ht Ort νὰν δὲ ὧν ὦ

x Sw
τῶ tie
ὁ ΟΣ τς ΡΟ ee tt aie
Τα τά κισιαι om ἡ abet
erashnasaratecandppeanes
sha 9-4 -- ἃ ὦ αὶ 4. ὦ «Ὁ
Ms PS γ ἢ ᾿
Κα ἐν ea Pre Wie SO “ὦ ἡ oe be
Weta lee d hededst>hetsatbeb hut
Ae OTS Sees CAO
Di
S05 “4{ὲ ete BA Bie At
Ee A ἀ τα γον, Ὁ het dae 996
το ὦ
“νὴ PARA oi ον ἜΦΗΝ doh eheareeὁ Pee
EE TN ee
να ἡ
ον ΔῊ ra
ΚΗ ak £1104, 18 Bb) ego dled Boll a. ὦ ὦ
“ἀνε δ ἐν
ψ ὦ Medd aOR ee Tee Oe Σὰ μα
chine | ΡΟΝ να mete he
sides ΚΟΙΝΉΝ ere ee ee
Ah nbd -0 8 Ig ΥΝ 3 hte isl og
"ἡ en) ἣ τ"
“αὐ τα A τῇ σι tr teg 4 OE «᾿4 Sod ea ἀνα 4 eee
φφυ ῥίτν aes he Wat Be
¥ pT EAR
ad 44. ἢ Hed τιν Bead 4 eee “4.
ASL ἢ ΓΗ 4 $4 ταὶ πο δ να ἢ
ρόϊῳ ae: PASCAL 4 atih godt § ΡΥ pbainds yk dadvdwielety
baal ue Rhy
ag PER dees pt oh fade A ATEMG Yt ander
der tedodeεν ἢ, Sons 4°
bag ee COP εἰὰ ρα 4 ἘΚ
ἀν A ΗΑ ΎΖΟΝΣ ΕΣ
N ae ;
Στ
σον
ΕΓ et de ss bt « αὐ
ΡΝ ΜῊ CIA Menees ais
kt ade
eatace e
1 (Lae Fe
ν ὧν
ie
of OKod ‘ened
Ι ye al ὑφ᾽ Vetted
it ae eae
Mache
; 2 le
at od MEE Amenet BH ange. rebel τὴ,
ὦ odie 601d rinks A tee Pan yoiehe Bet
Ρ ξ 2
Ke is of 24-44 eS re eee “ Td egs Sandia ΠΥ Neu ΤΉΝ ἣν Μ eee
, wat ee ee ἐπ᾽ PEEHee dre saa
oe aetree γ᾽ εἴ ἢ newt
Pee seted τ gle Loder τὰgait {aged Ola Ὁ ΡΟ
ae seen 0°stewed Oa ete
Ron Sond she
ie | ΦΈΡΕ τῷΟἱhet
AER Mi tadaUlts ὁ ὦ tate. Si “ἢ ata Ὁ ved
it ede a dad and tk brie rely ti iἢ ᾿ ἌΡ ty are
ΣΡ Pret Wht Nye ΤῊ ΝΉ ee ἃ ὁ σα δε ᾧὰ σφ᾽ἡ ἐνὶ ὁ ἐδ 4 eae eas - ἘΣ᾿
ΓΝ Cae tae ao amas 2H ee
ΓῚ ῳ. 924) /
AL | Wate tera Par ty ΣῊ
; eRe Bt tod 4 934 «έν ἀν oF S-Sobet ref δον Βα ἀπά tins hapsEee
ΓΟ
᾿ Ar

TEAL sacar Nite cele

Pos δομα αὐ δέν λας
ho toy εν Lapa wiibtbedas +ον
ia eae Pry binsa a Ἂν ἕ *
Abd re were
ΣΥΝ
hay wage ed aeeen
ΡἃΗνα
lerteuints ΡΣ
tae ΦΉΜΟ ΤΡ
ἐφ τ νῷ or

Lae
δ CS
ow

A Ne
a Pe 4

Ui 1s ie ty τα ται tanec
ewe Bs
»
+ erecta
@<
ἣν ectaesits ~
ἘΣ steerage
“
ἀμ ed gag gy φᾷ ΓΥΝῊ dey Ha a he Ame Thy MIS eae obtidaaesonny
ἃ αὶ Φ 4 ‘+ Ἢ Mb 4"Λε ὅ48 FHWA “ὁσ νορὸν τὰ iN) gH Eee lsde,
ΝΎ ΓΝ"
‘ 4. (a: ΠῚ oF Feo} dynSte + Ate g aur ae .“«-
ee ed Witt dia
a vgla vo DAE ἃ ΝᾺ ὅτε ἃ δ᾿ en a!

sad i iain ni bn tev oufe nt doth eldsdt

pt peat! Fetabena:νάνι, erage
roma
Gabe : {Ὁ} ψωον Ύ 4 eh bp wed
iis é Bean aot: 4.4 Mee “ a
pi Eo τς
We Sd ed Wa: egy ΕἸ Faye ταν vietod
<2 x “ eth φᾶν ἔπ δ Ν eee
Pie
Ne sit 4 424 Pyne eras Ψ πὶ τος ΡΟ πον Σ
ἢ Η
A δ AA Sh hah Reda ak ar eee ree “ὃς -
ἃ, ἐτὰ fee -ι pe Ml eet bea φίῳ ee λυ κα ς Bane eect
oes 17 ΠΑ ΡΗ ΜῈτ}τὰ φόνῳ earthed ee Se te ταν
“Bieahisd) ἐδτν ἡ ὧν
14 On re we:
αν, eaeene eae
meaed
“4
PY Hedconn τί tet aes ΟΝ ΣῪ ἜΗΝ ae Tel bit ἔ νιον
Rx : ῥχραφινοδισόψῳ tart
we 4 ee +a δε £ ΕΝ εχ ‘why rartnares Ssetet
> ol 7 a ro re Salt ΓΤ ΝΕ αὐφο δαν τὰ Στ φᾷ anda
i: f 4 "ὁ ded aad 1 Pte
08 pdt
τὸ
He Wie donb ΕΝ ΦΉΣ τςgw Se
4
Res
“og ΠῚ
ἐφ τηeb vg sdasd bebe ere
Wo ἐτδι Φυξι4:μα ΜΡ ΡΊΜῈΝ ae
ἐῥῆ ͵ 4 διξπαπώ ταν eae»
tt Π Ὸ BNSP TuesNae epee : ace
ROLLe che Benn
ry enna, eben i: τᾶν ονἐπώτονα: σφ on εροξ,
: ; dads dears eracerpeaarecs
1 er ΞῪΝ Ἧ ait Pee se n’ | tas 8
ink fetidets ἀγα Τα sabes sees
Hake & ΕΝ τ weiteys Pre ye nada me
oy «0 “ἔν SL ἃ Γ
ae: oOo i prays ret
} Ἐξ νιγαυδέγοεν at βοῦν btjap
Petite cone te ἀφ Fae μ ai fester ia
irerinae
ARCS pals i εὐ 5 chka
Ν τ Fa dere Al
Masbease id χἰδὺ ae ἢ Foal
aya ev (ats a sd hd
rey ty r
ΤῊΣ στ ΡΜ ἀπ tae gd Ro
ον ΤΥ ΣΝ ΚΡ Ck ik
Pot Crean OLE ene ὧν
τ» htt PO ae ot onl arpeee De
jai aaaee neg ane Set) e008
Κα qo τ does
αὐ δ διε F θεᾷ. Ὁ Ἂν πε δι "»
v4 diay ὮΣΙ Εν γ᾽ ieteaὁ lta ὑῃν
<4 Μὰ δ᾽) γὸὺ ΓΚ tee. ee
mae ᾿ γον Al ἐνorg aes
Weedsae ἐν δ:
re ete a toe
ἣς ᾿ yy tae Lina Shs;
iO
ie nang satad. ἐπ ‘4
oon ES aed τὶ τὰ ἡ.» Tait ee
a
t¢
pa Sse €--)
~ 4 oa
me LS Soden
ὦ Bete
aie ΠΝ ΤΑΝΕ S15 ὍΡΩΝ ΑΝ (agian
tae saat
a44- Ὁ ἐνWe fil i, b δ ἊΨ μ i +5 τ ΠΝ RPh ""

