process with all the early cosmologists1 from whom ,plato has taken it 7,tim4 #eh b #d2 #gf c #c74 ,footnote #aeb3 ,a more condensed form of the same doxographical tradition is given by ,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #be74 ,sidenote3 ,rarefaction and condensation4 #bf4 ,at the first glance1 this undoubtedly looks like a falling off from the more refined doctrine of ,anaximander to a cruder view2 but a moment's reflexion will show that this is not altogether the case4 ,on the contrary1 the introduction of rarefaction and condensation into the theory is a notable advance4#aec ,in fact1 it makes the ,milesian cosmology thoroughly consistent for the first time2 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 quantitative4 ,the infinite substance of ,anaximander1 from which the opposites 8in it0 are 8separated out10 cannot1 strictly speaking1 be thought of as homogeneous1 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 space4 ,and when once this important step has been taken1 it is no longer necessary to make the primary substance something 8distinct from the elements10 to use ,aristotle's inaccurate but convenient phrase2 it may just as well be one of them4 ,footnote #aec3 ,simplicius1 ,phys4 p4 #adi1 #cb 7,r4 ,p4 #bf b71 says1 according to the ,,mss41 that ,theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the case of ,anaximenes alone4 ,we must either suppose with ,zeller 7p4 #aic1 n4 #b7 that this means 8alone among the oldest ,ionians0 or read for with ,usener4 ,the regular terms are and or 4 ,plutarch1 de prim4 frig4 #idg f 7,r4 ,p4 #bg71 says that ,anaximenes used the term for the rarefied air4 ,sidenote3 ,air4 #bg4 ,the air that ,anaximenes speaks of includes a good deal that we should not call by that name4 ,in its normal condition1 when most evenly distributed1 it is invisible1 and it then corresponds to our 8air02 it is identical with the breath we inhale and the wind that blows4 ,that is why he called it 4 ,on the other hand1 the old idea1 familiar to us in ,homer1 that mist or vapour is condensed air1 is still accepted without question4 ,in other words1 we may say that ,anaximenes supposed it to be a good deal easier to get liquid air than it has since proved to be4 ,it was ,empedokles1 we shall see1 who first discovered that what we call air was a distinct corporeal substance1 and was not identical either with vapour or with empty space4 ,in the earlier cosmologists 8air0 is always a form of vapour1 and even darkness is a form of it4 ,it was ,empedokles who cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is a shadow4#aed ,footnote #aed3 ,for the meaning of in ,homer1 see ,schmidt1 ,synonomik1 #ce2 and for its survival in ,ionic prose1 ,hippokrates1 1 1 1 #ae1 4 ,plato is still conscious of the old meaning of the word2 for he makes ,timaios say 77 1 7,tim4 #eh d74 ,the view given in the text has been criticised by ,tannery1 8,une nouvelle hypothse sur ,anaximandre0 7,arch4 viii4 pp4 #ddc sqq471 and ,i have slightly altered my expression of it to meet these criticisms4 ,the point is of fundamental importance1 as we shall see1 for the interpretation of ,pythagoreanism4 ,it was natural for ,anaximenes to fix upon ,air in this sense as the primary substance2 for1 in the system of ,anaximander1 it occupied an intermediate place between the two fundamental opposites1 the sphere of flame and the cold1 moist mass within it 7 #ai74 ,we know from ,plutarch that he fancied air became warmer when rarefied1 and colder when condensed4 ,of this he satisfied himself by a curious experimental proof4 ,when we breathe with our mouths open1 the air is warm2 when we breathe with our lips closed1 it is cold4#aee ,footnote #aee3 ,plut4 de prim4 frig4 #idg f 7,r4 ,p4 #bg74 ,sidenote3 ,the world breathes4 #bh4 ,this argument from human breathing brings us to an important point in the theory of ,anaximenes1 which is attested by the single fragment that has come down to us4#aef 8,just as our soul1 being air1 holds us together1 so do breath and air encompass the whole world40 ,the primary substance bears the same relation to the life of the world as to that of man4 ,now this1 we shall see1 was the ,pythagorean view2#aeg and it is also an early instance of the argument from the microcosm to the macrocosm1 and so marks the first beginnings of an interest in physiological matters4 ,footnote #aef3 ,aet4 i4 #c1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #bd74 ,footnote #aeg3 ,see ,chap4 ,,ii4 #ec4 ,sidenote3 ,the parts of the world4 #bi4 ,we turn now to the doxographical tradition concerning the formation of the world and its parts3-- ,he says that1 as the air was felted1 the earth first came into being4 ,it is very broad and is accordingly supported by the air4--,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #be74 ,in the same way the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies1 which are of a fiery nature1 are supported by the air because of their breadth4 ,the heavenly bodies were produced from the earth by moisture rising from it4 ,when this is rarefied1 fire comes into being1 and the stars are composed of the fire thus raised aloft4 ,there were also bodies of earthy substance in the region of the stars1 revolving along with them4 ,and he says that the heavenly bodies do not move under the earth1 as others suppose1 but round it1 as a cap turns round our head4 ,the sun is hidden from sight1 not because it goes under the earth1 but because it is concealed by the higher parts of the earth1 and because its distance from us becomes greater4 ,the stars give no heat because of the greatness of their distance4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g1 #d-f 7,r4 ,p4 #bh74 ,winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes along under propulsion2 but when it is concentrated and thickened still more1 clouds are generated2 and1 lastly1 it turns to water4#aeh--;,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g1 #g 7,dox4 p4 #efa74 ,the stars are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the heavens4--,aet4 ii4 #ad1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cdd74 ,they do not go under the earth1 but turn round it4--,ib4 #af1 #f 7,dox4 p4 #cdf74 ,the sun is fiery4--,ib4 #bj1 #b 7,dox4 p4 #cdh74 ,it is broad like a leaf4--,ib4 #bb1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #ceb74 ,the heavenly bodies are diverted from their courses by the resistance of compressed air4--,ib4 #bc1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #ceb74 ,the moon is of fire4--,ib4 #be1 #b 7,dox4 p4 #cef74 ,anaximenes explained lightning like ,anaximander1 adding as an illustration what happens in the case of the sea1 which flashes when divided by the oars4--,ib4 iii4 #c1 #b 7,dox4 p4 #cfh74 ,hail is produced when water freezes in falling2 snow1 when there is some air imprisoned in the water4--,aet4 iii #d1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cgj74 ,the rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on thick condensed air4 ,hence the anterior part of it seems red1 being burnt by the sun's rays1 while the other part is dark1 owing to the predominance of moisture4 ,and he says that a rainbow is produced at night by the moon1 but not often1 because there is not constantly a full moon1 and because the moon's light is weaker than that of the sun4--,schol4 ,arat4#aei 7,dox4 p4 #bca74 ,the earth was like a table in shape4--,aet4 iii4 #aj1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cgg74 ,the cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of the earth1 occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively4--,ib4 #ae1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cgi74 ,footnote #aeh3 ,the text is very corrupt here4 ,i retain 1 because we are told above that winds are condensed air1 and ,i adopt ,zeller's 7p4 #bdf1 n4 #eed74 ,we have seen that ,anaximenes was quite justified in going back to ,thales in regard to his general theory of the primary substance2 but it cannot be denied that the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was unfortunate4 ,the earth is once more imagined as a table-like disc floating upon the air4 ,the sun1 moon1 and planets are also fiery discs which float on the air 8like leaves40 ,it follows that the heavenly bodies cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night1 but only as going round it laterally like a cap or a millstone4#afj ,this curious view is also mentioned in ,aristotle's ,meteorology1#afa where the elevation of the northern parts of the earth1 which makes it possible for the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight1 is referred to4 ,in fact1 whereas ,anaximander had regarded the orbits of the sun1 moon1 and stars as oblique with reference to the earth1 ,anaximenes regarded the earth itself as inclined4 ,the only real advance is the distinction of the planets1 which float freely in the air1 from the fixed stars1 which are fastened to the 8crystalline0 vault of the sky4#afb ,footnote #aei3 ,the source of this is ,poseidonios1 who used ,theophrastos4 ,dox4 p4 #bca4 ,footnote #afj3 ,theodoret 7iv4 #af7 speaks of those who believe in a revolution like that of a millstone1 as contrasted with one like that of a wheel4 ,diels 7,dox4 p4 #df7 refers these similes to ,anaximenes and ,anaximander respectively4 ,they come1 of course1 from ,aetios 7,appendix1 #aj71 though they are given neither by ,stobaios nor in the ,placita4 ,footnote #afa3 1 #a4 #ced a #bh 7,r4 ,p4 #bh c74 ,footnote #afb3 ,we do not know how ,anaximenes imagined the 8crystalline0 sky4 ,it is probable that he used the word as ,empedokles did4 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,v4 #aab4 ,the earthy bodies1 which circulate among the planets1 are doubtless intended to account for eclipses and the phases of the moon4#afc ,footnote #afc3 ,see ,tannery1 ,science hellne1 p4 #aec4 ,for the precisely similar bodies assumed by ,anaxagoras1 see below1 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #ace4 ,see further ,chap4 ,,vii4 #aea4 ,sidenote3 ,innumerable worlds4 #cj4 ,as might be expected1 there is the same difficulty about the 8innumerable worlds0 ascribed to ,anaximenes as about those of ,anaximander1 and most of the arguments given above 7 #ah7 apply here also4 ,the evidence1 however1 is far less satisfactory4 ,cicero says that ,anaximenes regarded air as a god1 and adds that it came into being4#afd ,that there is some confusion here is obvious4 ,air1 as the primary substance1 is certainly eternal1 and it is quite likely that ,anaximenes called it 8divine10 as ,anaximander did the ,boundless2 but it is certain that he also spoke of gods who came into being and passed away4 ,these arose1 he said1 from the air4 ,this is expressly stated by ,hippolytos1#afe and also by ,st4 ,augustine4#aff ,these gods are probably to be explained like ,anaximander's4 ,simplicius1 indeed1 takes another view2#afg but he may have been misled by a ,stoic authority4 ,footnote #afd3 ,cic4 de nat4 ,d4 i4 #bf 7,r4 ,p4 #bh b74 ,on what follows see ,krische1 ,forschungen1 pp4 #eb sqq4 ,footnote #afe3 ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #g1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bh74 ,footnote #aff3 ,aug4 de civ4 ,d4 viii4 #b3 8,anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinito ari dedit3 nec deos negavit aut tacuit2 non tamen ab ipsis arem factum1 sed ipsos ex are ortos credidit0 7,r4 ,p4 #bh b74 ,footnote #afg3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aaba1 #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #bh a74 ,the passage from the ,placita is of higher authority than this from ,simplicius4 ,note1 further1 that it is only to ,anaximenes1 ,herakleitos1 and ,diogenes that successive worlds are ascribed even here4 ,with regard to ,anaximander1 ,simplicius is quite clear4 ,for the ,stoic view of ,herakleitos1 see ,chap4 ,,iii4 #gh2 and for ,diogenes1 ,chap4 ,x4 #ahh4 ,that ,simplicius is following a ,stoic authority is suggested by the words 4 ,cf4 also ,simpl4 de ,caelo1 p4 #bjb1 #ac4 ,sidenote3 ,influence of ,anaximenes4 #ca4 ,it is not quite easy for us to realise that1 in the eyes of his contemporaries1 and for long after1 ,anaximenes was a much more important figure than ,anaximander4 ,and yet the fact is certain4 ,we shall see that ,pythagoras1 though he followed ,anaximander in his account of the heavenly bodies1 was far more indebted to ,anaximenes for his general theory of reality 7 #ec74 ,we shall see further that when1 at a later date1 science revived once more in ,ionia1 it was 8the philosophy of ,anaximenes0 to which it attached itself 7 #abb74 ,anaxagoras adopted many of his most characteristic views 7 #ace71 and some of them even found their way into the cosmology of the ,atomists4#afh ,diogenes of ,apollonia went back to the central doctrine of ,anaximenes1 and once more made ,air the primary substance1 though he also tried to combine it with the theories of ,anaxagoras 7 #ahh74 ,we shall come to all this later on2 but it seemed desirable to point out at once that ,anaximenes marks the culminating point of the line of thought which started with ,thales1 and to show how the 8philosophy of ,anaximenes0 came to mean the ,milesian doctrine as a whole4 ,this it can only have done because it was really the work of a school1 of which ,anaximenes was the last distinguished representative1 and because his contribution to it was one that completed the system he had inherited from his predecessors4 ,that the theory of rarefaction and condensation was really such a completion of the ,milesian system1 we have seen already 7 #bf71 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 it4 ,in the main1 it is from ,anaximenes that they all start4 ,footnote #afh3 ,in particular1 the authority of ,anaximenes was so great that both ,leukippos and ,demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth4 ,cf4 ,aet4 iii4 #aj1 #c-e 7 71 7 74 4 1 4 ,this1 in spite of the fact that the spherical form of the earth was already a commonplace in circles affected by ,pythagoreanism4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,science ,,and ,,religion ,sidenote3 ,migrations to the ,west4 #cb4 ,so far we have not met with any trace of direct antagonism between science and popular beliefs1 though the views of the ,milesian cosmologists were really as inconsistent with the religions of the people as with the mythology of the anthropomorphic poets4#afi ,two things hastened the conflict--the shifting of the scene to the ,west1 and the religious revival which swept over ,hellas in the sixth century ,b4,c4 ,footnote #afi3 ,for the theological views of ,anaximander and ,anaximenes1 see #bb and #cj4 ,the chief figures in the philosophical history of the period were ,pythagoras of ,samos and ,xenophanes of ,kolophon4 ,both were ,ionians by birth1 and yet both spent the greater part of their lives in the ,west4 ,we see from ,herodotos how the ,persian advance in ,asia ,minor occasioned a series of migrations to ,sicily and ,southern ,italy2#agj and this1 of course1 made a great difference to philosophy as well as to religion4 ,the new views had probably grown up so naturally and gradually in ,ionia that the shock of conflict and reaction was avoided2 but that could no longer be so1 when they were transplanted to a region where men were wholly unprepared to receive them4 ,footnote #agj3 ,cf4 ,herod4 i4 #agj 7advice of ,bias72 vi4 #bb sqq4 7,kale ,akte74 ,another1 though a somewhat later1 effect of these migrations was to bring ,science into contact with ,rhetoric1 one of the most characteristic products of ,western ,hellas4 ,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 thought1 and it was just this fusion of the art of arguing for victory with the search for truth that before long gave birth to ,logic4 ,sidenote3 ,the religious revival4 #cc4 ,most important of all in its influence on philosophy was the religious revival which culminated about this time4 ,the religion of continental ,hellas had developed in a very different way from that of ,ionia4 ,in particular1 the worship of ,dionysos1 which came from ,thrace1 and is barely mentioned in ,homer1 contained in germ a wholly new way of looking at man's relation to the world4 ,it would certainly be wrong to credit the ,thracians themselves with any very exalted views2 but there can be no doubt that1 to the ,greeks1 the phenomenon of ecstasy suggested that the soul was something more than a feeble double of the self1 and that it was only when 8out of the body0 it could show its true nature4#aga ,to a less extent1 such ideas were also suggested by the worship of ,demeter1 whose mysteries were celebrated at ,eleusis2 though1 in later days1 these came to take the leading place in men's minds4 ,that was because they were incorporated in the public religion of ,athens4 ,footnote #aga3 ,on all this1 see ,rohde1 ,psyche1 pp4 #cbg sqq4 ,it is probable that he exaggerated the degree to which these ideas were already developed among the ,thracians1 but the essential connexion of the new view of the soul with ,northern worships is confirmed by the tradition over and over again4 ,before the time with which we are dealing1 tradition shows us dimly an age of inspired prophets--,bakides and ,sibyls--followed by one of strange medicine-men like ,abaris and ,aristeas of ,prokonnesos4 ,with ,epimenides of ,crete1 we touch the fringe of history1 while ,pherekydes of ,syros is the contemporary of the early cosmologists1 and we still have some fragments of his discourse4 ,it looked as if ,greek religion were about to enter upon the same stage as that already reached by the religions of the ,east2 and1 but for the rise of science1 it is hard to see what could have checked this tendency4 ,it is usual to say that the ,greeks were saved from a religion of the ,oriental type by their having no priesthood2 but this is to mistake the effect for the cause4 ,priesthoods do not make dogmas1 though they preserve them once they are made2 and in the earlier stages of their development1 the ,oriental peoples had no priesthoods either in the sense intended4#agb ,it was not so much the absence of a priesthood as the existence of the scientific schools that saved ,greece4 ,footnote #agb3 ,see ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #dfa4 ,the exaggerated rle often attributed to priesthoods is a survival of ,french eighteenth century thinking4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,orphic religion4 #cd4 ,the new religion--for in one sense it was new1 though in another as old as mankind--reached its highest point of development with the foundation of the ,orphic communities4 ,so far as we can see1 the original home of these was ,attika2 but they spread with extraordinary rapidity1 especially in ,southern ,italy and ,sicily4#agc ,they were first of all associations for the worship of ,dionysos2 but they were distinguished by two features which were new among the ,hellenes4 ,they looked to a revelation as the source of religious authority1 and they were organised as artificial communities4 ,the poems which contained their theology were ascribed to the ,thracian ,orpheus1 who had himself descended into ,hades1 and was therefore a safe guide through the perils which beset the disembodied soul in the next world4 ,we have considerable remains of this literature1 but they are mostly of late date1 and cannot safely be used as evidence for the beliefs of the sixth century4 ,we do know1 however1 that the leading ideas of ,orphicism were quite early4 ,a number of thin gold plates with ,orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered in ,southern ,italy2#agd and though these are somewhat later in date than the period with which we are dealing1 they belong to the time when ,orphicism was a living creed and not a fantastic revival4 ,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 time1 though it seems impossible that there should have been any actual contact between ,india and ,greece at this date4 ,the main purpose of the ,orgia#age was to 8purify0 the believer's soul1 and so enable it to escape from the 8wheel of birth10 and it was for the better attainment of this end that the ,orphics were organised in communities4 ,religious associations must have been known to the ,greeks from a fairly early date2#agf but the oldest of these were based1 at least in theory1 on the tie of kindred blood4 ,what was new was the institution of communities to which any one might be admitted by initiation4#agg ,this was1 in fact1 the establishment of churches1 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 church4 ,the ,pythagoreans came nearer to realising that4 ,footnote #agc3 ,see ,e4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #dec-dfj1 who rightly emphasises the fact that the ,orphic theogony is the continuation of ,hesiod's work4 ,as we have seen1 some of it is even older than ,hesiod4 ,footnote #agd3 ,for the gold plates of ,thourioi and ,petelia1 see the ,appendix to ,miss ,harrison's ,prolegomena to the ,study of ,greek ,religion1 where the text of them is discussed and a translation given by ,professor ,gilbert ,murray4 ,footnote #age3 ,this was the oldest name for these 8mysteries10 and it simply means 8sacraments0 7cf4 74 ,orgia are not necessarily 8orgiastic40 ,that association of ideas merely comes from the fact that they belonged to the worship of ,dionysos4 ,footnote #agf3 ,herodotos mentions that ,isagoras and those of his worshipped the ,karian ,zeus 7v4 #ff71 and it is probable that the ,orgeones attached by ,kleisthenes to the ,attic phratriai were associations of this kind4 ,see ,foucart1 ,les associations religieuses chez les ,grecs4 ,footnote #agg3 ,a striking parallel is afforded to all this by what we are told in ,robertson ,smith's ,religion of the ,semites1 p4 #cci4 8,the leading feature that distinguished them0 7the ,semitic mysteries of the seventh century ,b4,c47 8from the old public cults with which they came into competition1 is that they were not based on the principle of nationality1 but sought recruits from men of every race who were willing to accept initiation through the mystic sacraments40 ,sidenote3 ,philosophy as a ,way of ,life4 #ce4 ,we have to take account of the religious revival here1 chiefly because it suggested the view that philosophy was above all a 8way of life40 ,science too was a 8purification10 a means of escape from the 8wheel40 ,this is the view expressed so strongly in ,plato's ,phaedo1 which was written under the influence of ,pythagorean ideas4#agh ,sokrates became to his followers the ideal 8wise man10 and it was to this side of his personality the ,cynics mainly attached themselves4 ,from them proceeded the ,stoic sage and the ,christian saint1 and also the whole brood of impostors whom ,lucian has pilloried for our edification4#agi ,saints and sages are apt to appear in questionable shapes1 and ,apollonios of ,tyana showed in the end where this view may lead4 ,it was not wholly absent from any ,greek philosophy after the days of ,pythagoras4 ,aristotle is as much possessed by it as any one1 as we may see from the ,tenth ,book of the ,ethics1 and as we should see still more distinctly if we possessed such works as the ,protreptikos in their entirety4#ahj ,plato1 indeed1 tried to make the ideal wise man of service to the state and mankind by his doctrine of the philosopher king4 ,it was he alone1 so far as we know1 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-prisoners4#aha ,that was not1 however1 the view that prevailed1 and the 8wise man0 became more and more detached from the world4 ,apollonios of ,tyana was quite entitled to regard himself as the spiritual heir of ,pythagoras2 for the theurgy and thaumaturgy of the late ,greek schools was but the fruit of the seed sown in the generation before the ,persian ,wars4 ,footnote #agh3 ,the ,phaedo is dedicated1 as it were1 to ,echekrates and the ,pythagorean society at ,phleious1 and it is evident that ,plato in his youth was impressed by the religious side of ,pythagoreanism1 though the influence of ,pythagorean science is not clearly marked till a later period4 ,note specially the of ,phd4 #ff b #d4 ,in ,rep4 x4 #fjj b #a1 ,plato speaks of ,pythagoras as the originator of a private 4 ,footnote #agi3 ,cf4 especially the point of view of the ,auction of ,lives 7 74 ,footnote #ahj3 ,for the of ,aristotle1 see ,bywater in ,j4 ,phil4 ii4 p4 #ee2 ,diels in ,arch4 i4 p4 #dgg2 and the notes on ,ethics1 i4 #e1 in my edition4 ,footnote #aha3 ,plato1 ,rep4 #ebj c #a1 4 ,the allegory of the ,cave seems to be ,orphic1 and ,i believe ,professor ,stewart's suggestion 7,myths of ,plato1 p4 #beb1 n4 #b71 that ,plato had the in mind1 to be quite justified4 ,the idea of rescuing the 8spirits in prison0 is thoroughly ,orphic4 ,sidenote3 ,no doctrine in the 8,mysteries40 #cf4 ,on the other hand1 it would be wrong to suppose that ,orphicism or the ,mysteries suggested any definite doctrines to philosophers1 at least during the period which we are about to consider4 ,we have admitted that they really implied a new view of the soul1 and we might therefore have expected to find that they profoundly modified men's theory of the world and their relation to it4 ,the striking thing is that this did not happen4 ,even those philosophers who were most closely in touch with the religious movement1 like ,empedokles and the ,pythagoreans1 held views about the soul which really contradicted the theory implied by their religious practices4#ahb ,there is no room for an immortal soul in any philosophy of this period4 ,up to ,plato's time immortality was never treated in a scientific way1 but merely assumed in the ,orphic rites1 to which ,plato half seriously turns for confirmation of his own teaching4#ahc ,footnote #ahb3 ,for ,empedokles1 see #aai2 for the ,pythagoreans1 see #adi4 ,footnote #ahc3 ,cf4 ,phd4 #fi c #b1 1 444 ,the gentle irony of this and similar passages ought to be unmistakable4 ,all this is easily accounted for4 ,with us a religious revival generally means the vivid realisation of a new or forgotten doctrine1 while ancient religion has properly no doctrine at all4 8,the initiated10 ,aristotle said1 8were not expected to learn anything1 but merely to be affected in a certain way and put into a certain frame of mind40#ahd ,nothing was required but that the ritual should be correctly performed1 and the worshipper was free to give any explanation of it he pleased4 ,it might be as exalted as that of ,pindar and ,sophokles1 or as material as that of the itinerant mystery-mongers described by ,plato in the ,republic4 ,the essential thing was that he should duly sacrifice his pig4 ,footnote #ahd3 ,arist4 fr4 #de1 #adhc a #ai1 1 4 ,i4 ,,pythagoras ,,of ,,samos ,sidenote3 ,character of the tradition4 #cg4 ,it is no easy task to give an account of ,pythagoras that can claim to be regarded as history4 ,our principal sources of information#ahe are the ,lives composed by ,iamblichos1 ,porphyry1 and ,laertios ,diogenes4 ,that of ,iamblichos is a wretched compilation1 based chiefly on the work of the arithmetician ,nikomachos of ,gerasa in ,judaea1 and the romance of ,apollonios of ,tyana1 who regarded himself as a second ,pythagoras1 and accordingly took great liberties with his materials4#ahf ,porphyry stands1 as a writer1 on a far higher level than ,iamblichos2 but his authorities do not inspire us with more confidence4 ,he1 too1 made use of ,nikomachos1 and of a certain novelist called ,antonius ,diogenes1 author of a work entitled ,marvels from beyond ,thule4#ahg ,diogenes quotes1 as usual1 a considerable number of authorities1 and the statements he makes must be estimated according to the nature of the sources from which they were drawn4#ahh ,so far1 it must be confessed1 our material does not seem promising4 ,further examination shows1 however1 that a good many fragments of two much older authorities1 ,aristoxenos and ,dikaiarchos1 are embedded in the mass4 ,these writers were both disciples of ,aristotle2 they were natives of ,southern ,italy1 and contemporary with the last generation of the ,pythagorean school4 ,both wrote accounts of ,pythagoras2 and ,aristoxenos1 who was personally intimate with the last representatives of scientific ,pythagoreanism1 also made a collection of the sayings of his friends4 ,now the ,neopythagorean story1 as we have it in ,iamblichos1 is a tissue of incredible and fantastic myths2 but1 if we sift out the statements which go back to ,aristoxenos and ,dikaiarchos1 we can easily construct a rational narrative1 in which ,pythagoras appears not as a miracle-monger and religious innovator1 but simply as a moralist and statesman4 ,we might then be tempted to suppose that this is the genuine tradition2 but that would be altogether a mistake4 ,there is1 in fact1 a third and still earlier stratum in the ,lives1 and this agrees with the latest accounts in representing ,pythagoras as a wonder-worker and a religious reformer4 ,footnote #ahe3 ,see ,e4 ,rohde's admirable papers1 8,die ,quellen des ,iamblichus in seiner ,biographie des ,pythagoras0 7,rh4 ,mus4 xxvi41 xxvii474 ,footnote #ahf3 ,iamblichos was a disciple of ,porphyry1 and contemporary with ,constantine4 ,the ,life of ,pythagoras has been edited by ,nauck 7#ahhd74 ,nikomachos belongs to the beginning of the second century ,a4,d4 ,there is no evidence that he added anything to the authorities he followed1 but these were already vitiated by ,neopythagorean fables4 ,still1 it is to him we chiefly owe the preservation of the valuable evidence of ,aristoxenos4 ,footnote #ahg3 ,porphyry's ,life of ,pythagoras is the only considerable extract from his ,history of ,philosophy1 in four books1 that has survived4 ,the romance of ,antonius is the original parodied by ,lucian in his ,vera ,historia4 ,footnote #ahh3 ,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 ,neopythagoreanism and the promulgation of the gospel according to ,apollonios of ,tyana4 ,some of the most striking miracles of ,pythagoras are related on the authority of ,andron's ,tripod1 and of ,aristotle's work on the ,pythagoreans4#ahi ,both these treatises belong to the fourth century ,b4,c41 and are therefore untouched by ,neopythagorean fancies4 ,further1 it is only by assuming the still earlier existence of this view that we can explain the allusions of ,herodotos4 ,the ,hellespontine ,greeks told him that ,salmoxis or ,zamolxis had been a slave of ,pythagoras1#aij and ,salmoxis is a figure of the same class as ,abaris and ,aristeas4 ,footnote #ahi3 ,andron of ,ephesos wrote a work on the ,seven ,wise ,men1 called ,the ,tripod1 in allusion to the well-known story4 ,the feats ascribed to ,pythagoras in the ,aristotelian treatise remind us of an ecclesiastical legend4 ,for example1 he kills a deadly snake by biting it2 he was seen at ,kroton and ,metapontion at the same time2 he exhibited his golden thigh at ,olympia1 and was addressed by a voice from heaven when crossing the river ,kasas4 ,the same authority stated that he was identified by the ,krotoniates with ,apollo ,hyperboreios 7,arist4 fr4 #ahf74 ,footnote #aij3 ,herod4 iv4 #ie4 ,it seems1 then1 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 fact1 as a sort of 8medicine-man02 but1 for some reason1 there was an attempt to save his memory from this imputation1 and that attempt belonged to the fourth century ,b4,c4 ,the significance of this will appear in the sequel4 ,sidenote3 ,life of ,pythagoras4 #ch4 ,we may be said to know for certain that ,pythagoras passed his early manhood at ,samos1 and was the son of ,mnesarchos2#aia and he 8flourished10 we are told1 in the reign of ,polykrates4#aib ,this date cannot be far wrong2 for ,herakleitos already speaks of him in the past tense4#aic ,footnote #aia3 ,cf4 ,herod4 iv4 #ie1 and ,herakleitos1 fr4 #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #ca a74 ,herodotos represents him as living at ,samos4 ,on the other hand1 ,aristoxenos said that he came from one of the islands which the ,athenians occupied after expelling the ,tyrrhenians 7,diog4 viii4 #a74 ,this suggests ,lemnos1 from which the ,tyrrhenian 8,pelasgians0 were expelled by ,miltiades 7,herod4 vi4 #adj71 or possibly some other island which was occupied at the same time4 ,there were also ,tyrrhenians at ,imbros4 ,this explains the story that he was an ,etrurian or a ,tyrian4 ,other accounts bring him into connexion with ,phleious1 but that is perhaps a pious invention of the ,pythagorean society which flourished there at the beginning of the fourth century ,b4,c4 ,pausanias 7ii4 #ac1 #a7 gives it as a ,phleiasian tradition that ,hippasos1 the great-grandfather of ,pythagoras1 had emigrated from ,phleious to ,samos4 ,footnote #aib3 ,eratosthenes identified ,pythagoras with the ,olympic victor of ,ol4 ,,xlviii4 #a 7#ehh_/g ,b4,c471 but ,apollodoros gave his floruit as #ecb_/a1 the era of ,polykrates4 ,he doubtless based this on the statement of ,aristoxenos quoted by ,porphyry 7,v4 ,pyth4 #i71 that ,pythagoras left ,samos from dislike to the tyranny of ,polykrates 7,r4 ,p4 #ec a74 ,for a full discussion1 see ,jacoby1 pp4 #bae sqq4 ,footnote #aic3 ,herakl4 fr4 #af1 #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #ca1 #ca a74 ,the extensive travels attributed to ,pythagoras by late writers are1 of course1 apocryphal4 ,even the statement that he visited ,egypt1 though far from improbable if we consider the close relations between ,polykrates of ,samos and ,amasis1 rests on no sufficient authority4#aid ,herodotos1 it is true1 observes that the ,egyptians agreed in certain practices with the rules called ,orphic and ,bacchic1 which are really ,egyptian1 and with the ,pythagoreans2#aie but this does not imply that the ,pythagoreans derived these directly from ,egypt4 ,he says also in another place that the belief in transmigration came from ,egypt1 though certain ,greeks1 both at an earlier and a later date1 had passed it off as their own4 ,he refuses1 however1 to give their names1 so he can hardly be referring to ,pythagoras4#aif ,nor does it matter2 for the ,egyptians did not believe in transmigration at all1 and ,herodotos was simply deceived by the priests or the symbolism of the monuments4 ,footnote #aid3 ,it occurs first in the ,bousiris of ,isokrates1 #bh 7,r4 ,p4 #eb74 ,footnote #aie3 ,herod4 ii4 #ha 7,r4 ,p4 #eb a74 ,the comma at is clearly right4 ,herodotos believed that the worship of ,dionysos was introduced from ,egypt by ,melampous 7ii4 #di71 and he means to suggest that the ,orphics got these practices from the worshippers of ,bakchos1 while the ,pythagoreans got them from the ,orphics4 ,footnote #aif3 ,herod4 ii4 #abc 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,the words 8whose names ,i know1 but do not write0 cannot refer to ,pythagoras2 for it is only of contemporaries that ,herodotos speaks in this way 7cf4 i4 #ea2 iv4 #dh74 ,stein's suggestion that he meant ,empedokles seems to me convincing4 ,herodotos may have met him at ,thourioi4 ,nor is there any reason to suppose that refers specially to the ,pythagoreans4 ,if ,herodotos had ever heard of ,pythagoras visiting ,egypt1 he would surely have said so in one or other of these passages4 ,there was no occasion for reserve1 as ,pythagoras must have died before ,herodotos was born4 ,aristoxenos said that ,pythagoras left ,samos in order to escape from the tyranny of ,polykrates4#aig ,it was at ,kroton1 a city already famous for its medical school1#aih that he founded his society4 ,how long he remained there we do not know2 he died at ,metapontion1 whither he had retired on the first signal of revolt against his influence4#aii ,footnote #aig3 ,porph4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #i 7,r4 ,p4 #ec a74 ,footnote #aih3 ,from what ,herodotos tells us of ,demokedes 7iii4 #aca7 we can see that the medical school of ,kroton was founded before the time of ,pythagoras4 ,cf4 ,wachtler1 ,de ,alcmaeone ,crotoniata1 p4 #ia4 ,footnote #aii3 ,it may be taken as certain that ,pythagoras spent his last days at ,metapontion2 ,aristoxenos said so 7ap4 ,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bdi71 and ,cicero 7,de ,fin4 v4 #d7 speaks of the honours which continued to be paid to his memory in that city 7,r4 ,p4 #eg c74 ,cf4 also ,andron1 fr4 #f 7,f4,h4,g4 ii4 #cdg74 ,sidenote3 ,the ,order4 #ci4 ,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 basis1 and in the case of many of them we can still see how they came to be made4 ,the distinction of grades within the ,order1 variously called ,mathematicians and ,akousmatics1 ,esoterics and ,exoterics1 ,pythagoreans and ,pythagorists1#bjj is an invention designed to explain how there came to be two widely different sets of people1 each calling themselves disciples of ,pythagoras1 in the fourth century ,b4,c4 ,so1 too1 the statement that the ,pythagoreans were bound to inviolable secrecy1 which goes back to ,aristoxenos1#bja is intended to explain why there is no trace of the ,pythagorean philosophy proper before ,philolaos4 ,footnote #bjj3 ,for these distinctions1 see ,porphyry 7,v4 ,pyth4 #cg7 and ,iamblichos 7,v4 ,pyth4 #hj71 quoted ,r4 ,p4 #ef and #ef b4 ,the name is clearly related to the 1 with which we shall have to deal shortly 7 #dd74 ,footnote #bja3 ,for the 8mystic silence10 see ,aristoxenos1 ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #ee a74 ,tannery1 8,sur le secret dans l'cole de ,pythagore0 7,arch4 i4 pp4 #bh sqq471 thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets of the school1 and that these were divulged by ,hippasos2 but the most reasonable view is that there were no secrets at all except of a ritual kind4 ,the ,pythagorean ,order was simply1 in its origin1 a religious fraternity of the type described above1 and not1 as has sometimes been maintained1 a political league4#bjb ,nor had it anything to do with the 8,dorian aristocratic ideal40 ,pythagoras was an ,ionian1 and the ,order was originally confined to ,achaian states4#bjc ,nor is there the slightest evidence that the ,pythagoreans favoured the aristocratic rather than the democratic party4#bjd ,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 religion4 ,it was1 in fact1 an institution for the cultivation of holiness4 ,in this respect it resembled an ,orphic society1 though it seems that ,apollo1 rather than ,dionysos1 was the chief ,pythagorean god4 ,that is doubtless why the ,krotoniates identified ,pythagoras with ,apollo ,hyperboreios4#bje ,from the nature of the case1 however1 an independent society within a ,greek state was apt to be brought into conflict with the larger body4 ,the only way in which it could then assert its right to exist was by identifying the ,state with itself1 that is1 by securing the control of the sovereign power4 ,the history of the ,pythagorean ,order1 so far as it can be traced1 is1 accordingly1 the history of an attempt to supersede the ,state2 and its political action is to be explained as a mere incident of that attempt4 ,footnote #bjb3 ,plato1 ,rep4 x4 #fjj a1 implies that ,pythagoras held no public office4 ,the view that the ,pythagorean sect was a political league1 maintained in modern times by ,krische 7,de societatis a ,pythagora conditae scopo politico1 #ahcj71 goes back1 as ,rohde has shown 7loc4 cit471 to ,dikaiarchos1 the champion of the 8,practical ,life10 just as the view that it was primarily a scientific society goes back to the mathematician and musician ,aristoxenos4 ,the former antedated ,archytas1 just as the latter antedated ,philolaos 7see ,chap4 ,,vii4 #ach74 ,grote's good sense enabled him to see this quite clearly 7vol4 iv4 pp4 #cbi sqq474 ,footnote #bjc3 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #ejb1 ,anm4 ,it is still necessary to insist upon this1 as the idea that the ,pythagoreans represented the 8,dorian ideal0 dies very hard4 ,in his ,kulturhistorische ,beitrge 7,heft i4 p4 #ei71 ,max ,c4 ,p4 ,schmidt imagines that later writers call the founder of the sect ,pythagoras instead of ,pythagores1 as he is called by ,herakleitos and ,demokritos1 because he had become 8a ,dorian of the ,dorians40 ,the fact is simply that is the ,attic form of 1 and that the writers in question wrote ,attic4 ,similarly1 ,plato calls ,archytas1 who did belong to a ,dorian state1 ,archytes1 though ,aristoxenos and others retained the ,dorian form of his name4 ,footnote #bjd3 ,kylon1 the chief opponent of the ,pythagoreans1 is described by ,aristoxenos 7,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bdh7 as 4 ,taras1 later the chief seat of the ,pythagoreans1 was a democracy4 ,the truth is that1 at this time1 the new religion appealed to the people rather than the aristocracies1 which were apt to be 8free-thinking0 7,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alt4 iii4 #beb74 ,xenophanes1 not ,pythagoras1 is their man4 ,footnote #bje3 ,we have the authority of ,aristotle1 fr4 #ahf1 #aeaj b #bj1 for the identification of ,pythagoras with ,apollo ,hyperboreios4 ,the names of ,abaris and ,aristeas stand for a mystical movement parallel to the ,orphic1 but based on the worship of ,apollo4 ,the later tradition makes them predecessors of ,pythagoras2 and that this has some historical basis1 appears from ,herod4 iv4 #ac sqq41 and above all from the statement that ,aristeas had a statue at ,metapontion1 where ,pythagoras died4 ,the connexion of ,pythagoras with ,zamolxis belongs to the same order of ideas4 ,as the legend of the ,hyperboreans is ,delian1 we see that the religion taught by ,pythagoras was genuinely ,ionian in its origin4 ,sidenote3 ,downfall of the ,order4 #dj4 ,for a time the new ,order seems actually to have succeeded in securing the supreme power1 but reaction came at last4 ,under the leadership of ,kylon1 a wealthy noble1 ,kroton was able to assert itself victoriously against the ,pythagorean domination4 ,this1 we may well believe1 had been galling enough4 ,the 8rule of the saints0 would be nothing to it2 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 pedants1 who made a point of abstaining from beans1 and would not let him beat his own dog because they recognised in its howls the voice of a departed friend 7,xenophanes1 fr4 #g74 ,this feeling would be aggravated by the private religious worship of the ,society4 ,greek states could never pardon the introduction of new gods4 ,their objection to this was not1 however1 that the gods in question were false gods4 ,if they had been1 it would not have mattered so much4 ,what they could not tolerate was that any one should establish a private means of communication between himself and the unseen powers4 ,that introduced an unknown and incalculable element into the arrangements of the ,state1 which might very likely be hostile to those citizens who had no means of propitiating the intruding divinity4 ,aristoxenos's version of the events which led to the downfall of the ,pythagorean ,order is given at length by ,iamblichos4 ,according to this1 ,pythagoras had refused to receive ,kylon into his ,society1 and he therefore became a bitter foe of the ,order4 ,from this cause ,pythagoras removed from ,kroton to ,metapontion1 where he died4 ,the ,pythagoreans1 however1 still retained possession of the government of ,kroton1 till at last the partisans of ,kylon set fire to ,milo's house1 where they were assembled4 ,of those in the house only two1 ,archippos and ,lysis1 escaped4 ,archippos retired to ,taras2 ,lysis1 first to ,achaia and then to ,thebes1 where he became later on the teacher of ,epameinondas4 ,the ,pythagoreans who remained concentrated themselves at ,rhegion2 but1 as things went from bad to worse1 they all left ,italy except ,archippos4#bjf ,footnote #bjf3 ,see ,rohde1 ,rh4 ,mus4 xxvi4 p4 #efe1 n4 #a4 ,the narrative in the text 7,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bej2 ,r4 ,p4 #ei b7 goes back to ,aristoxenos and ,dikaiarchos 7,r4 ,p4 #ei a74 ,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 history4 ,according to the later story1 ,pythagoras himself was burned to death in the house of ,milo1 along with his disciples4 ,this is merely a dramatic compression of the whole series of events into a single scene2 we have seen that ,pythagoras died at ,metapontion before the final catastrophe4 ,the valuable reference in ,polybios ii4 #ci 7,r4 ,p4 #ei7 to the burning of ,pythagorean certainly implies that the disturbances went on for a very considerable time4 ,this account has all the air of being historical4 ,the mention of ,lysis proves1 however1 that those events were spread over more than one generation4 ,the coup d'tat of ,kroton can hardly have occurred before #dej ,b4,c41 if the teacher of ,epameinondas escaped from it1 and it may well have been even later4 ,but it must have been before #daj ,b4,c4 that the ,pythagoreans left ,rhegion for ,hellas2 ,philolaos was certainly at ,thebes about that time4#bjg ,footnote #bjg3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #fa d #g1 e #g4 ,the political power of the ,pythagoreans as an ,order was now gone for ever1 though we shall see that some of them returned to ,italy at a later date4 ,in exile they seem to have dropped the merely magical and superstitious parts of their system1 and this enabled them to take their place as one of the scientific schools of ,hellas4 ,sidenote3 ,want of evidence as to the teaching of ,pythagoras4 #da4 ,of the opinions of ,pythagoras we know even less than of his life4 ,aristotle clearly knew nothing for certain of ethical or physical doctrines going back to the founder of the ,society himself4#bjh ,aristoxenos only gave a string of moral precepts4#bji ,dikaiarchos is quoted by ,porphyry as asserting that hardly anything of what ,pythagoras taught his disciples was known except the doctrine of transmigration1 the periodic cycle1 and the kinship of all living creatures4#baj ,the fact is1 that1 like all teachers who introduce a new way of living rather than a new view of the world1 ,pythagoras preferred oral instruction to the dissemination of his opinions by writing1 and it was not till ,alexandrian times that any one ventured to forge books in his name4 ,the writings ascribed to the earliest ,pythagoreans were also forgeries of the same period4#baa ,the early history of ,pythagoreanism is1 therefore1 wholly conjectural2 but we may still make an attempt to understand1 in a very general way1 what the position of ,pythagoras in the history of ,greek thought must have been4 ,footnote #bjh3 ,when discussing the ,pythagorean system1 ,aristotle always refers it to 8the ,pythagoreans10 not to ,pythagoras himself4 ,that this was intentional seems to be proved by the phrase 1 which occurs more than once 7e4g4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihe b #bc2 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bic a #bj74 ,pythagoras himself is only thrice mentioned in the whole ,aristotelian corpus1 and in only one of these places 7,m4 ,mor4 #aahb a #aa7 is any philosophical doctrine ascribed to him4 ,we are told there that he was the first to discuss the subject of goodness1 and that he made the mistake of identifying its various forms with numbers4 ,but this is just one of the things which prove the late date of the ,magna ,moralia4 ,aristotle himself is quite clear that what he knew as the ,pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days of ,empedokles1 ,anaxagoras1 and ,leukippos2 for1 after mentioning these1 he goes on to describe the ,pythagoreans as 8contemporary with and earlier than them0 7 1 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihe b #bc74 ,footnote #bji3 ,the fragments of the of ,aristoxenos are given by ,diels1 ,vors4 pp4 #bhb sqq4 ,footnote #baj3 ,v4 ,pyth4 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #ee74 ,footnote #baa3 ,see ,diels1 ,dox4 p4 #aej2 and 8,ein geflschtes ,pythagorasbuch0 7,arch4 iii4 pp4 #dea sqq474 ,cf4 also ,bernays1 ,die ,heraklitischen ,briefe1 n4 #a4 ,sidenote3 ,transmigration4 #db4 ,in the first place1 then1 there can be no doubt that he really taught the doctrine of transmigration4#bab ,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 death4#bac ,now the doctrine of transmigration is most easily to be explained as a development of the savage belief in the kinship of men and beasts1 as all alike children of the ,earth1#bad a view which ,dikaiarchos said ,pythagoras certainly held4 ,further1 among savages1 this belief is commonly associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of food1 and the ,pythagorean rule is best known for its prescription of similar forms of abstinence4 ,this in itself goes far to show that it originated in the same ideas1 and we have seen that the revival of these would be quite natural in connexion with the foundation of a new religious society4 ,there is a further consideration which tells strongly in the same direction4 ,in ,india we have a precisely similar doctrine1 and yet it is not possible to assume any actual borrowing of ,indian ideas at this date4 ,the only explanation which will account for the facts is that the two systems were independently evolved from the same primitive ideas4 ,these are found in many parts of the world2 but it seems to have been only in ,india and in ,greece that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine4 ,footnote #bab3 ,the proper ,greek term for this is 1 and the inaccurate only occurs in late writers4 ,hippolytos and ,clement of ,alexandria say 1 which is accurate but cumbrous4 ,see ,rohde1 ,psyche1 p4 #dbh1 n4 #b4 ,footnote #bac3 ,on the significance of this1 see above1 p4 #ic4 ,footnote #bad3 ,dieterich1 8,mutter ,erde0 7,archiv fr ,religionswissenschaft1 viii4 pp4 #bi and #dg74 ,sidenote3 ,abstinence4 #dc4 ,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 abstinence4 ,aristoxenos1 whom we have admitted to be one of our earliest witnesses1 may be cited to prove that the original ,pythagoreans knew nothing of these restrictions on the use of animal flesh and beans4 ,he undoubtedly said that ,pythagoras did not abstain from animal flesh in general1 but only from that of the ploughing ox and the ram4#bae ,he also said that ,pythagoras preferred beans to every other vegetable1 as being the most laxative1 and that he was partial to sucking-pigs and tender kids4#baf ,aristoxenos1 however1 is a witness who very often breaks down under cross-examination1 and the palpable exaggeration of these statements shows that he is endeavouring to combat a belief which existed in his own day4 ,we are therefore able to show1 out of his own mouth1 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 it4 ,still1 it may be asked what motive ,aristoxenos could have had for denying the common belief8 ,the answer is simple and instructive4 ,he had been the friend of the last of the ,pythagoreans2 and1 in their time1 the merely superstitious part of ,pythagoreanism had been dropped1 except by some zealots whom the heads of the ,society refused to acknowledge4 ,that is why he represents ,pythagoras himself in so different a light from both the older and the later traditions2 it is because he gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the ,order4 ,those who clung faithfully to the old practices were now regarded as heretics1 and all manner of theories were set on foot to account for their existence4 ,it was related1 for instance1 that they descended from one of the 8,akousmatics10 who had never been initiated into the deeper mysteries of the 8,mathematicians40#bag ,all this1 however1 is pure invention4 ,the satire of the poets of the ,middle ,comedy proves clearly enough that1 even though the friends of ,aristoxenos did not practise abstinence1 there were plenty of people in the fourth century1 calling themselves followers of ,pythagoras1 who did4#bah ,history has not been kind to the ,akousmatics1 but they never wholly died out4 ,the names of ,diodoros of ,aspendos and ,nigidius ,figulus help to bridge the gulf between them and ,apollonios of ,tyana4 ,footnote #bae3 ,aristoxenos ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #bj1 1 ' 4 ,footnote #baf3 ,aristoxenos ap4 ,gell4 iv4 #aa1 #e1 2 ib4 #f1 8porculis quoque minusculis et haedis tenerioribus victitasse1 idem ,aristoxenus refert40 ,it is1 of course1 possible that ,aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on beans4 ,we know that it was ,orphic1 and it may have been transferred to the ,pythagoreans by mistake4 ,that1 however1 would not affect the general conclusion that at least some ,pythagoreans practised abstinence from various kinds of food1 which is all that is required4 ,footnote #bag3 ,the sect of the 8,akousmatics0 was said to descend from ,hippasos 7,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #ha2 ,r4 ,p4 #ef74 ,now ,hippasos was the author of a 7,diog4 viii4 #g2 ,r4 ,p4 #ef c71 that is to say1 of a superstitious ceremonial or ritual handbook1 probably containing ,akousmata like those we are about to consider2 for we are told that it was written 4 ,footnote #bah3 ,diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form 7,vors4 pp4 #bia sqq474 ,for our purpose the most important passages are ,antiphanes1 fr4 #ace1 ,kock1 2 ,alexis1 fr4 #bbj1 1 1 ' ' ' 2 fr4 #aif 7from the 71 ' 2 ,aristophon1 fr4 #i 7from the 71 1 2 ,mnesimachos1 fr4 #a1 4 ,see also ,theokritos1 xiv4 #e1 1 ' ' 4 ,we know1 then1 that ,pythagoras taught the kinship of beasts and men1 and we infer that his rule of abstinence from flesh was based1 not upon humanitarian or ascetic grounds1 but on taboo4 ,this is strikingly confirmed by a fact which we are told in ,porphyry's ,defence of ,abstinence4 ,the statement in question does not indeed go back to ,theophrastos1 as so much of ,porphyry's tract certainly does2#bai but it is1 in all probability1 due to ,herakleides of ,pontos1 and is to the effect that1 though the ,pythagoreans did as a rule abstain from flesh1 they nevertheless ate it when they sacrificed to the gods4#bbj ,now1 among savage peoples1 we often find that the sacred animal is slain and eaten sacramentally by its kinsmen on certain solemn occasions1 though in ordinary circumstances this would be the greatest of all impieties4 ,here1 again1 we have to do with a very primitive belief2 and we need not therefore attach any weight to the denials of ,aristoxenos4#bba ,footnote #bai3 ,see ,bernays1 ,theophrastos' ,schrift ber ,frmmigkeit4 ,porphyry's tract1 1 was doubtless saved from the general destruction of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic tendencies of the age4 ,even ,st4 ,jerome made constant use of it in his polemic against ,iovianus1 though he is careful not to mention ,porphyry's name 7,theophr4 ,schr4 n4 #b74 ,the tract is addressed to ,castricius ,firmus1 the disciple and friend of ,plotinos1 who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the ,pythagoreans4 ,footnote #bbj3 ,the passage occurs ,de ,abst4 p4 #eh1 #be ,nauck3 1 4 ,the part of the work from which this is taken comes from one ,clodius1 on whom see ,bernay1 ,theophr4 ,schr4 p4 #aa4 ,he was probably the rhetorician ,sextus ,clodius1 and a contemporary of ,cicero4 ,bernays has shown that he made use of the work of ,herakleides of ,pontos 7ib4 n4 #ai74 ,on 8mystic sacrifice0 generally1 see ,robertson ,smith1 ,rel4 ,sem4 i4 p4 #bgf4 ,footnote #bba3 ,porphyry 7,v4 ,pyth4 c #ae7 has preserved a tradition to the effect that ,pythagoras recommended a flesh diet for athletes 7,milo874 ,this story must have originated at the same time as those related by ,aristoxenos1 and in a similar way4 ,in fact1 ,bernays has shown that it comes from ,herakleides of ,pontos 7,theophr4 ,schr4 n4 #h74 ,iamblichos 7,v4 ,pyth4 #e4 #be7 and others 7,diog4 viii4 #ac1 #dg7 got out of this by supposing it referred to a gymnast of the same name4 ,we see here very distinctly how the ,neoplatonists for their own ends endeavoured to go back to the original form of the ,pythagorean legend1 and to explain away the fourth century reconstruction4 ,sidenote3 ,akousmata4 #dd4 ,we shall now know what to think of the various ,pythagorean rules and precepts which have come down to us4 ,these are of two kinds1 and have very different sources4 ,some of them1 derived from the collection of ,aristoxenos1 and for the most part preserved by ,iamblichos1 are mere precepts of morality4 ,they do not pretend to go back to ,pythagoras himself2 they are only the sayings which the last generation of 8,mathematicians0 heard from their predecessors4#bbb ,the second class is of a very different nature1 and the sayings which belong to it are called ,akousmata1#bbc which points to their being the property of that sect of ,pythagoreans which had faithfully preserved the old customs4 ,later writers interpret them as 8symbols0 of moral truth2 but their interpretations are extremely far-fetched1 and it does not require a very practised eye to see that they are genuine taboos of a thoroughly primitive type4 ,i give a few examples in order that the reader may judge what the famous ,pythagorean rule of life was really like4 #a4 ,to abstain from beans4 #b4 ,not to pick up what has fallen4 #c4 ,not to touch a white cock4 #d4 ,not to break bread4 #e4 ,not to step over a crossbar4 #f4 ,not to stir the fire with iron4 #g4 ,not to eat from a whole loaf4 #h4 ,not to pluck a garland4 #i4 ,not to sit on a quart measure4 #aj4 ,not to eat the heart4 #aa4 ,not to walk on highways4 #ab4 ,not to let swallows share one's roof4 #ac4 ,when the pot is taken off the fire1 not to leave the mark of it in the ashes1 but to stir them together4 #ad4 ,do not look in a mirror beside a light4 #ae4 ,when you rise from the bedclothes1 roll them together and smooth out the impress of the body4 ,footnote #bbb3 ,for these see ,diels1 ,vors4 pp4 #bhb sqq4 ,footnote #bbc3 ,there is an excellent collection of in ,diels1 ,vors4 pp4 #bgi sqq41 where the authorities will be found4 ,it is impossible to discuss these in detail here1 but students of folklore will see at once to what order of ideas they belong4 ,it would be easy to multiply proofs of the close connexion between ,pythagoreanism and primitive modes of thought1 but what has been said is really sufficient for our purpose4 ,the kinship of men and beasts1 the abstinence from flesh1 and the doctrine of transmigration all hang together and form a perfectly intelligible whole from the point of view which has been indicated4 ,sidenote3 ,pythagoras as a man of science4 #de4 ,were this all1 we should be tempted to delete the name of ,pythagoras from the history of philosophy altogether1 and relegate him to the class of 8medicine-men0 77 along with ,epimenides and ,onomakritos4 ,this1 however1 would be quite wrong4 ,as we shall see1 the ,pythagorean ,society became one of the chief scientific schools of ,hellas1 and it is certain that ,pythagorean science as well as ,pythagorean religion originated with the master himself4 ,herakleitos1 who is not partial to him1 says that ,pythagoras had pursued scientific investigation further than other men1 though he also says that he turned his much learning into an art of mischief4#bbd ,herodotos called ,pythagoras 8by no means the weakest sophist of the ,hellenes10 a title which at this date does not imply the slightest disparagement4#bbe ,aristotle even said that ,pythagoras first busied himself with mathematics and numbers1 and that it was later on he attached himself to the miracle-mongering of ,pherekydes4#bbf ,is it possible for us to trace any connexion between these two sides of his activity8 ,footnote #bbd3 ,herakl4 fr4 #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #ca a74 ,the word is in itself quite general4 ,what it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by ,iamblichos1 ,v4 ,pyth4 #hi1 4 ,tannery's interpretation of this statement is based on a misunderstanding1 and need not be discussed here4 ,footnote #bbe3 ,herod4 iv4 #ie4 ,footnote #bbf3 ,arist4 1 fr4 #ahf1 #aeaj a #ci1 1 4 ,we have seen that the aim of the ,orphic and other ,orgia was to obtain release from the 8wheel of birth0 by means of 8purifications10 which were generally of a very primitive type4 ,the new thing in the ,society founded by ,pythagoras seems to have been that1 while it admitted all these half-savage customs1 it at the same time suggested a more exalted idea of what 8purification0 really was4 ,aristoxenos tells us that the ,pythagoreans employed music to purge the soul as they used medicine to purge the body1 and it is abundantly clear that ,aristotle's famous theory of is derived from ,pythagorean sources4#bbg ,such methods of purifying the soul were familiar in the ,orgia of the ,korybantes1 and will serve to explain the ,pythagorean interest in ,harmonics4 ,but there is more than this4 ,if we can trust ,herakleides so far1 it was ,pythagoras who first distinguished the 8three lives10 the ,theoretic1 the ,practical1 and the ,apolaustic1 which ,aristotle made use of in the ,ethics4 ,the general theory of these lives is clear1 and it is impossible to doubt that in substance it belongs to the very beginning of the school4 ,it is to this effect4 ,we are strangers in this world1 and the body is the tomb of the soul1 and yet we must not seek to escape by self-murder2 for we are the chattels of ,god who is our herdsman1 and without his command we have no right to make our escape4#bbh ,in this life1 there are three kinds of men1 just as there are three sorts of people who come to the ,olympic ,games4 ,the lowest class is made up of those who come to buy and sell1 and next above them are those who come to compete4 ,best of all1 however1 are those who come simply to look on 774 ,the greatest purification of all is1 therefore1 disinterested science1 and it is the man who devotes himself to that1 the true philosopher1 who has most effectually released himself from the 8wheel of birth40 ,it would be rash to say that ,pythagoras expressed himself exactly in this manner2 but all these ideas are genuinely ,pythagorean1 and it is only in some such way that we can bridge the gulf which separates ,pythagoras the man of science from ,pythagoras the religious teacher4#bbi ,we must now endeavour to discover how much of the later ,pythagorean science may reasonably be ascribed to ,pythagoras himself4 ,footnote #bbg3 ,its immediate source is to be found in ,plato1 ,laws1 #gij d #b sqq41 where the ,korybantic rites are adduced as an instance4 ,for a full account see ,rohde1 ,psyche1 p4 #ccf1 n4 #b4 ,footnote #bbh3 ,plato gives this as the ,pythagorean view in ,phd4 #fb b1 for the interpretation of which cf4 ,espinas in ,arch4 viii4 pp4 #ddi sqq4 ,plato distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of ,philolaos1 but something older4 ,footnote #bbi3 ,see ,dring in ,arch4 v4 pp4 #eje sqq4 ,there seems to be a reference to the theory of the 8three lives0 in ,herakleitos1 fr4 #aaa4 ,it was apparently taught in the ,pythagorean ,society of ,phleious2 for ,herakleides made ,pythagoras expound it in a conversation with the tyrant of ,phleious 7,cic4 ,tusc4 v4 #c2 ,diog4 pr4 #ab1 viii4 #h71 and it is developed by ,plato in a dialogue which is1 as it were1 dedicated to ,echekrates4 ,if it should be thought that this is interpreting ,pythagoras too much in the light of ,schopenhauer1 it may be answered that even the ,orphics came very near such a theory4 ,the soul must not drink of ,lethe1 but go past it and drink of the water of ,memory1 before it can claim to become one of the heroes4 ,this has obvious points of contact with ,plato's 1 and the only question is how much of the ,phaedo we are to ascribe to ,pythagorean sources4 ,a great deal1 ,i suspect4 ,see ,prof4 ,stewart's ,myths of ,plato1 pp4 #aeb sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,arithmetic4 #df4 ,in his treatise on ,arithmetic1 ,aristoxenos said that ,pythagoras was the first to carry that study beyond the needs of commerce1#bcj and his statement is confirmed by everything we otherwise know4 ,by the end of the fifth century ,b4,c41 we find that there is a widespread interest in such subjects and that these are studied for their own sake4 ,now this new interest cannot have been wholly the work of a school2 it must have originated with some great man1 and there is no one but ,pythagoras to whom we can refer it4 ,as1 however1 he wrote nothing1 we have no sure means of distinguishing his own teaching from that of his followers in the next generation or two4 ,all we can safely say is that1 the more primitive any ,pythagorean doctrine appears1 the more likely it is to be that of ,pythagoras himself1 and all the more so if it can be shown to have points of contact with views which we know to have been held in his own time or shortly before it4 ,in particular1 when we find the later ,pythagoreans teaching things that were already something of an anachronism in their own day1 we may be reasonably sure that we are dealing with survivals which only the authority of the master's name could have preserved4 ,some of these must be mentioned at once1 though the developed system belongs to a later part of our story4 ,it is only by separating its earliest form from its later that the true place of ,pythagoreanism in ,greek thought can be made clear1 though we must always remember that no one can now pretend to draw the line between its successive stages with any certainty4 ,footnote #bcj3 ,stob4 i4 p4 #bj1 #a1 1 4 ,sidenote3 ,the figures4 #dg4 ,now one of the most remarkable statements that we have about ,pythagoreanism is what we are told of ,eurytos on the unimpeachable authority of ,archytas4 ,eurytos was the disciple of ,philolaos1 and ,aristoxenos expressly mentioned him along with ,philolaos as having taught the last of the ,pythagoreans1 the men with whom he himself was personally acquainted4 ,he therefore belongs to the beginning of the fourth century ,b4,c41 by which time the ,pythagorean system was fully developed1 and he was no eccentric enthusiast1 but one of the foremost men in the school4#bca ,we are told of him1 then1 that he used to give the number of all sorts of things1 such as horses and men1 and that he demonstrated these by arranging pebbles in a certain way4 ,it is to be noted further that ,aristotle compares his procedure to that of those who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and the square4#bcb ,footnote #bca3 ,apart from the story in ,iamblichos 7,v4 ,pyth4 #adh7 that ,eurytos heard the voice of ,philolaos from the grave after he had been many years dead1 it is to be noticed that he is mentioned after him in the statement of ,aristoxenos referred to 7,diog4 viii4 #df2 ,r4 ,p4 #fb74 ,footnote #bcb3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ajib b #h 7,r4 ,p4 #gf a74 ,aristotle does not quote the authority of ,archytas here1 but the source of his statement is made quite clear by ,theophr4 ,met4 p4 vi4 a #ai 7,usener71 7sc4 7 1 ' 1 1 ' 4 ,now these statements1 and especially the remark of ,aristotle last quoted1 seem to imply the existence at this date1 and earlier1 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 other4 ,the former was inconvenient for arithmetical purposes1 just because the zero was one of the few things the ,greeks did not invent1 and they were therefore unable to develop a really serviceable numerical symbolism based on position4 ,the latter1 as will appear shortly1 is intimately bound up with that absorption of arithmetic by geometry1 which is at least as old as ,plato1 but cannot be primitive4#bcc ,it seems rather that numbers were represented by dots arranged in symmetrical and easily recognised patterns1 of which the marking of dice or dominoes gives us the best idea4 ,and these markings are1 in fact1 the best proof that this is a genuinely primitive method of indicating numbers2 for they are of unknown antiquity1 and go back to the time when men could only count by arranging numbers in such patterns1 each of which became1 as it were1 a fresh unit4 ,this way of counting may well be as old as reckoning with the fingers1 or even older4 ,footnote #bcc3 ,arithmetic is older than geometry1 and was much more advanced in ,egypt1 though still in the form which the ,greeks called rather than as proper4 ,even ,plato puts ,arithmetic before ,geometry in the ,republic in deference to the tradition4 ,his own theory of number1 however1 suggested the inversion of this order which we find carried out in ,euclid4 ,it is1 therefore1 very significant that we do not find any adequate account of what ,aristotle can have meant by 8those who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and the square0 till we come to certain late writers who called themselves ,pythagoreans1 and revived the study of arithmetic as a science independent of geometry4 ,these men not only abandoned the linear symbolism of ,euclid1 but also regarded the alphabetical notation1 which they did use1 as something conventional1 and inadequate to represent the true nature of number4 ,nikomachos of ,gerasa says expressly that the letters used to represent numbers are only significant by human usage and convention4 ,the most natural way would be to represent linear or prime numbers by a row of units1 polygonal numbers by units arranged so as to mark out the various plane figures1 and solid numbers by units disposed in pyramids and so forth4#bcd ,he therefore gives us figures like this3-- ,now it ought to be obvious that this is no innovation1 but1 like so many things in ,neopythagoreanism1 a reversion to primitive usage4 ,of course the employment of the letter alpha to represent the units is derived from the conventional notation2 but otherwise we are clearly in presence of something which belongs to the very earliest stage of the science--something1 in fact1 which gives the only possible clue to the meaning of ,aristotle's remark1 and to what we are told of the method of ,eurytos4 ,footnote #bcd3 ,nikomachos of ,gerasa1 ,introd4 ,arithm4 p4 #hc1 #ab1 ,hoche1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 444 ,the same symbolism is used by ,theo1 ,expositio1 pp4 #ca sqq4 ,cf4 also ,iambl4 ,introd4 p4 #ef1 #bg1 ,pistelli1 1 ' 4 ,sidenote3 ,triangular1 square1 and oblong numbers4 #dh4 ,this is still further confirmed by the tradition which represents the great revelation made by ,pythagoras to mankind as having been precisely a figure of this kind1 namely the tetraktys1 by which the ,pythagoreans used to swear1#bce and we have no less an authority than ,speusippos for holding that the whole theory which it implies was genuinely ,pythagorean4#bcf ,in later days there were many kinds of tetraktys1#bcg but the original one1 that by which the ,pythagoreans swore1 was the 8tetraktys of the dekad40 ,it was a figure like this-- and represented the number ten as the triangle of four4 ,in other words1 it showed at a glance that #a #b #c #d #aj4 ,speusippos tells us of several properties which the ,pythagoreans discovered in the dekad4 ,it is1 for instance1 the first number that has in it an equal number of prime and composite numbers4 ,how much of this goes back to ,pythagoras himself1 we cannot tell2 but we are probably justified in referring to him the conclusion that it is 8according to nature0 that all ,hellenes and barbarians count up to ten and then begin over again4 ,footnote #bce3 ,cf4 the formula 1 which is all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of ,pythagoras by the forger of the 1 thus making him swear by himself6 ,see ,diels1 ,arch4 iii4 p4 #deg4 ,the ,doric dialect shows1 however1 that it belongs to the later generations of the school4 ,footnote #bcf3 ,speusippos wrote a work on the ,pythagorean numbers1 based chiefly on ,philolaos1 and a considerable fragment of it is preserved in the ,theologumena ,arithmetica4 ,it will be found in ,diels1 ,vorsokratiker1 p4 #bce1 #ae1 and is discussed by ,tannery1 ,science hellne1 pp4 #cgd sqq4 ,footnote #bcg3 ,for these see ,theon1 ,expositio1 pp4 #ic sqq4 ,hiller4 ,the used by ,plato in the ,timaeus is the second described by ,theon 7,exp4 p4 #id1 #aj sqq474 ,it is no doubt ,pythagorean1 but hardly as old as ,pythagoras4 ,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 form1 and these sums are accordingly called 8triangular numbers40 ,for similar reasons1 the sums of the series of successive odd numbers are called 8square numbers10 and those of successive even numbers 8oblong40 ,if odd numbers are added to the unit in the form of gnomons1 the result is always a similar figure1 namely a square1 while1 if even numbers are added1 we get a series of rectangles1#bch as shown by the figure3-- ,square ,numbers4 ,oblong ,numbers4 ,it is clear1 then1 that we are entitled to refer the study of sums of series to ,pythagoras himself2 but whether he went beyond the oblong1 and studied pyramidal or cubic numbers1 we cannot say4#bci ,footnote #bch3 ,cf4 ,milhaud1 ,philosophes gomtres1 pp4 #aae sqq4 ,aristotle puts the matter thus 7,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #ac73 1 4 ,this is more clearly stated by ,ps4-,plut4 7,stob4 i4 p4 #bb1 #af71 1 4 ,i cannot feel satisfied with any of the explanations which have been given of the words in the ,aristotelian passage 7see ,zeller1 p4 #cea1 n4 #b71 and ,i would therefore suggest comparing ,boutheros 7,stob4 i4 p4 #ai1 #i71 who says1 according to the ,,ms4 reading1 7 71 1 7sc4 74 ,footnote #bci3 ,in the fragment referred to above 7p4 #aac1 n4 #bcf71 ,speusippos speaks of four as the first pyramidal number2 but this is taken from ,philolaos1 so we cannot safely ascribe it to ,pythagoras4 ,sidenote3 ,geometry and harmonics4 #di4 ,it is easy to see how this way of representing numbers would suggest problems of a geometrical nature4 ,the dots which stand for the pebbles are regularly called 8boundary-stones0 71 termini1 8terms071 and the area which they occupy1 or rather mark out1 is the 8field0 774#bdj ,this is evidently a very early way of speaking1 and may therefore be referred to ,pythagoras himself4 ,now it must have struck him that 8fields0 could be compared as well as numbers1#bda and it is even likely that he knew the rough methods of doing this which were traditional in ,egypt1 though certainly these would fail to satisfy him4 ,once more the tradition is singularly helpful in suggesting the direction that his thoughts must have taken4 ,he knew1 of course1 the use of the triangle #c1 #d1 #e in constructing right angles4 ,we have seen 7p4 #bd7 that it was familiar in the ,east from a very early date1 and that ,thales introduced it to the ,hellenes1 if they did not know it already4 ,in later writers it is actually called the 8,pythagorean triangle40 ,now the ,pythagorean proposition par excellence is just that1 in a right-angled triangle1 the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides1 and the so-called ,pythagorean triangle is the application of its converse to a particular case4 ,the very name 8hypotenuse0 affords strong confirmation of the intimate connexion between the two things4 ,it means literally 8the cord stretching over against10 and this is surely just the rope of the 8harpedonapt40#bdb ,an early tradition says that ,pythagoras sacrificed an ox when he discovered the proof of this proposition1 and indeed it was the real foundation of scientific mathematics4#bdc ,footnote #bdj3 ,we have of a series 771 then of a proportion1 and in later times of a syllogism4 ,the signs 31 331 and are a survival of the original use4 ,the term is often used by the later ,pythagoreans1 though ,attic usage required for a rectangle4 ,the spaces between the of the abacus and the chess-board were also called 4 ,footnote #bda3 ,in his commentary on ,euclid i4 #dd1 ,proclus tells us on the authority of ,eudemos that the 1 1 and of were ,pythagorean inventions4 ,for an account of these and the subsequent application of the terms in ,conic ,sections1 see ,milhaud1 ,philosophes gomtres1 pp4 #ha sqq4 ,footnote #bdb3 ,the verb is1 of course1 used intransitively4 ,the explanation suggested in the text seems to me much simpler than that of ,max ,c4 ,p4 ,schmidt 7,kulturhistorische ,beitrge1 ,heft i4 pp4 #fd sqq474 ,he explains the hypotenuse as the longest string in a triangular harp2 but my view seems more in accordance with analogy4 ,so is1 literally1 a plumb-line4 ,footnote #bdc3 ,the statement comes from ,eudemos2 for it is found in ,proclus's commentary on ,euclid i4 #dg4 ,whether historical or not1 it is no ,neopythagorean fancy4 ,sidenote3 ,incommensurability4 #ej4 ,one great disappointment1 however1 awaited ,pythagoras4 ,it follows at once from the ,pythagorean proposition that the square on the diagonal of a square is double the square on its side1 and this ought surely to be capable of numerical expression4 ,as a matter of fact1 however1 there is no square number which can be divided into two equal square numbers1 and so the problem cannot be solved4 ,in this sense1 it is doubtless true that ,pythagoras discovered the incommensurability of the diagonal and the side of a square1 and the proof mentioned by ,aristotle1 namely1 that1 if they were commensurable1 we should have to say that an even number was equal to an odd number1 is distinctly ,pythagorean in character4#bdd ,however that may be1 it is certain that ,pythagoras did not care to pursue the subject any further4 ,he had1 as it were1 stumbled on the fact that the square root of two is a surd1 but we know that it was left for ,plato's friends1 ,theodoros of ,kyrene and ,theaitetos1 to give a complete theory of the matter4#bde ,the fact is that the discovery of the ,pythagorean proposition1 by giving birth to geometry1 had really superseded the old view of quantity as a sum of units2 but it was not till ,plato's time that the full consequences of this were seen4#bdf ,for the present1 the incommensurability of the diagonal and the square remained1 as has been said1 a 8scandalous exception40 ,our tradition says that ,hippasos of ,metapontion was drowned at sea for revealing this skeleton in the cupboard4#bdg ,footnote #bdd3 ,arist4 ,an4 ,pr4 1 #bc4 #da a #bf1 4 ,the proofs given at the end of ,euclid's ,tenth ,book 7vol4 iii4 pp4 #djh sqq41 ,heiberg7 turn on this very point4 ,they are not ,euclidean1 and may be substantially ,pythagorean4 ,cf4 ,milhaud1 ,philosophes gomtres1 p4 #id4 ,footnote #bde3 ,plato1 ,theaet4 #adg d #c sqq4 ,footnote #bdf3 ,how novel these consequences were1 is shown by the fact that in ,laws1 #hai d #e1 the ,athenian ,stranger says that he had only realised them late in life4 ,footnote #bdg3 ,this version of the tradition is mentioned in ,iamblichos1 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bdg1 and looks older than the other1 which we shall come to later 7 #adh74 ,hippasos is the enfant terrible of ,pythagoreanism1 and the traditions about him are full of instruction4 ,sidenote3 ,proportion and harmony4 #ea4 ,these last considerations show that1 while it is quite safe to attribute the substance of the ,first ,book of ,euclid to ,pythagoras1 the arithmetic of ,books ,,vii4-,,ix41 and the 8geometrical algebra0 of ,book ,,ii4 are certainly not his4 ,they operate with lines or with areas instead of with units1 and the relations which they establish therefore hold good whether they are capable of numerical expression or not4 ,that is doubtless why arithmetic is not treated in ,euclid till after plane geometry1 a complete inversion of the original order4 ,for the same reason1 the doctrine of proportion which we find in ,euclid cannot be ,pythagorean1 and is indeed the work of ,eudoxos4 ,yet it is clear that the early ,pythagoreans1 and probably ,pythagoras himself1 studied proportion in their own way1 and that the three 8medieties0 in particular go back to the founder1 especially as the most complicated of them1 the 8harmonic10 stands in close relation to his discovery of the octave4 ,if we take the harmonic proportion #ab 3 #h 3 #f1bdh we find that #ab 3 #f is the octave1 #ab 3 #h the fifth1 and #h 3 #f the fourth1 and it can hardly be doubted that it was ,pythagoras himself who discovered these intervals4 ,the stories which have come down to us about his observing the harmonic intervals in a smithy1 and then weighing the hammers that produced them1 or of his suspending weights corresponding to those of the hammers to equal strings1 are1 indeed1 impossible and absurd2 but it is sheer waste of time to rationalise them4#bdi ,for our purpose their absurdity is their chief merit4 ,they are not stories which any ,greek mathematician or musician could possibly have invented1 but genuine popular tales bearing witness to the existence of a real tradition that ,pythagoras was the author of this momentous discovery4 ,footnote #bdh3 ,plato 7,tim4 #cf a #c7 defines the harmonic mean as 444 4 ,the harmonic mean of #ab and #f is therefore #h2 for #h #ab - #ab_/c #f #f_/c4 ,footnote #bdi3 ,for these stories and a criticism of them1 see ,max ,c4 ,p4 ,schmidt1 ,kulturhistorische ,beitrge1 i4 pp4 #gh sqq4 ,the smith's hammers belong to the region of ,mrchen1 and it is not true either that the notes would be determined by the weight of the hammers1 or that1 if they were1 the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes4 ,these inaccuracies were pointed out by ,montucla 7,martin1 tudes sur le ,time1 i4 p4 #cia74 ,sidenote3 ,things are numbers4 #eb4 ,it was this too1 no doubt1 that led ,pythagoras to say all things were numbers4 ,we shall see that1 at a later date1 the ,pythagoreans identified these numbers with geometrical figures2 but the mere fact that they called them 8numbers10 when taken in connexion with what we are told about the method of ,eurytos1 is sufficient to show this was not the original sense of the doctrine4 ,it is enough to suppose that ,pythagoras reasoned somewhat as follows4 ,if musical sounds can be reduced to numbers1 why should not everything else8 ,there are many likenesses to number in things1 and it may well be that a lucky experiment1 like that by which the octave was discovered1 will reveal their true numerical nature4 ,the ,neopythagorean writers1 going back in this as in other matters to the earliest tradition of the school1 indulge their fancy in tracing out analogies between things and numbers in endless variety2 but we are fortunately dispensed from following them in these vagaries4 ,aristotle tells us distinctly that the ,pythagoreans explained only a few things by means of numbers1#bej which means that ,pythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the subject1 while the ,pythagoreans of the fifth century did not care to add anything of the sort to the school tradition4 ,aristotle does imply1 however1 that1 according to them the 8right time0 77 was seven1 justice was four1 and marriage three4 ,these identifications1 with a few others like them1 we may safely refer to ,pythagoras or his immediate successors2 but we must not attach much importance to them4 ,they are mere sports of the analogical fancy4 ,if we wish to understand the cosmology of ,pythagoras1 we must start1 not from them1 but from any statements we can find that present points of contact with the teaching of the ,milesian school4 ,these1 we may fairly infer1 belong to the system in its most primitive form4 ,footnote #bej3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ajgh b #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #gh72 ,zeller1 p4 #cij1 n4 #b4 ,the ,theologumena ,arithmetica1 wrongly attributed to ,nikomachos of ,gerasa1 is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject 7,r4 ,p4 #gh a74 ,alexander in ,met4 p4 #ch1 #h1 gives a few definitions which may be old 7,r4 ,p4 #gh c74 ,sidenote3 ,cosmology4 #ec4 ,now the most striking statement of this kind is one of ,aristotle's4 ,the ,pythagoreans held1 he tells us1 that there was 8boundless breath0 outside the heavens1 and that it was inhaled by the world4#bea ,in substance1 this is the doctrine of ,anaximenes1 and it becomes practically certain that it was that of ,pythagoras1 when we find that ,xenophanes denied it4#beb ,we may infer1 then1 that the further development of the idea is also due to ,pythagoras himself4 ,we are told that1 after the first unit had been formed--however that may have taken place--the nearest part of the ,boundless was first drawn in and limited2#bec and further1 that it is just the ,boundless thus inhaled that keeps the units separate from each other4#bed ,it represents the interval between them4 ,this is a very primitive way of describing the nature of discrete quantity4 ,footnote #bea3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #f4 #bac b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #ge74 ,footnote #beb3 ,diog4 ix4 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #ajc c74 ,it is true that ,diogenes is here drawing from a biographical rather than a doxographical source 7,dox4 p4 #afh71 but this touch can hardly be an invention4 ,footnote #bec3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ajia a #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #gd74 ,footnote #bed3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #f4 #bac b #bc 7,r4 ,p4 #ge a74 ,the words have caused unnecessary difficulty1 because they have been supposed to attribute the function of limiting to the 4 ,aristotle makes it quite clear that his meaning is that stated in the text4 ,cf4 especially the words 4 ,the term is the proper antithesis to 4 ,in his work on the ,pythagorean philosophy1 ,aristotle used instead the phrase 7,stob4 i4 p4 #aef1 #h2 ,r4 ,p4 #ge71 which is also quite intelligible if we remember what the ,pythagoreans meant by 7cf4 p4 #aae1 n4 #bdj74 ,in the passages of ,aristotle just referred to1 the ,boundless is also spoken of as the void or empty4 ,this identification of air and the void is a confusion which we have already met with in ,anaximenes1 and it need not surprise us to find it here too4#bee ,we find also1 as we might expect1 distinct traces of the other confusion1 that of air and vapour4 ,it seems certain1 in fact1 that ,pythagoras identified the ,limit with fire1 and the ,boundless with darkness4 ,we are told by ,aristotle that ,hippasos made ,fire the first principle1#bef and we shall see that ,parmenides1 in discussing the opinions of his contemporaries1 attributes to them the view that there were two primary 8forms10 ,fire and ,night4#beg ,we also find that ,light and ,darkness appear in the ,pythagorean table of opposites under the heads of the ,limit and the ,unlimited respectively4#beh ,the identification of breath with darkness here implied is a strong proof of the primitive character of the doctrine2 for in the sixth century darkness was supposed to be a sort of vapour1 while in the fifth1 its true nature was well known4 ,plato1 with his usual historical tact1 makes the ,pythagorean ,timaios describe mist and darkness as condensed air4#bei ,we must think1 then1 of a 8field0 of darkness or breath marked out by luminous units1 an imagination which the starry heavens would naturally suggest4 ,it is even probable that we should ascribe to ,pythagoras the ,milesian view of a plurality of worlds1 though it would not have been natural for him to speak of an infinite number4 ,we know1 at least1 that ,petron1 one of the early ,pythagoreans1 said there were just a hundred and eighty-three worlds arranged in a triangle2#bfj and ,plato makes ,timaios admit1 when laying down that there is only one world1 that something might be urged in favour of the view that there are five1 as there are five regular solids4#bfa ,footnote #bee3 ,cf4 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #f4 #bac a #bg1 ' 444 1 ' 1 2 de ,part4 ,an4 1 #aj4 #fef b #ae1 2 de ,an4 1 #aj #dai b #cd1 4 ,footnote #bef3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ef c74 ,footnote #beg3 ,see ,chap4 ,,iv4 #ia4 ,footnote #beh3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #be 7,r4 ,p4 #ff74 ,footnote #bei3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #eh d #b4 ,footnote #bfj3 ,this is quoted by ,plutarch1 de def4 orac4 #dbb b1 d1 from ,phanias of ,eresos1 who gave it on the authority of ,hippys of ,rhegion4 ,if we may follow ,wilamowitz 7,hermes1 xix4 p4 #ddd7 in supposing that this really means ,hippasos of ,metapontion 7and it was in ,rhegion that the ,pythagoreans took refuge71 this is a very valuable piece of evidence4 ,footnote #bfa3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #ee c #g sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,the heavenly bodies4 #ed4 ,anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies as wheels of 8air0 filled with fire which escapes through certain openings 7 #ai71 and there is evidence that ,pythagoras adopted the same view4#bfb ,we have seen that ,anaximander only assumed the existence of three such wheels1 and held that the wheel of the sun was the lowest4 ,it is extremely probable that ,pythagoras identified the intervals between these rings with the three musical intervals which he had discovered1 the fourth1 the fifth1 and the octave4 ,that would be the most natural beginning for the later doctrine of the 8harmony of the spheres10 though that expression would be doubly misleading if applied to any theory we can properly ascribe to ,pythagoras himself4 ,the word does not mean harmony1 and the 8spheres0 are an anachronism4 ,we are still at the stage when wheels or rings were considered sufficient to account for the motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,it is also to be observed that sun1 moon1 planets1 and fixed stars must all be regarded as moving in the same direction from east to west4 ,pythagoras certainly did not ascribe to the planets an orbital motion of their own from west to east4 ,the old idea was rather that they were left behind more or less every day4 ,as compared with the fixed stars1 ,saturn is left behind least of all1 and the ,moon most2 so1 instead of saying that the ,moon took a shorter time than ,saturn to complete its path through the signs of the ,zodiac1 men said ,saturn travelled quicker than the ,moon1 because it more nearly succeeds in keeping up with the signs4 ,instead of holding that ,saturn takes thirty years to complete its revolution1 they said it took the fixed stars thirty years to pass ,saturn1 and only twenty-nine days and a half to pass the ,moon4 ,this is one of the most important points to bear in mind regarding the planetary systems of the ,greeks1 and we shall return to it again4#bfc ,footnote #bfb3 ,this will be found in ,chap4 ,,iv4 #ic4 ,footnote #bfc3 ,for a clear statement of this view 7which was still that of ,demokritos71 see ,lucretius1 v4 #fba sqq4 ,the view that the planets had an orbital motion from west to east is attributed by ,aetios1 ii4 #af1 #c1 to ,alkmaion 7 #if71 which certainly implies that ,pythagoras did not hold it4 ,as we shall see 7 #aeb71 it is far from clear that any of the ,pythagoreans did4 ,it seems rather to be ,plato's discovery4 ,the account just given of the views of ,pythagoras is1 no doubt1 conjectural and incomplete4 ,we have simply assigned to him those portions of the ,pythagorean system which appear to be the oldest1 and it has not even been possible at this stage to cite fully the evidence on which our discussion is based4 ,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 ,pythagoreans4#bfd ,for reasons which will then be apparent1 ,i do not venture to ascribe to ,pythagoras himself the theory of the earth's revolution round the central fire4 ,it seems safest to suppose that he still adhered to the geocentric hypothesis of ,anaximander4 ,in spite of this1 however1 it will be clear that he opened a new period in the development of ,greek science1 and it was certainly to his school that its greatest discoveries were directly or indirectly due4 ,when ,plato deliberately attributes some of his own most important discoveries to the ,pythagoreans1 he was acknowledging in a characteristic way the debt he owed them4 ,footnote #bfd3 ,see ,chap4 ,,iv4 #ib-ic1 and ,chap4 ,,vii4 #aej-aeb4 ,,ii4 ,,xenophanes ,,of ,,kolophon ,sidenote3 ,life4 #ee4 ,we have seen how ,pythagoras identified himself with the religious movement of his time2 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 one4 ,xenophanes denied the anthropomorphic gods altogether1 but was quite unaffected by the revival of more primitive ideas that was going on all round him4 ,we still have a fragment of an elegy in which he ridiculed ,pythagoras and the doctrine of transmigration4 8,once1 they say1 he was passing by when a dog was being ill-treated4 #8,stop6' he said1 #8don't hit it6 ,it is the soul of a friend6 ,i knew it when ,i heard its voice4'0#bfe ,we are also told that he opposed the views of ,thales and ,pythagoras1 and attacked ,epimenides1 which is likely enough1 though no fragments of the kind have come down to us4#bff ,his chief importance lies in the fact that he was the author of the quarrel between philosophy and poetry which culminated in ,plato's ,republic4 ,footnote #bfe3 ,see fr4 #g 7 #ah ,karst471 ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #cf 7,r4 ,p4 #hh74 ,footnote #bff3 ,diog4 ix4 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #ig74 ,we know that ,xenophanes referred to the prediction of an eclipse by ,thales 7,chap4 ,i4 p4 #da1 n4 #fb74 ,we shall see that his own view of the sun was hardly consistent with the possibility of such a prediction1 so it may have been in connexion with this that he opposed him4 ,it is not easy to determine the date of ,xenophanes4 ,timaios said he was a contemporary of ,hieron and ,epicharmos1 and he certainly seems to have 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 fifth4#bfg ,as ,hieron reigned from #dgh to #dfg ,b4,c41 that would make it impossible to date the birth of ,xenophanes much earlier than #egj ,b4,c41 even if we suppose him to have lived till the age of a hundred4 ,on the other hand1 both ,sextus and ,clement say that ,apollodoros gave ,ol4 ,,xl4 7#fbj-faf ,b4,c47 as the date of his birth1 and the former adds that his days were prolonged till the time of ,dareios and ,cyrus4#bfh ,again1 ,diogenes1 whose information on such matters mostly comes from ,apollodoros1 says that he flourished in ,ol4 ,,lx4 7#edj-ecg ,b4,c471 and ,diels holds that ,apollodoros really said so4#bfi ,however that may be1 it is evident that the date #edj ,b4,c4 is based on the assumption that he went to ,elea in the year of its foundation1 and is1 therefore1 a mere combination4#bgj ,footnote #bfg3 ,timaios ap4 ,clem4 ,strom4 i4 p4 #ecc 7,r4 ,p4 #ie74 ,there is only one anecdote which actually represents ,xenophanes in conversation with ,hieron 7,plut4 ,reg4 apophth4 #age e71 but it is natural to understand ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ajaj a #d as an allusion to a remark made by ,epicharmos to him4 ,aristotle has more than one anecdote about ,xenophanes1 and it seems most likely that he derived them from the romance of which ,xenophon's ,strom4 is an echo4 ,footnote #bfh3 ,clem41 loc4 cit42 ,sext4 ,strom4 i4 #beg4 ,the mention of ,cyrus is confirmed by ,hipp4 ,strom4 i4 #id4 ,diels thinks that ,dareios was mentioned first for metrical reasons2 but no one has satisfactorily explained why ,cyrus should be mentioned at all1 unless the early date was intended4 ,on the whole subject1 see ,jacoby1 pp4 #bjd sqq41 who is certainly wrong in supposing that can mean 8during the times of ,dareios and ,cyrus40 ,footnote #bfi3 ,strom4 xxxi4 p4 #bb4 ,he assumes an early corruption of ,n into ,m4 ,as ,apollodoros gave the ,athenian archon1 and not the ,olympiad1 we might with more probability suppose a confusion due to two archons having the same name4 ,footnote #bgj3 ,as ,elea was founded by the ,phokaians six years after they left ,phokaia 7,herod4 i4 #afd sqq47 its date is just #edj-ci ,b4,c4 ,cf4 the way in which ,apollodoros dated ,empedokles by the era of ,thourioi 7 #ih74 ,what we do know for certain is that ,xenophanes had led a wandering life from the age of twenty-five1 and that he was still alive and making poetry at the age of ninety-two4 ,he says himself 7fr4 #h #bd ,karst42 ,r4 ,p4 #ig73-- ,there are by this time threescore years and seven that have tossed my careworn soul#bga up and down the land of ,hellas2 and there were then five-and-twenty years from my birth1 if ,i can say aught truly about these matters4 ,footnote #bga3 ,bergk 7,litteraturgesch4 ii4 p4 #dah1 n4 #bc7 took here to mean the literary work of ,xenophanes1 but it is surely an anachronism to suppose that at this date it could be used like the ,latin cura4 ,it is tempting to suppose that in this passage ,xenophanes was referring to the conquest of ,ionia by ,harpagos1 and that he is1 in fact1 answering the question asked in another poem#bgb 7fr4 #bb #ag ,karst42 ,r4 ,p4 #ie a73-- ,this is the sort of thing we should say by the fireside in the winter-time1 as we lie on soft couches after a good meal1 drinking sweet wine and crunching chickpeas3 8,of what country are you1 and how old are you1 good sir8 ,and how old were you when the ,mede appeared80 ,footnote #bgb3 ,it was certainly another poem2 for it is in hexameters while the preceding fragment is in elegiacs4 ,we cannot1 however1 be sure of this1 and we must be content with what is1 after all1 for our purpose the main fact1 namely1 that he refers to ,pythagoras in the past tense1 and is in turn so referred to by ,herakleitos4#bgc ,footnote #bgc3 ,xenophanes1 fr4 #g 7above1 p4 #abd1 n4 #bfe72 ,herakleitos1 frs4 #af1 #ag 7below1 p4 #adg74 ,theophrastos said that ,xenophanes had 8heard0 ,anaximander1#bgd and we shall see that he was certainly acquainted with the ,ionian cosmology4 ,when driven from his native city1 he lived in ,sicily1 chiefly1 we are told1 at ,zankle and ,katana4#bge ,like ,archilochos before him1 he unburdened his soul in elegies and satires1 which he recited at the banquets where1 we may suppose1 the refugees tried to keep up the usages of good ,ionian society4 ,the statement that he was a rhapsode has no foundation at all4#bgf ,the singer of elegies was no professional like the rhapsode1 but the social equal of his listeners4 ,in his ninety-second year he was still1 we have seen1 leading a wandering life1 which is hardly consistent with the statement that he settled at ,elea and founded a school there1 especially if we are to think of him as spending his last days at ,hieron's court4 ,it is quite probable that he visited ,elea1 and it is just possible that he wrote a poem of two thousand hexameters on the foundation of that city1 which was naturally a subject of interest to all the ,ionic migrs4#bgg ,but it is very remarkable that no ancient writer expressly says that he ever was at ,elea1 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 not4 8,if you think her a goddess10 he said1 8do not lament her2 if not1 do not sacrifice to her40 ,that is absolutely all1 and it is only an apophthegm4#bgh ,it is strange there should be no more if ,xenophanes had really found a home at last in the ,phokaian colony4 ,footnote #bgd3 ,diog4 ix4 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #if a74 ,footnote #bge3 ,diog4 ix4 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #if74 ,the use of the old name ,zankle1 instead of the later ,messene1 points to an early source for this statement--probably the elegies of ,xenophanes himself4 ,footnote #bgf3 ,diog4 ix4 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #ig7 says 1 which is a very different thing4 ,nothing is said anywhere of his reciting ,homer1 and the word is used quite loosely for 8to recite40 ,gomperz's imaginative picture 7,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #aee7 has no further support than this single word4 ,nor is there any trace of ,homeric influence in the fragments4 ,they are in the usual elegiac style4 ,footnote #bgg3 ,the statement is justly suspected by ,hiller 7,rh4 ,mus4 xxxiii4 p4 #ebi7 to come from ,lobon of ,argos1 who provided the ,seven ,wise ,men1 ,epimenides1 etc41 with stichometric notices1 all duly recorded in ,diogenes4 ,even if true1 however1 it proves nothing4 ,footnote #bgh3 ,arist4 ,rhet4 1 #bf4 #adjj b #e 7,r4 ,p4 #ih a74 ,anecdotes like this are really anonymous4 ,plutarch transfers the story to ,egypt 7,p4 ,ph4 ,fr4 p4 #bb1 #ac71 and others tell it of ,herakleitos4 ,it is hardly safe to build on such a foundation4 ,sidenote3 ,poems4 #ef4 ,according to a notice preserved in ,diogenes1 ,xenophanes wrote in hexameters and also composed elegies and iambics against ,homer and ,hesiod4#bgi ,no good authority says anything about his having written a philosophical poem4#bhj ,simplicius tells us he had never met with the verses about the earth stretching infinitely downwards 7fr4 #bh71bha and this means that the ,academy possessed no copy of such a poem1 which would be very strange if it had ever existed4 ,simplicius was able to find the complete works of much smaller men4 ,nor does internal evidence lend any support to the view that he wrote a philosophical poem4 ,diels refers about twenty-eight lines to it1 but they would all come in quite as naturally in his attacks on ,homer and ,hesiod1 as ,i have endeavoured to show4 ,it is also significant that a considerable number of them are derived from commentators on ,homer4#bhb ,it seems probable1 then1 that ,xenophanes expressed his theological and philosophical views incidentally in his satires4 ,that would be quite in the manner of the time1 as we can see from the remains of ,epicharmos4 ,footnote #bgi3 ,diog4 ix4 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #ig74 ,the word is a reminiscence of ,timon1 fr4 #fj2 ,diels1 4 ,footnote #bhj3 ,the oldest reference to a poem is in the ,geneva scholium on ,il4 xxi4 #aif 7quoting fr4 #cj71 and this goes back to ,krates of ,mallos4 ,we must remember1 however1 that such titles are of later date than ,xenophanes1 and he had been given a place among philosophers long before the time of ,krates4 ,all we can say1 therefore1 is that the ,pergamene librarians gave the title to some poem of ,xenophanes4 ,footnote #bha3 ,simpl4 de ,caelo1 p4 #ebb1 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ig b74 ,it is true that two of our fragments 7#be and #bf7 are preserved by ,simplicius1 but he got them from ,alexander4 ,probably they were quoted by ,theophrastos2 for it is plain that ,alexander had no first-hand knowledge of ,xenophanes either4 ,if he had1 he would not have been taken in by ,m4,x4,g4 7,see p4 #ach1 n4 #cje47 ,footnote #bhb3 ,three fragments 7#bg1 #ca1 #cc7 come from the ,homeric ,allegories1 two 7#cj1 #cb7 are from ,homeric scholia4 ,the satires themselves are called ,silloi by late writers1 and this name may go back to ,xenophanes himself4 ,it is also possible1 however1 that it originates in the fact that ,timon of ,phleious1 the 8sillographer0 7c4 #bei ,b4,c471 put much of his satire upon philosophers into the mouth of ,xenophanes4 ,only one iambic line has been preserved1 and that is immediately followed by a hexameter 7fr4 #ad #e ,karst474 ,this suggests that ,xenophanes inserted iambic lines among his hexameters in the manner of the ,margites1 which would be a very natural thing for him to do4#bhc ,footnote #bhc3 ,cf4 ,wilamowitz1 ,progr4 ,gryphiswald4 #ahhj4 ,sidenote3 ,the fragments4 #eg4 ,i give all the fragments of any importance according to the text and arrangement of ,diels4 ,,elegies 7#a7 ,now is the floor clean1 and the hands and cups of all2 one sets twisted garlands on our heads1 another hands us fragrant ointment on a salver4 ,the mixing bowls stand ready1 full of gladness1 and there is more wine at hand that promises never to leave us in the lurch1 soft and smelling of flowers in the jars4 ,in the midst the frankincense sends up its holy smoke1 and there is cold water1 sweet and clean4 ,brown loaves are set before us and a lordly table laden with cheese and rich honey4 ,the altar in the midst is clustered round with flowers2 song and revel fill the halls4 ,but first it is meet that men should hymn the god with joyful song1 with holy tales and pure words2 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 attendant1 so he be not stricken in years4 ,and above all men is he to be praised who after drinking gives goodly proof of himself in the trial of skill1 as memory and voice will serve him4 ,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 all2 but ever give heedful reverence to the gods4 7#b7 ,what if a man win victory in swiftness of foot1 or in the pentathlon1 at ,olympia1 where is the precinct of ,zeus by ,pisa's springs1 or in wrestling1--what if by cruel boxing or that fearful sport men call pankration he become more glorious in the citizens' eyes1 and win a place of honour in the sight of all at the games1 his food at the public cost from the ,state1 and a gift to be an heirloom for him1--what if he conquer in the chariot-race1--he will not deserve all this for his portion so much as ,i do4 ,far better is our art than the strength of men and of horses6 ,these are but thoughtless judgments1 nor is it fitting to set strength before our art4 ,even if there arise a mighty boxer among a people1 or one great in the pentathlon or at wrestling1 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 that4 ,it is but little joy a city gets of it if a man conquer at the games by ,pisa's banks2 it is not this that makes fat the store-houses of a city4 7#c7 ,they learnt dainty and unprofitable ways from the ,lydians1 so long as they were free from hateful tyranny2 they went to the market-place with cloaks of purple dye1 not less than a thousand of them all told1 vainglorious and proud of their comely tresses1 reeking with fragrance from cunning salves4 ,,satires 7#aj7 ,since all at first have learnt according to ,homer4444 7#aa7 ,homer and ,hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals1 stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another4 ,r4 ,p4 #ii4 7#ab7 ,they have uttered many1 many lawless deeds of the gods1 stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 7#ad7 ,but mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are1 and have clothes#bhd like theirs1 and voice and form4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajj4 7#ae7 ,yes1 and if oxen and horses or lions had hands1 and could paint with their hands1 and produce works of art as men do1 horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses1 and oxen like oxen1 and make their bodies in the image of their several kinds4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 7#af7 ,the ,ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed2 the ,thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajj b4 7#ah7 ,the gods have not revealed all things to men from the beginning1 but by seeking they find in time what is better4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajd b4 7#bc7 ,one god1 the greatest among gods and men1 neither in form like unto mortals nor in thought4444 ,r4 ,p4 #ajj4 7#bd7 ,he sees all over1 thinks all over1 and hears all over4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajb4 7#be7 ,but without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his mind4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajh b4 7#bf7 ,and he abideth ever in the selfsame place1 moving not at all2 nor doth it befit him to go about now hither now thither4 ,r4 ,p4 #aaj a4 7#bg7 ,all things come from the earth1 and in earth all things end4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajc a4 7#bh7 ,this limit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with the air2#bhe below it reaches down without a limit4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajc4 7#bi7 ,all things are earth and water that come into being and grow4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajc4 7#cj7 ,the sea is the source of water and the source of wind2 for neither in the clouds 7would there be any blasts of wind blowing forth7 from within without the mighty sea1 nor rivers' streams nor rain-water from the sky4 ,the mighty sea is father of clouds and of winds and of rivers4#bhf ,r4 ,p4 #ajc4 7#ca7 ,the sun swinging over#bhg the earth and warming it4444 7#cb7 ,she that they call ,iris is a cloud likewise1 purple1 scarlet and green to behold4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajc4 7#cc7 ,for we all are born of earth and water4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 7#cd7 ,there never was nor will be a man who has certain knowledge about the gods and about all the things ,i speak of4 ,even if he should chance to say the complete truth1 yet he himself knows not that it is so4 ,but all may have their fancy4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajd4 7#ce7 ,let these be taken as fancies#bhh something like the truth4 ,r4 ,p4 #ajd a4 7#cf7 ,all of them#bhi that are visible for mortals to behold4 7#cg7 ,and in some caves water drips4444 7#ch7 ,if god had not made brown honey1 men would think figs far sweeter than they do4 ,footnote #bhd3 ,i formerly1 with ,zeller1 preferred ,theodoret's reading 1 but both ,clement and ,eusebios have 1 and ,theodoret is entirely dependent on them4 ,footnote #bhe3 ,reading for with ,diels4 ,footnote #bhf3 ,this fragment has been recovered in its entirety from the ,geneva scholia on ,homer 7see ,arch4 iv4 p4 #feb74 ,the words in brackets are added by ,diels4 ,see also ,praechter1 8,zu ,xenophanes0 7,philol4 xviii4 p4 #cjh74 ,footnote #bhg3 ,the word is 4 ,this is quoted from the ,allegories as an explanation of the name ,hyperion1 and doubtless ,xenophanes so meant it4 ,footnote #bhh3 ,reading with ,wilamowitz4 ,footnote #bhi3 ,as ,diels suggests1 this probably refers to the stars1 which ,xenophanes held to be clouds4 ,sidenote3 ,the heavenly bodies4 #eh4 ,the intention of one of these fragments 7fr4 #cb7 is perfectly clear4 8,iris too0 is a cloud1 and we may infer that the same thing had just been said of the sun1 moon1 and stars2 for the doxographers tell us that these were all explained as 8clouds ignited by motion40#bij ,to the same context clearly belongs the explanation of the ,st4 ,elmo's fire which ,aetios has preserved4 8,the things like stars which appear on ships10 we are told1 8which some call the ,dioskouroi1 are little clouds made luminous by motion40#bia ,in the doxographers this explanation is repeated with trifling variations under the head of moon1 stars1 comets1 lightning1 shooting stars1 and so forth1 which gives the appearance of a systematic cosmology4#bib ,but the system is due to the arrangement of the work of ,theophrastos1 and not to ,xenophanes2 for it is obvious that a very few hexameters added to those we possess would amply account for the whole doxography4 ,footnote #bij3 ,cf4 ,diels ad loc4 7,p4 ,ph4 ,fr4 p4 #dd71 8ut ,sol et cetera astra1 quae cum in nebulas evanescerent1 deorum simul opinio casura erat40 ,cf4 ,arch4 x4 p4 #ecc4 ,footnote #bia3 ,aet4 ii4 #ah1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #cdg71 1 1 4 ,what we hear of the sun presents some difficulties4 ,we are told1 on the one hand1 that it too was an ignited cloud2 but this can hardly be right4 ,the evaporation of the sea from which clouds arise is distinctly said to be due to the sun's heat4 ,theophrastos stated that the sun1 according to ,xenophanes1 was a collection of sparks from the moist exhalation2 but even this leaves the exhalation itself unexplained4#bic ,that1 however1 matters little1 if the chief aim of ,xenophanes was to discredit the anthropomorphic gods1 rather than to give a scientific theory of the heavenly bodies4 ,the important thing is that ,helios too is a temporary phenomenon4 ,the sun does not go round the earth1 as ,anaximander taught1 but straight on1 and the appearance of a circular path is solely due to its increasing distance4 ,so it is not the same sun that rises next morning1 but a new one altogether2 while the old one 8tumbles into a hole0 when it comes to certain uninhabited regions of the earth4 ,besides that1 there are many suns and moons1 one of each for every region of the earth4#bid ,it is obvious that things of that kind cannot be gods4 ,footnote #bib3 ,the passages from ,aetios are collected in ,p4 ,ph4 ,fr4 pp4 #cb sqq4 7,vors4 p4 #db74 ,footnote #bic3 ,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cdh71 4 1 4 ,footnote #bid3 ,aet4 ii4 #bd1 #i 7,dox4 p4 #cee74 1 ' ' 1 4 ,it is clear that in this notice has been erroneously substituted for 1 as it has also in ,aet4 ii4 #bd1 #d 7,dox4 p4 #ced74 ,the vigorous expression 8tumbling into a hole0#bie seems clearly to come from the verses of ,xenophanes himself1 and there are others of a similar kind1 which we must suppose were quoted by ,theophrastos4 ,the stars go out in the daytime1 but glow again at night 8like charcoal embers40#bif ,the sun is of some use in producing the world and the living creatures in it1 but the moon 8does no work in the boat40#big ,such expressions can only be meant to make the heavenly bodies appear ridiculous1 and it will therefore be well to ask whether the other supposed cosmological fragments can be interpreted on the same principle4 ,footnote #bie3 ,that this is the meaning of appears sufficiently from the passages referred to in ,liddell and ,scott4 ,footnote #bif3 ,aet4 ii4 #ac1 #ad 7,dox4 p4 #cdc71 4 ,footnote #big3 ,aet4 ii4 #cj1 #h 7,dox4 p4 #cfb71 1 1 ,the verb means 8to cork40 ,cf4 ,aristophanes1 ,pax1 #acjf4 ,sidenote3 ,earth and water4 #ei4 ,in fr4 #bi ,xenophanes says that 8all things are earth and water10 and ,hippolytos has preserved the account given by ,theophrastos of the context in which this occurred4 ,it was as follows3-- ,xenophanes said that a mixture of the earth with the sea is taking place1 and that it is being gradually dissolved by the moisture4 ,he says that he has the following proofs of this4 ,shells are found in midland districts and on hills1 and he says that in the quarries at ,syracuse has been found the imprint of a fish and of seaweed1 at ,paros the form of an anchovy in the depth of the stone1 and at ,malta flat impressions of all marine animals4 ,these1 he says1 were produced when all things were formerly mud1 and the outlines were dried in the mud4 ,all human beings are destroyed when the earth has been carried down into the sea and turned to mud4 ,this change takes place for all the worlds4--,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #ad 7,r4 ,p4 #ajc a74 ,this is1 of course1 the theory of ,anaximander1 and we may perhaps credit him rather than ,xenophanes with the observations of fossils4#bih ,most remarkable of all1 however1 is the statement that this change applies to 8all the worlds40 ,it really seems impossible to doubt that ,theophrastos attributed a belief in 8innumerable worlds0 to ,xenophanes4 ,as we have seen already1 ,aetios includes him in his list of those who held this doctrine1 and ,diogenes ascribes it to him also4#bii ,in this place1 ,hippolytos seems to take it for granted4 ,we shall also find1 however1 that in another connexion he said the ,world or ,god was one4 ,if our interpretation of him is correct1 there is no difficulty here4 ,the main point is that1 so far from being a primeval goddess1 and 8a sure seat for all things ever10 ,gaia too is a passing appearance4 ,that belongs to the attack upon ,hesiod1 and1 if in this connexion ,xenophanes spoke1 with ,anaximander1 of 8innumerable worlds10 while elsewhere he said that ,god or the ,world was one1 that is probably connected with a still better attested contradiction which we have now to examine4 ,footnote #bih3 ,there is an interesting note on these in ,gomperz's ,greek ,thinkers 7,eng4 trans4 i4 p4 #eea74 ,i have translated his conjecture instead of the ,,ms4 1 as this is said to involve a palontological impossibility1 and impressions of fucoids are found1 not indeed in the quarries of ,syracuse1 but near them4 ,it is said also that there are no fossils in ,paros1 so the anchovy must have been an imaginary one4 ,footnote #bii3 ,aet4 ii4 #a1 #b 7,dox41 p4 #cbg72 ,diog4 ix4 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #ajc c74 ,it is true1 of course1 that this passage of ,diogenes comes from the biographical compendium 7,dox4 p4 #afh72 but1 for all that1 it is a serious matter to deny the ,theophrastean origin of a statement found in ,aetios1 ,hippolytos1 and ,diogenes4 ,sidenote3 ,finite or infinite8 #fj4 ,aristotle tried without success to discover from the poems of ,xenophanes whether he regarded the world as finite or infinite4 8,he made no clear pronouncement on the subject10 he tells us4#cjj ,theophrastos1 on the other hand1 decided that he regarded it as spherical and finite because he said it was 8equal every way40#cja ,this1 however1 leads to very serious difficulties4 ,we have seen already that ,xenophanes said the sun went right on to infinity1 and this agrees with his view of the earth as an infinitely extended plain4 ,still more difficult to reconcile with the idea of a spherical and finite world is the statement of fr4 #bh that1 while the earth has an upper limit which we see1 it has no limit below4 ,this is attested by ,aristotle1 who speaks of the earth being 8infinitely rooted10 and adds that ,empedokles criticised ,xenophanes for holding this view4#cjb ,it further appears from the fragment of ,empedokles quoted by ,aristotle that ,xenophanes said the vast ,air extended infinitely upwards4#cjc ,we are therefore bound to try to find room for an infinite earth and an infinite air in a spherical and finite world6 ,that comes of trying to find science in satire4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we regard these statements from the same point of view as those about the heavenly bodies1 we shall at once see what they most probably mean4 ,the story of ,ouranos and ,gaia was always the chief scandal of the ,theogony1 and the infinite air gets rid of ,ouranos altogether4 ,as to the earth stretching infinitely downwards1 that gets rid of ,tartaros1 which ,homer described as situated at the bottommost limit of earth and sea1 as far beneath ,hades as heaven is above the earth4#cjd ,this is pure conjecture1 of course2 but1 if it is even possible1 we are entitled to disbelieve that such startling contradictions occurred in a cosmological poem4 ,footnote #cjj3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #bc 7,r4 ,p4 #aja71 4 ,footnote #cja3 ,this is given as an inference by ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #bc1 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #ajh b71 4 ,it does not merely come from ,m4,x4,g4 7,r4 ,p4 #ajh71 ' 4 ,hippolytos has it too 7,ref4 i4 #ad2 ,r4 ,p4 #ajb a71 so it goes back to ,theophrastos4 ,timon of ,phleious understood ,xenophanes in the same way2 for he makes him call the ,one 7fr4 #fj1 ,diels #dj ,wachsm42 ,r4 ,p4 #ajb a74 ,footnote #cjb3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bid a #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #ajc b74 ,footnote #cjc3 ,i take as an attribute and as predicate to both subjects4 ,footnote #cjd3 ,il4 viii4 #ac-af1 #dgh-dha1 especially the words ' ' 444 ,iliad viii4 must have seemed a particularly bad book to ,xenophanes4 ,a more subtle explanation of the difficulty commended itself to the late ,peripatetic who wrote an account of the ,eleatic school1 part of which is still extant in the ,aristotelian corpus1 and is generally known now as the treatise on ,melissos1 ,xenophanes1 and ,gorgias4#cje ,he said that ,xenophanes declared the world to be neither finite nor infinite1 and he composed a series of arguments in support of this thesis1 to which he added another like it1 namely1 that the world is neither in motion nor at rest4 ,this has introduced endless confusion into our sources4 ,alexander used this treatise as well as the great work of ,theophrastos1 and ,simplicius supposed the quotations from it to be from ,theophrastos too4 ,having no copy of the poems he was completely baffled1 and until recently all accounts of ,xenophanes were vitiated by the same confusion4 ,it may even be suggested that1 but for this1 we should have heard very little of the 8philosophy of ,xenophanes10 a way of speaking which is in the main a survival from the days before this scholastic exercise was recognised as having no authority4 ,footnote #cje3 ,in ,bekker's edition this treatise bears the title 1 1 1 but the best ,,ms4 gives as the titles of its three sections3 7#a7 1 7#b7 1 7#c7 4 ,the first section1 however1 plainly refers to ,melissos1 so the whole treatise is now entitled ,de ,melisso1 ,xenophane1 ,gorgia 7,m4,x4,g474 ,it has been edited by ,apelt in the ,teubner ,series1 and more recently by ,diels 7,abh4 der k4 ,preuss4 ,akad4 #aijj71 who has also given the section dealing with ,xenophanes in ,p4 ,ph4 ,fr4 pp4 #bd-bi 7,vors4 pp4 #cf sqq474 ,he has now withdrawn the view maintained in ,dox4 p4 #ajh that the work belongs to the third century ,b4,c41 and holds that it was a ,peripatetico eclectico 7i4e4 sceptica1 platonica1 stoica admiscente7 circa ,christi natalem conscriptum4 ,if that is so1 there is no reason to doubt1 as ,i formerly did1 that the second section is really meant to deal with ,xenophanes4 ,the writer would have no first-hand knowledge of his poems1 and the order in which the philosophers are discussed is that of the passage in the ,metaphysics which suggested the whole thing4 ,it is possible that a section on ,parmenides preceded what we now have4 ,sidenote3 ,god and the world4 #fa4 ,in the passage of the ,metaphysics just referred to1 ,aristotle speaks of ,xenophanes as 8the first partisan of the ,one10#cjf and the context shows that he means to suggest he was the first of the ,eleatics4 ,we have seen already that the certain facts of his life make it very unlikely that he settled at ,elea and founded a school there1 and it is probable that1 as usual in such cases1 ,aristotle is simply reproducing certain statements of ,plato4 ,at any rate1 ,plato had spoken of the ,eleatics as the 8partisans of the ,whole10#cjg and he had also spoken of the school as 8starting with ,xenophanes and even earlier40#cjh ,the last words1 however1 show clearly enough what he meant4 ,just as he called the ,herakleiteans 8followers of ,homer and still more ancient teachers10#cji so he attached the ,eleatic school to ,xenophanes and still earlier authorities4 ,we have seen in other instances how these playful and ironical remarks of ,plato were taken seriously by his successors1 and we need not let this fresh instance of the same thing influence our general view of ,xenophanes unduly4 ,footnote #cjf3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #aja71 4 ,the verb occurs nowhere else1 but is plainly formed on the analogy of 1 1 and the like4 ,it is not likely that it means 8to unify40 ,aristotle could easily have said if he had meant that4 ,footnote #cjg3 ,tht4 #aha a #f1 4 ,the noun has no other meaning than 8partisan40 ,there is no verb 8to make stationary10 and such a formation would be against all analogy4 ,the derivation 444 appears first in ,sext4 ,math4 x4 #df1 from which passage we may infer that ,aristotle used the word1 not that he gave the derivation4 ,footnote #cjh3 ,soph4 #bdb d #e 7,r4 ,p4 #aja b74 ,if the passage implies that ,xenophanes settled at ,elea1 it equally implies this of his predecessors4 ,but ,elea was not founded till ,xenophanes was in the prime of life4 ,footnote #cji3 ,tht4 #agi e #c1 1 4 ,in this passage1 ,homer stands to the ,herakleiteans in exactly the same relation as ,xenophanes does to the ,eleatics in the ,sophist4 ,aristotle goes on to tell us that ,xenophanes1 8referring to the whole world1#caj said the ,one was god40 ,this clearly alludes to frs4 #bc-bf1 where all human attributes are denied of a god who is said to be one and 8the greatest among gods and men40 ,it may be added that these verses gain very much in point if we may think of them as closely connected with frs4 #aa-af1 instead of referring the one set of verses to the ,satires and the other to a cosmological poem4 ,it was probably in the same context that ,xenophanes called the world or god 8equal every way0#caa and denied that it breathed4#cab ,the statement that1 there is no mastership among the gods#cac also goes very well with fr4 #bf4 ,a god has no wants1 nor is it fitting for one god to be the servant of others1 like ,iris and ,hermes in ,homer4 ,footnote #caj3 ,met4 #iha b #bd4 ,the words cannot mean 8gazing up at the whole heavens10 or anything of that sort4 ,they are taken as ,i take them by ,bonitz 7im ,hinblicke auf den ganzen ,himmel7 and ,zeller 7im ,hinblick auf das ,weltganze74 ,the word had become much too colourless to bear the other meaning1 and 1 as we know1 means what was later called 4 ,footnote #caa3 ,see above1 p4 #acg1 n4 #cja4 ,footnote #cab3 ,diog4 ix4 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #ajc c71 ' 1 4 ,see above1 p4 #abj1 n4 #beb4 ,footnote #cac3 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #d1 1 ' 1 4 ,sidenote3 ,monotheism or polytheism4 #fb4 ,that this 8god0 is just the world1 ,aristotle tells us1 and the use of the word is quite in accordance with ,anaximander's4 ,xenophanes regarded it as sentient1 though without any special organs of sense1 and it sways all things by the thought of its mind4 ,he also calls it 8one god10 and1 if that is monotheism1 then ,xenophanes was a monotheist1 though this is surely not how the word is generally understood4 ,the fact is that the expression 8one god0 wakens all sorts of associations in our mind which did not exist at all for the ,greeks of this time4 ,his contemporaries would have been more likely to call ,xenophanes an atheist than anything else4 ,as ,eduard ,meyer excellently says3 8,in ,greece the question of one god or gods many hardly plays any part4 ,whether the divine power is thought of as a unity or a plurality1 is irrelevant in comparison with the question whether it exists at all1 and how its nature and its relation to the world is to be understood40#cad ,footnote #cad3 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 #dff4 ,on the other hand1 it is wrong to say with ,freudenthal that ,xenophanes was in any sense a polytheist4#cae ,that he should use the language of polytheism in his elegies is only what we should expect1 and the other references to 8gods0 can be best explained as incidental to his attack on the anthropomorphic gods of ,homer and ,hesiod4 ,in one case1 ,freudenthal has pressed a proverbial way of speaking too hard4#caf ,least of all can we admit that ,xenophanes allowed the existence of subordinate or departmental gods2 for it was just the existence of such that he was chiefly concerned to deny4 ,at the same time1 ,i cannot help thinking that ,freudenthal was more nearly right than ,wilamowitz1 who says that ,xenophanes 8upheld the only real monotheism that has ever existed upon earth40#cag ,diels1 ,i fancy1 comes nearer the mark1 when he calls it a 8somewhat narrow pantheism40#cah ,but all these views would have surprised ,xenophanes himself about equally4 ,he was really ,goethe's ,weltkind1 with prophets to right and left of him1 and he would have smiled if he had known that one day he was to be regarded as a theologian4 ,footnote #cae3 ,freudenthal1 ,die ,theologie des ,xenophanes4 ,footnote #caf3 ,xenophanes calls his god 8greatest among gods and men10 but this is simply a case of 8polar expression10 to which parallels will be found in ,wilamowitz's note to the ,herakles1 v4 #aajf4 ,cf4 especially the statement of ,herakleitos 7fr4 #bj7 that 8no one of gods or men0 made the world4 ,footnote #cag3 ,griechische ,literatur1 p4 #ch4 ,footnote #cah3 ,parmenides ,lehrgedicht1 p4 #i4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,herakleitos ,,of ,,ephesos ,sidenote3 ,life of ,herakleitos4 #fc4 ,herakleitos of ,ephesos1 son of ,blyson1 is said to have 8flourished0 in ,ol4 ,,lxix4 7#ejd_/c-eja_/j ,b4,c472#cai that is to say1 just in the middle of the reign of ,dareios1 with whom several traditions connected him4#cbj ,we shall see that ,parmenides was assigned to the same ,olympiad1 though for another reason 7 #hd74 ,it is more important1 however1 for our purpose to notice that1 while ,herakleitos refers to ,pythagoras and ,xenophanes by name and in the past tense 7fr4 #af71 he is in turn referred to by ,parmenides 7fr4 #f74 ,these references are sufficient to mark his proper place in the history of philosophy4 ,zeller holds1 indeed1 that he cannot have published his work till after #dgh ,b4,c41 on the ground that the expulsion of his friend ,hermodoros1 alluded to in fr4 #aad1 could not have taken place before the downfall of ,persian rule4 ,if that were so1 it might be hard to see how ,parmenides could have known the views of ,herakleitos2 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 tribute to the ,great ,king4 ,the ,persians never took their internal self-government from the ,ionian cities1 and the spurious ,letters of ,herakleitos show the accepted view was that the expulsion of ,hermodoros took place during the reign of ,dareios4#cba ,footnote #cai3 ,diog4 ix4 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bi71 no doubt from ,apollodoros through some intermediate authority4 ,jacoby1 pp4 #bbg sqq4 ,footnote #cbj3 ,bernays1 ,die ,heraklitischen ,briefe1 pp4 #ac sqq4 ,footnote #cba3 ,bernays1 op4 cit4 pp4 #bj sqq4 ,sotion said that ,herakleitos was a disciple of ,xenophanes1#cbb which is not probable2 for ,xenophanes seems to have left ,ionia for ever before ,herakleitos was born4 ,more likely he was not a disciple of any one2 but it is clear1 at the same time1 that he was acquainted both with the ,milesian cosmology and with the poems of ,xenophanes4 ,he also knew something of the theories taught by ,pythagoras 7fr4 #ag74 ,footnote #cbb3 ,sotion ap4 ,diog4 ix4 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #bi c74 ,of the life of ,herakleitos we really know nothing1 except1 perhaps1 that he belonged to the ancient royal house and resigned the nominal position of ,basileus in favour of his brother4#cbc ,the origin of the other statements bearing on it is quite transparent4#cbd ,footnote #cbc3 ,diog4 ix4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ca74 ,footnote #cbd3 ,see ,patin1 ,heraklits ,einheitslehre1 pp4 #c sqq4 ,herakleitos said 7fr4 #fh7 that it was death to souls to become water2 and we are told accordingly that he died of dropsy4 ,he said 7fr4 #aad7 that the ,ephesians should leave their city to their children1 and 7fr4 #gi7 that ,time was a child playing draughts4 ,we are therefore told that he refused to take any part in public life1 and went to play with the children in the temple of ,artemis4 ,he said 7fr4 #he7 that corpses were more fit to be cast out than dung2 and we are told that he covered himself with dung when attacked with dropsy4 ,lastly1 he is said to have argued at great length with his doctors because of fr4 #eh4 ,for these tales see ,diog4 ix4 #c-e1 and compare the stories about ,empedokles discussed in ,chap4 ,v4 #ajj4 ,sidenote3 ,his book4 #fd4 ,we do not know the title of the work of ,herakleitos#cbe--;if1 indeed1 it had one at all--and it is not very easy to form a clear idea of its contents4 ,we are told that it was divided into three discourses3 one dealing with the universe1 one political1 and one theological4#cbf ,it is not likely that this division is due to ,herakleitos himself2 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 hand4 ,footnote #cbe3 ,the variety of titles enumerated in ,diog4 ix4 #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #cj b7 seems to show that none was authentically known4 ,that of 8,muses0 comes from ,plato1 ,soph4 #bdb d #g4 ,the others are mere 8mottoes0 7,schuster7 prefixed by ,stoic editors1 and intended to emphasise their view that the subject of the work was ethical or political 7,diog4 ix4 #ae2 ,r4 ,p4 #cj c74 ,footnote #cbf3 ,diog4 ix4 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #cj74 ,bywater has followed this hint in his arrangement of the fragments4 ,the three sections are #a-ij1 #ia-ig1 #ih-acj4 ,the style of ,herakleitos is proverbially obscure1 and1 at a later date1 got him the nickname of 8the ,dark40#cbg ,now the fragments about the ,delphic god and the ,sibyl 7frs4 #aa and #ab7 seem to show that he was quite conscious of writing an oracular style1 and we have to ask why he did so4 ,in the first place1 it was the manner of the time4#cbh ,the stirring events of the age1 and the influence of the religious revival1 gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders of thought4 ,pindar and ,aischylos have it too4 ,they all feel that they are in some measure inspired4 ,it is also the age of great individualities1 who are apt to be solitary and disdainful4 ,herakleitos at least was so4 ,if men cared to dig for the gold they might find it 7fr4 #h72 if not1 they must be content with straw 7fr4 #ea74 ,this seems to have been the view taken by ,theophrastos1 who said that the headstrong temperament of ,herakleitos sometimes led him into incompleteness and inconsistencies of statement4#cbi ,but that is a very different thing from studied obscurity and the disciplina arcani sometimes attributed to him2 if ,herakleitos does not go out of his way to make his meaning clear1 neither does he hide it 7fr4 #aa74 ,footnote #cbg3 ,r4 ,p4 #cj a4 ,the epithet is of late date1 but ,timon of ,phleious already called him 7fr4 #dc1 ,diels74 ,footnote #cbh3 ,see the valuable observations of ,diels in the ,introduction to his ,herakleitos von ,ephesos1 pp4 iv4 sqq4 ,footnote #cbi3 ,cf4 ,diog4 ix4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ca74 ,sidenote3 ,the fragments4 #fe4 ,i give a version of the fragments according to the arrangement of ,mr4 ,bywater's exemplary edition4#ccj 7#a7 ,it is wise to hearken1 not to me1 but to my ,word1 and to confess that all things are one4#cca ,r4 ,p4 #dj4 7#b7 ,though this ,word#ccb is true evermore1 yet men are as unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have heard it at all4 ,for1 though all things come to pass in accordance with this ,word1 men seem as if they had no experience of them1 when they make trial of words and deeds such as ,i set forth1 dividing each thing according to its nature and showing how it truly is4 ,but other men know not what they are doing when awake1 even as they forget what they do in sleep4 ,r4 ,p4 #cb4 7#c7 ,fools when they do hear are like the deaf3 of them does the saying bear witness that they are absent when present4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#d7 ,eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if they have souls that understand not their language4 ,r4 ,p4 #db4 7#e7 ,the many do not take heed of such things as those they meet with1 nor do they mark them when they are taught1 though they think they do4 7#f7 ,knowing not how to listen nor how to speak4 7#g7 ,if you do not expect the unexpected1 you will not find it2 for it is hard to be sought out and difficult4#ccc 7#h7 ,those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a little4 ,r4 ,p4 #dd b4 7#aj7 ,nature loves to hide4 ,r4 ,p4 #cd f4 7#aa7 ,the lord whose is the oracle at ,delphoi neither utters nor hides his meaning1 but shows it by a sign4 ,r4 ,p4 #cj a4 7#ab7 ,and the ,sibyl1 with raving lips uttering things mirthless1 unbedizened1 and unperfumed1 reaches over a thousand years with her voice1 thanks to the god in her4 ,r4 ,p4 #cj a4 7#ac7 ,the things that can be seen1 heard1 and learned are what ,i prize the most4 ,r4 ,p4 #db4 7#ad7 444 bringing untrustworthy witnesses in support of disputed points4 7#ae7 ,the eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears4#ccd ,r4 ,p4 #db c4 7#af7 ,the learning of many things teacheth not understanding1 else would it have taught ,hesiod and ,pythagoras1 and again ,xenophanes and ,hekataios4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca4 7#ag7 ,pythagoras1 son of ,mnesarchos1 practised inquiry beyond all other men1 and choosing out these writings1 claimed for his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an art of mischief4#cce ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#ah7 ,of all whose discourses ,i have heard1 there is not one who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all4 ,r4 ,p4 #cb b4 7#ai7 ,wisdom is one thing4 ,it is to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things4 ,r4 ,p4 #dj4 7#bj7 ,this world1#ccf which is the same for all1 no one of gods or men has made2 but it was ever1 is now1 and ever shall be an ever-living ,fire1 with measures kindling1 and measures going out4 ,r4 ,p4 #ce4ccg 7#ba7 ,the transformations of ,fire are1 first of all1 sea2 and half of the sea is earth1 half whirlwind4#cch 444 ,r4 ,p4 #ce b4 7#bb7 ,all things are an exchange for ,fire1 and ,fire for all things1 even as wares for gold and gold for wares4 ,r4 ,p4 #ce4 7#bc7 ,it becomes liquid sea1 and is measured by the same tale as before it became earth4#cci ,r4 ,p4 #ci4 7#bd7 ,fire is want and surfeit4 ,r4 ,p4 #cf a4 7#be7 ,fire lives the death of air1#cdj and air lives the death of fire2 water lives the death of earth1 earth that of water4 ,r4 ,p4 #cg4 7#bf7 ,fire in its advance will judge and convict#cda all things4 ,r4 ,p4 #cf a4 7#bg7 ,how can one hide from that which never sets8 7#bh7 ,it is the thunderbolt that steers the course of all things4 ,r4 ,p4 #ce b4 7#bi7 ,the sun will not overstep his measures2 if he does1 the ,erinyes1 the handmaids of ,justice1 will find him out4 ,r4 ,p4 #ci4 7#cj7 ,the limit of ,east and ,west is the ,bear2 and opposite the ,bear is the boundary of bright ,zeus4#cdb 7#ca7 ,if there were no sun it would be night1 for all the other stars could do4#cdc 7#cb7 ,the sun is new every day4 7#cc7 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #da1 n4 #fb4 7#cd7 444 the seasons that bring all things4 7#ce7 ,hesiod is most men's teacher4 ,men think he knew very many things1 a man who did not know day or night6 ,they are one4#cdd ,r4 ,p4 #ci b4 7#cf7 ,god is day and night1 winter and summer1 war and peace1 surfeit and hunger2 but he takes various shapes1 just as fire1#cde when it is mingled with spices1 is named according to the savour of each4 ,r4 ,p4 #ci b4 7#cg7 ,if all things were turned to smoke1 the nostrils would distinguish them4 7#ch7 ,souls smell in ,hades4 ,r4 ,p4 #df d4 7#ci7 ,cold things become warm1 and what is warm cools2 what is wet dries1 and the parched is moisted4 7#dj7 ,it scatters and it gathers2 it advances and retires4 7#da1 #db7 ,you cannot step twice into the same rivers2 for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you4 ,r4 ,p4 #cc4 7#dc7 ,homer was wrong in saying3 8,would that strife might perish from among gods and men60 ,he did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe2 for1 if his prayer were heard1 all things would pass away4#cdf444 ,r4 ,p4 #cd d4 7#dd7 ,war is the father of all and the king of all2 and some he has made gods and some men1 some bond and some free4 ,r4 ,p4 #cd4 7#de7 ,men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself4 ,it is an attunement of opposite tensions1#cdg like that of the bow and the lyre4 ,r4 ,p4 #cd4 7#df7 ,it is the opposite which is good for us4#cdh 7#dg7 ,the hidden attunement is better than the open4 ,r4 ,p4 #cd4 7#dh7 ,let us not conjecture at random about the greatest things4 7#di7 ,men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very many things indeed4 7#ej7 ,the straight and the crooked path of the fuller's comb is one and the same4 7#ea7 ,asses would rather have straw than gold4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#ea;a7 ,oxen are happy when they find bitter vetches to eat4#cdi ,r4 ,p4 #dh b4 7#eb7 ,the sea is the purest and the impurest water4 ,fish can drink it1 and it is good for them2 to men it is undrinkable and destructive4 ,r4 ,p4 #dg c4 7#ec7 ,swine wash in the mire1 and barnyard fowls in dust4 7#ed7 444 to delight in the mire4 7#ee7 ,every beast is driven to pasture with blows4#cej 7#ef7 ,same as #de4 7#eg7 ,good and ill are one4 ,r4 ,p4 #dg c4 7#eh7 ,physicians who cut1 burn1 stab1 and rack the sick1 demand a fee for it which they do not deserve to get4 ,r4 ,p4 #dg c4#cea 7#ei7 ,couples are things whole and things not whole1 what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder1 the harmonious and the discordant4 ,the one is made up of all things1 and all things issue from the one4#ceb 7#fj7 ,men would not have known the name of justice if these things were not4#cec 7#fa7 ,to ,god all things are fair and good and right1 but men hold some things wrong and some right4 ,r4 ,p4 #de4 7#fb7 ,we must know that war is common to all and strife is justice1 and that all things come into being and pass away 787 through strife4 7#fd7 ,all the things we see when awake are death1 even as all we see in slumber are sleep4 ,r4 ,p4 #db c4#ced 7#fe7 ,the wise is one only4 ,it is unwilling and willing to be called by the name of ,zeus4 ,r4 ,p4 #dj4 7#ff7 ,the bow 77 is called life 771 but its work is death4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#fg7 ,mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals1 the one living the others' death and dying the others' life4 ,r4 ,p4 #df4 7#fh7 ,for it is death to souls to become water1 and death to water to become earth4 ,but water comes from earth2 and from water1 soul4 ,r4 ,p4 #ch4 7#fi7 ,the way up and the way down is one and the same4 ,r4 ,p4 #cf d4 7#gj7 ,in the circumference of a circle the beginning and end are common4 7#ga7 ,you will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling in any direction1 so deep is the measure of it4#cee ,r4 ,p4 #da d4 7#gb7 ,it is pleasure to souls to become moist4 ,r4 ,p4 #df c4 7#gc7 ,a man1 when he gets drunk1 is led by a beardless lad1 tripping1 knowing not where he steps1 having his soul moist4 ,r4 ,p4 #db4 7#gd-gf7 ,the dry soul is the wisest and best4#cef ,r4 ,p4 #db4 7#gg7 ,man is kindled and put out like a light in the night-time4 7#gh7 ,and it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead1 awake and asleep1 young and old2 the former are shifted#ceg and become the latter1 and the latter in turn are shifted and become the former4 ,r4 ,p4 #dg4 7#gi7 ,time is a child playing draughts1 the kingly power is a child's4 ,r4 ,p4 #dj a4 7#hj7 ,i have sought for myself4 ,r4 ,p4 #dh4 7#ha7 ,we step and do not step into the same rivers2 we are and are not4 ,r4 ,p4 #cc a4 7#hb7 ,it is a weariness to labour for the same masters and be ruled by them4 7#hc7 ,it rests by changing4 7#hd7 ,even the posset separates if it is not stirred4 7#he7 ,corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung4 7#hf7 ,when they are born1 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 turn4 7#hg-hi7 ,a man may be a grandfather in thirty years4 7#ij7 ,those who are asleep are fellow-workers4444 7#ia;a7 ,thought is common to all4 7#ia;b7 ,those who speak with understanding must hold fast to what is common to all as a city holds fast to its law1 and even more strongly4 ,for all human laws are fed by the one divine law4 ,it prevails as much as it will1 and suffices for all things with something to spare4 ,r4 ,p4 #dc4 7#ib7 ,so we must follow the common1#ceh yet the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own4 ,r4 ,p4 #dd4 7#ic7 ,they are estranged from that with which they have most constant intercourse4#cei ,r4 ,p4 #cb b4 7#id7 ,it is not meet to act and speak like men asleep4 7#ie7 ,the waking have one common world1 but the sleeping turn aside each into a world of his own4 7#if7 ,the way of man has no wisdom1 but that of ,god has4 ,r4 ,p4 #de4 7#ig7 ,man is called a baby by ,god1 even as a child by a man4 ,r4 ,p4 #de4 7#ih1 #ii7 ,the wisest man is an ape compared to ,god1 just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man4 7#ajj7 ,the people must fight for its law as for its walls4 ,r4 ,p4 #dc b4 7#aja7 ,greater deaths win greater portions4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#ajb7 ,gods and men honour those who are slain in battle4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#ajc7 ,wantonness needs putting out1 even more than a house on fire4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#ajd7 ,it is not good for men to get all they wish to get4 ,it is sickness that makes health pleasant2 evil1#cfj good2 hunger1 plenty2 weariness1 rest4 ,r4 ,p4 #dh b4 7#aje-ajg7 ,it is hard to fight with one's heart's desire4#cfa ,whatever it wishes to get1 it purchases at the cost of soul4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#ajh1 #aji7 ,it is best to hide folly2 but it is hard in times of relaxation1 over our cups4 7#aaj7 ,and it is law1 too1 to obey the counsel of one4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#aaa7 ,for what thought or wisdom have they8 ,they follow the poets and take the crowd as their teacher1 knowing not that there are many bad and few good4 ,for even the best of them choose one thing above all others1 immortal glory among mortals1 while most of them are glutted like beasts4#cfb ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#aab7 ,in ,priene lived ,bias1 son of ,teutamas1 who is of more account than the rest4 7,he said1 8,most men are bad407 7#aac7 ,one is ten thousand to me1 if he be the best4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#aad7 ,the ,ephesians would do well to hang themselves1 every grown man of them1 and leave the city to beardless lads2 for they have cast out ,hermodoros1 the best man among them1 saying1 8,we will have none who is best among us2 if there be any such1 let him be so elsewhere and among others40 ,r4 ,p4 #bi b4 7#aae7 ,dogs bark at every one they do not know4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca a4 7#aaf7 444 7,the wise man7 is not known because of men's want of belief4 7#aag7 ,the fool is fluttered at every word4 ,r4 ,p4 #dd b4 7#aah7 ,the most esteemed of them knows but fancies2#cfc yet of a truth justice shall overtake the artificers of lies and the false witnesses4 7#aai7 ,homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped1 and ,archilochos likewise4 ,r4 ,p4 #ca4 7#abj7 ,one day is like any other4 7#aba7 ,man's character is his fate4#cfd 7#abb7 ,there awaits men when they die such things as they look not for nor dream of4 ,r4 ,p4 #df d4 7#abc7 444 #cfethat they rise up and become the wakeful guardians of the quick and dead4 ,r4 ,p4 #df d4 7#abd7 ,night-walkers1 ,magians1 priests of ,bakchos and priestesses of the wine-vat1 mystery-mongers4444 7#abe7 ,the mysteries practised among men are unholy mysteries4 ,r4 ,p4 #dh4 7#abf7 ,and they pray to these images1 as if one were to talk with a man's house1 knowing not what gods or heroes are4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 7#abg7 ,for if it were not to ,dionysos that they made a procession and sang the shameful phallic hymn1 they would be acting most shamelessly4 ,but ,hades is the same as ,dionysos in whose honour they go mad and keep the feast of the wine-vat4 ,r4 ,p4 #di4 7#abi1 #acj7 ,they vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood1 just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud4 ,any man who marked him doing thus1 would deem him mad4 ,r4 ,p4 #di a4 ,footnote #ccj3 ,in his edition1 ,diels has given up all attempt to arrange the fragments according to subject1 and this makes his text unsuitable for our purpose4 ,i think1 too1 that he overestimates the difficulty of an approximate arrangement1 and makes too much of the view that the style of ,herakleitos was 8aphoristic40 ,that it was so1 is an important and valuable remark2 but it does not follow that ,herakleitos wrote like ,nietzsche4 ,for a ,greek1 however prophetic in his tone1 there must always be a distinction between an aphoristic and an incoherent style4 ,see the excellent remarks of ,lortzing in ,berl4 ,phil4 ,wochenschr4 #ahif1 pp4 #a sqq4 ,footnote #cca3 ,both ,bywater and ,diels accept ,bergk's for and ,miller's for 4 ,cf4 ,philo1 leg4 all4 iii4 c1 quoted in ,bywater's note4 ,footnote #ccb3 ,the is simply the discourse of ,herakleitos himself2 though1 as he is a prophet1 we may call it 8the ,word40 ,it can neither mean a discourse addressed to ,herakleitos nor yet 8reason40 7,cf4 ,zeller1 p4 #fcj1 n4 #a2 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 p4 #g1 n4 #b47 ,a difficulty has been raised about the words 4 ,how could ,herakleitos say that his discourse had always existed8 ,the answer is that in ,ionic means 8true0 when coupled with words like 4 ,cf4 ,herod4 i4 #cj1 2 and even ,aristoph4 ,frogs1 #ajeb1 4 ,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 7,rhet4 #e4 #adjg b #ae2 ,r4 ,p4 #cj a74 ,the ,stoic interpretation given by ,marcus ,aurelius1 iv4 #df 7,r4 ,p4 #cb b71 must be rejected altogether4 ,the word was never used like that till post-,aristotelian times4 ,footnote #ccc3 ,i have departed from the punctuation of ,bywater here1 and supplied a fresh object to the verb as suggested by ,gomperz 7,arch4 i4 #ajj74 ,footnote #ccd3 ,cf4 ,herod1 i4 #h4 ,the application is1 no doubt1 the same as that of the last two fragments4 ,personal inquiry is better than tradition4 ,footnote #cce3 ,see ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #ajg1 n4 #bbd4 ,the best attested reading is 1 not 1 and means 8claimed as his own40 ,the words have been doubted since the time of ,schleiermacher1 and ,diels has now come to regard the whole fragment as spurious4 ,this is because it was used to prove that ,pythagoras wrote books 7cf4 ,diels1 ,arch4 iii4 p4 #dea74 ,as ,mr4 ,bywater has pointed out1 however1 the fragment itself makes no such statement2 it only says that he read books1 which we may presume he did4 ,i would further suggest that the old-fashioned is rather too good for a forger1 and that the omission of the very thing to be proved is remarkable4 ,the last suggestion of a book by ,pythagoras disappears with the reading for 4 ,of course a late writer who read of ,pythagoras making extracts from books would assume that he put them into a book of his own1 just as people did in his own days4 ,for the rest1 ,i understand of science1 which is contrasted with the which ,pythagoras derived from the of men like ,pherekydes of ,syros4 ,footnote #ccf3 ,the word must mean 8world0 here1 not merely 8order20 for only the world could be identified with fire4 ,this use of the word is ,pythagorean1 and there is no reason to doubt that ,herakleitos may have known it4 ,footnote #ccg3 ,it is important to notice that is internal accusative with 1 8with its measures kindling and its measures going out40 ,footnote #cch3 ,on the word 1 see below1 p4 #afe1 n4 #chj4 ,footnote #cci3 ,the subject of fr4 #bc is 1 as we see from ,diog4 ix4 #i 7,r4 ,p4 #cf71 2 and ,aet4 i4 #c1 #aa 7,dox4 p4 #bhd a #a2 b #e71 7,dbner3 1 libri7 4 ,herakleitos might quite well say 1 and the context in ,clement 7,strom4 v4 p4 #gab7 seems to imply this4 ,the phrase can only mean that the proportion of the measures remains constant4 ,so practically ,zeller 7p4 #fij1 n4 #a71 zu derselben ,grsse4 ,footnote #cdj3 ,with ,diels ,i adopt the transposition 7proposed by ,tocco7 of and 4 ,footnote #cda3 ,i understand of the 1 for which see below1 p4 #afh4 ,diels has pointed out that is the old word for 8to convict40 ,it is1 literally1 8to overtake10 just as is 8to catch40 ,footnote #cdb3 ,in this fragment it is clear that 1 and therefore means 8boundary10 not 8hill40 ,as means the bright blue sky1 ,i do not think its can be the ,south ,pole1 as ,diels says4 ,it is more likely the horizon4 ,i am inclined to take the fragment as a protest against the ,pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere4 ,footnote #cdc3 ,we learn from ,diog4 ix4 #aj 7quoted below1 p4 #afd7 that ,herakleitos explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon1 and this is doubtless a fragment of that passage4 ,i now think the words are from ,herakleitos4 ,so ,diels4 ,footnote #cdd3 ,hesiod said ,day was the child of ,night 7,theog4 #abd74 ,footnote #cde3 ,reading for with ,diels4 ,footnote #cdf3 ,il4 xviii4 #ajg4 ,i add the words from ,simpl4 in ,cat4 7#hh b #cj schol4 ,br474 ,they seem to me at least to represent something that was in the original4 ,footnote #cdg3 ,i cannot think it likely that ,herakleitos said both and 1 and ,i prefer ,plutarch's 7,r4 ,p4 #cd b7 to the of ,hippolytos4 ,diels thinks that the polemic of ,parmenides decides the question in favour of 2 but see below1 p4 #ahd1 n4 #dae1 and ,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #aih1 n4 #dch4 ,footnote #cdh3 ,this1 ,i now think1 is the medical rule 1 e4g4 7,stewart on ,arist4 ,eth4 #aajd b #af74 ,footnote #cdi3 ,fr4 #ea;a was recovered by ,bywater from ,albertus ,magnus4 ,see ,journ4 ,phil4 ix4 p4 #bcj4 ,footnote #cej3 ,on fr4 #ee see ,diels in ,berl4 ,sitzb4 #aija1 p4 #ahh4 ,footnote #cea3 ,i now read with ,bernays and ,diels4 ,footnote #ceb3 ,on fr4 #ei see ,diels in ,berl4 ,sitzb4 #aija1 p4 #ahh4 ,the reading seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense4 ,it is not1 however1 correct to say that the optative could not be used in an imperative sense4 ,footnote #cec3 ,by 8these things10 he probably meant all kinds of injustice4 ,footnote #ced3 ,diels supposes that fr4 #fd went on 4 8,life1 ,sleep1 ,death is the threefold ladder in psychology1 as in physics ,fire1 ,water1 ,earth40 ,footnote #cee3 ,i think now with ,diels that the words are probably genuine4 ,they present no difficulty if we remember that means 8measurement10 as in fr4 #bc4 ,footnote #cef3 ,this fragment is interesting because of the great antiquity of the corruptions which it has suffered4 ,according to ,stephanus1 who is followed by ,bywater and ,diels1 we should read3 1 7or rather --the ,ionic form would only appear when the word got into the text7 being a mere gloss upon the somewhat unusual 4 ,when once got into the text1 became 1 and we get the sentence3 8the dry light is the wisest soul10 whence the siccum lumen of ,bacon4 ,now this reading is certainly as old as ,plutarch1 who1 in his ,life of ,romulus 7c4 #bh71 takes to mean lightning1 as it sometimes does1 and supposes the idea to be that the wise soul bursts through the prison of the body like dry lightning 7whatever that may be7 through a cloud4 ,i do not think that ,clement's making the same mistake proves anything at all 7,zeller1 p4 #gje1 n4 #c2 ,eng4 trans4 i4 p4 #hj1 n4 #b71 except that he had read his ,plutarch4 ,lastly1 it is worth noticing that1 though ,plutarch must have written 1 the ,,mss4 vary between and 4 ,the next stage is the corruption of the corrupt into 4 ,this yields the sentiment that 8where the earth is dry1 the soul is wisest10 and is as old as ,philo 7see ,mr4 ,bywater's notes74 ,footnote #ceg3 ,i understand here as meaning 8moved0 from one or division of the draught-board to another4 ,footnote #ceh3 ,sext4 ,math4 vii4 #acc1 4 ,it seems to me that these words must belong to ,herakleitos1 though ,bywater omits them4 ,on the other hand1 the words 7so1 not ' 1 the best ,,mss47 seem clearly to belong to the ,stoic interpreter whom ,sextus is following1 and who was anxious to connect this fragment with fr4 #b 7 7 in order to get the doctrine of the 4 ,the whole context in ,sextus should be read4 ,footnote #cei3 ,the words 1 which ,diels prints as part of this fragment1 seem to me to belong to ,marcus ,aurelius and not to ,herakleitos4 ,footnote #cfj3 ,adopting ,heitz's for with ,diels4 ,footnote #cfa3 ,the word has its ,homeric sense4 ,the gratification of desire implies the exchange of dry soul-fire 7fr4 #gd7 for moisture 7fr4 #gb74 ,aristotle understood here as anger 7,eth4 ,nic4 #b1 #aaje a #h74 ,footnote #cfb3 ,this seems to be a clear reference to the 8three lives40 ,see ,chap4 ,,ii4 #de1 p4 #ajh4 ,footnote #cfc3 ,reading with ,schleiermacher 7or ' with ,diels74 ,i have omitted 1 as ,i do not know what it means1 and none of the conjectures commends itself4 ,footnote #cfd3 ,on the meaning of here1 see my edition of ,aristotle's ,ethics1 pp4 #a sq4 ,as ,professor ,gildersleeve puts it1 the is the individual form of 1 as is of 4 ,footnote #cfe3 ,i have not ventured to include the words ' at the beginning1 as the text seems to me too uncertain4 ,see1 however1 ,diels's interesting note4 ,sidenote3 ,the doxographical tradition4 #ff4 ,it will be seen that some of these fragments are far from clear1 and there are probably not a few of which the meaning will never be recovered4 ,we naturally turn1 then1 to the doxographers for a clue2 but1 as ill-luck will have it1 they are far less instructive with regard to ,herakleitos than we have found them in other cases4 ,we have1 in fact1 two great difficulties to contend with4 ,the first is the unusual weakness of the doxographical tradition itself4 ,hippolytos1 upon whom we can generally rely for a fairly accurate account of what ,theophrastos really said1 derived the material for his first four chapters1 which treat of ,thales1 ,pythagoras1 ,herakleitos1 and ,empedokles1 not from the excellent epitome which he afterwards used1 but from a biographical compendium1#cff which consisted for the most part of apocryphal anecdotes and apophthegms4 ,it was based1 further1 on some writer of ,successions who regarded ,herakleitos and ,empedokles as ,pythagoreans4 ,they are therefore placed side by side1 and their doctrines are hopelessly mixed up together4 ,the link between ,herakleitos and the ,pythagoreans was ,hippasos of ,metapontion1 in whose system1 as we know1 fire played an important part4 ,theophrastos1 following ,aristotle1 had spoken of the two in the same sentence1 and this was enough to put the writers of ,successions off the track4#cfg ,we are forced1 then1 to look to the more detailed of the two accounts of the opinions of ,herakleitos given in ,diogenes1#cfh which goes back to the ,vetusta ,placita1 and is1 fortunately1 pretty full and accurate4 ,all our other sources are more or less tainted4 ,footnote #cff3 ,on the source used by ,hippolytos in the first four chapters of ,ref4 i4 see ,diels1 ,dox4 p4 #ade4 ,we must carefully distinguish ,ref4 i4 and ,ref4 ix4 as sources of information about ,herakleitos4 ,the latter book is an attempt to show that the ,monarchian heresy of ,noetos was derived from ,herakleitos instead of from the ,gospel1 and is a rich mine of ,herakleitean fragments4 ,footnote #cfg3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ef c73 ,theophr4 ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 #bc1 #cc 7,r4 ,p4 #cf c74 ,footnote #cfh3 ,for these double accounts see ,dox4 pp4 #afc sqq4 and ,appendix1 #ae4 ,the second difficulty which we have to face is even more serious4 ,most of the commentators on ,herakleitos mentioned in ,diogenes were ,stoics1#cfi and it is certain that their paraphrases were sometimes taken for the original4 ,now1 the ,stoics held the ,ephesian in peculiar veneration1 and sought to interpret him as far as possible in accordance with their own system4 ,further1 they were fond of 8accommodating0#cgj the views of earlier thinkers to their own1 and this has had serious consequences4 ,in particular1 the ,stoic theories of the and the are constantly ascribed to ,herakleitos by our authorities1 and the very fragments are adulterated with scraps of ,stoic terminology4 ,footnote #cfi3 ,diog4 ix4 #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #cj c74 ,schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this4 ,footnote #cgj3 ,the word is used of the ,stoic method of interpretation by ,philodemos 7cf4 ,dox4 #edg b1 n471 and ,cicero 7,n4,d4 i4 #da7 renders it by accommodare4 ,chrysippos in particular gave a great impulse to this sort of thing1 as we may best learn from ,galen1 de ,plac4 ,hippocr4 et ,plat4 ,book iii4 ,good examples are ,aet4 i4 #ac1 #b2 #bh1 #a2 iv4 #c1 #ab1--where distinctively ,stoic doctrines are ascribed to ,herakleitos4 ,what the ,stoics were capable of1 we see from ,kleanthes1 fr4 #ee1 ,pearson4 ,he proposed to read in ,il4 xvi4 #bcc1 4 ,sidenote3 ,the discovery of ,herakleitos4 #fg4 ,herakleitos looks down not only on the mass of men1 but on all previous inquirers into nature4 ,this must mean that he believed himself to have attained insight into some truth which had not hitherto been recognised1 though it was1 as it were1 staring men in the face 7fr4 #ic74 ,clearly1 then1 if we wish to get at the central thing in his teaching1 we must try to find out what he was thinking of when he launched into those denunciations of human dulness and ignorance4#cga ,the answer seems to be given in two fragments1 #ah and #de4 ,from them we gather that the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently independent and conflicting things we know are really one1 and that1 on the other hand1 this one is also many4 ,the 8strife of opposites0 is really an 8attunement0 774 ,from this it follows that wisdom is not a knowledge of many things1 but the perception of the underlying unity of the warring opposites4 ,that this really was the fundamental thought of ,herakleitos is stated by ,philo4 ,he says3 8,for that which is made up of both the opposites is one2 and1 when the one is divided1 the opposites are disclosed4 ,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 up1 and boasted of as a new discovery80#cgb ,we shall take the elements of this theory one by one1 and see how they are to be understood4 ,footnote #cga3 ,see ,patin1 ,heraklits ,einheitslehre 7#ahhf74 ,to ,patin undoubtedly belongs the credit of showing clearly that the unity of opposites was the central doctrine of ,herakleitos4 ,it is not always easy1 however1 to follow him when he comes to details4 ,footnote #cgb3 ,philo1 ,rer4 ,div4 ,her4 #dc 7,r4 ,p4 #cd c74 ,sidenote3 ,the ,one and the ,many4 #fh4 ,anaximander had taught already that the opposites were separated out from the ,boundless1 but passed away into it once more1 so paying the penalty for their unjust encroachments on one another4 ,it is here implied that there is something wrong in the war of opposites1 and that the existence of the ,many is a breach in the unity of the ,one4 ,the truth which ,herakleitos proclaimed was that there is no ,one without the ,many1 and no ,many without the ,one4 ,the world is at once one and many1 and it is just the 8opposite tension0 of the ,many that constitutes the unity of the ,one4 ,the credit of having been the first to see this is expressly assigned to ,herakleitos by ,plato4 ,in the ,sophist 7#bdb d71 the ,eleatic stranger1 after explaining how the ,eleatics maintained that what we call many is really one1 proceeds3-- ,but certain ,ionian and 7at a later date7 certain ,sicilian ,muses remarked that it was safest to unite these two things1 and to say that reality is both many and one1 and is kept together by ,hate and ,love4 8,for10 say the more severe ,muses1 8in its division it is always being brought together0 7cf4 fr4 #ei72 while the softer ,muses relaxed the requirement that this should always be so1 and said that the ,all was alternately one and at peace through the power of ,aphrodite1 and many and at war with itself because of something they called ,strife4 ,in this passage the ,ionian ,muses stand1 of course1 for ,herakleitos1 and the ,sicilian for ,empedokles4 ,we remark also that the differentiation of the one into many1 and the integration of the many into one1 are both eternal and simultaneous1 and that this is the ground upon which the system of ,herakleitos is contrasted with that of ,empedokles4 ,we shall come back to that point again4 ,meanwhile we confine ourselves to this1 that1 according to ,plato1 ,herakleitos taught that reality was at once many and one4 ,we must be careful1 however1 not to imagine that what ,herakleitos thus discovered was a logical principle4 ,this was the mistake of ,lassalle's book4#cgc ,the identity in and through difference which he proclaimed was purely physical2 logic did not yet exist1 and as the principle of identity had not been formulated1 it would have been impossible to protest against an abstract application of it4 ,the identity which he explains as consisting in difference is simply that of the primary substance in all its manifestations4 ,this identity had been realised already by the ,milesians1 but they had found a difficulty in the difference4 ,anaximander had treated the strife of opposites as an 8injustice10 and what ,herakleitos set himself to show was that1 on the contrary1 it was the highest justice 7fr4 #fb74 ,footnote #cgc3 ,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 7,gesch4 d4 ,phil4 i4 #cbh74 ,the example which he cites is the statement that ,being does not exist any more than not-,being1 for which he refers to ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 ,this1 however1 is not there ascribed to ,herakleitos at all1 but to ,leukippos or ,demokritos1 with whom it meant that space was as real as matter 7 #age74 ,aristotle does1 indeed1 tell us in the ,metaphysics that 8some0 think ,herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not be2 but he adds that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says 7,met4 #c4 #ajje b #bd74 ,i take this to mean that1 though ,herakleitos did make this assertion in words1 he did not mean by it what the same assertion would naturally have meant at a later date4 ,herakleitos was speaking only of nature2 the logical meaning of the words never occurred to him4 ,this is confirmed by 1 #e4 #ajfb a #ca1 where we are told that by being questioned in a certain manner ,herakleitos could be made to admit the principle of contradiction2 as it was1 he did not understand what he said4 ,in other words1 he was unconscious of its logical bearing4 ,aristotle was aware1 then1 that the theories of ,herakleitos were not to be understood in a logical sense4 ,on the other hand1 this does not prevent him from saying that according to the view of ,herakleitos1 everything would be true 7,met4 1 #g4 #ajab a #bd74 ,if we remember his constant attitude to earlier thinkers1 this will not lead us to suspect either his good faith or his intelligence4 7,see ,appendix1 #b47 ,sidenote3 ,fire4 #fi4 ,all this made it necessary for him to seek out a new primary substance4 ,he wanted not merely something out of which the diversified world we know might conceivably be made1 or from which opposites could be 8separated out10 but something which of its own nature would pass into everything else1 while everything else would pass in turn into it4 ,this he found in ,fire1 and it is easy to see why1 if we consider the phenomenon of combustion1 even as it appears to the plain man4 ,the quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears to remain the same1 the flame seems to be what we call a 8thing40 ,and yet the substance of it is continually changing4 ,it is always passing away in smoke1 and its place is always being taken by fresh matter from the fuel that feeds it4 ,this is just what we want4 ,if we regard the world as an 8ever-living fire0 7fr4 #bj71 we can understand how it is always becoming all things1 while all things are always returning to it4#cgd ,footnote #cgd3 ,that the ,fire of ,herakleitos was something on the same level as the 8,air0 of ,anaximenes and not a 8symbol10 is clearly implied in such passages as ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #e4 ,in support of the view that something different from common fire is meant1 ,plato1 ,crat4 #dac b1 is sometimes quoted2 but a consideration of the context shows that the passage will not bear this interpretation4 ,plato is discussing the derivation of from -1 and certainly was a prominent ,herakleitean conception1 and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the school4 ,sokrates goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which 8goes through0 everything1 he gets very inconsistent answers4 ,one says it is the sun4 ,another asks if there is no justice after sunset1 and says it is simply fire4 ,a third says it is not fire itself1 but the heat which is in fire4 ,a fourth identifies it with ,mind4 ,now all we are entitled to infer from this is that different accounts were given in the ,herakleitean school4 ,these were a little less crude than the original doctrine of the master1 but for all that not one of them implies anything immaterial or symbolical4 ,the view that it was not fire itself1 but ,heat1 which 8passed through0 all things1 is related to the theory of ,herakleitos as ,hippo's ,moisture is related to the ,water of ,thales4 ,it is quite likely1 too1 that some ,herakleiteans attempted to fuse the system of ,anaxagoras with their own1 just as ,diogenes of ,apollonia tried to fuse it with that of ,anaximenes4 ,we shall see1 indeed1 that we still have a work in which this attempt is made 7p4 #afg1 n4 #chc74 ,sidenote3 ,flux4 #gj4 ,this necessarily brings with it a certain way of looking at the change and movement of the world4 ,fire burns continuously and without interruption4 ,it is therefore always consuming fuel and always liberating smoke4 ,everything is either mounting upwards to serve as fuel1 or sinking downwards after having nourished the flame4 ,it follows that the whole of reality is like an ever-flowing stream1 and that nothing is ever at rest for a moment4 ,the substance of the things we see is in constant change4 ,even as we look at them1 some of the matter of which they are composed has already passed into something else1 while fresh matter has come into them from another source4 ,this theory is usually summed up1 appropriately enough1 in the phrase 8,all things are flowing0 7 71 though1 as it happens1 it cannot be proved that this is a quotation from ,herakleitos4 ,plato1 however1 expresses the idea quite clearly4 8,nothing ever is1 everything is becoming02 8,all things are in motion like streams02 8,all things are passing1 and nothing abides02 8,herakleitos says somewhere that all things pass and naught abides2 and1 comparing things to the current of a river1 he says that you cannot step twice into the same stream0 7cf4 fr4 #da7--these are the terms in which he describes the system4 ,and ,aristotle says the same thing1 8,all things are in motion10 8nothing steadfastly is40#cge ,herakleitos held1 in fact1 that any given thing1 however stable in appearance1 was merely a section in the stream1 and that the matter composing it was never the same in any two consecutive moments of time4 ,we shall see presently how he conceived this process to operate2 meanwhile we remark that the idea was not altogether novel1 and that it is hardly the central point in the system of ,herakleitos4 ,the ,milesians held a similar view4 ,the flux of ,herakleitos was at most more unceasing and universal4 ,footnote #cge3 ,plato1 ,tht4 #aeb e #a2 ,crat4 #dja d #e1 #djb a #h2 ,arist4 ,top4 1 #aa4 #ajd b #bb2 de ,caelo1 1 #a4 #bih b #cj2 ,phys4 1 #c4 #bec b #b4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,upward and ,downward path4 #ga4 ,herakleitos appears to have worked out the details of the perpetual flux with reference to the theories of ,anaximenes4#cgf ,it is unlikely1 however1 that he explained the transformations of matter by means of rarefaction and condensation4#cgg ,theophrastos1 it appears1 suggested that he did2 but he allowed it was by no means clear4 ,the passage from ,diogenes which we are about to quote has faithfully preserved this touch4#cgh ,in the fragments1 at any rate1 we find nothing about rarefaction and condensation4 ,the expression used is 8exchange0 7fr4 #bb72 and this is certainly a very good name for what happens when fire gives out smoke and takes in fuel instead4 ,footnote #cgf3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,i4 #bi4 ,footnote #cgg3 ,see1 however1 the remark of ,diels quoted ,r4 ,p4 #cf c4 ,footnote #cgh3 ,diog4 ix4 #h1 ' 4 ,it has been pointed out that1 in default of ,hippolytos1 our best account of the ,theophrastean doxography of ,herakleitos is the fuller of the two accounts given in ,laertios ,diogenes4 ,it is as follows3-- ,his opinions on particular points are these3-- ,he held that ,fire was the element1 and that all things were an exchange for fire1 produced by condensation and rarefaction4 ,but he explains nothing clearly4 ,all things were produced in opposition1 and all things were in flux like a river4 ,the all is finite and the world is one4 ,it arises from fire1 and is consumed again by fire alternately through all eternity in certain cycles4 ,this happens according to fate4 ,that which leads to the becoming of the opposites is called ,war and ,strife2 that which leads to the final conflagration is ,concord and ,peace4 ,he called change the upward and the downward path1 and held that the world comes into being in virtue of this4 ,when fire is condensed it becomes moist1 and when compressed it turns to water2 water being congealed turns to earth1 and this he calls the downward path4 ,and1 again1 the earth is in turn liquefied1 and from it water arises1 and from that everything else2 for he refers almost everything to the evaporation from the sea4 ,this is the path upwards4 ,r4 ,p4 #cf4 ,he held1 too1 that exhalations arose both from the sea and the land2 some bright and pure1 others dark4 ,fire was nourished by the bright ones1 and moisture by the others4 ,he does not make it clear what is the nature of that which surrounds the world4 ,he held1 however1 that there were bowls in it with the concave sides turned towards us1 in which the bright exhalations were collected and produced flames4 ,these were the heavenly bodies4 ,the flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest2 for the other heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth2 and for that reason gave less light and heat4 ,the moon1 on the other hand1 was nearer the earth2 but it moved through an impure region4 ,the sun moved in a bright and unmixed region1 and at the same time was at just the right distance from us4 ,that is why it gives more heat and light4 ,the eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the bowls upwards1 while the monthly phases of the moon were produced by a gradual turning of its bowl4 ,day and night1 months and seasons and years1 rains and winds1 and things like these1 were due to the different exhalations4 ,the bright exhalation1 when ignited in the circle of the sun1 produced day1 and the preponderance of the opposite exhalations produced night4 ,the increase of warmth proceeding from the bright exhalation produced summer1 and the preponderance of moisture from the dark exhalation produced winter4 ,he assigns the causes of other things in conformity with this4 ,as to the earth1 he makes no clear statement about its nature1 any more than he does about that of the bowls4 ,these1 then1 were his opinions4 ,r4 ,p4 #ci b4 ,it is obvious that1 if we can trust this passage1 it is of the greatest possible value2 and that1 upon the whole1 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 adhere4 ,first we have the primary substance1 then the world1 then the heavenly bodies1 and lastly1 meteorological phenomena4 ,we conclude1 then1 that it may be accepted with the exceptions1 firstly1 of the probably erroneous conjecture of ,theophrastos as to rarefaction and condensation mentioned above2 and secondly1 of some pieces of ,stoical interpretation which come from the ,vetusta ,placita4 ,let us look at the details of the theory4 ,the pure fire1 we are told1 is to be found chiefly in the sun4 ,this1 like the other heavenly bodies1 is a trough or bowl1 or perhaps a sort of boat1 with the concave side turned towards us1 in which the bright exhalations from the sea collect and burn4 ,how does the fire of the sun pass into other forms8 ,if we look at the fragments which deal with the downward path1 we find that the first transformation that it undergoes is into sea1 and we are further told that half of the sea is earth and half of it 7fr4 #ba74 ,the full meaning of this we shall see presently1 but we must settle at once what is4 ,many theories have been advanced upon the subject2 but1 so far as ,i know1 no one#cgi has yet proposed to take the word in the sense which it always bears elsewhere1 that1 namely1 of hurricane accompanied by a fiery waterspout4#chj ,yet surely this is just what is wanted4 ,it is amply attested that ,herakleitos explained the rise of the sea to fire by means of the bright evaporations2 and we want a similar meteorological explanation of the passing of the fire back into sea4 ,we want1 in fact1 something which will stand equally for the smoke produced by the burning of the sun and for the immediate stage between fire and water4 ,what could serve the turn better than a fiery waterspout8 ,it sufficiently resembles smoke to be accounted for as the product of the sun's combustion1 and it certainly comes down in the form of water4 ,and this interpretation becomes practically certain when taken in connexion with the report of ,aetios as to the ,herakleitean theory of 4 ,they were due1 we are told1 8to the kindling and extinction of clouds40#cha ,in other words1 the bright vapour1 after kindling in the bowl of the sun and going out again1 reappears as the dark fiery storm-cloud1 and so passes once more into sea4 ,at the next stage we find water continually passing into earth4 ,we are already familiar with this idea 7 #aj71 and no more need be said about it4 ,turning to the 8upward path10 we find that the earth is liquefied in the same proportion as the sea becomes earth1 so that the sea is still 8measured by the same tale0 7fr4 #bc74 ,half of it is earth and half of it is 7fr4 #ba74 ,this must mean that1 at any given moment1 half of the sea is taking the downward path1 and has just been fiery storm-cloud1 while half of it is going up1 and has just been earth4 ,in proportion as the sea is increased by rain1 water passes into earth2 in proportion as the sea is diminished by evaporation1 it is fed by the earth4 ,lastly1 the ignition of the bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun completes the circle of the 8upward and downward path40 ,footnote #cgi3 ,this was written in #ahij4 ,in his ,herakleitos von ,ephesos 7#aija7 ,diels takes it as ,i did1 rendering ,glutwind4 ,footnote #chj3 ,cf4 ,herod4 vii4 #db1 and ,lucretius1 vi4 #dbd4 ,seneca 7,quaest4 ,nat4 ii4 #ef7 calls it igneus turbo4 ,the opinions of early philosophers on these phenomena are collected in ,aetios1 iii4 #c4 ,the of ,anaximander 7,chap4 ,i4 p4 #fi1 n4 #acc7 is a different thing altogether1 but it is quite likely that ,greek sailors named the meteorological phenomenon after the familiar bellows of the smith4 ,footnote #cha3 ,aet4 iii4 #c1 #i1 7sc4 74 ,diels 7,herakleitos1 p4 v47 seems to regard the as the form in which water ascends to heaven4 ,but the ,greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and come down4 ,sidenote3 ,measure for measure4 #gb4 ,the question now arises1 ,how is it that1 in spite of this constant flux1 things appear relatively stable8 ,the answer of ,herakleitos was that it is owing to the observance of the 8measures10 in virtue of which the aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run remains the same1 though its substance is constantly changing4 ,certain 8measures0 of the 8ever-living fire0 are always being kindled1 while like 8measures0 are always going out 7fr4 #bj72 and these measures the sun will not exceed4 ,all things are 8exchanged0 for fire and fire for all things 7fr4 #bb71 and this implies that for everything it takes1 fire will give as much4 8,the sun will not exceed his measures0 7fr4 #bi74 ,and yet the 8measures0 are not to be regarded as absolutely fixed4 ,we gather from the passage of ,diogenes quoted above that ,theophrastos spoke of an alternate preponderance of the bright and dark exhalations1 and ,aristotle speaks of ,herakleitos as explaining all things by evaporation4#chb ,in particular1 the alternation of day and night1 summer and winter1 were accounted for in this way4 ,now1 in a passage of the pseudo-,hippokratean treatise which is almost certainly of ,herakleitean origin1#chc we read of an 8advance of fire and water0 in connexion with day and night and the courses of the sun and moon4#chd ,in fr4 #bf1 again1 we read of fire 8advancing10 and all these things seem to be intimately connected4 ,we must therefore try to see whether there is anything in the remaining fragments that bears upon the subject4 ,footnote #chb3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje a #bf1 4 ,footnote #chc3 ,the presence of ,herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out by ,gesner1 but ,bernays was the first to make any considerable use of it in reconstructing the system4 ,the older literature of the subject has been in the main superseded by ,carl ,fredrichs' ,hippokratische ,untersuchungen 7#ahii71 where also a satisfactory text of the sections which concern us is given for the first time4 ,fredrichs shows that 7as ,i said already in the first edition7 the work belongs to the period of eclecticism and reaction which ,i have briefly characterised in #ahd1 and he points out that c #c1 which was formerly supposed to be mainly ,herakleitean1 is really from some work which was strongly influenced by ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras4 ,i think1 however1 that he goes wrong in attributing the section to a nameless 8,physiker0 of the school of ,archelaos1 or even to ,archelaos himself2 it is far more like what we should expect from the eclectic ,herakleiteans whom ,plato describes in ,crat4 #dac c 7see p4 #afa1 n4 #cgd74 ,he is certainly wrong in holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be ,herakleitean1 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 c4 #c4 ,as we shall see1 that passage too is of ,herakleitean origin4 ,footnote #chd3 1 i4 #e4 ,i should read thus3 1 4 ,in any case1 the meaning is the same1 and the sentence occurs between and 1 which are surely ,herakleitean utterances4 ,sidenote3 ,man #gc4 ,in studying this alternate advance of fire and water1 it will be convenient to start with the microcosm4 ,we have more definite information about the two exhalations in man than about the analogous processes in the world at large1 and it would seem that ,herakleitos himself explained the world by man rather than man by the world4 ,in a well-known passage1 ,aristotle implies that soul is identical with the dry exhalation1#che and this is fully confirmed by the fragments4 ,man is made up of three things1 fire1 water1 and earth4 ,but1 just as in the macrocosm fire is identified with the one wisdom1 so in the microcosm the fire alone is conscious4 ,when it has left the body1 the remainder1 the mere earth and water1 is altogether worthless 7fr4 #he74 ,of course1 the fire which animates man is subject to the 8upward and downward path10 just as much as the fire of the world4 ,the has preserved the obviously ,herakleitean sentence3 8,all things are passing1 both human and divine1 upwards and downwards by exchanges40#chf ,we are just as much in perpetual flux as anything else in the world4 ,we are and are not the same for two consecutive instants 7fr4 #ha74 ,the fire in us is perpetually becoming water1 and the water earth2 but1 as the opposite process goes on simultaneously1 we appear to remain the same4#chg ,footnote #che3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje a #be 7,r4 ,p4 #ch74 ,diels attributes to ,herakleitos himself the words 1 which are found in ,areios ,didymos after fr4 #db4 ,i can hardly believe1 however1 that the word is ,herakleitean4 ,he seems rather to have called the two exhalations and 7cf4 fr4 #cg74 ,footnote #chf3 1 i4 #e1 4 ,footnote #chg3 ,we seem to have a clear reference to this in ,epicharmos1 fr4 #b1 ,diels 7#agj b1 ,kaibel73 8,look now at men too4 ,one grows and another passes away1 and all are in change always4 ,what changes in its substance 7 7 and never abides in the same spot1 will already be something different from what has passed away4 ,so thou and ,i were different yesterday1 and are now quite other people1 and again we shall become others and never the same again1 and so on in the same way40 ,this is put into the mouth of a debtor who does not wish to pay4 ,see ,bernays on the 7,ges4 ,abh4 i4 pp4 #aji sqq474 ,sidenote3 7a7 ,sleeping and waking4 #gd4 ,this1 however1 is not all4 ,man is subject to a certain oscillation in his 8measures0 of fire and water1 and this gives rise to the alternations of sleeping and waking1 life and death4 ,the locus classicus on this subject is a passage of ,sextus ,empiricus1 which reproduces the account of the ,herakleitean psychology given by ,ainesidemos 7,skeptic1 c4 #hj-ej ,b4,c474#chh ,it is as follows 7,r4 ,p4 #da73-- ,the natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds us#chi is rational and endowed with consciousness4 ,according to ,herakleitos1 when we draw in this divine reason by means of respiration1 we become rational4 ,in sleep we forget1 but at our waking we become conscious once more4 ,for in sleep1 when the openings of the senses close1 the mind which is in us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds us1 and only our connexion with it by means of respiration is preserved as a sort of root 7from which the rest may spring again72 and1 when it is thus separated1 it loses the power of memory that it had before4 ,when we awake again1 however1 it looks out through the openings of the senses1 as if through windows1 and coming together with the surrounding mind1 it assumes the power of reason4 ,just1 then1 as embers1 when they are brought near the the fire1 change and become red-hot1 and go out when they are taken away from it again1 so does the portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body become irrational when it is cut off1 and so does it become of like nature to the whole when contact is established through the greatest number of openings4 ,footnote #chh3 ,sextus quotes 8,ainesidemos according to ,herakleitos40 ,natorp holds 7,forschungen1 p4 #gh7 that ,ainesidemos really did combine ,herakleiteanism with ,skepticism4 ,diels1 on the other hand 7,dox4 pp4 #baj1 #baa71 insists that ,ainesidemos only gave an account of the theories of ,herakleitos4 ,this controversy does not affect the use we make of the passage4 ,footnote #chi3 1 opposed to but parallel with 4 ,in this passage there is obviously a very large admixture of later phraseology and of later ideas4 ,in particular1 the identification of 8that which surrounds us0 with the air cannot be ,herakleitean2 for ,herakleitos can have known nothing of air1 which in his day was regarded as a form of water 7 #bg74 ,the reference to the pores or openings of the senses is probably foreign to him also2 for the theory of pores is due to ,alkmaion 7 #if74 ,lastly1 the distinction between mind and body is far too sharply drawn4 ,on the other hand1 the important rle assigned to respiration may very well be ,herakleitean2 for we have met with it already in ,anaximenes4 ,and we can hardly doubt that the striking simile of the embers which glow when they are brought near the fire is genuine 7cf4 fr4 #gg74 ,the true ,herakleitean doctrine doubtless was1 that sleep was produced by the encroachment of moist1 dark exhalations from the water in the body1 which cause the fire to burn low4 ,in sleep1 we lose contact with the fire in the world which is common to all1 and retire to a world of our own 7fr4 #ie74 ,in a soul where the fire and water are evenly balanced1 the equilibrium is restored in the morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation4 ,sidenote3 7b7 ,life and death4 #ge4 ,but in no soul are the fire and water thus evenly balanced for long4 ,one or the other acquires predominance1 and the result in either case is death4 ,let us take each of these cases in turn4 ,it is death1 we know1 to souls to become water 7fr4 #fh72 but that is just what happens to souls which seek after pleasure4 ,for pleasure is a moistening of the soul 7fr4 #gb71 as may be seen in the case of the drunken man1 who1 in pursuit of it1 has moistened his soul to such an extent that he does not know where he is going 7fr4 #gc74 ,even in gentle relaxation over our cups1 it is more difficult to hide folly than at other times 7fr4 #ajh74 ,that is why it is so necessary for us to quench wantonness 7fr4 #ajc72 for whatever our heart's desire insists on it purchases at the price of life1 that is1 of the fire within us 7fr4 #aje74 ,take now the other case4 ,the dry soul1 that which has least moisture1 is the best 7fr4 #gd72 but the preponderance of fire causes death as much as that of water4 ,it is a very different death1 however1 and wins 8greater portions0 for those who die it 7fr4 #aja74 ,apparently those who fall in battle share their lot 7fr4 #ajb74 ,we have no fragment which tells us directly what it is1 but the class of utterances we are about to look at next leaves little doubt on the subject4 ,those who die the fiery and not the watery death1 become1 in fact1 gods1 though in a different sense from that in which the one ,wisdom is god4 ,it is probable that the corrupt fragment #abc refers to this unexpected fate 7fr4 #abb7 that awaits men when they die4 ,further1 just as summer and winter are one1 and necessarily reproduce one another by their 8opposite tension10 so do life and death4 ,they1 too1 are one1 we are told2 and so are youth and age 7fr4 #gh74 ,it follows that the soul will be now living and now dead2 that it will only turn to fire or water1 as the case may be1 to recommence once more its unceasing upward and downward path4 ,the soul that has died from excess of moisture sinks down to earth2 but from the earth comes water1 and from water is once more exhaled a soul 7fr4 #fh74 ,so1 too1 we are told 7fr4 #fg7 that gods and men are really one4 ,they live each others' life1 and die each others' death4 ,those mortals that die the fiery death become immortal1#cij they become the guardians of the quick and the dead 7fr4 #abc72cia and those immortals become mortal in their turn4 ,everything is really the death of something else 7fr4 #fd74 ,the living and the dead are always changing places 7fr4 #gh71 like the pieces on a child's draught-board 7fr4 #gi71 and this applies not only to the souls that have become water1 but to those that have become fire and are now guardian spirits4 ,the real weariness is continuance in the same state 7fr4 #hb71 and the real rest is change 7fr4 #hc74 ,rest in any other sense is tantamount to dissolution 7fr4 #hd74cib ,so they too are born once more4 ,herakleitos estimated the duration of the cycle which preserves the balance of life and death as thirty years1 the shortest time in which a man may become a grandfather 7frs4 #hg-hi74cic ,footnote #cij3 ,the popular word is used for the sake of its paradoxical effect4 ,strictly speaking1 they are all mortal from one point of view and immortal from another4 ,footnote #cia3 ,we need not hesitate to ascribe to ,herakleitos the view that the dead become guardian demons of the living2 it appears already in ,hesiod1 ,works and ,days1 #aba1 and the ,orphic communities had popularised it4 ,rohde1 ,psyche 7pp4 #ddb sqq471 refused to admit that ,herakleitos believed the soul survived after death4 ,strictly speaking1 it is no doubt an inconsistency2 but ,i believe1 with ,zeller and ,diels1 that it is one of a kind we may well admit4 ,many thinkers have spoken of a personal immortality1 though there was really no room for it in their systems4 ,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 waking4 ,footnote #cib3 ,these fragments are quoted by ,plotinos1 ,iamblichos1 and ,noumenios in this very connexion 7see ,r4 ,p4 #df c71 and it does not seem to me possible to hold1 with ,rohde1 that they had no grounds for so interpreting them4 ,they knew the context and we do not4 ,footnote #cic3 ,plut4 def4 orac4 #dae d1 ' 1 4 ,philo1 fr4 ,harris1 p4 #bj1 444 ,censorinus1 de die nat4 #ag1 #b1 8hoc enim tempus 7triaginta annos7 genean vocari ,heraclitus auctor est1 quia orbis aetatis in eo sit spatio3 orbem autem vocat aetatis1 dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim revertitur40 ,the words orbis aetatis seem to mean 1 8the circle of life40 ,if so1 we may compare the ,orphic 4 ,sidenote3 ,the day and the year4 #gf4 ,let us turn now to the world4 ,diogenes tells us that fire was kept up by the bright vapours from land and sea1 and moisture by the dark4#cid ,what are these 8dark0 vapours which increase the moist element8 ,if we remember the 8,air0 of ,anaximenes1 we shall be inclined to regard them as darkness itself4 ,we know that the idea of darkness as privation of light is not natural to the unsophisticated mind4 ,we sometimes hear even now of darkness 8thick enough to cut with a knife40 ,i suppose1 then1 that ,herakleitos believed night and winter to be produced by the rise of darkness from earth and sea--he saw1 of course1 that the valleys were dark before the hill-tops1--and that this darkness1 being moist1 so increased the watery element as to put out the sun's light4 ,this1 however1 destroys the power of darkness itself4 ,it can no longer rise upwards unless the sun gives it motion1 and so it becomes possible for a fresh sun 7fr4 #cb7 to be kindled1 and to nourish itself at the expense of the moist element for a time4 ,but it can only be for a time4 ,the sun1 by burning up the bright vapour1 deprives himself of nourishment1 and the dark vapour once more gets the upper hand4 ,it is in this sense that 8day and night are one0 7fr4 #ce74 ,each implies the other1 and they are therefore to be regarded as merely two sides of the one1 in which alone their true ground of explanation is to be found 7fr4 #cf74 ,footnote #cid3 ,diog4 ix4 #i 7,r4 ,p4 #ci b74 ,summer and winter were easily to be explained in the same way4 ,we know that the 8turnings0 of the sun were a subject of interest in those days1 and it was natural for ,herakleitos to see in its retreat further to the south the gradual advance of the moist element1 caused by the heat of the sun itself4 ,this1 however1 diminishes the power of the sun to cause evaporation1 and so it must return to the north once more that it may supply itself with nourishment4 ,such was1 at any rate1 the ,stoic doctrine on the subject1#cie and that it comes from ,herakleitos seems to be proved by its occurrence in the 4 ,it seems impossible to refer the following sentence to any other source3-- ,and in turn each 7fire and water7 prevails and is prevailed over to the greatest and least degree that is possible4 ,for neither can prevail altogether for the following reasons4 ,if fire advances towards the utmost limit of the water1 its nourishment fails it4 ,it retires1 then1 to a place where it can get nourishment4 ,and if water advances towards the utmost limit of the fire1 movement fails it4 ,at that point1 then1 it stands still2 and1 when it has come to a stand1 it has no longer power to resist1 but is consumed as nourishment for the fire that falls upon it4 ,for these reasons neither can prevail altogether4 ,but if at any time either should be in any way overcome1 then none of the things that exist would be as they are now4 ,so long as things are as they are1 fire and water will always be too1 and neither will ever fail4#cif ,footnote #cie3 ,see ,kleanthes1 fr4 #bi1 ,pearson1 ' 7 74 ,cf4 ,cic4 ,n4,d4 iii4 #cg3 8,quid enim8 non eisdem vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo modo posse1 nisi alitur3 ali autem solem1 lunam1 reliqua astra aquis1 alia dulcibus 7from the earth71 alia marinis8 eamque causam ,cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali1 ne longius discedat a cibo40 ,footnote #cif3 ,for the ,greek text of this passage1 see below1 p4 #ahc1 n4 #dac4 ,fredrichs allows that it is from the same source as that quoted above 7p4 #afi71 and1 as that comes from 1 i4 #c1 he denies the ,herakleitean origin of this too4 ,he has not taken account of the fact that it gives the ,stoic doctrine1 which raises a presumption in favour of that being ,herakleitean4 ,if ,i could agree with ,fredrichs' theory1 ,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 section4 ,as it is1 ,i find no difficulty in believing that both passages give the ,herakleitean doctrine1 though it becomes mixed up with other theories in the sequel4 ,see p4 #afg1 n4 #chc4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,great ,year4 #gg4 ,herakleitos spoke also of a longer period1 which is identified with the 8,great ,year10 and is variously described as lasting #ah1jjj and #aj1hjj years4#cig ,we have no definite statement1 however1 of what process ,herakleitos supposed to take place in the ,great ,year4 ,we have seen that the period of #cf1jjj years was1 in all probability1 ,babylonian1 and was that of the revolution which produces the precession of the equinoxes4#cih ,now #ah1jjj years is just half that period1 a fact which may be connected with ,herakleitos's way of dividing all cycles into an 8upward and downward path0 ,it is not at all likely1 however1 that ,herakleitos1 who held with ,xenophanes that the sun was 8new every day10 would trouble himself about the precession of the equinoxes1 and we seem forced to assume that he gave some new application to the traditional period4 ,the ,stoics1 or some of them1 held that the ,great ,year was the period between one world-conflagration and the next4 ,they were careful1 however1 to make it a good deal longer than ,herakleitos did1 and1 in any case1 we are not entitled without more ado to credit him with the theory of a general conflagration4#cii ,we must try first1 if possible1 to interpret the ,great ,year on the analogy of the shorter periods discussed already4 ,footnote #cig3 ,aet4 ii4 #cb1 #c1 7 74 ,censorinus1 de die nat4 #aa1 ,heraclitus et ,linus1 ,,xdccc4 ,footnote #cih3 ,see ,introd4 ,,xii4 p4 #be1 n4 #ci4 ,footnote #cii3 ,for the ,stoic doctrine1 cf4 ,nemesios1 de nat4 hom4 #ch 7,r4 ,p4 #ejc74 ,mr4 ,adam allowed that no destruction of the world or conflagration marked the end of ,plato's year1 but he declined to draw what seems to me the natural inference that the connexion between the two things belongs to a later age1 and should not1 therefore1 be ascribed to ,herakleitos in the absence of any evidence that he did so connect them4 ,nevertheless1 his treatment of these questions in the second volume of his edition of the ,republic1 pp4 #cjb sqq41 must form the basis of all further discussion on the subject4 ,it has certainly helped me to put the view which he rejects 7p4 #cjc1 n4 #i7 in what ,i hope will be found a more convincing form4 ,now we have seen that a generation is the shortest time in which a man can become a grandfather1 it is the period of the upward or downward path of the soul1 and the most natural interpretation of the longer period would surely be that it represents the time taken by a 8measure0 of the fire in the world to travel on the downward path to earth or return to fire once more by the upward path4 ,plato certainly implies that such a parallelism between the periods of man and the world was recognised1#djj and this receives a curious confirmation from a passage in ,aristotle1 which is usually supposed to refer to the doctrine of a periodic conflagration4 ,he is discussing the question whether the 8heavens10 that is to say1 what he calls the 8first heaven10 is eternal or not1 and he naturally enough1 from his own point of view1 identifies this with the ,fire of ,herakleitos4 ,he quotes him along with ,empedokles as holding that the 8heavens0 are alternately as they are now and in some other state1 one of passing away2 and he goes on to point out that this is not really to say they pass away1 any more than it would be to say that a man ceases to be1 if we said that he turned from boy to man and then from man to boy again4#dja ,it is surely clear that this is a reference to the parallel between the generation and the ,great ,year1 and1 if so1 the ordinary interpretation of the passage must be wrong4 ,it is true that it is not quite consistent with the theory to suppose that a 8measure0 of ,fire could preserve its identity throughout the whole of its upward and downward path2 but it is exactly the same inconsistency that we have felt bound to recognise with regard to the continuance of individual souls1 a fact which is really in favour of our interpretation4 ,it should be added that1 while #ah1jjj is half #cf1jjj1 #aj1hjj is #cfj #cj1 which would make each generation a day in the ,great ,year4#djb ,footnote #djj3 ,this is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the periods of the and the 1 however we may understand the details4 ,see ,adam1 ,republic1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #bhh sqq4 ,footnote #dja3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #aj4 #bgi b #ad1 ' 1 444 4 ,aristotle points out that this really amounts only to saying that it is eternal and changes its form1 1 ' 7#bhj a #ad74 ,the point of the reference to ,empedokles will appear from de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #f4 #ccd a #a sqq4 ,what ,aristotle finds fault with in both theories is that they do not regard the substance of the heavens as something outside the upward and downward motion of the elements4 ,footnote #djb3 ,this is practically ,lassalle's view of the ,great ,year1 except that he commits the anachronism of speaking of 8atoms0 of fire instead of 8measures40 ,sidenote3 ,did ,herakleitos teach a general conflagration8 #gh4 ,most modern writers1 however1 ascribe to ,herakleitos the doctrine of a periodical conflagration or 1 to use the ,stoic term4#djc ,that this is inconsistent with the theory1 as we have interpreted it1 is obvious1 and is indeed admitted by ,zeller4 ,to his paraphrase of the statement of ,plato quoted above 7p4 #aei7 he adds the words3 8,herakleitos did not intend to retract this principle in the doctrine of a periodic change in the constitution of the world2 if the two doctrines are not compatible1 it is a contradiction which he has not observed40 ,now1 it is in itself quite likely that there were contradictions in the discourse of ,herakleitos1 but it is very unlikely that there was this particular one4 ,in the first place1 it is a contradiction of the central idea of his system1 the thought that possessed his whole mind 7 #fg71 and we can only admit the possibility of that1 if the evidence for it should prove irresistible4 ,in the second place1 such an interpretation destroys the whole point of ,plato's contrast between ,herakleitos and ,empedokles 7 #fh71 which is just that1 while ,herakleitos said the ,one was always many1 and the ,many always one1 ,empedokles said the ,all was many and one by turns4 ,zeller's interpretation obliges us1 then1 to suppose that ,herakleitos flatly contradicted his own discovery without noticing it1 and that ,plato1 in discussing this very discovery1 was also blind to the contradiction4#djd ,footnote #djc3 ,schleiermacher and ,lassalle are notable exceptions4 ,zeller1 ,diels1 and ,gomperz are all positive that ,herakleitos believed in the 4 ,footnote #djd3 ,in his fifth edition 7p4 #fii7 ,zeller seems to feel this last difficulty2 for he now says3 8,it is a contradiction which he1 and which probably ,plato too 7und den wahrscheinlich auch ,plato7 has not observed40 ,this seems to me still less arguable4 ,plato may or may not be mistaken2 but he makes the perfectly definite statement that ,herakleitos says 1 while ,empedokles says 4 ,the ,ionian ,muses are called and the ,sicilian just because the latter 8lowered the pitch0 77 of the doctrine that this is always so 7 74 ,nor is there anything in ,aristotle to set against ,plato's emphatic statement4 ,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 general1 but to fire1 which ,aristotle identified with the substance of his own 8first heaven40#dje ,it is also quite consistent with our interpretation when he says that all things at one time or another become fire4 ,this does not necessarily mean that they all become fire at the same time1 but is merely a statement of the undoubted ,herakleitean doctrine of the upward and downward path4#djf ,footnote #dje3 ,see above1 p4 #agg1 n4 #dja4 ,footnote #djf3 ,phys4 #e1 #bje a #c 7,met4 1 #aj4 #ajfg a #d71 4 ,even in his fifth edition 7p4 #fia7 ,zeller translates this es werde alles dereinst zu ,feuer werden2 but that would require 4 ,nor is there anything in his suggestion that 78not merely 07 implies that all things become fire at once4 ,in ,aristotle's day1 there was no distinction of meaning between and 4 ,even if he had said 1 we could not press it4 ,what is really noticeable is the present infinitive which surely suggests a continuous process1 not a series of conflagrations4 ,the only clear statements to the effect that ,herakleitos taught the doctrine of a general conflagration are posterior to the rise of ,stoicism4 ,it is unnecessary to enumerate them1 as there is no doubt about their meaning4 ,the ,christian apologists too were interested in the idea of a final conflagration1 and reproduce the ,stoic view4 ,the curious thing1 however1 is that there was a difference of opinion on the subject even among the ,stoics4 ,in one place1 ,marcus ,aurelius says3 8,so that all these things are taken up into the ,reason of the universe1 whether by a periodical conflagration or a renovation effected by external exchanges40#djg ,indeed1 there were some who said there was no general conflagration at all in ,herakleitos4 8,i hear all that10 ,plutarch makes one of his personages say1 8from many people1 and ,i see the ,stoic conflagration spreading over the poems of ,hesiod1 just as it does over the writings of ,herakleitos and the verses of ,orpheus40#djh ,we see from this that the question was debated1 and we should therefore expect that any statement of ,herakleitos which could settle it would be quoted over and over again4 ,it is highly significant that not a single quotation of the kind can be produced4 ,footnote #djg3 ,marcus ,aurelius1 x4 #g1 1 1 4 ,the are specifically ,herakleitean1 and the statement is the more remarkable as ,marcus elsewhere follows the usual ,stoic interpretation4 ,footnote #djh3 ,plut4 de def4 orac4 #dae f1 1 '1 1 4 ,as ,zeller admits 7p4 #fic n471 this proves that some opponents of the ,stoic tried to withdraw the support of ,herakleitos from it4 ,could they have done so if ,herakleitos had said anything about it1 or would not some one have produced a decisive quotation8 ,we may be sure that1 if any one had1 it would have been reiterated ad nauseam1 for the indestructibility of the world was one of the great questions of the day4 ,on the contrary1 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 it4 ,the favourite is fr4 #bd1 where we are told that ,herakleitos said ,fire was ,want and ,surfeit4 ,that is just in his manner1 and it has a perfectly intelligible meaning on our interpretation1 which is further confirmed by fr4 #cf4 ,on the other hand1 it seems distinctly artificial to understand the ,surfeit as referring to the fact that fire has burnt everything else up1 and still more so to interpret ,want as meaning that fire1 or most of it1 has turned into a world4 ,the next is fr4 #bf1 where we read that fire in its advance will judge and convict all things4 ,there is nothing in this1 however1 to suggest that fire will judge all things at once rather than in turn1 and1 indeed1 the phraseology reminds us of the advance of fire and water which we have seen reason for attributing to ,herakleitos1 but which is expressly said to be limited to a certain maximum4#dji ,these appear to be the only passages which the ,stoics and the ,christian apologists could discover1 and1 whether our interpretation of them is right or wrong1 it is surely obvious that they cannot bear the weight of their conclusion1 and that there was certainly nothing more definite to be found4 ,footnote #dji3 1 i4 #c1 4 ,it is much easier to find fragments which are on the face of them inconsistent with a general conflagration4 ,the 8measures0 of fr4 #bj and fr4 #bi must be the same thing1 and they must surely be interpreted in the light of fr4 #bc4 ,if this be so1 fr4 #bj1 and more especially fr4 #bi1 directly contradict the idea of a general conflagration4 8,the sun will not overstep his measures40#daj ,secondly1 the metaphor of 8exchange10 which is applied to the transformations of fire in fr4 #bb1 points in the same direction4 ,when gold is given in exchange for wares and wares for gold1 the sum or 8measure0 of each remains constant1 though they change owners4 ,all the wares and gold do not come into the same hands4 ,in the same way1 when anything becomes fire1 something of equal amount must cease to be fire1 if the 8exchange0 is to be a just one2 and that it will be just1 we are assured by the watchfulness of the ,erinyes 7fr4 #bi71 who see to it that the sun does not take more than he gives4 ,of course there is1 as we have seen1 a certain variation2 but this is strictly confined within limits1 and is compensated in the long run by a variation in the other direction4 ,thirdly1 fr4 #dc1 in which ,herakleitos blames ,homer for desiring the cessation of strife1 is very conclusive4 ,the cessation of strife would mean that all things should take the upward or downward path at the same time1 and cease to 8run in opposite directions40 ,if they all took the upward path1 we should have a general conflagration4 ,now1 if ,herakleitos had himself held that this was the appointment of fate1 would he have been likely to upbraid ,homer for desiring so necessary a consummation8#daa ,fourthly1 we note that in fr4 #bj it is this world1#dab and not merely the 8ever-living fire10 which is said to be eternal2 and it appears also that its eternity depends upon the fact that it is always kindling and always going out in the same 8measures10 or that an encroachment in one direction is compensated by a subsequent encroachment in the other4 ,lastly1 ,lassalle's argument from the concluding sentence of the passage from the 1 quoted above1 is really untouched by ,zeller's objection1 that it cannot be ,herakleitean because it implies that all things are fire and water4 ,it does not imply this1 but only that man1 like the heavenly bodies1 oscillates between fire and water2 and that is just what ,herakleitos taught4 ,it does not appear either that the measures of earth varied at all4 ,now1 in this passage we read that neither fire nor water can prevail completely1 and a very good reason is given for this1 a reason too which is in striking agreement with the other views of ,herakleitos4#dac ,and1 indeed1 it is not easy to see how1 in accordance with these views1 the world could ever recover from a general conflagration if such a thing were to take place4 ,the whole process depends1 so far as we can see1 on the fact that ,surfeit is also ,want1 or1 in other words1 that an advance of fire increases the moist exhalation1 while an advance of water deprives the fire of the power to cause evaporation4 ,the conflagration1 though it lasted but for a moment1#dad would destroy the opposite tension on which the rise of a new world depends1 and then motion would become impossible4 ,footnote #daj3 ,if any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the 8measures10 let him compare the use of the word by ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 fr4 #c4 ,footnote #daa3 ,this is just the argument which ,plato uses in the ,phaedo 7#gb c7 to prove the necessity of 1 and the whole series of arguments in that passage is distinctly ,herakleitean in character4 ,footnote #dab3 ,however we understand the term here1 the meaning is the same4 ,indeed1 if we suppose with ,bernays that it means 8order10 the argument in the text will be all the stronger4 ,in no sense of the word could a survive the 1 and the ,stoics accordingly said the was 4 ,footnote #dac3 1 i4 #c 7see above1 p4 #afg1 n4 #chc1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 4 ,footnote #dad3 ,in his note on fr4 #ff 7 #bf ,byw471 ,diels seeks to minimise the difficulty of the by saying that it is only a little one1 and can last but a moment2 but the contradiction noted above remains all the same4 ,diels holds that ,herakleitos was 8dark only in form10 and that 8he himself was perfectly clear as to the sense and scope of his ideas0 7,herakleitos1 p4 i474 ,to which ,i would add that he was probably called 8the ,dark0 just because the ,stoics sometimes found it hard to read their own ideas into his words4 ,sidenote3 ,strife and 8harmony40 #gi4 ,we are now in a position to understand more clearly the law of strife or opposition which manifests itself in the 8upward and downward path40 ,at any given moment1 each of the three forms of matter1 ,fire1 ,water1 and ,earth1 is made up of two equal portions1--subject1 of course1 to the oscillation described above1--one of which is taking the upward and the other the downward path4 ,now1 it is just the fact that the two halves of everything are being 8drawn in opposite directions10 this 8opposite tension10 that 8keeps things together10 and maintains them in an equilibrium which can only be disturbed temporarily and within certain limits4 ,it thus forms the 8hidden attunement0 of the universe 7fr4 #dg71 though1 in another aspect of it1 it is ,strife4 ,bernays has pointed out that the word meant originally 8structure10 and the illustration of the bow and the lyre shows that this idea was present4 ,on the other hand1 that taken from the concord of high and low notes shows that the musical sense of the word1 namely1 an octave1 was not wholly absent4 ,as to the 8bow and the lyre0 7fr4 #de71 ,i think that ,professor ,campbell has best brought out the point of the simile4 8,as the arrow leaves the string10 he says1 8the hands are pulling opposite ways to each other1 and to the different parts of the bow 7cf4 ,plato1 ,rep4 #d4 #dci72 and the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension and retention4 ,the secret of the universe is the same40#dae ,war1 then1 is the father and king of all things1 in the world as in human society 7fr4 #dd72 and ,homer's wish that strife might cease was really a prayer for the destruction of the world 7fr4 #dc74 ,footnote #dae3 ,campbell's ,theaetetus 7#bnd ed471 p4 #bdd4 ,see above1 p4 #aej1 n4 #cdg4 ,bernays explained the phrase as referring to the shape of the bow and lyre1 but this is much less likely4 ,wilamowitz's interpretation is substantially the same as ,campbell's4 8,es ist mit der ,welt wie mit dem ,bogen1 den man auseinanderzieht1 damit er zusammenschnellt1 wie mit der ,saite1 die man ihrer ,spannung entgegenziehen muss1 damit sie klingt0 7,lesebuch1 ii4 p4 #abi74 ,we know from ,philo that ,herakleitos supported his theory of the attainment of harmony through strife by a multitude of examples2 and1 as it happens1 some of these can be recovered4 ,there is a remarkable agreement between a passage of this kind in the pseudo-,aristotelian treatise1 entitled ,the ,kosmos1 and the ,hippokratean work to which we have already referred4 ,that the authors of both drew from the same source1 namely1 ,herakleitos1 is probable in itself1 and is made practically certain by the fact that this agreement extends in part to the ,letters of ,herakleitos1 which1 though spurious1 were certainly composed by some one who had access to the original work4 ,the argument was that men themselves act just in the same way as ,nature1 and it is therefore surprising that they do not recognise the laws by which she works4 ,the painter produces his harmonious effects by the contrast of colours1 the musician by that of high and low notes4 8,if one were to make all things alike1 there would be no delight in them40 ,there are many similar examples in the ,hippokratean tract1 some of which must certainly come from ,herakleitos2 but it is not easy to separate them from the later additions4#daf ,footnote #daf3 ,see on all this ,patin's ,quellenstudien zu ,heraklit 7#ahha74 ,the sentence 7 1 i4 #e73 1 1 ' 444 1 has the true ,herakleitean ring4 ,this1 too1 can hardly have had another author3 8,they trust to their eyes rather than to their understanding1 though their eyes are not fit to judge even of the things that are seen4 ,but ,i speak these things from understanding40 ,these words are positively grotesque in the mouth of the medical compiler2 but we are accustomed to hear such things from the ,ephesian4 ,other examples which may be ,herakleitean are the image of the two men sawing wood--8one pushes1 the other pulls0--and the illustration from the art of writing4 ,sidenote3 ,correlation of opposites4 #hj4 ,there are a number of ,herakleitean fragments which form a class by themselves1 and are among the most striking of all the utterances that have come down to us4 ,their common characteristic is1 that they assert in the most downright way the identity of various things which are usually regarded as opposites4 ,the clue to their meaning is to be found in the account already given of the assertion that day and night are one4 ,we have seen that ,herakleitos meant to say1 not that day was night or that night was day1 but that they were two sides of the same process1 namely1 the oscillation of the 8measures0 of fire and water1 and that neither would be possible without the other4 ,any explanation that can be given of night will also be an explanation of day1 and vice versa2 for it will be an account of that which is common to both1 and manifests itself now as one and now as the other4 ,moreover1 it is just because it has manifested itself in the one form that it must next appear in the other2 for this is required by the law of compensation or ,justice4 ,this is only a particular application of the universal principle that the primary fire is one even in its division4 ,it itself is1 even in its unity1 both surfeit and want1 war and peace 7fr4 #cf74 ,in other words1 the 8satiety0 which makes fire pass into other forms1 which makes it seek 8rest in change0 7frs4 #hb1 #hc71 and 8hide itself0 7fr4 #aj7 in the 8hidden attunement0 of opposition1 is only one side of the process4 ,the other is the 8want0 which leads it to consume the bright vapour as fuel4 ,the upward path is nothing without the downward 7fr4 #fi74 ,if either were to cease1 the other would cease too1 and the world would disappear2 for it takes both to make an apparently stable reality4 ,all other utterances of the kind are to be explained in the same way4 ,if there were no cold1 there would be no heat2 for a thing can only grow warm if1 and in so far as1 it is already cold4 ,and the same thing applies to the opposition of wet and dry 7fr4 #ci74 ,these1 it will be observed1 are just the two primary oppositions of ,anaximander1 and ,herakleitos is showing that the war between them is really peace1 for it is the common element in them 7fr4 #fb7 which appears as strife1 and that very strife is justice1 and not1 as ,anaximander had taught1 an injustice which they commit one against the other1 and which must be expiated by a reabsorption of both in their common ground4#dag ,the strife itself is the common ground 7fr4 #fb71 and is eternal4 ,footnote #dag3 ,chap4 ,i4 #af4 ,the most startling of these sayings is that which affirms that good and evil are the same 7fr4 #eg74 ,this does not mean in the least1 however1 that good is evil or that evil is good1 but simply that they are the two inseparable halves of one and the same thing4 ,a thing can become good only in so far as it is already evil1 and evil only in so far as it is already good1 and everything depends on the contrast4 ,the illustration given in fr4 #eh shows this clearly4 ,torture1 one would say1 was an evil1 and yet it is made a good by the presence of another evil1 namely1 disease2 as is shown by the fact that surgeons expect a fee for inflicting it upon their patients4 ,justice1 on the other hand1 which is a good1 would be altogether unknown were it not for the existence of injustice1 which is an evil 7fr4 #fj74 ,and that is why it is not good for men to get everything they wish 7fr4 #ajd74 ,just as the cessation of strife in the world would mean its destruction1 so the disappearance of hunger1 disease1 and weariness would mean the disappearance of satisfaction1 health1 and rest4 ,this leads to a theory of relativity which prepares the way for the doctrine of ,protagoras1 that 8,man is the measure of all things40#dah ,sea-water is good for fish and bad for men 7fr4 #eb71 and so with many other things4 ,at the same time1 ,herakleitos is not a believer in absolute relativity4 ,the process of the world is not merely a circle1 but an 8upward and downward path40 ,at the upper end1 where the two paths meet1 we have the pure fire1 in which1 as there is no separation1 there is no relativity4 ,we are told expressly that1 while to man some things are evil and some things are good1 all things are good to ,god 7fr4 #fa74 ,now by ,god there is no doubt that ,herakleitos meant ,fire4 ,he also calls it the 8one wise10 and perhaps said that it 8knows all things40 ,there can hardly be any question that what he meant to say was that in it the opposition and relativity which are universal in the world disappear4 ,it is doubtless to this that frs4 #if1 #ig1 and #ih refer4 ,footnote #dah3 ,plato's exposition of the relativity of knowledge in the ,theaetetus 7#aeb d sqq47 can hardly go back to ,herakleitos himself1 but is meant to show how ,herakleiteanism might naturally give rise to such a doctrine4 ,if the soul is a stream and things are a stream1 then of course knowledge is relative4 ,very possibly the later ,herakleiteans had worked out the theory in this direction1 but in the days of ,herakleitos himself the problem of knowledge had not yet arisen4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,wise4 #ha4 ,herakleitos speaks of 8wisdom0 or the 8wise0 in two senses4 ,we have seen already that he said wisdom was 8something apart from everything else0 7fr4 #ah71 meaning by it the perception of the unity of the many2 and he also applies the term to that unity itself regarded as the 8thought that directs the course of all things40 ,this is synonymous with the pure fire which is not differentiated into two parts1 one taking the upward and the other the downward path4 ,that alone has wisdom2 the partial things we see have not4 ,we ourselves are only wise in so far as we are fiery 7fr4 #gd74 ,sidenote3 ,theology4 #hb4 ,with certain reservations1 ,herakleitos was prepared to call the one ,wisdom by the name of ,zeus4 ,such1 at least1 appears to be the meaning of fr4 #fe4 ,what these reservations were1 it is easy to guess4 ,it is not1 of course1 to be pictured in the form of a man4 ,in saying this1 ,herakleitos would only have been repeating what had already been laid down by ,anaximander and ,xenophanes4 ,he agrees further with ,xenophanes in holding that this 8god10 if it is to be called so1 is one2 but his polemic against popular religion was directed rather against the rites and ceremonies themselves than their mere mythological outgrowth4 ,he gives a list 7fr4 #abd7 of some of the most characteristic religious figures of his time1 and the context in which the fragment is quoted shows that he in some way threatened them with the wrath to come4 ,he comments upon the absurdity of praying to images 7fr4 #abf71 and the strange idea that blood-guiltiness can be washed out by the shedding of blood 7fr4 #acj74 ,he seems also to have said that it was absurd to celebrate the worship of ,dionysos by cheerful and licentious ceremonies1 while ,hades was propitiated by gloomy rites 7fr4 #abg74 ,according to the mystic doctrine itself1 the two were really one2 and the one ,wisdom ought to be worshipped in its integrity4 ,the few fragments which deal with theology and religion hardly suggest to us that ,herakleitos was in sympathy with the religious revival of the time1 and yet we have been asked to consider his system 8in the light of the idea of the mysteries40#dai ,our attention is called to the fact that he was 8king0 of ,ephesos1 that is1 priest of the branch of the ,eleusinian mysteries established in that city1 which was also connected in some way with the worship of ,artemis or the ,great ,mother4#dbj ,these statements may be true2 but1 even if they are1 what follows8 ,we ought surely to have learnt from ,lobeck by this time that there was no 8idea0 in the mysteries at all2 and on this point the results of recent anthropological research have abundantly confirmed those of philological and historical inquiry4 ,footnote #dai3 ,e4 ,pfleiderer1 ,die ,philosophie des ,heraklit von ,ephesus im ,lichte der ,mysterienidee 7#ahhf74 ,footnote #dbj3 ,antisthenes 7the writer of ,successions7 ap4 ,diog4 ix4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #ca74 ,cf4 ,strabo1 xiv4 p4 #fcc 7,r4 ,p4 #ca b74 ,sidenote3 ,ethics of ,herakleitos4 #hc4 ,the moral teaching of ,herakleitos has sometimes been regarded as an anticipation of the 8common-sense0 theory of ,ethics4#dba ,the 8common0 upon which ,herakleitos insists is1 nevertheless1 something very different from common sense1 for which1 indeed1 he had the greatest possible contempt 7fr4 #aaa74 ,it is1 in fact1 his strongest objection to 8the many10 that they live each in his own world 7fr4 #ie71 as if they had a private wisdom of their own 7fr4 #ib72 and public opinion is therefore just the opposite of 8the common40 ,footnote #dba3 ,kstlin1 ,gesch4 d4 ,ethik1 i4 pp4 #afj sqq4 ,the ,ethics of ,herakleitos are to be regarded as a corollary of his anthropological and cosmological views4 ,their chief requirement is that we keep our souls dry1 and thus assimilate them to the one ,wisdom1 which is fire4 ,that is what is really 8common10 and the greatest fault is to act like men asleep 7fr4 #id71 that is1 by letting our souls grow moist1 to cut ourselves off from the fire in the world4 ,we do not know what were the consequences which ,herakleitos deduced from his rule that we must hold fast to what is common1 but it is easy to see what their nature must have been4 ,the wise man would not try to secure good without its correlative evil4 ,he would not seek for rest without exertion1 nor expect to enjoy contentment without first suffering discontent4 ,he would not complain that he had to take the bad with the good1 but would consistently look at things as a whole4 ,herakleitos prepared the way for the ,stoic world-state by comparing 8the common0 to the laws of a city4 ,and these are even more than a type of the divine law3 they are imperfect embodiments of it4 ,they cannot1 however1 exhaust it altogether2 for in all human affairs there is an element of relativity 7fr4 #ia74 8,man is a baby compared to ,god0 7fr4 #ig74 ,such as they are1 however1 the city must fight for them as for its walls2 and1 if it has the good fortune to possess a citizen with a dry soul1 he is worth ten thousand 7fr4 #aac72 for in him alone is 8the common0 embodied4 ,,chapter ,,iv ,,parmenides ,,of ,,elea ,sidenote3 ,life4 #hd4 ,parmenides1 son of ,pyres1 was a citizen of ,hyele1 ,elea1 or ,velia1 a colony founded in ,oinotria by refugees from ,phokaia in #edj-ci ,b4,c4#dbb ,diogenes tells us that he 8flourished0 in ,ol4 ,,lxix4 7#ejd-ejj ,b4,c471 and this was doubtless the date given by ,apollodoros4#dbc ,on the other hand1 ,plato says that ,parmenides came to ,athens in his sixty-fifth year1 accompanied by ,zeno1 and conversed with ,sokrates1 who was then quite young4 ,now ,sokrates was just over seventy when he was put to death in #cii ,b4,c42 and therefore1 if we suppose him to have been an ephebos1 that is1 from eighteen to twenty years old1 at the time of his interview with ,parmenides1 we get #dea-ddi ,b4,c4 as the date of that event4 ,i do not hesitate to accept ,plato's statement1#dbd especially as we have independent evidence of the visit of ,zeno to ,athens1 where ,perikles is said to have 8heard0 him4#dbe ,the date given by ,apollodoros1 on the other hand1 depends solely on that of the foundation of ,elea1 which he had adopted as the floruit of ,xenophanes4 ,parmenides is born in that year1 just as ,zeno is born in the year when ,parmenides 8flourished40 ,why any one should prefer these transparent combinations to the testimony of ,plato1 ,i am at a loss to understand1 though it is equally a mystery why ,apollodoros himself should have overlooked such precise data4 ,footnote #dbb3 ,diog4 ix4 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa74 ,for the foundation of ,elea1 see ,herod4 i4 #afe sqq4 ,it was on the coast of ,lucania1 south of ,poseidonia 7,paestum74 ,footnote #dbc3 ,diog4 ix4 #bc 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa74 ,cf4 ,diels1 ,rhein4 ,mus4 xxxi4 p4 #cd2 and ,jacoby1 pp4 #bca sqq4 ,footnote #dbd3 ,plato1 ,parm4 #abg b 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa d74 ,there are1 as ,zeller has shown1 a certain number of anachronisms in ,plato1 but there is not one of this character4 ,in the first place1 we have exact figures as to the ages of ,parmenides and ,zeno1 which imply that the latter was twenty-five years younger than the former1 not forty as ,apollodoros said4 ,in the second place1 ,plato refers to this meeting in two other places 7,tht4 #ahc e #g and ,soph4 #bag c #e71 which do not seem to be mere references to the dialogue entitled ,parmenides4 ,no parallel can be quoted for an anachronism so glaring and deliberate as this would be4 ,e4 ,meyer 7,gesch4 des ,alterth4 iv4 #eji1 ,anm47 also regards the meeting of ,sokrates and ,parmenides as historical4 ,footnote #dbe3 ,plut4 ,per4 #d1 #c4 ,see below1 p4 #ceh1 n4 #heb4 ,we have seen already 7 #ee7 that ,aristotle mentions a statement which made ,parmenides the disciple of ,xenophanes2 but the value of this testimony is diminished by the doubtful way in which he speaks1 and it is more than likely that he is only referring to what ,plato says in the ,sophist4#dbf ,it is1 we also saw1 very improbable that ,xenophanes founded the school of ,elea1 though it is quite possible he visited that city4 ,he tells us himself that1 in his ninety-second year1 he was still wandering up and down 7fr4 #h74 ,at that time ,parmenides would be well advanced in life4 ,and we must not overlook the statement of ,sotion1 preserved to us by ,diogenes1 that1 though ,parmenides 8heard0 ,xenophanes1 he did not 8follow0 him4 ,according to this account1 our philosopher was the 8associate0 of a ,pythagorean1 ,ameinias1 son of ,diochaitas1 8a poor but noble man to whom he afterwards built a shrine as to a hero40 ,it was ,ameinias and not ,xenophanes that 8converted0 ,parmenides to the philosophic life4#dbg ,this does not read like an invention1 and we must remember that the ,alexandrians had information about the history of ,southern ,italy which we have not4 ,the shrine erected by ,parmenides would still be there in later days1 like the grave of ,pythagoras at ,metapontion4 ,it should also be mentioned that ,strabo describes ,parmenides and ,zeno as ,pythagoreans1 and that ,kebes talks of a 8,parmenidean and ,pythagorean way of life40#dbh ,zeller explains all this by supposing that1 like ,empedokles1 ,parmenides approved of and followed the ,pythagorean mode of life without adopting the ,pythagorean system4 ,it is possibly true that ,parmenides believed in a 8philosophic life0 7 #ce71 and that he got the idea from the ,pythagoreans2 but there is very little trace1 either in his writings or in what we are told about him1 of his having been in any way affected by the religious side of ,pythagoreanism4 ,the writing of ,empedokles is obviously modelled upon that of ,parmenides1 and yet there is an impassable gulf between the two4 ,the touch of charlatanism1 which is so strange a feature in the copy1 is altogether absent from the model4 ,it is true1 no doubt1 that there are traces of ,orphic ideas in the poem of ,parmenides2#dbi but they are all to be found either in the allegorical introduction or in the second part of the poem1 and we need not therefore take them very seriously4 ,now ,parmenides was a western ,hellene1 and he had probably been a ,pythagorean1 so it is not a little remarkable that he should be so free from the common tendency of his age and country4 ,it is here1 if anywhere1 that we may trace the influence of ,xenophanes4 ,as regards his relation to the ,pythagorean system1 we shall have something to say later on4 ,at present we need only note further that1 like most of the older philosophers1 he took part in politics2 and ,speusippos recorded that he legislated for his native city4 ,others add that the magistrates of ,elea made the citizens swear every year to abide by the laws which ,parmenides had given them4#dcj ,footnote #dbf3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #adj1 n4 #cjh4 ,footnote #dbg3 ,diog4 ix4 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 ,,iii71 reading with ,diels 7,hermes1 xxxv4 p4 #aig74 ,sotion1 in his ,successions1 separated ,parmenides from ,xenophanes and associated him with the ,pythagoreans 7,dox4 pp4 #adf1 #adh1 #aff74 ,footnote #dbh3 ,strabo1 vi4 #a1 p4 #beb 7p4 #aie1 n4 #dcj72 ,ceb4 ,tab4 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa c74 ,this ,kebes is not the ,kebes of the ,phaedo2 but he certainly lived some time before ,lucian1 who speaks of him as a well-known writer4 ,a ,cynic of the name is mentioned by ,athenaios 7#aef d74 ,the statements of ,strabo are of the greatest value2 for they are based upon historians now lost4 ,footnote #dbi3 ,o4 ,kern in ,arch4 iii4 pp4 #agc sqq4 ,we know too little1 however1 of the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century ,b4,c4 to be sure of the details4 ,all we can say is that ,parmenides has taken the form of his poem from some such source4 ,see ,diels1 8,ueber die poetischen ,vorbilder des ,parmenides0 7,berl4 ,sitzb4 #ahif71 and the ,introduction to his ,parmenides ,lehrgedicht1 pp4 #i sqq4 ,footnote #dcj3 ,diog4 ix4 #bc 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa74 ,plut4 adv4 ,col4 #abbf a1 1 ' 4 ,strabo1 vi4 #a4 p4 #beb1 77 4 ' 4 ,sidenote3 ,the poem4 #he4 ,parmenides was really the first philosopher to expound his system in metrical language4 ,as there is some confusion on this subject1 it deserves a few words of explanation4 ,in writing of ,empedokles1 ,mr4 ,j4 ,a4 ,symonds said3 8,the age in which he lived had not yet thrown off the form of poetry in philosophical composition4 ,even ,parmenides had committed his austere theories to hexameter verse40 ,now this is wrongly put4 ,the earliest philosophers1 ,anaximander1 ,anaximenes1 and ,herakleitos1 all wrote in prose1 and the only ,greeks who ever wrote philosophy in verse at all were just these two1 ,parmenides and ,empedokles2 for ,xenophanes was not primarily a philosopher any more than ,epicharmos4 ,empedokles copied ,parmenides2 and he1 no doubt1 was influenced by ,xenophanes and the ,orphics4 ,but the thing was an innovation1 and one that did not maintain itself4 ,the fragments of ,parmenides are preserved for the most part by ,simplicius1 who fortunately inserted them in his commentary1 because in his time the original work was already rare4#dca ,i follow the arrangement of ,diels4 ,footnote #dca3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 #add1 #be 7,r4 ,p4 #aag74 ,simplicius1 of course1 had the library of the ,academy at his command4 ,diels notes1 however1 that ,proclus seems to have used a different ,,ms4 7#a7 ,the car that bears me carried me as far as ever my heart desired1 since it brought me and set me on the renowned way of the goddess1 which alone leads the man who knows through all things4 ,on that way was ,i borne along2 for on it did the wise steeds carry me1 drawing my car1 and maidens #e showed the way4 ,and the axle1 glowing in the socket--for it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each end--gave forth a sound as of a pipe1 when the daughters of the ,sun1 hasting to convey me into the light1 threw back their veils from off their faces and left the abode of ,night4 #aj ,there are the gates of the ways of ,night and ,day1#dcb fitted above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone4 ,they themselves1 high in the air1 are closed by mighty doors1 and ,avenging ,justice keeps the keys that fit them4 ,her did the maidens entreat with gentle words and cunningly persuade #ae to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates4 ,then1 when the doors were thrown back1 they disclosed a wide opening1 when their brazen posts fitted with rivets and nails swung back one after the other4 ,straight through them1 on the broad way1 did the maidens guide the horses and the #bj car1 and the goddess greeted me kindly1 and took my right hand in hers1 and spake to me these words3 ,welcome1 ,o youth1 that comest to my abode on the car that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers6 ,it is no ill #be chance1 but right and justice that has sent thee forth to travel on this way4 ,far1 indeed1 does it lie from the beaten track of men6 ,meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things1 as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth1 as the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all4 ,yet #cj none the less shalt thou learn these things also1--how they should have judged that the things which seem to them are1--as thou goest through all things in thy journey4#dcc 99 99 99 99 99 ,but do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry1 nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue2 but #ce judge by argument the much disputed proof uttered by me4 ,there is only one way left that can be spoken of4#dcd444 ,r4 ,p4 #aac4 ,,the ,,way ,,of ,,truth 7#b7 ,look steadfastly with thy mind at things though afar as if they were at hand4 ,thou canst not cut off what is from holding fast to what is1 neither scattering itself abroad in order nor coming together4 ,r4 ,p4 #aah a4 7#c7 ,it is all one to me where ,i begin2 for ,i shall come back again there4 7#d1 #e7 ,come now1 ,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 of4 ,the first1 namely1 that ,it is1 and that it is impossible for it not to be1 is the way of belief1 for truth is its companion4 ,the other1 namely1 that ,it is not1 and that #e it must needs not be1--that1 ,i tell thee1 is a path that none can learn of at all4 ,for thou canst not know what is not--that is impossible--nor utter it2 for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be4#dce ,r4 ,p4 #aad4 7#f7 ,it needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of is2 for it is possible for it to be1 and it is not possible for what is nothing to be4#dcf ,this is what ,i bid thee ponder4 ,i hold thee back from this first way of inquiry1 and from this other also1 upon which mortals knowing naught wander #e two-faced2 for helplessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts1 so that they are borne along stupefied like men deaf and blind4 ,undiscerning crowds1 in whose eyes it is1 and is not1 the same and not the same1#dcg and all things travel in opposite directions6#dch ,r4 ,p4 #aae4 7#g7 ,for this shall never be proved1 that the things that are not are2 and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry4 ,r4 ,p4 #aaf4 7#h7 ,one path only is left for us to speak of1 namely1 that ,it is4 ,in it are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and indestructible2 for it is complete1#dci immovable1 and without end4 ,nor was it ever1 nor will it be2 for now it is1 all at once1 a continuous one4 ,for what kind of origin for it wilt #e thou look for8 ,in what way and from what source could it have drawn its increase8 ,i shall not let thee say nor think that it came from what is not2 for it can neither be thought nor uttered that anything is not4 ,and1 if it came from nothing1 what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner8 #aj ,therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all4 ,nor will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from that which is not4#ddj ,wherefore1 ,justice doth not loose her fetters and let anything come into being or pass away1 but holds it fast4 ,our judgment thereon depends on this3 8,is it #ae or is it not80 ,surely it is adjudged1 as it needs must be1 that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and nameless 7for it is no true way71 and that the other path is real and true4 ,how1 then1 can what is be going to be in the future8 ,or how could it come into being8 ,if it came into #bj being1 it is not2 nor is it if it is going to be in the future4 ,thus is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of4 ,r4 ,p4 #aag4 ,nor is it divisible1 since it is all alike1 and there is no more#dda of it in one place than in another1 to hinder it from holding together1 nor less of it1 but everything is full of what is4 ,wherefore it is wholly continuous2 for what is1 is in contact #be with what is4 ,moreover1 it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains1 without beginning and without end2 since coming into being and passing away have been driven afar1 and true belief has cast them away4 ,it is the same1 and it rests in the self-same place1 abiding in itself4 ,and thus it remaineth constant in #cj its place2 for hard necessity keeps it in the bonds of the limit that holds it fast on every side4 ,wherefore it is not permitted to what is to be infinite2 for it is in need of nothing2 while1 if it were infinite1 it would stand in need of everything4#ddb ,r4 ,p4 #aah4 ,the thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the thought exists is the same2#ddc for you cannot find #ce thought without something that is1 as to which it is uttered4#ddd ,and there is not1 and never shall be1 anything besides what is1 since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable4 ,wherefore all these things are but names which mortals have given1 believing them to be true--coming into being and #dj passing away1 being and not being1 change of place and alteration of bright colour4 ,r4 ,p4 #aai4 ,since1 then1 it has a furthest limit1 it is complete on every side1 like the mass of a rounded sphere1 equally poised from the centre in every direction2 for it cannot be greater or #de smaller in one place than in another4 ,for there is no nothing that could keep it from reaching out equally1 nor can aught that is be more here and less there than what is1 since it is all inviolable4 ,for the point from which it is equal in every direction tends equally to the limits4 ,r4 ,p4 #abj4 ,,the ,,way ,,of ,,opinion ,here shall ,i close my trustworthy speech and thought #ej about the truth4 ,henceforward learn the opinions of mortals1 giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words4 ,mortals have made up their minds to name two forms1 one of which they should not name1#dde and that is where they go astray from the truth4 ,they have distinguished them as #ee opposite in form1 and have assigned to them marks distinct from one another4 ,to the one they allot the fire of heaven1 gentle1 very light1 in every direction the same as itself1 but not the same as the other4 ,the other is just the opposite to it1 dark night1 a compact and heavy body4 ,of these ,i tell thee #fj the whole arrangement as it seems likely2 for so no thought of mortals will ever outstrip thee4 ,r4 ,p4 #aba4 7#i7 ,now that all things have been named light and night1 and the names which belong to the power of each have been assigned to these things and to those1 everything is full at once of light and dark night1 both equal1 since neither has aught to do with the other4 7#aj1 #aa7 ,and thou shalt know the substance of the sky1 and all the signs in the sky1 and the resplendent works of the glowing sun's pure torch1 and whence they arose4 ,and thou shalt learn likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced moon1 and of her substance4 ,thou shalt know1 too1 the heavens that surround #e us1 whence they arose1 and how ,necessity took them and bound them to keep the limits of the stars 444 how the earth1 and the sun1 and the moon1 and the sky that is common to all1 and the ,milky ,way1 and the outermost ,olympos1 and the burning might of the stars arose4 #aj ,r4 ,p4 #abc1 #abd4 7#ab7 ,the narrower rings are filled with unmixed fire1 and those next them with night1 and in the midst of these rushes their portion of fire4 ,in the midst of these circles is the divinity that directs the course of all things2 for she is the beginner of all painful birth and all begetting1 driving the female to the #e embrace of the male1 and the male to that of the female4 ,r4 ,p4 #abe4 7#ac7 ,first of all the gods she contrived ,eros4 ,r4 ,p4 #abe4 7#ad7 ,shining by night with borrowed light1#ddf wandering round the earth4 7#ae7 ,always looking to the beams of the sun4 7#af7 ,for just as thought finds at any time the mixture of its erring organs1 so does it come to men2 for that which thinks is the same1 namely1 the substance of the limbs1 in each and every man2 for their thought is that of which there is more in them4#ddg ,r4 ,p4 #abh4 7#ag7 ,on the right boys2 on the left girls4#ddh 7#ai7 ,thus1 according to men's opinions1 did things come into being1 and thus they are now4 ,in time they will grow up and pass away4 ,to each of these things men have assigned a fixed name4 ,r4 ,p4 #abi b4 ,footnote #dcb3 ,for these see ,hesiod1 ,theog4 #gdh4 ,footnote #dcc3 ,see below1 p4 #baa1 n4 #dei4 ,footnote #dcd3 ,i read as in the parallel passage fr4 #h ad init4 ,diels's interpretation of 7the ,,ms4 reading here7 as ein lebendiger ,weg does not convince me1 and the confusion of the two words is fairly common4 ,footnote #dce3 ,i read with ,zeller 7p4 #eeh n4 #a1 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #ehd1 n4 #a7 4 ,apart from the philosophical anachronism of making ,parmenides say that 8thought and being are the same10 it is a grammatical anachronism to make him use the infinitive 7with or without the article7 as the subject of a sentence4 ,on the other hand1 he does use the active infinitive after in the construction where we usually use a passive infinitive 7,monro1 ,h4 ,gr4 #bca sub fin474 ,cf4 fr4 #d1 1 8are for thinking10 i4e4 8can be thought40 ,footnote #dcf3 ,the construction here is the same as that explained in the last note4 ,it is surprising that good scholars should acquiesce in the translation of as 8to say and think this40 ,then means 8it can be10 not 8being is10 and the last phrase should be construed 774 ,footnote #dcg3 ,i construe 4 ,the subject of the infinitives is the it1 which has to be supplied also with and 4 ,this way of taking the words makes it unnecessary to believe that ,parmenides said 77 instead of 77 for 8not-being40 ,there is no difference between and except in rhythmical value4 ,footnote #dch3 ,i take as neuter and understand as equivalent to the of ,herakleitos4 ,i do not think it has anything to do with the 7or 7 4 ,see ,chap4 ,,iii4 p4 #aej1 n4 #cdg4 ,footnote #dci3 ,i still prefer to read with ,plutarch 7adv4 ,col4 #aaad c74 ,proklos 7in ,parm4 #aaeb1 #bd7 also read 4 ,simplicius1 who has here1 calls the ,one of ,parmenides elsewhere 7,phys4 p4 #acg1 #ae74 ,the reading of ,plut4 ,strom4 #e1 helps to explain the confusion4 ,we have only to suppose that the letters 1 1 were written above the line in the ,academy copy of ,parmenides by some one who had ,tim4 #ca b #c in mind4 ,footnote #ddj3 ,diels formerly read 1 8from that which in any way is02 but he has now reverted to the reading 1 supposing that the other horn of the dilemma has dropped out4 ,in any case1 8nothing but what is not can arise from what is not0 gives a perfectly good sense4 ,footnote #dda3 ,for the difficulties which have been felt about here1 see ,diels's note4 ,if the word is to be pressed1 his interpretation is admissible2 but it seems to me that this is simply an instance of 8polar expression40 ,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 ,one2 but if there is less in one place1 there is more in another than in that place4 ,the ,greek language tends to express these implications4 ,the position of the relative clause makes a difficulty for us1 but hardly for a ,greek4 ,footnote #ddb3 ,simplicius certainly read ' 1 which is metrically impossible4 ,i followed ,bergk in deleting 1 and have interpreted with ,zeller4 ,so too ,diels4 ,footnote #ddc3 ,for the construction of 1 see above1 p4 #aih1 n4 #dce4 ,footnote #ddd3 ,as ,diels rightly points out1 the ,ionic is equivalent to 4 ,the meaning1 ,i think1 is this4 ,we may name things as we choose1 but there can be no thought corresponding to a name that is not the name of something real4 ,footnote #dde3 ,this is ,zeller's way of taking the words1 and still seems to me the best4 ,diels objects that would be required1 and renders nur eine derselben1 das sei unerlaubt1 giving the words to the 8mortals40 ,this seems to me to involve more serious grammatical difficulties than the use of for 1 which is quite legitimate when there is an emphasis on the number4 ,aristotle must have taken it so2 for he infers that one of the is to be identified with 4 ,footnote #ddf3 ,note the curious echo of ,il4 v4 #bad4 ,empedokles has it too 7v4 #aed74 ,it appears to be a joke1 made in the spirit of ,xenophanes1 when it was first discovered that the moon shone by reflected light4 ,footnote #ddg3 ,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 8,fragment on ,sensation0 7,dox4 p4 #dii2 cf4 p4 #bbb74 ,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 bodies4 ,they are wise when the light element predominates1 and foolish when the dark gets the upper hand4 ,footnote #ddh3 ,this is a fragment of ,parmenides's embryology4 ,diels's fr4 #ah is a retranslation of the ,latin hexameters of ,caelius ,aurelianus quoted ,r4 ,p4 #abg a4 ,sidenote3 8,it is40 #hf4 ,in the ,first ,part of his poem1 we find ,parmenides chiefly interested to prove that it is2 but it is not quite obvious at first sight what it is precisely that is4 ,he says simply1 ,what is1 is4 ,to us this does not seem very clear1 and that for two reasons4 ,in the first place1 we should never think of doubting it1 and we cannot1 therefore1 understand why it should be asserted with such iteration and vigour4 ,in the second place1 we are accustomed to all sorts of distinctions between different kinds and degrees of reality1 and we do not see which of these is meant4 ,such distinctions1 however1 were quite unknown in those days4 8,that which is10 with ,parmenides1 is primarily what1 in popular language1 we call matter or body2 only it is not matter as distinguished from anything else4 ,it is certainly regarded as spatially extended2 for it is quite seriously spoken of as a sphere 7fr4 #h1 #dj74 ,moreover1 ,aristotle tells us that ,parmenides believed in none but a sensible reality1 which does not necessarily mean with him a reality that is actually perceived by the senses1 but includes any which might be so perceived if the senses were more perfect than they are4#ddi ,parmenides does not say a word about 8,being0 anywhere4#dej ,the assertion that it is amounts just to this1 that the universe is a plenum2 and that there is no such thing as empty space1 either inside or outside the world4 ,from this it follows that there can be no such thing as motion4 ,instead of endowing the ,one with an impulse to change1 as ,herakleitos had done1 and thus making it capable of explaining the world1 ,parmenides dismissed change as an illusion4 ,he showed once for all that if you take the ,one seriously you are bound to deny everything else4 ,all previous solutions of the question1 therefore1 had missed the point4 ,anaximenes1 who thought to save the unity of the primary substance by his theory of rarefaction and condensation1 did not observe that1 by assuming there was less of what is in one place than another1 he virtually affirmed the existence of what is not 7fr4 #h1 #db74 ,the ,pythagorean explanation implied that empty space or air existed outside the world1 and that it entered into it to separate the units 7 #ec74 ,it1 too1 assumes the existence of what is not4 ,nor is the theory of ,herakleitos any more satisfactory2 for it is based upon the contradiction that fire both is and is not 7fr4 #f74 ,footnote #ddi3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #a4 #bih b #ba1 7 7 444 ,so too ,eudemos1 in the first book of his ,physics 7ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #acc1 #be71 said of ,parmenides3 4 1 ' 1 4 8 0 2 7the world7 ,the ,neoplatonists1 of course1 saw in the ,one the 1 and ,simplicius calls the sphere a 8mythical figment40 ,see especially ,bamker1 8,die ,einheit des ,parmenideischen ,seiendes0 7,jahrb4 f4 kl4 ,phil4 #ahhf1 pp4 #eda sqq471 and ,das ,problem der ,materie1 pp4 #ej sqq4 ,footnote #dej3 ,we must not render by 8,being10 das ,sein or l'tre4 ,it is 8what is10 das ,seiende1 ce qui est4 ,as to 77 it does not1 and could not1 occur4 ,cf4 p4 #aih1 n4 #dce1 above4 ,the allusion to ,herakleitos in the verses last referred to has been doubted1 though upon insufficient grounds4 ,zeller points out quite rightly that ,herakleitos never says ,being and not-,being are the same 7the common translation of fr4 #f1 #h72 and1 were there nothing more than this1 the reference might well seem doubtful4 ,the statement1 however1 that1 according to the view in question1 8all things travel in opposite directions10 can hardly be understood of anything but the 8upward and downward path0 of ,herakleitos 7 #ga74 ,and1 as we have seen1 ,parmenides does not attribute the view that ,being and not-,being are the same to the philosopher whom he is attacking2 he only says that it is and is not1 the same and not the same4#dea ,that is the natural meaning of the words2 and it furnishes a very accurate description of the theory of ,herakleitos4 ,footnote #dea3 ,see above1 p4 #aih1 n4 #dcg4 ,sidenote3 ,the method of ,parmenides4 #hg4 ,the great novelty in the poem of ,parmenides is the method of argument4 ,he first asks what is the common presupposition of all the views with which he has to deal1 and he finds that this is the existence of what is not4 ,the next question is whether this can be thought1 and the answer is that it cannot4 ,if you think at all1 you must think of something4 ,therefore there is no nothing4 ,philosophy had not yet learned to make the admission that a thing might be unthinkable and nevertheless exist4 ,only that can be which can be thought 7fr4 #e72 for thought exists for the sake of what is 7fr4 #h1 #cd74 ,this method ,parmenides carries out with the utmost rigour4 ,he will not have us pretend that we think what we must admit to be unthinkable4 ,it is true that if we resolve to allow nothing but what we can understand1 we come into direct conflict with the evidence of our senses1 which present us with a world of change and decay4 ,so much the worse for the senses1 says ,parmenides4 ,to many this will doubtless seem a mistake on his part1 but let us see what history has to say on the point4 ,the theory of ,parmenides is the inevitable outcome of a corporeal monism1 and his bold declaration of it ought to have destroyed that theory for ever4 ,if he had lacked courage to work out the prevailing views of his time to their logical conclusion1 and to accept that conclusion1 however paradoxical it might seem to be1 men might have gone on in the endless circle of opposition1 rarefaction and condensation1 one and many1 for ever4 ,it was the thorough-going dialectic of ,parmenides that made progress possible4 ,philosophy must now cease to be monistic or cease to be corporealist4 ,it could not cease to be corporealist2 for the incorporeal was still unknown4 ,it therefore ceased to be monistic1 and arrived at the atomic theory1 which1 so far as we know1 is the last word of the view that the world is matter in motion4 ,having worked out its problems on those conditions1 philosophy next attacked them on the other side4 ,it ceased to be corporealist1 and found it possible to be monistic once more1 at least for a time4 ,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 unthinkable1 however strange the result might be4 ,sidenote3 ,the results4 #hh4 ,he goes on to develop all the consequences of the admission that it is4 ,it must be uncreated and indestructible4 ,it cannot have arisen out of nothing2 for there is no such thing as nothing4 ,nor can it have arisen from something2 for there is no room for anything but itself4 ,what is cannot have beside it any empty space in which something else might arise2 for empty space is nothing1 nothing cannot be thought1 and therefore cannot exist4 ,what is1 never came into being1 nor is anything going to come into being in the future4 8,is it or is it not80 ,if it is1 then it is now1 all at once4 ,that ,parmenides was really denying the existence of empty space was quite well known to ,plato4 ,he says that ,parmenides held 8all things were one1 and that the one remains at rest in itself1 having no place in which to move40#deb ,aristotle is no less clear4 ,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 reality4#dec ,footnote #deb3 ,plato1 ,tht4 #ahj e #c1 4 ,footnote #dec3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #a4 #bih b #ba1 quoted above1 p4 #bjc1 n4 #ddi4 ,that which is1 is2 and it cannot be more or less4 ,there is1 therefore1 as much of it in one place as in another1 and the world is a continuous1 indivisible plenum4 ,from this it follows at once that it must be immovable4 ,if it moved1 it must move into an empty space1 and there is no empty space4 ,it is hemmed in by what is1 by the real1 on every side4 ,for the same reason1 it must be finite1 and can have nothing beyond it4 ,it is complete in itself1 and has no need to stretch out indefinitely into an empty space that does not exist4 ,hence1 too1 it is spherical4 ,it is equally real in every direction1 and the sphere is the only form which meets this condition4 ,any other would be in one direction more than in another4 ,and this sphere cannot even move round its own axis2 for there is nothing outside of it with reference to which it could be said to move4 ,sidenote3 ,parmenides the father of materialism4 #hi4 ,to sum up4 ,what is1 is a finite1 spherical1 motionless corporeal plenum1 and there is nothing beyond it4 ,the appearances of multiplicity and motion1 empty space and time1 are illusions4 ,we see from this that the primary substance of which the early cosmologists were in search has now become a sort of 8thing in itself40 ,it never quite lost this character again4 ,what appears later as the elements of ,empedokles1 the so-called 8homoeomeries0 of ,anaxagoras and the atoms of ,leukippos and ,demokritos1 is just the ,parmenidean 8being40 ,parmenides is not1 as some have said1 the 8father of idealism02 on the contrary1 all materialism depends on his view of reality4 ,sidenote3 ,the beliefs of 8mortals40 #ij4 ,it is commonly said that1 in the ,second ,part of his poem1 ,parmenides offered a dualistic theory of the origin of things as his own conjectural explanation of the sensible world1 or that1 as ,gomperz says1 8,what he offered were the ,opinions of ,mortals2 and this description did not merely cover other people's opinions4 ,it included his own as well1 as far as they were not confined to the unassailable ground of an apparent philosophical necessity40#ded ,now it is true that in one place ,aristotle appears to countenance a view of this sort1 but nevertheless it is an anachronism4#dee ,nor is it really ,aristotle's view4 ,he was perfectly well aware that ,parmenides did not admit the existence of 8not-being0 in any degree whatever2 but it was a natural way speaking to call the cosmology of the ,second ,part of the poem that of ,parmenides4 ,his hearers would understand at once in what sense this was meant4 ,at any rate1 the ,peripatetic tradition was that ,parmenides1 in the ,second ,part of the poem1 meant to give the belief of 8the many40 ,this is how ,theophrastos put the matter1 and ,alexander seems to have spoken of the cosmology as something which ,parmenides himself regarded as wholly false4#def ,the other view comes from the ,neoplatonists1 and especially ,simplicius1 who very naturally regarded the ,way of ,truth as an account of the intelligible world1 and the ,way of ,opinion as a description of the sensible4 ,it need hardly be said that this is almost as great an anachronism as the ,kantian parallelism suggested by ,gomperz4#deg ,parmenides himself tells us in the most unequivocal language that there is no truth at all in the theory which he expounds1 and he gives it merely as the belief of 8mortals40 ,it was this that led ,theophrastos to speak of it as the opinion of 8the many40 ,footnote #ded3 ,greek ,thinkers1 pp4 #ahj sqq4 ,footnote #dee3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #ca 7,r4 ,p4 #aba a74 ,aristotle's way of putting the matter is due to his interpretation of fr4 #h1 #ed1 which he took to mean that one of the two 8forms0 was to be identified with and the other with 4 ,cf4 ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #c4 #cah b #f1 1 4 ,this last sentence shows clearly that when ,aristotle says 1 he means what we should call 8,parmenides40 ,he cannot have supposed that ,parmenides admitted the being of in any sense whatever 7cf4 ,plato1 ,soph4 #bda d #e74 ,footnote #def3 ,theophr4 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #f 7,dox4 p4 #dhb2 ,r4 ,p4 #aba a71 4 ,for ,alexander cf4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ch1 #bd4 ,footnote #deg3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ci1 #aj 7,r4 ,p4 #aba b74 ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 p4 #ahj4 ,e4 ,meyer says 7,gesch4 des ,alterth4 iv4 #eaj1 ,anm473 8,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 world1 even if only as a deception80 ,this implies 7#a7 that the distinction between ,appearance and ,reality had been clearly grasped2 and 7#b7 that a certain hypothetical and relative truth was allowed to ,appearance4 ,these are palpable anachronisms4 ,both views are ,platonic1 and they were not held even by ,plato in his earlier writings4 ,his explanation however1 though preferable to that of ,simplicius1 is not convincing either4 8,the many0 are as far as possible from believing in an elaborate dualism such as ,parmenides expounded1 and it is a highly artificial hypothesis to assume that he wished to show how the popular view of the world could best be systematised4 8,the many0 would hardly be convinced of their error by having their beliefs presented to them in a form which they would certainly fail to recognise4 ,this1 indeed1 seems the most incredible interpretation of all4 ,it still1 however1 finds adherents1 so it is necessary to point out that the beliefs in question are called 8the opinions of mortals0 simply because the speaker is a goddess4 ,further1 we have to note that ,parmenides forbids two ways of research1 and we have seen that the second of these1 which is also expressly ascribed to 8mortals10 must be the system of ,herakleitos4 ,we should surely expect1 then1 to find that the other way too is