LU ἐν
Soudises nay.
ot ΓΕ ΚΠ be
babe fe ἀν ee
herd εξ 4: ἔζη. τὶ
Ves tT ta iar
So tae Bl ee Mak ὴ
(in GAR ee ate
Mi dee δ ἄντ de: ada {Wi
GN Δι feb id 90g ἡ τάγἢ APE a {14 aie S84 a: Ay
Φ 4} Bid ἐνῷ δή ἡ isis tg Dae ὃ he sD
rh aes) ag oe δ τα ΜΝ
Msi EMNMiddale ere
ΔΑ ὑφ ὁ ἐξ tere ret he ἀρὰ τεςὅνχὰ 7
ΧΡ
ΚΝ
Σ sane ce
yet Va ye pas ΟΝ
PARE Gah ΟὟ ἐν Slat Ze)
(4 πᾷ τὸ ἢ ἡ ΠῚ 113 4 ia LALA Thatta
Δ ΡΤ hale neat Ava ute Bae
είς .aer MY see ay/aieit fee estore Ψ
ty oe A Ra) sTatarat ἐν ᾿ wetter
1rd wadag, sot ms Vrms ΚΗ 1
μὰ τί Sys Mint 2 Cg ΧΡ ΗΝ ΤΡ
4 ΠΡ Cus. evans eae ἐν ἐφ: ΚΑ ζ 4 ὦ ffgotξν
“4:5eM iter or: ΠΑ κῷ 4 ὁ πενἐν pdeaey
432 i
- URED prey 4
14 GF τοῦ ἐφ “ἡ Reta Ce ΟΠ ΑΝ δ apes ahah hh a& ᾿
ἐπ ἀν
(ay καὶ
Ἂ
ὁOSGAREK
i
4s
RET
4
OTR
eee is UOT
LD ine Wel DA Sa
AEN γογηννι ans of a ὉΠ
dele Τὰν ἡ Etch stab
Data gs ba Ges ΡΝ
ΕῚ tet) τ tgs ναὶ
Af wine ἃ ν᾿
ἡ" “4ΑΝ ae
i atὯΝ airs τ
fe Laws Ὧν
a ett
494 CPC ises Vaan
Ὁ 9.5 ad
Shonps
ba dana

ἽΕΙ
ΠΡῚΝ Caw ΧΙ Cont Coed es ΚΝ ΟΠ}
See TRIPS Sei intr’ Mey irk}

eee aie
ΤΩΣ 4 δ ἃ i855 Fy Mache
<4 745
5 Heat AEG ey wis yt τ
Ui aed 4. 4ιόὸῴ Cts i ἡ ες
Whi see eee a δὴ Ms ited vy
ives 44nd Pa his te PRA yy
ΟῚ ah REI:Lana 4, + ᾿ ae
ἡ ἢ “ νι δ»6 ἀνθ μή
ς sae Stet hi τ
ay seers Poh ne Hes ay, re51
ress Paige eet sobs. Pr BOSS:
e | * FDL Ae Sha aie εἶτ bath! aa eee
ἊΣΛΜΝ ἐ ee ΤΥ eis "ἃ «. Seated: Boa ys
a
= ἣν =
γ᾽ 4 ‘ve oe Fup eeia natiad Fish has ape ες - +yay e
4 Add Cdn de ae?
CA Beate ΠΩ

et: Ate Ἄν ΓΕῚ

Na Gd “ἡ ee 5 ἔς ἢ Liaise Bie a | δεν δι ea test
We Ceo. Tad
the ed had We Hes IDA ASAE ΨΊ δ᾿ τα δόώζάνακ᾽, Sty aera
; if ἢ δ ἡ Pattee y Pee
Nid esr Sack Abedον χ᾽ WB Ayidrse tid, Pash μον τα Δ δια ἀγφεφως ς γοῦν
SD 7 44 νἀ Ae ted deed 28 ΡΝ ΟἹ
heh Cp PA epeeεςΣΥΝ F Patan
ἜΣ aan
undid ἡ abe Δ Ff {τσ Ὁ ΡΥ ΕΝ aoat > Γ᾿ Σὰ,ΓΕ ΤΣ int ΕΣ
Sipe e dd pee PPE er ΤΑ ΟΣ: τῷ ὅτι “2.
‘6 det ᾿ς Fle = Diem
hah Mis Vid QL Wb ἢ ee cpa Γ ἔν sseb ᾧ ἐξ Ὁ} φυφονι gon “ἀν
ἡ ἡ δύνα ἀν 4 4-4-4 δ᾽ ἡ πχὶ φ ἡ
ΚΡ ΑΚ ΒᾺΙ chebδα dre acaba 2 ety) ions 4
ἃ SO RAL SG ads dd καὶ᾿ς
ἐς ἜΡΙΝ
SA ae EAE SS ἐν τ ΜῚ ΓΕΘ ΤΙ Saale ke:ad
‘ ΜΑΣ ΕΣ ΕΥῚ ΠΝ
Δ testers
ΣΙ eh adie hemeik ey awe ΜῊ sag Nope tathy oA SB,
ἫΝ τετὸ sa PGE ht neers
aia PahSekte ugkMoon at οὐ ς ey “God Ege PATI
Ss le eS these * aed
$< Pde et led
FAG δ: υϑ ἀξwee ἐᾷ δὶ tay “eee yt sane A rate.
ra τος
NW Coen g tk ay “fe ae δ- [3 ; ν Wg
ΑΨ»; BAERS PY,
“παν
C44 «ὦ ὁ ἡ Th i “
ome PEE xP. «A προσ
ΓΝ ΝΥΝ ee ee
δὲ τρὶς
ὁ"4 oe ἡ ἀδὰ οἷ ἄν, πϑιν νυν,
ΟΡ ee ΝΗῚ ΣΌΝ ΟΝ
(νὰν -ὁ dom κατῷ ὦ ng τὸ 4-07 γ δὰ
ares ἐφκιο ύν δ τὰ Ε 4 a
νὴ nt Ai je ἦν ὩΣ Αγθο.μοΐη 7
oat ee De Νὶ ἥν Ὁ ab didn νης ὑφ ὦ
πος
Sree sie
ἂς:eeee 1] pra ‘ ete
Ste Ἢ
tn tr a κοινόν te ese
Re eee ee πολ ἃ νὰ ὦ ὁ τ δον s ὶ : eat waceedte e sd
Sn emirate pins Το
ΓΌΟΝ iat OG
ἔα wa eq 2 ἢ
aa ΕἾΝ a
ΠΤ,
Ν wade re pss
Ae PRPs
PP a cia
ὑφ. ares re.
ΡΝ
t oOtrriwewen
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Toronto

httos://archive.org/details/historyofgreekphO1 Zell
 A HISTORY

OF

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

VOL. I.
 = z 7 7 |

" ; ie % 7 . Ὁ

’ " 5

. , ᾿ Ν \ , é

τ 7, ᾽ ‘
Ἄν" x
a ᾿
; - 4 ; A
, τι ‘

a ἢ ᾿ ᾿ ;
.

“᾿Ξ.

% ν" ΐ 3

᾿ ΟΝ

oy =

ΠΣ
Ἃ i?

her’
hy τ᾿ ᾿ -
ἀν κὰν ᾿
τ" 4 +
= ie! ae

men, ¢ ? ---.
ΠΣ ΠΣ ἮΝ

a, « :
*, fi
ers
.᾽.- ‘
; Η |
Wek " -.-. A q
= i ‘ ᾿ hy | "Ἢ ἢ By ᾿

ee : : LONDON: PRINTED BY
μα ἐν Ὄ _-- SPOTTISWOODE AND (Ὁ., NEW-STREE
rs ¢ ¥ = ¥ — 6 ΕΣ

ie ΤῈ AND PARLIAMENT STREET

 Sh. th charcky Wye.
5
A HISTORY
OF

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO ΤΗΝ 97

TIME OF SOCRATES /

WITH A GENERAL [δ CTION

( X , Ae
Ὁ. THE GERMAN OF
/
13} R E. ZELLER
/ |
/ PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLIN

ith the Author's

ε΄- VOLUMES
ΟΣ Ἢ

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1881

All rights reserved

 TORONTO δ,CANADA,εν

wr 301932
-Ξ

f y ook Be “>,fo
x"

S
ae

ooa
Tul

‘AGG
+) A ae

; ὃ s

τοῦ ὃ
or
νe
“νους ᾿
ὍΝ
2
»9
be
Oa
ne ee

as- ἽΝ" :
ἣν
᾿»
»*,

ii ne i
yy Ffae
‘ |
ἌΝ Σ᾿ δ
; ii
ἌΝ ra:

Ἀ
;yea rἃ ;

fioeos
tas if
on

ΣΕ
 TRANSLATORS PREFACE.

THE present work is a translation of the fourth and

last edition of the first part of Dr. Zeller’s “ Philo-
sophie der Griechen.’ That this part, containing the
General Introduction to the entire subject and the his-
tory of the earliest philosophers, should appear after
others dealing with the later periods, is in some mea-
sure to be regretted, because Greek Philosophy is best
treated as a whole, and gains immensely by being
studied in the order of development; yet those who
are acquainted with the previously translated portions
of Dr. Zeller’s work will be the more ready to welcome
the introductory volume, without which, indeed, many
things in the later philosophy, and in Dr. Zeller’s treat-
ment of it, would have remained comparatively obscure.
There is no need to speak highly of a work so well
known. The translator has endeavoured to make her
version as literal as possible, considering the require-
ments of the English language and its deficiency in
precise equivalents for German philosophical terms—a
vi TRANSLATORS PREFACE.

deficiency giving rise to many difficulties which she

cannot hope to have always successfully overcome.
She desires to express her hearty thanks to Mr.
Evetyn Apsortt, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College,
Oxford, for his valuable assistance in reading over the
proof sheets, especially in regard to the Greek notes.
It is, perhaps, necessary to add, respecting the
numerous references, that Vol. I. and II. stand for the
volumes of the present translation, and Part I. II. and
III. for the divisions of the German work.

ΟἼΤΕΤΟΝ : December 6, 1880.

 AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

TWENTY YEARS AGO, when I published in its later form

the first volume of this work, originally designed on
a different plan, and a far more limited scale, I ex-
plained in the following words the principles which
had guided me in its composition: ‘ In the treatment
of my subject I have constantly kept in view the task
which I proposed to myself in my first approaches to it;
viz. to maintain a middle course between erudite en-
quiry and the speculative study of history: neither, on
the one hand, to collect facts in a merely empirical
manner; nor,on the other, to construct ᾧ priori theories ;
but through the traditions themselves, by means of cri-
tical sifting and historical combination, to arrive at a
knowledge of their importance and interdependence.
This task, however, in regard to the pre-Socratic philo-
sophy was rendered pécularly difficult by the character
of the sources and the divergencies of modern opinions
respecting them: it was impossible adequately to fulfil
it without a number of critical discussions, often
descending to the minutest details. That the clearness
vill AUTHORS PREFACE.

of the historical exposition, however, might not be

thereby impaired, I have consigned these discussions
as much as possible to the notes, where also the testi-
monies and references respecting the authorities find
a fitting place. But the writings from which these are
taken are many, and some of them difficult to obtain,
so that it has often been necessary to give the quota-
tions at length to make it possible for the reader to test
the authenticity of my exposition without an unwarrant-
able expenditure of time. Thus the amount of notes,
and consequently the size of the whole volume, have
increased to a considerable extent ; but I hope I have
chosen rightly in attending before all things to the
scientific requirements of the reader, and in doubtful
cases preferring to economise his time rather than the
printer’s paper.’
I have kept to the same points of view in the pre-
paration of the following volumes, and of the new
editions which have since become necessary. The hope
that I have therein adopted the proper course has been
fully justified by the reception given to my work ; and
though the principle (not previously quite unknown to
me) has recently been pressed upon my attention, that the
ancient philosophers must be treated philosophically,
I have never yet been able to convince myself that the
method hitherto pursued by me has been a mistake. I
still hold, more strongly than ever, that the philosophic
apprehension of systems of philosophy (which, however,
must be distinguished from philosophic criticism) en-
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 1x

tirely coincides with the historic apprehension of them.