the system of some contemporary school1 and it seems hard to discover any of sufficient importance except the ,pythagorean4 ,now it is admitted by every one that there are ,pythagorean ideas in the ,second ,part of the poem1 and it is therefore to be presumed1 in the absence of evidence to the contrary1 that the whole system comes from the same source4 ,it does not appear that ,parmenides said any more about ,herakleitos than the words to which we have just referred1 in which he forbids the second way of inquiry4 ,he implies1 indeed1 that there are really only two ways that can be thought of1 and that the attempt of ,herakleitos to combine them was futile4#deh ,in any case1 the ,pythagoreans were far more serious opponents at that date in ,italy1 and it is certainly to them that we should expect ,parmenides to define his attitude4 ,footnote #deh3 ,cf4 frs4 #d and #f1 especially the words 4 ,the third way1 that of ,herakleitos1 is only added as an afterthought-- ' 444 ,it is still not quite clear1 however1 why he should have thought it worth while to put into hexameters a view which he believed to be false4 ,here it becomes important to remember that he had been a ,pythagorean himself1 and that the poem is a renunciation of his former beliefs4 ,in such cases men commonly feel the necessity of showing where their old views were wrong4 ,the goddess tells him that he must learn of those beliefs also 8how men ought to have judged that the things which seem to them really are40#dei ,that is clear so far2 but it does not explain the matter fully4 ,we get a further hint in another place4 ,he is to learn these beliefs 8in order that no opinion of mortals may ever get the better of him0 7fr4 #h1 #fa74 ,if we remember that the ,pythagorean system at this time was handed down by oral tradition alone1 we shall perhaps see what this means4 ,parmenides was founding a dissident school1 and it was quite necessary for him to instruct his disciples in the system they might be called upon to oppose4 ,in any case1 they could not reject it intelligently without a knowledge of it1 and this ,parmenides had to supply himself4#dfj ,footnote #dei3 ,i read ' in fr4 #a1 #cb with ,diels1 but ,i do not feel able to accept his rendering wie man bei grndlicher ,durchforschung annehmen msste1 dass sich jenes ,scheinwesen verhalte4 ,we must1 ,i think1 take 7i4e4 7 quite strictly1 and with the infinitive means 8ought to have40 ,the most natural subject for the infinitive in that case is 1 while will be dependent on 1 and have for its subject4 ,this way of taking the words is confirmed by fr4 #h1 #ed1 1 if taken as ,i have taken it with ,zeller4 ,see above1 p4 #bja1 n4 #dde4 ,footnote #dfj3 ,the view that the opinions contained in the ,second ,part are those of others1 and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever1 is that of ,diels4 ,the objections of ,wilamowitz 7,hermes1 xxxiv4 pp4 #bjc sqq47 do not appear to me cogent4 ,if we interpret him rightly1 ,parmenides never says that 8this hypothetical explanation is 444 better than that of any one else0 7,e4 ,meyer1 iv4 #eaj1 ,anm474 ,what he does say is that it is untrue altogether4 ,it seems to me1 however1 that ,diels has weakened his case by refusing to identify the theory here expounded with ,pythagoreanism1 and referring it mainly to ,herakleitos4 ,herakleitos was emphatically not a dualist1 and ,i cannot see that to represent him as one is even what ,diels calls a 8caricature0 of his theory4 ,caricatures must have some point of likeness4 ,it is still more surprising to me that ,patin1 who makes the corner-stone of ,herakleiteanism1 should adopt this view 7,parmenides im ,kampfe gegen ,heraklit1 #ahii74 ,e4 ,meyer 7loc4 cit47 seems to think that the fact of ,zeno's having modified the of ,parmenides in an ,empedoklean sense 7,diog4 ix4 #bi2 ,r4 ,p4 #adj7 proves that it was supposed to have some sort of truth4 ,on the contrary1 it would only show1 if true1 that ,zeno had other opponents to face than ,parmenides had4 ,sidenote3 ,the dualist cosmology4 #ia4 ,the view that the ,second ,part of the poem of ,parmenides was a sketch of contemporary ,pythagorean cosmology is1 doubtless1 incapable of rigorous demonstration1 but it can1 ,i think1 be made extremely probable4 ,the entire history of ,pythagoreanism up to the end of the fifth century ,b4,c4 is certainly conjectural2 but1 if we find in ,parmenides ideas which are wholly unconnected with his own view of the world1 and if we find precisely the same ideas in later ,pythagoreanism1 the most natural inference will surely be that the later ,pythagoreans derived these views from their predecessors1 and that they formed part of the original stock-in-trade of the society to which they belonged4 ,this will only be confirmed if we find that they are developments of certain features in the old ,ionian cosmology4 ,pythagoras came from ,samos1 which always stood in the closest relations with ,miletos2 and it was not1 so far as we can see1 in his cosmological views that he chiefly displayed his originality4 ,it has been pointed out above 7 #ec7 that the idea of the world breathing came from ,anaximenes1 and we need not be surprised to find traces of ,anaximander as well4 ,now1 if we were confined to what ,aristotle tells us on this subject1 it would be almost impossible to make out a case2 but his statements require1 as usual1 to be examined with a certain amount of care4 ,he says1 first of all1 that the two elements of ,parmenides were the ,warm and the ,cold4#dfa ,in this he is so far justified by the fragments that1 since the ,fire of which ,parmenides speaks is1 of course1 warm1 the other 8form10 which has all the opposite qualities1 must of necessity be cold4 ,but1 nevertheless1 the habitual use of the terms 8the warm0 and 8the cold0 is an accommodation to ,aristotle's own system4 ,in ,parmenides himself they were simply one pair of attributes amongst others4 ,footnote #dfa3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #cd1 2 ,phys4 1 #e4 #ahh a #bj2 ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #c4 #cah b #f2 1 #c4 #ccj b #ad4 ,still more misleading is ,aristotle's identification of these with ,fire and ,earth4 ,it is not quite certain that he meant to say ,parmenides himself made this identification2 but1 on the whole1 it is most likely that he did1 and ,theophrastos certainly followed him in this4#dfb ,it is another question whether it is accurate4 ,simplicius1 who had the poem before him 7 #he71 after mentioning ,fire and ,earth1 at once adds 8or rather ,light and ,darkness02#dfc and this is suggestive enough4 ,lastly1 ,aristotle's identification of the dense element with 8what is not10#dfd the unreal of the ,first ,part of the poem1 is not very easy to reconcile with the view that it is earth4 ,on the other hand1 if we suppose that the second of the two 8forms10 the one which should not have been 8named10 is the ,pythagorean ,air or ,void1 we get a very good explanation of ,aristotle's identification of it with 8what is not40 ,we seem1 then1 to be justified in neglecting the identification of the dense element with earth for the present4 ,at a later stage1 we shall be able to see how it may have originated4#dfe ,the further statement of ,theophrastos1 that the ,warm was the efficient cause and the ,cold the material or passive1#dff is intelligible enough if we identify them with the ,limit and the ,unlimited respectively2 but is not1 of course1 to be regarded as historical4 ,footnote #dfb3 ,phys4 1 #e4 #ahh a #ba1 7 7 2 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #cd1 4 ,cf4 ,theophr4 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #f 7,dox4 p4 #dhb2 ,r4 ,p4 #aba a74 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #e 7,dox4 p4 #eha71 4 ,zeller1 p4 #efh1 n4 #a 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #eic1 n4 #b74 ,footnote #dfc3 ,phys4 p4 #be1 #ae1 7 74 ,footnote #dfd3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #ce1 1 4 ,see above1 p4 #bjh1 n4 #deg4 ,footnote #dfe3 ,see below1 ,chap4 ,,vii4 #adg4 ,footnote #dff3 ,theophr4 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #f 7,dox4 p4 #dhb2 ,r4 ,p4 #aba a71 followed by the doxographers4 ,we have seen that ,simplicius1 with the poem of ,parmenides before him1 corrects ,aristotle by substituting ,light and ,darkness for ,fire and ,earth1 and in this he is amply borne out by the fragments which he quotes4 ,parmenides himself calls one 8form0 ,light1 ,flame1 and ,fire1 and the other ,night1 and we have now to consider whether these can be identified with the ,pythagorean ,limit and ,unlimited4 ,we have seen good reason to believe 7 #eh7 that the idea of the world breathing belonged to the earliest form of ,pythagoreanism1 and there can be no difficulty in identifying this 8boundless breath0 with ,darkness1 which stands very well for the ,unlimited4 8,air0 or mist was always regarded as the dark element4#dfg ,and that which gives definiteness to the vague darkness is certainly light or fire1 and this may account for the prominence given to that element by ,hippasos4#dfh ,we may probably conclude1 then1 that the ,pythagorean distinction between the ,limit and the ,unlimited1 which we shall have to consider later 7,chap4 ,,vii471 made its first appearance in this crude form4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we identify darkness with the ,limit1 and light with the ,unlimited1 as most critics do1 we get into insuperable difficulties4 ,footnote #dfg3 ,note the identification of the dense element with 8air0 in ,plut4 ,strom41 quoted p4 #bac1 n4 #dfb2 and for the identification of this 8air0 with 8mist and darkness10 cf4 ,chap4 ,i4 #bg1 and ,chap4 ,v4 #ajg4 ,it is to be observed further that ,plato puts this last identification into the mouth of a ,pythagorean 7,tim4 #eb d74 ,footnote #dfh3 ,see above1 p4 #aba4 ,sidenote3 ,the heavenly bodies4 #ib4 ,we must now look at the general cosmical view expounded in the ,second ,part of the poem4 ,the fragments are scanty1 and the doxographical tradition hard to interpret2 but enough remains to show that here1 too1 we are on ,pythagorean ground4 ,all discussion of the subject must start from the following important passage of ,aetios3-- ,parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one another#dfi and encircling one another1 formed of the rare and the dense element respectively1 and that between these there were other mixed crowns made up of light and darkness4 ,that which surrounds them all was solid like a wall1 and under it is a fiery crown4 ,that which is in the middle of all the crowns is also solid1 and surrounded in turn by a fiery circle4 ,the central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause of movement and becoming to all the rest4 ,he calls it 8the goddess who directs their course10 8the ,holder of ,lots10 and 8,necessity40 ,aet4 ii4 #g4 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #abf74 ,footnote #dfi3 ,it seems most likely that here means 8crossing one another10 as the ,milky ,way crosses the ,zodiac4 ,the term is opposed to 4 ,sidenote3 ,the 8crowns40 #ic4 ,the first thing we have to observe is that it is quite unjustifiable to regard these 8crowns0 as spheres4 ,the word can mean 8rims0 or 8brims0 or anything of that sort1 but it seems incredible that it should be used of spheres4 ,it does not appear1 either1 that the solid circle which surrounds all the crowns is to be regarded as spherical4 ,the expression 8like a wall0 would be highly inappropriate in that case4 ,we seem1 then1 to be face to face with something of the same kind as the 8wheels0 of ,anaximander1 and it is obviously quite likely that ,pythagoras should have taken this theory from him4 ,nor is evidence altogether lacking that the ,pythagoreans did regard the heavenly bodies in this way4 ,in ,plato's ,myth of ,er1 which is certainly ,pythagorean in its general character1 we do not hear of spheres1 but of the 8lips0 of concentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of boxes4#dgj ,even in the ,timaeus there are no spheres1 but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle4#dga ,lastly1 in the ,homeric ,hymn to ,ares1 which seems to have been composed under ,pythagorean influence1 the word used for the orbit of the planet is 1 which must mean 8rim40#dgb ,footnote #dgj3 ,rep4 x4 #faf d #e1 2 e #a1 774 ,footnote #dga3 ,tim4 #cf b #f1 1 7the letter 7 4 ,footnote #dgb3 ,hymn to ,ares1 #f3 1 4 ,so1 in allusion to an essentially ,pythagorean view1 ,proclus says to the planet ,venus 7h4 iv4 #ag73 4 ,the fact is1 there is really no evidence that any one ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres at all1 till ,aristotle turned the geometrical construction which ,eudoxos had set up as a hypothesis 8to save appearances0 7 7 into real things4#dgc ,from that time forward we hear a great deal about spheres1 and it was natural that later writers should attribute them to the ,pythagoreans2 but there is no occasion to do violence to the language of ,parmenides by turning his 8crowns0 into anything of the sort4 ,at this date1 spheres would not have served to explain anything that could not be explained more simply without them4 ,footnote #dgc3 ,on the concentric spheres of ,eudoxos1 see ,dreyer1 ,planetary ,systems1 chap4 iv4 ,it is unfortunate that the account of ,plato's astronomy given in this work is wholly inadequate1 owing to the writer's excessive reliance on ,boeckh1 who was led by evidence now generally regarded as untrustworthy to attribute all the astronomy of the ,academy to their predecessors1 and especially to ,philolaos4 ,we are next told that these 8crowns0 encircle one another or are folded over one another1 and that they are made of the rare and the dense element4 ,we also learn that between them are 8mixed crowns0 made up of light and darkness4 ,now it is to be observed1 in the first place1 that light and darkness are exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense1 and it looks as if there was some confusion here4 ,it may be doubted whether these statements are based on anything else than fr4 #ab1 which might certainly be interpreted to mean that between the crowns of fire there were crowns of night with a portion of fire in them4 ,that may be right2 but ,i think it is rather more natural to understand the passage as saying that the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of night1 each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst of it4 ,these last words would then be a simple repetition of the statement that the narrower circles are filled with unmixed fire1#dgd and we should have a fairly exact reproduction of the planetary system of ,anaximander4 ,it is1 however1 possible1 though ,i think less likely1 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 darkness4 ,footnote #dgd3 ,such a repetition 77 is characteristic of all ,greek style1 but the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch to the statement at the opening4 ,the new touch is here given in the word 4 ,i do not press this interpretation1 but it seems to me much the simplest4 ,sidenote3 ,the goddess4 #id4 8,in the middle of those10 says ,parmenides1 8is the goddess who steers the course of all things40 ,aetios1 that is1 ,theophrastos1 explains this to mean in the middle of the mixed crowns1 while ,simplicius declares that it means in the middle of all the crowns1 that is to say1 in the centre of the world4#dge ,it is not very likely that either of them had anything better to go upon than the words of ,parmenides just quoted1 and these are ambiguous4 ,simplicius1 as is clear from the language he uses1 identified this goddess with the ,pythagorean ,hestia or central fire1 while ,theophrastos could not do this1 because he knew and stated that ,parmenides held the earth to be round and in the centre of the world4#dgf ,in this very passage we are told that what is in the middle of all the crowns is solid4 ,the data furnished by ,theophrastos1 in fact1 exclude the identification of the goddess with the central fire altogether4 ,we cannot say that what is in the middle of all the crowns is solid1 and that under it there is again a fiery crown4#dgg ,nor does it seem fitting to relegate a goddess to the middle of a solid spherical earth4 ,we must try to find a place for her elsewhere4 ,footnote #dge3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #cd1 #ad 7,r4 ,p4 #abe b74 ,footnote #dgf3 ,diog4 ix4 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #abf a74 ,footnote #dgg3 ,i do not discuss the interpretation of which ,diels gave in ,parmenides ,lehrgedicht1 p4 #ajd1 and which is adopted in ,r4 ,p4 #afb a1 as it is now virtually retracted4 ,in the second edition of his ,vorsokratiker 7p4 #aaa7 he reads 1 ' sc4 4 ,that is a flat contradiction4 ,it is of interest to observe that ,mr4 ,adam also gets into the interior of the earth in his interpretation of the ,myth of ,er4 ,it is instructive1 too1 because it shows that we are really dealing with the same order of ideas4 ,the most heroic attempt to save the central fire for ,pythagoras was my own hypothesis of an annular earth 7#ast ed4 p4 #bjc74 ,this has met with well-deserved ridicule2 but all the same it is the only possible solution on these lines4 ,we shall see in ,chap4 ,,vii4 that the central fire belongs to the later development of ,pythagoreanism4 ,we are further told by ,aetios that this goddess was called ,ananke and the 8,holder of ,lots40#dgh ,we know already that she steers the course of all things1 that is1 that she regulates the motions of the celestial crowns4 ,simplicius adds1 unfortunately without quoting the actual words1 that she sends souls at one time from the light to the unseen world1 at another from the unseen world to the light4#dgi ,it would be difficult to describe more exactly what the goddess does in the ,myth of ,er1 and so here once more we seem to be on ,pythagorean ground4 ,it is to be noticed further that in fr4 #aj we read how ,ananke took the heavens and compelled them to hold fast the fixed courses of the stars1 and that in fr4 #ab we are told that she is the beginner of all pairing and birth4 ,lastly1 in fr4 #ac we hear that she created ,eros first of all the gods4 ,modern parallels are dangerous1 but it is not really going much beyond what is written to say that this ,eros is the ,will to ,live1 which leads to successive rebirths of the soul4 ,so we shall find that in ,empedokles it is an ancient oracle or decree of ,ananke that causes the gods to fall and become incarnate in a cycle of births4#dhj ,footnote #dgh3 ,r4 ,p4 #abf1 where ,flleborn's ingenious emendation for is tacitly adopted4 ,this is based upon the view that ,aetios 7or ,theophrastos7 was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the ,proem 7fr4 #a1 #ad74 ,i now think that the of the ,myth of ,er are the true explanation of the name4 ,philo uses the term 4 ,footnote #dgi3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ci1 #ai1 7i4e4 71 4 ,we should probably connect this with the statement of ,diog4 ix4 #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #abg7 that men arose from the sun 7reading with the ,,mss4 for the conjecture in the ,basel edition74 ,footnote #dhj3 ,empedokles1 fr4 #aae4 ,we should1 then1 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 ,er4 ,without1 however1 raising that vexed question1 we may lay down with some confidence that1 according to ,theophrastos1 she occupied a position midway between the earth and the heavens4 ,whether we believe in the 8mixed crowns0 or not makes no difference in this respect2 for the statement of ,aetios that she was in the middle of the mixed crowns undoubtedly implies that she was in that region4 ,now she is identified with one of the crowns in a somewhat confused passage of ,cicero1#dha and we have seen above 7p4 #fi7 that the whole theory of wheels or crowns was probably suggested by the ,milky ,way4 ,it seems to me1 therefore1 that we must think of the ,milky ,way as a crown intermediate between the crowns of the ,sun and the ,moon1 and this agrees very well with the prominent way in which it is mentioned in fr4 #aa4 ,it is better not to be too positive about the other details of the system1 though it is interesting to notice that according to some it was ,pythagoras1 and according to others ,parmenides1 who discovered the identity of the evening and morning star4 ,that fits in exactly with our general view4#dhb ,footnote #dha3 ,cicero1 de nat4 ,d4 i4 #aa1 #bh3 8,nam ,parmenides quidem commenticium quiddam coronae simile efficit 7 appellat71 continente ardore lucis orbem1 qui cingat caelum1 quem appellat deum40 ,we may connect with this the statement of ,aetios1 ii4 #bj1 #h1 4 ,footnote #dhb3 ,diog4 ix4 #bc1 77 1 4 ,if1 as ,achilles says1 the poet ,ibykos of ,rhegion had anticipated ,parmenides in announcing this discovery1 that is to be explained by the fact that ,rhegion had become the chief seat of the ,pythagorean school4 ,besides all this1 it is quite certain that ,parmenides went on to describe how the other gods were born and how they fell1 an idea which we know to be ,orphic1 and which may well have been ,pythagorean4 ,we shall come to it again in ,empedokles4 ,in ,plato's ,symposium1 ,agathon couples ,parmenides with ,hesiod as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence committed by the gods4#dhc ,if ,parmenides was expounding the ,pythagorean theology1 all this is just what we should expect2 but it seems hopeless to explain it on any of the other theories which have been advanced on the purpose of the ,way of ,belief4 ,such things do not follow naturally from the ordinary view of the world1 and we have no reason to suppose that ,herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and downward path of the soul in this form4 ,he certainly did hold that the guardian spirits entered into human bodies2 but the whole point of his theory was that he gave a naturalistic rather than a theological account of the process4 ,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 formulated4 ,we must ask1 ,i think1 that any theory on the subject shall account for what was evidently no inconsiderable portion of the poem4 ,footnote #dhc3 ,plato1 ,symp4 #aie c #a4 ,it is implied that these were 1 including such things as and 4 ,the ,epicurean criticism of all this is partially preserved in ,philodemos1 de pietate1 p4 #fh1 ,gomperz2 and ,cicero1 de nat4 ,d4 i4 #bh 7,dox4 p4 #ecd2 ,r4 ,p4 #abf b74 ,sidenote3 ,physiology4 #ie4 ,in describing the views of his contemporaries1 ,parmenides was obliged1 as we see from the fragments1 to say a good deal about physiological matters4 ,like everything else1 man was composed of the warm and the cold1 and death was caused by the removal of the warm4 ,some curious views with regard to generation were also stated4 ,in the first place1 males came from the right side and females from the left4 ,women had more of the warm and men of the cold1 a view which we shall find ,empedokles contradicting4#dhd ,it is just the proportion of the warm and cold in men that determines the character of their thought1 so that even corpses1 from which the warm has been removed1 retain a perception of what is cold and dark4#dhe ,these fragments of information do not tell us much when taken by themselves2 but they connect themselves in a most interesting way with the history of medicine1 and point to the fact that one of its leading schools stood in close relation with the ,pythagorean ,society4 ,even before the days of ,pythagoras1 we know that ,kroton was famous for its doctors4 ,a ,krotoniate1 ,demokedes1 was court physician to the ,persian king1 and married ,milo the ,pythagorean's daughter4#dhf ,we also know the name of a very distinguished medical writer who lived at ,kroton in the days between ,pythagoras and ,parmenides1 and the few facts we are told about him enable us to regard the physiological views described by ,parmenides not as isolated curiosities1 but as landmarks by means of which we can trace the origin and growth of one of the most influential of medical theories1 that which explains health as a balance of opposites4 ,footnote #dhd3 ,for all this1 see ,r4 ,p4 #abg a1 with ,arist4 de ,part4 ,an4 1 #b4 #fdh a #bh2 de ,gen4 ,an4 1 #a4 #gfe b #ai4 ,footnote #dhe3 ,theophr4 de sens4 #c1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #abi74 ,footnote #dhf3 ,herod4 iii4 #aca1 #acg4 ,sidenote3 ,alkmaion of ,kroton4 #if4 ,aristotle tells us that ,alkmaion of ,kroton#dhg was a young man in the old age of ,pythagoras4 ,he does not actually say1 as later writers do1 that he was a ,pythagorean1 though he points out that he seems either to have derived his theory of opposites from the ,pythagoreans or they theirs from him4#dhh ,in any case1 he was intimately connected with the society1 as is proved by one of the scanty fragments of his book4 ,it began as follows3 8,alkmaion of ,kroton1 son of ,peirithous1 spoke these words to ,brotinos and ,leon and ,bathyllos4 ,as to things invisible and things mortal1 the gods have certainty2 but1 so far as men may infer 4440#dhi ,the quotation unfortunately ends in this abrupt way1 but we learn two things from it4 ,in the first place1 ,alkmaion possessed that reserve which marks all the best ,greek medical writers2 and in the second place1 he dedicated his work to the heads of the ,pythagorean ,society4#dij ,footnote #dhg3 ,on ,alkmaion1 see especially ,wachtler1 ,de ,alcmaeone ,crotoniata 7,leipzig1 #ahif74 ,footnote #dhh3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #bg 7,r4 ,p4 #ff74 ,in a #cj ,diels reads1 with great probability1 4 ,cf4 ,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #ajd1 where ,alkmaion is mentioned among the 4 ,footnote #dhi3 1 1 1 4 ,the fact that this is not written in conventional ,doric1 like the forged ,pythagorean books1 is a strong proof of genuineness4 ,footnote #dij3 ,brotinos 7not ,brontinos7 is variously described as the son-in-law or father-in-law of ,pythagoras4 ,leon is one of the ,metapontines in the catalogue of ,iamblichos 7,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #bfh71 and ,bathyllos is presumably the ,poseidoniate ,bathylaos also mentioned there4 ,alkmaion's chief importance in the history of philosophy really lies in the fact that he is the founder of empirical psychology4#dia ,it is certain that he regarded the brain as the common sensorium1 an important discovery which ,hippokrates and ,plato adopted from him1 though ,empedokles1 ,aristotle1 and the ,stoics reverted to the more primitive view that the heart performs this function4 ,there is no reason to doubt that he made this discovery by anatomical means4 ,we have some authority for saying that he practised dissection1 and1 though the nerves were not yet recognised as such1 it was known that there were certain 8passages0 which might be prevented from communicating sensations to the brain by lesions4#dib ,he also distinguished between sensation and understanding1 though we have no means of knowing exactly where he drew the line between them4 ,his theories of the special senses are of great interest4 ,we find in him already1 what is characteristic of ,greek theories of vision as a whole1 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 eye4 ,he knew the importance of air for the sense of hearing1 though he called it the void1 a thoroughly ,pythagorean touch4 ,with regard to the other senses1 our information is more scanty1 but sufficient to show that he treated the subject systematically4#dic ,footnote #dia3 ,everything bearing on the early history of this subject is brought together and discussed in ,prof4 ,beare's ,greek ,theories of ,elementary ,cognition1 to which ,i must refer the reader for all details4 ,footnote #dib3 ,theophr4 de sens4 #bf 7,beare1 p4 #beb1 n4 #a74 ,our authority for the dissections of ,alkmaion is only ,chalcidius1 but he gets his information on such matters from far older sources4 ,the and the inference from lesions are vouched for by ,theophrastos4 ,footnote #dic3 ,the details will be found in ,beare1 pp4 #aa sqq4 7vision71 pp4 #ic sqq4 7hearing71 pp4 #aca sqq4 7smell71 pp4 #ahj sqq4 7touch71 pp4 #afj sqq4 7taste74 ,his astronomy seems surprisingly crude for one who stood in close relations with the ,pythagoreans4 ,we are told that he adopted ,anaximenes' theory of the sun and ,herakleitos's explanation of eclipses4#did ,it is all the more remarkable that he is credited with originating the idea1 which it required all ,plato's authority to get accepted later1 that the planets have an orbital motion in the opposite direction to the diurnal revolution of the heavens4#die ,this1 if true1 probably stood in close connexion with his saying that soul was immortal because it resembled immortal things1 and was always in motion like the heavenly bodies4#dif ,he seems1 in fact1 to be the real author of the curious view which ,plato put into the mouth of the ,pythagorean ,timaios1 that the soul has circles revolving just as the heavens and the planets do4 ,this too seems to be the explanation of his further statement that man dies because he cannot join the beginning to the end4#dig ,the orbits of the heavenly bodies always come full circle1 but the circles in the head may fail to complete themselves4 ,this new version of the parallelism between the microcosm and the macrocosm would be perfectly natural for ,alkmaion1 though it is1 of course1 no more than a playful fancy to ,plato4 ,footnote #did3 ,aet4 ii4 #bb1 #d1 2 #bi1 #c1 7 74 ,footnote #die3 ,aet4 ii4 #af1 #b1 7 7 ' 4 4 ,footnote #dif3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje a #cj 7,r4 ,p4 #ff c74 ,footnote #dig3 ,arist4 ,probl4 #ag1 #c4 #iaf a #cc1 1 4 ,alkmaion's theory of health as 8isonomy0 is at once that which most clearly connects him with earlier inquirers like ,anaximander1 and also that which had the greatest influence on the subsequent development of philosophy4 ,he observed1 to begin with1 that 8most things human were two10 and by this he meant that man was made up of the hot and the cold1 the moist and the dry1 and the rest of the opposites4#dih ,disease was just the 8monarchy0 of any one of these--the same thing that ,anaximander had called 8injustice0--while health was the establishment in the body of a free government with equal laws4#dii ,this was the leading doctrine of the ,sicilian school of medicine which came into existence not long after1 and we shall have to consider in the sequel its influence on the development of ,pythagoreanism4 ,taken along with the theory of 8pores10#ejj it is of the greatest importance for later science4 ,footnote #dih3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #bg 7,r4 ,p4 #ff74 ,footnote #dii3 ,aet4 v4 #cj1 #a1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 4 ,footnote #ejj3 ,my colleague1 ,dr4 ,fraser ,harris1 points out to me that ,alkmaion's may have been a better guess than he knew4 ,the nerve-fibres1 when magnified #ajjj diameters1 8sometimes appear to have a clear centre1 as if the fibrils were tubular40--,schfer1 ,essentials of ,physiology 7#gth edition71 p4 #acb4 ,,chapter ,v ,,empedokles ,,of ,,akragas ,sidenote3 ,pluralism4 #ig4 ,the belief that all things are one was common to the philosophers we have hitherto studied2 but now ,parmenides has shown that1 if this one thing really is1 we must give up the idea that it can take different forms4 ,the senses1 which present to us a world of change and multiplicity1 are deceitful4 ,from this there was no escape2 the time was still to come when men would seek the unity of the world in something which1 from its very nature1 the senses could never perceive4 ,we find1 accordingly1 that from the time of ,parmenides to that of ,plato1 all thinkers in whose hands philosophy made real progress abandoned the monistic hypothesis4 ,those who still held by it adopted a critical attitude1 and confined themselves to a defence of the theory of ,parmenides against the new views4 ,others taught the doctrine of ,herakleitos in an exaggerated form2 some continued to expound the systems of the early ,milesians4 ,this1 of course1 showed want of insight2 but even those thinkers who saw that ,parmenides could not be left unanswered1 were by no means equal to their predecessors in power and thoroughness4 ,the corporealist hypothesis had proved itself unable to bear the weight of a monistic structure2 but a thorough-going pluralism such as the atomic theory might have some value1 if not as a final explanation of the world1 yet at least as an intelligible view of a part of it4 ,any pluralism1 on the other hand1 which1 like that of ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras1 stops short of the atoms1 will achieve no permanent result1 however many may be the brilliant aperus which it embodies4 ,it will remain an attempt to reconcile two things that cannot be reconciled1 and may always1 therefore1 be developed into contradictions and paradoxes4 ,sidenote3 ,date of ,empedokles4 #ih4 ,empedokles was a citizen of ,akragas in ,sicily1 and his father's name1 according to the best accounts1 was ,meton4#eja ,his grandfather1 also called ,empedokles1 had won a victory in the horse-race at ,olympia in ,ol4 ,,lxxi4 7#dif-ie ,b4,c471#ejb and ,apollodoros fixed the floruit of ,empedokles himself in ,ol4 ,,lxxxiv4 #a 7#ddd-dc ,b4,c474 ,this is the date of the foundation of ,thourioi2 and it appears from the quotation in ,diogenes that the almost contemporary biographer1 ,glaukos of ,rhegion1#ejc said ,empedokles visited the new city shortly after its foundation4 ,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 dated4 ,that is the assumption made by ,apollodoros2 but there are reasons for thinking that his date is too late by some eight or ten years4#ejd ,it is1 indeed1 most likely that ,empedokles did not go to ,thourioi till after his banishment from ,akragas1 and he may well have been more than forty years old when that happened4 ,all1 therefore1 we can be said to know of his date is1 that his grandfather was still alive in #dif ,b4,c42 that he himself was active at ,akragas after #dgb1 the date of ,theron's death2 and that he died later than #ddd4 ,footnote #eja3 ,aet4 i4 #c1 #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #afd71 ,apollodoros ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #eb 7,r4 ,p4 #afb74 ,the details of the life of ,empedokles are discussed1 with a careful criticism of the sources1 by ,bidez1 ,la biographie d',empdocle 7,gand1 #ahid74 ,footnote #ejb3 ,for this we have the authority of ,apollodoros 7,diog4 viii4 #ea1 #eb2 ,r4 ,p4 #afb71 who follows the ,olympic ,victors of ,eratosthenes1 who in turn appealed to ,aristotle4 ,herakleides of ,pontos1 in his 7see below1 p4 #bcc1 n4 #ebj71 spoke of the elder ,empedokles as a 8breeder of horses0 7,r4 ,p4 #afb a72 and ,timaios mentioned him as a distinguished man in his ,fifteenth ,book4 ,footnote #ejc3 ,glaukos wrote 1 and is said to have been contemporary with ,demokritos 7,diog4 ix4 #ch74 ,apollodoros adds 7,r4 ,p4 #afb7 that1 according to ,aristotle and ,herakleides1 ,empedokles died at the age of sixty4 ,it is to be observed1 however1 that the words ' are ,sturz's conjecture1 the ,,mss4 having ' 1 and ,diogenes certainly said 7ix4 #c7 that ,herakleitos lived sixty years4 ,on the other hand1 if the statement of ,aristotle comes from the 1 it is not obvious why he should mention ,herakleitos at all2 and ,herakleides was one of the chief sources for the biography of ,empedokles4 ,footnote #ejd3 ,see ,diels1 8,empedokles und ,gorgias10 #b 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahhd74 ,theophrastos said that ,empedokles was born 8not long after ,anaxagoras0 7,dox4 p4 #dgg1 #ag72 and ,alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of ,zeno under ,parmenides1 and the teacher of ,gorgias 7see below1 p4 #bca1 n4 #e74 ,now ,gorgias was a little older than ,antiphon 7b4 ,ol4 ,,lxx471 so it is clear we must go back at least to #dij ,b4,c4 for the birth of ,empedokles4 ,even these indications are enough to show that he must have been a boy in the reign of ,theron1 the tyrant who co-operated with ,gelon of ,syracuse in the repulse of the ,carthaginians from ,himera4 ,his son and successor1 ,thrasydaios1 was a man of another stamp4 ,before his accession to the throne of ,akragas1 he had ruled in his father's name at ,himera1 and completely estranged the affections of its inhabitants4 ,theron died in #dgb ,b4,c41 and ,thrasydaios at once displayed all the vices and follies usual in the second holder of a usurped dominion4 ,after a disastrous war with ,hieron of ,syracuse1 he was driven out2 and ,akragas enjoyed a free government till it fell before the ,carthaginians more than half a century later4#eje ,footnote #eje3 ,e4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 ii4 p4 #ejh4 ,sidenote3 ,empedokles as a politician4 #ii4 ,in the political events of the next few years1 ,empedokles certainly played an important part2 but our information on the subject is of a very curious kind4 ,the ,sicilian historian ,timaios told one or two stories about him1 which are obviously genuine traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years afterwards2 but1 like all popular traditions1 they are a little confused4 ,the picturesque incidents are remembered1 but the essential parts of the story are dropped4 ,still1 we may be thankful that the 8collector of old wives' tales10#ejf as sneering critics called him1 has enabled us to measure the historical importance of ,empedokles for ourselves by showing us how he was pictured by the great-grandchildren of his contemporaries4 ,footnote #ejf3 ,he is called in ,souidas1 s4v4 ,the view taken in the text as to the value of his evidence is that of ,holm4 ,we read1 then1#ejg that once he was invited to sup with one of the 8rulers40 ,tradition delights in such vague titles4 8,supper was well advanced1 but no wine was brought in4 ,the rest of the company said nothing1 but ,empedokles was righteously indignant1 and insisted on wine being served4 ,the host1 however1 said he was waiting for the serjeant of the ,council4 ,when that official arrived1 he was appointed ruler of the feast4 ,the host1 of course1 appointed him4 ,thereupon he began to give hints of an incipient tyranny4 ,he ordered the company either to drink or have the wine poured over their heads4 ,at the time1 ,empedokles said nothing2 but next day he led both of them before the court1 and had them condemned and put to death--both the man who asked him to supper1 and the ruler of the feast4#ejh ,this was the beginning of his political career40 ,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 medicine1 and supported his objection by a punning epigram4#eji ,lastly1 he broke up the assembly of the ,thousand--perhaps some oligarchical association or club4#eaj ,it may have been for this that he was offered the kingship1 which ,aristotle tells us he refused4#eaa ,at any rate1 we see that ,empedokles was the great democratic leader at ,akragas in those days1 though we have no clear knowledge of what he did4 ,footnote #ejg3 ,timaios ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #fd 7,f4,h4,g4 i4 p4 #bad1 fr4 #hh a74 ,footnote #ejh3 ,in the first edition1 ,i suggested the analogy of accusations for incivisme4 ,bidez says 7p4 #abg71 8,j'imagine qu'un ,jacobin aurait mieux jug l'histoire0 7than ,karsten and ,holm72 8sous la ,terreur1 on tait suspect pour de moindres vtilles40 ,footnote #eji3 ,diog4 viii4 #fe4 ,the epigram runs thus3 ' 4 ,on ,akron1 see ,m4 ,wellmann1 op4 cit4 p4 #bce1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #eaj3 ,diog4 viii4 #ff1 ' 4 ,the word hardly suggests a legal council1 and suggests a conspiracy4 ,footnote #eaa3 ,diog4 viii4 #fc4 ,aristotle probably mentioned this in his ,sophist4 ,cf4 ,diog4 viii4 #eg4 ,sidenote3 ,empedokles as a religious teacher4 #ajj4 ,but there is another side to his public character which ,timaios found it hard to reconcile with his political views4 ,he claimed to be a god1 and to receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity4 ,the truth is1 ,empedokles was not a mere statesman2 he had a good deal of the 8medicine-man0 about him4 ,according to ,satyros1#eab ,gorgias affirmed that he had been present when his master was performing sorceries4 ,we can see what this means from the fragments of the ,purifications4 ,empedokles was a preacher of the new religion which sought to secure release from the 8wheel of birth0 by purity and abstinence2 but it is not quite certain to which form of it he adhered4 ,on the one hand1 ,orphicism seems to have been strong at ,akragas in the days of ,theron1 and there are even some verbal coincidences between the poems of ,empedokles and the ,orphicising ,odes which ,pindar addressed to that prince4#eac ,there are also some points of similarity between the ,rhapsodic ,theogony1 as we know it from ,damaskios1 and certain fragments of ,empedokles1 though the importance of these has been exaggerated4#ead ,on the other hand1 there is no reason to doubt the statement of ,ammonios that fr4 #acd refers to ,apollo2#eae and1 if that is so1 it would point to his having been an adherent of the ,ionic form of the mystic doctrine1 as we have seen 7 #ci7 that ,pythagoras was4 ,further1 ,timaios already knew the story that he had been expelled from the ,pythagorean ,order for 8stealing discourses10#eaf and it is probable on the whole that fr4 #abi refers to ,pythagoras4#eag ,it would be very hazardous to dogmatise on this subject2 but it seems most likely that ,empedokles had been influenced by ,orphic ideas in his youth1 and that1 in later life1 he preached a form of ,pythagoreanism which was not considered orthodox by the heads of the ,society4 ,in any case1 it seems far more probable that his political and scientific activity belong to the same period of his life1 and that he only became a wandering prophet after his banishment1 than that his scientific work belonged to his later days when he was a solitary exile4#eah ,footnote #eab3 ,diog4 viii4 #ei 7,r4 ,p4 #afb74 ,satyros probably followed ,alkidamas4 ,diels suggests 7,emp4 u4 ,gorg4 p4 #ceh7 that the of ,alkidamas was a dialogue in which ,gorgias was the chief speaker4 ,in that case1 the statement would have little historical value4 ,footnote #eac3 ,see ,bidez1 p4 #aae1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #ead3 ,o4 ,kern1 8,empedokles und die ,orphiker0 7,arch4 i4 pp4 #dhi sqq474 ,for the ,rhapsodic ,theogony1 see ,introd4 p4 #i1 n4 #aj4 ,footnote #eae3 ,see below1 note in loc4 ,footnote #eaf3 ,diog4 viii4 #ed 7,r4 ,p4 #afb74 ,footnote #eag3 ,see below1 note in loc4 ,footnote #eah3 ,the latter view is that of ,bidez 7pp4 #afa sqq472 but ,diels has shown 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahih1 pp4 #djf sqq47 that the former is psychologically more probable4 ,we hear of a number of marvels performed by ,empedokles1 which are for the most part nothing but inferences from his writings4 ,timaios told how he weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging bags of asses' skins on the trees to catch them4 ,he had certainly said1 in his exaggerated way1 that the knowledge of science as taught by him would enable his disciples to control the winds 7fr4 #aaa72 and this1 along with the fabled windbags of ,aiolos1 is enough to account for the tale4#eai ,we are also told how he brought back to life a woman who had been breathless and pulseless for thirty days4 ,the verse where he asserts that his teaching will enable ,pausanias to bring the dead back from ,hades 7fr4 #aaa7 shows how this story may have arisen4#ebj ,again1 we hear that he sweetened the pestilent marsh between ,selinous and the sea by diverting the rivers ,hypsas and ,selinos into it4 ,we know from coins that this purification of the marshes actually took place1 but we may doubt whether it was attributed to ,empedokles till a later time4#eba ,footnote #eai3 ,i follow the wilder form of the story given by ,diog4 viii4 #fj1 and not the rationalised version of ,plutarch 7adv4 ,col4 #aabf b74 ,the epithets and were perhaps bestowed by some sillographer in mockery2 cf4 4 ,footnote #ebj3 ,the of ,herakleides1 from which it is derived1 seems to have been a sort of medico-philosophical romance4 ,the words are 7,diog4 viii4 #fj73 4 ,it was a case of hysterical suffocation4 ,footnote #eba3 ,for these coins see ,head1 ,historia ,numorum1 pp4 #adg sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,rhetoric and medicine4 #aja4 ,aristotle said that ,empedokles was the inventor of ,rhetoric2#ebb and ,galen made him the founder of the ,italian school of ,medicine1 which he puts on a level with those of ,kos and ,knidos4#ebc ,both these statements must be considered in connexion with his political and scientific activity4 ,it seems to be certain that ,gorgias was his disciple in physics and medicine1 and some of the peculiarities which marked his style are to be found in the poems of ,empedokles4#ebd ,it is not to be supposed1 of course1 that ,empedokles wrote a formal treatise on ,rhetoric2 but it is in every way probable1 and in accordance with his character1 that the speeches1 of which he must have made many1 were marked by that euphuism which ,gorgias introduced to ,athens at a later date1 and which gave rise to the idea of an artistic prose4 ,the influence of ,empedokles on the development of medicine was1 however1 far more important1 as it affected not only medicine itself1 but through it1 the whole tendency of scientific and philosophical thinking4 ,it has been said that ,empedokles had no successors1#ebe and the remark is true if we confine ourselves strictly to philosophy4 ,on the other hand1 the medical school which he founded was still living in the days of ,plato1 and it had considerable influence on him1 and still more on ,aristotle4#ebf ,its fundamental doctrine was the identification of the four elements with the hot and the cold1 the moist and the dry4 ,it also held that we breathe through all the pores of the body1 and that the act of respiration is closely connected with the motion of the blood4 ,the heart1 not the brain1 was regarded as the organ of consciousness4#ebg ,a more external characteristic of the medicine taught by the followers of ,empedokles is that they still clung to ideas of a magical nature4 ,a protest against this by a member of the ,koan school has been preserved4 ,he refers to them as 8magicians and purifiers and charlatans and quacks1 who profess to be very religious40#ebh ,though there is some truth in this1 it hardly does justice to the great advances in physiology that were due to the ,sicilian school4 ,footnote #ebb3 ,diog4 viii4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #afb g74 ,footnote #ebc3 ,galen1 x4 #e1 ' 7the schools of ,kos and ,knidos7 444 1 444 ,philistion was the contemporary and friend of ,plato2 ,pausanias is the disciple to whom ,empedokles addressed his poem4 ,footnote #ebd3 ,see ,diels1 8,empedokles und ,gorgias0 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahhd1 pp4 #cdc sqq474 ,the oldest authority for saying that ,gorgias was a disciple of ,empedokles is ,satyros ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #eh 7,r4 ,p4 #afb72 but he seems to have derived his information from ,alkidamas1 who was the disciple of ,gorgias himself4 ,in ,plato's ,meno 7#gf c #d-h7 the ,empedoklean theory of effluvia and pores is ascribed to ,gorgias4 ,footnote #ebe3 ,diels 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahhd1 p4 #cdc74 ,footnote #ebf3 ,see ,m4 ,wellmann1 ,fragmentsammlung der griechischen rtzte1 vol4 i4 7,berlin1 #aija74 ,according to ,wellmann1 both ,plato 7in the ,timaeus7 and ,diokles of ,karystos depend upon ,philistion4 ,it is impossible to understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without keeping the history of medicine constantly in view4 ,footnote #ebg3 ,for the four elements1 cf4 ,anon4 ,lond4 xx4 #be 7,menon's ,iatrika71 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 ,for the theory of respiration1 see ,wellmann1 pp4 #hb sqq42 and for the heart as the seat of consciousness1 ib4 pp4 #ae sqq4 ,footnote #ebh3 ,hippokr4 1 c #a1 4 ,the whole passage should be read4 ,cf4 ,wellmann1 p4 #bi n4 ,sidenote3 ,relation to predecessors4 #ajb4 ,in the biography of ,empedokles1 we hear very little of his theory of nature4 ,the only hints we get are some statements about his teachers4 ,alkidamas1 who had good opportunities of knowing1 made him a fellow-student of ,zeno under ,parmenides4 ,that is both possible and likely4 ,theophrastos too made him a follower and imitator of ,parmenides4 ,but the further statement that he had 8heard0 ,pythagoras cannot be right4 ,probably ,alkidamas said 8,pythagoreans40#ebi ,footnote #ebi3 ,diog4 viii4 #ed-ef 7,r4 ,p4 #afb74 ,some writers hold that certain parts of the system of ,empedokles1 in particular the theory of pores and effluvia 7 #aah71 which do not seem to follow very naturally from his own principles1 were due to the influence of ,leukippos4#ecj ,this1 however1 is not necessarily the case4 ,we know that ,alkmaion 7 #if7 spoke of 8pores0 in connexion with sensation1 and it may equally well be from him that ,empedokles got the theory4 ,it may be added that this is more in accordance with the history of certain other physiological views which are common to ,alkmaion and the later ,ionian philosophers4 ,we can generally see that those reached ,ionia through the medical school which ,empedokles founded4#eca ,footnote #ecj3 ,diels1 ,verhandl4 d4 #ce ,philologenversamml4 pp4 #ajd sqq41 ,zeller1 p4 #gfg4 ,it would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if it could be proved that ,empedokles was influenced by ,leukippos4 ,i hope to show that ,leukippos was influenced by the later ,pythagorean doctrine 7,chap4 ,,ix4 #aga71 which was in turn affected by ,empedokles 7,chap4 ,,vii4 #adg74 ,footnote #eca3 ,for in ,alkmaion1 cf4 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,an4 1 #f4 #gdd a #h2 ,theophr4 de sens4 #bf2 and for the way in which his embryological and other views were transmitted through ,empedokles to the ,ionian physicists1 cf4 ,fredrich1 ,hippokratische ,untersuchungen1 pp4 #abf sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,death4 #ajc4 ,we are told that ,empedokles leapt into the crater of ,etna that he might be deemed a god4 ,this appears to be a malicious version#ecb of a tale set on foot by his adherents that he had been snatched up to heaven in the night4#ecc ,both stories would easily get accepted2 for there was no local tradition4 ,empedokles did not die in ,sicily1 but in the ,peloponnese1 or1 perhaps1 at ,thourioi4 ,he had gone to ,olympia to have his religious poem recited to the ,hellenes2 his enemies were able to prevent his return1 and he was seen in ,sicily no more4#ecd ,footnote #ecb3 ,r4 ,p4 #afb h4 ,the story is always told with a hostile purpose4 ,footnote #ecc3 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 ,this was the story told by ,herakleides of ,pontos1 at the end of his romance about the 4 ,footnote #ecd3 ,timaios took the trouble to refute the common stories at some length 7,diog4 viii4 #ga sqq42 ,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,he was quite positive that ,empedokles never returned to ,sicily4 ,nothing can be more likely than that1 when wandering as an exile in the ,peloponnese1 he should have seized the opportunity of joining the colony at ,thourioi1 which was a harbour for many of the 8sophists0 of this time4 ,sidenote3 ,writings4 #ajd4 ,empedokles was the second philosopher to expound his system in verse1 if we leave the satirist ,xenophanes out of account4 ,he was also the last among the ,greeks2 for the forged ,pythagorean poems may be neglected4#ece ,lucretius imitates ,empedokles in this1 just as ,empedokles imitated ,parmenides4 ,of course1 the poetical imagery creates a difficulty for the interpreter2 but it would be wrong to make too much of it4 ,it cannot be said that it is harder to extract the philosophical kernel from the verses of ,empedokles than from the prose of ,herakleitos4 ,footnote #ece3 ,see ,chap4 ,,iv4 #he4 ,there is some divergence of opinion as to the poetical merit of ,empedokles4 ,the panegyric of ,lucretius is well known4#ecf ,aristotle says in one place that ,empedokles and ,homer have nothing in common but the metre2 in another1 that ,empedokles was 8most ,homeric40#ecg ,to my mind1 there can be no question that he was a genuine poet1 far more so than ,parmenides4 ,no one doubts nowadays that ,lucretius was one1 and ,empedokles really resembles him very closely4 ,footnote #ecf3 ,lucr4 i4 #gaf sqq4 ,footnote #ecg3 ,poet4 #a4 #addg b #ah2 cf4 ,diog4 viii4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #afb i74 ,sidenote3 ,the remains4 #aje4 ,we have more abundant remains of ,empedokles than of any other early ,greek philosopher4 ,if we may trust our manuscripts of ,diogenes and of ,souidas1 the librarians of ,alexandria estimated the ,poem on ,nature and the ,purifications together as #ejjj verses1 of which about #bjjj belonged to the former work4#ech ,diels gives about #cej verses and parts of verses from the cosmological poem1 or not a fifth of the whole4 ,it is important to remember that1 even in this favourable instance1 so much has been lost4 ,besides the two poems1 the ,alexandrian scholars possessed a prose work of #fjj lines on medicine ascribed to ,empedokles4 ,the tragedies and other poems which were sometimes attributed to him seem really to belong to a younger writer of the same name1 who is said by ,souidas to have been his grandson4#eci ,footnote #ech3 ,diog4 viii4 #gg 7,r4 ,p4 #afb72 ,souidas s4v4 ' 1 4 ,it hardly seems likely1 however1 that the extended to #cjjj verses1 so ,diels proposes to read for in ,diogenes4 ,it is to be observed that there is no better authority than ,tzetzes for dividing the into three books4 ,see ,diels1 8ber die ,gedichte des ,empedokles0 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahih1 pp4 #cif sqq474 ,footnote #eci3 ,hieronymos of ,rhodes declared 7,diog4 viii4 #eh7 that he had met with forty-three of these tragedies2 but see ,stein1 pp4 #e sqq4 ,the poem on the ,persian ,wars1 which ,hieronymos also refers to 7,diog4 viii4 #eg71 seems to have arisen from an old corruption in the text of ,arist4 ,probl4 #ibi b #af1 where ,bekker still reads 4 ,the same passage1 however1 is said to occur 1 in ,meteor4 1 #d4 #chb a #a1 though there too ,e reads 4 ,i give the remains as they are arranged by ,diels3-- 7#a7 ,and do thou give ear1 ,pausanias1 son of ,anchitos the wise6 7#b7 ,for straitened are the powers that are spread over their bodily parts1 and many are the woes that burst in on them and blunt the edge of their careful thoughts6 ,they behold but a brief span of a life that is no life1#edj and1 doomed to swift death1 are borne up and fly off like smoke4 ,each is convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon as he is #e hurried to and fro1 and idly boasts he has found the whole4 ,so hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by the ears of men1 so hardly grasped by their mind6 ,thou1#eda then1 since thou hast found thy way hither1 shalt learn no more than mortal mind hath power4 ,r4 ,p4 #afc4 7#c7 444 to keep within thy dumb heart4 7#d7 ,but1 ,o ye gods1 turn aside from my tongue the madness of those men4#edb ,hallow my lips and make a pure stream flow from them6 ,and thee1 much-wooed1 white-armed ,virgin ,muse1 do ,i beseech that ,i may hear what is lawful for the children of a day6 ,speed me on my way from the abode of #e ,holiness and drive my willing car6 ,thee shall no garlands of glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift them from the ground1 on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond that which is lawful and right1 and so to gain a seat upon the heights of wisdom4 ,go to now1 consider with all thy powers in what way each thing is clear4 ,hold not thy sight in greater credit as #aj compared with thy hearing1 nor value thy resounding ear above the clear instructions of thy tongue2#edc and do not withhold thy confidence in any of thy other bodily parts by which there is an opening for understanding1#edd but consider everything in the way it is clear4 ,r4 ,p4 #afc4 7#e7 ,but it is ever the way of low minds to disbelieve their betters4 ,do thou learn as the sure testimonies of my ,muse bid thee1 dividing the argument in thy heart4#ede 7#f7 ,hear first the four roots of all things3 shining ,zeus1 life-bringing ,hera1 ,aidoneus1 and ,nestis whose tear-drops are a well-spring to mortals4 ,r4 ,p4 #afd4edf 7#g7 444 uncreated4 7#h7 ,and ,i shall tell thee another thing4 ,there is no coming into being of aught that perishes1 nor any end for it in baneful death2 but only mingling and change of what has been mingled4 ,coming into being is but a name given to these by men4 ,r4 ,p4 #afe4 7#i7 ,but1 when the elements have been mingled in the fashion of a man and come to the light of day1 or in the fashion of the race of wild beasts or plants or birds1 then men say that these come into being2 and when they are separated1 they call that woeful death4 ,they call it not aright2 but ,i too follow #e the custom1 and call it so myself4 7#aj7 ,avenging death4 7#aa1 #ab7 ,fools6--for they have no far-reaching thoughts--who deem that what before was not comes into being1 or that aught can perish and be utterly destroyed4 ,for it cannot be that aught can arise from what in no way is1 and it is impossible and unheard of that what is should perish2 for it #e will always be1 wherever one may keep putting it4 ,r4 ,p4 #afe a4 7#ac7 ,and in the ,all there is naught empty and naught too full4 7#ad7 ,in the ,all there is naught empty4 ,whence1 then1 could aught come to increase it8 7#ae7 ,a man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in his heart that as long as mortals live what they call their life1 so long they are1 and suffer good and ill2 while before they were formed and after they have been dissolved they are just nothing at all4 ,r4 ,p4 #afe a4 7#af7 ,for of a truth they 7,strife and ,love7 were aforetime and shall be2 nor ever1 methinks1 will boundless time be emptied of that pair4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff c4 7#ag7 ,i shall tell thee a twofold tale4 ,at one time it grew to be one only out of many2 at another1 it divided up to be many instead of one4 ,there is a double becoming of perishable things and a double passing away4 ,the coming together of all things brings one generation into being and destroys it2 the other grows up and is scattered as things become #e divided4 ,and these things never cease continually changing places1 at one time all uniting in one through ,love1 at another each borne in different directions by the repulsion of ,strife4 ,thus1 as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many1 and to become many once more when the one is parted #aj asunder1 so far they come into being and their life abides not4 ,but1 inasmuch as they never cease changing their places continually1 so far they are ever immovable as they go round the circle of existence4 99 99 99 99 99 ,but come1 hearken to my words1 for it is learning that increaseth wisdom4 ,as ,i said before1 when ,i declared the #ae heads of my discourse1 ,i shall tell thee a twofold tale4 ,at one time it grew together to be one only out of many1 at another it parted asunder so as to be many instead of one2--,fire and ,water and ,earth and the mighty height of ,air2 dread ,strife1 too1 apart from these1 of equal weight to each1 and ,love among them1 equal in length and breadth4 #bj ,her do thou contemplate with thy mind1 nor sit with dazed eyes4 ,it is she that is known as being implanted in the frame of mortals4 ,it is she that makes them have thoughts of love and work the works of peace4 ,they call her by the names of ,joy and ,aphrodite4 ,her has no mortal yet marked moving #be round among them1#edg but do thou attend to the undeceitful ordering of my discourse4 ,for all these are equal and alike in age1 yet each has a different prerogative and its own peculiar nature4 ,and nothing #cj comes into being besides these1 nor do they pass away2 for1 if they had been passing away continually1 they would not be now1 and what could increase this ,all and whence could it come8 ,how1 too1 could it perish1 since no place is empty of these things8 ,they are what they are2 but1 running through one another1 they become now this1 now that1#edh and like things #ce evermore4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff4 7#ah7 ,love4 7#ai7 ,clinging ,love4 7#bj7 ,this 7the contest of ,love and ,strife7 is manifest in the mass of mortal limbs4 ,at one time all the limbs that are the body's portion are brought together by ,love in blooming life's high season2 at another1 severed by cruel ,strife1 they wander #e each alone by the breakers of life's sea4 ,it is the same with plants and the fish that make their homes in the waters1 with the beasts that have their lairs on the hills and the seabirds that sail on wings4 ,r4 ,p4 #agc d4 7#ba7 ,come now1 look at the things that bear witness to my earlier discourse1 if so be that there was any shortcoming as to their form in the earlier list4 ,behold the sun1 everywhere bright and warm1 and all the immortal things that are bathed in heat and bright radiance4#edi ,behold the rain1 everywhere dark #e and cold2 and from the earth issue forth things close-pressed and solid4 ,when they are in strife all these are different in form and separated2 but they come together in love1 and are desired by one another4 ,for out of these have sprung all things that were and are and shall be--trees and men and women1 beasts and birds #aj and the fishes that dwell in the waters1 yea1 and the gods that live long lives and are exalted in honour4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff i4 ,for these things are what they are2 but1 running through one another1 they take different shapes--so much does mixture change them4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff g4 7#bb7 ,for all of these--sun1 earth1 sky1 and sea--are at one with all their parts that are cast far and wide from them in mortal things4 ,and even so all things that are more adapted for mixture are like to one another and united in love by ,aphrodite4 ,those things1 again1 that differ most in origin1 #e mixture and the forms imprinted on each1 are most hostile1 being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very sorry by the bidding of ,strife1 since it hath wrought their birth4 7#bc7 ,just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings1 men whom wisdom hath well taught their art1--they1 when they have taken pigments of many colours with their hands1 mix them in due proportion1 more of some and less of others1 and from them produce shapes like unto all things1 making trees #e and men and women1 beasts and birds and fishes that dwell in the waters1 yea1 and gods1 that live long lives1 and are exalted in honour1--so let not the error prevail over thy mind1#eej that there is any other source of all the perishable creatures that appear in countless numbers4 ,know this for sure1 for thou #aj hast heard the tale from a goddess4#eea 7#bd7 ,stepping from summit to summit1 not to travel only one path to the end4444 7#be7 ,what is right may well be said even twice4 7#bf7 ,for they prevail in turn as the circle comes round1 and pass into one another1 and grow great in their appointed turn4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff c4 ,they are what they are2 but1 running through one another1 they become men and the tribes of beasts4 ,at one time they are all brought together into one order by ,love2 at another1 #e they are carried each in different directions by the repulsion of ,strife1 till they grow once more into one and are wholly subdued4 ,thus in so far as they are wont to grow into one out of many1 and again divided become more than one1 so far they come into being1 and their life is not lasting2 but in #aj so far as they never cease changing continually1 so far are they evermore1 immovable in the circle4 7#bg7 ,there are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun1 no1 nor the shaggy earth in its might1 nor the sea1--so fast was the god bound in the close covering of ,harmony1 spherical and round1 rejoicing in his circular solitude4#eeb ,r4 ,p4 #afg4 7#bg;a7 ,there is no discord and no unseemly strife in his limbs4 7#bh7 ,but he was equal on every side and quite without end1 spherical and round1 rejoicing in his circular solitude4 7#bi7 ,two branches do not spring from his back1 he has no feet1 no swift knees1 no fruitful parts2 but he was spherical and equal on every side4 7#cj1 #ca7 ,but1 when ,strife was grown great in the limbs of the god and sprang forth to claim his prerogatives1 in the fulness of the alternate time set for them by the mighty oath1 444 for all the limbs of the god in turn quaked4 ,r4 ,p4 #afg4 7#cb7 ,the joint binds two things4 7#cc7 ,even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk4444 7#cd7 ,cementing#eec meal with water4444 7#ce1 #cf7 ,but now ,i shall retrace my steps over the paths of song that ,i have travelled before1 drawing from my saying a new saying4 ,when ,strife was fallen to the lowest depth of the vortex1 and ,love had reached to the centre of the whirl1 in it do all things come together so as to be one only2 not all at once1 #e but coming together at their will each from different quarters2 and1 as they mingled1 countless tribes of mortal creatures were scattered abroad4 ,yet many things remained unmixed1 alternating with the things that were being mixed1 namely1 all that ,strife not fallen yet retained2 for it had not yet altogether retired #aj perfectly from them to the outermost boundaries of the circle4 ,some of it still remained within1 and some had passed out from the limbs of the ,all4 ,but in proportion as it kept rushing out1 a soft1 immortal stream of blameless ,love kept running in1 and straightway those things became mortal which had been immortal before1 those things were mixed that had been #ae unmixed1 each changing its path4 ,and1 as they mingled1 countless tribes of mortal creatures were scattered abroad endowed with all manner of forms1 a wonder to behold4 ,r4 ,p4 #afi4 99 99 99 99 99 7#cg7 ,earth increases its own mass1 and ,air swells the bulk of ,air4 7#ch7 ,come1 ,i shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of the sun1#eed and the sources from which have sprung all the things we now behold1 the earth and the billowy sea1 the damp vapour and the ,titan air that binds his circle fast round all things4 ,r4 ,p4 #agj a4 7#ci7 ,if the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite1 a foolish saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of many mortals1 though they have seen but a little of the ,all4444#eee ,r4 ,p4 #ajc b4 7#dj7 ,the sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon4 7#da7 ,but 7the sunlight7 is gathered together and circles round the mighty heavens4 7#db7 ,and she cuts off his rays as he goes above her1 and casts a shadow on as much of the earth as is the breadth of the pale-faced moon4#eef 7#dc7 ,even so the sunbeam1 having struck the broad and mighty circle of the moon1 returns at once1 running so as to reach the sky4 7#dd7 ,it flashes back to ,olympos with untroubled countenance4 ,r4 ,p4 #agj c4 7#de1 #df7 ,there circles round the earth a round borrowed light1 as the nave of the wheel circles round the furthest 7goal74 7#dg7 ,for she gazes at the sacred circle of the lordly sun opposite4 7#dh7 ,it is the earth that makes night by coming before the lights4 7#di7 444 of solitary1 blind-eyed night4 7#ej7 ,and ,iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea4 7#ea7 7,fire7 swiftly rushing upwards4444 7#eb7 ,and many fires burn beneath the earth4 ,r4 ,p4 #aga a4 7#ec7 ,for so as it ran1 it met them at that time1 though often otherwise4 ,r4 ,p4 #aga a4 7#ed7 ,but the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots4 ,r4 ,p4 #aga a4 7#ee7 ,sea the sweat of the earth4 ,r4 ,p4 #agj b4 7#ef7 ,salt was solidified by the impact of the sun's beams4 7#eg7 ,on it 7the earth7 many heads sprung up without necks and arms wandered bare and bereft of shoulders4 ,eyes strayed up and down in want of foreheads4 ,r4 ,p4 #agc a4 7#eh7 ,solitary limbs wandered seeking for union4 7#ei7 ,but1 as divinity was mingled still further with divinity1 these things joined together as each might chance1 and many other things besides them continually arose4 7#fj7 ,shambling creatures with countless hands4 7#fa7 ,many creatures with faces and breasts looking in different directions were born2 some1 offspring of oxen with faces of men1 while others1 again1 arose as offspring of men with the heads of oxen1 and creatures in whom the nature of women and men was mingled1 furnished with sterile#eeg parts4 #e ,r4 ,p4 #agc b4 7#fb7 ,come now1 hear how the ,fire as it was separated caused the night-born shoots of men and tearful women to arise2 for my tale is not off the point nor uninformed4 ,whole-natured forms first arose from the earth1 having a portion both of water and fire4#eeh ,these did the fire1 desirous of #e reaching its like1 send up1 showing as yet neither the charming form of women's limbs1 nor yet the voice and parts that are proper to men4 ,r4 ,p4 #agc c4 7#fc7 444 ,but the substance of 7the child's7 limbs is divided between them1 part of it in men's and part in women's 7body74 7#fd7 ,and upon him came desire reminding him through sight4 7#fe7 444 ,and it was poured out in the pure parts2 and when it met with cold women arose from it4 7#ff7 ,the divided meadows of ,aphrodite4 7#fg7 ,for in its warmer part the womb brings forth males1 and that is why men are dark and more manly and shaggy4 7#fh7 ,on the tenth day of the eighth month the white putrefaction arises4#eei 7#fi7 ,double bearing4#efj 7#gj7 ,sheepskin4#efa 7#ga7 ,but if thy assurance of these things was in any way deficient as to how1 out of ,water and ,earth and ,air and ,fire mingled together1 arose the forms and colours of all those mortal things that have been fitted together by ,aphrodite1 and so are now come into being4444 #e 7#gb7 ,how tall trees and the fishes in the sea4444 7#gc7 ,and even as at that time ,kypris1 preparing warmth1#efb after she had moistened the ,earth in water1 gave it to swift fire to harden it4444 ,r4 ,p4 #aga4 7#gd7 ,leading the songless tribe of fertile fish4 7#ge7 ,all of those which are dense within and rare without1 having received a moisture of this kind at the hands of ,kypris4444 7#gf7 ,this thou mayest see in the heavy-backed shell-fish that dwell in the sea1 in sea-snails and the stony-skinned turtles4 ,in them thou mayest see that the earthy part dwells on the uppermost surface4 7#gg-gh7 ,it is the air that makes evergreen trees flourish with abundance of fruit the whole year round4 7#gi7 ,and so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs4444 7#hj7 ,wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent4 7#ha7 ,wine is the water from the bark1 putrefied in the wood4 7#hb7 ,hair and leaves1 and thick feathers of birds1 and the scales that grow on mighty limbs1 are the same thing4 7#hc7 ,but the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles on their backs4 7#hd7 ,and even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a stormy night1 gets him ready a lantern1 a flame of blazing fire1 fastening to it horn plates to keep out all manner of winds1 and they scatter the blast of the winds that blow1 but the light leaping out through them1 shines across the threshold #e with unfailing beams1 as much of it as is finer2#efc even so did she 7,love7 then entrap the elemental fire1 the round pupil1 confined within membranes and delicate tissues1 which are pierced through and through with wondrous passages4 ,they keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil1 but they #aj let through the fire1 as much of it as is finer4 ,r4 ,p4 #agg b4 7#he7 ,but the gentle flame 7of the eye7 has but a scanty portion of earth4 7#hf7 ,out of these divine ,aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes4 7#hg7 ,aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love4 7#hh7 ,one vision is produced by both the eyes4 7#hi7 ,know that effluences flow from all things that have come into being4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff h4 7#ij7 ,so sweet lays hold of sweet1 and bitter rushes to bitter2 acid comes to acid1 and warm couples with warm4 7#ia7 ,water fits better into wine1 but it will not 7mingle7 with oil4 ,r4 ,p4 #aff h4 7#ib7 ,brass mixed with tin4 7#ic7 ,the berry of the blue elder is mingled with scarlet4 7#id7 ,and the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from the shadow4 ,the same is seen in hollow caves4 7#ie7 ,since they 7the eyes7 first grew together in the hands of ,kypris4 7#if7 ,the kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of gleaming ,nestis out of the eight1 and four of ,hephaistos4 ,so arose white bones divinely fitted together by the cement of proportion4 ,r4 ,p4 #age4 7#ig7 ,the spine 7was broken74 7#ih7 ,and the earth1 anchoring in the perfect harbours of ,aphrodite1 meets with these in nearly equal proportions1 with ,hephaistos and ,water and gleaming ,air--either a little more of it1 or less of them and more of it4 ,from these did blood arise and the manifold forms of flesh4 ,r4 ,p4 #age c4 7#ii7 ,the bell 444 the fleshy sprout 7of the ear74#efd 7#ajj7 ,thus#efe do all things draw breath and breathe it out again4 ,all have bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of their bodies2 and at the mouths of these the outermost surface of the skin is perforated all over with pores closely packed together1 so as to keep in the blood while a free #e passage is cut for the air to pass through4 ,then1 when the thin blood recedes from these1 the bubbling air rushes in with an impetuous surge2 and when the blood runs back it is breathed out again4 ,just as when a girl1 playing with a water-clock of shining brass1 puts the orifice of the pipe upon #aj her comely hand1 and dips the water-clock into the yielding mass of silvery water1--the stream does not then flow into the vessel1 but the bulk of the air inside1 pressing upon the close-packed perforations1 keeps it out till she uncovers the compressed stream2 but then air escapes and an equal volume #ae of water runs in1--just in the same way1 when water occupies the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and passage is stopped up by the human hand1 the air outside1 striving to get in1 holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding neck1 pressing upon its surface1 till she lets go with her hand4 #bj ,then1 on the contrary1 just in the opposite way to what happened before1 the wind rushes in and an equal volume of water runs out to make room4#eff ,even so1 when the thin blood that surges through the limbs rushes backwards to the interior1 straightway the stream of air comes in with a rushing swell2 #be but when the blood returns the air breathes out again in equal quantity4 7#aja7 7,the dog7 with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the beast's limbs1 and the breath from their feet that they leave in the soft grass4#efg 7#ajb7 ,thus all things have their share of breath and smell4 7#ajc1 #ajd7 ,thus have all things thought by fortune's will4444 ,and inasmuch as the rarest things came together in their fall4 7#aje7 7,the heart71 dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in opposite directions1 where chiefly is what men call thought2 for the blood round the heart is the thought of men4 ,r4 ,p4 #agh a4 7#ajf7 ,for the wisdom of men grows according to what is before them4 ,r4 ,p4 #agg4 7#ajg7 ,for out of these are all things formed and fitted together1 and by these do men think and feel pleasure and pain4 ,r4 ,p4 #agh4 7#ajh7 ,and just so far as they grow to be different1 so far do different thoughts ever present themselves to their minds 7in dreams74#efh ,r4 ,p4 #agg a4 7#aji7 ,for it is with earth that we see ,earth1 and ,water with water2 by air we see bright ,air1 by fire destroying ,fire4 ,by love do we see ,love1 and ,hate by grievous hate4 ,r4 ,p4 #agf4 7#aaj7 ,for if1 supported on thy steadfast mind1 thou wilt contemplate these things with good intent and faultless care1 then shalt thou have all these things in abundance throughout thy life1 and thou shalt gain many others from them4 ,for these things grow of themselves into thy heart1 where is each #e man's true nature4 ,but if thou strivest after things of another kind1 as is the way with men1 ten thousand woes await thee to blunt thy careful thoughts4 ,soon will these things desert thee when the time comes round2 for they long to return once more to their own kind2 for know that all things have #aj wisdom and a share of thought4 7#aaa7 ,and thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence against ills and old age2 since for thee alone will ,i accomplish all this4 ,thou shalt arrest the violence of the weariless winds that arise and sweep the earth2 and again1 when thou so desirest1 thou shalt bring back their blasts with a rush4 ,thou #e shalt cause for men a seasonable drought after the dark rains1 and again thou shalt change the summer drought for streams that feed the trees as they pour down from the sky4 ,thou shalt bring back from ,hades the life of a dead man4 ,footnote #edj3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,sextus have 4 ,diels reads 4 ,i still prefer ,scaliger's 4 ,cf4 fr4 #ae1 4 ,footnote #eda3 ,the person here addressed is still ,pausanias1 and the speaker ,empedokles4 ,cf4 fr4 #aaa4 ,footnote #edb3 ,no doubt mainly ,parmenides4 ,footnote #edc3 ,the sense of taste1 not speech4 ,footnote #edd3 ,zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after 1 thus getting almost the opposite sense3 8,withhold all confidence in thy bodily senses02 but he admits in his fifth edition 7p4 #hjd1 n4 #b7 that the context is in favour of ,stein1 who put only a comma at and took closely with 4 ,so too ,diels4 ,the paraphrase given by ,sextus 7,r4 ,p4 ib47 is substantially right4 ,footnote #ede3 ,there is no difficulty in the ,,ms4 if we take as 8discourse10 8argument0 7cf4 74 ,diels conjectures 1 rendering 8when their words have passed through the sieve of thy mind40 ,nor does it seem to me necessary to read for in the first line4 ,footnote #edf3 ,the four elements are introduced under mythological names1 for which see below1 p4 #bfd1 n4 #ehc4 ,diels is clearly right in removing the comma after 1 and rendering ,nestis quae lacrimis suis laticem fundit mortalibus destinatum4 ,footnote #edg3 ,reading 4 ,i still think1 however1 that ,knatz's palaeographically admirable conjuncture 7i4e4 among the elements7 deserves consideration4 ,footnote #edh3 ,keeping with ,diels4 ,footnote #edi3 ,reading ' ' with ,diels4 ,for the word 1 cf4 frs4 #fb1 #e2 #gc1 #b4 ,the reference is to the moon1 etc41 which are made of solidified ,air1 and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere4 ,see below1 #aac4 ,footnote #eej3 ,reading with ,blass 7,jahrb4 f4 kl4 ,phil41 #ahhc1 p4 #ai73 ' 444 ,cf4 ,hesychios3 4 ,this is practically what the ,,mss4 of ,simplicius give1 and ,hesychios has many ,empedoklean glosses4 ,footnote #eea3 ,the 8goddess0 is1 of course1 the ,muse4 ,cf4 fr4 #e4 ,footnote #eeb3 ,the word 1 if it is right1 cannot mean 8rest10 but only solitude4 ,there is no reason for altering 1 though ,simplicius has 4 ,footnote #eec3 ,the masculine shows that the subject cannot have been 2 and ,karsten was doubtless right in believing that ,empedokles introduced the simile of a baker here4 ,it is in his manner to take illustrations from human arts4 ,footnote #eed3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,clement have and the reading is a mere makeshift4 ,diels reads ' 1 8the first 7elements7 equal in age40 ,footnote #eee3 ,the lines are referred to ,xenophanes by ,aristotle1 who quotes them de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bid a #ba4 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #acg4 ,footnote #eef3 ,i have translated ,diels's conjecture 1 ' 4 ,the ,,mss4 have and 4 ,footnote #eeg3 ,reading with ,diels1 ,hermes1 xv4 loc4 cit4 ,footnote #eeh3 ,retaining 7i4e4 71 which is read in the ,,mss4 of ,simplicius4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #bdc1 n4 #edi4 ,footnote #eei3 ,that ,empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by ,aristotle 7de ,gen4 ,an4 1 #h4 #ggg a #g74 ,the word means pus4 ,there may be a punning allusion to 1 8beestings10 but that has its vowel long4 ,footnote #efj3 ,said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth months4 ,footnote #efa3 ,of the membrane round the ftus4 ,footnote #efb3 ,reading with ,diels4 ,footnote #efc3 ,see ,beare1 p4 #af1 n4 #a1 where ,plato1 ,tim4 #de b #d 7 1 71 is aptly quoted4 ,alexander ad loc4 understands to mean ' 1 which seems improbable4 ,footnote #efd3 ,on fr4 #ii1 see ,beare1 p4 #if1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #efe3 ,this passage is quoted by ,aristotle 7de ,respir1 #dgc b #i71 who makes the curious mistake of taking for the genitive of instead of 4 ,the locus classicus on the subject of the klepsydra is ,probl4 #iad b #i sqq4 7where read for 1 b #ab74 ,the klepsydra was a metal vessel with a narrow neck 77 at the top and with a sort of strainer 77 pierced with holes 71 7 at the bottom4 ,the passage in the ,problems just referred to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to ,anaxagoras1 and we shall see later that he also made use of a similar experiment 7 #aca74 ,footnote #eff3 ,this seems to be the experiment described in ,probl4 #iad b #bf1 7 7 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 ' 4 ,the epithet applied to is best explained as a reference to the or 8belching0 referred to at #iae a #g as accompanying the discharge of water through the 4 ,any one can produce this effect with a water-bottle4 ,if it were not for this epithet1 it would be tempting to read for 4 ,sturz conjectured this1 and it is actually the reading of a few ,,mss4 ,footnote #efg3 ,on fr4 #aja1 see ,beare1 p4 #ace1 n4 #b4 ,footnote #efh3 ,that the reference is to dreams1 we learn from ,simpl4 de ,an4 p4 #bjb1 #cj4 ,,purifications 7#aab7 ,friends1 that inhabit the great town looking down on the yellow rock of ,akragas1 up by the citadel1 busy in goodly works1 harbours of honour for the stranger1 men unskilled in meanness1 all hail4 ,i go about among you an immortal god1 no mortal now1 honoured among all as is meet1 crowned with fillets and #e flowery garlands4 ,straightway1 whenever ,i enter with these in my train1 both men and women1 into the flourishing towns1 is reverence done me2 they go after me in countless throngs1 asking of me what is the way to gain2 some desiring oracles1 while some1 who for many a weary day have been pierced #aj by the grievous pangs of all manner of sickness1 beg to hear from me the word of healing4 ,r4 ,p4 #afb f4 7#aac7 ,but why do ,i harp on these things1 as if it were any great matter that ,i should surpass mortal1 perishable men8 7#aad7 ,friends1 ,i know indeed that truth is in the words ,i shall utter1 but it is hard for men1 and jealous are they of the assault of belief on their souls4 7#aae7 ,there is an oracle of ,necessity1#efi an ancient ordinance of the gods1 eternal and sealed fast by broad oaths1 that whenever one of the dmons1 whose portion is length of days1 has sinfully polluted his hands with blood1#egj or followed strife and #e forsworn himself1 he must wander thrice ten thousand years from the abodes of the blessed1 being born throughout the time in all manners of mortal forms1 changing one toilsome path of life for another4 ,for the mighty ,air drives him into the ,sea1 and the ,sea spews him forth on the dry ,earth2 ,earth tosses him into the beams of the blazing ,sun1 and he #aj flings him back to the eddies of ,air4 ,one takes him from the other1 and all reject him4 ,one of these ,i now am1 an exile and a wanderer from the gods1 for that ,i put my trust in insensate strife4 ,r4 ,p4 #aha4 7#aaf7 ,charis loathes intolerable ,necessity4 7#aag7 ,for ,i have been ere now a boy and a girl1 a bush and a bird and a dumb fish in the sea4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahb4 7#aah7 ,i wept and ,i wailed when ,i saw the unfamiliar land4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahb4 7#aai7 ,from what honour1 from what a height of bliss have ,i fallen to go about among mortals here on earth4 7#abj7 ,we have come under this roofed-in cave4#ega 7#aba7 444 the joyless land1 where are ,death and ,wrath and troops of ,dooms besides2 and parching ,plagues and ,rottennesses and ,floods roam in darkness over the meadow of ,ate4 7#abb1 #abc7 ,there were#egb ,chthonie and far-sighted ,heliope1 bloody ,discord and gentle-visaged ,harmony1 ,kallisto and ,aischre1 ,speed and ,tarrying1 lovely ,truth and dark-haired ,uncertainty1 ,birth and ,decay1 ,sleep and ,waking1 ,movement and ,immobility1 crowned ,majesty and ,meanness1 ,silence and ,voice4 #e ,r4 ,p4 #ahb a4 7#abd7 ,alas1 ,o wretched race of mortals1 twice unblessed3 such are the strifes and groanings from which ye have been born6 7#abe7 ,from living creatures he made them dead1 changing their forms4 7#abf7 7,the goddess7 clothing them with a strange garment of flesh4#egc 7#abg7 ,among beasts they#egd become lions that make their lair on the hills and their couch on the ground2 and laurels among trees with goodly foliage4 ,r4 ,p4 #aha b4 7#abh7 ,nor had they#ege any ,ares for a god nor ,kydoimos1 no nor ,king ,zeus nor ,kronos nor ,poseidon1 but ,kypris the ,queen4444 ,her did they propitiate with holy gifts1 with painted figures#egf and perfumes of cunning fragrancy1 with offerings of pure myrrh and sweet-smelling frankincense1 casting on the #e ground libations of brown honey4 ,and the altar did not reek with pure bull's blood1 but this was held in the greatest abomination among men1 to eat the goodly limbs after tearing out the life4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd4 7#abi7 ,and there was among them a man of rare knowledge1 most skilled in all manner of wise works1 a man who had won the utmost wealth of wisdom2 for whensoever he strained with all his mind1 he easily saw everything of all the things that are1 in ten1 yea1 twenty lifetimes of men4#egg #e 7#acj7 ,for all things were tame and gentle to man1 both beasts and birds1 and friendly feelings were kindled everywhere4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd a4 7#aca7 ,if ever1 as regards the things of a day1 immortal ,muse1 thou didst deign to take thought for my endeavour1 then stand by me once more as ,i pray to thee1 ,o ,kalliopeia1 as ,i utter a pure discourse concerning the blessed gods4 ,r4 ,p4 #agi4 7#acb7 ,blessed is the man who has gained the riches of divine wisdom2 wretched he who has a dim opinion of the gods in his heart4 ,r4 ,p4 #agi4 7#acc7 ,it is not possible for us to set ,god before our eyes1 or to lay hold of him with our hands1 which is the broadest way of persuasion that leads into the heart of man4 7#acd7 ,for he is not furnished with a human head on his body1 two branches do not sprout from his shoulders1 he has no feet1 no swift knees1 nor hairy parts2 but he is only a sacred and unutterable mind flashing through the whole world with rapid thoughts4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahj4 7#ace7 ,this is not lawful for some and unlawful for others2 but the law for all extends everywhere1 through the wide-ruling air and the infinite light of heaven4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahc4 7#acf7 ,will ye not cease from this ill-sounding slaughter8 ,see ye not that ye are devouring one another in the thoughtlessness of your hearts8 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd b4 7#acg7 ,and the father lifts up his own son in a changed form and slays him with a prayer4 ,infatuated fool6 ,and they run up to the sacrifices1 begging mercy1 while he1 deaf to their cries1 slaughters them in his halls and gets ready the evil feast4 ,in like manner does the son seize his father1 and children their #e mother1 tear out their life and eat the kindred flesh4 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd b4 7#ach7 ,draining their life with bronze4 7#aci7 ,ah1 woe is me that the pitiless day of death did not destroy me ere ever ,i wrought evil deeds of devouring with my lips6 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd b4 7#adj7 ,abstain wholly from laurel leaves4 7#ada7 ,wretches1 utter wretches1 keep your hands from beans6 7#adb7 ,him will the roofed palace of aigis-bearing ,zeus never rejoice1 nor yet the house of4444 7#adc7 ,wash your hands1 cutting the water from the five springs in the unyielding bronze4#egh ,r4 ,p4 #ahd c4 7#add7 ,fast from wickedness6 ,r4 ,p4 #ahd c4 7#ade7 ,therefore are ye distraught by grievous wickednesses1 and will not unburden your souls of wretched sorrows4 7#adf1 #adg7 ,but1 at the last1 they appear among mortal men as prophets1 song-writers1 physicians1 and princes2 and thence they rise up as gods exalted in honour1 sharing the hearth of the other gods and the same table1 free from human woes1 safe from destiny1 and incapable of hurt4 #e ,r4 ,p4 #aha c4 7#adh7 444 ,earth that envelops the man4 ,footnote #efi3 ,bernays conjectured 1 8decree10 for 1 but this is not necessary4 ,necessity is an ,orphic personage1 and ,gorgias1 the disciple of ,empedokles1 says 7,hel4 #f74 ,footnote #egj3 ,i retain in v4 #c 7so too ,diels74 ,the first word of v4 #d has been lost4 ,diels suggests 1 which may well be right1 and takes as equivalent to 4 ,i have translated accordingly4 ,footnote #ega3 ,according to ,porphyry1 who quotes this line 7de ,antro ,nymph4 #h71 these words were spoken by the 8powers0 who conduct the soul into the world 7 74 ,the 8cave0 is not originally ,platonic but ,orphic4 ,footnote #egb3 ,this passage is closely modelled on the ,catalogue of ,nymphs in ,iliad xviii4 #ci sqq4 ,chthonie is found already in ,pherekydes 7,diog4 i4 #aai74 ,footnote #egc3 ,i have retained as nearer the ,,mss41 though a little hard to interpret4 ,on the subsequent history of the ,orphic chiton in gnostic imagery see ,bernays1 ,theophr4 ,schr4 n4 #i4 ,it was identified with the coat of skins made by ,god for ,adam4 ,footnote #egd3 ,this is the best 7,ael4 ,nat4 an4 xii4 #g74 ,footnote #ege3 ,the dwellers in the ,golden ,age4 ,footnote #egf3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,porphyry have 1 which is accepted by ,zeller and ,diels4 ,the emendation of ,bernays 7adopted in ,r4 ,p47 does not convince me4 ,i venture to suggest 1 on the strength of the story related by ,favorinus 7ap4 ,diog4 viii4 #ec7 as to the bloodless sacrifice offered by ,empedokles at ,olympia4 ,footnote #egg3 ,these lines were already referred to ,pythagoras by ,timaios 7,diog4 viii4 #ed74 ,as we are told 7,diog4 ib47 that some referred the verses to ,parmenides1 it is clear that no name was given4 ,footnote #egh3 ,on frs4 #ach and #adc see ,vahlen on ,arist4 ,poet4 #ba4 #aedg b #ac1 and ,diels in ,hermes1 xv4 p4 #agc4 ,sidenote3 ,empedokles and ,parmenides4 #ajf4 ,at the very outset of his poem1 ,empedokles is careful to mark the difference between himself and previous inquirers4 ,he speaks angrily of those who1 though their experience was only partial1 professed to have found the whole 7fr4 #b72 he even calls this 8madness0 7fr4 #d74 ,no doubt he is thinking of ,parmenides4 ,his own position is not1 however1 sceptical4 ,he only deprecates the attempt to construct a theory of the universe off-hand instead of trying to understand each thing we come across 8in the way in which it is clear0 7fr4 #d74 ,and this means that we must not1 like ,parmenides1 reject the assistance of the senses4 ,weak though they are 7fr4 #b71 they are the only channels through which knowledge can enter our minds at all4 ,we soon discover1 however1 that ,empedokles is not very mindful of his own warnings4 ,he too sets up a system which is to explain everything1 though that system is no longer a monistic one4 ,it is often said that this system was an attempt to mediate between ,parmenides and ,herakleitos4 ,it is not easy1 however1 to find any trace of specially ,herakleitean doctrine in it1 and it would be truer to say that it aimed at mediating between ,eleaticism and the senses4 ,he repeats1 almost in the same words1 the ,eleatic argument for the sole reality and indestructibility of 8what is0 7frs4 #aa-ae72 and his idea of the 8,sphere0 seems to be derived from the ,parmenidean description of the universe as it truly is4#egi ,parmenides had held that the reality which underlies the illusory world presented to us by the senses was a corporeal1 spherical1 continuous1 eternal1 and immovable plenum1 and it is from this that ,empedokles starts4 ,given the sphere of ,parmenides1 he seems to have said1 ,how are we to get from it to the world we know8 ,how are we to introduce motion into the immovable plenum8 ,now ,parmenides need not have denied the possibility of motion within the ,sphere1 though he was bound to deny all motion of the ,sphere itself2 but such an admission on his part1 had he made it1 would not have served to explain anything4 ,if any part of the ,sphere were to move1 the room of the displaced matter must at once be taken by other matter1 for there is no empty space4 ,this1 however1 would be of precisely the same kind as the matter it had displaced2 for all 8that is0 is one4 ,the result of the motion would be precisely the same as that of rest2 it could account for no change4 ,but1 ,empedokles must have asked1 is this assumption of perfect homogeneity in the ,sphere really necessary8 ,evidently not2 it is simply the old unreasoned feeling that existence must be one4 ,if1 instead of this1 we were to assume a number of existent things1 it would be quite possible to apply all that ,parmenides says of reality to each of them1 and the forms of existence we know might be explained by the mingling and separation of those realities4 ,the conception of 8elements0 771 to use a later term1#ehj was found1 and the required formula follows at once4 ,so far as concerns particular things1 it is true1 as our senses tell us1 that they come into being and pass away2 but1 if we have regard to the ultimate elements of which they are composed1 we shall say with ,parmenides that 8what is0 is uncreated and indestructible 7fr4 #ag74 ,footnote #egi3 ,cf4 ,emp4 frs4 #bg1 #bh1 with ,parm4 fr4 #h4 ,footnote #ehj3 ,for the history of the term see ,diels1 ,elementum4 ,eudemos said 7ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #g1 #ac7 that ,plato was the first to use it1 and this is confirmed by the way the word is introduced in ,tht4 #bja e4 ,the original term was or 4 ,sidenote3 ,the 8four roots40 #ajg4 ,the 8four roots0 of all things 7fr4 #f7 which ,empedokles assumed were those that have become traditional--,fire1 ,air1 ,earth1 and ,water4 ,it is to be noticed1 however1 that he does not call ,air 1 but 1 and this must be because he wished to avoid any confusion with what had hitherto been meant by the former word4 ,he had1 in fact1 made the great discovery that atmospheric air is a distinct corporeal substance1 and is not to be identified with empty space on the one hand or rarefied mist on the other4 ,water is not liquid air1 but something quite different4#eha ,this truth ,empedokles demonstrated by means of the apparatus known as the klepsydra1 and we still possess the verses in which he applied his discovery to the explanation of respiration and the motion of the blood 7fr4 #ajj74 ,aristotle laughs at those who try to show there is no empty space by shutting up air in water-clocks and torturing wineskins4 ,they only prove1 he says1 that air is a thing4#ehb ,that1 however1 is exactly what ,empedokles intended to prove1 and it was one of the most important discoveries in the early history of science4 ,it will be convenient for us to translate the of ,empedokles by 8air02 but we must be careful in that case not to render the word in the same way4 ,anaxagoras seems to have been the first to use it of atmospheric air4 ,footnote #eha3 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,i4 #bg4 ,footnote #ehb3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #f1 #bac a #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #aei74 ,aristotle only mentions ,anaxagoras by name in this passage2 but he speaks in the plural1 and we know from fr4 #ajj that the klepsydra experiment was used by ,empedokles4 ,empedokles also called the 8four roots0 by the names of certain divinities--8shining ,zeus1 life-bringing ,hera1 ,aidoneus1 and ,nestis0 7fr4 #f7--though there is some doubt as to how these names are to be apportioned among the elements4 ,nestis is said to have been a ,sicilian water-goddess1 and the description of her shows that she stands for ,water2 but there is a conflict of opinion as to the other three4 ,this1 however1 need not detain us4#ehc ,we are already prepared to find that ,empedokles called the elements gods2 for all the early thinkers had spoken in this way of whatever they regarded as the primary substance4 ,we must only remember that the word is not used in its religious sense4 ,empedokles did not pray or sacrifice to the elements1 and the use of divine names is in the main an accident of the poetical form in which he cast his system4 ,footnote #ehc3 ,in antiquity the ,homeric ,allegorists made ,hera ,earth and ,aidoneus ,air1 a view which has found its way into ,aetios from ,poseidonios4 ,it arose as follows4 ,the ,homeric ,allegorists were not interested in the science of ,empedokles1 and did not see that his was quite a different thing from ,homer's 4 ,now this is the dark element1 and night is a form of it1 so it would naturally be identified with ,aidoneus4 ,again1 ,empedokles calls ,hera 1 and that is an old epithet of ,earth in ,homer4 ,another view current in antiquity identified ,hera with ,air1 which is the theory of ,plato's ,cratylus1 and ,aidoneus with ,earth4 ,the ,homeric ,allegorists further identified ,zeus with ,fire1 a view to which they were doubtless led by the use of the word 4 ,now certainly means ,fire in ,anaxagoras1 as we shall see1 but there is no doubt that in ,empedokles it meant ,air4 ,it seems likely1 then1 that ,knatz is right 78,empedoclea0 in ,schedae ,philologicae ,hermanno ,usenero oblatae1 #ahia1 pp4 #a sqq47 in holding that the bright ,air of ,empedokles was ,zeus4 ,this leaves ,aidoneus to stand for ,fire2 and nothing could have been more natural for a ,sicilian poet1 with the volcanoes and hot springs of his native island in mind1 than this identification4 ,he refers to the fires that burn beneath the ,earth himself 7fr4 #eb74 ,if that is so1 we shall have to agree with the ,homeric ,allegorists that ,hera is ,earth2 and there is certainly no improbability in that4 ,empedokles regarded the 8roots of all things0 as eternal4 ,nothing can come from nothing or pass away into nothing 7fr4 #ab72 what is is1 and there is no room for coming into being and passing away 7fr4 #h74 ,further1 ,aristotle tells us1 he taught that they were unchangeable4#ehd ,this ,empedokles expressed by saying that 8they are what they are0 7frs4 #ag1 #cd2 #ba1 #ac71 and are 8always alike40 ,again1 they are all 8equal10 a statement which seemed strange to ,aristotle1#ehe but was quite intelligible in the days of ,empedokles4 ,above all1 the elements are ultimate4 ,all other bodies1 as ,aristotle puts it1 might be divided till you came to the elements2 but ,empedokles could give no further account of these without saying 7as he did not7 that there is an element of which ,fire and the rest are in turn composed4#ehf ,footnote #ehd3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a4 #cbi b #a4 ,footnote #ehe3 ,ibid4 1 #f4 #ccc a #af4 ,footnote #ehf3 ,ibid4 1 #h4 #cbe b #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #afd e74 ,this was so completely misunderstood by later writers that they actually attribute to ,empedokles the doctrine of 7,aet4 #a4 #ac1 #a2 #ag1 #c74 ,the criticism of the ,pythagoreans and ,plato had made the hypothesis of elements almost unintelligible to ,aristotle1 and a fortiori to his successors4 ,as ,plato put it 7,tim4 #dh b #h71 they were 8not even syllables10 let alone 8letters0 774 ,that is why ,aristotle1 who derived them from something more primary1 calls them 7,diels1 ,elementum1 p4 #be74 ,the 8four roots0 are given as an exhaustive enumeration of the elements 7fr4 #bc sub fin472 for they account for all the qualities presented by the world to the senses4 ,when we find1 as we do1 that the school of medicine which regarded ,empedokles as its founder identified the four elements with the 8opposites10 the hot and the cold1 the moist and the dry1 which formed the theoretical foundation of its system1 we see at once how the theory is related to previous views of reality4#ehg ,to put it shortly1 what ,empedokles did was to take the opposites of ,anaximander and to declare that they were 8things10 each of which was real in the ,parmenidean sense4 ,we must remember that the conception of quality had not yet been formed4 ,anaximander had no doubt regarded his 8opposites0 as things2 though1 before the time of ,parmenides1 no one had fully realised how much was implied in saying that anything is a thing4 ,that is the stage we have now reached4 ,there is still no conception of quality1 but there is a clear apprehension of what is involved in saying that a thing is4 ,footnote #ehg3 ,we know from ,menon that ,philistion put the matter in this way4 ,see p4 #bce1 n4 #ebg4 ,aristotle twice#ehh makes the statement that1 though ,empedokles assumes four elements1 he treats them as two1 opposing ,fire to all the rest4 ,this1 he says1 we can see for ourselves from his poem4 ,so far as the general theory of the elements goes1 it is impossible to see anything of the sort2 but1 when we come to the origin of the world 7 #aab71 we shall find that ,fire certainly plays a leading part1 and this may be what ,aristotle meant4 ,it is also true that in the biology 7 #aad-aaf7 ,fire fulfils a unique function1 while the other three act more or less in the same way4 ,but we must remember that it has no pre-eminence over the rest3 all are equal4 ,footnote #ehh3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe a #ca2 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #c4 #ccj b #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #afd e74 ,sidenote3 ,strife and ,love4 #ajh4 ,the ,eleatic criticism had made it necessary for subsequent thinkers to explain motion4#ehi ,empedokles starts1 as we have seen1 from an original state of the 8four roots10 which only differs from the ,sphere of ,parmenides in so far as it is a mixture1 not a homogeneous and continuous mass4 ,the fact that it is a mixture makes change and motion possible2 but1 were there nothing outside the ,sphere which could enter in1 like the ,pythagorean 8,air10 to separate the four elements1 nothing could ever arise from it4 ,empedokles accordingly assumed the existence of such a substance1 and he gave it the name of ,strife4 ,but the effect of this would be to separate all the elements in the ,sphere completely1 and then nothing more could possibly happen2 something else was needed to bring the elements together again4 ,this ,empedokles found in ,love1 which he regarded as the same impulse to union that is implanted in human bodies 7fr4 #ag1 #bb sqq474 ,he looks at it1 in fact1 from a purely physiological point of view1 as was natural for the founder of a medical school4 ,no mortal had yet marked1 he says1 that the very same ,love which men know in their bodies had a place among the elements4 ,footnote #ehi3 ,cf4 ,introd4 ,,viii4 ,it is important to observe that the ,love and ,strife of ,empedokles are no incorporeal forces1 but corporeal elements like the other four4 ,at the time1 this was inevitable2 nothing incorporeal had yet been dreamt of4 ,naturally1 ,aristotle is puzzled by this characteristic of what he regarded as efficient causes4 8,the ,love of ,empedokles10 he says#eij 8is both an efficient cause1 for it brings things together1 and a material cause1 for it is a part of the mixture40 ,and ,theophrastos expressed the same idea by saying#eia that ,empedokles sometimes gave an efficient power to ,love and ,strife1 and sometimes put them on a level with the other four4 ,the verses of ,empedokles himself leave no room for doubt that the two were thought of as spatial and corporeal4 ,all the six are called 8equal40 ,love is said to be 8equal in length and breadth0 to the others1 and ,strife is described as equal to each of them in weight 7fr4 #ag74 ,footnote #eij3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #aj4 #ajge b #c4 ,footnote #eia3 ,theophr4 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #c 7,dox4 p4 #dgg72 ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #be1 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #aff b74 ,the function of ,love is to produce union2 that of ,strife1 to break it up again4 ,aristotle1 however1 rightly points out that in another sense it is ,love that divides and ,strife that unites4 ,when the ,sphere is broken up by ,strife1 the result is that all the ,fire1 for instance1 which was contained in it comes together and becomes one2 and again1 when the elements are brought together once more by ,love1 the mass of each is divided4 ,in another place1 he says that1 while ,strife is assumed as the cause of destruction1 and does1 in fact1 destroy the ,sphere1 it really gives birth to everything else in so doing4#eib ,it follows that we must carefully distinguish between the ,love of ,empedokles and that 8attraction of like for like0 to which he also attributed an important part in the formation of the world4 ,the latter is not an element distinct from the others2 it depends1 we shall see1 on the proper nature of each element1 and is only able to take effect when ,strife divides the ,sphere4 ,love1 on the contrary1 is something that comes from outside and produces an attraction of unlikes4 ,footnote #eib3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe a #ba2 1 #d4 #ajjj a #bd2 b #i 7,r4 ,p4 #aff i74 ,sidenote3 ,mixture and separation4 #aji4 ,but1 when ,strife has once separated the elements1 what is it that determines the direction of their motion8 ,empedokles seems to have given no further explanation than that each was 8running0 in a certain direction 7fr4 #ec74 ,plato severely condemns this in the ,laws1#eic on the ground that no room is thus left for design4 ,aristotle also blames him for giving no account of the ,chance to which he ascribed so much importance4 ,nor is the ,necessity1 of which he also spoke1 further explained4#eid ,strife enters into the ,sphere at a certain time in virtue of ,necessity1 or 8the mighty oath0 7fr4 #cj72 but we are left in the dark as to the origin of this4 ,footnote #eic3 ,plato1 ,laws1 x4 #hhi b4 ,the reference is not to ,empedokles exclusively1 but the language shows that ,plato is thinking mainly of him4 ,footnote #eid3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #f4 #ccd a #a2 ,phys4 1 #a4 #beb a #e 7,r4 ,p4 #aff k74 ,the expression used by ,empedokles to describe the movement of the elements is that they 8run through each other0 7fr4 #ag1 #cd74 ,aristotle tells us#eie that he explained mixture in general by 8the symmetry of pores40 ,and this is the true explanation of the 8attraction of like for like40 ,the 8pores0 of like bodies are1 of course1 much the same size1 and these bodies can therefore mingle easily4 ,on the other hand1 a finer body will 8run through0 a coarse one without becoming mixed1 and a coarse body will not be able to enter into the pores of a finer one at all4 ,it will be observed that1 as ,aristotle says1 this really implies something like the atomic theory2 but there is no evidence that ,empedokles himself was conscious of that4 ,another question raised by ,aristotle is even more instructive4 ,are the pores1 he asks1 empty or full8 ,if empty1 what becomes of the denial of the void8 ,if full1 why need we assume pores at all8#eif ,these questions ,empedokles would have found it hard to answer4 ,they point to a real want of thoroughness in his system1 and mark it as a mere stage in the transition from ,monism to ,atomism4 ,footnote #eie3 ,ibid4 1 #h4 #cbd b #cd 7,r4 ,p4 #aff h74 ,footnote #eif3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 #cbf b #f4 ,sidenote3 ,the four periods4 #aaj4 ,it will be clear from all this that we must distinguish four periods in the cycle4 ,first we have the ,sphere1 in which all the elements are mixed together by ,love4 ,secondly1 there is the period when ,love is passing out and ,strife coming in1 when1 therefore1 the elements are partially separated and partially combined4 ,thirdly1 comes the complete separation of the elements1 when ,love is outside the world1 and ,strife has given free play to the attraction of like for like4 ,lastly1 we have the period when ,love is bringing the elements together again1 and ,strife is passing out4 ,this brings us back in time to the ,sphere1 and the cycle begins afresh4 ,now a world such as ours can exist only in the second and fourth of these periods2 and it is clear that1 if we are to understand ,empedokles1 we must discover in which of these we now are4 ,it seems to be generally supposed that we are in the fourth period2#eig ,i hope to show that we are really in the second1 that when ,strife is gaining the upper hand4 ,footnote #eig3 ,this is the view of ,zeller 7pp4 #ghe sqq471 but he admits that the external testimony1 especially that of ,aristotle1 is wholly in favour of the other4 ,his difficulty is with the fragments1 and if it can be shown that these can be interpreted in accordance with ,aristotle's statements1 the question is settled4 ,aristotle was specially interested in ,empedokles1 and was not likely to misrepresent him on such a point4 ,sidenote3 ,our world the work of ,strife4 #aaa4 ,that a world of perishable things arises both in the second and fourth period is distinctly stated by ,empedokles 7fr4 #ag71 and it is inconceivable that he himself had not made up his mind which of these worlds is ours4 ,aristotle is clearly of opinion that it is the world which arises when ,strife is increasing4 ,in one place1 he says that ,empedokles 8holds that the world is in a similar condition now in the period of ,strife as formerly in that of ,love40#eih ,in another1 he tell us that ,empedokles omits the generation of things in the period of ,love1 just because it is unnatural to represent this world1 in which the elements are separate1 as arising from things in a state of separation4#eii ,this remark can only mean that the scientific theories contained in the poem of ,empedokles assumed the increase of ,strife1 or1 in other words1 that they represented the course of evolution as the disintegration of the ,sphere1 not as the gradual coming together of things from a state of separation4#fjj ,that is only what we should expect1 if we are right in supposing that the problem he set himself to solve was the origin of this world from the ,sphere of ,parmenides1 and it is also in harmony with the universal tendency of such speculations to represent the world as getting worse rather than better4 ,we have only to consider1 then1 whether the details of the system bear out this general view4 ,footnote #eih3 ,arist de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #f4 #ccd a #f3 4 ,footnote #eii3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #b4 #cja a #ad3 4 1 78our world consists of the elements in a state of separation071 ' 4 ,footnote #fjj3 ,it need not mean that ,empedokles said nothing about the world of ,love at all2 for he obviously says something of both worlds in fr4 #ag4 ,it is enough to suppose that1 having described both in general terms1 he went on to treat the world of ,strife in detail4 ,sidenote3 ,formation of the world by ,strife4 #aab4 ,to begin with the ,sphere1 in which the 8four roots of all things0 are mixed together1 we note in the first place that it is called a god in the fragments just as the elements are1 and that ,aristotle more than once refers to it in the same way4#fja ,we must remember that ,love itself is a part of this mixture1#fjb while ,strife surrounds or encompasses it on every side just as the ,boundless encompasses the world in earlier systems4 ,strife1 however1 is not boundless1 but equal in bulk to each of the four roots and to ,love4 ,footnote #fja3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #f4 #ccc b #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #afh e72 ,met4 1 #d4 #ajjj a #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #aff i74 ,cf4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aabd1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #afg b74 ,in other places ,aristotle speaks of it as 8the ,one40 ,cf4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a4 #cae a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #afh e72 ,met4 1 #d4 #ajjj a #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #aff i72 1 #d4 #ihe a #bh 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,this1 however1 involves a slight ,aristotelian 8development40 ,it is not quite the same thing to say1 as ,empedokles does1 that all things come together 8into one10 and to say that they come together 8into the ,one40 ,the latter expression suggests that they lose their distinct and proper character in the ,sphere1 and thus become something like ,aristotle's own 8matter40 ,as has been pointed out 7p4 #bfe1 n4 #ehf71 it is hard for ,aristotle to grasp the conception of irreducible elements2 but there can be no doubt that in the ,sphere1 as in their separation1 the elements remain 8what they are0 for ,empedokles4 ,as ,aristotle also knows quite well1 the ,sphere is a mixture4 ,compare the difficulties about the 8,one0 of ,anaximander discussed in ,chap4 ,i4 #ae4 ,footnote #fjb3 ,this accounts for ,aristotle's statement1 which he makes once positively 7,met4 1 #a4 #iif a #g7 and once very doubtfully 7,met4 1 #d4 #ajja a #ab71 that ,love was the substratum of the ,one in just the same sense as the ,fire of ,herakleitos1 the ,air of ,anaximenes1 or the ,water of ,thales4 ,he thinks that all the elements become merged in ,love1 and so lose their identity4 ,in this case1 it is in ,love he recognises his own 8matter40 ,at the appointed time1 ,strife begins to enter into the ,sphere and ,love to go out of it 7frs4 #cj1 #ca74 ,the fragments by themselves throw little light on this2 but ,aetios and the ,plutarchean ,stromateis have between them preserved a very fair tradition of what ,theophrastos said on the point4 ,empedokles held that ,air was first separated out and secondly ,fire4 ,next came ,earth1 from which1 highly compressed as it was by the impetus of its revolution1 ,water gushed forth4 ,from the water ,mist was produced by evaporation4 ,the heavens were formed out of the ,air and the sun out of the ,fire1 while terrestrial things were condensed from the other elements4 ,aet4 ii4 #f4 #c 7,dox4 p4 #ccd2 ,r4 ,p4 #agj74 ,empedokles held that the ,air when separated off from the original mixture of the elements was spread round in a circle4 ,after the ,air1 ,fire running outwards1 and not finding any other place1 ran up under the solid that surrounded the ,air4#fjc ,there were two hemispheres revolving round the earth1 the one altogether composed of fire1 the other of a mixture of air and a little fire4 ,the latter he supposed to be the ,night4 ,the origin of their motion he derived from the fact of fire preponderating in one hemisphere owing to its accumulation there4 ,ps4-,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #aj 7,dox4 p4 #ehb2 ,r4 ,p4 #agj a74 ,footnote #fjc3 ,for the phrase cf4 1 i4 #aj1 #a1 4 ,et4 ,m4 s4v4 444 4 ,this probably comes ultimately from ,anaximenes4 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #hb1 n4 #afb4 ,the first of the elements to be separated out by ,strife1 then1 was ,air1 which took the outermost position surrounding the world 7cf4 fr4 #ch74 ,we must not1 however1 take the statement that it surrounded the world 8in a circle0 too strictly4 ,it appears that ,empedokles regarded the heavens as shaped like an egg4#fjd ,here1 probably1 we have a trace of ,orphic ideas4 ,at any rate1 the outer circle of the ,air became solidified or frozen1 and we thus get a crystalline vault as the boundary of the world4 ,we note that it was ,fire which solidified the ,air and turned it to ice4 ,fire in general had a solidifying power4#fje ,footnote #fjd3 ,aet4 ii4 #ca1 #d 7,dox4 p4 #cfc74 ,footnote #fje3 ,aet4 ii4 #aa1 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #agj c74 ,in its upward rush ,fire displaced a portion of the ,air in the upper half of the concave sphere formed by the frozen sky4 ,this air then sunk downwards1 carrying with it a small portion of the fire4 ,in this way1 two hemispheres were produced3 one1 consisting entirely of fire1 the diurnal hemisphere2 the other1 the nocturnal1 consisting of air with a little fire4 ,the accumulation of ,fire in the upper hemisphere disturbs the equilibrium of the heavens and causes them to revolve2 and this revolution not only produces the alternation of day and night1 but by its rapidity keeps the heavens and the earth in their places4 ,this was illustrated1 ,aristotle tells us1 by the simile of a cup of water whirled round at the end of a string4#fjf ,the verses which contained this remarkable account of so-called 8centrifugal force0 have been lost2 but the experimental illustration is in the manner of ,empedokles4 ,sidenote3 ,the sun1 moon1 stars1 and earth4 #aac4 ,it will be observed that day and night have been explained without reference to the sun4 ,day is produced by the light of the fiery diurnal hemisphere1 while night is the shadow thrown by the earth when the fiery hemisphere is on the other side of it 7fr4 #dh74 ,what1 then1 is the sun8 ,the ,plutarchean ,stromateis#fjg again give us the answer3 8,the sun is not fire in substance1 but a reflexion of fire like that which comes from water40 ,plutarch himself makes one of his personages say3 8,you laugh at ,empedokles for saying that the sun is a product of the earth1 arising from the reflexion of the light of heaven1 and once more #8flashes back to ,olympos with untroubled countenance4'0#fjh ,aetios says3#fji 8,empedokles held that there were two suns3 one1 the archetype1 the fire in one hemisphere of the world1 filling the whole hemisphere always stationed opposite its own reflexion2 the other1 the visible sun1 its reflexion in the other hemisphere1 that which is filled with air mingled with fire1 produced by the reflexion of the earth1 which is round1 on the crystalline sun1 and carried round by the motion of the fiery hemisphere4 ,or1 to sum it up shortly1 the sun is a reflexion of the terrestrial fire40 ,footnote #fjf3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bie a #af 7,r4 ,p4 #agj b74 ,the experiment with 1 which 1 reminds us of the experiment with the klepsydra in fr4 #ajj4 ,footnote #fjg3 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #aj 7,dox4 p4 #ehb1 #aa2 ,r4 ,p4 #agj c74 ,footnote #fjh3 ,plut4 de ,pyth4 ,or4 #djj b 7,r4 ,p4 #agj c74 ,we must keep the ,,ms4 reading with ,bernardakis and ,diels4 ,the reading in ,r4 ,p4 is a conjecture of ,wyttenbach's2 but cf4 ,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #ac1 quoted in the next note4 ,footnote #fji3 ,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #ac 7,dox4 p4 #cej71 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 4 1 4 ,these passages1 and especially the last1 are by no means clear4 ,the reflexion which we call the sun cannot be in the hemisphere opposite to the fiery one2 for that is the nocturnal hemisphere4 ,we must say rather that the light of the fiery hemisphere is reflected by the earth on to the fiery hemisphere itself in one concentrated flash4 ,from this it follows that the appearance which we call the sun is the same size as the earth4 ,we may explain the origin of this view as follows4 ,it had just been discovered that the moon shone by reflected light1 and there is always a tendency to give any novel theory a wider application than it really admits of4 ,in the early part of the fifth century ,b4,c41 men saw reflected light everywhere2 the ,pythagoreans held a very similar view1 and when we come to them1 we shall see why ,aetios1 or rather his source1 expresses it by speaking of 8two suns40 ,it was probably in this connexion that ,empedokles announced that light takes some time to travel1 though its speed is so great as to escape our perception4#faj 8,the moon10 we are told1 8was composed of air cut off by the fire2 it was frozen just like hail1 and had its light from the sun40 ,it is1 in other words1 a disc of frozen air1 of the same substance as the solid sky which surrounds the heavens4 ,diogenes says that ,empedokles taught it was smaller than the sun1 and ,aetios tells us it was only half as distant from the earth4#faa ,empedokles did not attempt to explain the fixed stars by reflected light1 nor even the planets4 ,they were fiery1 made out of the fire which the air carried with it when forced beneath the earth by the upward rush of fire at the first separation1 as we saw above4 ,the fixed stars were attached to the frozen air2 the planets moved freely4#fab ,empedokles was acquainted 7fr4 #db7 with the true theory of solar eclipses1 which1 along with that of the moon's light1 was the great discovery of this period4 ,he also knew 7fr4 #dh7 that night is the conical shadow of the earth1 and not a sort of exhalation4 ,wind was explained from the opposite motions of the fiery and airy hemispheres4 ,rain was caused by the compression of the ,air1 which forced any water there might be in it out of its pores in the form of drops4 ,lightning was fire forced out from the clouds in much the same way4#fac ,footnote #faj3 ,arist4 de ,sensu1 #f4 #ddf a #bh2 de ,an4 1 #g4 #dah b #bj4 ,footnote #faa3 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #aj 7,dox4 p4 #ehb1 #ab2 ,r4 ,p4 #agj c72 ,diog4 viii4 #gg2 ,aet4 ii4 #ca1 #a 7cf4 ,dox4 p4 #fc74 ,footnote #fab3 ,aet4 ii4 #ac1 #b and #aa 7,dox4 pp4 #cda sqq474 ,footnote #fac3 ,aet4 iii4 #c1 #g2 ,arist4 ,meteor4 1 #i4 #cfi b #ab1 with ,alexander's commentary4 ,the earth was at first mixed with water1 but the increasing compression caused by the velocity of the world's revolution made the water gush forth1 so that the sea is called 8the sweat of the earth10 a phrase to which ,aristotle objects as a mere poetical metaphor4 ,the saltness of the sea was explained by the help of this analogy4#fad ,footnote #fad3 ,arist4 ,meteor4 1 #c4 #ceg a #bd2 ,aet4 iii4 #af1 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #agj b74 ,cf4 the clear reference in ,arist4 ,meteor4 1 #a4 #cec b #aa4 ,sidenote3 ,organic combinations4 #aad4 ,empedokles went on to show how the four elements1 mingled in different proportions1 gave rise to perishable things1 such as bones1 flesh1 and the like4 ,these1 of course1 are the work of ,love2 but this in no way contradicts the view taken above as to the period of evolution to which this world belongs4 ,love is by no means banished from the world yet1 though one day it will be4 ,at present1 it is still able to form combinations of elements2 but1 just because ,strife is ever increasing1 they are all perishable4 ,the possibility of organic combinations depends upon the fact that there is still water in the earth1 and even fire 7fr4 #eb74 ,the warm springs of ,sicily were a proof of this1 not to speak of ,etna4 ,these springs ,empedokles appears to have explained by one of his characteristic images1 drawn this time from the heating of warm baths4#fae ,it will be noted that his similes are nearly all drawn from human inventions and manufactures4 ,footnote #fae3 ,seneca1 ,q4 ,nat4 iii4 #bd3 8facere solemus dracones et miliaria et complures formas in quibus aere tenui fistulas struimus per declive circumdatas1 ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat spatii quantum efficiendo calori sat est4 frigida itaque intrat1 effluit calida4 idem sub terra ,empedocles existimat fieri40 ,sidenote3 ,plants4 #aae4 ,plants and animals were formed from the four elements under the influence of ,love and ,strife4 ,the fragments which deal with trees and plants are #gg-ha2 and these1 taken along with certain ,aristotelian statements and the doxographical tradition1 enable us to make out pretty fully what the theory was4 ,the text of ,aetios is very corrupt here2 but it may1 perhaps1 be rendered as follows3-- ,empedokles says that trees were the first living creatures to grow up out of the earth1 before the sun was spread out1 and before day and night were distinguished2 that1 from the symmetry of their mixture1 they contain the proportion of male and female2 that they grow1 rising up owing to the heat which is in the earth1 so that they are parts of the earth just as embryos are parts of the uterus2 that fruits are excretions of the water and fire in plants1 and that those which have a deficiency of moisture shed their leaves when that is evaporated by the summer heat1 while those which have more moisture remain evergreen1 as in the case of the laurel1 the olive1 and the palm2 that the differences in taste are due to variations in the particles contained in the earth and to the plants drawing different particles from it1 as in the case of vines2 for it is not the difference of the vines that makes wine good1 but that of the soil which nourishes them4 ,aet4 v4 #bf1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #agb74 ,aristotle finds fault with ,empedokles for explaining the double growth of plants1 upwards and downwards1 by the opposite natural motions of the earth and fire contained in them4#faf ,for 8natural motions0 we must1 of course1 substitute the attraction of like for like 7 #aji74 ,theophrastos says much the same thing4#fag ,the growth of plants1 then1 is to be regarded as an incident in that separation of the elements which ,strife is bringing about4 ,some of the fire which is still beneath the earth 7fr4 #eb7 meeting in its upward course with earth1 still moist with water and 8running0 down so as to 8reach its own kind10 unites with it1 under the influence of the ,love still left in the world1 to form a temporary combination1 which we call a tree or a plant4 ,footnote #faf3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #d4 #dae b #bh4 ,footnote #fag3 ,theophr4 de causis plantarum1 i4 #ab1 #e4 ,at the beginning of the pseudo-,aristotelian ,treatise on ,plants1#fah we are told that ,empedokles attributed desire1 sensation1 and the capacity for pleasure and pain to plants1 and he rightly saw that the two sexes are combined in them4 ,this is mentioned by ,aetios1 and discussed in the pseudo-,aristotelian treatise4 ,if we may so far trust that ,byzantine translation from a ,latin version of the ,arabic1#fai we get a most valuable hint as to the reason4 ,plants1 we are there told1 came into being 8in an imperfect state of the world10#fbj in fact1 at a time when ,strife had not so far prevailed as to differentiate the sexes4 ,we shall see that the same thing applies to the original race of animals in this world4 ,it is strange that ,empedokles never observed the actual process of generation in plants1 but confined himself to the statement that they spontaneously 8bore eggs0 7fr4 #gi71 that is to say1 fruit4 ,footnote #fah3 ,arist4 de plantis1 1 #a4 #hae a #ae4 ,footnote #fai3 ,alfred the ,englishman translated the ,arabic version into ,latin in the reign of ,henry ,,iii4 ,it was retranslated from this version into ,greek at the ,renaissance by a ,greek resident in ,italy4 ,footnote #fbj3 1 #b4 #hag b #ce1 8mundo 444 diminuto et non perfecto in complemento suo0 7,alfred74 ,sidenote3 ,evolution of animals4 #aaf4 ,the fragments which deal with the evolution of animals 7#eg-fb7 must be understood in the light of the statement 7fr4 #ag7 that there is a double coming into being and a double passing away of mortal things4 ,empedokles describes two processes of evolution1 which take exactly opposite courses1 one of them belonging to the period of ,love and the other to that of ,strife4 ,the four stages of this double evolution are accurately distinguished in a passage of ,aetios1#fba and we shall see that there is evidence for referring two of them to the second period of the world's history and two to the fourth4 ,footnote #fba3 ,aet4 v4 #ai1 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #agc74 ,plato has made use of the idea of reversed evolution in the ,politicus myth4 ,the first stage is that in which the various parts of animals arise separately4 ,it is that of heads without necks1 arms without shoulders1 and eyes without foreheads 7fr4 #eg74 ,it is clear that this must be the first stage in what we have called the fourth period of the world's history1 that in which ,love is coming in and ,strife passing out4 ,aristotle distinctly refers it to the period of ,love1 by which1 as we have seen1 he means the period when ,love is increasing4#fbb ,it is in accordance with this that he also says these scattered members were subsequently put together by ,love4#fbc ,footnote #fbb3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #b4 #cjj b #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #agc a74 ,cf4 de ,gen4 ,an4 1 #ag4 #gbb b #ag1 where fr4 #eg is introduced by the words 4 ,simplicius1 de ,caelo1 p4 #ehg1 #ah1 expresses the same thing by saying 4 ,footnote #fbc3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #f4 #dcj a #cj 7,r4 ,p4 #agc a74 ,the second stage is that in which the scattered limbs are united4 ,at first1 they were combined in all possible ways 7fr4 #ei74 ,there were oxen with human heads1 creatures with double faces and double breasts1 and all manner of monsters 7fr4 #fa74 ,those of them that were fitted to survive did so1 while the rest perished4 ,that is how the evolution of animals took place in the period of ,love4#fbd ,footnote #fbd3 ,this is well put by ,simplicius1 de ,caelo1 p4 #ehg1 #bj4 ,it is 444 1 1 ' 4 ,in ,phys4 p4 #cga1 #cc1 he says the oxen with human heads were 4 ,the third stage belongs to the period when the unity of the ,sphere is being destroyed by ,strife4 ,it is1 therefore1 the first stage in the evolution of our present world4 ,it begins with 8whole-natured forms0 in which there is not as yet any distinction of sex or species4#fbe ,they are composed of earth and water1 and are produced by the upward motion of fire which is seeking to reach its like4 ,footnote #fbe3 ,cf4 ,plato1 ,symp4 #ahi e4 ,in the fourth stage1 the sexes and species have been separated1 and new animals no longer arise from the elements1 but are produced by generation4 ,we shall see presently how ,empedokles conceived this to operate4 ,in both these processes of evolution1 ,empedokles was guided by the idea of the survival of the fittest4 ,aristotle severely criticises this4 8,we may suppose10 he says1 8that all things have fallen out accidentally just as they would have done if they had been produced for some end4 ,certain things have been preserved because they had spontaneously acquired a fitting structure1 while those which were not so put together have perished and are perishing1 as ,empedokles says of the oxen with human faces40#fbf ,this1 according to ,aristotle1 leaves too much to chance4 ,one curious instance has been preserved4 ,vertebration was explained by saying that an early invertebrate animal tried to turn round and broke its back in so doing4 ,this was a favourable variation and so survived4#fbg ,it should be noted that it clearly belongs to the period of ,strife1 and not1 like the oxen with human heads1 to that of ,love4 ,the survival of the fittest was the law of both processes of evolution4 ,footnote #fbf3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #h4 #aih b #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #agc a74 ,footnote #fbg3 ,arist4 de ,part4 ,an4 1 #a4 #fdj a #ai4 #aag4 ,the distinction of the sexes was an important result of the gradual differentiation brought about by the entrance of ,strife into the world4 ,empedokles differed from the theory given by ,parmenides in his ,second ,part 7 #ie7 in holding that the warm element preponderated in the male sex1 and that males were conceived in the warmer part of the uterus 7fr4 #fe74 ,the ftus was formed partly from the male and partly from the female semen 7fr4 #fc72 and it was just the fact that the substance of a new being's body was divided between the male and the female that produced desire when the two were brought together by sight 7fr4 #fd74 ,a certain symmetry of the pores in the male and female semen is1 of course1 necessary for procreation1 and from its absence ,empedokles explained the sterility of mules4 ,the children most resemble that parent who contributed most to their formation4 ,the influence of statues and pictures was also noted1 however1 as modifying the appearance of the offspring4 ,twins and triplets were due to a superabundance and division of the semen4#fbh ,footnote #fbh3 ,aet4 v4 #aj1 #a2 #aa1 #a2 #ab1 #b2 #ad1 #b4 ,cf4 ,fredrich1 ,hippokratische ,untersuchungen1 pp4 #abf sqq4 ,as to the growth of the ftus in the uterus1 ,empedokles held that it was enveloped in a membrane1 and that its formation began on the thirty-sixth day and was completed on the forty-ninth4 ,the heart was formed first1 the nails and such things last4 ,respiration did not begin till the time of birth1 when the fluids round the ftus were withdrawn4 ,birth took place in the ninth or seventh month1 because the day had been originally nine months long1 and afterwards seven4 ,milk arises on the tenth day of the eighth month 7fr4 #fh74fbi ,death was the final separation by ,strife of the fire and earth in the body1 each of which had all along been striving to 8reach its own kind40 ,sleep was a temporary separation to a certain extent of the fiery element4#fcj ,at death the animal is resolved into its elements1 which perhaps enter into fresh combinations1 perhaps become permanently united with 8their own kind40 ,there can be no question here of an immortal soul4 ,even in life1 we may see the attraction of like to like operating in animals just as it did in the upward and downward growth of plants4 ,hair is the same thing as foliage 7fr4 #hb72 and1 generally speaking1 the fiery part of animals tends upwards and the earthy part downwards1 though there are exceptions1 as may be seen in the case of certain shell-fish 7fr4 #gf71 where the earthy part is above4 ,these exceptions are only possible because there is still a great deal of ,love in the world4 ,we also see the attraction of like for like in the different habits of the various species of animals4 ,those that have most fire in them fly up into the air2 those in which earth preponderates take to the earth1 as did the dog which always sat upon a tile4#fca ,aquatic animals are those in which water predominates4 ,this does not1 however1 apply to fishes1 which are very fiery1 and take to the water to cool themselves4#fcb ,footnote #fbi3 ,aet4 v4 #ae1 #c2 #ba1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #aij74 ,footnote #fcj3 ,aet4 v4 #be1 #d 7,dox4 p4 #dcg74 ,footnote #fca3 ,aet4 v4 #ai1 #e 7,dox4 p4 #dca74 ,cf4 ,eth4 ,eud4 1 #a4 #abce a #aa4 ,footnote #fcb3 ,arist4 de ,respir4 #ad4 #dgg a #cb2 ,theophr4 de causis plant4 i4 #ba4 ,empedokles paid great attention to the subject of respiration1 and his very ingenious explanation of it has been preserved in a continuous form 7fr4 #ajj74 ,we breathe1 he held1 through all the pores of the skin1 not merely through the organs of respiration4 ,the cause of the alternate inspiration and expiration of the breath was the movement of the blood from the heart to the surface of the body and back again1 which was explained by the klepsydra4 ,the nutrition and growth of animals is1 of course1 to be explained from the attraction of like to like4 ,each part of the body has pores into which the appropriate food will fit4 ,pleasure and pain were derived from the absence or presence of like elements1 that is1 of nourishment which would fit the pores4 ,tears and sweat arose from a disturbance which curdled the blood2 they were1 so to say1 the whey of the blood4#fcc ,footnote #fcc3 ,nutrition1 ,aet4 v4 #bg1 #a2 pleasure and pain1 ,aet4 iv4 #i1 #ae2 v4 #bh1 #a2 tears and sweat1 v4 #bb1 #a4 ,sidenote3 ,perception4 #aah4 ,for the theory of perception held by ,empedokles we have the original words of ,theophrastos3-- ,empedokles speaks in the same way of all the senses1 and says that perception is due to the 8effluences0 fitting into the passages of each sense4 ,and that is why one cannot judge the objects of another2 for the passages of some of them are too wide and those of others too narrow for the sensible object1 so that the latter either goes through without touching or cannot enter at all4 ,r4 ,p4 #agg b4 ,he tries1 too1 to explain the nature of sight4 ,he says that the interior of the eye consists of fire1 while round about it is earth and air1#fcd through which its rarity enables the fire to pass like the light in lanterns 7fr4 #hd74 ,the passages of the fire and water are arranged alternately2 through those of the fire we perceive light objects1 through those of the water1 dark2 each class of objects fits into each class of passages1 and the colours are carried to the sight by effluence4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 ,but eyes are not all composed in the same way2 some are composed of like elements and some of opposite2 some have the fire in the centre and some on the outside4 ,that is why some animals are keen-sighted by day and others by night4 ,those which have less fire are keen-sighted in the daytime1 for the fire within is brought up to an equality by that without2 those which have less of the opposite 7i4e4 water71 by night1 for then their deficiency is supplemented4 ,but1 in the opposite case1 each will behave in the opposite manner4 ,those eyes in which fire predominates will be dazzled in the daytime1 since the fire being still further increased will stop up and occupy the pores of the water4 ,those in which water predominates will1 he says1 suffer the same at night1 for the fire will be obstructed by the water4 ,and this goes on till the water is separated off by the air1 for in each case it is the opposite which is a remedy4 ,the best tempered and the most excellent vision is one composed of both in equal proportions4 ,this is practically what he says about sight4 ,hearing1 he holds1 is produced by sound outside1 when the air moved by the voice sounds inside the ear2 for the sense of hearing is a sort of bell sounding inside the ear1 which he calls a 8fleshy sprout40 ,when the air is set in motion it strikes upon the solid parts and produces a sound4#fce ,smell1 he holds1 arises from respiration1 and that is why those smell most keenly whose breath has the most violent motion1 and why most smell comes from subtle and light bodies4#fcf ,as to touch and taste1 he does not lay down how nor by means of what they arise1 except that he gives us an explanation applicable to all1 that sensation is produced by adaptation to the pores4 ,pleasure is produced by what is like in its elements and their mixture2 pain1 by what is opposite4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 ,and he gives a precisely similar account of thought and ignorance4 ,thought arises from what is like and ignorance from what is unlike1 thus implying that thought is the same1 or nearly the same1 as perception4 ,for after enumerating how we know each thing by means of itself1 he adds1 8for all things are fashioned and fitted together out of these1 and it is by these men think and feel pleasure and pain0 7fr4 #ajg74 ,and for this reason we think chiefly with our blood1 for in it of all parts of the body all the elements are most completely mingled4 ,r4 ,p4 #agh4 ,all1 then1 in whom the mixture is equal or nearly so1 and in whom the elements are neither at too great intervals nor too small or too large1 are the wisest and have the most exact perceptions2 and those who come next to them are wise in proportion4 ,those who are in the opposite condition are the most foolish4 ,those whose elements are separated by intervals and rare are dull and laborious2 those in whom they are closely packed and broken into minute particles are impulsive1 they attempt many things and finish few because of the rapidity with which their blood moves4 ,those who have a well-proportioned mixture in some one part of their bodies will be clever in that respect4 ,that is why some are good orators and some good artificers4 ,the latter have a good mixture in their hands1 and the former in their tongues1 and so with all other special capacities4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 ,footnote #fcd3 ,that is1 watery vapour1 not the elemental air or 7 #ajg74 ,it is identical with the 8water0 mentioned below4 ,it is unnecessary1 therefore1 to insert after with ,karsten and ,diels4 ,footnote #fce3 ,beare1 p4 #if1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #fcf3 ,ibid4 p4 #acc4 ,perception1 then1 is due to the meeting of an element in us with the same element outside4 ,this takes place when the pores of the organ of sense are neither too large nor too small for the 8effluences0 which all things are constantly giving off 7fr4 #hi74 ,smell was explained by respiration4 ,the breath drew in along with it the small particles which fit into the pores4 ,from ,aetios#fcg we learn that ,empedokles proved this by the example of people with a cold in their head1 who cannot smell1 just because they have a difficulty in breathing4 ,we also see from fr4 #aja that the scent of dogs was referred to in support of the theory4 ,empedokles seems to have given no detailed account of smell1 and did not refer to touch at all4#fch ,hearing was explained by the motion of the air which struck upon the cartilage inside the ear and made it swing and sound like a bell4#fci ,footnote #fcg3 ,aet4 iv4 #ag1 #b 7,dox4 p4 #djg74 ,beare1 p4 #acc4 ,footnote #fch3 ,beare1 pp4 #afa-c1 #ahj-ha4 ,footnote #fci3 ,ibid4 pp4 #ie sqq4 ,the theory of vision#fdj is more complicated2 and1 as ,plato adopted most of it1 it is of great importance in the history of philosophy4 ,the eye was conceived1 as by ,alkmaion 7 #if71fda to be composed of fire and water4 ,just as in a lantern the flame is protected from the wind by horn 7fr4 #hd71 so the fire in the iris is protected from the water which surrounds it in the pupil by membranes with very fine pores1 so that1 while the fire can pass out1 the water cannot get in4 ,sight is produced by the fire inside the eye going forth to meet the object4 ,this seems strange to us1 because we are accustomed to the idea of images being impressed upon the retina4 ,but looking at a thing no doubt seemed much more like an action proceeding from the eye than a mere passive state4 ,footnote #fdj3 ,ibid4 pp4 #ad sqq4 ,footnote #fda3 ,theophr4 de sens4 #bf4 ,he was quite aware1 too1 that 8effluences10 as he called them1 came from things to the eyes as well2 for he defined colours as 8effluences from forms 7or #8things'7 fitting into the pores and perceived40#fdb ,it is not quite clear how these two accounts of vision were reconciled1 or how far we are entitled to credit ,empedokles with the ,platonic theory4 ,the statements which have been quoted seem to imply something very like it4#fdc ,footnote #fdb3 ,the definition is quoted from ,gorgias in ,plato1 ,men4 #gf d #d4 ,all our ,,mss4 have 1 but ,ven4 ,t has in the margin 4 1 which may well be an old tradition4 ,the ,ionic for 8things0 is 4 ,see ,diels1 ,empedokles und ,gorgias1 p4 #dci4 ,footnote #fdc3 ,see ,beare1 ,elementary ,cognition1 p4 #ah4 ,theophrastos tells us that ,empedokles made no distinction between thought and perception1 a remark already made by ,aristotle4#fdd ,the chief seat of perception was the blood1 in which the four elements are most evenly mixed1 and especially the blood near the heart 7fr4 #aje74fde ,this does not1 however1 exclude the idea that other parts of the body may perceive also2 indeed1 ,empedokles held that all things have their share of thought 7fr4 #ajc74 ,but the blood was specially sensitive because of its finer mixture4#fdf ,from this it naturally follows that ,empedokles adopted the view1 already maintained in the ,second ,part of the poem of ,parmenides 7fr4 #af71 that our knowledge varies with the varying constitution of our bodies 7fr4 #ajf74 ,this consideration became very important later on as one of the foundations of scepticism2 but ,empedokles himself only drew from it the conclusion that we must make the best use we can of our senses1 and check one by the other 7fr4 #d74 ,footnote #fdd3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #c4 #dbg a #ba4 ,footnote #fde3 ,r4 ,p4 #agh a4 ,this was the characteristic doctrine of the ,sicilian school1 from whom it passed to ,aristotle and the ,stoics4 ,plato and ,hippokrates1 on the other hand1 adopted the view of ,alkmaion 7 #ig7 that the brain was the seat of consciousness4 ,kritias 7,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje b #f7 probably got the ,sicilian doctrine from ,gorgias4 ,at a later date1 ,philistion of ,syracuse1 ,plato's friend1 substituted the 78animal spirits07 which circulated along with the blood4 ,footnote #fdf3 ,beare1 p4 #bec4 ,sidenote3 ,theology and religion4 #aai4 ,the theoretical theology of ,empedokles reminds us of ,xenophanes1 his practical religious teaching of ,pythagoras and the ,orphics4 ,we are told in the earlier part of the poem that certain 8gods0 are composed of the elements2 and that therefore though they 8live long lives0 they must pass away 7fr4 #ba74 ,we have seen that the elements and the ,sphere are also called gods1 but that is in quite another sense of the word4 ,if we turn to the religious teaching of the ,purifications1 we find that everything turns on the doctrine of transmigration4 ,on the general significance of this enough has been said above 7 #db72 the details given by ,empedokles are peculiar4 ,according to a decree of ,necessity1 8daemons0 who have sinned are forced to wander from their home in heaven for three times ten thousand seasons 7fr4 #aae74 ,he himself is such an exiled divinity1 and has fallen from his high estate because he put his trust in raving ,strife4 ,the four elements toss him from one to the other with loathing2 and so he has not only been a human being and a plant1 but even a fish4 ,the only way to purify oneself from the taint of original sin was by the cultivation of ceremonial holiness1 by purifications1 and abstinence from animal flesh4 ,for the animals are our kinsmen 7fr4 #acg71 and it is parricide to lay hands on them4 ,in all this there are1 no doubt1 certain points of contact with the cosmology4 ,we have the 8mighty oath0 7fr4 #aae2 cf4 fr4 #cj71 the four elements1 ,hate as the source of original sin1 and ,kypris as queen in the ,golden ,age 7fr4 #abh74 ,but these points are neither fundamental nor of great importance4 ,and it cannot be denied that there are really contradictions between the two poems4 ,that1 however1 is just what we should expect to find4 ,all through this period1 there seems to have been a gulf between men's religious beliefs1 if they had any1 and their cosmological views4 ,the few points of contact which we have mentioned may have been sufficient to hide this from ,empedokles himself4 ,,chapter ,,vi ,,anaxagoras ,,of ,,klazomenai ,sidenote3 ,date4 #abj4 ,all that ,apollodoros tells us with regard to the date of ,anaxagoras seems to rest upon the authority of ,demetrios ,phalereus1 who said of him1 in the ,register of ,archons1 that he began to study philosophy1 at the age of twenty1 in the archonship of ,kallias or ,kalliades at ,athens 7#dhj-gi ,b4,c474#fdg ,this date was probably derived from a calculation based upon the philosopher's age at the time of his trial1 which ,demetrios had every opportunity of learning from sources no longer extant4 ,apollodoros inferred that ,anaxagoras was born in ,ol4 ,,lxx4 7#ejj-dif ,b4,c471 and he adds that he died at the age of seventy-two in ,ol4 ,,lxxxviii4 #a 7#dbh-bg ,b4,c474#fdh ,he doubtless thought it natural that he should not survive ,perikles1 and still more natural that he should die the year ,plato was born4#fdi ,we have a further statement1 of doubtful origin1 but probably due to ,demetrios also1 that ,anaxagoras lived at ,athens for thirty years4 ,this may be a genuine tradition2#fej and if so1 we get from about #dfb to #dcb ,b4,c4 as the time he lived there4 ,footnote #fdg3 ,diog4 ii4 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #adh71 with the perfectly certain emendation referred to ib4 #adh c4 ,the ,athens of #dhj ,b4,c4 would hardly be a suitable place to 8begin philosophising06 ,for the variation in the archon's name1 see ,jacoby1 p4 #bdd1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #fdh3 ,we must read with ,meursius to make the figures come right4 ,footnote #fdi3 ,on the statements of ,apollodoros1 see ,jacoby1 pp4 #bdd sqq4 ,footnote #fej3 ,diog41 loc4 cit4 ,in any case1 it is not a mere calculation of ,apollodoros's2 for he would certainly have made ,anaxagoras forty years old at the date of his arrival in ,athens1 and this would give at most twenty-eight years for his residence there4 ,the trial cannot have been later than #dcb ,b4,c41 and may have been earlier4 ,there can be no doubt that these dates are very nearly right4 ,aristotle tells us#fea that ,anaxagoras was older than ,empedokles1 who was born about #dij ,b4,c4 7 #ih72 and ,theophrastos said#feb that ,empedokles was born 8not long after ,anaxagoras40 ,demokritos1 too1 said that he himself was a young man in the old age of ,anaxagoras1 and he must have been born about #dfj ,b4,c4#fec ,footnote #fea3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #aa 7,r4 ,p4 #aej a74 ,footnote #feb3 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #c 7,dox4 p4 #dgg71 ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #be1 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #afb e74 ,footnote #fec3 ,diog4 ix4 #da 7,r4 ,p4 #ahg74 ,on the date of ,demokritos1 see ,chap4 ,,ix4 #aga4 ,sidenote3 ,early life4 #aba4 ,anaxagoras was born at ,klazomenai1 and ,theophrastos tells us that his father's name was ,hegesiboulos4#fed ,the names of both father and son have an aristocratic sound1 and we may assume they belonged to a family which had won distinction in the ,state4 ,nor need we reject the tradition that ,anaxagoras neglected his possessions to follow science4#fee ,it is certain1 at any rate1 that in the fourth century he was already regarded as the type of the man who leads the 8theoretic life40#fef ,of course the story of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later by the historical novelist and tricked out with the usual apophthegms4 ,these do not concern us here4 ,footnote #fed3 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #d 7,dox4 p4 #dgh71 repeated by the doxographers4 ,footnote #fee3 ,plato1 ,hipp4 ma4 #bhc a1 4 ,cf4 ,plut4 ,per4 #af4 ,footnote #fef3 ,arist4 ,eth4 ,nic4 1 #i4 #aagi a #ac4 ,cf4 ,eth4 ,eud4 1 #d4 #abae b #f and #ae1 #abaf a #aj4 ,one incident belonging to the early manhood of ,anaxagoras is recorded1 namely1 his observation of the huge meteoric stone which fell into the ,aigospotamos in #dfh-fg ,b4,c4#feg ,our authorities tell us that he predicted this phenomenon1 which is plainly absurd4 ,but we shall see reason to believe that it may have occasioned one of his most striking departures from the earlier cosmology1 and led to his adoption of the very view for which he was condemned at ,athens4 ,at all events1 the fall of the stone made a profound impression at the time1 and it was still shown to tourists in the days of ,pliny and ,plutarch4#feh ,footnote #feg3 ,diog4 ii4 #aj 7,r4 ,p4 #adi a74 ,pliny1 ,n4,h4 ii4 #adi1 gives the date as ,ol4 ,,lxxviii4 #b2 and ,eusebios gives it under ,ol4 ,,lxxviii4 #c4 ,but cf4 ,marm4 ,par4 #eg1 ' 444 1 1 which is #dfh-fg ,b4,c4 ,the text of ,diog4 ii4 #aa is corrupt4 ,for suggested restorations1 see ,jacoby1 p4 #bdd1 n4 #b2 and ,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #bid1 #bh4 ,footnote #feh3 ,pliny1 loc4 cit41 8qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis colore adusto40 ,cf4 ,plut4 ,lys4 #ab1 444 4 ,sidenote3 ,relation to the ,ionic school4 #abb4 ,the doxographers speak of ,anaxagoras as the pupil of ,anaximenes4#fei ,this is1 of course1 out of the question2 ,anaximenes most probably died before ,anaxagoras was born4 ,but it is not enough to say that the statement arose from the fact that the name of ,anaxagoras followed that of ,anaximenes in the ,successions4 ,that is true1 no doubt2 but it is not the whole truth4 ,we have its original source in a fragment of ,theophrastos himself1 which states that ,anaxagoras had been 8an associate of the philosophy of ,anaximenes40#ffj ,now this expression has a very distinct meaning if we accept the view as to 8schools0 of science set forth in the ,introduction 7 ,,xiv474 ,it means that the old ,ionic school survived the destruction of ,miletos in #did ,b4,c41 and continued to flourish in the other cities of ,asia4 ,it means1 further1 that it produced no man of distinction after its third great representative1 and that 8the philosophy of ,anaximenes0 was still taught by whoever was now at the head of the society4 ,footnote #fei3 ,cicero1 de nat4 ,d4 i4 #bf 7after ,philodemos71 8,anaxagoras qui accepit ab ,anaximene disciplinam 7i4e4 702 ,diog4 i4 #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #d7 and ii4 #f2 ,strabo1 xiv4 p4 #fde1 ' 2 ,euseb4 ,p4,e4 p4 #ejd2 ,galen ,hist4 ,phil4 #c2 ,augustine1 de ,civ4 ,dei1 viii4 #b4 ,footnote #ffj3 ,phys4 ,op4 fr4 #d 7,dox4 p4 #dgh71 444 ,in his fifth edition 7p4 #igc1 n4 #b7 ,zeller adopts the view given in the text1 and confirms it by comparing the very similar statement as to ,leukippos1 4 ,see below1 ,chap4 ,,ix4 #agb4 ,at this point1 it may be well to indicate briefly the conclusions to which we shall come in the next few chapters with regard to the development of philosophy during the first half of the fifth century ,b4,c4 ,we shall find that1 while the old ,ionic school was still capable of training great men1 it was now powerless to keep them4 ,anaxagoras went his own way2 ,melissos and ,leukippos1 though they still retained enough of the old views to bear witness to the source of their inspiration1 were too strongly influenced by the ,eleatic dialectic to remain content with the theories of ,anaximenes4 ,it was left to second-rate minds like ,diogenes to champion the orthodox system1 while third-rate minds like ,hippon of ,samos even went back to the cruder theory of ,thales4 ,the details of this anticipatory sketch will become clearer as we go on2 for the present1 it is only necessary to call the reader's attention to the fact that the old ,ionic ,philosophy now forms a sort of background to our story1 just as ,orphic and ,pythagorean religious ideas have done in the preceding chapters4 ,sidenote3 ,anaxagoras at ,athens4 #abc4 ,anaxagoras was the first philosopher to take up his abode at ,athens4 ,we are not to suppose1 however1 that he was attracted thither by anything in the character of the ,athenians4 ,no doubt ,athens had now become the political centre of the ,hellenic world2 but it had not yet produced a single scientific man4 ,on the contrary1 the temper of the citizen body was and remained hostile to free inquiry of any kind4 ,sokrates1 ,anaxagoras1 and ,aristotle fell victims in different degrees to the bigotry of the democracy1 though1 of course1 their offence was political rather than religious4 ,they were condemned not as heretics1 but as innovators in the state religion4 ,still1 as a recent historian observes1 8,athens in its flourishing period was far from being a place for free inquiry to thrive unchecked40#ffa ,it is this1 no doubt1 that has been in the minds of those writers who have represented philosophy as something un-,greek4 ,it was in reality thoroughly ,greek1 though it was thoroughly un-,athenian4 ,footnote #ffa3 ,holm1 ,gr4 ,gesch4 ii4 #ccd4 ,the whole chapter is well worth reading in this connexion4 ,it seems most reasonable to suppose that ,perikles himself brought ,anaxagoras to ,athens1 just as he brought everything else he could4 ,holm has shown with much skill how the aim of that great statesman was1 so to say1 to ,ionise his fellow-citizens1 to impart to them something of the flexibility and openness of mind which characterised their kinsmen across the sea4 ,it is possible that it was ,aspasia of ,miletos who introduced the ,ionian philosopher to the ,periklean circle1 of which he was henceforth a chief ornament4 ,the ,athenians in derision gave him the nickname of ,nous4#ffb ,footnote #ffb3 ,plut4 ,per4 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #adh c74 ,i follow ,zeller1 p4 #ige1 n4 #a 7,eng4 trans4 ii4 p4 #cbg1 n4 #d71 in regarding the sobriquet as derisive4 ,the close relation in which ,anaxagoras stood to ,perikles is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the testimony of ,plato4 ,in the ,phaedrus#ffc he makes ,sokrates say3 8,for all arts that are great1 there is need of talk and discussion on the parts of natural science that deal with things on high2 for that seems to be the source which inspires high-mindedness and effectiveness in every direction4 ,perikles added this very acquirement to his original gifts4 ,he fell in1 it seems1 with ,anaxagoras1 who was a scientific man2 and1 satiating himself with the theory of things on high1 and having attained to a knowledge of the true nature of intellect and folly1 which were just what the discourses of ,anaxagoras were mainly about1 he drew from that source whatever was of a nature to further him in the art of speech40 ,footnote #ffc3 #bgj a 7,r4 ,p4 #adh c74 ,a more difficult question is the alleged relation of ,euripides to ,anaxagoras4 ,the oldest authority for it is ,alexander of ,aitolia1 poet and librarian1 who lived at the court of ,ptolemy ,philadelphos 7c4 #bhj ,b4,c474 ,he referred to ,euripides as the 8nursling of brave ,anaxagoras40#ffd ,a great deal of ingenuity has been expended in trying to find the system of ,anaxagoras in the choruses of ,euripides2 but1 it must now be admitted1 without result4#ffe ,the famous fragment on the blessedness of the scientific life might just as well refer to any other cosmologist as to ,anaxagoras1 and indeed suggests more naturally a thinker of a more primitive type4#fff ,on the other hand1 there is one fragment which distinctly expounds the central thought of ,anaxagoras1 and could hardly be referred to any one else4#ffg ,we may conclude1 then1 that ,euripides knew the philosopher and his views1 but it is not safe to go further4 ,footnote #ffd3 ,gell4 xv4 #bj1 8,alexander autem ,aetolus hos de ,euripide versus composuit02 ' 7so ,valckenaer for 7 444 ,footnote #ffe3 ,the question was first raised by ,valckenaer 7,diatribe1 p4 #bf74 ,cf4 also ,wilamowitz1 ,analecta ,euripidea1 pp4 #afb sqq4 ,footnote #fff3 ,see ,introd4 p4 #ab1 n4 #ad4 ,the fragment is quoted ,r4 ,p4 #adh c4 ,the words and carry us back rather to the older ,milesians4 ,footnote #ffg3 ,r4 ,p4 #aej b4 ,sidenote3 ,the trial4 #abd4 ,shortly before the outbreak of the ,peloponnesian ,war1 the enemies of ,perikles began a series of attacks upon him through his friends4#ffh ,pheidias was the first to suffer1 and ,anaxagoras was the next4 ,that he was an object of special hatred to the religious party need not surprise us1 even though the charge made against him does not suggest that he went out of his way to hurt their susceptibilities4 ,the details of the trial are somewhat obscure1 but we can make out a few points4 ,the first step taken was the introduction of a psephism by ,diopeithes--the same whom ,aristophanes laughs at in ,the ,birds#ffi--;enacting that an impeachment should be brought against those who did not practise religion1 and taught theories about 8the things on high40#fgj ,what happened at the actual trial is very differently related4 ,our authorities give hopelessly conflicting accounts4#fga ,it is no use attempting to reconcile these2 it is enough to insist upon what is certain4 ,now we know from ,plato what the accusation was4#fgb ,it was that ,anaxagoras taught the sun was a red-hot stone1 and the moon earth2 and we shall see that he certainly did hold these views 7 #acc74 ,for the rest1 the most plausible account is that he was got out of prison and sent away by ,perikles4#fgc ,we know that such things were possible at ,athens4 ,footnote #ffh3 ,both ,ephoros 7represented by ,diod4 xii4 #ch7 and the source of ,plut4 ,per4 #cb made these attacks immediately precede the war4 ,this may1 however1 be pragmatic2 they perhaps occurred earlier4 ,footnote #ffi3 ,birds1 #ihh4 ,aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when combined with democratic opinions4 ,footnote #fgj3 ,plut4 ,per4 #cb 7,r4 ,p4 #adh71 where some of the original words have been preserved4 ,the phrase and the word are archaisms from the 4 ,footnote #fga3 ,these accounts are repeated by ,diog4 ii4 #ab-ad4 ,it is worth while to put the statements of ,satyros and ,sotion side by side in order to show the unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition3-- ,sotion4 ,satyros4 ,accuser4 ,kleon4 ,thoukydides s4 of ,melesias4 ,charge4 ,calling the sun a red-hot ,impiety and ,medism4 mass4 ,sentence4 ,fined five talents4 ,sentenced to death in absence4 ,hermippos represents ,anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of death when ,perikles shamed the people into letting him off4 ,lastly1 ,hieronymos says he never was condemned at all4 ,perikles brought him into court thin and wasted by disease1 and the judges acquitted him out of compassion6 ,the ,medism alleged by ,satyros no doubt comes from ,stesimbrotos1 who made ,anaxagoras the friend of ,themistokles instead of ,perikles4 ,this1 too1 explains the accuser's name 7,busolt1 ,gr4 ,gesch4 p4 #cjf1 n4 #c74 ,footnote #fgb3 ,apol4 #bf d4 ,footnote #fgc3 ,plut4 ,nic4 #bc 7,r4 ,p4 #adh c74 ,cf4 ,per4 #cb 7,r4 ,p4 #adh74 ,driven from his adopted home1 ,anaxagoras naturally went back to ,ionia1 where at least he would be free to teach what he pleased4 ,he settled at ,lampsakos1 and we shall see reason to believe that he founded a school there4#fgd ,probably he did not live long after his exile4 ,the ,lampsakenes erected an altar to his memory in their market-place1 dedicated to ,mind and ,truth2 and the anniversary of his death was long kept as a holiday for school-children1 it was said at his own request4#fge ,footnote #fgd3 ,see the account of ,archelaos in ,chap4 ,x4 #aia4 ,footnote #fge3 ,the oldest authority for the honours paid to ,anaxagoras is ,alkidamas1 the pupil of ,gorgias1 who said these were still kept up in his own time4 ,arist4 ,rhet4 1 #bc4 #acih b #ae4 ,sidenote3 ,writings4 #abe4 ,diogenes includes ,anaxagoras in his list of philosophers who left only a single book1 and he has also preserved the accepted criticism of it1 namely1 that it was written 8in a lofty and agreeable style40#fgf ,there is no evidence of any weight to set against this testimony1 which comes ultimately from the librarians of ,alexandria4#fgg ,the story that ,anaxagoras wrote a treatise on perspective as applied to scene-painting is most improbable2#fgh and the statement that he composed a mathematical work dealing with the quadrature of the circle is due to misunderstanding of an expression in ,plutarch4#fgi ,we learn from the passage in the ,apology1 referred to above1 that the works of ,anaxagoras could be bought at ,athens for a single drachma2 and that the book was of some length may be gathered from the way in which ,plato goes on to speak of it4#fhj ,in the sixth century ,a4,d4 ,simplicius had access to a copy1 doubtless in the library of the ,academy2#fha and it is to him we owe the preservation of all our fragments1 with one or two very doubtful exceptions4 ,unfortunately his quotations seem to be confined to the ,first ,book1 that dealing with general principles1 so that we are left somewhat in the dark with regard to the treatment of details4 ,this is the more unfortunate1 as it was ,anaxagoras who first gave the true theory of the moon's light and1 therefore1 the true theory of eclipses4 ,footnote #fgf3 ,diog4 i4 #af2 ii4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #e2 #aec74 ,footnote #fgg3 ,schaubach 7,an4 ,claz4 ,fragm4 p4 #eg7 fabricated a work entitled out of the pseudo-,aristotelian de plantis1 #hag a #bg4 ,but the ,latin version of ,alfred1 which is the original of the ,greek1 has simply et ideo dicit lechineon2 and this appears to be due to a failure to make out the ,arabic text from which the ,latin version was derived4 ,cf4 ,meyer1 ,gesch4 d4 ,bot4 i4 #fj4 ,footnote #fgh3 ,it comes from ,vitruvius1 vii4 pr4 #aa4 ,a forger1 seeking to decorate his production with a great name1 would think naturally of the philosopher who was said to have taught ,euripides4 ,footnote #fgi3 ,plut4 de ,exilio1 #fjg f4 ,the words merely mean that he used to draw mathematical figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the prison floor4 ,footnote #fhj3 ,apol4 #bf d-e4 ,the expression perhaps implies that it filled more than one roll4 ,footnote #fha3 ,simplicius also speaks of 4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,fragments4 #abf4 ,i give the fragments according to the text and arrangement of ,diels1 who has made some of them completely intelligible for the first time4 7#a7 ,all things were together infinite both in number and in smallness2 for the small too was infinite4 ,and1 when all things were together1 none of them could be distinguished for their smallness4 ,for air and aether prevailed over all things1 being both of them infinite2 for amongst all things these are the greatest both in quantity and size4#fhb ,r4 ,p4 #aea4 7#b7 ,for air and aether are separated off from the mass that surrounds the world1 and the surrounding mass is infinite in quantity4 ,r4 ,p4 ib4 7#c7 ,nor is there a least of what is small1 but there is always a smaller2 for it cannot be that what is should cease to be by being cut4#fhc ,but there is also always something greater than what is great1 and it is equal to the small in amount1 and1 compared with itself1 each thing is both great and small4 ,r4 ,p4 #aei a4 7#d7 ,and since these things are so1 we must suppose that there are contained many things and of all sorts in the things that are uniting1 seeds of all things1 with all sorts of shapes and colours and savours 7,r4 ,p4 ib471 and that men have been formed in them1 and the other animals that have life1 and that these men have inhabited cities and cultivated fields as with us2 and that they have a sun and a moon and the rest as with us2 and that their earth brings forth for them many things of all kinds of which they gather the best together into their dwellings1 and use them 7,r4 ,p4 #afj b74 ,thus much have ,i said with regard to separating off1 to show that it will not be only with us that things are separated off1 but elsewhere too4 ,but before they were separated off1 when all things were together1 not even was any colour distinguishable2 for the mixture of all things prevented it--of the moist and the dry1 and the warm and the cold1 and the light and the dark1 and of much earth that was in it1 and of a multitude of innumerable seeds in no way like each other4 ,for none of the other things either is like any other4 ,and these things being so1 we must hold that all things are in the whole4 ,r4 ,p4 #aea4fhd 7#e7 ,and those things having been thus decided1 we must know that all of them are neither more nor less2 for it is not possible for them to be more than all1 and all are always equal4 ,r4 ,p4 #aea4 7#f7 ,and since the portions of the great and of the small are equal in amount1 for this reason1 too1 all things will be in everything2 nor is it possible for them to be apart1 but all things have a portion of everything4 ,since it is impossible for there to be a least thing1 they cannot be separated1 nor come to be by themselves2 but they must be now1 just as they were in the beginning1 all together4 ,and in all things many things are contained1 and an equal number both in the greater and in the smaller of the things that are separated off4 7#g7 444 ,so that we cannot know the number of the things that are separated off1 either in word or deed4 7#h7 ,the things that are in one world are not divided nor cut off from one another with a hatchet1 neither the warm from the cold nor the cold from the warm4 ,r4 ,p4 #aee e4 7#i7 444 as these things revolve and are separated out by the force and swiftness4 ,and the swiftness makes the force4 ,their swiftness is not like the swiftness of any of the things that are now among men1 but in every way many times as swift4 7#aj7 ,how can hair come from what is not hair1 or flesh from what is not flesh8 ,r4 ,p4 #aee f1 n4 #a4 7#aa7 ,in everything there is a portion of everything except ,nous1 and there are some things in which there is ,nous also4 ,r4 ,p4 #afj b4 7#ab7 ,all other things partake in a portion of everything1 while ,nous is infinite and self-ruled1 and is mixed with nothing1 but is alone1 itself by itself4 ,for if it were not by itself1 but were mixed with anything else1 it would partake in all things if it were mixed with any2 for in everything there is a portion of everything1 as has been said by me in what goes before1 and the things mixed with it would hinder it1 so that it would have power over nothing in the same way that it has now being alone by itself4 ,for it is the thinnest of all things and the purest1 and it has all knowledge about everything and the greatest strength2 and ,nous has power over all things1 both greater and smaller1 that have life4 ,and ,nous had power over the whole revolution1 so that it began to revolve in the beginning4 ,and it began to revolve first from a small beginning2 but the revolution now extends over a larger space1 and will extend over a larger still4 ,and all the things that are mingled together and separated off and distinguished are all known by ,nous4 ,and ,nous set in order all things that were to be1 and all things that were and are not now and that are1 and this revolution in which now revolve the stars and the sun and the moon1 and the air and the aether that are separated off4 ,and this revolution caused the separating off1 and the rare is separated off from the dense1 the warm from the cold1 the light from the dark1 and the dry from the moist4 ,and there are many portions in many things4 ,but no thing is altogether separated off nor distinguished from anything else except ,nous4 ,and all ,nous is alike1 both the greater and the smaller2 while nothing else is like anything else1 but each single thing is and was most manifestly those things of which it has most in it ,r4 ,p4 #aee4 7#ac7 ,and when ,nous began to move things1 separating off took place from all that was moved1 and so far as ,nous set in motion all was separated4 ,and as things were set in motion and separated1 the revolution caused them to be separated much more4 7#ad7 ,and ,nous1 which ever is1 is certainly there1 where everything else is1 in the surrounding mass1 and in what has been united with it and separated off from it4#fhe 7#ae7 ,the dense and the moist and the cold and the dark came together where the earth is now1 while the rare and the warm and the dry 7and the bright7 went out towards the further part of the aether4#fhf ,r4 ,p4 #aef4 7#af7 ,from these as they are separated off earth is solidified2 for from mists water is separated off1 and from water earth4 ,from the earth stones are solidified by the cold1 and these rush outwards more than water4 ,r4 ,p4 #aef4 7#ag7 ,the ,hellenes follow a wrong usage in speaking of coming into being and passing away2 for nothing comes into being or passes away1 but there is mingling and separation of things that are4 ,so they would be right to call coming into being mixture1 and passing away separation4 ,r4 ,p4 #aej4 7#ah7 ,it is the sun that puts brightness into the moon4 7#ai7 ,we call rainbow the reflexion of the sun in the clouds4 ,now it is a sign of storm2 for the water that flows round the cloud causes wind or pours down in rain4 7#bj7 ,with the rise of the ,dogstar men begin the harvest2 with its setting they begin to till the fields4 ,it is hidden for forty days and nights4 7#ba7 ,from the weakness of our senses we are not able to judge the truth4 7#ba;a7 ,what appears is a vision of the unseen4 7#ba;b7 7,we can make use of the lower animals7 because we use our own experience and memory and wisdom and art4 7#bb7 ,what is called 8birds' milk0 is the white of the egg4 ,footnote #fhb3 ,simplicius tells us that this fragment was at the beginning of ,book ,i4 ,the familiar sentence quoted by ,diog4 ii4 #f 7,r4 ,p4 #aec7 is not a fragment of ,anaxagoras1 but a summary1 like the ascribed to ,herakleitos 7,chap4 ,,iii4 p4 #afb74 ,footnote #fhc3 ,zeller's still seems to me a convincing correction of the ,,ms4 1 which ,diels retains4 ,footnote #fhd3 ,i had already pointed out in the first edition that ,simplicius quotes this three times as a continuous fragment1 and that we are not entitled to break it up4 ,diels now prints it as a single passage4 ,footnote #fhe3 ,simplicius gives fr4 #ad thus 7p4 #aeg1 #e73 4 ,diels now reads 1 1 4 ,the correspondence of 444 is strongly in favour of this4 ,footnote #fhf3 ,on the text of fr4 #ae1 see ,r4 ,p4 #aef a4 ,i have followed ,schorn in adding from ,hippolytos4 ,sidenote3 ,anaxagoras and his predecessors4 #abg4 ,the system of ,anaxagoras1 like that of ,empedokles1 aimed at reconciling the ,eleatic doctrine that corporeal substance is unchangeable with the existence of a world which everywhere presents the appearance of coming into being and passing away4 ,the conclusions of ,parmenides are frankly accepted and restated4 ,nothing can be added to all things2 for there cannot be more than all1 and all is always equal 7fr4 #e74 ,nor can anything pass away4 ,what men commonly call coming into being and passing away is really mixture and separation 7fr4 #ag74 ,this last fragment reads almost like a prose paraphrase of ,empedokles 7fr4 #i72 and it is in every way probable that ,anaxagoras derived his theory of mixture from his younger contemporary1 whose poem was most likely published before his own treatise4#fhg ,we have seen how ,empedokles sought to save the world of appearance by maintaining that the opposites--hot and cold1 moist and dry--were things1 each one of which was real in the ,parmenidean sense4 ,anaxagoras regarded this as inadequate4 ,everything changes