I can never indeed consider that a proper history has
been written if the author has stopped short at the bare
enumeration of isolated doctrines and statements without
enquiring as to their centre of gravity, examining their
interconnection, or tracing out their exact meaning;
without determining their relation and importance
to the various systems collectively. But, on the other
hand, I must protest against the misuse of the noble
name of philosophy for the purpose of depriving his-
torical phenomena of their distinctive character, of
forcing upon the ancient philosophers inferences which
they expressly repudiate, of effacing the contradictions
and supplying the lacune of their systems with adjuncts
that are pure inventions. The great phenomena of the
past are much too great in my eyes for me to suppose
that I could do them any service by exalting them above
their historical conditions and limitations. In my
opinion, such a false idealisation makes them smaller
instead of greater. At all events, nothing can thereby
be gained for historic truth, before which every predi-
lection for particular persons and schools must give way.
Whoever would expound a philosophic system must re-
produce the theories held by its author in the connection
which they had in his mind. This we can only learn
from the testimony of the pbilosophers themselves, and
from the statements of others concerning their doctrines;
but, in comparing these testimonies, in examining their
authenticity and credibility, in completing them by in-
x AUTHORS PREFACE.

ferences and combinations of various kinds, we must be

careful to remember two things: in the first place, the
inductions which carry us beyond direct testimony must
in each case be founded on the totality of evidence in
our possession ; and when a philosophic theory seems to
us to require certain further theories, we must always
examine whether other portions of the author's system,
quite as important in his estimation, do not stand in the
way. Secondly, we must enquire whether we are justi-
fied in supposing that the philosopher we are considering
propounded to himself the questions which we are pro-
pounding to him, returned to himself the answers which
we derive from other statements of his, or himself drew
the inferences which to us appear necessary. To pro-
ceed in this spirit of scientific circumspection has been
at any rate my own endeavour. To this end, as will be
seen in the later no less than in the earlier editions of my
work, I have also tried to learn from those writers who
here and there, on points of greater or lesser importance,
have differed from me. If I am indebted to these writers
for many things that have assisted in the completion
and correction of my exposition, it will nevertheless be
understood that, in all essential points, I could only re-
main true to my own view of the pre-Socratic philo-
sophy, and have defended that view as persistently and
decidedly as the interest of the subject demanded,
against objections which seemed to me unconvincing
and untenable.
I dedicated the second edition of the present work
 ΟἾΟΝ PREFACE. xl

to my father-in-law, Dr. F. Cur. Baur, of Tubingen.

In the third I was obliged to omit the dedication,
because he to whom it was addressed was no longer
among us. But I cannot refrain from recalling in this
place, with affection and gratitude, the memory of a
man who was not only to me in all personal relations
a friend and father, but also, in regard to my scientific
labours, has left for me and for all his disciples a shining
example of incorruptible love of truth, untiring perse-
verance in research, inexhaustible diligence, penetrative
criticism, and width and coherence in the treatment of
history.

Beruin: October 18, 1876.

 CONTENTS
OF

THE FIRST VOLUME.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

AuTHor’s PREFACE .

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.
AIM, SCOPE, AND METHOD OF THE PRESENT WORK

CHAPTER 11.
ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
i. Supposed derivation of Greek ais from Oriental
speculation : Α
ii. Native sources of Greek ἘΞ ΈΤΩΣ
1. Religion : :
a. Greek religion
b. The Mysteries . :
iii. Native sources of Greek philosophy ἼΘΙ ἘΘΡῪ
2. Moral life: civil and political conditions
iy. Native sources of Greek philosophy (continued).
3. Cosmology : 5
v. Ethical reflection.
4. Theology and Anthropology in relation to Ethies .
ΧΙΥ͂ CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

CHAPTER III.
PAGE
ON THE CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY 129-163

CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPAL PERIODS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK
PHILOSOPHY . . . . . . . * 108--.:85

FIRST -PHRDOD:

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

InrrRopucTION. ON THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PuILosopHy ΙΝ THE First PERIOD ᾿ 5 - . 1840

FIRST SECTION.

THE EARLIER IONIANS, PYTHAGOREANS, AND

ELEATICS.

I. Tue Eartier Jonran Puysics.

1. Thales... 5 : : ‘ Ε Ξ Α ‘ ; . 011
2. Anaximander. : ‘ : ‘ F : ‘ ΝΣ
3. Anaximenes . ᾿ : : : ε . {200
4, Later adherents of the Το δι Schaal Diogenes of Apollonia 280

, 11. Tur PyrHacoreans,

1. Sources of our knowledge in regard to the Pythagorean philo-
. . : : : . 4 ens
sophy
2. Pythagoras and His Pyἡ παβόνοάμα ‘ ; . B24
3. The Pythagorean Pee its ΠΕ ΕΒ Ὁ
Number and the Elements of Number . ; . 8688
4, Systematic development of the Number system, iad’its son
eation to Physics : : ; : : : : . Ἅ10
 CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

a . Religious and ethical doctrines of the Pythagoreans

. Retrospective summary: character, origin, and oe of the
Pythagorean philosophy
. Pythagoreanism in combination with οὐδὸς Paar ee Alomnpaee
Hippasus, Ecphantus, Epicharmus .

III]. Tuer Exsatics.

. Sources in regard to their doctrines. Treatise on Melissus,
Xenophanes, and Gorgias
. Xenophanes
. Parmenides
Zeno .
. Melissus
on. Historical position ἘΦ wade’ of the Eleatic School
Oo
 ERRATA.

Page 4, line 9—for Shepherd Βοσκοί read herds of grazing Βοσκοί,

», 4, line 2 from foot—for particulars read particular.
72, line 19—for seventeenth read seventh.
5» 94, 2, line 17—for sup. p. 93 read sup. p. 91, 3; ef. 98, 4.
», 145, 1, line 2—for the Protagoras read Protagoras.-—
214, γι. line 28 (first column)—for Anacolius read Anatolius.
219, 3, line 10 (second column)—for affinity read infinity.
» 231, nx. line 20 (first column)—for 233, 1 read 228, 3.
9 247, 1—for 223, 1 read 2338, 1.
251, line 9—for surrounds read surrounded.
9» 260, 4—for 151, 1 read 251, 1.
», 263, 2—for pp. 197, 200 read 241, 244.
»» 265, 3—for 197 read 241.
5, 269, 2, line 8—for 268, 1 read 267, 1.
», 288, 3—for 241, 1 read 241, 2.
289, 1, line 9—for 291, 1 read 291, 2.
», 292, 1—for 290, 4 read 291, 1.
», 902, 1—for 336, 4 read 336, 5.
» 434, 2, line 2—for 426, 6 read 429, 6.
» 444, 1, line 3—for conservation read assertion.
», 444, 2—for 442, 1 read 443, 1.
» 468, 1, line 5 from foot (second column)—for 415 read 526.
9, 927, 3—for 372, 1 read 372, 4.
» 927, 4, line 4 from foot—for 491 read 528.
» 00], 2—for 529, 5 read 530, 2.
9» 038, 1—for 547, 1 read 548, 1.
», 048, 1, line 14 (second column)—for 547, 1 read 548, 1.
9 004, d—for 547, 1 read 548, 1.
» 904, 4—for 542, 1 read 543, 1.
» 960, 1, lines 18 and 19—for infra read supra ; for 544, 1 read 545, 1.
», 966, 1—for 549, 1 read 548, 2; for 560, 2 read 562, 5.
» 287, line 8—omit therefore
» 608, 2, lines 4 and 7—for 543 read 617, n. ; for 590, 1 read 591, 1:
», 623, line 19—for connections read connection.

4
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS
IN ITS

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

AIM, SCOPE AND METHOD OF THE PRESENT WORK.

Tue term Philosophy, as in use among the Greeks,

varied greatly in its meaning and compass.! Originally
it denoted all mental culture, and all effort in the
direction of culture:2 even as σοφία, the word from
which it is derived, was applied to every art and every
kind of knowledge.? A more restricted significance
seems first to have been given to it in the time of the
Sophists, when it became usual to seek after a wider
knowledge by means of more special and adequate
1 Cf. the valuable evidence of μαλακίας. The same vague use of
Haym in Ersch and Gruber’s Allge- the word is long after to be met
meine Encyklopaedie, sect. 111. Ὁ. 24, with even among writers who are
p. 3 sqq. not unacquainted with the stricter
2 Thus Creesus says to Solon sense,
(Herodotus, i. 30) that he had heard 3 Cf. Aristotle’s Eth. Nic. vi. 7,
ὡς φιλοσοφέων γῆν πολλὴν θεωρίης sub init., and the verse quoted by
εἵνεκεν ἐπελήλυθας. Similarly, Pe- him from the Homeric Margites.
ricles (Thucydides, ii. 40), in the Cf. also infra, the section on the
funeral oration: φιλοκαλοῦμεν yap Sophists.
μετ᾽ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνεν
2VOL. I.
—
 2 INTRODUCTION.

instruction than ordinary education and the unmethodi-

cal routine of practical life could of themselves afford.'
By Philosophy was now understood the study of things
of the mind, pursued not as an accessory employment
and matter of amusement, but exclusively and as a
separate vocation. The word Philosophy, however, was
not as yet limited to philosophic science in its present
acceptation, nor even to science in general, for which
other designations were much more in vogue: to philo-
sophise was to study, to devote oneself to any theoretic
activity.” Philosophers in the narrower sense, down to
the time of Socrates, were ordinarily designated as wise
men or Sophists,? and, more precisely, as physicists.4
A more definite use of the word is first met with in
Plato. Plato calls that man a philosopher who in his
speculation and his practice has regard to essence, and
not to appearance ; Philosophy, as he apprehends it, is
1 Pythagoras indeed, according it in this way (Paneg.c. 1) when he
to a well-known anecdote, had pre- calls his own activity τὴν περὶ τοὺς
viously assumed the name of phi- λόγους φιλοσοφίαν, or even simply
losopher ; but the story is in the φιλοσοφία, φιλοσοφεῖν (Panath. α. 4,
first place uncertain ; and in the 5, 8; περὶ ἂντιδοσ. 181-186, 271,
second it keeps the indeterminate 285 and elsewhere. Plato himself
sense of the word according to adopts this wider meaning in
which philosophy signified all Gorgias 484 C and 485 A sqq.,
striving after wisdom. Protagoras 3385 D, Lysis 213 D.
2 The expression, for example, Cf. also the commencement of the
in Xenophon (Mem. iv. 2, 23) has Menexenus.
this sense; for the philosophy of 8 This name was given, for in-
Euthydemus (according to section stance, to the seven wise men, to
1) consists in his studying the wri- Solon, Pythagoras and Socrates;
tings of the poets and Sophists; also to the pre-Socratie natural
and similarly in Conv. 1, 5, Socrates philosophers. Vide infra, Joc. cit.
compares himself, as αὐτουργὸς τῆς 4 Φυσικοί, φυσιολόγοι, the recog-
φιλοσοφίας, with Callias, the disci- nised name for the philosophers
ple of the Sophists, Also in Cyrop. especially of the Ionian schools,
vi. 1,41, φιλοσοφεῖν means generally and those connected with them.
to cogitate, to study. Isocrates uses
 DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY. 3

the elevation of the mind towards true Reality,—the

scientific cognition and moral exposition of the idea.
Finally, Aristotle still further limits the sphere of Philo-
sophy, by wholly excluding from it practieal activity;
but he fluctuates between a wider and a narrower
definition. According to the wider, Philosophy includes
all scientific knowledge and research ; according to the
narrower, it is restricted to enquiries concerning the ulti-
mate causes of things, the so-called ¢ First Philosophy.’
Scarcely, however, had this beginning been made
towards a precise determination of Philosophy when
the attempt was again abandoned; Philosophy im the
post-Aristotelian schools is sometimes exclusively de-
fined as the practice of wisdom, the art of happiness,
the science of life; sometimes it is hardly discriminated
‘from the empirical sciences, and sometimes confounded
with mere erudition. This confusion was promoted,
not only by the learned tendencies of the Peripatetic
school and of the whole Alexandrian period, but also
and more especially by Stoicism, since Chrysippus had
included in the circle of his so-called philosophical
enquiries the arts of grammar, music, &c., while his
very definition of Philosophy, as the science of things
divine and human, must have rendered difficult any
precise limitation of its domain.! After this period
science became more and more involved with mythology
and theological poetry, to the increasing disturbanceof
the boundaries of both these spheres; and the concep-
1 Appealing to this definition, mathy, says he, is the business of a
Strabo, at the opening of his work, philosopher. Further authorities
declares geography to be an essen- for the above will be given in the
tial part of philosophy; for poly- course of this work.
Β2
 4 INTRODUCTION.