into everything else1#fhh the things of which the world is made are not 8cut off with a hatchet0 7fr4 #h7 in this way4 ,on the contrary1 the true formula must be3 ,there is a portion of everything in everything 7fr4 #aa74 ,footnote #fhg3 ,this is doubtless the meaning of the words in ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #aej a72 though certainly does not mean 8writings0 or opera omnia1 but simply 8achievements40 ,the other possible interpretations are 8more advanced in his views0 and 8inferior in his teaching0 7,zeller1 p4 #ajbc1 n4 #b74 ,footnote #fhh3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #ahg b #a 7,r4 ,p4 #aee a74 ,sidenote3 8,everything in everything40 #abh4 ,a part of the argument by which ,anaxagoras sought to prove this point has been preserved in a corrupt form by ,aetios1 and ,diels has recovered some of the original words from the scholiast on ,st4 ,gregory ,nazianzene4 8,we use a simple nourishment10 he said1 8when we eat the fruit of ,demeter or drink water4 ,but how can hair be made of what is not hair1 or flesh of what is not flesh80 7fr4 #aj74fhi ,that is just the sort of question the early ,milesians must have asked1 only the physiological interest has now definitely replaced the meteorological4 ,we shall find a similar train of reasoning in ,diogenes of ,apollonia 7fr4 #b74 ,footnote #fhi3 ,aet4 i4 #c1 #e 7,dox4 p4 #bgi74 ,see ,r4 ,p4 #aee f and n4 #a4 ,i read with ,usener4 ,the statement that there is a portion of everything in everything1 is not to be understood as referring simply to the original mixture of things before the formation of the worlds 7fr4 #a74 ,on the contrary1 even now 8all things are together10 and everything1 however small and however great1 has an equal number of 8portions0 7fr4 #f74 ,a smaller particle of matter could only contain a smaller number of portions1 if one of those portions ceased to be2 but if anything is1 in the full ,parmenidean sense1 it is impossible that mere division should make it cease to be 7fr4 #c74 ,matter is infinitely divisible2 for there is no least thing1 any more than there is a greatest4 ,but however great or small a body may be1 it contains just the same number of 8portions10 that is1 a portion of everything4 ,sidenote3 ,the portions4 #abi4 ,what are these 8things0 of which everything contains a portion8 ,it once was usual to represent the theory of ,anaxagoras as if he had said that wheat1 for instance1 contained small particles of flesh1 blood1 bones1 and the like2 but we have just seen that matter is infinitely divisible 7fr4 #c71 and that there are as many 8portions0 in the smallest particle as in the greatest 7fr4 #f74 ,this is fatal to the old view4 ,if everything were made up of minute particles of everything else1 we could certainly arrive at a point where everything was 8unmixed10 if only we carried division far enough4 ,this difficulty can only be solved in one way4#fij ,in fr4 #h the examples given of things which are not 8cut off from one another with a hatchet0 are the hot and the cold2 and elsewhere 7frs4 #d1 #ae71 mention is made of the other traditional 8opposites40 ,aristotle says that1 if we suppose the first principles to be infinite1 they may either be one in kind1 as with ,demokritos1 or opposite4#fia ,simplicius1 following ,porphyry and ,themistios1 refers the latter view to ,anaxagoras2#fib and ,aristotle himself implies that the opposites of ,anaxagoras had as much right to be called first principles as the 8homoeomeries40#fic ,footnote #fij3 ,see ,tannery1 ,science hellne1 pp4 #bhc sqq4 ,i still think that ,tannery's interpretation is substantially right1 though his statement of it requires some modification4 ,footnote #fia3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #b4 #ahd b #ba1 1 1 1 4 ,footnote #fib3 ,phys4 p4 #dd1 #a4 ,he goes on to refer to 444 4 ,he observes1 however1 that ,alexander rejected this interpretation and took closely together as both referring to ,demokritos4 ,footnote #fic3 ,phys4 1 #d4 #ahg a #be1 77 4 ,aristotle's own theory only differs from this in so far as he makes prior to the 4 ,it is of those opposites1 then1 and not of the different forms of matter1 that everything contains a portion4 ,every particle1 however large or however small1 contains every one of those opposite qualities4 ,that which is hot is also to a certain extent cold4 ,even snow1 ,anaxagoras affirmed1 was black2#fid that is1 even the white contains a certain portion of the opposite quality4 ,it is enough to indicate the connexion of this with the views of ,herakleitos 7 #hj74fie ,footnote #fid3 ,sext4 ,pyrrh4 i4 #cc 7,r4 ,p4 #afa b74 ,footnote #fie3 ,the connexion was already noted by the eclectic ,herakleitean to whom ,i attribute 1 i4 #c-d 7see above1 ,chap4 ,,iii4 p4 #afg1 n4 #chc74 ,cf4 the words ' 4 ,sidenote3 ,seeds4 #acj4 ,the difference1 then1 between the theory of ,anaxagoras and that of ,empedokles is this4 ,empedokles had taught that1 if you divide the various things which make up this world1 and in particular the parts of the body1 such as flesh1 bones1 and the like1 far enough1 you come to the four 8roots0 or elements1 which are1 accordingly1 the ultimate reality4 ,anaxagoras held that1 however far you may divide any of these things--and they are infinitely divisible--you never come to a part so small that it does not contain portions of all the opposites4 ,the smallest portion of bone is still bone4 ,on the other hand1 everything can pass into everything else just because the 8seeds10 as he called them1 of each form of matter contain a portion of everything1 that is1 of all the opposites1 though in different proportions4 ,if we are to use the word 8element0 at all1 it is these seeds that are the elements in the system of ,anaxagoras4 ,aristotle expresses this by saying that ,anaxagoras regards the as 4#fif ,we have seen that the term is of later date than ,anaxagoras1 and it is natural to suppose that the word is also only ,aristotle's name for the 8seeds40 ,in his own system1 the are intermediate between the elements 771 of which they are composed1 and the organs 771 which are composed of them4 ,the heart cannot be divided into hearts1 but the parts of flesh are flesh4 ,that being so1 ,aristotle's statement is quite intelligible from his own point of view1 but there is no reason for supposing that ,anaxagoras expressed himself in that particular way4 ,all we are entitled to infer is that he said the 8seeds10 which he had substituted for the 8roots0 of ,empedokles1 were not the opposites in a state of separation1 but each contained a portion of them all4 ,if ,anaxagoras had used the term 8homoeomeries0#fig himself1 it would be strange that ,simplicius should quote no fragment containing it4 ,footnote #fif3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a1 #cad a #ah1 7,anaxagoras7 1 1 4 ,this was1 of course1 repeated by ,theophrastos and the doxographers2 but it is to be noted that ,aetios1 supposing as he does that ,anaxagoras himself used the term1 gives it an entirely wrong meaning4 ,he says that the were so called from the likeness of the particles of the to those of the body 7,dox4 #bgi a #ba2 ,r4 ,p4 #aee f74 ,lucretius1 i4 #hcj sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #aej a7 has a similar account of the matter1 derived from ,epicurean sources4 ,obviously1 it cannot be reconciled with what ,aristotle says4 ,footnote #fig3 ,it is more likely that we have a trace of the terminology of ,anaxagoras himself in 1 #c1 1 4 ,the difference between the two systems may also be regarded from another point of view4 ,anaxagoras was not obliged by his theory to regard the elements of ,empedokles as primary1 a view to which there were obvious objections1 especially in the case of earth4 ,he explained them in quite another way4 ,though everything has a portion of everything in it1 things appear to be that of which there is most in them 7fr4 #ab sub fin474 ,we may say1 then1 that ,air is that in which there is most cold1 ,fire that in which there is most heat1 and so on1 without giving up the view that there is a portion of cold in the fire and a portion of heat in the air4#fih ,the great masses which ,empedokles had taken for elements are really vast collections of all manner of 8seeds40 ,each of them is1 in fact1 a 4#fii ,footnote #fih3 ,cf4 above1 p4 #cje4 ,footnote #fii3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #a4 #cad a #bi4 ,the word was used by ,demokritos 7,arist4 de ,an4 #djd a #h2 ,r4 ,p4 #bjj71 and it occurs in the 7loc4 cit474 ,it seems natural to suppose that it was used by ,anaxagoras himself1 as he used the term 4 ,much difficulty has been caused by the apparent inclusion of ,water and ,fire among the in ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #aa 7,r4 ,p4 #aej a74 ,bonitz understands the words to mean 8as we have just seen that ,fire and ,water do in the system of ,empedokles40 ,in any case1 goes closely with 1 and the general sense is that ,anaxagoras applies to the what is really true of the 4 ,it would be better to delete the comma after and add one after 1 for is explanatory of 444 4 ,in the next sentence1 ,i read for with ,zeller 7,arch4 ii4 p4 #bfa74 ,see also ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #c4 #cjb b #a 7,r4 ,p4 #aej a71 where the matter is very clearly put4 ,sidenote3 8,all things together40 #aca4 ,from all this it follows that1 when 8all things were together10 and when the different seeds of things were mixed together in infinitely small particles 7fr4 #a71 the appearance presented would be that of one of what had hitherto been regarded as the primary substances4 ,as a matter of fact1 they did present the appearance of 8air and aether02 for the qualities 7things7 which belong to these prevail in quantity over all other things in the universe1 and everything is most obviously that of which it has most in it 7fr4 #ab sub fin474 ,here1 then1 ,anaxagoras attaches himself to ,anaximenes4 ,the primary condition of things1 before the formation of the worlds1 is much the same in both2 only1 with ,anaxagoras1 the original mass is no longer the primary substance1 but a mixture of innumerable seeds divided into infinitely small parts4 ,this mass is infinite1 like the air of ,anaximenes1 and it supports itself1 since there is nothing surrounding it4#gjj ,further1 the 8seeds0 of all things which it contains are infinite in number 7fr4 #a74 ,but1 as the innumerable seeds may be divided into those in which the portions of cold1 moist1 dense1 and dark prevail1 and those which have most of the warm1 dry1 rare1 and light in them1 we may say that the original mass was a mixture of infinite ,air and of infinite ,fire4 ,the seeds of ,air1 of course1 contain 8portions0 of the 8things0 that predominate in ,fire1 and vice versa2 but we regard everything as being that of which it has most in it4 ,lastly1 there is no void in this mixture1 an addition to the theory made necessary by the arguments of ,parmenides4 ,it is1 however1 worthy of note that ,anaxagoras added an experimental proof of this to the purely dialectical one of the ,eleatics4 ,he used the klepsydra experiment as ,empedokles had done 7fr4 #ajj71 and also showed the corporeal nature of air by means of inflated skins4#gja ,footnote #gjj3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #e4 #bje b #a 7,r4 ,p4 #aed a74 ,footnote #gja3 ,phys4 1 #f4 #bac a #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #aei74 ,we have a full discussion of the experiments with the klepsydra in ,probl4 #iad b #i sqq41 a passage which we have already used to illustrate ,empedokles1 fr4 #ajj4 ,see above1 p4 #bec1 n4 #efe4 ,sidenote3 ,nous4 #acb4 ,like ,empedokles1 ,anaxagoras required some external cause to produce motion in the mixture4 ,body1 ,parmenides had shown1 would never move itself1 as the ,milesians had supposed4 ,anaxagoras called the cause of motion by the name of ,nous4 ,it was this which made ,aristotle say that he 8stood out like a sober man from the random talkers that had preceded him10#gjb and he has often been credited with the introduction of the spiritual into philosophy4 ,the disappointment expressed both by ,plato and ,aristotle as to the way in which ,anaxagoras worked out the theory should1 however1 make us pause to reflect before accepting too exalted a view of it4 ,plato#gjc makes ,sokrates say3 8,i once heard a man reading a book1 as he said1 of ,anaxagoras1 and saying it was ,mind that ordered the world and was the cause of all things4 ,i was delighted to hear of this cause1 and ,i thought he really was right4444 ,but my extravagant expectations were all dashed to the ground when ,i went on and found that the man made no use of ,mind at all4 ,he ascribed no causal power whatever to it in the ordering of things1 but to airs1 and aethers1 and waters1 and a host of other strange things40 ,aristotle1 probably with this passage in mind1 says3#gjd 8,anaxagoras uses ,mind as a deus ex machina to account for the formation of the world2 and whenever he is at a loss to explain why anything necessarily is1 he drags it in4 ,but in other cases he makes anything rather than ,mind the cause40 ,these utterances may well suggest that the ,nous of ,anaxagoras did not really stand on a higher level than the ,love and ,strife of ,empedokles1 and this will only be confirmed when we look at what he himself has to say about it4 ,footnote #gjb3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd b #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #aeb74 ,footnote #gjc3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #ig b #h 7,r4 ,p4 #aee d74 ,footnote #gjd3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe a #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #aee d74 ,in the first place1 ,nous is unmixed 7fr4 #ab71 and does not1 like other things1 contain a portion of everything4 ,this would hardly be worth saying of an immaterial mind2 no one would suppose that to be hot or cold4 ,the result of its being unmixed is that it 8has power over0 everything1 that is to say1 in the language of ,anaxagoras1 it causes things to move4#gje ,herakleitos had said as much of ,fire1 and ,empedokles of ,strife4 ,further1 it is the 8thinnest0 of all things1 so that it can penetrate everywhere1 and it would be meaningless to say that the immaterial is 8thinner0 than the material4 ,it is true that ,nous also 8knows all things02 but so1 perhaps1 did the ,fire of ,herakleitos1#gjf and certainly the ,air of ,diogenes4#gjg ,zeller holds1 indeed1 that ,anaxagoras meant to speak of something incorporeal2 but he admits that he did not succeed in doing so1#gjh and that is historically the important point4 ,nous is certainly imagined as occupying space2 for we hear of greater and smaller parts of it 7fr4 #ab74 ,footnote #gje3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #e4 #bef b #bd1 1 1 4 ,this is only quoted for the meaning of 4 ,of course1 the words are not meant to be historical1 and still less is the interpretation in de ,an4 1 #d4 #dbi a #ah4 ,diogenes of ,apollonia 7fr4 #e7 couples 7the old ,milesian word7 with 4 ,footnote #gjf3 ,if we retain the ,,ms4 in fr4 #a4 ,in any case1 the name implies as much4 ,footnote #gjg3 ,see fr4 #c1 #e4 ,footnote #gjh3 ,zeller1 p4 #iic4 ,the truth probably is that ,anaxagoras substituted ,nous for the ,love and ,strife of ,empedokles1 because he wished to retain the old ,ionic doctrine of a substance that 8knows0 all things1 and to identify this with the new theory of a substance that 8moves0 all things4 ,perhaps1 too1 it was his increased interest in physiological as distinguished from purely cosmological matters that led him to speak of ,mind rather than ,soul4 ,the former word certainly suggests design more clearly than the latter4 ,but1 in any case1 the originality of ,anaxagoras lies far more in the theory of matter than in that of ,nous4 ,sidenote3 ,formation of the worlds4 #acc4 ,the formation of a world starts with a rotatory motion which ,nous imparts to a portion of the mixed mass in which 8all things are together0 7fr4 #ac71 and this rotatory motion gradually extends over a wider and wider space4 ,its rapidity 7fr4 #i7 produced a separation of the rare and the dense1 the cold and the hot1 the dark and the light1 the moist and the dry 7fr4 #ae74 ,this separation produces two great masses1 the one consisting of the rare1 hot1 light1 and dry1 called the 8,aether02 the other1 in which the opposite qualities predominate1 called 8,air0 7fr4 #a74 ,of these the ,aether or ,fire#gji took the outside while the ,air occupied the centre 7fr4 #ae74 ,footnote #gji3 ,note that ,anaxagoras says 8air0 where ,empedokles usually said 8aether10 and that 8aether0 is with him equivalent to fire4 ,cf4 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #c4 #cjb b #d1 2 and ib4 1 #c4 #bgj b #bd1 4 ,the next stage is the separation of the air into clouds1 water1 earth1 and stones 7fr4 #af74 ,in this ,anaxagoras follows ,anaximenes closely4 ,in his account of the origin of the heavenly bodies1 however1 he showed himself more original4 ,we read at the end of fr4 #af that stones 8rush outwards more than water10 and we learn from the doxographers that the heavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from the earth by the rapidity of its revolution and made red-hot by the speed of their own motion4#gaj ,perhaps the fall of the meteoric stone at ,aigospotamoi had something to do with the origin of this theory4 ,it may also be observed that1 while in the earlier stages of the world-formation we are guided chiefly by the analogy of water rotating with light and heavy bodies floating in it1 we are here reminded rather of a sling4 ,footnote #gaj3 ,aet4 ii4 #ac1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #cda2 ,r4 ,p4 #aeg c74 ,sidenote3 ,innumerable worlds4 #acd4 ,that ,anaxagoras adopted the ordinary ,ionian theory of innumerable worlds is perfectly clear from fr4 #d1 which we have no right to regard as other than continuous4#gaa ,the words 8that it was not only with us that things were separated off1 but elsewhere too0 can only mean that ,nous has caused a rotatory movement in more parts of the boundless mixture than one4 ,aetios certainly includes ,anaxagoras among those who held there was only one world2 but this testimony cannot be considered of the same weight as that of the fragments4#gab ,zeller's reference of the words 8elsewhere1 as with us0 to the moon is very improbable4 ,is it likely that any one would say that the inhabitants of the moon 8have a sun and moon as with us08#gac ,footnote #gaa3 ,see above1 p4 #cjj1 n4 #fhd4 ,footnote #gab3 ,aet4 ii4 #a1 #c4 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #fc4 ,footnote #gac3 ,further1 it can be proved that this passage 7fr4 #d7 occurred quite near the beginning of the work4 ,cf4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #cd1 #bh1 ' 1 p4 #aef1 #a1 ' 7after fr4 #b71 which itself occurred1 ' 7after fr4 #a71 which was the beginning of the book4 ,a reference to other 8worlds0 would be quite in place here1 but not a reference to the moon4 #ace4 ,the cosmology of ,anaxagoras is clearly based upon that of ,anaximenes1 as will be obvious from a comparison of the following passage of ,hippolytos#gad with the quotations given in ,chap4 ,i4 7 #bi73-- 7#c7 ,the earth is flat in shape1 and remains suspended because of its size and because there is no vacuum4#gae ,for this reason the air is very strong1 and supports the earth which is borne up by it4 7#d7 ,of the moisture on the surface of the earth1 the sea arose from the waters in the earth 7for when these were evaporated the remainder turned salt71#gaf and from the rivers which flow into it4 7#e7 ,rivers take their being both from the rains and from the waters in the earth2 for the earth is hollow and has waters in its cavities4 ,and the ,nile rises in summer owing to the water that comes down from the snows in ,ethiopia4#gag 7#f7 ,the sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones carried round by the rotation of the aether4 ,under the stars are the sun and moon1 and also certain bodies which revolve with them1 but are invisible to us4 7#g7 ,we do not feel the heat of the stars because of the greatness of their distance from the earth2 and1 further1 they are not so warm as the sun1 because they occupy a colder region4 ,the moon is below the sun1 and nearer us4 7#h7 ,the sun surpasses the ,peloponnesos in size4 ,the moon has not a light of her own1 but gets it from the sun4 ,the course of the stars goes under the earth4 7#i7 ,the moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun's light from it1 and sometimes1 too1 by the bodies below the moon coming before it4 ,the sun is eclipsed at the new moon1 when the moon screens it from us4 ,both the sun and the moon turn in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air4 ,the moon turns frequently1 because it cannot prevail over the cold4 7#aj7 ,anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns the eclipses and the illumination of the sun and moon4 ,and he said the moon was of earth1 and had plains and ravines in it4 ,the ,milky ,way was the reflexion of the light of the stars that were not illuminated by the sun4 ,shooting stars were sparks1 as it were1 which leapt out owing to the motion of the heavenly vault4 7#aa7 ,winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun1 and when things were burned and made their way to the vault of heaven and were carried off4 ,thunder and lightning were produced by heat striking upon clouds4 7#ab7 ,earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on that beneath the earth2 for the movement of the latter caused the earth which floats on it to rock4 ,footnote #gad3 ,ref4 i4 #h1 #c 7,dox4 p4 #efb74 ,footnote #gae3 ,this is an addition to the older view occasioned by the ,eleatic denial of the void4 ,footnote #gaf3 ,the text here is very corrupt1 but the general sense can be got from ,aet4 iii4 #af4 #b4 ,footnote #gag3 ,the ,,ms4 reading is 1 for which ,diels adopts ,fredrichs' 4 ,i have thought it safer to translate the which ,aetios gives 7iv4 #a1 #c74 ,this view is mentioned and rejected by ,herodotos 7ii4 #bb74 ,seneca 7,n4 ,q4 iv4 #b1 #ag7 points out that it was adopted by ,aischylos 7,suppl4 #eei1 fr4 #cjj1 ,nauck71 ,sophokles 7fr4 #gig71 and ,euripides 7,hel4 #c1 fr4 #bbh74 ,all this confirms in the most striking way the statement of ,theophrastos1 that ,anaxagoras had belonged to the school of ,anaximenes4 ,the flat earth floating on the air1 the dark bodies below the moon1 the explanation of the solstices and the 8turnings0 of the moon by the resistance of air1 the explanations given of wind and of thunder and lightning1 are all derived from the earlier inquirer4 ,sidenote3 ,biology4 #acf4 8,there is a portion of everything in everything except ,nous1 and there are some things in which there is ,nous also0 7fr4 #aa74 ,in these words ,anaxagoras laid down the distinction between animate and inanimate things4 ,he tells us that it is the same ,nous that 8has power over10 that is1 sets in motion1 all things that have life1 both the greater and the smaller 7fr4 #ab74 ,the ,nous in living creatures is the same in all 7fr4 #ab71 and from this it followed that the different grades of intelligence which we observe in the animal and vegetable worlds depend entirely on the structure of the body4 ,the ,nous was the same1 but it had more opportunities in one body than another4 ,man was the wisest of animals1 not because he had a better sort of ,nous1 but simply because he had hands4#gah ,this view is quite in accordance with the previous development of thought upon the subject4 ,parmenides1 in the ,second ,part of his poem 7fr4 #af71 had already made the thought of men depend upon the constitution of their limbs4 ,as all ,nous is the same1 we are not surprised to find that plants were regarded as living creatures4 ,if we may trust the pseudo-,aristotelian ,treatise on ,plants#gai so far1 ,anaxagoras argued that they must feel pleasure and pain in connexion with their growth and with the fall of their leaves4 ,plutarch says#gbj that he called plants 8animals fixed in the earth40 ,footnote #gah3 ,arist4 de ,part4 ,an4 1 #aj4 #fhg a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #afj b74 ,footnote #gai3 ,arist4 de plant4 1 #a4 #hae a #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #afj74 ,footnote #gbj3 ,plut4 ,q4,n4 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #afj71 444 4 ,both plants and animals originated in the first instance from the 4 ,plants first arose when the seeds of them which the air contained were brought down by the rain-water1#gba and animals originated in a similar way4#gbb ,like ,anaximander1 ,anaxagoras held that animals first arose in the moist element4#gbc ,footnote #gba3 ,theophr4 ,hist4 ,plant4 iii4 #a1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #afj74 ,footnote #gbb3 ,irenaeus1 adv4 ,haer4 ii4 #ad1 #b 7,r4 ,p4 #afj a74 ,footnote #gbc3 ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #h1 #ab 7,dox4 p4 #efc74 #acg4 ,in these scanty notices we seem to see traces of a polemical attitude towards ,empedokles1 and the same may be observed in what we are told of the theory of perception adopted by ,anaxagoras1 especially in the view that perception is of contraries4#gbd ,the account which ,theophrastos gives of this#gbe is as follows3-- ,but ,anaxagoras says that perception is produced by opposites2 for like things cannot be affected by like4 ,he attempts to give a detailed enumeration of the particular senses4 ,we see by means of the image in the pupil2 but no image is cast upon what is of the same colour1 but only on what is different4 ,with most living creatures things are of a different colour to the pupil by day1 though with some this is so by night1 and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that time4 ,speaking generally1 however1 night is more of the same colour with the eyes than day4 ,and an image is cast on the pupil by day1 because light is a concomitant cause of the image1 and because the prevailing colour casts an image more readily upon its opposite4#gbf ,it is in the same way that touch and taste discern their objects4 ,that which is just as warm or just as cold as we are neither warms us nor cools us by its contact2 and1 in the same way1 we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of themselves4 ,we know cold by warm1 fresh by salt1 and sweet by sour1 in virtue of our deficiency in each2 for all these are in us to begin with4 ,and we smell and hear in the same manner2 the former by means of the accompanying respiration1 the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain1 for the bone which surrounds this is hollow1 and it is upon it that the sound falls4#gbg ,and all sensation implies pain1 a view which would seem to be the consequence of the first assumption1 for all unlike things produce pain by their contact4 ,and this pain is made perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a sensation4 ,brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain1 and we cannot dwell long on the same things4 ,the larger animals are the more sensitive1 and1 generally1 sensation is proportionate to the size of the organs of sense4 ,those animals which have large1 pure1 and bright eyes1 see large objects and from a great distance1 and contrariwise4#gbh ,and it is the same with hearing4 ,large animals can hear great and distant sounds1 while less sounds pass unperceived2 small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand4#gbi ,it is the same too with smell4 ,rarefied air has more smell2 for1 when air is heated and rarefied1 it smells4 ,a large animal when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the rarefied1 while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself2 so the large one perceives more4 ,for smell is better perceived when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more condensed1 while when dispersed it is weak4 ,but1 roughly speaking1 large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell1 nor small animals a condensed one4#gcj ,footnote #gbd3 ,beare1 p4 #cg4 ,footnote #gbe3 ,theophr4 de ,sensu1 #bg sqq4 7,dox4 p4 #ejg74 ,footnote #gbf3 ,beare1 p4 #ch4 ,footnote #gbg3 ,beare1 p4 #bjh4 ,footnote #gbh3 ,ibid4 p4 #bji4 ,footnote #gbi3 ,ibid4 p4 #ajc4 ,footnote #gcj3 ,ibid4 p4 #acg4 ,this theory marks in some respects an advance upon that of ,empedokles4 ,it was a happy thought of ,anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon irritation by opposites1 and to connect it with pain4 ,many modern theories are based upon a similar idea4 ,that ,anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable of reaching the truth of things is shown by the fragments preserved by ,sextus4 ,but we must not1 for all that1 turn him into a sceptic4 ,the saying preserved by ,aristotle#gca that 8things are as we suppose them to be10 has no value at all as evidence4 ,it comes from some collection of apophthegms1 not from the treatise of ,anaxagoras himself2 and it had1 as likely as not1 a moral application4 ,he did say 7fr4 #ba7 that 8the weakness of our senses prevents our discerning the truth10 but this meant simply that we do not see the 8portions0 of everything which are in everything2 for instance1 the portions of black which are in the white4 ,our senses simply show us the portions that prevail4 ,he also said that the things which are seen give us the power of seeing the invisible1 which is the very opposite of scepticism 7fr4 #ba;a74 ,footnote #gca3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ajji b #be 7,r4 ,p4 #afa a74 ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,pythagoreans ,sidenote3 ,the ,pythagorean school4 #ach4 ,we have seen 7 #dj7 how the ,pythagoreans1 after losing their supremacy at ,kroton1 concentrated themselves at ,rhegion2 but the school founded there was soon broken up4 ,archippos stayed behind in ,italy2 but ,philolaos and ,lysis1 the latter of whom had escaped as a young man from the massacre of ,kroton1 betook themselves to continental ,hellas1 settling finally at ,thebes4 ,we know from ,plato that ,philolaos was there some time during the latter part of the fifth century1 and ,lysis was afterwards the teacher of ,epameinondas4#gcb ,some of the ,pythagoreans1 however1 were able to return to ,italy later on4 ,philolaos certainly did so1 and ,plato implies that he had left ,thebes some time before #cii ,b4,c41 the year in which ,sokrates was put to death4 ,in the fourth century1 the chief seat of the school is at ,taras1 and we find the ,pythagoreans heading the opposition to ,dionysios of ,syracuse4 ,it is to this period that ,archytas belongs4 ,he was the friend of ,plato1 and almost realised1 if he did not suggest1 the ideal of the philosopher king4 ,he ruled ,taras for years1 and ,aristoxenos tells us that he was never defeated in the field of battle4#gcc ,he was also the inventor of mathematical mechanics4 ,at the same time1 ,pythagoreanism had taken root in ,hellas4 ,lysis1 we have seen1 remained at ,thebes1 where ,simmias and ,kebes had heard ,philolaos1 and there was an important community of ,pythagoreans at ,phleious4 ,aristoxenos was personally acquainted with the last generation of the school1 and mentioned by name ,xenophilos the ,chalkidian from ,thrace1 with ,phanton1 ,echekrates1 ,diokles1 and ,polymnestos of ,phleious4 ,they were all1 he said1 disciples of ,philolaos and ,eurytos4#gcd ,plato was on friendly terms with these men1 and dedicated the ,phaedo to them4#gce ,xenophilos was the teacher of ,aristoxenos1 and lived in perfect health at ,athens till the age of a hundred and five4#gcf ,footnote #gcb3 ,for ,philolaos1 see ,plato1 ,phd4 #fa d #g2 e #g2 and for ,lysis1 ,aristoxenos in ,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bej 7,r4 ,p4 #ei b74 ,footnote #gcc3 ,diog4 viii4 #gi-hc 7,r4 ,p4 #fa74 ,aristoxenos himself came from ,taras4 ,for the political activity of the ,tarentine ,pythagoreans1 see ,meyer1 ,gesch4 des ,alterth4 v4 #hbd4 ,the story of ,damon and ,phintias 7told by ,aristoxenos7 belongs to this time4 ,footnote #gcd3 ,diog4 viii4 #df 7,r4 ,p4 #fb74 ,footnote #gce3 ,compare the way in which the ,theaetetus is dedicated to the school of ,megara4 ,footnote #gcf3 ,see ,aristoxenos ap4 ,val4 ,max4 viii4 #ac1 ext4 #c2 and ,souidas s4v4 ,sidenote3 ,philolaos4 #aci4 ,this generation of the school really belongs1 however1 to a later period1 and cannot be profitably studied apart from ,plato2 it is with their master ,philolaos we have now to deal4 ,the facts we know about his teaching from external sources are few in number4 ,the doxographers1 indeed1 ascribe to him an elaborate theory of the planetary system1 but ,aristotle never mentions his name in connexion with this4 ,he gives it as the theory of 8the ,pythagoreans0 or of 8some ,pythagoreans40#gcg ,it seems natural to suppose1 however1 that the ,pythagorean elements of ,plato's ,phaedo and ,gorgias come mainly from ,philolaos4 ,plato makes ,sokrates express surprise that ,simmias and ,kebes had not learnt from him why it is unlawful for a man to take his life1#gch and it seems to be implied that the ,pythagoreans at ,thebes used the word 8philosopher0 in the special sense of a man who is seeking to find a way of release from the burden of this life4#gci ,it is extremely probable that ,philolaos spoke of the body 77 as the tomb 77 of the soul4#gdj ,in any case1 we seem to be justified in holding that he taught the old ,pythagorean religious doctrine in some form1 and it is likely that he laid special stress upon knowledge as a means of release4 ,that is the impression we get from ,plato1 and he is by far the best authority we have on the subject4 ,footnote #gcg3 ,see below1 #aej-aeb4 ,footnote #gch3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #fa d #f4 ,footnote #gci3 ,this appears to follow at once from the remark of ,simmias in ,phd4 #fd b4 ,the whole passage would be pointless if the words 1 1 had not in some way become familiar to the ordinary ,theban of the fifth century4 ,now ,herakleides ,pontikos made ,pythagoras invent the word1 and expound it in a conversation with ,leon1 tyrant of ,sikyon or ,phleious4 ,cf4 ,diog4 i4 #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #c71 viii4 #h2 ,cic4 ,tusc4 v4 #c4 #h2 ,dring in ,arch4 v4 pp4 #eje sqq4 ,it seems to me that the way in which the term is introduced in the ,phaedo is fatal to the view that this is a ,sokratic idea transferred by ,herakleides to the ,pythagoreans4 ,cf4 also the remark of ,alkidamas quoted by ,arist4 ,rhet4 1 #bc4 #acih b #ah1 4 ,footnote #gdj3 ,for reasons which will appear1 ,i do not attach importance in this connexion to ,philolaos1 fr4 #ad ,diels #bc ,mullach 7,r4 ,p4 #hi71 but it does seem likely that the of ,gorg4 #dic a #e 7,r4 ,p4 #hi b7 is responsible for the whole theory there given4 ,he is certainly1 in any case1 the author of the 1 which implies the same general view4 ,now he is called 1 which means he was an ,italian2 for the is merely an allusion to the ' of ,timokreon4 ,we do not know of any ,italian from whom ,plato could have learnt these views except ,philolaos or one of his disciples4 ,they may1 however1 be originally ,orphic for all that 7cf4 ,r4 ,p4 #hi a74 ,we know further that ,philolaos wrote on 8numbers02 for ,speusippos followed him in the account he gave of the ,pythagorean theories on that subject4#gda ,it is probable that he busied himself mainly with arithmetic1 and we can hardly doubt that his geometry was of the primitive type described in an earlier chapter4 ,eurytos was his disciple1 and we have seen 7 #dg7 that his views were still very crude4 ,footnote #gda3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #aac1 n4 #bcf4 ,we also know now that ,philolaos wrote on medicine1#gdb and that1 while apparently influenced by the theories of the ,sicilian school1 he opposed them from the ,pythagorean standpoint4 ,in particular1 he said that our bodies were composed only of the warm1 and did not participate in the cold4 ,it was only after birth that the cold was introduced by respiration4 ,the connexion of this with the old ,pythagorean theory is obvious4 ,just as the ,fire in the macrocosm draws in and limits the cold dark breath which surrounds the world 7 #ec71 so do our bodies inhale cold breath from outside4 ,philolaos made bile1 blood1 and phlegm the causes of disease2 and1 in accordance with the theory just mentioned1 he had to deny that the phlegm was cold1 as the ,sicilian school held it was4 ,its etymology proved that it was warm4 ,as ,diels says1 ,philolaos strikes us as an 8uninteresting eclectic0 so far as his medical views are concerned4#gdc ,we shall see1 however1 that it was just this preoccupation with the medicine of the ,sicilian school that gave rise to some of the most striking developments of later ,pythagoreanism4 ,footnote #gdb3 ,it is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition 7,introd4 ,,xiii47 that this was quite unknown till the publication of the extracts from ,menon's ,iatrika contained in the ,anonymus ,londinensis4 ,the extract referring to ,philolaos is given and discussed by ,diels in ,hermes1 xxviii4 pp4 #dag sqq4 ,footnote #gdc3 ,hermes1 loc4 cit4 ,sidenote3 ,plato and the ,pythagoreans4 #adj4 ,such1 so far as we can see1 was the historical ,philolaos1 and he is a sufficiently remarkable figure4 ,he is usually1 however1 represented in a different light1 and has even been spoken of as a 8precursor of ,copernicus40 ,to understand this1 we shall have to consider for a little the story of what can only be called a literary conspiracy4 ,not till this has been exposed will it be possible to estimate the real importance of ,philolaos and his immediate disciples4 ,as we can see from the ,phaedo and the ,gorgias1 ,plato was intimate with these men and was deeply impressed by their religious teaching1 though it is plain too that he did not adopt it as his own faith4 ,he was still more attracted by the scientific side of ,pythagoreanism1 and to the last this exercised a great influence on him4 ,his own system in its final form had many points of contact with it1 as he is careful to mark in the ,philebus4#gdd ,but1 just because he stood so near it1 he is apt to develop ,pythagoreanism on lines of his own1 which may or may not have commended themselves to ,archytas1 but are no guide to the views of ,philolaos and ,eurytos4 ,he is not careful1 however1 to claim the authorship of his own improvements in the system4 ,he did not believe that cosmology could be an exact science1 and he is therefore quite willing to credit ,timaios the ,lokrian1 or 8ancient sages0 generally1 with theories which certainly had their birth in the ,academy4 ,footnote #gdd3 ,plato1 ,phileb4 #af c sqq4 ,now ,plato had many enemies and detractors1 and this literary device enabled them to bring against him the charge of plagiarism4 ,aristoxenos was one of these enemies1 and we know he made the extraordinary statement that most of the ,republic was to be found in a work by ,protagoras4#gde ,he seems also to be the original source of the story that ,plato bought 8three ,pythagorean books0 from ,philolaos and copied the ,timaeus out of them4 ,according to this1 the 8three books0 had come into the possession of ,philolaos2 and1 as he had fallen into great poverty1 ,dion was able to buy them from him1 or from his relatives1 at ,plato's request1 for a hundred minae4#gdf ,it is certain1 at any rate1 that this story was already current in the third century2 for the sillographer ,timon of ,phleious addresses ,plato thus3 8,and of thee too1 ,plato1 did the desire of discipleship lay hold4 ,for many pieces of silver thou didst get in exchange a small book1 and starting from it didst learn to write ,timaeus40#gdg ,hermippos1 the pupil of ,kallimachos1 said that 8some writer0 said that ,plato himself bought the books from the relatives of ,philolaos for forty ,alexandrian minae and copied the ,timaeus out of it2 while ,satyros1 the ,aristarchean1 says he got it through ,dion for a hundred minae4#gdh ,there is no suggestion in any of these accounts that the book was by ,philolaos himself2 they imply rather that what ,plato bought was either a book by ,pythagoras1 or at any rate authentic notes of his teaching1 which had come into the hands of ,philolaos4 ,in later times1 it was generally supposed that the work entitled ,the ,soul of the ,world1 by ,timaios the ,lokrian1 was meant2#gdi but it has now been proved beyond a doubt that this cannot have existed earlier than the first century ,a4,d4 ,we know nothing of ,timaios except what ,plato tells us himself1 and he may even be a fictitious character like the ,eleatic ,stranger4 ,his name does not occur among the ,lokrians in the ,catalogue of ,pythagoreans preserved by ,iamblichos4#gej ,besides this1 the work does not fulfil the most important requirement1 that of being in three books1 which is always an essential feature of the story4#gea ,footnote #gde3 ,diog4 iii4 #cg4 ,for similar charges1 cf4 ,zeller1 ,plato1 p4 #dbi1 n4 #g4 ,footnote #gdf3 ,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #aii4 ,diels is clearly right in ascribing the story to ,aristoxenos 7,arch4 iii4 p4 #dfa1 n4 #bf74 ,footnote #gdg3 ,timon ap4 ,gell4 iii4 #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #fj a74 ,footnote #gdh3 ,for ,hermippos and ,satyros1 see ,diog4 iii4 #i2 viii4 #hd1 #he4 ,footnote #gdi3 ,so ,iambl4 in ,nicom4 p4 #aje1 #aa2 ,proclus1 in ,tim4 p4 #a1 ,diehl4 ,footnote #gej3 ,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #bfi4 ,footnote #gea3 ,they are 7,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #aii71 7,diog4 viii4 #ae74 ,not one of the writers just mentioned professes to have seen the famous 8three books02#geb but at a later date there were at least two works which claimed to represent them4 ,diels has shown how a treatise in three sections1 entitled 1 1 1 was composed in the ,ionic dialect and attributed to ,pythagoras4 ,it was largely based on the of ,aristoxenos1 but its date is uncertain4#gec ,in the first century ,b4,c41 ,demetrios ,magnes was able to quote the opening words of the work published by ,philolaos4#ged ,that1 however1 was written in ,doric4 ,demetrios does not actually say it was by ,philolaos himself1 though it is no doubt the same work from which a number of extracts are preserved under his name in ,stobaios and later writers4 ,if it professed to be by ,philolaos1 that was not quite in accordance with the original story2 but it is easy to see how his name may have become attached to it4 ,we are told that the other book which passed under the name of ,pythagoras was really by ,lysis4#gee ,boeckh has shown that the work ascribed to ,philolaos probably consisted of three books also1 and ,proclus referred to it as the ,bakchai1#gef a fanciful title which recalls the 8,muses0 of ,herodotos4 ,two of the extracts in ,stobaios bear it4 ,it must be confessed that the whole story is very suspicious2 but1 as some of the best authorities still regard the fragments as partly genuine1 it is necessary to look at them more closely4 ,footnote #geb3 ,as ,mr4 ,bywater says 7,j4 ,phil4 i4 p4 #bi71 the history of this work 8reads like the history1 not so much of a book1 as of a literary ignis fatuus floating before the minds of imaginative writers40 ,footnote #gec3 ,diels1 8,ein geflschtes ,pythagorasbuch0 7,arch4 iii4 pp4 #dea sqq474 ,footnote #ged3 ,diog4 viii4 #he 7,r4 ,p4 #fc b74 ,diels reads 4 ,footnote #gee3 ,diog4 viii4 #g4 ,footnote #gef3 ,proclus1 in ,eucl4 p4 #bb1 #ae 7,friedlein74 ,cf4 ,boeckh1 ,philolaos1 pp4 #cf sqq4 ,boeckh refers to a sculptured group of three ,bakchai1 whom he supposes to be ,ino1 ,agaue1 and ,autonoe4 ,sidenote3 ,the 8,fragments of ,philolaos40 #ada4 ,boeckh argued with great learning and skill that all the fragments preserved under the name of ,philolaos were genuine2 but no one will now go so far as this4 ,the lengthy extract on the soul is given up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the rest4#geg ,it cannot be said that this position is plausible on the face of it4 ,boeckh saw there was no ground for supposing that there ever was more than a single work1 and he drew the conclusion that we must accept all the remains as genuine or reject all as spurious4#geh ,as1 however1 ,zeller and ,diels still maintain the genuineness of most of the fragments1 we cannot ignore them altogether4 ,arguments based1 on the doctrine contained in them would1 it is true1 present the appearance of a vicious circle at this stage4 ,it is only in connexion with our other evidence that these can be introduced4 ,but there are two serious objections to the fragments which may be mentioned at once4 ,they are sufficiently strong to justify us in refusing to use them till we have ascertained from other sources what doctrines may fairly be attributed to the ,pythagoreans of this date4 ,footnote #geg3 ,the passage is given in ,r4 ,p4 #fh4 ,for a full discussion of this and the other fragments1 see ,bywater1 8,on the ,fragments attributed to ,philolaus the ,pythagorean0 7,j4 ,phil4 i4 pp4 #ba sqq474 ,footnote #geh3 ,boeckh1 ,philolaos1 p4 #ch4 ,diels 7,vors4 p4 #bdf7 distinguishes the ,bakchai from the three books 7ib4 p4 #bci74 ,as1 however1 he identifies the latter with the 8three books0 bought from ,philolaos1 and regards it as genuine1 this does not seriously affect the argument4 ,in the first place1 we must ask a question which has not yet been faced4 ,is it likely that ,philolaos should have written in ,doric8 ,ionic was the dialect of all science and philosophy till the time of the ,peloponnesian ,war1 and there is no reason to suppose that the early ,pythagoreans used any other4#gei ,pythagoras was himself an ,ionian1 and it is by no means clear that in his time the ,achaian states in which he founded his ,order had already adopted the ,dorian dialect4#gfj ,alkmaion of ,kroton seems to have written in ,ionic4#gfa ,diels says1 it is true1 that ,philolaos and then ,archytas were the first ,pythagoreans to use the dialect of their homes2#gfb but ,philolaos can hardly be said to have had a home1#gfc and the fragments of ,archytas are not written in the dialect of ,taras1 but in what may be called 8common ,doric40 ,archytas may have found it convenient to use that dialect2 but he is at least a generation later than ,philolaos1 which makes a great difference4 ,there is evidence that1 in the time of ,philolaos and later1 ,ionic was still used even by the citizens of ,dorian states for scientific purposes4 ,diogenes of ,apollonia in ,crete and the ,syracusan historian ,antiochos wrote in ,ionic1 while the medical writers of ,dorian1 ,kos and ,knidos1 continue to use the same dialect4 ,the forged work of ,pythagoras referred to above1 which some ascribed to ,lysis1 was in ,ionic2 and so was the work on the ,akousmata attributed to ,androkydes1#gfd which shows that1 even down to ,alexandrian times1 it was still believed that ,ionic was the proper dialect for ,pythagorean writings4 ,footnote #gei3 ,see ,diels in ,arch4 iii4 pp4 #dfj sqq4 ,footnote #gfj3 ,on the ,achaian dialect1 see ,o4 ,hoffmann in ,collitz and ,bechtel1 ,dialekt-,inschriften1 vol4 ii4 p4 #aea4 ,how slowly ,doric penetrated into the ,chalkidian states may be seen from the mixed dialect of the inscription of ,mikythos of ,rhegion 7,dial4-,inschr4 iii4 #b1 p4 #dih71 which is later than #dfh-fg ,b4,c4 ,there is no reason to suppose that the ,achaian dialect of ,kroton was less tenacious of life4 ,footnote #gfa3 ,the scanty fragments contain one ,doric form1 7fr4 #a71 but ,alkmaion calls himself 1 which is very significant2 for is the ,achaian as well as the ,doric form4 ,he did not1 therefore1 write a mixed dialect like that referred to in the last note4 ,it seems safest to assume with ,wachtler1 ,de ,alcmaeone ,crotoniata1 pp4 #ba sqq41 that he used ,ionic4 ,footnote #gfb3 ,arch4 iii4 p4 #dfj4 ,footnote #gfc3 ,he is distinctly called a ,krotoniate in the extracts from ,menon's 7cf4 ,diog4 viii4 #hd74 ,it is true that ,aristoxenos called him and ,eurytos ,tarentines 7,diog4 viii4 #df71 but this only means that he settled at ,taras after leaving ,thebes4 ,these variations are common in the case of migratory philosophers4 ,eurytos is also called a ,krotoniate and a ,metapontine 7,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #adh1 #bff74 ,cf4 also p4 #chj1 n4 #iba on ,leukippos1 and p4 #djf1 n4 #ihh on ,hippon4 ,footnote #gfd3 ,for ,androkydes1 see ,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #bha4 ,as ,diels points out 7,arch4 iii4 p4 #dfa71 even ,lucian has sufficient sense of style to make ,pythagoras speak ,ionic4 ,in the second place1 there can be no doubt that one of the fragments refers to the five regular solids1 four of which are identified with the elements of ,empedokles4#gfe ,now ,plato gives us to understand1 in a well-known passage of the ,republic1 that stereometry had not been adequately investigated at the time he wrote1#gff and we have express testimony that the five 8,platonic figures10 as they were called1 were discovered in the ,academy4 ,in the ,scholia to ,euclid we read that the ,pythagoreans only knew the cube1 the pyramid 7tetrahedron71 and the dodecahedron1 while the octahedron and the icosahedron were discovered by ,theaitetos4#gfg ,this sufficiently justifies us in regarding the 8fragments of ,philolaos0 with something more than suspicion4 ,we shall find more anachronisms as we go on4 ,footnote #gfe3 ,cf4 fr4 #ab #bj ,m4 7,r4 ,p4 #gi71 4 ,footnote #gff3 ,plato1 ,rep4 #ebh b4 ,footnote #gfg3 ,heiberg's ,euclid1 vol4 v4 p4 #fed1 #a1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 4 ,it is no objection to this that1 as ,newbold points out 7,arch4 xix4 p4 #bjd71 the inscription of the dodecahedron is more difficult than that of the octahedron and icosahedron4 ,the ,pythagoreans were not confined to strict ,euclidean methods4 ,it may further be noted that ,tannery comes to a similar conclusion with regard to the musical scale described in the fragment of ,philolaos4 ,he says3 8,il n'y a jamais eu1 pour la division du ttracorde1 une tradition pythagoricienne2 on ne peut pas avec sret remonter plus haut que ,platon ou qu',archytas0 7,rev4 de ,philologie1 #aijd1 p4 #bdd74 ,sidenote3 ,the ,problem4 #adb4 ,we must look1 then1 for other evidence4 ,from what has been said1 it will be clear that we cannot safely take ,plato as our guide to the original meaning of the ,pythagorean theory1 though it is certainly from him alone that we can learn to regard it sympathetically4 ,aristotle1 on the other hand1 was quite out of sympathy with ,pythagorean ways of thinking1 but took a great deal of pains to understand them4 ,this was just because they played so great a part in the philosophy of ,plato and his successors1 and he had to make the relation of the two doctrines as clear as he could to himself and his disciples4 ,what we have to do1 then1 is to interpret what ,aristotle tells us in the spirit of ,plato1 and then to consider how the doctrine we arrive at in this way is related to the systems which had preceded it4 ,it is a delicate operation1 no doubt1 but it has been made much safer by recent discoveries in the early history of mathematics and medicine4 ,zeller has cleared the ground by eliminating the purely ,platonic elements which have crept into later accounts of the system4 ,these are of two kinds4 ,first of all1 we have genuine ,academic formulae1 such as the identification of the ,limit and the ,unlimited with the ,one and the ,indeterminate ,dyad2#gfh and secondly1 there is the ,neoplatonic doctrine which represents it as an opposition between ,god and ,matter4#gfi ,it is not necessary to repeat ,zeller's arguments here1 as no one will any longer attribute these doctrines to the ,pythagoreans of the fifth century4 ,footnote #gfh3 ,aristotle says distinctly 7,met4 1 #f4 #ihg b #be7 that 8to set up a dyad instead of the unlimited regarded as one1 and to make the unlimited consist of the great and small1 is distinctive of ,plato40 ,zeller seems to make an unnecessary concession with regard to this passage 7p4 #cfh1 n4 #b2 ,eng4 trans4 p4 #cif1 n4 #a74 ,footnote #gfi3 ,zeller1 p4 #cfi sqq4 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #cig sqq474 ,this simplifies the problem very considerably1 but it is still extremely difficult4 ,according to ,aristotle1 the ,pythagoreans said ,things are numbers1 though that does not appear to be the doctrine of the fragments of 8,philolaos40 ,according to them1 things have number1 which make them knowable1 while their real essence is something unknowable4#ggj ,that would be intelligible enough1 but the formula that things are numbers seems meaningless4 ,we have seen reason for believing that it is due to ,pythagoras himself 7 #eb71 though we did not feel able to say very clearly what he meant by it4 ,there is no such doubt as to his school4 ,aristotle says they used the formula in a cosmological sense4 ,the world1 according to them1 was made of numbers in the same sense as others had said it was made of 8four roots0 or 8innumerable seeds40 ,it will not do to dismiss this as mysticism4 ,whatever we may think of ,pythagoras1 the ,pythagoreans of the fifth century were scientific men1 and they must have meant something quite definite4 ,we shall1 no doubt1 have to say that they used the words ,things are numbers in a somewhat non-natural sense1 but there is no difficulty in such a supposition4 ,we have seen already how the friends of ,aristoxenos reinterpreted the old ,akousmata 7 #dd74 ,the ,pythagoreans had certainly a great veneration for the actual words of the ,master 7 72 but such veneration is often accompanied by a singular licence of interpretation4 ,we shall start1 then1 from what ,aristotle tells us about the numbers4 ,footnote #ggj3 ,for the doctrine of 8,philolaos10 cf4 fr4 #a #b ,ch4 7,r4 ,p4 #fd72 and for the unknowable 1 see fr4 #c #d ,ch4 7,r4 ,p4 #fg74 ,it has a suspicious resemblance to the later 1 which ,aristotle would hardly have failed to note if he had ever seen the passage4 ,he is always on the lookout for anticipations of 4 ,sidenote3 ,aristotle on the ,numbers4 #adc4 ,in the first place1 ,aristotle is quite decided in his opinion that ,pythagoreanism was intended to be a cosmological system like the others4 8,though the ,pythagoreans10 he tells us1 8made use of less obvious first principles and elements than the rest1 seeing that they did not derive them from sensible objects1 yet all their discussions and studies had reference to nature alone4 ,they describe the origin of the heavens1 and they observe the phenomena of its parts1 all that happens to it and all it does40#gga ,they apply their first principles entirely to these things1 8agreeing apparently with the other natural philosophers in holding that reality was just what could be perceived by the senses1 and is contained within the compass of the heavens10#ggb though 8the first principles and causes of which they made use were really adequate to explain realities of a higher order than the sensible40#ggc ,footnote #gga3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #h4 #ihi b #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #ib a74 ,footnote #ggb3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #h4 #iij a #c1 ' ' 4 ,footnote #ggc3 ,met4 ib4 #iij a #e1 ' 1 1 1 4 ,the doctrine is more precisely stated by ,aristotle to be that the elements of numbers are the elements of things1 and that therefore things are numbers4#ggd ,he is equally positive that these 8things0 are sensible things1#gge and indeed that they are bodies1#ggf the bodies of which the world is constructed4#ggg ,this construction of the world out of numbers was a real process in time1 which the ,pythagoreans described in detail4#ggh ,footnote #ggd3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #a1 2 1 #c4 #ajij a #bb1 1 1 ' 4 ,footnote #gge3 ,met4 1 #f4 #ajhj b #b1 2 ib4 #ajhj b #ag1 7 7 4 ,footnote #ggf3 ,met4 1 #h4 #ajhc b #aa1 2 ib4 b #ag1 2 1 #c4 #ajij a #cb1 1 4 ,footnote #ggg3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #b1 2 1 #h4 #iij a #ba1 2 1 #f4 #ajhj b #ah1 2 de ,caelo1 1 #a4 #cjj a #ae1 1 4 ,footnote #ggh3 ,met4 1 #c4 #ajia a #ah1 4 ,further1 the numbers were intended to be mathematical numbers1 though they were not separated from the things of sense4#ggi ,on the other hand1 they were not mere predicates of something else1 but had an independent reality of their own4 8,they did not hold that the limited and the unlimited and the one were certain other substances1 such as fire1 water1 or anything else of that sort2 but that the unlimited itself and the one itself were the reality of the things of which they are predicated1 and that is why they said that number was the reality of everything40#ghj ,accordingly the numbers are1 in ,aristotle's own language1 not only the formal1 but also the material1 cause of things4#gha ,according to the ,pythagoreans1 things are made of numbers in the same sense as they were made of fire1 air1 or water in the theories of their predecessors4 ,footnote #ggi3 ,met4 1 #f4 #ajhj b #af2 1 #c4 #ajij a #bj4 ,lastly1 ,aristotle notes that the point in which the ,pythagoreans agreed with ,plato was in giving numbers an independent reality of their own2 while ,plato differed from the ,pythagoreans in holding that this reality was distinguishable from that of sensible things4#ghb ,let us consider these statements in detail4 ,footnote #ghj3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihg a #ae4 ,footnote #gha3 ,met4 ib4 #ihf a #ae 7,r4 ,p4 #ff74 ,footnote #ghb3 ,met4 1 #f4 #ihg b #bg1 77 1 ' 7 7 4 ,sidenote3 ,the elements of numbers4 #add4 ,aristotle speaks of certain 8elements0 77 of numbers1 which were also the elements of things4 ,that1 of course1 is only his own way of putting the matter2 but it is clearly the key to the problem1 if we can discover what it means4 ,primarily1 the 8elements of number0 are the ,odd and the ,even1 but that does not seem to help us much4 ,we find1 however1 that the ,odd and ,even were identified in a somewhat violent way with the ,limit and the ,unlimited1 which we have seen reason to regard as the original principles of the ,pythagorean cosmology4 ,aristotle tells us that it is the ,even which gives things their unlimited character when it is contained in them and limited by the ,odd1#ghc and the commentators are at one in understanding this to mean that the ,even is in some way the cause of infinite divisibility4 ,they get into great difficulties1 however1 when they try to show how this can be4 ,simplicius has preserved an explanation1 in all probability ,alexander's1 to the effect that they called the even number unlimited 8because every even is divided into equal parts1 and what is divided into equal parts is unlimited in respect of bipartition2 for division into equals and halves goes on ad infinitum4 ,but1 when the odd is added1 it limits it2 for it prevents its division into equal parts40#ghd ,now it is plain that we must not impute to the ,pythagoreans the view that even numbers can be halved indefinitely4 ,they had carefully studied the properties of the decad1 and they must have known that the even numbers #f and #aj do not admit of this4 ,the explanation is really to be found in a fragment of ,aristoxenos1 where we read that 8even numbers are those which are divided into equal parts1 while odd numbers are divided into unequal parts and have a middle term40#ghe ,this is still further elucidated by a passage which is quoted in ,stobaios and ultimately goes back to ,poseidonios4 ,it runs3 8,when the odd is divided into two equal parts1 a unit is left over in the middle2 but when the even is so divided1 an empty field is left1 without a master and without a number1 showing that it is defective and incomplete40#ghf ,again1 ,plutarch says3 8,in the division of numbers1 the even1 when parted in any direction1 leaves as it were within itself 444 a field2 but1 when the same thing is done to the odd1 there is always a middle left over from the division40#ghg ,it is clear that all these passages refer to the same thing1 and that can hardly be anything else than those arrangements of 8terms0 in patterns with which we are already familiar 7 #dg74 ,if we think of these1 we shall see in what sense it is true that bipartition goes on ad infinitum4 ,however high the number may be1 the number of ways in which it can be equally divided will also increase4 ,footnote #ghc3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #ff72 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #aj 7,r4 ,p4 #ff a74 ,footnote #ghd3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #dee1 #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #ff a74 ,i owe the passages which ,i have used in illustration of this subject to ,w4 ,a4 ,heidel1 8 and in the ,pythagorean ,philosophy0 7,arch4 xiv4 pp4 #chd sqq474 ,the general principle of my interpretation is also the same as his1 though ,i think that1 by bringing the passage into connexion with the numerical figures1 ,i have avoided the necessity of regarding the words ' as 8an attempted elucidation added by ,simplicius40 ,footnote #ghe3 ,aristoxenos1 fr4 #ha1 ap4 ,stob4 i4 p4 #bj1 #a1 444 1 4 ,footnote #ghf3 ,plut4 ap4 ,stob4 i4 p4 #bb1 #ai1 1 1 4 ,footnote #ghg3 ,plut4 de ,e apud ,delphos1 #chh a1 1 1 4 ,the words which ,i have omitted in translating refer to the further identification of ,odd and ,even with ,male and ,female4 ,the passages quoted by ,heidel might be added to4 ,cf41 for instance1 what ,nikomachos says 7p4 #ac1 #aj1 ,hoche71 1 4 ,he significantly adds that this definition is 4 #ade4 ,in this way1 then1 the ,odd and the ,even were identified with the ,limit and the ,unlimited1 and it is possible1 though by no means certain1 that ,pythagoras himself had taken this step4 ,in any case1 there can be no doubt that by his ,unlimited he meant something spatially extended1 and we have seen that he identified it with air1 night1 or the void1 so we are prepared to find that his followers also thought of the ,unlimited as extended4 ,aristotle certainly regarded it so4 ,he argues that1 if the ,unlimited is itself a reality1 and not merely the predicate of some other reality1 then every part of it must be unlimited too1 just as every part of air is air4#ghh ,the same thing is implied in his statement that the ,pythagorean ,unlimited was outside the heavens4#ghi ,further than this1 it is hardly safe to go4 ,philolaos and his followers cannot have regarded the ,unlimited in the old ,pythagorean way as ,air2 for1 as we shall see1 they adopted the theory of ,empedokles as to that 8element10 and accounted for it otherwise4 ,on the other hand1 they can hardly have regarded it as an absolute void2 for that conception was introduced by the ,atomists4 ,it is enough to say that they meant by the ,unlimited the res extensa1 without analysing that conception any further4 ,footnote #ghh3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjd a #bj sqq41 especially a #bf1 1 1 4 ,footnote #ghi3 ,see ,chap4 ,,ii4 #ec4 ,as the ,unlimited is spatial1 the ,limit must be spatial too1 and we should naturally expect to find that the point1 the line1 and the surface were regarded as all forms of the ,limit4 ,that was the later doctrine2 but the characteristic feature of ,pythagoreanism is just that the point was not regarded as a limit1 but as the first product of the ,limit and the ,unlimited1 and was identified with the arithmetical unit4 ,according to this view1 then1 the point has one dimension1 the line two1 the surface three1 and the solid four4#gij ,in other words1 the ,pythagorean points have magnitude1 their lines breadth1 and their surfaces thickness4 ,the whole theory1 in short1 turns on the definition of the point as a unit 8having position40#gia ,it was out of such elements that it seemed possible to construct a world4 ,footnote #gij3 ,cf4 ,speusippos in the extract preserved in the ,theologumena arithmetica1 p4 #fa 7,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #bce71 1 1 1 4 ,we know that ,speusippos is following ,philolaos here4 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #aa4 #ajcf b #ab1 1 4 ,the matter is clearly put in the ,scholia on ,euclid 7p4 #gh1 #ai1 ,heiberg71 1 1 1 4 1 4 ,footnote #gia3 ,the identification of the point with the unit is referred to by ,aristotle1 ,phys4 1 #c4 #bbg a #bg4 ,sidenote3 ,the numbers as magnitudes4 #adf4 ,it is clear that this way of regarding the point1 the line1 and the surface is closely bound up with the practice of representing numbers by dots arranged in symmetrical patterns1 which we have seen reason for attributing to the ,pythagoreans 7 #dg74 ,the science of geometry had already made considerable advances1 but the old view of quantity as a sum of units had not been revised1 and so a doctrine such as we have indicated was inevitable4 ,this is the true answer to ,zeller's contention that to regard the ,pythagorean numbers as spatial is to ignore the fact that the doctrine was originally arithmetical rather than geometrical4 ,our interpretation takes full account of that fact1 and indeed makes the peculiarities of the whole system depend upon it4 ,aristotle is very decided as to the ,pythagorean points having magnitude4 8,they construct the whole world out of numbers10 he tells us1 8but they suppose the units have magnitude4 ,as to how the first unit with magnitude arose1 they appear to be at a loss40#gib ,zeller holds that this is only an inference of ,aristotle's1#gic and he is probably right in this sense1 that the ,pythagoreans never felt the need of saying in so many words that points had magnitude4 ,it does seem probable1 however1 that they called them 4#gid ,footnote #gib3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #f4 #ajhj b #ah sqq41 #ajhc b #h sqq42 de ,caelo1 1 #a4 #cjj a #af 7,r4 ,p4 #gf a74 ,footnote #gic3 ,zeller1 p4 #cha4 ,footnote #gid3 ,we learn from ,plato1 ,theaet4 #adh b #a1 that ,theaitetos called surds1 what ,euclid calls 1 by the name of 1 while rational square roots were called 4 ,now in ,tim4 #ca c #d we find a division of numbers into and 1 which seem to mean rational and irrational quantities4 ,cf4 also the use of in ,parm4 #afd d4 ,zeno in his fourth argument about motion1 which1 we shall see 7 #afc71 was directed against the ,pythagoreans1 used for points4 ,aetios1 i4 #c1 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #gf b71 says that ,ekphantos of ,syracuse was the first of the ,pythagoreans to say that their units were corporeal4 ,probably1 however1 8,ekphantos0 was a personage in a dialogue of ,herakleides 7,tannery1 ,arch4 xi4 pp4 #bfc sqq471 and ,herakleides called the monads 7,galen1 ,hist4 ,phil4 #ah2 ,dox4 p4 #faj74 ,nor is ,zeller's other argument against the view that the ,pythagorean numbers were spatial any more inconsistent with the way in which we have now stated it4 ,he himself allows1 and indeed insists1 that in the ,pythagorean cosmology the numbers were spatial1 but he raises difficulties about the other parts of the system4 ,there are other things1 such as the ,soul and ,justice and ,opportunity1 which are said to be numbers1 and which cannot be regarded as constructed of points1 lines1 and surfaces4#gie ,now it appears to me that this is just the meaning of a passage in which ,aristotle criticises the ,pythagoreans4 ,they held1 he says1 that in one part of the world ,opinion prevailed1 while a little above it or below it were to be found ,injustice or ,separation or ,mixture1 each of which was1 according to them1 a number4 ,but in the very same regions of the heavens were to be found things having magnitude which were also numbers4 ,how can this be1 since ,justice has no magnitude8#gif ,this means surely that the ,pythagoreans had failed to give any clear account of the relation between these more or less fanciful analogies and their quasi-geometrical construction of the universe4 ,and this is1 after all1 really ,zeller's own view4 ,he has shown that in the ,pythagorean cosmology the numbers were regarded as spatial1#gig and he has also shown that the cosmology was the whole of the system4#gih ,we have only to bring these two things together to arrive at the interpretation given above4 ,footnote #gie3 ,zeller1 p4 #chb4 ,footnote #gif3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #h4 #iij a #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #ha e74 ,i read and interpret thus3 8,for1 seeing that1 according to them1 ,opinion and ,opportunity are in a given part of the world1 and a little above or below them ,injustice and ,separation and ,mixture1--in proof of which they allege that each of these is a number1--and seeing that it is also the case 7reading with ,bonitz7 that there is already in that part of the world a number of composite magnitudes 7i4e4 composed of the ,limit and the ,unlimited71 because those affections 7of number7 are attached to their respective regions2--7seeing that they hold these two things71 the question arises whether the number which we are to understand each of these things 7,opinion1 etc47 to be is the same as the number in the world 7i4e4 the cosmological number7 or a different one40 ,i cannot doubt that these are the extended numbers which are composed 77 of the elements of number1 the limited and the unlimited1 or1 as ,aristotle here says1 the 8affections of number10 the odd and the even4 ,zeller's view that 8celestial bodies0 are meant comes near this1 but the application is too narrow4 ,nor is it the number 77 of those bodies that is in question1 but their magnitude 774 ,for other views of the passage1 see ,zeller1 p4 #cia1 n4 #a4 ,footnote #gig3 ,zeller1 p4 #djd4 ,footnote #gih3 ,ibid4 pp4 #dfg sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,the numbers and the elements4 #adg4 ,when we come to details1 we seem to see that what distinguished the ,pythagoreanism of this period from its earlier form was that it sought to adapt itself to the new theory of 8elements40 ,it is just this which makes it necessary for us to take up the consideration of the system once more in connexion with the pluralists4 ,when the ,pythagoreans returned to ,southern ,italy1 they must have found views prevalent there which imperatively demanded a partial reconstruction of their own system4 ,we do not know that ,empedokles founded a philosophical society1 but there can be no doubt of his influence on the medical school of these regions2 and we also know now that ,philolaos played a part in the history of medicine4#gii ,this discovery gives us the clue to the historical connexion1 which formerly seemed obscure4 ,the tradition is that the ,pythagoreans explained the elements as built up of geometrical figures1 a theory which we can study for ourselves in the more developed form which it attained in ,plato's ,timaeus4#hjj ,if they were to retain their position as the leaders of medical study in ,italy1 they were bound to account for the elements4 ,footnote #gii3 ,all this has been put in its true light by the publication of the extract from ,menon's 1 on which see p4 #cbb1 n4 #gdb4 ,footnote #hjj3 ,in ,aet4 ii4 #f1 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #hj7 the theory is ascribed to ,pythagoras1 which is an anachronism1 as the mention of 8elements0 shows it must be later than ,empedokles4 ,in his extract from the same source1 ,achilles says 1 which doubtless represents ,theophrastos better4 ,there is a fragment of 8,philolaos0 bearing on the subject 7,r4 ,p4 #gi71 where the regular solids must be meant by 4 ,we must not take it for granted1 however1 that the ,pythagorean construction of the elements was exactly the same as that which we find in ,plato's ,timaeus4 ,it has been mentioned already that there is good reason for believing they only knew three of the regular solids1 the cube1 the pyramid 7tetrahedron71 and the dodecahedron4#hja ,now it is very significant that ,plato starts from fire and earth1#hjb and in the construction of the elements proceeds in such a way that the octahedron and the icosahedron can easily be transformed into pyramids1 while the cube and the dodecahedron cannot4 ,from this it follows that1 while air and water pass readily into fire1 earth cannot do so1#hjc and the dodecahedron is reserved for another purpose1 which we shall consider presently4 ,this would exactly suit the ,pythagorean system2 for it would leave room for a dualism of the kind outlined in the ,second ,part of the poem of ,parmenides4 ,we know that ,hippasos made ,fire the first principle1 and we see from the ,timaeus how it would be possible to represent air and water as forms of fire4 ,the other element is1 however1 earth1 not air1 as we have seen reason to believe that it was in early ,pythagoreanism4 ,that would be a natural result of the discovery of atmospheric air by ,empedokles and of his general theory of the elements4 ,it would also explain the puzzling fact1 which we had to leave unexplained above1 that ,aristotle identifies the two 8forms0 spoken of by ,parmenides with ,fire and ,earth4#hjd ,all this is1 of course1 problematical2 but it will not be found easy to account otherwise for the facts4 ,footnote #hja3 ,see above1 p4 #cbi1 n4 #gfg4 ,footnote #hjb3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #ca b #e4 ,footnote #hjc3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #ed c #d4 ,it is to be observed that in ,tim4 #dh b #e ,plato says of the construction of the elements 1 which implies that there is some novelty in the theory as he makes ,timaios state it4 ,if we read the passage in the light of what has been said in #ada1 we shall be inclined to believe that ,plato is working out the ,pythagorean doctrine on the lines of the discovery of ,theaitetos4 ,there is another indication of the same thing in ,arist4 ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #c4 #ccj b #af1 where we are told that1 in the 1 ,plato assumed three elements1 but made the middle one a mixture4 ,this is stated in close connexion with the ascription of ,fire and ,earth to ,parmenides4 ,footnote #hjd3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #bac1 n4 #dfb4 ,sidenote3 ,the dodecahedron4 #adh4 ,the most interesting point in the theory is1 perhaps1 the use made of the dodecahedron4 ,it was identified1 we are told1 with the 8sphere of the universe10 or1 as it is put in the ,philolaic fragment1 with the 8hull of the sphere40#hje ,whatever we may think of the authenticity of the fragments1 there is no reason to doubt that this is a genuine ,pythagorean expression1 and it must be taken in close connexion with the word 8keel0 applied to the central fire4#hjf ,the structure of the world was compared to the building of a ship1 an idea of which there are other traces4#hjg ,the key to what we are told of the dodecahedron is given by ,plato4 ,in the ,phaedo we read that the 8true earth10 if looked at from above1 is 8many-coloured like the balls that are made of twelve pieces of leather40#hjh ,in the ,timaeus the same thing is referred to in these words3 8,further1 as there is still one construction left1 the fifth1 ,god made use of it for the universe when he painted it40#hji ,the point is that the dodecahedron approaches more nearly to the sphere than any other of the regular solids4 ,the twelve pieces of leather used to make a ball would all be regular pentagons2 and1 if the material were not flexible like leather1 we should have a dodecahedron instead of a sphere4 ,this points to the ,pythagoreans having had at least the rudiments of the 8method of exhaustion0 formulated later by ,eudoxos4 ,they must have studied the properties of circles by means of inscribed polygons and those of spheres by means of inscribed solids4#haj ,that gives us a high idea of their mathematical attainments2 but that it is not too high1 is shown by the fact that the famous lunules of ,hippokrates date from the middle of the fifth century4 ,the inclusion of straight and curved in the 8table of opposites0 under the head of ,limit and ,unlimited points in the same direction4#haa ,footnote #hje3 ,aet4 ii4 #f1 #e 7,r4 ,p4 #hj72 8,philolaos10 fr4 #ab 7 #bj ,m42 ,r4 ,p4 #gi74 ,on the 1 see ,gundermann in ,rhein4 ,mus4 #aijd1 pp4 #ade sqq4 ,i agree with him in holding that the reading is sound1 and that the word means 8ship10 but ,i think that it is the structure1 not the motion1 of a ship which is the point of comparison4 ,footnote #hjf3 ,aet4 ii4 #d1 #ae1 4 ,footnote #hjg3 ,cf4 the of ,plato1 ,rep4 #faf c #c4 ,as generally means 8timber0 for shipbuilding 7when it does not mean firewood71 ,i suggest that we should look in this direction for an explanation of the technical use of the word in later philosophy4 ,cf4 ,plato1 ,phileb4 #ed c #a1 444 444 1 which is part of the answer to the question 2 7ib4 b #b72 ,tim4 #fi a #f1 4 ,footnote #hjh3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #aaj b #f1 with ,wyttenbach's note4 ,footnote #hji3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #ee c #d4 ,neither this passage nor the last can refer to the ,zodiac1 which would be described by a dodecagon1 not a dodecahedron4 ,what is implied is the division of the heavens into twelve pentagonal fields4 ,footnote #haj3 ,gow1 ,short ,history of ,greek ,mathematics1 pp4 #afd sqq4 ,footnote #haa3 ,this is pointed out by ,kinkel1 ,gesch4 der ,phil4 vol4 i4 p4 #aba4 ,the tradition confirms in an interesting way the importance of the dodecahedron in the ,pythagorean system4 ,according to one account1 ,hippasos was drowned at sea for revealing its construction and claiming the discovery as his own4#hab ,what that construction was1 we may partially infer from the fact that the ,pythagoreans adopted the pentagram or pentalpha as their symbol4 ,the use of this figure in later magic is well known2 and ,paracelsus still employed it as a symbol of health1 which is exactly what the ,pythagoreans called it4#hac ,footnote #hab3 ,iambl4 ,v4 ,pyth4 #bdg4 ,cf4 above1 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #aag1 n4 #bdg4 ,footnote #hac3 ,see ,gow1 ,short ,history of ,greek ,mathematics1 p4 #aea1 and the passages there referred to1 adding ,schol4 ,luc4 p4 #bcd1 #ba1 ,rabe1 4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,soul a 8,harmony40 #adi4 ,the view that the soul is a 8harmony10 or rather an attunement1 is intimately connected with the theory of the four elements4 ,it cannot have belonged to the earliest form of ,pythagoreanism2 for1 as shown in ,plato's ,phaedo1 it is quite inconsistent with the idea that the soul can exist independently of the body4 ,it is the very opposite of the belief that 8any soul can enter any body40#had ,on the other hand1 we know also from the ,phaedo that it was accepted by ,simmias and ,kebes1 who had heard ,philolaos at ,thebes1 and by ,echekrates of ,phleious1 who was the disciple of ,philolaos and ,eurytos4#hae ,the account of the doctrine given by ,plato is quite in accordance with the view that it was of medical origin4 ,simmias says3 8,our body being1 as it were1 strung and held together by the warm and the cold1 the dry and the moist1 and things of that sort1 our soul is a sort of temperament and attunement of these1 when they are mingled with one another well and in due proportion4 ,if1 then1 our soul is an attunement1 it is clear that1 when the body has been relaxed or strung up out of measure by diseases and other ills1 the soul must necessarily perish at once40#haf ,this is clearly an application of the theory of ,alkmaion 7 #if71 and is in accordance with the views of the ,sicilian school of medicine4 ,it completes the evidence that the ,pythagoreanism of the end of the fifth century was an adaptation of the old doctrine to the new principles introduced by ,empedokles4 ,footnote #had3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #c4 #djg b #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #hf c74 ,footnote #hae3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #he e sqq42 and for ,echekrates1 ib4 #hh d4 ,footnote #haf3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #hf b #g-;c #e4 ,sidenote3 ,the central fire4 #aej4 ,the planetary system which ,aristotle attributes to 8the ,pythagoreans0 and ,aetios to ,philolaos is sufficiently remarkable4#hag ,the earth is no longer in the middle of the world2 its place is taken by a central fire1 which is not to be identified with the sun4 ,round this fire revolve ten bodies4 ,first comes the ,antichthon or ,counter-earth1 and next the earth1 which thus becomes one of the planets4 ,after the earth comes the moon1 then the sun1 the five planets1 and the heaven of the fixed stars4 ,we do not see the central fire and the antichthon because the side of the earth on which we live is always turned away from them4 ,this is to be explained by the analogy of the moon4 ,that body always presents the same face to us2 and men living on the other side of it would never see the earth4 ,this implies1 of course1 that all these bodies rotate on their axes in the same time as they revolve round the central fire4#hah ,footnote #hag3 ,for the authorities1 see ,r4 ,p4 #ha-hc4 ,the attribution of the theory to ,philolaos is perhaps due to ,poseidonios4 ,the 8three books0 were doubtless in existence by his time4 ,footnote #hah3 ,plato attributes an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies 7,tim4 #dj a #g71 which must be of this kind4 ,it is quite likely that the ,pythagoreans already did so1 though ,aristotle was unable to see the point4 ,he says 7de ,caelo1 1 #h4 #bij a #bd71 1 1 4 ,this1 of course1 is just what proves it does rotate4 ,it is not very easy to accept the view that this system was taught by ,philolaos4 ,aristotle nowhere mentions him in connexion with it1 and in the ,phaedo ,plato gives a description of the earth and its position in the world which is entirely opposed to it1 but is accepted without demur by ,simmias the disciple of ,philolaos4#hai ,it is undoubtedly a ,pythagorean theory1 however1 and marks a noticeable advance on the ,ionian views then current at ,athens4 ,it is clear too that ,plato states it as something of a novelty that the earth does not require the support of air or anything of the sort to keep it in its place4 ,even ,anaxagoras had not been able to shake himself free of that idea1 and ,demokritos still held it4#hbj ,the natural inference from the ,phaedo would certainly be that the theory of a spherical earth1 kept in the middle of the world by its equilibrium1 was that of ,philolaos himself4 ,if so1 the doctrine of the central fire would belong to a somewhat later generation of the school1 and ,plato may have learnt it from ,archytas and his friends after he had written the ,phaedo4 ,however that may be1 it is of such importance that it cannot be omitted here4 ,footnote #hai3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #ajh e #d sqq4 ,simmias assents to this doctrine in the emphatic words 4 ,footnote #hbj3 ,the primitive character of the astronomy taught by ,demokritos as compared with that of ,plato is the best evidence of the value of the ,pythagorean researches4 ,it is commonly supposed that the revolution of the earth round the central fire was intended to account for the alternation of day and night1 and it is clear that an orbital motion of the kind just described would have the same effect as the rotation of the earth on its axis4 ,as the same side of the earth is always turned to the central fire1 the side upon which we live will be turned towards the sun when the earth is on the same side of the central fire1 and turned away from it when the earth and sun are on opposite sides4 ,this view appears to derive some support from the statement of ,aristotle that the earth 8being in motion round the centre1 produces day and night40#hba ,that remark1 however1 would prove too much2 for in the ,timaeus ,plato calls the earth 8the guardian and artificer of night and day10 while at the same time he declares that the alternation of day and night is caused by the diurnal revolution of the heavens4#hbb ,that is explained1 no doubt quite rightly1 by saying that1 even if the earth were regarded as at rest1 it could still be said to produce day and night2 for night is due to the intervention of the earth between the sun and the hemisphere opposite to it4 ,if we remember how recent was the discovery that night was the shadow of the earth1 we shall see how it may have been worth while to say this explicitly4 ,footnote #hba3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bic a #ah sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #hc74 ,footnote #hbb3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #dj c #a1 77 4 ,on the other hand1 1 7#ci c #a74 ,in any case1 it is wholly incredible that the heaven of the fixed stars should have been regarded as stationary4 ,that would have been the most startling paradox that any scientific man had yet propounded1 and we should have expected the comic poets and popular literature generally to raise the cry of atheism at once4 ,above all1 we should have expected ,aristotle to say something about it4 ,he made the circular motion of the heavens the very keystone of his system1 and would have regarded the theory of a stationary heaven as blasphemous4 ,now he argues against those who1 like the ,pythagoreans and ,plato1 regarded the earth as in motion2#hbc but he does not attribute the view that the heavens are stationary to any one4 ,there is no necessary connexion between the two ideas4 ,all the heavenly bodies may be moving as rapidly as we please1 provided that their relative motions are such as to account for the phenomena4#hbd ,footnote #hbc3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bic b #ae sqq4 ,footnote #hbd3 ,boeckh admitted a very slow motion of the heaven of the fixed stars1 which he at first supposed to account for the precession of the equinoxes1 though he afterwards abandoned that hypothesis 7,untersuchungen1 p4 #ic74 ,but1 as ,dreyer admits 7,planetary ,systems1 p4 #di71 it is 8not 444 necessary with ,boeckh to suppose the motion of the starry sphere to have been an exceedingly slow one1 as it might in any case escape direct observation40 ,it seems probable that the theory of the earth's revolution round the central fire really originated in the account given by ,empedokles of the sun's light4 ,the two things are brought into close connexion by ,aetios1 who says that ,empedokles believed in two suns1 while ,philolaos believed in two or even in three4#hbe ,the theory of ,empedokles is unsatisfactory in so far as it gives two inconsistent explanations of night4 ,it is1 we have seen1 the shadow of the earth2 but at the same time ,empedokles recognised a fiery diurnal hemisphere and a nocturnal hemisphere with only a little fire in it4#hbf ,all this could be simplified by the hypothesis of a central fire which is the true source of light4 ,such a theory would1 in fact1 be the natural issue of the recent discoveries as to the moon's light and the cause of eclipses1 if that theory were extended so as to include the sun4 ,footnote #hbe3 ,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #ac 7,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #bge1 n4 #fji72 cf4 ib4 #ab 7of ,philolaos71 1 ' ' 4 ,here is the central fire1 in accordance with the use of the word explained in another passage of ,aetios1 ,stob4 ,ecl4 i4 p4 #aif1 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #ha74 ,it seems to me that these strange notices must be fragments of an attempt to show how the heliocentric hypothesis arose from the theory of ,empedokles as to the sun's light4 ,the meaning is that the central fire really was the sun1 but that ,philolaos unnecessarily duplicated it by supposing the visible sun to be its reflexion4 ,footnote #hbf3 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #aac4 ,the central fire received a number of mythological names4 ,it was called the ,hestia or 8hearth of the universe10 the 8house0 or 8watch-tower0 of ,zeus1 and the 8mother of the gods40#hbg ,that was in the manner of the school2 but these names must not blind us to the fact that we are dealing with a real scientific hypothesis4 ,it was a great thing to see that the phenomena could best be 8saved0 by a central luminary1 and that the earth must therefore be a revolving sphere like the planets4 ,indeed1 we are almost tempted to say that the identification of the central fire with the sun1 which was suggested for the first time in the ,academy1 is a mere detail in comparison4 ,the great thing was that the earth should definitely take its place among the planets2 for once it has done so1 we can proceed to search for the true 8hearth0 of the planetary system at our leisure4 ,it is probable1 at any rate1 that it was this theory which made it possible for ,herakleides of ,pontos and ,aristarchos of ,samos to reach the heliocentric hypothesis1#hbh and it was certainly ,aristotle's reversion to the geocentric theory which made it necessary for ,copernicus to discover the truth afresh4 ,we have his own word for it that the ,pythagorean theory put him on the right track4#hbi ,footnote #hbg3 ,aet4 i4 #g1 #g 7,r4 ,p4 #ha74 ,procl4 in ,tim4 p4 #ajf1 #bb1 ,diehl 7,r4 ,p4 #hc e74 ,footnote #hbh3 ,on these points1 see ,staigmller1 ,beitrge zur ,gesch4 der ,naturwissenschaften im klassichen ,altertume 7,progr41 ,stuttgart1 #ahii72 and 8,herakleides ,pontikos und das heliokentrische ,system0 7,arch4 xv4 pp4 #ada sqq474 ,though1 for reasons which will partly appear from the following pages1 ,i should not put the matter exactly as ,staigmller does1 ,i have no doubt that he is substantially right4 ,diels had already expressed his adhesion to the view that ,herakleides was the real author of the heliocentric hypothesis 7,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahic1 ,p4 #ah74 ,footnote #hbi3 ,in his letter to ,pope ,paul ,,iii41 ,copernicus quotes ,plut4 ,plac4 iii4 #ac1 #b-c 7,r4 ,p4 #hc a71 and adds 8,inde igitur occasionem nactus1 coepi et ego de terrae mobilitate cogitare40 ,the whole passage is paraphrased by ,dreyer1 ,planetary ,systems1 p4 #caa4 ,cf4 also the passage from the original ,,ms41 which was first printed in the edition of #ahgc1 translated by ,dreyer1 ib4 pp4 #cad sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,the antichthon4 #aea4 ,the existence of the antichthon was also a hypothesis intended to account for the phenomena of eclipses4 ,in one place1 indeed1 ,aristotle says that the ,pythagoreans invented it in order to bring the number of revolving bodies up to ten2#hcj but that is a mere sally1 and ,aristotle really knew better4 ,in his work on the ,pythagoreans1 we are told1 he said that eclipses of the moon were caused sometimes by the intervention of the earth and sometimes by that of the antichthon2 and the same statement was made by ,philip of ,opous1 a very competent authority on the matter4#hca ,indeed1 ,aristotle shows in another passage exactly how the theory originated4 ,he tells us that some thought there might be a considerable number of bodies revolving round the centre1 though invisible to us because of the intervention of the earth1 and that they accounted in this way for there being more eclipses of the moon than of the sun4#hcb ,this is mentioned in close connexion with the antichthon1 so there is no doubt that ,aristotle regarded the two hypotheses as of the same nature4 ,the history of the theory seems to be this4 ,anaximenes had assumed the existence of dark planets to account for the frequency of lunar eclipses 7 #bi71 and ,anaxagoras had revived that view 7 #ace74 ,certain ,pythagoreans#hcc had placed these dark planets between the earth and the central fire in order to account for their invisibility1 and the next stage was to reduce them to a single body4 ,here again we see how the ,pythagoreans tried to simplify the hypotheses of their predecessors4 ,footnote #hcj3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf a #c 7,r4 ,p4 #hc b74 ,footnote #hca3 ,aet4 ii4 #bi1 #d1 1 7 74 ,footnote #hcb3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bic b #ba1 4 1 ' 4 ,footnote #hcc3 ,it is not expressly stated that they were ,pythagoreans1 but it is natural to suppose so4 ,such1 at least1 was ,alexander's opinion 7,simpl4 de ,caelo1 ,p4 #eae1 #be74 ,sidenote3 ,planetary motions4 #aeb4 ,we must not assume that even the later ,pythagoreans made the sun1 moon1 and planets1 including the earth1 revolve in the opposite direction to the heaven of the fixed stars4 ,it is true that ,alkmaion is said to have agreed with 8some of the mathematicians0#hcd in holding this view1 but it is never ascribed to ,pythagoras or even to ,philolaos4 ,the old theory was1 as we have seen 7 #ed71 that all the heavenly bodies revolved in the same direction1 from east to west1 but that the planets revolved more slowly the further they were removed from the heavens1 so that those which are nearest the earth are 8overtaken0 by those that are further away4 ,this view was still maintained by ,demokritos1 and that it was also ,pythagorean1 seems to follow from what we are told about the 8harmony of the spheres40 ,we have seen 7 #ed7 that we cannot attribute this theory in its later form to the ,pythagoreans of the fifth century1 but we have the express testimony of ,aristotle to the fact that those ,pythagoreans whose doctrine he knew believed that the heavenly bodies produced musical notes in their courses4 ,further1 the velocities of these bodies depended on the distances between them1 and these corresponded to the intervals of the octave4 ,he distinctly implies that the heaven of the fixed stars takes part in the concert2 for he mentions 8the sun1 the moon1 and the stars1 so great in magnitude and in number as they are10 a phrase which cannot refer solely or chiefly to the remaining five planets4#hce ,further1 we are told that the slower bodies give out a deep note and the swifter a high note4#hcf ,now the prevailing tradition gives the high note of the octave to the heaven of the fixed stars1#hcg from which it follows that all the heavenly bodies revolve in the same direction1 and that their velocity increases in proportion to their distance from the centre4 ,footnote #hcd3 ,the term is that used by ,poseidonios for the ,chaldan astrologers 7,berossos74 ,diels1 ,elementum1 p4 #aa1 n4 #c4 ,as we have seen1 the ,babylonians knew the planets better than the ,greeks4 ,footnote #hce3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #i4 #bij b #ab sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #hb74 ,footnote #hcf3 ,alexander1 in ,met4 p4 #ci1 #bd 7from ,aristotle's work on the ,pythagoreans71 444 1 4 ,we must not attribute the identification of the seven planets with the seven strings of the heptachord to the ,pythagoreans of this date4 ,mercury and ,venus have in the long run the same velocity as the sun1 and we must take in the earth and the fixed stars4 ,we can even find room for the antichthon as 4 ,footnote #hcg3 ,for the various systems1 see ,boeckh1 ,kleine ,schriften1 vol4 iii4 pp4 #afi sqq41 and ,carl v4 ,jan1 8,die ,harmonie der ,sphren0 7,philol4 #ahic1 pp4 #ac sqq474 ,they vary with the astronomy of their authors1 but they bear witness to the fact stated in the text4 ,many give the highest note to ,saturn and the lowest to the ,moon1 while others reverse this4 ,the system which corresponds best1 however1 with the ,pythagorean planetary system must include the heaven of the fixed stars and the earth4 ,it is that upon which the verses of ,alexander of ,ephesos quoted by ,theon of ,smyrna1 p4 #adj1 #d1 are based3 1 444 ,the 8base of ,heaven's deep ,organ0 in ,milton's 8ninefold harmony0 7,hymn on the ,nativity1 xiii47 implies the reverse of this4 ,the theory that the proper motion of the sun1 moon1 and planets is from west to east1 and that they also share in the motion from east to west of the heaven of the fixed stars1 makes its first appearance in the ,myth of ,er in ,plato's ,republic1 and is fully worked out in the ,timaeus4 ,in the ,republic it is still associated with the 8harmony of the spheres10 though we are not told how it is reconciled with that theory in detail4#hch ,in the ,timaeus we read that the slowest of the heavenly bodies appear the fastest and vice versa2 and1 as this statement is put into the mouth of a ,pythagorean1 we might suppose the theory of a composite movement to have been anticipated by some members at least of that school4#hci ,that is1 of course1 possible2 for the ,pythagoreans were singularly open to new ideas4 ,at the same time1 we must note that the theory is even more emphatically expressed by the ,athenian ,stranger in the ,laws1 who is in a special sense ,plato himself4 ,if we were to praise the runners who come in last in the race1 we should not do what is pleasing to the competitors2 and in the same way it cannot be pleasing to the gods when we suppose the slowest of the heavenly bodies to be the fastest4 ,the passage undoubtedly conveys the impression that ,plato is expounding a novel theory4#hdj ,footnote #hch3 ,the difficulty appears clearly in ,adam's note on ,republic1 #fag b 7vol4 ii4 p4 #deb74 ,there the appears rightly as the 1 while ,saturn1 which comes next to it1 is the 4 ,it is inconceivable that this should have been the original scale4 ,aristotle touches upon the point 7de ,caelo1 1 #aj4 #bia a #bi sqq472 and ,simplicius sensibly observes 7de ,caelo1 p4 #dgf1 #aa71 ' ' 7ought not the reading to be 871 ' ' 1 1 1 but their is 4 ,this is what led to the return to the geocentric hypothesis and the exclusion of earth and from the 4 ,the only solution would have been to make the earth rotate on its axis or revolve round the central fire in twenty-four hours1 leaving only precession for the 4 ,as we have seen1 ,boeckh attributed this to ,philolaos1 but without evidence4 ,if he had thought of it1 these difficulties would not have arisen4 ,footnote #hci3 ,tim4 #ci a #e-;b #b1 especially the words 78they appear to be overtaken1 though they overtake074 ,footnote #hdj3 ,plato1 ,laws1 #hbb a #d sqq4 ,the ,athenian says of the theory that he had not heard of it in his youth nor long before 7#hba e #c74 ,if so1 it can hardly have been taught by ,philolaos1 though it may have been by ,archytas4 ,sidenote3 ,things likenesses of numbers4 #aec4 ,we have still to consider a view1 which ,aristotle sometimes attributes to the ,pythagoreans1 that things were 8like numbers40 ,he does not appear to regard this as inconsistent with the doctrine that things are numbers1 though it is hard to see how he could reconcile the two4#hda ,there is no doubt1 however1 that ,aristoxenos represented the ,pythagoreans as teaching that things were like numbers1#hdb and there are other traces of an attempt to make out that this was the original doctrine4 ,a letter was produced1 purporting to be by ,theano1 the wife of ,pythagoras1 in which she says that she hears many of the ,hellenes think ,pythagoras said things were made of number1 whereas he really said they were made according to number4#hdc ,it is amusing to notice that this fourth-century theory had to be explained away in its turn later on1 and ,iamblichos actually tells us that it was ,hippasos who said number was the exemplar of things4#hdd ,footnote #hda3 ,cf4 especially ,met4 1 #f4 #ghg b #aj 7,r4 ,p4 #fe d74 ,it is not quite the same thing when he says1 as in 1 #e4 #ihe b #bc sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 ib471 that they perceived many likenesses in things to numbers4 ,that refers to the numerical analogies of ,justice1 ,opportunity1 etc4 ,footnote #hdb3 ,aristoxenos ap4 ,stob4 i4 pr4 #f 7p4 #bj71 444 4 ,footnote #hdc3 ,stob4 ,ecl4 i4 p4 #abe1 #ai 7,r4 ,p4 #fe d74 ,footnote #hdd3 ,iambl4 in ,nicom4 p4 #aj1 #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #ef c74 ,when this view is uppermost in his mind1 ,aristotle seems to find only a verbal difference between ,plato and the ,pythagoreans4 ,the metaphor of 8participation0 was merely substituted for that of 8imitation40 ,this is not the place to discuss the meaning of ,plato's so-called 8theory of ideas02 but it must be pointed out that ,aristotle's ascription of the doctrine of 8imitation0 to the ,pythagoreans is abundantly justified by the ,phaedo4 ,the arguments for immortality given in the early part of that dialogue come from various sources4 ,those derived from the doctrine of ,reminiscence1 which has sometimes been supposed to be ,pythagorean1 are only known to the ,pythagoreans by hearsay1 and ,simmias requires to have the whole psychology of the subject explained to him4#hde ,when1 however1 we come to the question what it is that our sensations remind us of1 his attitude changes4 ,the view that the equal itself is alone real1 and that what we call equal things are imperfect imitations of it1 is quite familiar to him4#hdf ,he requires no proof of it1 and is finally convinced of the immortality of the soul just because ,sokrates makes him see that the theory of forms implies it4 ,footnote #hde3 ,plato1 ,phd4 #gc a sqq4 ,footnote #hdf3 ,ibid4 #gd a sqq4 ,it is also to be observed that ,sokrates does not introduce the theory as a novelty4 ,the reality of the 8ideas0 is the sort of reality 8we are always talking about10 and they are explained in a peculiar vocabulary which is represented as that of a school4 ,the technical terms are introduced by such formulas as 8we say40#hdg ,whose theory is it8 ,it is usually supposed to be ,plato's own1 though nowadays it is the fashion to call it his 8early theory of ideas10 and to say that he modified it profoundly in later life4 ,but there are serious difficulties in this view4 ,plato is very careful to tell us that he was not present at the conversation recorded in the ,phaedo4 ,did any philosopher ever propound a new theory of his own by representing it as already familiar to a number of distinguished living contemporaries8 ,it is not easy to believe that4 ,it would be rash1 on the other hand1 to ascribe the theory to ,sokrates1 and there seems nothing for it but to suppose that the doctrine of 8forms0 71 7 originally took shape in ,pythagorean circles1 perhaps under ,sokratic influence4 ,there is nothing startling in this4 ,it is a historical fact that ,simmias and ,kebes were not only ,pythagoreans but disciples of ,sokrates2 for1 by a happy chance1 the good ,xenophon has included them in his list of true ,sokratics4#hdh ,we have also sufficient ground for believing that the ,megarians had adopted a like theory under similar influences1 and ,plato states expressly that ,eukleides and ,terpsion of ,megara were present at the conversation recorded in the ,phaedo4 ,there were1 no doubt1 more 8friends of the ideas0#hdi than we generally recognise4 ,it is certain1 in any case1 that the use of the words and to express ultimate realities is pre-,platonic1 and it seems most natural to regard it as of ,pythagorean origin4#hej ,footnote #hdg3 ,cf4 especially the words 7#gf d #h74 ,the phrases 1 ' 1 and the like are assumed to be familiar4 8,we0 define reality by means of question and answer1 in the course of which 8we0 give an account of its being 7 1 #gh d #a1 where 444 is equivalent to 74 ,when we have done this1 8we0 set the seal or stamp of upon it 7#ge d #b74 ,technical terminology implies a school4 ,as ,diels puts it 7,elementum1 p4 #bj71 it is in a school that 8the simile concentrates into a metaphor1 and the metaphor condenses into a term40 ,footnote #hdh3 ,xen4 ,mem4 i4 #b1 #dh4 ,footnote #hdi3 ,plato1 ,soph4 #bdh a #d4 ,footnote #hej3 ,see ,diels1 ,elementum1 pp4 #af sqq4 ,parmenides had already called the original ,pythagorean 8elements0 7 #ia71 and ,philistion called the 8elements0 of ,empedokles 4 ,if the ascription of this terminology to the ,pythagoreans is correct1 we may say that the ,pythagorean 8forms0 developed into the atoms of ,leukippos and ,demokritos on the one hand 7 #agd71 and into the 8ideas0 of ,plato on the other4 ,we have really exceeded the limits of this work by tracing the history of ,pythagoreanism down to a point where it becomes practically indistinguishable from the earliest form of ,platonism2 but it was necessary to do so in order to put the statements of our authorities in their true light4 ,aristoxenos is not likely to have been mistaken with regard to the opinions of the men he had known personally1 and ,aristotle's statements must have had some foundation4 ,we must assume1 then1 a later form of ,pythagoreanism which was closely akin to early ,platonism4 ,that1 however1 is not the form of it which concerns us here1 and we shall see in the next chapter that the fifth-century doctrine was of the more primitive type already described4 ,,chapter ,,viii ,,the ,,younger ,,eleatics ,sidenote3 ,relation to predecessors4 #aed4 ,the systems we have just been studying were all fundamentally pluralist1 and they were so because ,parmenides had shown that1 if we take a corporeal monism seriously1 we must ascribe to reality a number of predicates which are inconsistent with our experience of a world which everywhere displays multiplicity1 motion1 and change 7 #ig74 ,the four 8roots0 of ,empedokles and the innumerable 8seeds0 of ,anaxagoras were both of them conscious attempts to solve the problem which ,parmenides had raised 7 #ajf1 #abg74 ,there is no evidence1 indeed1 that the ,pythagoreans were directly influenced by ,parmenides1 but it has been shown 7 #adg7 how the later form of their system was based on the theory of ,empedokles4 ,now it was just this prevailing pluralism that ,zeno criticised from the ,eleatic standpoint2 and his arguments were especially directed against ,pythagoreanism4 ,melissos1 too1 criticises ,pythagoreanism2 but he tries to find a common ground with his adversaries by maintaining the old ,ionian thesis that reality is infinite4 ,i4 ,,zeno ,,of ,,elea ,sidenote3 ,life4 #aee4 ,according to ,apollodoros1#hea ,zeno flourished in ,ol4 ,,lxxix4 7#dfd-dfj ,b4,c474 ,this date is arrived at by making him forty years younger than his master ,parmenides4 ,we have seen already 7 #hd7 that the meeting of ,parmenides and ,zeno with the young ,sokrates cannot well have occurred before #ddi ,b4,c41 and ,plato tells us that ,zeno was at that time 8nearly forty years old40#heb ,he must1 then1 have been born about #dhi ,b4,c41 some twenty-five years after ,parmenides4 ,he was the son of ,teleutagoras1 and the statement of ,apollodoros that he had been adopted by ,parmenides is only a misunderstanding of an expression of ,plato's ,sophist4#hec ,he was1 ,plato further tells us1#hed tall and of a graceful appearance4 ,footnote #hea3 ,diog4 ix4 #bi 7,r4 ,p4 #acj a74 ,apollodoros is not expressly referred to for ,zeno's date2 but1 as he is quoted for his father's name 7ix4 #be2 ,r4 ,p4 #acj71 there can be no doubt that he is also the source of the floruit4 ,footnote #heb3 ,plato1 ,parm4 #abg b 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa d74 ,the visit of ,zeno to ,athens is confirmed by ,plut4 ,per4 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #acj e71 where we are told that ,perikles 8heard0 him as well as ,anaxagoras4 ,it is also alluded to in ,alc4 ,i4 #aai a1 where we are told that ,pythodoros1 son of ,isolochos1 and ,kallias1 son of ,kalliades1 each paid him #ajj minae for instruction4 ,footnote #hec3 ,plato1 ,soph4 #bda d 7,r4 ,p4 #acj a74 ,footnote #hed3 ,plato1 ,parm41 loc4 cit4 ,like ,parmenides and most other early philosophers1 ,zeno seems to have played a part in the politics of his native city4 ,strabo ascribes to him some share of the credit for the good government of ,elea1 and says that he was a ,pythagorean4#hee ,this statement can easily be explained4 ,parmenides1 we have seen1 was originally a ,pythagorean1 and the school of ,elea was no doubt popularly regarded as a mere branch of the larger society4 ,we hear also that ,zeno conspired against a tyrant1 whose name is differently given1 and the story of his courage under torture is often repeated1 though with varying details4#hef ,footnote #hee3 ,strabo1 vi4 p4 #beb 7,r4 ,p4 #aaa c74 ,footnote #hef3 ,diog4 ix4 #bf1 #bg1 and the other passages referred to in ,r4 ,p4 #acj c4 ,sidenote3 ,writings4 #aef4 ,diogenes speaks of ,zeno's 8books10 and ,souidas gives some titles which probably come from the ,alexandrian librarians through ,hesychios of ,miletos4#heg ,in the ,parmenides1 ,plato makes ,zeno say that the work by which he is best known was written in his youth and published against his will4#heh ,as he is supposed to be forty years old at the time of the dialogue1 this must mean that the book was written before #dfj ,b4,c4 7 #hd71 and it is very possible that he wrote others after it4 ,the most remarkable title which has come down to us is that of the ,interpretation of ,empedokles4 ,it is not to be supposed1 of course1 that ,zeno wrote a commentary on the ,poem of ,empedokles2 but1 as ,diels has pointed out1#hei it is quite credible that he should have written an attack on it1 which was afterwards called by that name4 ,if he wrote a work against the 8philosophers10 that must mean the ,pythagoreans1 who1 as we have seen1 made use of the term in a sense of their own4#hfj ,the ,disputations and the ,treatise on ,nature may1 or may not1 be the same as the book described in ,plato's ,parmenides4 ,footnote #heg3 ,diog4 ix4 #bf 7,r4 ,p4 #acj72 ,suidas s4v4 7,r4 ,p4 #acj d74 ,footnote #heh3 ,plato1 ,parm4 #abh d #f 7,r4 ,p4 #acj d74 ,footnote #hei3 ,berl4 ,sitzb41 #ahhd1 p4 #cei4 ,footnote #hfj3 ,see above1 p4 #cba1 n4 #gdj4 ,it hardly seems likely that a later writer would make ,zeno argue 1 and the title given to the book at ,alexandria must be based on something contained in it4 ,it is not likely that ,zeno wrote dialogues1 though certain references in ,aristotle have been supposed to imply this4 ,in the ,physics#hfa we hear of an argument of ,zeno's1 that any part of a heap of millet makes a sound1 and ,simplicius illustrates this by quoting a passage from a dialogue between ,zeno and ,protagoras4#hfb ,if our chronology is right1 there is nothing impossible in the idea that the two men may have met2 but it is most unlikely that ,zeno should have made himself a personage in a dialogue of his own4 ,that was a later fashion4 ,in another place ,aristotle refers to a passage where 8the answerer and ,zeno the questioner0 occurred1#hfc a reference which is most easily to be understood in the same way4 ,alkidamas seems to have written a dialogue in which ,gorgias figured1#hfd and the exposition of ,zeno's arguments in dialogue form must always have been a tempting exercise4 ,it appears also that ,aristotle made ,alexamenos the first writer of dialogues4#hfe ,footnote #hfa3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #e4 #bej a #bj 7,r4 ,p4 #aca a74 ,footnote #hfb3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aajh1 #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #aca74 ,if this is what ,aristotle refers to1 it is hardly safe to attribute the to ,zeno himself4 ,it is worth noting that the existence of this dialogue is another indication of ,zeno's visit to ,athens at an age when he could converse with ,protagoras1 which agrees very well with ,plato's representation of the matter4 ,footnote #hfc3 ,arist4 ,soph4 ,el4 #agj b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #acj b74 ,footnote #hfd3 ,chap4 ,v4 p4 #bca1 n4 #eab4 ,footnote #hfe3 ,diog4 iii4 #dh4 ,it is certain that the authority whom ,diogenes follows here took the statement of ,aristotle to mean that ,alexamenos was the first writer of prose dialogues4 ,plato gives us a clear idea of what ,zeno's youthful work was like4 ,it contained more than one 8discourse10 and these discourses were subdivided into sections1 each dealing with some one presupposition of his adversaries4#hff ,we owe the preservation of ,zeno's arguments on the one and many to ,simplicius4#hfg ,those relating to motion have been preserved by ,aristotle himself2#hfh but1 as usual1 he has restated them in his own language4 ,footnote #hff3 ,plato1 ,parm4 #abg d4 ,plato speaks of the first of the first 1 which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections4 ,proclus 7in loc47 says there were forty of these altogether4 ,footnote #hfg3 ,simplicius expressly says in one place 7p4 #adj1 #cj2 ,r4 ,p4 #acc7 that he is quoting 4 ,i now see no reason to doubt this1 as the ,academy would certainly have a copy of the work4 ,if so1 the fact that the fragments are not written in ,ionic is another confirmation of ,zeno's residence at ,athens4 ,footnote #hfh3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bci b #i sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,dialectic4 #aeg4 ,aristotle in his ,sophist#hfi called ,zeno the inventor of dialectic1 and this1 no doubt1 is substantially true1 though the beginnings at least of that method of arguing were contemporary with the foundation of the ,eleatic school4 ,plato#hgj gives us a spirited account of the style and purpose of ,zeno's book1 which he puts into his own mouth3-- ,in reality1 this writing is a sort of reinforcement for the argument of ,parmenides against those who try to turn it into ridicule on the ground that1 if reality is one1 the argument becomes involved in many absurdities and contradictions4 ,this writing argues against those who uphold a ,many1 and gives them back as good and better than they gave2 its aim is to show that their assumption of multiplicity will be involved in still more absurdities than the assumption of unity1 if it is sufficiently worked out4 ,footnote #hfi3 ,cf4 ,diog4 ix4 #be 7,r4 ,p4 #acj74 ,footnote #hgj3 ,plato1 ,parm4 #abh c 7,r4 ,p4 #acj d74 ,the method of ,zeno was1 in fact1 to take one of his adversaries' fundamental postulates and deduce from it two contradictory conclusions4#hga ,this is what ,aristotle meant by calling him the inventor of dialectic1 which is just the art of arguing1 not from true premisses1 but from premisses admitted by the other side4 ,the theory of ,parmenides had led to conclusions which contradicted the evidence of the senses1 and ,zeno's object was not to bring fresh proofs of the theory itself1 but simply to show that his opponents' view led to contradictions of a precisely similar nature4 ,footnote #hga3 ,the technical terms used in ,plato's ,parmenides seem to be as old as ,zeno himself4 ,the is the provisional assumption of the truth of a certain statement1 and takes the form or the like4 ,the word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation1 but the setting before one's self of a statement as a problem to be solved 7,ionic 1 ,attic 74 ,if the conclusions which necessarily follow from the 7 7 are impossible1 the is 8destroyed0 7cf4 ,plato1 ,rep4 #ecc c #h1 74 ,the author of the 7c #a7 knows the word in a similar sense4 ,sidenote3 ,zeno and ,pythagoreanism4 #aeh4 ,that ,zeno's dialectic was mainly directed against the ,pythagoreans is certainly suggested by ,plato's statement1 that it was addressed to the adversaries of ,parmenides1 who held that things were 8a many40#hgb ,zeller holds1 indeed1 that it was merely the popular form of the belief that things are many that ,zeno set himself to confute2#hgc but it is surely not true that ordinary people believe things to be 8a many0 in the sense required4 ,plato tells us that the premisses of ,zeno's arguments were the beliefs of the adversaries of ,parmenides1 and the postulate from which all his contradictions are derived is the view that space1 and therefore body1 is made up of a number of discrete units1 which is just the ,pythagorean doctrine4 ,nor is it at all probable that ,anaxagoras is aimed at4#hgd ,we know from ,plato that ,zeno's book was the work of his youth4#hge ,suppose even that it was written when he was thirty1 that is to say1 about #dei ,b4,c41 ,anaxagoras had just taken up his abode at ,athens at that time1#hgf and it is very unlikely that ,zeno had ever heard of him4 ,there is1 on the other hand1 a great deal to be said for the view that ,anaxagoras had read the work of ,zeno1 and that his emphatic adhesion to the doctrine of infinite divisibility was due to the criticism of his younger contemporary4#hgg ,footnote #hgb3 ,the view that ,zeno's arguments were directed against ,pythagoreanism has been maintained in recent times by ,tannery 7,science hellne1 pp4 #bdi sqq471 and ,bumker 7,das ,problem der ,materie1 pp4 #fj sqq474 ,footnote #hgc3 ,zeller1 p4 #ehi 7,eng4 trans4 p4 #fab74 ,footnote #hgd3 ,this is the view of ,stallbaum in his edition of the ,parmenides 7pp4 #be sqq474 ,footnote #hge3 ,parm41 loc4 cit4 ,footnote #hgf3 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #abj4 ,footnote #hgg3 ,cf4 for instance ,anaxagoras1 fr4 #c1 with ,zeno1 fr4 #b2 and ,anaxagoras1 fr4 #e1 with ,zeno1 fr4 #c4 ,it will be noted how much clearer the historical position of ,zeno becomes if we follow ,plato in assigning him to a somewhat later date than is usual4 ,we have first ,parmenides1 then the pluralists1 and then the criticism of ,zeno4 ,this1 at any rate1 seems to have been the view which ,aristotle took of the historical development4#hgh ,footnote #hgh3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #c4 #ahg a #a 7,r4 ,p4 #acd b74 ,see below1 #agc4 ,sidenote3 ,what is the unit8 #aei4 ,the polemic of ,zeno is clearly directed in the first instance against a certain view of the unit4 ,eudemos1 in his ,physics1#hgi quoted from him the saying that 8if any one could tell him what the one was1 he would be able to say what things are40 ,the commentary of ,alexander on this1 preserved by ,simplicius1#hhj is quite satisfactory4 8,as ,eudemos relates10 he says1 8,zeno the disciple of ,parmenides tried to show that it was impossible that things could be a many1 seeing that there was no unit in things1 whereas #8many' means a number of units40 ,here we have a clear reference to the ,pythagorean view that everything may be reduced to a sum of units1 which is what ,zeno denied4#hha ,footnote #hgi3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ach1 #cb 7,r4 ,p4 #acd a74 ,footnote #hhj3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ii1 #ac1 1 771 1 1 4 ,this is the meaning of the statement that ,zeno 1 which is not ,alexander's 7as implied in ,r4 ,p4 #acd a71 but goes back to no less an authority than ,eudemos4 ,it is perfectly correct when read in connexion with the words 7,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ii1 #aa74 ,footnote #hha3 ,it is quite in order that ,mr4 ,bertrand ,russell1 from the standpoint of pluralism1 should accept ,zeno's arguments as 8immeasurably subtle and profound0 7,principles of ,mathematics1 p4 #cdg74 ,we know from ,plato1 however1 that ,zeno meant them as a reductio ad absurdum of pluralism4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,fragments4 #afj4 ,the fragments of ,zeno himself also show that this was his line of argument4 ,i give them according to the arrangement of ,diels4 7#a7 ,if the one had no magnitude1 it would not even be4444 ,but1 if it is1 each one must have a certain magnitude and a certain thickness1 and must be at a certain distance from another1 and the same may be said of what is in front of it2 for it1 too1 will have magnitude1 and something will be in front of it4#hhb ,it is all the same to say this once and to say it always2 for no such part of it will be the last1 nor will one thing not be compared with another4#hhc ,so1 if things are a many1 they must be both small and great1 so small as not to have any magnitude at all1 and so great as to be infinite4 ,r4 ,p4 #acd4 ,footnote #hhb3 ,i formerly rendered 8the same may be said of what surpasses it in smallness2 for it too will have magnitude1 and something will surpass it in smallness40 ,this is ,tannery's rendering1 but ,i now agree with ,diels in thinking that refers to and to 4 ,zeno is showing that the ,pythagorean point has really three dimensions4 ,footnote #hhc3 ,reading1 with ,diels and the ,,mss41 4 ,gomperz's conjecture 7adopted in ,r4 ,p47 seems to me arbitrary4 7#b7 ,for if it were added to any other thing it would not make it any larger2 for nothing can gain in magnitude by the addition of what has no magnitude1 and thus it follows at once that what was added was nothing4#hhd ,but if1 when this is taken away from another thing1 that thing is no less2 and again1 if1 when it is added to another thing1 that does not increase1 it is plain that what was added was nothing1 and what was taken away was nothing4 ,r4 ,p4 #acb4 ,footnote #hhd3 ,zeller marks a lacuna here4 ,zeno must certainly have shown that the subtraction of a point does not make a thing less2 but he may have done so before the beginning of our present fragment4 7#c7 ,if things are a many1 they must be just as many as they are1 and neither more nor less4 ,now1 if they are as many as they are1 they will be finite in number4 ,if things are a many1 they will be infinite in number2 for there will always be other things between them1 and others again between these4 ,and so things are infinite in number4 ,r4 ,p4 #acc4hhe ,footnote #hhe3 ,this is what ,aristotle calls 8the argument from dichotomy0 7,phys4 1 #c4 #ahg a #a2 ,r4 ,p4 #acd b74 ,if a line is made up of points1 we ought to be able to answer the question1 8,how many points are there in a given line80 ,on the other hand1 you can always divide a line or any part of it into two halves2 so that1 if a line is made up of points1 there will always be more of them than any number you assign4 ,sidenote3 ,the unit4 #afa4 ,if we hold that the unit has no magnitude--and this is required by what ,aristotle calls the argument from dichotomy1#hhf--then everything must be infinitely small4 ,nothing made up of units without magnitude can itself have any magnitude4 ,on the other hand1 if we insist that the units of which things are built up are something and not nothing1 we must hold that everything is infinitely great4 ,the line is infinitely divisible2 and1 according to this view1 it will be made up of an infinite number of units1 each of which has some magnitude4 ,footnote #hhf3 ,see last note4 ,that this argument refers to points is proved by an instructive passage from ,aristotle's ,metaphysics4#hhg ,we read there-- ,if the unit is indivisible1 it will1 according to the proposition of ,zeno1 be nothing4 ,that which neither makes anything larger by its addition to it1 nor smaller by its subtraction from it1 is not1 he says1 a real thing at all2 for clearly what is real must be a magnitude4 ,and1 if it is a magnitude1 it is corporeal2 for that is corporeal which is in every dimension4 ,the other things1 i4e4 the plane and the line1 if added in one way will make things larger1 added in another they will produce no effect2 but the point and the unit cannot make things larger in any way4 ,footnote #hhg3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ajja b #g4 ,from all this it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion than that the 8one0 against which ,zeno argued was the 8one0 of which a number constitute a 8many10 and that is just the ,pythagorean unit4 ,sidenote3 ,space4 #afb4 ,aristotle refers to an argument which seems to be directed against the ,pythagorean doctrine of space1#hhh and ,simplicius quotes it in this form3#hhi ,if there is space1 it will be in something2 for all that is is in something1 and what is in something is in space4 ,so space will be in space1 and this goes on ad infinitum1 therefore there is no space4 ,r4 ,p4 #ace4 ,footnote #hhh3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #a4 #bji a #bc2 #c4 #baj b #bb 7,r4 ,p4 #ace a74 ,footnote #hhi3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #efb1 #c 7,r4 ,p4 #ace74 ,the version of ,eudemos is given in ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #efc1 #bf1 1 4 ,what ,zeno is really arguing against here is the attempt to distinguish space from the body that occupies it4 ,if we insist that body must be in space1 then we must go on to ask what space itself is in4 ,this is a 8reinforcement0 of the ,parmenidean denial of the void4 ,possibly the argument that everything must be 8in0 something1 or must have something beyond it1 had been used against the ,parmenidean theory of a finite sphere with nothing outside it4 ,sidenote3 ,motion4 #afc4 ,zeno's arguments on the subject of motion have been preserved by ,aristotle himself4 ,the system of ,parmenides made all motion impossible1 and his successors had been driven to abandon the monistic hypothesis in order to avoid this very consequence4 ,zeno does not bring any fresh proofs of the impossibility of motion2 all he does is to show that a pluralist theory1 such as the ,pythagorean1 is just as unable to explain it as was that of ,parmenides4 ,looked at in this way1 ,zeno's arguments are no mere quibbles1 but mark a great advance in the conception of quantity4 ,they are as follows3-- 7#a7 ,you cannot get to the end of a race-course4#hij ,you cannot traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time4 ,you must traverse the half of any given distance before you traverse the whole1 and the half of that again before you can traverse it4 ,this goes on ad infinitum1 so that there are an infinite number of points in any given space1 and you cannot touch an infinite number one by one in a finite time4#hia 7#b7 ,achilles will never overtake the tortoise4 ,he must first reach the place from which the tortoise started4 ,by that time the tortoise will have got some way ahead4 ,achilles must then make up that1 and again the tortoise will be ahead4 ,he is always coming nearer1 but he never makes up to it4#hib ,footnote #hij3 ,arist4 ,top4 1 #h4 #afj b #h1 771 4 ,footnote #hia3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bci b #aa 7,r4 ,p4 #acf74 ,cf4 1 #b4 #bcc a #aa2 a #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #acf a74 ,footnote #hib3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bci b #ad 7,r4 ,p4 #acg74 ,the 8hypothesis0 of the second argument is the same as that in the first1 namely1 that the line is a series of points2 but the reasoning is complicated by the introduction of another moving object4 ,the difference1 accordingly1 is not a half every time1 but diminishes in a constant ratio4 ,again1 the first argument shows that no moving object can ever traverse any distance at all1 however fast it may move2 the second emphasises the fact that1 however slowly it moves1 it will traverse an infinite distance4 7#c7 ,the arrow in flight is at rest4 ,for1 if everything is at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself1 and what is in flight at any given moment always occupies a space equal to itself1 it cannot move4#hic ,footnote #hic3 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bci b #cj 7,r4 ,p4 #ach72 ib4 #bci b #e 7,r4 ,p4 #ach a74 ,the latter passage is corrupt1 though the meaning is plain4 ,i have translated ,zeller's version of it 1 1 1 ' 1 1 444 ,of course means 8at any time10 not 8always10 and is1 literally1 8on a level with a space equal 7to itself740 ,for other readings1 see ,zeller1 p4 #eih1 n4 #c2 and ,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #aca1 #dd4 ,here a further complication is introduced4 ,the moving object itself has length1 and its successive positions are not points but lines4 ,the successive moments in which it occupies them are still1 however1 points of time4 ,it may help to make this clear if we remember that the flight of the arrow as represented by the cinematograph would be exactly of this nature4 7#d7 ,half the time may be equal to double the time4 ,let us suppose three rows of bodies1#hid one of which 7,a7 is at rest while the other two 7,b1 ,c7 are moving with equal velocity in opposite directions 7,fig4 #a74 ,by the time they are all in the same part of the course1 ,b will have passed twice as many of the bodies in ,c as in ,a 7,fig4 #b74 ,,fig4 #a ,a4 ,b4 ,c4 ,,fig4 #b ,a4 ,b4 ,c4 ,therefore the time which it takes to pass ,c is twice as long as the time it takes to pass ,a4 ,but the time which ,b and ,c take to reach the position of ,a is the same4 ,therefore double the time is equal to the half4#hie ,footnote #hid3 ,the word is 2 cf4 ,chap4 ,,vii4 p4 #cch1 n4 #gid4 ,the name is very appropriate for the ,pythagorean units1 which ,zeno had shown to have length1 breadth1 and thickness 7fr4 #a74 ,footnote #hie3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bci b #cc 7,r4 ,p4 #aci74 ,i have had to express the argument in my own way1 as it is not fully given by any of the authorities4 ,the figure is practically ,alexander's 7,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ajaf1 #ad71 except that he represents the by letters instead of dots4 ,the conclusion is plainly stated by ,aristotle 7loc4 cit471 1 and1 however we explain the reasoning1 it must be so represented as to lead to this conclusion4 ,according to ,aristotle1 the paralogism here depends upon the assumption that an equal magnitude moving with equal velocity must move for an equal time1 whether the magnitude with which it is equal is at rest or in motion4 ,that is certainly so1 but we are not to suppose that this assumption is ,zeno's own4 ,the fourth argument is1 in fact1 related to the third just as the second is to the first4 ,the ,achilles adds a second moving point to the single moving point of the first argument2 this argument adds a second moving line to the single moving line of the arrow in flight4 ,the lines1 however1 are represented as a series of units1 which is just how the ,pythagoreans represented them2 and it is quite true that1 if lines are a sum of discrete units1 and time is similarly a series of discrete moments1 there is no other measure of motion possible than the number of units which each unit passes4 ,this argument1 like the others1 is intended to bring out the absurd conclusions which follow from the assumption that all quantity is discrete1 and what ,zeno has really done is to establish the conception of continuous quantity by a reductio ad absurdum of the other hypothesis4 ,if we remember that ,parmenides had asserted the one to be continuous 7fr4 #h1 #be71 we shall see how accurate is the account of ,zeno's method which ,plato puts into the mouth of ,sokrates4 ,,ii4 ,,melissos ,,of ,,samos ,sidenote3 ,life4 #afd4 ,in his ,life of ,perikles1 ,plutarch tells us1 on the authority of ,aristotle1 that the philosopher ,melissos1 son of ,ithagenes1 was the ,samian general who defeated the ,athenian fleet in #dda_/j ,b4,c43#hif and it was no doubt for this reason that ,apollodoros fixed his floruit in ,ol4 ,,lxxxiv4 7#ddd-da ,b4,c474#hig ,beyond this1 we really know nothing about his life4 ,he is said to have been1 like ,zeno1 a disciple of ,parmenides2#hih but1 as he was a ,samian1 it is possible that he was originally a member of the ,ionic school1 and we shall see that certain features of his doctrine tend to bear out this view4 ,on the other hand1 he was certainly convinced by the ,eleatic dialectic1 and renounced the ,ionic doctrine in so far as it was inconsistent with that4 ,we note here the effect of the increased facility of intercourse between ,east and ,west1 which was secured by the supremacy of ,athens4 ,footnote #hif3 ,plut4 ,per4 #bf 7,r4 ,p4 #ada b71 from ,aristotle's 4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,fragments4 #afe4 ,the fragments which we have come from ,simplicius1 and are given1 with the exception of the first1 from the text of ,diels4#hii ,footnote #hig3 ,diog4 ix4 #bd 7,r4 ,p4 #ada74 ,it is possible1 of course1 that ,apollodoros meant the first and not the fourth year of the ,olympiad4 ,that is his usual era1 the foundation of ,thourioi4 ,but1 on the whole1 it is more likely that he meant the fourth2 for the date of the would be given with precision4 ,see ,jacoby1 p4 #bgj4 ,footnote #hih3 ,diog4 ix4 #bd 7,r4 ,p4 #ada74 ,footnote #hii3 ,it is no longer necessary to discuss the passages which used to appear as frs4 #a-e of ,melissos1 as it has been proved by ,a4 ,pabst that they are merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments 7,de ,melissi ,samii fragmentis1 ,bonn1 #ahhi74 ,almost simultaneously ,i had independently come to the same conclusion 7see the first edition1 #ach74 ,zeller and ,diels have both accepted ,pabst's demonstration1 and the supposed fragments have been relegated to the notes in the last edition of ,r4 ,p4 ,i still believe1 however1 that the fragment which ,i have numbered #a;a is genuine4 ,see next note4 7#a;a7 ,if nothing is1 what can be said of it as of something real8#ijj 7#a7 ,what was was ever1 and ever shall be4 ,for1 if it had come into being1 it needs must have been nothing before it came into being4 ,now1 if it were nothing1 in no wise could anything have arisen out of nothing4 ,r4 ,p4 #adb4 7#b7 ,since1 then1 it has not come into being1 and since it is1 was ever1 and ever shall be1 it has no beginning or end1 but is without limit4 ,for1 if it had come into being1 it would have had a beginning 7for it would have begun to come into being at some time or other7 and an end 7for it would have ceased to come into being at some time or other72 but1 if it neither began nor ended1 and ever was and ever shall be1 it has no beginning or end2 for it is not possible for anything to be ever without all being4 ,r4 ,p4 #adc4 7#c7 ,further1 just as it ever is1 so it must ever be infinite in magnitude4 ,r4 ,p4 #adc4 7#d7 ,but nothing which has a beginning or end is either eternal or infinite4 ,r4 ,p4 #adc4 7#e7 ,if it were not one1 it would be bounded by something else4 ,r4 ,p4 #add a4 7#f7 ,for if it is 7infinite71 it must be one2 for if it were two1 it could not be infinite2 for then they would be bounded by one another4#ija ,r4 ,p4 #add4 7#f;a7 7,and1 since it is one1 it is alike throughout2 for if it were unlike1 it would be many and not one47#ijb 7#g7 ,so then it is eternal and infinite and one and all alike4 ,and it cannot perish nor become greater1 nor does it suffer pain or grief4 ,for1 if any of these things happened to it1 it would no longer be one4 ,for if it is altered1 then the real must needs not be all alike1 but what was before must pass away1 and what was not must come into being4 ,now1 if it changed by so much as a single hair in ten thousand years1 it would all perish in the whole of time4 ,further1 it is not possible either that its order should be changed2 for the order which it had before does not perish1 nor does that which was not come into being4 ,but1 since nothing is either added to it or passes away or is altered1 how can any real thing have had its order changed8 ,for if anything became different1 that would amount to a change in its order4 ,nor does it suffer pain2 for a thing in pain could not all be4 ,for a thing in pain could not be ever1 nor has it the same power as what is whole4 ,nor would it be alike1 if it were in pain2 for it is only from the addition or subtraction of something that it could feel pain1 and then it would no longer be alike4 ,nor could what is whole feel pain2 for then what was whole and what was real would pass away1 and what was not would come into being4 ,and the same argument applies to grief as to pain4 ,nor is anything empty4 ,for what is empty is nothing4 ,what is nothing cannot be4 ,nor does it move2 for it has nowhere to betake itself to1 but is full4 ,for if there were aught empty1 it would betake itself to the empty4 ,but1 since there is naught empty1 it has nowhere to betake itself to4 ,and it cannot be dense and rare2 for it is not possible for what is rare to be as full as what is dense1 but what is rare is at once emptier than what is dense4 ,this is the way in which we must distinguish between what is full and what is not full4 ,if a thing has room for anything else1 and takes it in1 it is not full2 but if it has no room for anything and does not take it in1 it is full4 ,now1 it must needs be full if there is naught empty1 and if it is full1 it does not move4 ,r4 ,p4 #ade4 7#h7 ,this argument1 then1 is the greatest proof that it is one alone2 but the following are proofs of it also4 ,if there were a many1 these would have to be of the same kind as ,i say that the one is4 ,for if there is earth and water1 and air and iron1 and gold and fire1 and if one thing is living and another dead1 and if things are black and white and all that men say they really are1--if that is so1 and if we see and hear aright1 each one of these must be such as we first decided1 and they cannot be changed or altered1 but each must be just as it is4 ,but1 as it is1 we say that we see and hear and understand aright1 and yet we believe that what is warm becomes cold1 and what is cold warm2 that what is hard turns soft1 and what is soft hard2 that what is living dies1 and that things are born from what lives not2 and that all those things are changed1 and that what they were and what they are now are in no way alike4 ,we think that iron1 which is hard1 is rubbed away by contact with the finger2#ijc and so with gold and stone and everything which we fancy to be strong1 and that earth and stone are made out of water2 so that it turns out that we neither see nor know realities4 ,now these things do not agree with one another4 ,we said that there were many things that were eternal and had forms and strength of their own1 and yet we fancy that they all suffer alteration1 and that they change from what we see each time4 ,it is clear1 then1 that we did not see aright after all1 nor are we right in believing that all these things are many4 ,they would not change if they were real1 but each thing would be just what we believed it to be2 for nothing is stronger than true reality4 ,but if it has changed1 what was has passed away1 and what was not is come into being4 ,so then1 if there were many things1 they would have to be just of the same nature as the one4 ,r4 ,p4 #adg4 7#i7 ,now1 if it were to exist1 it must needs be one2 but if it is one1 it cannot have body2 for1 if it had body it would have parts1 and would no longer be one4 ,r4 ,p4 #adf4ijd 7#aj7 ,if what is real is divided1 it moves2 but if it moves1 it cannot be4 ,r4 ,p4 #add a4#ije ,footnote #ijj3 ,these words come from the beginning of the paraphrase which was so long mistaken for the actual words of ,melissos 7,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ajc1 #ah2 ,r4 ,p4 #adb a71 and ,diels has accordingly removed them along with the rest4 ,i believe them to be genuine because ,simplicius1 who had access to the complete work1 introduces them by the words 1 and because they are thoroughly ,eleatic in character4 ,it is quite natural that the first words of the book should be prefixed to the paraphrase4 ,footnote #ija3 ,this fragment is quoted by ,simpl4 de ,caelo1 p4 #eeg1 #af 7,r4 ,p4 #add74 ,the insertion of the word 8infinite0 is justified by the paraphrase 7,r4 ,p4 #add a7 and by ,m4,x4,g4 #igd a #aa1 1 ' 4 ,footnote #ijb3 ,i have ventured to insert this1 though the actual words are nowhere quoted1 and it is not in ,diels4 ,it is represented in the paraphrase 7,r4 ,p4 #ade a7 and in ,m4,x4,g4 #igd a #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #add a74 ,footnote #ijc3 ,reading with ,bergk4 ,diels keeps the ,,ms4 2 ,zeller 7p4 #fac1 n4 #a7 conjectures ' 4 ,footnote #ijd3 ,i read with ,e ,f for the of ,d4 ,the which still stands in ,r4 ,p4 is a piece of local colour due to the editors4 ,diels also now reads 7,vors4 p4 #adi1 #b74 ,footnote #ije3 ,diels now reads with ,e for the of ,f1 and attaches the word to the next sentence4 ,sidenote3 ,theory of reality4 #aff4 ,it has been pointed out that ,melissos was perhaps not originally a member of the ,eleatic school2 but he certainly adopted all the views of ,parmenides as to the true nature of reality with one remarkable exception4 ,he appears to have opened his treatise with a reassertion of the ,parmenidean 8,nothing is not0 7fr4 #a a71 and the arguments by which he supported this view are those with which we are already familiar 7fr4 #a74 ,reality1 as with ,parmenides1 is eternal1 an attribute which ,melissos expressed in a way of his own4 ,he argued that since everything that has come into being has a beginning and an end1 everything that has not come into being has no beginning or end4 ,aristotle is very severe upon him for this simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition2#ijf but1 of course1 his belief was not founded on that4 ,his whole conception of reality made it necessary for him to regard it as eternal4#ijg ,it would be a more serious matter if ,aristotle were right in believing1 as he seems to have done1#ijh that ,melissos inferred that what is must be infinite in space1 because it had neither beginning nor end in time4 ,this1 however1 seems quite incredible4 ,as we have the fragment which ,aristotle interprets in this way 7fr4 #b71 we are quite entitled to understand it for ourselves1 and ,i cannot see anything to justify ,aristotle's assumption that the expression 8without limit0 means without limit in space4#iji ,footnote #ijf3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #c4 #ahf a #g 7,r4 ,p4 #adc a74 ,aristotle finds two flaws in the ,eleatic reasoning3 7#a7 2 7#b7 4 ,this is the first of these flaws4 ,it is also mentioned in ,soph4 ,el4 #afh b #ce 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,so ,eudemos ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aje1 #bd1 1 1 1 4 ,footnote #ijg3 ,the real reason is given in the paraphrase in ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #ajc1 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #adb a71 1 though of course ,melissos himself would not have put it in that way4 ,he regarded himself as a like the rest2 but1 from the time of ,aristotle1 it was a commonplace that the ,eleatics were not 1 since they denied motion4 ,footnote #ijh3 ,this has been denied by ,offner1 8,zur ,beurtheilung des ,melissos0 7,arch4 iv4 pp4 #ab sqq471 but ,i now think he goes too far4 ,cf4 especially ,top4 ix4 #f1 1 4 ,the same point is made in ,soph4 ,el4 #afg b #ac and #aha a #bg4 ,footnote #iji3 ,the words ' mean simply 8but it is without limit10 and this is simply a repetition of the statement that it has no beginning or end4 ,the nature of the limit can only be determined by the context1 and accordingly1 when ,melissos does introduce the subject of spatial infinity1 he is careful to say 7fr4 #c74 ,sidenote3 ,reality spatially infinite4 #afg4 ,melissos did indeed differ from ,parmenides in holding that reality was spatially as well as temporally infinite2 but he gave an excellent reason for this belief1 and had no need to support it by the extraordinary argument just alluded to4 ,what he said was that1 if it were limited1 it would be limited by empty space4 ,this we know from ,aristotle himself1#iaj and it marks a real advance upon ,parmenides4 ,he had thought it possible to regard reality as a finite sphere1 but it would have been difficult for him to work out this view in detail4 ,he would have had to say there was nothing outside the sphere2 but no one knew better than he that there is no such thing as nothing4 ,melissos saw that you cannot imagine a finite sphere without regarding it as surrounded by an infinite empty space2#iaa and as1 in common with the rest of the school1 he denied the void 7fr4 #g71 he was forced to say reality was spatially infinite 7fr4 #c74 ,it is possible that he was influenced in this by his association with the ,ionic school4 ,footnote #iaj3 ,arist4 ,gen4 ,corr4 i4 #h4 #cbe a #ad1 4 ,that this refers to ,melissos has been proved by ,zeller 7p4 #fab1 n4 #b74 ,footnote #iaa3 ,note the disagreement with ,zeno 7 #afb74 ,from the infinity of reality1 it follows that it must be one2 for1 if it were not one1 it would be bounded by something else 7fr4 #e74 ,and1 being one1 it must be homogeneous throughout 7fr4 #f;a71 for that is what we mean by one4 ,reality1 then1 is a single1 homogeneous1 corporeal plenum1 stretching out to infinity in space1 and going backwards and forwards to infinity in time4 ,sidenote3 ,opposition to ,ionians4 #afh4 ,eleaticism was always critical1 and we are not without indications of the attitude taken up by ,melissos towards contemporary systems4 ,the flaw which he found in the ,ionian theories was that they all assumed some want of homogeneity in the ,one1 which is a real inconsistency4 ,further1 they all allowed the possibility of change2 but1 if all things are one1 change must be a form of coming into being and passing away4 ,if you admit that a thing can change1 you cannot maintain that it is eternal4 ,nor can the arrangement of the parts of reality alter1 as ,anaximander1 for instance1 had held2 any such change necessarily involves a coming into being and passing away4 ,the next point made by ,melissos is somewhat peculiar4 ,reality1 he says1 cannot feel sorrow or pain2 for that is always due to the addition or subtraction of something1 which is impossible4 ,it is not easy to be sure what this refers to4 ,perhaps it is to the theory of ,herakleitos with its ,want and ,surfeit1 perhaps to something of which no record has been preserved4 ,motion in general#iab and rarefaction and condensation in particular are impossible2 for both imply the existence of empty space4 ,divisibility is excluded for the same reason4 ,these are the same arguments as ,parmenides employed4 ,footnote #iab3 ,the view of ,bumker that ,melissos admitted or motion in pleno 7,jahrb4 f4 kl4 ,phil41 #ahhf1 p4 #eda2 ,das ,problem der ,materie1 p4 #ei7 depends upon some words of ,simplicius 7,phys4 p4 #ajd1 #ac71 1 444 ,these words were formerly turned into ,ionic and passed off as a fragment of ,melissos4 ,they are1 however1 part of ,simplicius's own argument against ,alexander1 and have nothing to do with ,melissos at all4 ,sidenote3 ,opposition to ,pythagoreans4 #afi4 ,in nearly all accounts of the system of ,melissos1 we find it stated that he denied the corporeality of what is real1--an opinion which is supported by a reference to fr4 #i1 which is certainly quoted by ,simplicius to prove this very point4#iac ,if1 however1 our general view as to the character of early ,greek ,philosophy is correct1 the statement must seem incredible4 ,and it will seem even more surprising when we find that in the ,metaphysics ,aristotle says that1 while the unity of ,parmenides seemed to be ideal1 that of ,melissos was material4#iad ,now the fragment1 as it stands in the ,,mss4 of ,simplicius1#iae puts a purely hypothetical case1 and would most naturally be understood as a disproof of the existence of something on the ground that1 if it existed1 it would have to be both corporeal and one4 ,this cannot refer to the ,eleatic ,one1 in which ,melissos himself believed2 and1 as the argument is almost verbally the same as one of ,zeno's1#iaf it is natural to suppose that it also was directed against the ,pythagorean assumption of ultimate units4 ,the only possible objection is that ,simplicius1 who twice quotes the fragment1 certainly took it in the sense usually given to it4#iag ,but it was very natural for him to make this mistake4 8,the ,one0 was an expression that had two senses in the middle of the fifth century ,b4,c42 it meant either the whole of reality or the point as a spatial unit4 ,to maintain it in the first sense1 the ,eleatics were obliged to disprove it in the second2 and so it sometimes seemed that they were speaking of their own 8,one0 when they really meant the other4 ,we have seen that the very same difficulty was felt about ,zeno's denial of the 8one40#iah ,footnote #iac3 ,see1 however1 ,bumker1 ,das ,problem der ,materie1 pp4 #eg sqq41 who remarks that 7or 7 in fr4 #i must be the predicate1 as it has no article4 ,in his fifth edition 7p4 #faa1 n4 #b7 ,zeller has adopted the view here taken4 ,he rightly observes that the hypothetical form speaks for it1 and that the subject to must be 1 as with ,zeno4 ,footnote #iad3 ,met4 1 #e4 #ihf b #ah 7,r4 ,p4 #aja74 ,footnote #iae3 ,brandis changed the to 1 but there is no warrant for this4 ,footnote #iaf3 ,cf4 ,zeno1 fr4 #a1 especially the words 1 4 ,footnote #iag3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 pp4 #hg1 #f1 and #aaj1 #a4 ,footnote #iah3 ,see above1 #aei1 p4 #cfc1 n4 #hhj4 ,sidenote3 ,opposition to ,anaxagoras4 #agj4 ,the most remarkable fragment of ,melissos is1 perhaps1 the last 7fr4 #h74 ,it seems to be directed against ,anaxagoras2 at least the language used seems more applicable to him than to any one else4 ,anaxagoras had admitted 7 #acg1 fin47 that1 so far as our perceptions go1 they do not entirely agree with his theory1 though he held this was due solely to their weakness4 ,melissos1 taking advantage of this admission1 urges that1 if we give up the senses as the ultimate test of reality1 we are not entitled to reject the ,eleatic theory4 ,with wonderful penetration he points out that if we are to say1 with ,anaxagoras1 that things are a many1 we are bound also to say that each one of them is such as the ,eleatics declared the ,one to be4 ,in other words1 the only consistent pluralism is the atomic theory4 ,melissos has long been unduly depreciated owing to the criticisms of ,aristotle2 but these1 we have seen1 are based mainly on a somewhat pedantic objection to the false conversion in the early part of the argument4 ,melissos knew nothing about the rules of conversion2 and if he had1 he could easily have made his reasoning formally correct without modifying his system4 ,his greatness consisted in this1 that not only was he the real systematiser of ,eleaticism1 but he was also able to see1 before the pluralists saw it themselves1 the only way in which the theory that things are a many could be consistently worked out4#iai ,it is significant that ,polybos1 the nephew of ,hippokrates1 reproaches those 8sophists0 who taught there was only one primary substance with 8putting the doctrine of ,melissos on its feet40#ibj ,footnote #iai3 ,bumker1 op4 cit4 p4 #eh1 n4 #c3 8,that ,melissos was a weakling is a fable convenue that people repeat after ,aristotle1 who was unable to appreciate the ,eleatics in general1 and in particular misunderstood ,melissos not inconsiderably40 ,footnote #ibj3 1 c4 #a1 ' 1 4 ,the metaphors are taken from wrestling1 and were current at this date 7cf4 the of ,protagoras74 ,plato implies a more generous appreciation of ,melissos than ,aristotle's4 ,in ,theaet4 #ahj e #b1 he refers to the ,eleatics as 1 and in #ahc e #d he almost apologises for giving the pre-eminence to ,parmenides4 ,,chapter ,,ix ,,leukippos ,,of ,,miletos ,sidenote3 ,leukippos and ,demokritos4 #aga4 ,we have seen 7 #ca1 #abb7 that the school of ,miletos did not come to an end with ,anaximenes1 and it is a striking fact that the man who gave the most complete answer to the question first asked by ,thales was a ,milesian4#iba ,it is true that the very existence of ,leukippos has been called in question4 ,epicurus said there never was such a philosopher1 and the same thing has been maintained in quite recent times4#ibb ,on the other hand1 ,aristotle and ,theophrastos certainly made him the originator of the atomic theory1 and it still seems possible to show they were right4 ,incidentally we shall see how later writers came to ignore him1 and thus made possible the sally of ,epicurus4 ,footnote #iba3 ,theophrastos said he was an ,eleate or a ,milesian 7,r4 ,p4 #ahe71 while ,diogenes 7ix4 #cj7 says he was an ,eleate or1 according to some1 an ,abderite4 ,these statements are exactly parallel to the discrepancies about the native cities of the ,pythagoreans already noted 7,chap4 ,,vii4 p4 #cbg1 n4 #gfc74 ,diogenes adds that1 according to others1 ,leukippos was a ,melian1 which is a common confusion4 ,aetios 7i4 #g4 #a7 calls ,diagoras of ,melos a ,milesian 7cf4 ,dox4 p4 #ad74 ,demokritos was called by some a ,milesian 7,r4 ,p4 #ahf7 for the same reason that ,leukippos is called an ,eleate4 ,we may also compare the doubt as to whether ,herodotos called himself a ,halikarnassian or a ,thourian4 ,footnote #ibb3 ,diog4 x4 #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #ahe b74 ,the theory was revived by ,e4 ,rohde4 ,for the literature of the controversy1 see ,r4 ,p4 #ahe b4 ,diels's refutation of ,rohde has convinced most competent judges4 ,brieger's attempt to unsettle the question again 7,hermes1 xxxvi4 pp4 #aff sqq47 is only half-hearted1 and quite unconvincing4 ,as will be seen1 however1 ,i agree with his main contention that atomism comes after the systems of ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras4 ,the question is intimately bound up with that of the date of ,demokritos1 who said that he was a young man in the old age of ,anaxagoras1 a statement which makes it unlikely that he founded his school at ,abdera before #dbj ,b4,c41 the date given by ,apollodoros for his floruit4#ibc ,now ,theophrastos stated that ,diogenes of ,apollonia borrowed some of his views from ,anaxagoras and some from ,leukippos1#ibd which can only mean that there were traces of the atomic theory in his work4 ,further1 ,apollonios is parodied in the ,clouds of ,aristophanes1 which was produced in #dbc ,b4,c41 from which it follows that the work of ,leukippos must have become known considerably before that date4 ,what that work was1 ,theophrastos also tells us4 ,it was the ,great ,diakosmos usually attributed to ,demokritos4#ibe ,this means further that what were known later as the works of ,demokritos were really the writings of the school of ,abdera1 and included1 as was natural1 the works of its founder4 ,they formed1 in fact1 a corpus comparable to that which has come down to us under the name of ,hippokrates1 and it was no more possible to distinguish the authors of the different treatises in the one case than it is in the other4 ,we need not hesitate1 for all that1 to believe that ,aristotle and ,theophrastos were better informed on this point than later writers1 who naturally regarded the whole mass as equally the work of ,demokritos4 ,footnote #ibc3 ,diog4 ix4 #da 7,r4 ,p4 #ahg74 ,as ,diels points out1 the statement suggests that ,anaxagoras was dead when ,demokritos wrote4 ,it is probable1 too1 that it was this which made ,apollodoros fix the floruit of ,demokritos just forty years after that of ,anaxagoras 7,jacoby1 p4 #bij74 ,we cannot make much of the other statement of ,demokritos that he wrote the #gej years after the fall of ,troy2 for we cannot be sure what era he used 7,jacoby1 p4 #bib74 ,footnote #ibd3 ,theophr4 ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #be1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bjf a74 ,footnote #ibe3 ,this was stated by ,thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he arranged the works of ,demokritos1 as he did those of ,plato4 ,he gives ,tetr4 iii4 thus3 7#a7 7 72 7#b7 2 7#c7 2 7#d7 4 ,the two would only be distinguished as and when they came to be included in the same corpus4 ,a quotation purporting to be from the of ,leukippos is preserved in ,stob4 i4 #afj4 ,the phrase in ,m4,x4,g4 #ihj a #h seems to refer to ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 #cbe a #bd1 ' 4441 and would prove nothing in any case4 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,,ii4 p4 #ach1 n4 #cje4 ,theophrastos found ,leukippos described as an ,eleate in some of his authorities1 and1 if we may trust analogy1 that means he had settled at ,elea4#ibf ,it is possible that his emigration to the west was connected with the revolution at ,miletos in #dej-di ,b4,c4#ibg ,in any case1 ,theophrastos says distinctly that he had been a member of the school of ,parmenides1 and the way in which he speaks suggests that the founder of that school was still at its head4#ibh ,he may very well have been so1 if we accept ,plato's chronology4#ibi ,theophrastos also appears to have said that ,leukippos 8heard0 ,zeno1 which is very credible4 ,we shall see1 at any rate1 that the influence of ,zeno on his thinking is unmistakable4#icj ,footnote #ibf3 ,see above1 p4 #chj1 n4 #iba4 ,footnote #ibg3 ,the aristocrats had massacred the democrats1 and were overthrown in their turn by the ,athenians4 ,cf4 ,xen4 4 4 #c1 #aa4 ,the date is fixed by ,c4,i4,a4 i4 #bb a4 ,footnote #ibh3 ,theophr4 ap4 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #bh1 #d 7,r4 ,p4 #ahe74 ,note the difference of case in and which is the phrase used by ,theophrastos of ,anaxagoras 7p4 #bic1 n4 #ffj74 ,the dative seems to imply a personal relationship4 ,it is quite inadmissible to render 8was familiar with the doctrine of ,parmenides10 as is done in ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #cde4 ,footnote #ibi3 ,see #hd4 ,footnote #icj3 ,cf4 ,diog4 ix4 #cj1 7,r4 ,p4 #ahe b72 and ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #ab1 #a1 444 4 ,diels conjectured that the name of ,zeno had been dropped in the extract from ,theophrastos preserved by ,simplicius 7,dox4 #dhc a #aa74 ,the relations of ,leukippos to ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras are more difficult to determine4 ,it has become part of the case for the historical reality of ,leukippos that there are traces of atomism in the systems of these men2 but the case is strong enough without that assumption4 ,besides1 it lands us in serious difficulties1 not the least of which is that it would require us to regard ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras as mere eclectics like ,diogenes of ,apollonia4#ica ,the strongest argument for the view that ,leukippos influenced ,empedokles is that drawn from the doctrine of 8pores02 but we have seen that this originated with ,alkmaion1 and it is therefore more probable that ,leukippos derived it from ,empedokles4#icb ,we have seen too that ,zeno probably wrote against ,empedokles1 and we know that he influenced ,leukippos4#icc ,nor1 is it at all probable that ,anaxagoras knew anything of the theory of ,leukippos4 ,it is true that he denied the existence of the void2 but it does not follow that any one had already maintained that doctrine in the atomist sense4 ,the early ,pythagoreans had spoken of a void too1 though they had confused it with atmospheric air2 and the experiments of ,anaxagoras with the klepsydra and the inflated skins would only have had any point if they were directed against the ,pythagorean theory4#icd ,if he had really wished to refute ,leukippos1 he would have had to use arguments of a very different kind4 ,footnote #ica3 ,this point is important1 though the argument is weakened by ,brieger's overstatement of it in ,hermes1 xxxvi4 p4 #ahc4 ,he says that to assume such a reaction as ,anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once been discovered would be something unexampled in the history of ,greek philosophy4 ,diogenes of ,apollonia proves the contrary4 ,the real point is that ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras were men of a different stamp4 ,so far as ,empedokles is concerned1 ,gomperz states the case rightly 7,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #efj74 ,footnote #icb3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,v4 p4 #bbd1 n4 #dib2 and ,brieger in ,hermes1 xxxvi4 p4 #aga4 ,footnote #icc3 ,diels 7formerly at least7 maintained both these things4 ,see above1 p4 #cei1 n4 #hei2 and p4 #chb1 n4 #icj4 ,if1 as seems probable 7 #aeh71 ,zeno wrote his book some time between #dgj and #dfj ,b4,c41 ,leukippos can hardly have written his before #dej ,b4,c41 and even that is too late for him to have influenced ,empedokles4 ,it may well have been later still4 ,footnote #icd3 ,see above1 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #aca2 and ,chap4 ,,vii4 #ade4 ,sidenote3 ,theophrastos on the atomic theory4 #agb4 ,theophrastos wrote of ,leukippos as follows in the ,first ,book of his ,opinions3-- ,leukippos of ,elea or ,miletos 7for both accounts are given of him7 had associated with ,parmenides in philosophy4 ,he did not1 however1 follow the same path in his explanation of things as ,parmenides and ,xenophanes did1 but1 as is believed1 the very opposite 7,r4 ,p4 #ahe74 ,they made the ,all one1 immovable1 uncreated1 and finite1 and did not even permit us to search for what is not2 he assumed innumerable and ever-moving elements1 namely1 the atoms4 ,and he made their forms infinite in number1 since there was no reason why they should be of one kind rather than another1 and because he saw that there was unceasing becoming and change in things4 ,he held1 further1 that what is is no more real than what is not1 and that both are alike causes of the things that come into being2 for he laid down that the substance of the atoms was compact and full1 and he called them what is1 while they moved in the void which he called what is not1 but affirmed to be just as real as what is4 ,r4 ,p4 #aid4 ,sidenote3 ,leukippos and the ,eleatics4 #agc4 ,it will be observed that ,theophrastos1 while noting the affiliation of ,leukippos to the ,eleatic school1 points out that his theory is1 prima facie1#ice just the opposite of that maintained by ,parmenides4 ,some have been led by this to deny the ,eleaticism of ,leukippos altogether2 but this denial is really based on the view that the system of ,parmenides was 8metaphysical10 coupled with a great reluctance to admit that so scientific a hypothesis as the atomic theory can have had a 8metaphysical0 origin4 ,it is really due to prejudice1 and we must not suppose ,theophrastos himself believed the two theories to be so far apart as they seem4#icf ,as this is really the most important point in the history of early ,greek philosophy1 and as1 rightly understood1 it furnishes the key to the whole development1 it is worth while to transcribe a passage of ,aristotle#icg which explains the historical connexion in a way that leaves nothing to be desired4 ,footnote #ice3 ,the words do not imply assent to the view introduced by them2 indeed they are used1 far more often than not1 in reference to beliefs which the writer does not accept4 ,the translation 8methinks0 in ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #cde1 is therefore most misleading1 and there is no justification for ,brieger's statement 7,hermes1 xxxvi4 p4 #afe7 that ,theophrastos dissents from ,aristotle's view as given in the passage about to be quoted4 ,we should be saved from many errors if we accustomed ourselves to translate by 8is thought0 or 8is believed0 instead of by 8seems40 ,leukippos and ,demokritos have decided about all things practically by the same method and on the same theory1 taking as their starting-point what naturally comes first4 ,some of the ancients had held that the real must necessarily be one and immovable2 for1 said they1 empty space is not real1 and motion would be impossible without empty space separated from matter2 nor1 further1 could reality be a many1 if there were nothing to separate things4 ,and it makes no difference if any one holds that the ,all is not continuous1 but discrete1 with its parts in contact 7the ,pythagorean view71 instead of holding that reality is many1 not one1 and that there is empty space4 ,for1 if it is divisible at every point there is no one1 and therefore no many1 and the ,whole is empty 7,zeno72 while1 if we say it is divisible in one place and not in another1 this looks like an arbitrary fiction2 for up to what point and for what reason will part of the ,whole be in this state and be full1 while the rest is discrete8 ,and1 on the same grounds1 they further say that there can be no motion4 ,in consequence of these reasonings1 then1 going beyond perception and overlooking it in the belief that we ought to follow the argument1 they say that the ,all is one and immovable 7,parmenides71 and some of them that it is infinite 7,melissos71 for any limit would be bounded by empty space4 ,this1 then1 is the opinion they expressed about the truth1 and these are the reasons which led them to do so4 ,now1 so far as arguments go1 this conclusion does seem to follow2 but1 if we appeal to facts1 to hold such a view looks like madness4 ,no one who is mad is so far out of his senses that fire and ice appear to him to be one2 it is only things that are right1 and things that appear right from habit1 in which madness makes some people see no difference4 ,leukippos1 however1 thought he had a theory which was in harmony with sense-perception1 and did not do away with coming into being and passing away1 nor motion1 nor the multiplicity of things4 ,he made this concession to experience1 while he conceded1 on the other hand1 to those who invented the ,one that motion was impossible without the void1 that the void was not real1 and that nothing of what was real was not real4 8,for10 said he1 8that which is strictly speaking real is an absolute plenum2 but the plenum is not one4 ,on the contrary1 there are an infinite number of them1 and they are invisible owing to the smallness of their bulk4 ,they move in the void 7for there is a void72 and by their coming together they effect coming into being2 by their separation1 passing away40 ,footnote #icf3 ,this prejudice is apparent all through ,gomperz's ,greek ,thinkers1 and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating1 though somewhat imaginative work4 ,it is amusing to notice that ,brieger1 from the same point of view1 regards the custom of making ,anaxagoras the last of the ,presocratics as due to theological prepossessions 7,hermes1 xxxvi4 p4 #ahe74 ,i am sorry that ,i cannot agree with either side2 but the bitterness of the disputants bears witness to the fundamental importance of the questions raised by the early ,greek philosophers4 ,footnote #icg3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #h4 #cbd b #ce 7,r4 ,p4 #aic74 ,it is true that in this passage ,zeno and ,melissos are not named1 but the reference to them is unmistakable4 ,the argument of ,zeno against the ,pythagoreans is clearly given2 and ,melissos was the only ,eleatic who made reality infinite1 a point which is distinctly mentioned4 ,we are therefore justified by ,aristotle's words in explaining the genesis of ,atomism and its relation to ,eleaticism as follows4 ,zeno had shown that all pluralist systems yet known1 and especially ,pythagoreanism1 were unable to stand before the arguments from infinite divisibility which he adduced4 ,melissos had used the same argument against ,anaxagoras1 and had added1 by way of reductio ad absurdum1 that1 if there were many things1 each one of them must be such as the ,eleatics held the ,one to be4 ,to this ,leukippos answers1 8,why not80 ,he admitted the force of ,zeno's arguments by setting a limit to divisibility1 and to each of the atoms which he thus arrived at he ascribed all the predicates of the ,eleatic ,one2 for ,parmenides had shown that if it is1 it must have these predicates somehow4 ,the same view is implied in a passage of ,aristotle's ,physics4#ich 8,some10 we are there told1 8surrendered to both arguments1 to the first1 the argument that all things are one1 if the word is is used in one sense only 7,parmenides71 by affirming the reality of what is not2 to the second1 that based on dichotomy 7,zeno71 by introducing indivisible magnitudes40 ,finally1 it is only by regarding the matter in this way that we can attach any meaning to another statement of ,aristotle's to the effect that ,leukippos and ,demokritos1 as well as the ,pythagoreans1 virtually make all things out of numbers4#ici ,leukippos1 in fact1 gave the ,pythagorean monads the character of the ,parmenidean ,one4 ,footnote #ich3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #c4 #ahg a #a 7,r4 ,p4 #acd b74 ,footnote #ici3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #d4 #cjc a #h1 7 7 4 ,this also serves to explain what ,herakleides may have meant by attributing the theory of corporeal to the ,pythagorean ,ekphantos of ,syracuse 7above1 p4 #cch1 n4 #gid74 ,sidenote3 ,atoms4 #agd4 ,we must observe that the atom is not mathematically indivisible1 for it has magnitude2 it is1 however1 physically indivisible1 because1 like the ,one of ,parmenides1 it contains in it no empty space4#idj ,each atom has extension1 and all the atoms are exactly alike in substance4#ida ,therefore all differences in things must be accounted for either by the shape of the atoms or by their arrangement4 ,it seems probable that the three ways in which differences arise1 namely1 shape1 position1 and arrangement1 were already distinguished by ,leukippos2 for ,aristotle mentions his name in connexion with them4#idb ,this explains1 too1 why the atoms are called 8forms0 or 8figures10 a way of speaking which seems to be of ,pythagorean origin4#idc ,that they are also called #idd is quite intelligible if we remember what was said of that word in the ,introduction 7 ,,vii474 ,the differences in shape1 order1 and position just referred to account for the 8opposites10 the 8elements0 being regarded rather as aggregates of these 771 as by ,anaxagoras4#ide ,footnote #idj3 ,the ,epicureans misunderstood this point1 or misrepresented it in order to magnify their own originality 7see ,zeller1 p4 #heg1 n4 #c2 ,eng4 trans4 ii4 p4 #bbe1 n4 #b74 ,footnote #ida3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #g4 #bge b #cb1 2 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #cd1 77 4 ,footnote #idb3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe b #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #aib72 cf4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 #cae b #f4 ,as ,diels suggests1 the illustration from the letters of the alphabet is probably due to ,demokritos4 ,it shows1 in any case1 how the word came to be used later for 8element40 ,we must read1 with ,wilamowitz1 for 1 the older form of the letter being just an laid upon its side 7,diels1 ,elementum1 p4 #ac1 n4 #a74 ,footnote #idc3 ,demokritos wrote a work1 7,sext4 ,math4 vii4 #acg2 ,r4 ,p4 #bjd71 which ,diels identifies with the of ,thrasylos1 ,tetr4 v4 #c4 ,theophrastos refers to ,demokritos1 7de ,sensibus1 #ea74 ,plut4 adv4 ,col4 #aaaa a1 1 ' 7so the ,,mss43 1 ,wyttenbach2 1 ,diels74 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #bjc a #ba1 77 7 74 ,cf4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 1 #b4 #cae b #g 7,r4 ,p4 #aif74 ,footnote #idd3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #i4 #bfe b #be2 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #acah1 #cc1 7 7 4 ,footnote #ide3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #cf1 #a 7,diels1 ,vors4 p4 #cdf71 and ,r4 ,p4 #aif a4 ,sidenote3 ,the void4 #age4 ,leukippos affirmed the existence both of the ,full and the ,empty1 terms which he may have borrowed from ,melissos4#idf ,as we have seen1 he had to assume the existence of empty space1 which the ,eleatics had denied1 in order to make his explanation of the nature of body possible4 ,here again he is developing a ,pythagorean view4 ,the ,pythagoreans had spoken of the void1 which kept the units apart2 but they had not distinguished it from atmospheric air 7 #ec71 which ,empedokles had shown to be a corporeal substance 7 #ajg74 ,parmenides1 indeed1 had formed a clearer conception of space1 but only to deny its reality4 ,leukippos started from this4 ,he admitted1 indeed1 that space was not real1 that is to say1 corporeal2 but he maintained that it existed all the same4 ,he hardly1 it is true1 had words to express his discovery in2 for the verb 8to be0 had hitherto been used by philosophers only of body4 ,but he did his best to make his meaning clear by saying that 8what is not0 7in the old corporealist sense7 8is0 7in another sense7 just as much as 8what is40 ,the void is as real as body4 ,footnote #idf3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe b #d 7,r4 ,p4 #aib74 ,cf4 ,melissos1 fr4 #g sub fin4 ,it is a curious fact that the ,atomists1 who are commonly regarded as the great materialists of antiquity1 were actually the first to say distinctly that a thing might be real without being a body4 ,sidenote3 ,cosmology4 #agf4 ,it might seem a hopeless task to disentangle the cosmology of ,leukippos from that of ,demokritos1 with which it is generally identified2 but that very fact affords an invaluable clue4 ,so far as we know1 no one after ,theophrastos was able to distinguish the doctrines of the two men1 and it follows from this that all definite statements about ,leukippos in later writers must1 in the long run1 go back to him4 ,if we follow this up1 we shall be able to give a fairly clear account of the system1 and we shall even come across some views which are peculiar to ,leukippos and were not adopted by ,demokritos4#idg ,footnote #idg3 ,cf4 ,zeller1 8,zu ,leukippus0 7,arch4 xv4 p4 #ach74 ,we shall start from the fuller of the two doxographies in ,diogenes1 which comes from an epitome of ,theophrastos4#idh ,it is as follows3-- ,he says that the ,all is infinite1 and that it is part full1 and part empty4 ,these 7the full and the empty71 he says1 are the elements4 ,from them arise innumerable worlds and are resolved into them4 ,the worlds come into being thus4 ,there were borne along by 8abscision from the infinite0 many bodies of all sorts of figures 8into a mighty void10 and they being gathered together produce a single vortex4 ,in it1 as they came into collision with one another and were whirled round in all manner of ways1 those which were alike were separated apart and came to their likes4 ,but1 as they were no longer able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their multitude1 those of them that were fine went out to the external void1 as if passed through a sieve2 the rest stayed together1 and becoming entangled with one another1 ran down together1 and made a first spherical structure4 ,this was in substance like a membrane or skin containing in itself all kinds of bodies4 ,and1 as these bodies were borne round in a vortex1 in virtue of the resistance of the middle1 the surrounding membrane became thin1 as the contiguous bodies kept flowing together from contact with the vortex4 ,and in this way the earth came into being1 those things which had been borne towards the middle abiding there4 ,moreover1 the containing membrane was increased by the further separating out of bodies from outside2 and1 being itself carried round in a vortex1 it further got possession of all with which it had come in contact4 ,some of these becoming entangled1 produce a structure1 which was at first moist and muddy2 but1 when they had been dried and were revolving along with the vortex of the whole1 they were then ignited and produced the substance of the heavenly bodies4 ,the circle of the sun is the outermost1 that of the moon is nearest to the earth1 and those of the others are between these4 ,and all the heavenly bodies are ignited because of the swiftness of their motion2 while the sun is also ignited by the stars4 ,but the moon only receives a small portion of fire4 ,the sun and the moon are eclipsed4444 7,and the obliquity of the zodiac is produced7 by the earth being inclined towards the south2 and the northern parts of it have constant snow and are cold and frozen4 ,and the sun is eclipsed rarely1 and the moon continually1 because their circles are unequal4 ,and just as there are comings into being of the world1 so there are growths and decays and passings away