tion of Philosophy soon lost all distinctness. On the

one hand, the Neo-Platonists regarded Linus and
Orpheus as the first of philosophers, the Chaldean
oracles as the primitive sources of the highest wisdom,
and the sacred rites, asceticism and theurgic superstition
of their school as the true philosophy; on the other, the
Christian theologians, with equal right, glorified mo-
nastic life as Christian philosophy, and gave, to, the ᾿
'
yr

various sects of monks, including even the Shepherd|

Βοσκοί, a name which Plato and Aristotle had reserved
for the highest activity of the human intellect.!
But it is not merely the name which is wanting in
accurate limitation and fixity of import. Uncertainty
of language usually implies uncertainty of thought, and
the present case forms no exception. If the extent of
the term Philosophy was only gradually settled, Philo-
sophy itself only gradually appeared as a specific form
of intellectual life. If the word fluctuates between a
wider and a narrower significance, Philosophy similarly
fluctuates; being sometimes restricted to a definite
scientific sphere, and sometimes mingled with alien
ingredients of various kinds. The pre-Socratie Philo-
sophy developed itself partly in connection with mytho-
logical ideas. Even for Plato the mythus is a necessity,
! φιλοσοφεῖν and φιλοσοφία are bius’s Church History, iv. 26, 7,
the ordinary terms employed at speaks of the Judaic-Christian re-
that period to designate the ascetic ligion as 7 καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία.
life and its various forms; so that, Philo similarly (quod omnis pro-
for example, Sozomenus, in the case bus liber, 877 C, D; vita contemplat.
above mentioned (Hist. Eccles. vi. 893 D) describes the theology of
33), concludes his statement about the Essenes and Therapeute, with
the Βοσκοί with the words καὶ oi its allegorical interpretation of
μὲν ᾧδε ἐφιλοσόφουν. Christianity Scripture, as φιλοσοφεῖν, πάτριος
itself is not unfrequently called φιλοσοφία.
φιλοσοφία; thus Melito, in Euse-
 DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY. 5

and after the period of Neo-Pythagoreism, polytheistic

theology acquires such an influence over Philosophy
that Philosophy at last becomes merely the interpreter
of theological traditions. With the Pythagoreans,
the Sophists, Socrates, the Cynics and the Cyrenaics,
scientific speculation was connected with practical en-
quiries, which these philosophers did not themselves
discriminate from their science. Plato reckons moral
conduct as much a part of Philosophy as knowledge ;
while after Aristotle, Philosophy was so increasingly
regarded from the practical point of view, that it ulti-
mately became identified with moral culture and true
religion. Lastly, among the Greeks, the sciences (in
the modern acceptation of the term) were only by slow
degrees, and at no time very accurately, discriminated
from Philosophy. Philosophy in Greece is not merely
the central point towards which all scientific efforts
converge; it is, originally, the whole which includes
them in itself. The sense of form peculiar to the Greek
cannot let him rest in any partial or isolated view of
things ; moreover, his knowledge was at first so limited
that he was far less occupied than we are with the study
of the particular. From the outset, therefore, his glance
was directed to the totality of things, and it was only
by little and little that particular sciences separated
themselves from this collective science. Plato himself,
excluding the mechanical and practical arts, recognises
only Philosophy and the various branches of mathematics
as sciences proper; indeed, the treatment he claims for
mathematics would make it simply a part of Philo-
sophy. Aristotle includes under Philoscphy, besides
G INTRODUCTION.

mathematics, all his physical enquiries, deeply as these

enter into the study of the particular. It was only in
the Alexandrian period that the special sciences attained
to independent cultivation. We find, however, among
the Stoics, as well as the Peripatetics, that philosophic
enquiry was blended with, and often hampered by, a
great mass of erudition and empirical observations, In
the eclecticism of the Roman period, this erudite
element was still more prominent; and though the
founder of Neo-Platonism confined himself strictly to
questions of pure philosophy, his school, in its reliance
on the authorities of antiquity, was apt to overlade
its philosophic expositions with a superabundance of
learning.
If, then, we are to include in the history of Greek
Philosophy all that was called Philosophy by the
Greeks, or that is brought forward in philosophic writ-
ings, and exclude all that does not expressly bear the
name, it is evident that the boundaries of our exposition
will be in part too narrow, and in part, and for the most
part, much too wide. If, on the other hand, we are to
treat of Philosophy in itself, as we find it in Greece,
whether called Philosophy or not, the question arises
how it is to be recognised and how we are to distinguish
it from what is not Philosophy. It is clear that such a
test can only lie in the conception formed of Philosophy.
This conception, however, changes with the philosophic
standpoint of individuals and of whole periods; and
thus it would appear that the sphere of the history of
Philosophy must constantly change in like manner and
in the same proportion. The dilemma hes in the
 DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY. 7

nature of things and is in no way to be avoided ; least

of all by basing our procedure, not on fixed conceptions,
but on confused impressions, and indefinite, perhaps
contradictory, ideas; or by trusting, each writer for
himself, to an obscure historical sense to determine
how much he shall include in his exposition or reject
from it. For if philosophic conceptions alter, subjective
impressions alter yet more, and the only resource that
would at last remain to us in this uncertain method—
namely, a reference to learned usage—would not improve
matters from a scientific point of view. One thing, at
any rate, follows from these reflections. We must have,
as the basis of our exposition, as true and exhaustive a
theory as we can of the essence of Philosophy. That
this is not altogether impracticable, and that some
degree of unanimity is attainable on the subject, there
is all the more reason to hope, because we are here
concerned not with the terms and constituents of any
one philosophic system, but with the general and formal
conception of Philosophy, as it is assumed, tacitly, or
in express terms, in every system. Different opinions
are possible, to some extent, even here; but this diffi-
culty is common to all walks of knowledge. We can
only, each one of us according to his ability, seek out
the truth, and leave what we find to be corrected, if
necessary, by advancing science.
How Philosophy is to be defined, is therefore a
question which philosophic science alone can answer. I
must here confine myself to a statement of the results
at which I have arrived in regard to the matter, so far
as this is necessary for the task I have in hand. I con-
 8 INTRODUCTION.

» sider Philosophy, first, as a purely theoretic activity ;

that is, an activity which is solely concerned with the
ascertainment of reality; and from this point of view,
I exclude from the conception and history of Philosophy
all practical or artistic efforts as such, irrespective of
their possible connection with any particular theory of
the world. I next define Philosophy more precisely as
science. I see in it not merely thought, but thought
that is methodical, and directed in a conscious manner
to the cognition of things in their interdependence.
By this characteristic, I distinguish it as well from the
unscientific reflection of daily life as from the religious
and poetical view of the world. Lastly, I find the dis-
tinction between Philosophy and other sciences is this :—
that all other sciences aim at the exploration of some
specific sphere, whereas Philosophy has in view the
sum total of existence as a whole, seeks to know the
individual in its relation to the whole, and by the laws
of the whole, and so to attain the correlation of all
knowledge. So far, therefore, as this aim can be shown
to exist, so far and no farther I should extend the do-
main of the history of Philosophy. That such an aim
was not clearly evident from the beginning, and was at
first abundantly intermingled with foreign elements, we
have already seen, nor can we wonder at it. But this
need not prevent our abstracting from the aggregate of
Greek intellectual life all that bears the character of
Philosophy, and considering it in and for itself, in its
historical manifestation. There is, indeed, some danger,
in this mode of procedure, of doing violence to the
actual historical connection; but this danger we may
 GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 9