in virtue of a certain necessity1 of the nature of which he gives no clear account4 ,footnote #idh3 ,diog4 ix4 #ca sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #aig1 #aig c74 ,this passage deals expressly with ,leukippos1 not with ,demokritos or even 8,leukippos and ,demokritos40 ,for the distinction between the 8summary0 and 8detailed0 doxographies in ,diogenes1 see ,appendix1 #ae4 ,as it comes substantially from ,theophrastos1 this passage is to be regarded as good evidence for the cosmology of ,leukippos1 and it is confirmed in an interesting way by certain ,epicurean extracts from the ,great ,diakosmos4#idi ,these1 however1 as is natural1 give a specially ,epicurean turn to some of the doctrines1 and must therefore be used with caution4 ,footnote #idi3 ,these are to be found in ,aet4 i4 #d 7,dox4 p4 #bhi2 ,vors4 p4 #cdg2 ,usener1 ,epicurea1 fr4 #cjh74 ,epicurus himself in the second epistle 7,diog4 x4 #hh2 ,usener1 p4 #cg1 #g7 quotes the phrase 4 ,sidenote3 ,relation to ,ionic cosmology4 #agg4 ,the general impression which we get from the cosmology of ,leukippos is that he either ignored or had never heard of the great advance in the general view of the world which was due to the later ,pythagoreans4 ,he is as reactionary in his detailed cosmology as he was daring in his general physical theory4 ,we seem to be reading once more of the speculations of ,anaximenes or even of ,anaximander1 though there are traces of ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras too4 ,the explanation is not hard to see4 ,leukippos would not learn a cosmology from his ,eleatic teachers2 and1 even when he found it possible to construct one without giving up the ,parmenidean view of reality1 he was necessarily thrown back upon the older systems of ,ionia4 ,the result was unfortunate4 ,the astronomy of ,demokritos1 so far as we know it1 was still of this childish character4 ,there is no reason to doubt the statement of ,seneca that he did not venture to say how many planets there were4#iej ,footnote #iej3 ,seneca1 ,q4 ,nat4 vii4 #c4 ,this1 ,i take it1 is what gives plausibility to ,gomperz's statement that ,atomism was 8the ripe fruit on the tree of the old ,ionic doctrine of matter which had been tended by the ,ionian physiologists40#iea ,the detailed cosmology was certainly such a fruit1 and it was possibly over-ripe2 but the atomic theory proper1 in which the real greatness of ,leukippos comes out1 was wholly ,eleatic in its origin4 ,nevertheless1 it will repay us to examine the cosmology too2 for such an examination will serve better than anything else to bring out the true nature of the historical development of which it was the outcome4 ,footnote #iea3 ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 vol4 i4 p4 #cbc4 ,sidenote3 ,the eternal motion4 #agh4 ,leukippos represented the atoms as having been always in motion4 ,aristotle puts this in his own way4 ,the atomists1 he says1 8indolently0 left it unexplained what was the source of motion1 and they did not say what sort of motion it was4 ,in other words1 they did not decide whether it was a 8natural motion0 or one impressed on them 8contrary to their nature40#ieb ,he even went so far as to say that they made it 8spontaneous10 a remark which has given rise to the erroneous view that they held it was due to chance4#iec ,aristotle does not say that1 however2 but only that the atomists did not explain the motion of the atoms in any of the ways in which he himself explained the motion of the elements4 ,they neither ascribed to them a natural motion like the circular motion of the heavens and the rectilinear motion of the four elements in the sublunary region1 nor did they give them a forced motion contrary to their own nature1 like the upward motion which may be given to the heavy elements and the downward which may be given to the light4 ,the only fragment of ,leukippos which has survived is an express denial of chance4 8,naught happens for nothing10 he said 8but everything from a ground and of necessity40#ied ,footnote #ieb3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #a4 #beb a #cb 7,r4 ,p4 #aie a72 de ,caelo1 1 #b4 #cjj b #h 7,r4 ,p4 #aie72 ,met4 1 #d4 #ihe b #ai 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,footnote #iec3 ,arist4 ,phys4 1 #d4 #aif a #bd 7,r4 ,p4 #aie d74 ,cicero1 de nat4 ,d4 i4 #ff 7,r4 ,p4 ib474 ,the latter passage is the source of the phrase 8fortuitous concourse0 7concurrere 74 ,footnote #ied3 ,aet4 i4 #be1 #d 7,dox4 p4 #cba71 ' 1 ' 4 1 ' 4 ,if we put the matter historically1 all this means that ,leukippos did not1 like ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras1 find it necessary to assume a force to originate motion4 ,he had no need of ,love and ,strife or ,mind1 and the reason is clear4 ,though ,empedokles and ,anaxagoras had tried to explain multiplicity and motion1 they had not broken so radically as ,leukippos did with the ,parmenidean ,one4 ,both of them started with a condition of matter in which the 8roots0 or 8seeds0 were mixed so as to be 8all together10 and they therefore required something to break up this unity4 ,leukippos1 who started with an infinite number of ,parmenidean 8,ones10 so to speak1 required no external agency to separate them4 ,what he had to do was just the opposite4 ,he had to give an explanation of their coming together1 and there was nothing so far to prevent his return to the old and natural idea that motion does not require any explanation at all4#iee ,footnote #iee3 ,introd4 ,,viii4 ,this1 then1 is what seems to follow from the criticisms of ,aristotle and from the nature of the case2 but it will be observed that it is not consistent with ,zeller's opinion that the original motion of the atoms is a fall through infinite space1 as in the system of ,epicurus4 ,zeller's view depends1 of course1 on the further belief that the atoms have weight1 and that weight is the tendency of bodies to fall1 so we must go on to consider whether and in what sense weight is a property of the atoms4 ,sidenote3 ,the weight of the atoms4 #agi4 ,as is well known1 ,epicurus held that the atoms were naturally heavy1 and therefore fell continually in the infinite void4 ,the school tradition is1 however1 that the 8natural weight0 of the atoms was an addition made by ,epicurus himself to the original atomic system4 ,demokritos1 we are told1 assigned two properties to atoms1 magnitude and form1 to which ,epicurus added a third1 weight4#ief ,on the other hand1 ,aristotle distinctly says in one place that ,demokritos held the atoms were heavier 8in proportion to their excess10 and this seems to be explained by the statement of ,theophrastos that1 according to him1 weight depended on magnitude4#ieg ,it will be observed that1 even so1 it is not represented as a primary property of the atoms in the same sense as magnitude4 ,footnote #ief3 ,aet4 i4 #c1 #ah 7of ,epicurus71 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 78or else07 2 ib4 #ab1 #f1 1 ' 1 1 ' 4 ,cic4 de fato1 #bj1 8vim motus habebant 7atomi7 a ,democrito impulsionis quam plagam ille appellat1 a te1 ,epicure1 gravitatis et ponderis40 ,these passages represent the ,epicurean school tradition1 which would hardly venture to misrepresent ,demokritos on so important a point4 ,his works were still accessible4 ,it is confirmed by the ,academic tradition in de ,fin4 i4 #ag that ,demokritos taught the atoms moved 8in infinito inani1 in quo nihil nec summum nec infimum nec medium nec extremum sit40 ,this doctrine1 we are told1 was 8depraved0 by ,epicurus4 ,footnote #ieg3 ,arist4 de ,gen4 ,corr4 #cbf a #i1 4 ,i cannot believe this means anything else than what ,theophrastos says in his fragment on sensation1 #fa 7,r4 ,p4 #aii71 4 ,it is impossible to solve this apparent contradiction without referring briefly to the history of ,greek ideas about weight4 ,it is clear that lightness and weight would be among the very first properties of body to be distinctly recognised as such4 ,the necessity of lifting burdens must very soon have led men to distinguish them1 though no doubt in some primitive and more or less animistic form4 ,both weight and lightness would be thought of as things that were in bodies4 ,now it is a remarkable feature of early ,greek philosophy that from the first it was able to shake itself free from this idea4 ,weight is never spoken of as a 8thing0 as1 for instance1 warmth and cold are2 and1 so far as we can see1 not one of the thinkers we have studied hitherto thought it necessary to give any explanation of it at all1 or even to say anything about it4#ieh ,the motions and resistances which popular theory ascribes to weight are all explained in some other way4 ,aristotle distinctly declares that none of his predecessors had said anything of absolute weight and lightness4 ,they had only treated of the relatively light and heavy4#iei ,footnote #ieh3 ,in ,aet4 i4 #ab1 where the placita regarding the heavy and light are given1 no philosopher earlier than ,plato is referred to4 ,parmenides 7fr4 #h1 #ei7 speaks of the dark element as 4 ,i do not think that there is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the early philosophers4 ,footnote #iei3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 #cjh a #i1 7 7 4 ,this way of regarding the popular notions of weight and lightness is clearly formulated for the first time in ,plato's ,timaeus4#ifj ,there is no such thing in the world1 we are told there1 as 8up0 or 8down40 ,the middle of the world is not 8down0 but 8just in the middle10 and there is no reason why any point in the circumference should be said to be 8above0 or 8below0 another4 ,it is really the tendency of bodies towards their kin that makes us call a falling body heavy and the place to which it falls 8below40 ,here ,plato is really giving the view which was taken more or less consciously by his predecessors1 and it is not till the time of ,aristotle that it is questioned4#ifa ,for reasons which do not concern us here1 he definitely identified the circumference of the heavens with 8up0 and the middle of the world with 8down10 and equipped the four elements with natural weight and lightness that they might perform their rectilinear motions between them4 ,as1 however1 ,aristotle believed there was only one world1 and as he did not ascribe weight to the heavens proper1 the effect of this reactionary theory upon his cosmical system was not great2 it was only when ,epicurus tried to combine it with the infinite void that its true character emerged4 ,it seems to me that the nightmare of ,epicurean atomism can only be explained on the assumption that an ,aristotelian doctrine was violently adapted to a theory which really excluded it4#ifb ,it is totally unlike anything we meet with in earlier days4 ,footnote #ifj3 ,plato1 ,tim4 #fa c #c sqq4 ,footnote #ifa3 ,zeller says 7p4 #hgf7 that in antiquity no one ever understood by weight anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which they move downwards2 except that in such systems as represent all forms of matter as contained in a sphere1 8above0 is identified with the circumference and 8below0 with the centre4 ,as to that1 ,i can only say that no such theory of weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is anywhere ascribed to them1 while ,plato expressly denies it4 ,this brief historical survey suggests at once that it is only in the vortex that the atoms acquire weight and lightness1#ifc which are1 after all1 only popular names for facts which can be further analysed4 ,we are told that ,leukippos held that one effect of the vortex was that like atoms were brought together with their likes4#ifd ,in this way of speaking we seem to see the influence of ,empedokles1 though the 8likeness0 is of another kind4 ,it is the finer atoms that are forced to the circumference1 while the larger tend to the centre4 ,we may express that by saying that the larger are heavy and the smaller light1 and this will amply account for everything ,aristotle and ,theophrastos say2 for there is no passage where the atoms outside the vortex are distinctly said to be heavy or light4#ife ,footnote #ifb3 ,the ,aristotelian criticisms which may have affected ,epicurus are such as we find in de ,caelo1 #bge b #bi sqq4 ,aristotle there argues that1 as ,leukippos and ,demokritos made the of the atoms one1 they were bound to give them a single motion4 ,that is just what ,epicurus did1 but ,aristotle's argument implies that ,leukippos and ,demokritos did not4 ,though he gave the atoms weight1 ,epicurus could not accept ,aristotle's view that some bodies are naturally light4 ,the appearance of lightness is due to 1 the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger4 ,footnote #ifc3 ,in dealing with ,empedokles1 ,aristotle expressly makes this distinction4 ,cf4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac1 especially #bie a #cb sqq41 where he points out that ,empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies on the earth 7 71 nor for the weight of bodies before the vortex arose 7 74 ,footnote #ifd3 ,diog41 loc4 cit4 7p4 #cij74 ,footnote #ife3 ,this seems to be in the main the view of ,dyroff1 ,demokritstudien 7#ahii71 pp4 #ca sqq41 though ,i should not say that lightness and weight only arose in connexion with the atoms of the earth 7p4 #ce74 ,if we substitute 8world0 for 8earth10 we shall be nearer the truth4 ,there is a striking confirmation of the view just given in the atomist cosmology quoted above4#iff ,we are told there that the separation of the larger and smaller atoms was due to the fact that they were 8no longer able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their number10 which implies that they had previously been in a state of 8equilibrium0 or 8equipoise40 ,now the word has no necessary implication of weight in ,greek4 ,a is a mere leaning or inclination in a certain direction1 which may be caused by weight or anything else4 ,the state of is therefore that in which the tendency in one direction is exactly equal to the tendency in any other1 and such a state is more naturally described as the absence of weight than as the presence of opposite weights neutralising one another4 ,that way of looking at it may be useful from the point of view of later science1 but it is not safe to attribute it to the thinkers of the fifth century ,b4,c4 ,footnote #iff3 ,see above1 p4 #cij4 ,if we no longer regard the 8eternal motion0 of the premundane and extramundane atoms as due to their weight1 there is no reason for describing it as a fall4 ,none of our authorities do as a matter of fact so describe it1 nor do they tell us in any way what it was4 ,it is safest to say that it is simply a confused motion this way and that4#ifg ,it is possible that the comparison of the motion of the atoms of the soul to that of the motes in a sunbeam coming through a window1 which ,aristotle attributes to ,demokritos1#ifh is really intended as an illustration of the original motion of the atoms still surviving in the soul4 ,the fact that it is also a ,pythagorean comparison#ifi in no way tells against this2 for we have seen that there is a real connexion between the ,pythagorean monads and the atoms4 ,it is also significant that the point of the comparison appears to have been the fact that the motes in the sunbeam move even when there is no wind1 so that it would be a very apt illustration indeed of the motion inherent in the atoms apart from the secondary motions produced by impact and collision4 ,that1 however1 is problematical2 it only serves to suggest the sort of motion which it is natural to suppose that ,leukippos gave his atoms4 ,footnote #ifg3 ,this view was independently advocated by ,brieger 7,die ,urbewegung der ,atome und die ,weltentstehung bei ,leucipp und ,demokrit1 #ahhd7 and ,liepmann 7,die ,mechanik der ,leucipp-,demokritschen ,atome1 #ahhe71 both of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting that weight is an original property of the atoms4 ,on the other hand1 ,brieger denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original motion1 while ,liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there is only a latent weight1 a ,pseudoschwere1 which only comes into operation in the world4 ,it is surely simpler to say that this weight1 since it produces no effect1 does not yet exist4 ,zeller rightly argues against ,brieger and ,liepmann that1 if the atoms have weight1 they must fall2 but1 so far as ,i can see1 nothing he says tells against their theory as ,i have restated it4 ,gomperz adopts the ,brieger-,liepmann explanation4 ,see also ,lortzing1 ,jahresber41 #aijc1 pp4 #acf sqq4 ,footnote #ifh3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #djc b #bh sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #bjj74 ,footnote #ifi3 ,ibid4 1 #b4 #djd a #ag 7,r4 ,p4 #hf a74 ,sidenote3 ,the vortex4 #ahj4 ,but what are we to say of the vortex itself which produces these effects8 ,gomperz observes that they seem to be 8the precise contrary of what they should have been by the laws of physics02 for1 8as every centrifugal machine would show1 it is the heaviest substances which are hurled to the greatest distance40#igj ,are we to suppose that ,leukippos was ignorant of this fact1 which was known to ,anaxagoras1 though ,gomperz is wrong in supposing there is any reason to believe that ,anaximander took account of it8#iga ,now we know from ,aristotle that all those who accounted for the earth being in the centre of the world by means of a vortex appealed to the analogy of eddies in wind or water1#igb and ,gomperz supposes that the whole theory was an erroneous generalisation of this observation4 ,if we look at the matter more closely1 we can see1 ,i think1 that there is no error at all4 ,footnote #igj3 ,gomperz1 ,greek ,thinkers1 i4 p4 #cci4 ,footnote #iga3 ,for ,empedokles1 see ,chap4 ,v4 p4 #bgd2 ,anaxagoras1 see ,chap4 ,,vi4 p4 #cab2 and for ,anaximander1 ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #fi1 n4 #acb4 ,footnote #igb3 ,arist4 de ,caelo1 1 #ac4 #bie a #aj1 7sc4 7 4 ,we must remember that all the parts of the vortex are in contact1 and that it is just this contact 77 by which the motion of the outermost parts is communicated to those within them4 ,the larger bodies are more able to resist this communicated motion than the smaller1 and in this way they make their way to the centre where the motion is least1 and force the smaller bodies out4 ,this resistance is surely just the which is mentioned in the doxography of ,leukippos1#igc and it is quite in accordance with this that1 on the atomist theory1 the nearer a heavenly body is to the centre1 the slower is its revolution4#igd ,there is no question of 8centrifugal force0 at all1 and the analogy of eddies in air and water is quite satisfactory4 ,footnote #igc3 ,diog4 ix4 #cb4 ,cf4 especially the phrases 1 ' 1 and 4 ,footnote #igd3 ,cf4 ,lucr4 v4 #fba sqq4 ,sidenote3 ,the earth and the heavenly bodies4 #aha4 ,when we come to details1 the reactionary character of the atomist cosmology is very manifest4 ,the earth was shaped like a tambourine1 and floated on the air4#ige ,it was inclined towards the south because the heat of that region made the air thinner1 while the ice and cold of the north made it denser and more able to support the earth4#igf ,this accounts for the obliquity of the zodiac4 ,like ,anaximander 7 #ai71 ,leukippos held that the sun was further away than the stars1 though he also held that these were further away than the moon4#igg ,this certainly suggests that he made no clear distinction between the planets and the fixed stars4 ,he does1 however1 appear to have known the theory of eclipses as given by ,anaxagoras4#igh ,such other pieces of information as have come down to us are mainly of interest as showing that1 in some important respects1 the doctrine of ,leukippos was not the same as that taught afterwards by ,demokritos4#igi ,footnote #ige3 ,aet4 iii4 #c1 #aj1 quoted above1 p4 #hc1 n4 #afh4 ,footnote #igf3 ,aet4 iii4 #ab1 #a1 1 1 4 ,footnote #igg3 ,diog4 ix4 #cc1 1 1 4 ,footnote #igh3 ,from ,diog41 loc4 cit4 7supra1 p4 #cia71 it appears that he dealt with the question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses4 ,it seems to have been this which led him to make the circle of the moon smaller than that of the stars4 ,footnote #igi3 ,diels pointed out that ,leukippos's explanation of thunder 7 1 ,aet4 iii4 #c1 #aj7 is quite different from that of ,demokritos 7 444 1 ib4 #aa74 ,the explanation given by ,leukippos is derived from that of ,anaximander1 while ,demokritos is influenced by ,anaxagoras4 ,see ,diels1 #ce ,philol4-,vers4 #ig1 #g4 ,sidenote3 ,perception4 #ahb4 ,aetios expressly attributes to ,leukippos the doctrine that the objects of sense-perception exist 8by law0 and not by nature4#ihj ,this must come from ,theophrastos2 for1 as we have seen1 all later writers quote ,demokritos only4 ,a further proof of the correctness of the statement is that we also find it attributed to ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 who1 as ,theophrastos tells us1 derived some of his views from ,leukippos4 ,there is nothing surprising in this4 ,parmenides had already declared the senses to be deceitful1 and said that colour and the like were only 8names10#iha and ,empedokles had also spoken of coming into being and passing away as only 8names40#ihb ,it is not likely that ,leukippos went much further than this4 ,it would probably be wrong to credit him with ,demokritos's clear distinction between genuine and 8bastard0 knowledge1 or that between what are now called the primary and secondary qualities of matter4#ihc ,these distinctions imply a conscious epistemological theory1 and all we are entitled to say is that the germs of this were already to be found in the writings of ,leukippos and his predecessors4 ,of course1 these do not make ,leukippos a sceptic any more than ,empedokles or ,anaxagoras1 whose remark on this subject 7fr4 #ba;a7 ,demokritos is said to have quoted with approval4#ihd ,footnote #ihj3 ,aet4 iv4 #i1 #h1 1 4 ,see ,zeller1 ,arch4 v4 p4 #ddd4 ,footnote #iha3 ,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #bjj1 n4 #ddc4 ,the remarkable parallel quoted by ,gomperz 7p4 #cba7 from ,galilei1 to the effect that tastes1 smells1 and colours non sieno altro che puri nomi should1 therefore1 have been cited to illustrate ,parmenides rather than ,demokritos4 ,footnote #ihb3 ,see p4 #bdj1 fr4 #h4 ,footnote #ihc3 ,for these see ,sext4 ,math4 vii4 #ace 7,r4 ,p4 #bjd74 ,footnote #ihd3 ,sext4 vii4 #adj1 8 10 1 4 ,there appear to be sufficient grounds for ascribing the theory of perception by means of simulacra or 1 which played such a part in the systems of ,demokritos and ,epicurus1 to ,leukippos4#ihe ,it is a very natural development of the ,empedoklean theory of 8effluences0 7 #aah74 ,it hardly seems likely1 however1 that he went into great detail on the subject1 and it is safer to credit ,demokritos with the elaboration of the theory4 ,sidenote3 ,importance of ,leukippos4 #ahc4 ,we have seen incidentally that there is a wide divergence of opinion among recent writers as to the place of ,atomism in ,greek thought4 ,the question at issue is really whether ,leukippos reached his theory on what are called 8metaphysical grounds10 that is1 from a consideration of the ,eleatic theory of reality1 or whether1 on the contrary1 it was a pure development of ,ionian science4 ,the foregoing exposition will suggest the true answer4 ,so far as his general theory of the physical constitution of the world is concerned1 it has been shown1 ,i think1 that it was derived entirely from ,eleatic and ,pythagorean sources1 while the detailed cosmology was in the main a more or less successful attempt to make the older ,ionian beliefs fit into this new physical theory4 ,in any case1 his greatness consisted in his having been the first to see how body must be regarded if we take it to be ultimate reality4 ,the old ,milesian theory had found its most adequate expression in the system of ,anaximenes 7 #ca71 but of course rarefaction and condensation cannot be clearly represented except on the hypothesis of molecules or atoms coming closer together or going further apart in space4 ,parmenides had seen that very clearly 7fr4#b71 and it was the ,eleatic criticism which forced ,leukippos to formulate his system as he did4 ,even ,anaxagoras took account of ,zeno's arguments about divisibility 7 #abh71 but his system of qualitatively different 8seeds0 was lacking in that simplicity which has always been the chief attraction of atomism4 ,footnote #ihe3 ,see ,zeller1 8,zu ,leukippus0 7,arch4 xv4 p4 #ach74 ,the doctrine is attributed to him in ,aet4 iv4 #ac1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #djc72 and ,alexander1 de ,sensu1 pp4 #bd1 #ad and #ef1 #aj1 also mentions his name in connexion with it4 ,this must come from ,theophrastos4 ,,chapter ,x ,,eclecticism ,,and ,,reaction ,sidenote3 ,the 8bankruptcy of science40 #ahd4 ,with ,leukippos our story should properly come to an end2 for he had really answered the question first asked by ,thales4 ,we have seen1 however1 that1 though his theory of matter was of a most original and daring kind1 he was not equally successful in his attempt to construct a cosmology1 and this seems to have stood in the way of the recognition of the atomic theory for what it really was4 ,we have noted the growing influence of medicine1 and the consequent substitution of an interest in detailed investigation for the larger cosmological views of an earlier time1 and there are several treatises in the ,hippokratean corpus which give us a clear idea of the interest which now prevailed4#ihf ,leukippos had shown that 8the doctrine of ,melissos10#ihg which seemed to make all science impossible1 was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from the ,eleatic premisses1 and he had gone on to give a cosmology which was substantially of the old ,ionic type4 ,the result at first was simply that all the old schools revived and had a short period of renewed activity1 while at the same time some new schools arose which sought to accommodate the older views to those of ,leukippos1 or to make them more available for scientific purposes by combining them in an eclectic fashion4 ,none of these attempts had any lasting importance or influence1 and what we have to consider in this chapter is really one of the periodical 8bankruptcies of science0 which mark the close of one chapter in its history and announce the beginning of a new one4 ,footnote #ihf3 ,cf4 what is said in ,chap4 ,,iv4 p4 #afg1 n4 #chc1 of the 4 ,the and the are invaluable documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at this date4 ,footnote #ihg3 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,,viii4 p4 #cgi1 n4 #iai4 ,i4 ,,hippon ,,of ,,samos #ahe4 ,hippon of ,samos or ,kroton belonged to the ,italian school of medicine4#ihh ,we know very little indeed of him except that he was a contemporary of ,perikles4 ,from a scholiast on ,aristophanes#ihi we learn that ,kratinos satirised him in his ,panoptai2 and ,aristotle mentions him in the enumeration of early philosophers given in the ,first ,book of the ,metaphysics1#iij though only to say that the inferiority of his intellect deprives him of all claim to be reckoned among them4 ,footnote #ihh3 ,aristoxenos said he was a ,samian 7,r4 ,p4 #bai a74 ,in ,menon's ,iatrika he is called a ,krotoniate1 while others assign him to ,rhegion or ,metapontion4 ,this probably means that he was affiliated to the ,pythagorean medical school4 ,the evidence of ,aristoxenos is1 in that case1 all the more valuable4 ,hippon is mentioned along with ,melissos in ,iamblichos's ,catalogue of ,pythagoreans 7,v4 ,pyth4 #bfg74 ,footnote #ihi3 ,schol4 on ,clouds1 #id sqq4 ,footnote #iij3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #c4 #ihd a #c 7,r4 ,p4 #bai a74 ,sidenote3 ,moisture4 ,with regard to his views1 the most precise statement is that of ,alexander1 who doubtless follows ,theophrastos4 ,it is to the effect that he held the primary substance to be ,moisture1 without deciding whether it was ,water or ,air4#iia ,we have the authority of ,aristotle#iib and ,theophrastos1 represented by ,hippolytos1#iic for saying that this theory was supported by physiological arguments of the kind common at the time4 ,his other views belong to the history of ,medicine4 ,footnote #iia3 ,alexander in ,met4 p4 #bf1 #ba 7,r4 ,p4 #bai74 ,footnote #iib3 ,arist4 de ,an4 1 #b4 #dje b #b 7,r4 ,p4 #bbj74 ,footnote #iic3 ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #af 7,r4 ,p4 #bba74 ,till quite recently no fragment of ,hippon was known to exist1 but a single one has now been recovered from the ,geneva ,scholia on ,homer4#iid ,it is directed against the old assumption that the 8waters under the earth0 are an independent source of moisture1 and runs thus3 ,the waters we drink are all from the sea2 for if wells were deeper than the sea1 then it would not1 doubtless1 be from the sea that we drink1 for then the water would not be from the sea1 but from some other source4 ,but as it is1 the sea is deeper than the waters1 so all the waters that are above the sea come from it4 ,r4 ,p4 #bai b4 ,we observe here the universal assumption that water tends to rise from the earth1 not to sink into it4 ,along with ,hippon1 ,idaios of ,himera#iie may just be mentioned4 ,we really know nothing of him except that he held air to be the primary substance4 ,the fact that he was of ,sicilian origin is1 however1 suggestive4 ,footnote #iid3 ,schol4 ,genav4 p4 #aig1 #ai4 ,cf4 ,diels in ,arch4 iv4 p4 #fec4 ,the extract comes from the of ,krates of ,mallos4 ,footnote #iie3 ,sext4 adv4 ,math4 ix4 #cfj4 ,,ii4 ,,diogenes ,,of ,,apollonia ,sidenote3 ,date4 #ahf4 ,after discussing the three great representatives of the ,milesian school1 ,theophrastos went on to say3 ,and ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 too1 who was almost the latest of those who gave themselves up to these studies1 wrote most of his work in an eclectic fashion1 agreeing in some points with ,anaxagoras and in others with ,leukippos4 ,he1 too1 says that the primary substance of the universe is ,air infinite and eternal1 from which by condensation1 rarefaction1 and change of state1 the form of everything else arises4 ,r4 ,p4 #bjf a4#iif ,footnote #iif3 ,on this passage see ,diels1 8,leukippos und ,diogenes von ,apollonia0 7,rhein4 ,mus4 xlii4 pp4 #a sqq474 ,natorp's view that the words are merely those of ,simplicius 7ib4 xli4 pp4 #cdi sqq47 can hardly be maintained4 ,this passage shows that the ,apolloniate was somewhat later in date than the statement in ,laertios ,diogenes#iig that he was contemporary with ,anaxagoras would lead us to suppose1 and the fact that he is satirised in the ,clouds of ,aristophanes points in the same direction4#iih ,of his life we know next to nothing4 ,he was the son of ,apollothemis1 and came from ,apollonia in ,crete4#iii ,the ,ionic dialect in which he wrote is no objection to this2 it was the regular dialect for cosmological works4#ajjj ,footnote #iig3 ,diog4 ix4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #bjf74 ,the statement of ,antisthenes1 the writer of ,successions1 that he had 8heard0 ,anaximenes is due to the usual confusion4 ,he was doubtless1 like ,anaxagoras1 8an associate of the philosophy of ,anaximenes40 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,,vi4 #abb4 ,footnote #iih3 ,aristoph4 ,clouds1 #bbg sqq41 where ,sokrates speaks of 8mixing his subtle thought with the kindred air10 and especially the words 4 ,for the 1 see ,beare1 p4 #bei4 ,cf4 also ,eur4 ,tro4 #hhd1 444 ,footnote #iii3 ,diog4 ix4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #bjf74 ,footnote #ajjj3 ,cf4 ,chap4 ,,vii4 pp4 #cbg sqq4 ,the fact that ,diogenes was parodied in the ,clouds suggests that he had found his way to ,athens2 and we have the excellent authority of ,demetrios ,phalereus#ajja for saying that the ,athenians treated him in the usual way4 ,he excited so great dislike as nearly to imperil his life4 ,footnote #ajja3 ,diog4 ix4 #eg1 4 ,diels follows ,volkmann in holding that this is a note on ,anaxagoras which has been inserted in the wrong place4 ,i do not think this is necessary1 though it is certainly possible4 ,sidenote3 ,writings4 #ahg4 ,simplicius affirms that ,diogenes wrote several works1 though he allows that only one survived till his own day1 namely1 the 4#ajjb ,this statement is based upon references in the surviving work itself1 and is not to be lightly rejected4 ,in particular1 it is very credible that he wrote a tract ,against the ,sophists1 that is to say1 the pluralist cosmologists of the day4#ajjc ,that he wrote a ,meteorology and a book called ,the ,nature of ,man is also quite probable4 ,this would be a physiological or medical treatise1 and perhaps the famous fragment about the veins comes from it4#ajjd ,footnote #ajjb3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aea1 #bd 7,r4 ,p4 #bjg a74 ,footnote #ajjc3 ,simplicius says 1 but he adds that ,diogenes called them 1 which is the older word4 ,this is1 so far1 in favour of the genuineness of the work4 ,footnote #ajjd3 ,diels gives this as fr4 #f 7,vors4 p4 #cej74 ,i have omitted it1 as it really belongs to the history of ,medicine4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,fragments4 #ahh4 ,the work of ,diogenes seems to have been preserved in the ,academy2 practically all the fairly extensive fragments which we still have are derived from ,simplicius4 ,i give them as they are arranged by ,diels3-- 7#a7 ,in beginning any discourse1 it seems to me that one should make one's starting-point something indisputable1 and one's expression simple and dignified4 ,r4 ,p4 #bjg4 7#b7 ,my view is1 to sum it all up1 that all things are differentiations of the same thing1 and are the same thing4 ,and this is obvious2 for1 if the things which are now in this world--earth1 and water1 and air and fire1 and the other things which we see existing in this world1--if any one of these things1 ,i say1 were different from any other1 different1 that is1 by having a substance peculiar to itself2 and if it were not the same thing that is often changed and differentiated1 then things could not in any way mix with one another1 nor could they do one another good or harm4 ,neither could a plant grow out of the earth1 nor any animal nor anything else come into being unless things were composed in such a way as to be the same4 ,but all these things arise from the same thing2 they are differentiated and take different forms at different times1 and return again to the same thing4 ,r4 ,p4 #bjh4 7#c7 ,for it would not be possible for it to be divided as it is without intelligence1 so as to keep the measures of all things1 of winter and summer1 of day and night1 of rains and winds and fair weather4 ,and any one who cares to reflect will find that everything else is disposed in the best possible manner4 ,r4 ,p4 #baj4 7#d7 ,and1 further1 there are still the following great proofs4 ,men and all other animals live upon air by breathing it1 and this is their soul and their intelligence1 as will be clearly shown in this work2 while1 when this is taken away1 they die1 and their intelligence fails4 ,r4 ,p4 #baj4 7#e7 ,and my view is1 that that which has intelligence is what men call air1 and that all things have their course steered by it1 and that it has power over all things4 ,for this very thing ,i hold to be a god1#ajje and to reach everywhere1 and to dispose everything1 and to be in everything2 and there is not anything which does not partake in it4 ,yet no single thing partakes in it just in the same way as another2 but there are many modes both of air and of intelligence4 ,for it undergoes many transformations1 warmer and colder1 drier and moister1 more stable and in swifter motion1 and it has many other differentiations in it1 and an infinite number of colours and savours4 ,and the soul of all living things is the same1 namely1 air warmer than that outside us and in which we are1 but much colder than that near the sun4 ,and this warmth is not alike in any two kinds of living creatures1 nor1 for the matter of that1 in any two men2 but it does not differ much1 only so far as is compatible with their being alike4 ,at the same time1 it is not possible for any of the things which are differentiated to be exactly like one another till they all once more become the same4 7#f7 ,since1 then1 differentiation is multiform1 living creatures are multiform and many1 and they are like one another neither in appearance nor in intelligence1 because of the multitude of differentiations4 ,at the same time1 they all live1 and see1 and hear by the same thing1 and they all have their intelligence from the same source4 ,r4 ,p4 #baa4 7#g7 ,and this itself is an eternal and undying body1 but of those things#ajjf some come into being and some pass away4 7#h7 ,but this1 too1 appears to me to be obvious1 that it is both great1 and mighty1 and eternal1 and undying1 and of great knowledge4 ,r4 ,p4 #bji4 ,footnote #ajje3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,simplicius have 1 not 2 but ,i adopt ,usener's certain correction4 ,it is confirmed by the statement of ,theophrastos1 that the air within us is 8a small portion of the god0 7de ,sens4 #db72 and by ,philodemos 7,dox4 p4 #ecf71 where we read that ,diogenes praises ,homer1 1 7cf4 ,cic4 ,nat4 ,d4 i4 #ab1 #bi74 ,footnote #ajjf3 ,the ,,mss4 of ,simplicius have 1 but surely the ,aldine is right4 ,that the chief interest of ,diogenes was a physiological one1 is clear from his elaborate account of the veins1 preserved by ,aristotle4#ajjg ,it is noticeable1 too1 that one of his arguments for the underlying unity of all substances is that without this it would be impossible to understand how one thing could do good or harm to another 7fr4 #b74 ,in fact1 the writing of ,diogenes is essentially of the same character as a good deal of the pseudo-,hippokratean literature1 and there is much to be said for the view that the writers of these curious tracts made use of him very much as they did of ,anaxagoras and ,herakleitos4#ajjh ,footnote #ajjg3 ,arist4 ,hist4 ,an4 1 #b4 #eaa b #cj4 ,footnote #ajjh3 ,see ,weygoldt1 8,zu ,diogenes von ,apollonia0 7,arch4 i4 pp4 #afa sqq474 ,hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of those writers4 ,his great achievement was the separation of medicine from philosophy1 a separation most beneficial to both 7,celsus1 i4 pr474 ,this is why the ,hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the 8sophists0 are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged4 ,to the latter class belong the and the 2 to the former1 especially the 4 ,sidenote3 ,cosmology4 #ahi4 ,like ,anaximenes1 ,diogenes regarded ,air as the primary substance2 but we see from his arguments that he lived at a time when other views had become prevalent4 ,he speaks clearly of the four ,empedoklean elements 7fr4 #b71 and he is careful to attribute to ,air the attributes of ,nous as taught by ,anaxagoras 7fr4 #d74 ,the doxographical tradition as to his cosmological views is fairly preserved3-- ,diogenes of ,apollonia makes air the element1 and holds that all things are in motion1 and that there are innumerable worlds4 ,and he describes the origin of the world thus4 ,when the ,all moves and becomes rare in one place and dense in another1 where the dense met together it formed a mass1 and then the other things arose in the same way1 the lightest parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun4 ,plut4 ,strom4 fr4 #ab 7,r4 ,p4 #bae74 ,nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what is not4 ,the earth is round1 poised in the middle1 having received its shape through the revolution proceeding from the warm and its solidification from the cold4 ,diog4 ix4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #bae74 ,the heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone4 ,he thinks they are the breathing-holes of the world1 and that they are red-hot4 ,aet4 ii4 #ac1 #e ,stob4 i4 #ejh 7,r4 ,p4 #bae74 ,the sun was like pumice-stone1 and into it the rays from the aether fix themselves4 ,aet4 ii4 #bj1 #aj4 ,the moon was a pumice-like conflagration4 ,ib4 ii4 #be1 #aj4 ,along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible stones1 which for that very reason are nameless2 but they often fall and are extinguished on the earth like the stone star which fell down flaming at ,aigospotamos4#ajji ,ib4 ii4 #ac1 #i4 ,footnote #ajji3 ,see ,chap4 ,,vi4 p4 #bib1 n4 #feg4 ,we have here nothing more than the old ,ionian doctrine with a few additions from more recent sources4 ,rarefaction and condensation still hold their place in the explanation of the opposites1 warm and cold1 dry and moist1 stable and mobile 7fr4 #e74 ,the differentiations into opposites which ,air may undergo are1 as ,anaxagoras had taught1 infinite in number2 but all may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and dense4 ,we may gather1 too1 from ,censorinus#ajaj that ,diogenes did not1 like ,anaximenes1 speak of earth and water as arising from ,air by condensation1 but rather of blood1 flesh1 and bones4 ,in this he followed ,anaxagoras 7 #acj71 as it was natural that he should4 ,that portion of ,air1 on the other hand1 which was rarefied became fiery1 and produced the sun and heavenly bodies4 ,the circular motion of the world is due to the intelligence of the ,air1 as is also the division of all things into different forms of body and the observance of the 8measures0 by these forms4#ajaa ,footnote #ajaj3 ,censorinus1 de die natali1 #f1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #aij74 ,footnote #ajaa3 ,on the 8measures0 see ,chap4 ,,iii4 #gb4 ,like ,anaximander 7 #bj71 ,diogenes regarded the sea as the remainder of the original moist state1 which had been partially evaporated by the sun1 so as to separate out the remaining earth4#ajab ,the earth itself is round1 that is to say1 it is a disc3 for the language of the doxographers does not point to the spherical form4#ajac ,its solidification by the cold is due to the fact that cold is a form of condensation4 ,footnote #ajab3 ,theophr4 ap4 ,alex4 in ,meteor4 p4 #fg1 #a 7,dox4 p4 #did74 ,footnote #ajac3 ,diog4 ix4 #eg 7,r4 ,p4 #bae74 ,diogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists that the heavenly bodies were made of air or fire1 nor yet with ,anaxagoras1 that they were stones4 ,they were1 he said1 pumice-like1 a view in which we may trace the influence of ,leukippos4 ,they were earthy1 indeed1 but not solid1 and the celestial fire permeated their pores4 ,and this explains why we do not see the dark bodies which1 in common with ,anaxagoras1 he held to revolve along with the stars4 ,they really are solid stones1 and therefore cannot be penetrated by the fire4 ,it was one of these that fell into the ,aigospotamos4 ,like ,anaxagoras1 ,diogenes affirmed that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently to the rise of animals4#ajad ,we are prepared to find that ,diogenes held the doctrine of innumerable worlds2 for it was the old ,milesian belief1 and had just been revived by ,anaxagoras and ,leukippos4 ,he is mentioned with the rest in the ,placita2 and if ,simplicius classes him and ,anaximenes with ,herakleitos as holding the ,stoic doctrine of successive formations and destructions of a single world1 he has probably been misled by the 8accommodators40#ajae ,footnote #ajad3 ,aet4 ii4 #h1 #a 7,r4 ,p4 #bae74 ,footnote #ajae3 ,simpl4 ,phys4 p4 #aaba1 #ab4 ,see ,chap4 ,i4 p4 #hc1 n4 #abc4 ,sidenote3 ,animals and plants4 #aij4 ,living creatures arose from the earth1 doubtless under the influence of heat4 ,their souls1 of course1 were air1 and their differences were due to the various degrees in which it was rarefied or condensed 7fr4 #e74 ,no special seat1 such as the heart or the brain1 was assigned to the soul2 it was simply the warm air circulating with the blood in the veins4 ,the views of ,diogenes as to generation1 respiration1 and the blood1 belong to the history of ,medicine2#ajaf his theory of sensation too1 as it is described by ,theophrastos1#ajag need only be mentioned in passing4 ,briefly stated1 it amounts to this1 that all sensation is due to the action of air upon the brain and other organs1 while pleasure is aeration of the blood4 ,but the details of the theory can only be studied properly in connexion with the ,hippokratean writings2 for ,diogenes does not really represent the old cosmological tradition1 but a fresh development of reactionary philosophical views combined with an entirely new enthusiasm for detailed investigation and accumulation of facts4 ,footnote #ajaf3 ,see ,censorinus1 quoted in ,dox4 p4 #aia4 ,footnote #ajag3 ,theophr4 de ,sens4 #ci sqq4 7,r4 ,p4 #bac1 #bad74 ,for a full account1 see ,beare1 pp4 #da sqq41 #aje1 #adj1 #afi1 #bji1 #beh4 ,as ,prof4 ,beare remarks1 ,diogenes 8is one of the most interesting of the pre-,platonic psychologists0 7p4 #beh74 ,,iii4 ,,archelaos ,,of ,,athens ,sidenote3 ,anaxagoreans4 #aia4 ,the last of the early cosmologists was ,archelaos of ,athens1 who was a disciple of ,anaxagoras4#ajah ,he is also said to have been the teacher of ,sokrates1 a statement by no means so improbable as is sometimes supposed4#ajai ,there is no reason to doubt the tradition that ,archelaos succeeded ,anaxagoras in the school at ,lampsakos4#ajbj ,we certainly hear of ,anaxagoreans1#ajba though their fame was soon obscured by the rise of the ,sophists1 as we call them4 ,footnote #ajah3 ,diog4 ii4 #af 7,r4 ,p4 #baf74 ,footnote #ajai3 ,see ,chiapelli in ,arch4 iv4 pp4 #cfi sqq4 ,footnote #ajbj3 ,euseb4 ,p4 ,e4 p4 #ejd1 c #c1 4 ,footnote #ajba3 are mentioned by ,plato 7,crat4 #dji b #f71 and often by the ,aristotelian commentators4 ,sidenote3 ,cosmology4 #aib4 ,on the cosmology of ,archelaos1 ,hippolytos#ajbb writes as follows3-- ,archelaos was by birth an ,athenian1 and the son of ,apollodoros4 ,he spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to ,anaxagoras1 and of the first principles likewise4 ,he held1 however1 that there was a certain mixture immanent even in ,nous4 ,and he held that there were two efficient causes which were separated off from one another1 namely1 the warm and the cold4 ,the former was in motion1 the latter at rest4 ,when the water was liquefied it flowed to the centre1 and there being burnt up it turned to earth and air1 the latter of which was borne upwards1 while the former took up its position below4 ,these1 then1 are the reasons why the earth is at rest1 and why it came into being4 ,it lies in the centre1 being practically no appreciable part of the universe4 7,but the air rules over all things71#ajbc being produced by the burning of the fire1 and from its original combustion comes the substance of the heavenly bodies4 ,of these the sun is the largest1 and the moon second2 the rest are of various sizes4 ,he says that the heavens were inclined1 and that then the sun made light upon the earth1 made the air transparent1 and the earth dry2 for it was originally a pond1 being high at the circumference and hollow in the centre4 ,he adduces as a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all peoples1 as it ought to do if the earth were level4 ,as to animals1 he says that when the earth was first being warmed in the lower part where the warm and the cold were mingled together1 many living creatures appeared1 and especially men1 all having the same manner of life1 and deriving their sustenance from the slime2 they did not live long1 and later on generation from one another began4 ,and men were distinguished from the rest1 and set up leaders1 and laws1 and arts1 and cities1 and so forth4 ,and he says that ,nous is implanted in all animals alike2 for each of the animals1 as well as man1 makes use of ,nous1 but some quicker and some slower4 ,footnote #ajbb3 ,hipp4 ,ref4 i4 #i 7,r4 ,p4 #bah74 ,footnote #ajbc3 ,inserting ' 1 as suggested by ,roeper4 ,it is not necessary to say much with regard to this theory1 which in many respects contrasts unfavourably with its predecessors4 ,it is clear that1 just as ,diogenes had tried to introduce certain ,anaxagorean ideas into the philosophy of ,anaximenes1 so ,archelaos sought to bring ,anaxagoreanism nearer to the old ,ionic views by supplementing it with the opposition of warm and cold1 rare and dense1 and by stripping ,nous of that simplicity which had marked it off from the other 8things0 in his master's system4 ,it was probably for this reason1 too1 that ,nous was no longer regarded as the maker of the world4#ajbd ,leukippos had made such a force unnecessary4 ,it may be added that this twofold relation of ,archelaos to his predecessors makes it very credible that1 as ,aetios tells us1#ajbe he believed in innumerable worlds2 both ,anaxagoras and the older ,ionians upheld that doctrine4 ,footnote #ajbd3 ,aet4 i4 #g1 #d ,stob4 i4 #ef 7,r4 ,p4 #bag a74 ,sidenote3 ,conclusion4 #aic4 ,the cosmology of ,archelaos1 like that of ,diogenes1 has all the characteristics of the age to which it belonged--an age of reaction1 eclecticism1 and investigation of detail4#ajbf ,hippon of ,samos and ,idaios of ,himera represent nothing more than the feeling that philosophy had run into a blind alley1 from which it could only escape by trying back4 ,the ,herakleiteans at ,ephesos1 impenetrably wrapped up as they were in their own system1 did little but exaggerate its paradoxes and develop its more fanciful side4#ajbg ,it was not enough for ,kratylos to say with ,herakleitos 7fr4 #hd7 that you cannot step twice into the same river2 you could not do so even once4#ajbh ,but in nothing was the total bankruptcy of the early cosmology so clearly shown as in the work of ,gorgias1 entitled ,substance or the ,non-existent1 in which an absolute nihilism was set forth and based upon the ,eleatic dialectic4#ajbi ,the fact is that philosophy1 so long as it clung to its old presuppositions1 had nothing more to say2 for the answer of ,leukippos to the question of ,thales was really final4 ,fresh life must be given to the speculative impulse by the raising of new problems1 those of knowledge and conduct1 before any further progress was possible2 and this was done by the 8,sophists0 and ,sokrates4 ,then1 in the hands of ,demokritos and ,plato1 philosophy took a new form1 and started on a fresh course4 ,footnote #ajbe3 ,aet4 ii4 #a1 #c4 ,footnote #ajbf3 ,windelband1 #be4 ,the period is well described by ,fredrich1 ,hippokratische ,untersuchungen1 pp4 #acj sqq4 ,it can only be treated fully in connexion with the ,sophists4 ,footnote #ajbg3 ,for an amusing picture of the ,herakleiteans see ,plato1 ,tht4 #agi e4 ,the new interest in language1 which the study of rhetoric had called into life1 took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary etymologising1 such as is satirised in ,plato's ,cratylus4 ,footnote #ajbh3 ,arist4 ,met4 1 #e4 #ajaj a #ab4 ,he refused even to speak1 we are told1 and only moved his finger4 ,footnote #ajbi3 ,sext4 adv4 ,math4 vii4 #fe 7,r4 ,p4 #bce72 ,m4,x4,g4 #igi a #ac 7,r4 ,p4 #bcf74 ,,appendix ,,the ,,sources ,a4--,,philosophers ,sidenote3 ,plato4 #a4 ,it is not very often that ,plato allows himself to dwell upon the history of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical and epistemological inquiry2 but when he does1 his guidance is simply invaluable4 ,his artistic gift and his power of entering into the thoughts of other men enabled him to describe the views of early philosophers in a thoroughly objective manner1 and he never1 except in a playful and ironical way1 sought to read unthought-of meanings into the words of his predecessors4 ,of special value for our purpose are his contrast between ,empedokles and ,herakleitos 7,soph4 #bdb d71 and his account of the relation between ,zeno and ,parmenides 7,parm4 #abh a74 ,see ,zeller1 8,plato's ,mittheilungen ber frhere und gleichzeitige ,philosophen0 7,arch4 v4 pp4 #afe sqq472 and ,index1 s4v4 ,plato4 ,sidenote3 ,aristotle4 #b4 ,as a rule1 ,aristotle's statements about early philosophers are less historical than ,plato's4 ,not that he failed to understand the facts1 but he nearly always discusses them from the point of view of his own system4 ,he is convinced that his own philosophy accomplishes what all previous philosophers had aimed at1 and their systems are therefore regarded as 8lisping0 attempts to formulate it 7,met4 1 #aj4 #iic a #ae74 ,it is also to be noted that ,aristotle regards some systems in a much more sympathetic way than others4 ,he is distinctly unfair to the ,eleatics1 for instance4 ,it is often forgotten that ,aristotle derived much of his information from ,plato1 and we must specially observe that he more than once takes ,plato's irony too literally4 ,see ,emminger1 ,die ,vorsokratischen ,philosophen nach den ,berichten des ,aristoteles1 #ahgh4 ,index1 s4v4 ,aristotle4 99 99 99 99 99 ,sidenote3 ,stoics4 #c4 ,the ,stoics1 and especially ,chrysippos1 paid great attention to early philosophy1 but their way of regarding it was simply an exaggeration of ,aristotle's4 ,they did not content themselves with criticising their predecessors from their own point of view2 they seem really to have believed that the early poets and thinkers held views hardly distinguishable from theirs4 ,the word 1 which ,cicero renders by accommodare1 was used by ,philodemos to denote this method of interpretation1#ajcj which has had serious results upon our tradition1 especially in the case of ,herakleitos 7p4 #aeg74 ,footnote #ajcj3 ,cf4 ,cic4 ,de nat4 ,d4 i4 #ae1 #da3 8,et haec quidem 7,chrysippus7 in primo libro de natura deorum1 in secundo autem vult ,orphei1 ,musaei1 ,hesiodi ,homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerat1 ut etiam veterrimi poetae1 qui haec ne suspicati quidem sunt1 ,stoici fuisse videantur40 ,cf4 ,philod4 de piet4 fr4 c4 #ac1 ' 1 1 4 ,sidenote3 ,skeptics4 #d4 ,the same remarks apply mutatis mutandis to the ,skeptics4 ,the interest of such a writer as ,sextus ,empiricus in early philosophy is to show that skepticism went back to an early date--as far as ,xenophanes1 in fact4 ,but what he tells us is often of value2 for he frequently quotes early views as to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis4 ,sidenote3 ,neoplatonists4 #e4 ,under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators on ,aristotle in so far as they are independent of the ,theophrastean tradition4 ,their chief characteristic is what ,simplicius calls 1 that is1 a liberal spirit of interpretation1 which makes all early philosophers agree with one another in upholding the doctrine of a ,sensible and an ,intelligible ,world4 ,it is1 however1 to ,simplicius more than any one else that we owe the preservation of the fragments4 ,he had1 of course1 the library of the ,academy at his disposal4 ,b4--,,doxographers ,sidenote3 ,the ,doxographi graeci4 #f4 ,the ,doxographi graeci of ,professor ,hermann ,diels 7#ahgi7 threw an entirely new light upon the filiation of the later sources2 and we can only estimate justly the value of statements derived from these if we bear constantly in mind the results of his investigation4 ,here it will only be possible to give an outline which may help the reader to find his way in the ,doxographi graeci itself4 99 99 99 99 99 ,sidenote3 ,the 8,opinions0 of ,theophrastos #g4 ,by the term doxographers we understand all those writers who relate the opinions of the ,greek philosophers1 and who derive their material1 directly or indirectly1 from the great work of ,theophrastos1 7,diog4 v4 #df74 ,of this work1 one considerable chapter1 that entitled 1 has been preserved 7,dox4 pp4 #dii-ebg74 ,and ,usener1 following ,brandis1 further showed that there were important fragments of it contained in the commentary of ,simplicius 7sixth cent4 ,a4,d47 on the ,first ,book of ,aristotle's 7,usener1 ,analecta ,theophrastea1 pp4 #be sqq474 ,these extracts ,simplicius seems to have borrowed in turn from ,alexander of ,aphrodisias 7c4 #bjj ,a4,d472 cf4 ,dox4 p4 #aab sqq4 ,we thus possess a very considerable portion of the ,first ,book1 which dealt with the as well as practically the whole of the last ,book4 ,from these remains it clearly appears that the method of ,theophrastos was to discuss in separate books the leading topics which had engaged the attention of philosophers from ,thales to ,plato4 ,the chronological order was not observed2 the philosophers were grouped according to the affinity of their doctrine1 the differences between those who appeared to agree most closely being carefully noted4 ,the ,first ,book1 however1 was in some degree exceptional2 for in it the order was that of the successive schools1 and short historical and chronological notices were inserted4 99 99 99 99 99 ,sidenote3 ,doxographers4 #h4 ,a work of this kind was1 of course1 a godsend to the epitomators and compilers of handbooks1 who flourished more and more as the ,greek genius declined4 ,these either followed ,theophrastos in arranging the subject-matter under heads1 or else they broke up his work1 and rearranged his statements under the names of the various philosophers to whom they applied4 ,this latter class form the natural transition between the doxographers proper and the biographers1 so ,i have ventured to distinguish them by the name of biographical doxographers4 ,i4 ,,doxographers ,,proper ,sidenote3 ,the ,placita and ,stobaios4 #i4 ,these are now represented by two works1 viz4 the ,placita ,philosophorum1 included among the writings ascribed to ,plutarch1 and the ,eclogae ,physicae of ,john ,stobaios 7c4 #dgj ,a4,d474 ,the latter originally formed one work with the ,florilegium of the same author1 and includes a transcript of some epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-,plutarchean ,placita4 ,it is1 however1 demonstrable that neither the ,placita nor the doxography of the ,eclogae is the original of the other4 ,the latter is usually the fuller of the two1 and yet the former must be earlier2 for it was used by ,athenagoras for his defence of the ,christians in #agg ,a4,d4 7,dox4 p4 #d74 ,it was also the source of the notices in ,eusebios and ,cyril1 and of the ,history of ,philosophy ascribed to ,galen4 ,from these writers many important corrections of the text have been derived 7,dox4 pp4 #e sqq474 ,another writer who made use of the ,placita is ,achilles 7not ,achilles ,tatius74 ,extracts from his to the ,phaenomena of ,aratos are included in the ,uranologion of ,petavius1 pp4 #aba-afd4 ,his date is uncertain1 but probably he belongs to the third century ,a4,d4 7,dox4 p4 #ah74 ,sidenote3 ,aetios4 #aj4 ,what1 then1 was the common source of the ,placita and the ,eclogae8 ,diels has shown that ,theodoret 7c4 #dde ,a4,d47 had access to it2 for in some cases he gives a fuller form of statements made in these two works4 ,not only so1 but he also names that source2 for he refers us 7,gr4 aff4 cur4 iv4 #ca7 to 4 ,diels has accordingly printed the ,placita in parallel columns with the relevant parts of the ,eclogae1 under the title of ,aetii ,placita4 ,the quotations from 8,plutarch0 by later writers1 and the extracts of ,theodoret from ,aetios1 are also given at the foot of each page4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,vetusta ,placita4 #aa4 ,diels has shown further1 however1 that ,aetios did not draw directly from ,theophrastos1 but from an intermediate epitome which he calls the ,vetusta ,placita1 traces of which may be found in ,cicero 7infra1 #ab71 and in ,censorinus 7,de die natali71 who follows ,varro4 ,the ,vetusta ,placita were composed in the school of ,poseidonios1 and ,diels now calls them the ,poseidonian 7ber das phys4 ,system des ,straton1 p4 #b74 ,there are also traces of them in the 8,homeric ,allegorists40 ,it is quite possible1 by discounting the somewhat unintelligent additions which ,aetios made from ,epicurean and other sources1 to form a pretty accurate table of the contents of the ,vetusta ,placita 7,dox4 pp4 #aha sqq471 and this gives us a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by ,theophrastos4 ,sidenote3 ,cicero4 #ab4 ,so far as what he tells us of the earliest ,greek philosophy goes1 ,cicero must be classed with the doxographers1 and not with the philosophers2 for he gives us nothing but extracts at second or third hand from the work of ,theophrastos4 ,two passages in his writings fall to be considered under this head1 namely1 8,lucullus0 7,acad4 ii471 #aah1 and ,de natura ,deorum1 i4 #be-da4 7a7 ,doxography of the 8,lucullus40--,this contains a meagre and inaccurately-rendered summary of the various opinions held by philosophers with regard to the 7,dox4 pp4 #aai sqq471 and would be quite useless if it did not in one case enable us to verify the exact words of ,theophrastos 7,chap4 ,i4 p4 #eb1 n4 #b74 ,the doxography has come through the hands of ,kleitomachos1 who succeeded ,karneades in the headship of the ,academy 7#abi ,b4,c474 7b7 ,doxography of the 8,de natura ,deorum40--,a fresh light was thrown upon this important passage by the discovery at ,herculaneum of a roll containing fragments of an ,epicurean treatise1 so like it as to be at once regarded as its original4 ,this treatise was at first ascribed to ,phaidros1 on the ground of the reference in ,epp4 ad ,att4 xiii4 #ci4 #b2 but the real title1 1 was afterwards restored 7,dox4 p4 #ecj74 ,diels1 however1 has shown 7,dox4 pp4 #abb sqq47 that there is much to be said for the view that ,cicero did not copy ,philodemos1 but that both drew from a common source 7no doubt ,phaidros1 7 which itself went back to a ,stoic epitome of ,theophrastos4 ,the passage of ,cicero and the relevant fragments of ,philodemos are edited in parallel columns by ,diels 7,dox4 pp4 #eca sqq474 ,,ii4 ,,biographical ,,doxographers ,sidenote3 ,hippolytos4 #ac4 ,of the 8biographical doxographies10 the most important is ,book ,i4 of the ,refutation of all ,heresies by ,hippolytos4 ,this had long been known as the ,philosophoumena of ,origen2 but the discovery of the remaining books1 which were first published at ,oxford in #ahed1 showed finally that it could not belong to him4 ,it is drawn mainly from some good epitome of ,theophrastos1 in which the matter was already rearranged under the names of the various philosophers4 ,we must note1 however1 that the sections dealing with ,thales1 ,pythagoras1 ,herakleitos1 and ,empedokles come from an inferior source1 some merely biographical compendium full of apocryphal anecdotes and doubtful statements4 ,sidenote3 ,the ,stromateis4 #ad4 ,the fragments of the pseudo-,plutarchean ,stromateis1 quoted by ,eusebios in his ,praeparatio ,evangelica1 come from a source similar to that of the best portions of the ,philosophoumena4 ,so far as we can judge1 they differ chiefly in two points4 ,in the first place1 they are mostly taken from the earliest sections of the work1 and therefore most of them deal with the primary substance1 the heavenly bodies and the earth4 ,in the second place1 the language is a much less faithful transcript of the original4 ,sidenote3 8,diogenes ,laertios40 #ae4 ,the scrap-book which goes by the name of ,diogenes ,laertios1 or ,laertios ,diogenes 7cf4 ,usener1 ,epicurea1 pp4 #a sqq471 contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies4 ,one is of the merely biographical1 anecdotic1 and apophthegmatic kind used by ,hippolytos in his first four chapters2 the other is of a better class1 more like the source of ,hippolytos' remaining chapters4 ,an attempt is made to disguise this 8contamination0 by referring to the first doxography as a 8summary0 77 account1 while the second is called 8particular0 7 74 ,sidenote3 ,patristic doxographies4 #af4 ,short doxographical summaries are to be found in ,eusebios 7,p4 ,e4 x41 xiv41 xv471 ,theodoret 7,gr4 aff4 cur4 ii4 #i-aa71 ,irenus 7,c4 haer4 ii4 #ad71 ,arnobius 7,adv4 nat4 ii4 #i71 ,augustine 7,civ4 ,dei1 viii4 #b74 ,these depend mainly upon the writers of 8,successions10 whom we shall have to consider in the next section4 ,c4--,,biographers ,sidenote3 ,successions4 #ag4 ,the first to write a work entitled ,successions of the ,philosophers was ,sotion 7,diog4 ii4 #ab2 ,r4 ,p4 #d a71 about #bjj ,b4,c4 ,the arrangement of his work is explained in ,dox4 p4 #adg4 ,it was epitomised by ,herakleides ,lembos4 ,other writers of were ,antisthenes1 ,sosikrates1 and ,alexander4 ,all these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre doxography1 and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes4 ,sidenote3 ,hermippos4 #ah4 ,the peripatetic ,hermippos of ,smyrna1 known as 7c4 #bjj ,b4,c471 wrote several biographical works which are frequently quoted4 ,the biographical details are very untrustworthy indeed2 but sometimes bibliographical information is added1 which doubtless rests upon the of ,kallimachos4 ,sidenote3 ,satyros4 #ai4 ,another peripatetic1 ,satyros1 the pupil of ,aristarchos1 wrote 7c4 #afj ,b4,c47 ,lives of ,famous ,men4 ,the same remarks apply to him as to ,hermippos4 ,his work was epitomised by ,herakleides ,lembos4 ,sidenote3 8,diogenes ,laertios40 #bj4 ,the work which goes by the name of ,laertios ,diogenes is1 in its biographical parts1 a mere patchwork of all earlier learning4 ,it has not been digested or composed by any single mind at all4 ,it is little more than a collection of extracts made at haphazard1 possibly by more than one successive possessor of the ,,ms4 ,but1 of course1 it contains much that is of the greatest value4 ,d4--,,chronologists ,sidenote3 ,eratosthenes and ,apollodoros4 #ba4 ,the founder of ancient chronology was ,eratosthenes of ,kyrene 7#bge-aid ,b4,c472 but his work was soon supplanted by the metrical version of ,apollodoros 7c4 #adj ,b4,c471 from which most of our information as to the dates of early philosophers is derived4 ,see ,diels' paper on the of ,apollodoros in ,rhein4 ,mus4 xxxi42 and ,jacoby1 ,apollodors ,chronik 7#aijb74 ,the method adopted is as follows3--,if the date of some striking event in a philosopher's life is known1 that is taken as his floruit 771 and he is assumed to have been forty years old at that date4 ,in default of this1 some historical era is taken as the floruit4 ,of these the chief are the eclipse of ,thales #ehf_/e ,b4,c41 the taking of ,sardeis in #edf_/e ,b4,c41 the accession of ,polykrates in #ecb_/a ,b4,c41 and the foundation of ,thourioi in #ddd_/c ,b4,c4 ,further details will easily be found by reference to the ,index1 s4v4 ,apollodoros4 ,,indexes ,i4 ,,english ,aahmes1 #bb1 #df ,abaris1 #hg1 #ig n4 #bje ,abdera1 school of1 #cha ,abstinence1 ,orphic and ,pythagorean1 #ajb sq41 #ajd sq42 ,empedoklean1 #bhi ,academy1 #ce ,achilles and the ,tortoise1 #cfg ,aether4 ,see ,aetios1 ,app4 #aj ,aigospotamos1 meteoric stone of1 #bib1 #cab1 #dac sq4 ,air1 #gg1 #gh1 #gi n4 #aed1 #abj1 #agc1 #bad1 #bbd1 #bfc1 #cji1 #ccf1 #cda1 #daa sq4 ,see ,akousmata1 #aje sq41 #cbh ,akousmatics1 #if1 #ajc ,akragas1 #bbh sqq4 ,akron1 #bca ,alexander ,aetolus1 #bie ,alexander ,aphrodisiensis1 #aci1 #bji ,alkidamas1 #bbi n4 #ejd1 #bca n4 #e1 #bce1 #big n4 #fge1 #cba n4 #gci1 #cfj ,alkmaion1 #abc n4 #bfc1 #bbc sq41 #bcf1 #cbg1 #cdd1 #cej ,amasis1 #ci ,ameinias1 #aic ,anaxagoras1 #bij sqq42 and ,perikles1 #bid sqq42 and ,euripides1 #bie2 relation to ,ionic school1 #bib2 and ,zeno1 #cfb ,anaxagoreans1 #ce n4 #ej1 #dae ,anaximander1 #eb sqq4 ,anaximenes1 #ge sqq42 ,school of1 #hc1 #bib1 #djh n4 #iig ,androkydes1 #cbh ,andron of ,ephesos1 #ic ,animals1 ,anaximander1 #gb sqq42 ,empedokles1 #bgi sqq42 ,anaxagoras1 #cae sqq42 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dad ,antichthon1 #cdd1 #cdi sqq4 ,antonius ,diogenes1 #ib ,apollo ,hyperboreios1 #ic n4 #ahi1 #ig n4 #bje1 #bcb ,apollodoros1 ,app4 #ba1 #dc1 #eb1 #ge1 #id n4 #aib1 #abe1 #adc1 #aib sq41 #bbh sq41 #bij sq41 #ceh1 #cgj ,apollonios of ,tyana1 #ij1 #ib ,apophthegms1 #ea1 #abg ,archelaos1 #dae sqq4 ,archippos1 #ii1 #cai ,archytas1 #aaj1 #cai1 #cbh1 #cdf ,aristarchos of ,samos1 #cdi ,aristeas of ,prokonnesos1 #hg1 #ig n4 #bje ,aristophanes1 #ge1 #bif n4 #ffi1 #cha1 #djh ,aristotle1 ,app4 #b2 on ,egypt1 #ah1 #bc2 on ,thales1 #dg sqq41 #ej2 on ,anaximander1 #eg sqq42 on ,pythagoras1 #ic n4 #ahi1 #ajj1 #ajg n4 #bbf2 on ,xenophanes1 #acg sq41 #aci sq42 on ,herakleitos1 #afj n4 #cgc1 #afb1 #agg1 #agi2 on ,parmenides1 #aic1 #bjc1 #bjg1 #bjh1 #bac2 on ,alkmaion1 #bbc2 on ,empedokles1 #agg n4 #dja1 #bbh n4 #ejb1 #bca n4 #eaa1 #bcd1 #bcg1 #bec n4 #efe1 #bfe1 #bff1 #bfg1 #bfh1 #bfi1 #bga1 #bgb1 #bgd n4 #fjf1 #bgh1 #bhj1 #bha1 #cig n4 #ifb2 on ,anaxagoras1 #bfc n4 #ehb1 #bia1 #cjc1 #cje1 #cjf1 #cji1 #caj2 on the ,pythagoreans1 #ajj n4 #bjh1 #aaj1 #aaa n4 #bcb1 #aai1 #cca sqq41 #cec sqq42 on ,zeno1 #cfa1 #cfe sqq42 on ,melissos1 #cgd sq41 #cgg1 #cgh2 on ,leukippos1 #chj1 #che sq41 #chg1 #cig n4 #ifb2 on ,hippon1 #di n4 #b1 #djf2 on the galeus levis1 #gd n4 #ada2 on the theoretic life1 #ij1 #ajh2 on the mysteries1 #ia ,aristotle de ,mundo1 #ahe ,aristotle de ,plantis1 #bgi n4 #fah1 #bih n4 #fgg1 #cae ,aristoxenos on ,pythagoras1 #ib1 #id n4 #aia1 #ie1 #if n4 #bja1 #c1 #ih sq41 #ajb1 #aji n4 #bca2 on the ,pythagoreans1 #ajg1 #cai1 #ccd1 #cec2 1 #ajj n4 #bji1 #cbe2 on ,hippon1 #djf n4 #ihh2 on ,plato1 #cbc sqq4 ,arithmetic1 ,egyptian1 #bb1 #aaa n4 #bcc2 ,pythagorean1 #aji sq4 ,arithmetical symbolism1 #aaa ,astronomy1 ,babylonian and ,greek1 #be sqq4 ,see ,heavenly bodies1 ,sun1 ,moon1 ,planets1 ,stars1 ,earth1 ,eclipses1 ,geocentric and ,heliocentric hypothesis ,atheism1 #ea1 #ge1 #ada ,athens1 ,parmenides and ,zeno at1 #aib2 ,anaxagoras at1 #bid ,atomism4 ,see ,leukippos ,atoms1 #chg sqq4 ,babylonian language1 #ba n4 #bi2 astronomy1 #be sqq42 eclipse cycle1 #da2 1 #cej n4 #hcd ,beans1 #ajb ,biology4 ,see ,animals1 ,plants ,blood1 ,empedokles1 #bhf1 #bhh2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dad ,brain1 ,alkmaion1 #bbd2 ,empedokles1 #bce2 ,sicilian school of medicine1 #bhh n4 #fde ,breath4 ,see ,respiration4 ,breath of the ,world1 #gi1 #abj ,cave1 ,orphic1 #beg n4 #ega ,chaos1 #h1 #i n4 #g ,chronos1 #aj ,cicero1 ,app4 #ab2 on ,thales1 #ej2 on ,anaximander1 #fd2 on ,anaximenes1 #hb2 on ,parmenides1 #bbj1 #bba n4 #dhb2 on ,atomism1 #cic n4 #iec1 #cid n4 #ief ,clement of ,alexandria1 #ai ,comic poets on ,pythagoreans1 #ajc n4 #bah ,condensation4 ,see ,rarefaction ,conflagration4 ,see ,continuity1 #cfi ,copernicus1 #cdi ,corporealism1 #ae sq41 #bjf1 #bbg1 #ceg1 #cgg ,cosmogonies1 #h sqq4 ,croesus1 #bh1 #cg1 #ch ulvastras1 #bd ,damasias1 #dc n4 #fh ,damaskios1 #i n4 #aj1 #bcb ,darkness1 #gi1 #aba1 #agc1 #bad ,death1 ,herakleitos1 #aga sqq42 ,parmenides1 #bbb2 ,alkmaion1 #bbe2 ,empedokles1 #bhc ,dekad1 #aac ,demetrios ,phalereus1 #bij1 #djh ,demokritos1 #b n4 #a2 date1 #cha2 on ,egyptian mathematics1 #bd2 on ,anaxagoras1 #bia1 #cha2 primitive astronomy of1 #cde1 #cib2 and ,leukippos1 #cha ,diagonal and ,square1 #aaf ,dialectic1 #cfa ,dikaiarchos on ,pythagoras1 #ib1 #if n4 #bjb1 #ajj ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #cha1 #djg sqq4 ,divisibility1 #cjd1 #cjf1 #cfb1 #cfe1 #cgf ,dodecahedron1 #cda sqq4 ,doric dialect1 #cbe1 #cbg sq4 ,earth1 a sphere1 #bf2 ,thales1 #dg sqq42 ,anaximander1 #gj1 #gb2 ,anaximenes1 #hj1 #ha1 #hc n4 #afg2 ,xenophanes1 #acf2 ,anaxagoras1 #cac2 ,pythagoreans1 #cdd sqq42 ,leukippos1 #dja2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dac ,echekrates1 #cdc ,eclipses1 ,thales1 #dj sqq42 ,anaximander1 #fg2 ,anaximenes1 #hb2 ,herakleitos1 #afd2 ,alkmaion1 #bbd2 ,empedokles1 #bgf2 ,anaxagoras1 #bii2 ,pythagoreans1 #cdi sq42 ,leukippos1 #dja ,ecliptic4 ,see ,obliquity ,effluences4 ,see ,egypt1 #ci2 ,thales in ,egypt1 #dc2 ,pythagoras and ,egypt1 #id sq4 ,egyptian arithmetic1 #bb sq42 geometry1 #bc sq41 #dd sq4 ,ekphantos1 #cch n4 #gid1 #chg n4 #ici ,elea1 era of1 #abe n4 #bgj1 #abg1 #aib ,eleatics 7see ,parmenides1 ,zeno1 ,melissos71 #ce n4 #di2 ,leukippos and1 #chb sqq4 ,elements 7see 1 ,roots1 ,seeds1 1 1 71 #ef n4 #ajc1 #eg1 #ei1 #bce1 #bfc sqq41 #bfe n4 #ehf1 #cci sqq4 ,eleusinia1 #hf ,embryology1 ,parmenides1 #bjc n4 #ddh2 ,empedokles1 #bhb ,empedokles1 #bbg sqq42 relation to ,leukippos1 #bcf1 #chc1 #cib2 on ,xenophanes1 #ach1 #bdf n4 #eee2 on ,pythagoras1 #bcb1 #bei n4 #egg2 on ,parmenides1 #bci1 #bfa ,ephesos1 #adc sqq4 ,epicurus and ,leukippos1 #chj sq41 #chh n4 #idj1 #cia n4 #idi1 #cid sq4 ,epimenides1 #i1 #hg ,equinoxes1 precession of1 #be1 #cdg n4 #hbd ,eratosthenes1 ,app4 #ba1 #bbh n4 #ejb ,eros1 #i1 #bai ,euclid1 #aaf1 #aag ,eudemos on ,thales1 #dd sq42 on ,pythagoras1 #aae n4 #bda1 #aaf n4 #bdc2 on ,parmenides1 #bjc n4 #ddi2 on ,zeno1 #cfc1 #cff n4 #hhi2 on the term 1 #bfc n4 #ehj ,eudoxos1 #aah1 #baf1 #cdb ,eukleides of ,megara1 #cee ,euripides 7fr4 inc4 #iaj71 #ab n4 #ad1 #ad n4 #ah2 and ,anaxagoras1 #bie sq4 ,eurytos1 #aaj sq41 #cbj1 #cbb ,eusebios1 #ai ,euthymenes1 #dd ,even and ,odd1 #ccc sqq4 ,evolution1 ,anaximander1 #gc sq42 ,empedokles1 #bha2 ,anaxagoras1 #cae ,examyes1 #dj ,experiment1 #ca sq41 #bgd ,figures1 numerical1 #aaj sq41 #ccg ,fire1 #aba1 #afj sq41 #bae ,fire1 central1 #bah1 #cdd sqq4 ,forgeries1 #df1 #aac n4 #bce1 #ahe ,fossils1 #acf ,galen1 #bcd ,galeus levis1 #gd n4 #ada ,geocentric hypothesis1 #ca1 #abc1 #bah ,geometry1 ,egyptian1 #bc sq42 of ,thales1 #de sq42 of ,pythagoras1 #aae sq4 ,glaukos of ,rhegion1 #bbh n4 #ejc ,gnomon 7the instrument71 #ca n4 #d1 #ec ,gnomon 7in geometry and arithmetic71 #aad n4 #bch ,gods1 ,thales1 #ej2 ,anaximander1 #fd1 #gd2 ,anaximenes1 #hb2 ,xenophanes1 #adj sq42 ,herakleitos1 #ahh sq42 ,empedokles1 #bfd1 #bgb1 #bhh sq42 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #daj n4 #ajje ,gorgias1 #bbi n4 #ejd1 #bca1 #bcd1 #bef n4 #efi1 #bhg n4 #fdb1 #dag ,great ,year1 #be1 #age ,harmonics1 #aah 8,harmony of the ,spheres10 #abb1 #cea4 ,see and ,soul ,harpedonapts1 #bd1 #aaf ,hearing1 ,empedokles1 #bhe2 ,anaxagoras1 #cag ,heart1 #bce1 #bhh n4 #fde ,heavenly bodies1 ,anaximander1 #ff sqq42 ,anaximenes1 #hj1 #ha2 ,pythagoras1 #abb sq42 ,xenophanes1 #acc sqq42 ,herakleitos1 #afe sqq42 ,parmenides1 #bae2 ,empedokles1 #bgd sq42 ,anaxagoras1 #cab2 ,leukippos1 #dja2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dac ,hekataios1 #bj1 #dd1 #df1 #ec ,heliocentric hypothesis1 #bg1 #cdg n4 #hbe1 #cdh sq4 ,herakleides of ,pontos1 on ,pythagoras1 #ajd1 #aje1 #ajh1 #cba n4 #gci1 #chg n4 #ici2 on ,empedokles1 #bbh n4 #ejb1 #c1 #bcc n4 #ebj1 #bcf n4 #ecb2 heliocentric hypothesis of1 #cdi ,herakleiteans1 #ce n4 #dh1 #adj1 #dag ,herakleitos1 #adc sqq42 on ,homer1 #ahb1 #ahe2 on ,pythagoras1 #id1 #ajg1 #adc2 on ,xenophanes1 #adc ,hermodoros1 #adc ,herodotos1 on ,homer and ,hesiod1 #h2 on ,egyptian influence1 #ag2 on geometry1 #bc2 on ,orphicism1 #ie n4 #aie2 on ,solon1 #bh2 on ,lydian influence1 #ch2 on ,thales1 #ch1 #ci1 #dj1 #dc sq41 #df2 on ,pythagoras1 #ic1 #id n4 #aia1 #ie n4 #aie1 #b1 #ajg ,hesiod1 #f sqq4 ,hieron1 #abe ,hippasos1 #ajc n4 #bag1 #aag1 #aba1 #aef1 #bae1 #cda1 #cdc1 #ced ,hippokrates1 #bce n4 #ebh1 #dje n4 #ihg1 #daa n4 #ajjh2 1 #gi n4 #aed ,hippokrates 1 #afg n4 #chc1 #ahc n4 #dac1 #cje n4 #fie1 #cjg n4 #fii1 #dje n4 #ihf ,hippokrates1 lunules of1 #cdc ,hippolytos1 ,app4 #ac1 #aef ,hippon of ,samos1 #di1 #eh n4 #aji1 #djf sqq4 ,hippys of ,rhegion1 #aba n4 #bfj ,homer1 #e sqq4 ,hylozoism1 #ae ,hypotenuse1 #aaf ,iamblichos1 ,v4 ,pyth41 #ib n4 #ahf ,ibykos1 #bbj n4 #dhb ,idaios of ,himera1 #eh n4 #aji1 #djg ,ideas1 theory of1 #ced sqq4 ,immortality1 #ia1 #agb sq41 #bbe ,incommensurability1 #aaf sq4 ,indian philosophy1 #ba4 ,see ,transmigration ,infinity1 ,anaximander1 #ei sqq42 ,xenophanes1 #acg sq42 ,parmenides1 #bjg2 ,melissos1 #cge4 ,see ,divisibility1 ,injustice1 #ef1 #ga1 #afj1 #bbf ,ionic dialect1 #cbg sq41 #djh ,justice1 #cb1 #afa n4 #cgd ,kebes and ,simmias1 #cbj1 #cdc1 #ced1 #cee ,kebes1 1 #aid ,kratinos1 #djf ,kratylos1 #dag ,kritias1 #bhh n4 #fde ,kroton1 #ie n4 #aih1 #bbb ,kylon1 #ig n4 #bjd1 #ih ,lampsakos1 #big1 #dae ,leukippos1 #chj sqq42 and the ,eleatics1 #chb1 #chd sqq42 and ,empedokles1 #bcf1 #chc1 #cib2 and ,anaxagoras1 #chc sq41 #cib2 and the ,pythagoreans1 #chg1 #chi1 #cib2 and ,demokritos1 #cha1 #chi sqq41 #dja n4 #igi ,light1 ,empedokles1 #bgf4 ,see ,moon ,lightning and ,thunder1 #fh1 #gj1 #dja n4 #igi ,limit1 #aba1 #bae1 #ccc sqq4 ,lives1 the three1 #ajh1 #aji n4 #bbi1 #aed n4 #cfb ,love4 ,see ,eros1 ,love and ,strife1 #bff sqq4 ,lucretius1 on ,empedokles1 #bcg2 on ,anaxagoras1 #cjf n4 #fif ,lydia1 #cg sqq4 ,lysis1 #ii1 #cai1 #cbf ,man1 ,anaximander1 #gc2 ,herakleitos1 #afh sqq4 ,maoris1 #i ,map1 ,anaximander's1 #ec ,materialism1 #bjh ,matter4 ,see ,measures1 #afg sq41 #aha1 #daj1 #dac ,medicine1 history of1 #bbb1 #bbe1 #bbf1 #bcd1 #bcf1 #bfe sq41 #bhh n4 #fde1 #cbb1 #cdd1 #dje1 #daa1 #dad ,megarians1 #cee ,melissos1 #cfi sqq4 ,melissos1 ,xenophanes and ,gorgias1 #ach sqq4 ,menon1 1 #di n4 #he1 #bce n4 #ebg1 #cbb n4 #gdb1 #cbg n4 #gfc1 #cdj n4 #gii1 #djf n4 #ihh ,metapontion1 #ie n4 #aii1 #ig n4 #bje ,metempsychosis4 ,see ,transmigration ,meteorological interest1 #di1 #gj ,miletos1 #cg sqq41 #gf1 #chj1 #chb ,milky ,way1 #fi1 #bbj1 #cad ,milo1 #ii1 #bbb ,mochos of ,sidon1 #ai n4 #bg ,monism1 #bjf1 #bbg ,monotheism1 #ada sqq4 ,moon1 #fh2 light of1 #bjb n4 #ddf1 #bge1 #bgf1 #bii1 #cad ,motion1 eternal1 #ae1 #fa2 denied by ,parmenides1 #bjg2 explained by ,empedokles1 #bfg2 ,anaxagoras1 #cji2 criticised by ,zeno1 #cff2 denied by ,melissos1 #cgf2 reaffirmed by ,leukippos1 #cib sq4 ,mysteries1 #ij1 #aij ,necessity4 ,see ,nikomachos1 #ib1 #aab n4 #bcd ,nile1 #dc sq41 #cac ,noumenios1 #ai ,nous1 #cji sq4 ,numbers1 ,pythagorean1 #cca sqq42 triangular1 square1 and oblong1 #aad ,obliquity of the ecliptic 7zodiac71 #eb1 #hb1 #dja ,observation1 #bi sq41 #gc sq4 ,octave1 #aah ,opposites1 #ef1 #ahf sq41 #bbe1 #bce1 #bff1 #cje ,oriental influences1 #ag sqq4 ,orphicism1 #e1 #i sqq41 #hg sq41 #ie n4 #aie1 #aji n4 #bbi1 #aid1 #bba1 #bcb1 #beg n4 #ega1 #beh n4 #egc ,parmenides1 #aib sqq42 on ,herakleitos1 #adc1 #aih n4 #dch1 #bjd sq41 #baj2 and ,pythagoreanism1 #baj sqq4 ,pausanias1 #bcd n4 #ebc1 #bch ,pentagram1 #cdc ,perception1 ,parmenides1 #bjb n4 #ddg1 #bbb2 ,alkmaion1 #bbc sq42 ,empedokles1 #bhd sq42 ,anaxagoras1 #caf sq42 ,leukippos1 #dja sq42 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dad ,perikles and ,zeno1 #aic2 and ,anaxagoras1 #bid sq42 and ,melissos1 #cfi ,petron1 #fe1 #aba ,pherekydes of ,syros1 #i1 #hg ,philistion1 #bcd n4 #ebc1 #bce n4 #ebf and #ebg1 #bff n4 #ehg1 #bhh n4 #fde1 #cef n4 #hej ,philo of ,byblos1 #ai n4 #bg ,philo ,judaeus1 #ah1 #aeh1 #ahe ,philodemos1 #ej n4 #hi1 #fd1 #bba n4 #dhc ,philolaos1 #cai1 #cbj sqq4 ,philosophy as 1 #hi2 ,pythagorean use of the word1 #hi sqq41 #aid1 #cba n4 #gci1 #cei2 synonymous with asceticism1 #ah ,phleious1 #hi n4 #agh1 #id n4 #aia1 #aji n4 #bbi1 #cbj ,phoenician influence1 #ah1 #ai n4 #bg1 #ci ,physiology1 ,parmenides1 #bba sq42 ,alkmaion1 #bbc2 ,empedokles1 #bhb2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #daa ,pindar1 #bcb ,planets1 names of1 #bf n4 #dj1 #bbj2 distinguished from fixed stars1 #bf1 #hb1 #bgf1 #cib1 #dja2 motion of1 #abb sq41 #bbe1 #cej1 #cec2 system of1 #cdd sq4 ,plants1 ,empedokles1 #bgg sq42 ,anaxagoras1 #cae sq4 ,plato1 ,app4 #a2 on ,egyptians and ,phoenicians1 #ag1 #bj1 #bg n4 #da2 on ,egyptian arithmetic1 #bb2 on schools of philosophy1 #ce2 on ,pythagoras1 #if n4 #bjb2 on ,xenophanes1 #adj2 on ,herakleitos1 #adj1 #aei1 #afb1 #agf1 #agh2 on ,herakleiteans1 #afa n4 #cgc1 #ahh n4 #dah2 on ,parmenides1 #aib1 #bjg1 #bba2 on ,empedokles1 #aei1 #agh1 #bfi n4 #eic2 on ,anaxagoras1 #bia n4 #fee1 #bie1 #big sq41 #cji2 on ,philolaos1 #cai2 on ,pythagoreans1 #aba1 #abd2 on incommensurables1 #aag n4 #bde2 on ,zeno1 #aib1 #ceh1 #cfj1 #cfa2 on ,melissos1 #cgi n4 #iai2 ,phaedo1 #hi n4 #agh1 #ia n4 #ahc1 #ajh n4 #bbh1 #aji n4 #bbi1 #agb n4 #cia1ahb n4 #daa1 #cbj sq41 #cdb1 #cdc1 #cde1 #ced2 ,cratylus1 #dag n4 #ajbg2 ,theaetetus1 #aag n4 #bde1 #bfc n4 #ehj1 #cch n4 #gid1 #dag n4 #ajbg2 ,sophist1 #cef n4 #hdi1 #ceh n4 #hec2 ,politicus1 #bhj n4 #fba2 ,parmenides1 #ceh n4 #heb1 #cei1 #cfj sq42 ,philebus1 #cbc2 ,symposium1 #bba1 #bha n4 #fbe2 ,phaedrus1 #bie2 ,gorgias1 #cba2 ,meno1 #bcd n4 #ebd2 ,republic1 #be n4 #ci1 #ij n4 #aha1 #agg n4 #djj1 #baf1 #bai sq41 #ceb2 ,timaeus1 #fa n4 #aae1 #gi n4 #aed1 #aac n4 #bcg1 #aah n4 #bdh1 #aba1 #abb1 #bbe1 #bhg1 #cdj1 #cdb1 #cde n4 #hah1 #cdf1 #ceb1 #cif2 ,laws1 #ajg n4 #bbg1 #aag n4 #bdf1 #cec ,pleasure and pain1 ,empedokles1 #bhe2 ,anaxagoras1 #cag ,pliny1 #db1 #eb ,pluralism1 #bbg sqq41 #ceg ,political activity of philosophers1 ,thales1 #df2 ,pythagoras1 #if sq42 ,parmenides1 #aie2 ,empedokles1 #bcj sq42 ,zeno1 #ceh ,polybios1 #ii n4 #bjf ,polybos1 #cgi ,polykrates1 era of1 #ec n4 #ig1 #id ,pores4 ,see ,porphyry1 #ib n4 #ahg1 #ajd n4 #bai1 #beg n4 #ega ,poseidonios1 #ai n4 #bg1 #ha n4 #aei ,precession4 ,see ,equinoxes ,proclus1 commentary on ,euclid1 #dd1 #aae n4 #bdc ,proportion1 #aag sq4 ,protagoras1 #ahh1 #cfj ,purification4 ,see 1 ,pyramids1 measurement of1 #de4 ,see ,pythagoras1 #ia sqq42 forged writings1 #cbe ,pythagoreans1 #bab sqq41 #cai sqq4 ,rarefaction and condensation1 #gg sqq41 #afc1 #bjd1 #djc1 #dab ,religion1 #he sqq41 #ahi1 #bid4 ,see ,orphicism1 ,monotheism1 ,gods1 ,sacrifice ,respiration1 #bce1 #bec n4 #efe1 #bhd ,rest4 ,see ,motion ,revolution1 diurnal1 #fa1 #bgd1 #cdf sq4 ,rhegion1 #ii1 #bbj n4 #dhb1 #cai ,rhetoric1 #hf1 #bcd ,rhind papyrus1 #bb sqq4 ,roots1 #bfc ,sacrifice1 mystic1 #ajd n4 #bbj2 bloodless1 #beh n4 #egf ,salmoxis1 #ic ,sanchuniathon1 #ai n4 #bg ,sardeis1 era of1 #dc n4 #fg1 #ec1 #ge ,schools1 #cc sqq41 #bic ,sea1 ,anaximander1 #ff1 #gj sq42 ,empedokles1 #bgg2 ,anaxagoras1 #cac2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dac ,seeds1 #cjf ,seqt1 #bc1 #df ,seven ,wise ,men1 #ci1 #df1 #ea ,sight1 ,alkmaion1 #bbd2 ,empedokles1 #bhd1 #bhg sq42 ,anaxagoras1 #caf ,silloi1 #abi ,sleep1 ,herakleitos1 #afi sq42 ,empedokles1 #bhc ,smell1 ,empedokles1 #bhe2 ,anaxagoras1 #caf ,sokrates1 ,parmenides and ,zeno1 #aib sq41 #ceh2 and ,archelaos1 #dae ,solids1 regular1 #cbh sq41 #cdj ,solon4 ,see ,croesus ,soul1 #hf1 #ia1 #afh1 #bbe1 #cdc1 #dad ,space1 #bjd1 #bjg1 #cff1 #chi ,speusippos1 #aac n4 #bcf2 on ,parmenides1 #aie2 on ,pythagorean numbers1 #cba1 #ccf n4 #gij ,sphere1 ,parmenides1 #bjg sq42 ,empedokles1 #bfb4 ,see ,earth1 ,eudoxos1 ,harmony ,stars1 fixed1 #fh1 #hj ,stoics1 ,app4 #c1 #aeg1 #agi sq4 ,strabo1 #ai n4 #bg1 #aid1 #aie n4 #dcj ,strife1 ,herakleitos1 #ahd2 ,empedokles1 #bff sqq4 ,sun1 ,anaximander1 #fh2 ,anaximenes1 #hj2 ,xenophanes1 #acd sq42 ,herakleitos1 #afe sq41 #agd2 ,empedokles1 #bgd sq41 #cdg sq42 ,anaxagoras1 #cad ,taras1 #ig n4 #bjd1 #cai ,taste1 ,empedokles1 #bhe2 ,anaxagoras1 #caf ,tetraktys1 #aac sqq4 ,thales1 #ci sqq4 ,theaitetos1 #aag1 #cbi ,theano1 #cec ,thebes1 ,lysis at1 #ii1 #cbj2 ,philolaos at1 #ii ,theodoros of ,kyrene1 #aag ,theogony1 ,hesiodic1 #f sqq42 ,rhapsodic1 #i n4 #aj1 #bcb ,theologians1 #aj ,theology4 ,see ,gods ,theon of ,smyrna1 #bg n4 #da ,theophrastos1 ,app4 #g2 on schools1 #cc1 #ce1 #eb2 on ,prometheus1 #ci n4 #ee2 on ,thales1 #dh2 ,anaximander1 #ed sqq41 #ff2 on ,anaximenes1 #gf sqq42 on ,xenophanes1 #abf1 #acf1 #acg2 on ,herakleitos1 #ade1 #aef1 #afc sqq42 on ,parmenides1 #bji1 #bac1 #bad1 #bah1 #bbj2 on ,empedokles1 #bbi n4 #ejd1 #bcf1 #bfg sq41 #bgb sqq41 #bgh1 #bhd2 on ,anaxagoras1 #bia1 #bib1 #bic n4 #ffj1 #cac sq41 #caf sq42 on ,leukippos1 #chj sq41 #chb1 #chd sqq41 #cij sqq41 #djb2 on ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #cha1 #djg sq41 #dab2 on ,hippon of ,samos1 #djf ,theoretic life1 #bia ,theron of ,akragas1 #bbi1 #bcb ,thourioi1 era of1 #bbh ,timaios ,lokros1 #cbc sqq4 ,timaios of ,tauromenion1 #bbh n4 #ejh1 #bcj1 #bcc1 #bcg n4 #ecd ,timon of ,phleious1 #abi1 #cbd ,touch1 ,empedokles1 #bhe2 ,anaxagoras1 #caf ,transmigration1 #ie1 #aja sqq41 #abd1 #bhi sq4 ,triangle1 ,pythagorean1 #bd1 #aae ,unit1 #ccg1 #cfe ,void1 ,pythagorean1 #abj1 #bad1 #bbd1 #ccf1 #chc2 ,parmenides1 #bjd1 #bjg2 ,alkmaion1 #bbd2 ,atomist1 #chi sq4 ,vortex1 ,empedokles1 #bgd2 ,anaxagoras1 #caa2 ,leukippos1 #cii sqq4 ,water1 #dh sqq41 #djg ,weight1 #cid sqq4 ,wheels1 ,anaximander1 #fg sq42 ,pythagoras1 #abb2 ,parmenides1 #bae ,worlds1 innumerable1 ,anaximander1 #fb sqq42 ,anaximenes1 #hb sq42 ,pythagoras1 #aba2 ,xenophanes1 #acf2 ,anaxagoras1 #cab2 ,diogenes of ,apollonia1 #dad2 ,archelaos1 #dag ,xenophanes1 #abd sqq42 on ,thales1 #da2 on ,pythagoras1 #abd ,year4 ,see ,great ,year ,zamolxis1 #ic ,zankle1 #abg n4 #bge ,zeno1 #ceh sqq42 on ,empedokles1 #cei2 on ,pythagoreans1 #cfb ,,ii4 ,,greek 1 #ef1 #fj1 #ga 1 #gi n4 #aed1 #bfc1 #bfd n4 #ehc1 #bhd n4 #fcd4 ,see ,air 1 #bfc1 #bfd n4 #ehc1 #cab n4 #gji 1 #aje sq41 #cbh 1 #if1 #ajc 1 #bai1 #bef n4 #efi1 #bfi 1 #afg n4 #chb1 #afh n4 #che 1 #djj 1 #baf 1 #eg n4 #aje1 #fj n4 #aac 1 1 #bcc n4 #ebj1 #bcf n4 #ecc 1 #bcf1 #bhg n4 #fdb 1 #cia n4 #idi dist4 1 #bc1 #aaa n4 #bcc 1 #abb1 #aeh1 #ahd 1 #bd 1 #ac1 #eg 1 #cee n4 #hdg 1 #gc sq4 1 #ajf 1 #aee n4 #cfd1 #agb n4 #cia 1 #fe n4 #abf 1 #cb1 #afa n4 #cgd 4 ,see ,vortex 1 #abj n4 #bed 1 #cee1 #chh n4 #idc 1 #djc 1 #aih n4 #dce2 1 #bjd n4 #dej 1 #cig n4 #ifb 1 #fa 1 #agh sqq4 1 1 #adj1 #cfc n4 #hhj1 #cgg 4 ,see ,opposites 1 #aci n4 #cjf 1 #djj 1 #ccj n4 #ggj 1 #gd4 ,see ,gods 1 #bh1 #ajh 1 #bce n4 #ebg1 #bfc n4 #ehj1 #cee1 #cef n4 #hej1 #chh n4 #idc 1 #bdc n4 #edi1 #bdi n4 #eeh 1 #bbe 1 #cih 1 #ad n4 #ah1 #bh1 #ajg n4 #bdd 1 1 #hh1 #ajg sq4 1 #a n4 #hfb 1 #bec n4 #efe1 #bed n4 #eff1 #bfc1 #cji1 #chd 1 #bai 1 #cb1 #adh n4 #ccf1 #ahb n4 #dab 1 #caj dist4 1 #bc 1 #adf n4 #ccb1 #adh n4 #cci1 #aeb n4 #cee1 #aec n4 #ceh and n4 #cei1 #aeg2 1 #cee n4 #hdg 1 #aah 1 #bif n4 #fgj 1 #aja n4 #bab 1 #aja n4 #bab 1 #cb 1 #bfc n4 #ehj1 #cef n4 #hej 1 #cch n4 #gid1 #cfh n4 #hid1 #chg n4 #ici 1 #cda n4 #hje 1 #cjf 1 1 #gb n4 #ach 1 #hh n4 #age 1 #aae n4 #bdj 1 #ca1 #adj n4 #caj2 ,aristotle's 1 #agg 1 #bgc n4 #fjc 1 #aja n4 #bab 1 #aej n4 #ahd 1 #aej n4 #cdg1 #aih n4 #dch 1 #cjg1 #chi 1 #fc n4 #aai 1 #fj n4 #aad1 #agj n4 #chi 1 #fc n4 #aai 1 #gg n4 #aea 1 #bbd1 #bbf n4 #ejj1 #bcf1 #bfi1 #bhd sq41 #chc 1 #fi n4 #acc1 #afe 1 #be n4 #ch 1 #abg n4 #bgf 1 #cih 1 #cba 1 #adj n4 #cjg 1 #bae 1 #ed n4 #aja1 #ef n4 #ajc1 #bfc n4 #ehf1 #bfe n4 #ehf1 #cjf1 #ccc1 #chh n4 #idb 1 #aeg n4 #cgj 1 #aac sq4 1 #fg n4 #abi1 #agd 1 #eg1 #ccj n4 #ggj1 #cdb n4 #hjg 1 #cc n4 #df1 #cfj n4 #hff1 #cfa n4 #hga 1 #aaf n4 #bdb 1 1 #cc n4 #df 1 1 1 #bh4 ,see ,philosophy 1 #ab sq41 #ef1 #chh n4 #ida and n4 #idd 1 #aad n4 #bch1 #aae n4 #bdj ,printed by ,r4 ,r4 ,,clark1 ,,limited1 ,edinburgh4 ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ,transcriber's ,note ,when ,burnet gives the fragments of a ,greek philosopher1 he does so selectively1 resulting in gaps in the sequence4 ,some quoted and translated passages1 printed as prose1 also include line numbers in the right margin4 ,these now appear in the text delimited by at the place in the text where they originally appeared4 ,these numbers should be regarded as approximate4 ,in note #hac1 the ,greek phrase includes an unmatched closing bracket4 ,this is a direct quotation from p4 #bcd of ,scholia in ,lucianum1 edited by ,hugo ,rabe4 ,the bracket was used by ,rabe to separate the topic 7the pentagram7 from its gloss4 ,errors deemed most likely to be the printer's have been corrected1 and are noted here4 ,the references are to the page and line in the original4 #ge4ac according to ,theophrastos ,added4 #aig4ba ,look steafd_/dfastly with thy mind ,transposed4 #bab4bf ,it seems to me ,added4 #bac4ah and ,theophastros_/rastoscertainly followed ,misplaced4 him #bdi4ba meadows of ,aphhrodite ,removed4 #bib4cd 70 ,added4 #cca4ai ,aristotle on the ,numbers4 ,added4 #ccb4cb _/ ,replaced4 #djb _/ ,replaced4 #dae4f ,anaxagoreans ,presumed4 #dcc4e _/ ,replaced4