escape by allowing full weight to such considerations as

the following: the constant interminglement of philo-
sophie with other elements ; the gradual nature of the
development by which science won for itself an inde-
pendent existence; the peculiar character of the later
syncretism; the importance of Philosophy for culture
in general, and its dependence on existing conditions.
If due account be taken of these circumstances, if in
the several systems we are careful to distinguish what
is philosophical from what is merely accessory, and to
measure the importance of the individual, in regard to
the development of philosophic thought, by the precise
standard and concept of Philosophy, the claims of
historic completeness and scientific exactitude will be
equally satisfied.
The object of our exposition having been thus
determined on one of its sides, and the Philosophy of
the Greeks clearly distinguished from the phenomena
akin to it and connected with it, there remains the
farther question as to the extent and boundaries of
Greek Philosophy; whether we are to seek it only
among the members of the Greek race, or in the whole
field of Hellenic culture; and, in the latter case, how
the area of that field is to be determined. This is, of
course, more or less optional; and it would in itself be
perfectly legitimate either to close the history of Greek
science with its passage into the Roman and Oriental
world, or, on the other hand, to trace its effects down
to our own time. It seems, however, most natural to
call Philosophy Greek, so long as there is in it a pre-
ponderance of the Hellenic element over the foreign,
10 INTRODUCTION.

and whenever that proportion is reversed to abandon

the name. As the former is the case not only with the
Greco-Roman Philosophy, but also with the Neo-
Platonists and their predecessors; as even the Judaic-
Alexandrian school is much more closely related to the
contemporary Greek Philosophy, and had much more
influence on its development, than any phenomenon of
the Christian world, I include this school in the compass
of the present exposition. On the other hand, I exclude
from it the Christian speculation of the first centuries,
for there we see Hellenic science overpowered by a new
principle in which it henceforth lost its specific character.
The scientific treatment of this historical material
must necessarily follow the same laws as the writing of
history in general. Our task is to ascertain and to
expound what has happened ; a philosophic construction
of it, even if this were possible, would not be the affair
of the historian. But such a construction is not
possible, for two reasons. First, because no one will
ever attain to so exhaustive a conception of humanity,
and so exact a knowledge of all the conditions of its
historical development, as to justify his deducing from
thence the particulars of its empirical circumstances,
and the changes undergone by these in time: and next,
because the course of history is not of sucha nature
that it can be made the object of an ἃ priori con-
struction. For history is essentially the product of the
free activity of individuals, and though in this very
activity an universal law is working, and through this
activity fulfilling itself, yet none of its special effects,
and not even the most important phenomena of history
 HISTORICAL METHOD; AGAINST HEGEL. 11

in all their particular features, can be fully explained

from the point of view of ἃ priori necessity. The
actions of individuals are subject to that contingency
which is the heritage of the finite will and under-
standing; and if from the concurrence, the collision,
and the friction of these individual actions, a regular
course of events as a whole is finally produced, neither
the particular in this course, nor even the whole, is at
_ any point absolutely necessary. All is necessary in so
far only as it belongs to the general progress, the logical
framework as it were of history; while as to its chrono-
logical manifestation, all is more or less contingent. ‘So
closely are the two elements interwoven with each
other that it is impossible, even in our reflections,
wholly to separate them. The necessary accomplishes
itself by a number of intermediaries, any one of which
might be conceived other than it is; but, at the same
time, the practised glance can detect the thread of
historical necessity in notions and actions apparently
the most fortuitous; and from the arbitrary conduct of
men who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago,
circumstances may have arisen which work on us with
all the strength of such a necessity.! The sphere of
history, therefore, is distinct in its nature from that of
Philosophy. Philosophy has to seek out the essence of
things, and the general laws of events; history has to
exhibit definite given phenomena of a certain date,
and to explain them by their empirical conditions.
1 A more particular discussion moral order of the world.— Theolo-
of these questions will be found gisches Jahrbuch, v. vi. (1846 and
in my dissertation on the freedom 1847); cf. especially vi. 220 sqq.;
of the human will, onevil, andthe 2453 sqq.
12 INTRODUCTION.

Each of these sciences requires the other, but neither

can be supplanted by or substituted for the other; nor
in its procedure can the history of Philosophy take the
same course that would be applicable to the formation
of a philosophic system. To say that the historical
sequence of the philosophic systems is identical with
the logical sequence of the concepts which characterise
them,' is to confound two very different things. Logic,
as Hegel conceived it, has to expound the pure cate~
gories of thought as such; the history of Philosophy is
concerned with the chronological development of human
thought. If the course of the one were to coincide with
that of the other, this would presuppose that logical
or, more precisely, ontological conceptions form the
essential content of all systems of Philosophy; and that
these conceptions have been attained in the progress
of history from the same starting-point, and in the
same order as in the logical construction of pure con-
cepts. But this is not the case. Philosophy is not
merely Logic or Ontology; its object is, in a general
sense, the Real. The various philosophic systems show
us the sum total of the attempts hitherto made to gain
a scientific view of the world. Their content, therefore,
cannot be reduced to mere logical categories without

1 Hegel's Geschichte der Philo- Christiania, in a letter addressed

sophie, 1. 48. Against’ this asser- to me, bearing the title De vi logice
tion objections were raised by me rationis in describenda philosophie
in the Jahrbicher der Gegenwart, historia (Christiania, 1860), to de-
18438, p. 209, sq.; and by Schweg- fend the proposition of Hegel. In
ler in his Geschichte der Philoso- consequence of this treatise, which
phie, p. 2 sq.; which objections I cannot here examine in detail, I
I repeated in the second edition of have made some changes in the
the present work. This gave occa- form of my discussion, and also
sion to Herr Monrad, professor at some additions,
 HISTORICAL METHOD; AGAINST HEGEL. 13
depriving it of its specific character and merging it
in the universal. Moreover, while speculative Logic
begins with the most abstract conceptions, in order
thence to attain to others more concrete, the historical
development of philosophic thought starts with the
consideration of the concrete, first in external nature,
then in man, and leads only by degrees to logical and
metaphysical abstractions. The law of development
also is different in Logic and in History. Logic is
oceupied merely with the internal relation of concepts,
irrespective of any chronological relation ; History treats
of the changes effected in course of time in the notions
of mankind. Progress, from anterior to posterior con-
cepts, is regulated, in the former case, exclusively
according to logical points of view; each conclusion is
therefore linked to the next that is properly deducible
from it by thought. In the latter case, progression
takes place according to psychological motives; each
philosopher constructs out of the doctrine inherited
from his predecessors, and each period out of that
handed down to it by tradition, whatever their own
apprehension of the doctrine, their modes of thought,
experiences, knowledge, necessities, and scientific re-
sources enable them to construct ;but this may possibly
be something quite other than what we, from our stand-
point, should construct out of it. Logical consequence
can only regulate the historical progress of Philosophy
to the extent that it is recognised by the philosophers, and
the necessity of following it acknowledged; how far that
is the case depends on all the circumstances by which
scientific convictions are conditioned. Over and above
14 INTRODUCTION.

what may be directly or indirectly derived from the earlier

Philosophy, either by inference or polemic, a decisive in-
fluence is often exercised in this respect by the conditions
and necessities of practical life, by religious interests, and
by the state of empirical knowledge and general culture.
It is impossible to regard all systems as merely the
consequences of their immediate predecessors, and no
system which contributes special thoughts of its own
can in its origin and contents be thus restricted. What
is new in those thoughts arises from new experiences
having been made, or new points of view gained for
such as had been previously made ; aspects and elements
of these which before were unnoticed are now taken
into account, and some particular moment is invested
with another meaning than heretofore. Far, then, from
assenting to the Hegelian position, we must rather
maintain that no system of Philosophy is so constituted
that its principle may be expressed by a purely logical
conception; not one has formed itself out of its pre-
decessors simply according to the law of logical progress,
Any survey of the past will show us how impossible it is to
recognise, even approximately, the order of the Hegelian
or any other speculative logic in the order of the philo-
sophic systems, unless we make out of them something
quite different from what they really are. This attempt
is, therefore, a failure both in principle and practice, and
the truth it contains is only the universal conviction
that the development of history is internally governed
by regular laws.
This conviction, indeed, the history of Philosophy
ought on no account to renounce; we need not confine
 LAWS AND UNITY OF HISTORY. 1
ourselves to the mere amassing and critical testing of
traditions, or to that unsatisfactory pragmatic pro-
cedure which is content to explain particulars severally
in reference to individual personalities, circumstances
and influences, but attempts no explanation of the
whole as such. Our exposition must, of course, be
grounded upon historical tradition, and all that it treats
of must either be directly contained in tradition, or
derived from it by strictest deduction. But it is impos-
sible even to establish our facts, so long as we regard
them merely in an isolated manner. Tradition is not
itself fact; we shall never succeed in proving its trust-
worthiness, in solving its contradictions, in supplying its
lacunze, if we do not keep in view the connection of
single facts, the concatenation of causes and effects, the
place of the individual in the whole. Still less, how-
ever, 15 1t possible to understand facts, apart from this
interconnection, or to arrive at a knowledge of their
essential nature and historical importance. Where,
lastly, our exposition is concerned with scientific sys-
tems, and not merely with opinions and events, there
the very nature of the subject demands, more urgently
than in other cases, that the particular shall be studied
in rejation to the aggregate ; and this demand can only
be satisfied by the concatenation of every particular
known to us through tradition, or deducible from
tradition, into one great whole.
The first point of unity is constituted by indi-
viduals. Every philosophic opinion is primarily the
thought of some particular man, and is, therefore, to
- be explained by his intellectual character and the cir-
10 INTRODUCTION.

cumstances under which it was formed. Our first task,

then, will be to unite the opinions of each philosopher
into a collective whole, to show the connection of those
opinions with his philosophic character, and to enquire —
into the causes and influences by which they were
originally conditioned. That is to say, we must first
ascertain the principle of each system, and explain how
it arose ; and then consider how the system was the out-
come of the principle: for the principle of a system is
the thought which most clearly and fundamentally ex-
presses the specific philosophic character of its author,
and forms the focus of union for all his views. Every
individual thing in a system cannot, of course, be ex-
plained by its principle; all the knowledge which a
philosopher possesses, all the convictions which he forms
(often long before his scientific thoughts become
matured), all the conceptions which he has derived
from multifarious experiences, are not brought even by
himself into connection with his philosophic principles;
accidental influences, arbitrary incidents, errors and
faults of reasoning are constantly interposing them-
selves, while the gaps in the records and accounts often
prevent our pronouncing with certainty on the original
connection of the various constituents of a doctrine. All
this liés in the nature of things; but our problem must
at any rate be kept in view until we have exhausted all
the means in our power for its solution.
The individual, however, with the mode of thought
peculiar to him, does not stand alone; others ally them-
selves with him, and he allies himself with others;
others come into collision with him, and he comes into
 LAWS AND UNITY OF HISTORY. 17

collision with others; schools of philosophy are formed

having with each other various relations of dependence,
agreement, and contradiction. As the history of Philo-
sophy traces out these relations, the forms with which
it is concerned divide themselves into larger or smaller
groups. We perceive that it is only in this definite
connection with others that the individual became and
effected that which he did become and effect; and
hence arises the necessity of explaining the specific
character and importance of the individual by reference
to the group which includes him. But even such an
explanation as this will not in all respects suffice; for
each individual, besides the characteristics common to
his class, possesses much that is peculiar to himself.
He not only continues the work of his predecessors, but
adds something new to it, or else disputes their pre-
suppositions and conclusions. The more important,
however, a personality has been, and the farther its
historical influence has extended, the more will its
individual character, even while opening out new paths,
disappear and lose itself in the universal and necessary
course of history. For the historical importance of the
individual depends upon his accomplishing that which
is required by an universal need; and so far only as this
is the case, does his work become part of the general
possession. The merely individual in man is also the
transitory ; the individual can only work in an abiding
manner and on a grand scale when he yields himself
and his personality to the service of the universal, and
executes with his particular activity a part of the
common work.
VOL. I. σ
18 INTRODUCTION.

But if this hold good of the relation of individuals

to the spheres to which they belong, is it not equally
true of the relation of these spheres to the greater
wholes in which they are comprehended? Each nation
and, generally speaking, each historically coherent por-
tion of mankind, has the measure and direction of its
spiritual life traced out for it, partly by the inherent
specific qualities of its members, and partly by the
physical and historical conditions that determine its
development. No individual, even if he desires it, can
withdraw himself from this common character; and he
who is called to a great sphere of historical action will
not desire it, for he has no ground for his activity to
work on except in the whole of which he is a member ;
and from this whole, and thence only, there flows to him
by numberless channels, for the most part unnoticed,
the supplies by the free utilization of which his own
spiritual personality is formed and maintained. But
for the same reason all individuals are dependent on the
past. Each is a child of his age as well as of his nation,
and as he will never achieve anything great if he does
not work in the spirit of his nation,' so surely will he fail
unless he stands on the ground of all previous historical
acquirement. If, therefore, the spiritual store of man-
kind, as the work of self-active beings, is always subject
to change, this change is of necessity continuous ; and
the same law of historical continuity holds good also of
each smaller sphere, so far as its natural development is
not hindered by external influences. In this process of
1 Or of the whole to which he belongs—his church, school, or what-
ever it may be.
 LAWS AND UNITY OF HISTORY, 19

development each period has the advantage of the cul-

ture and experience of the previous periods; the historic
development of mankind, therefore, is upon the whole a
development towards ever higher culture—a progression.
But particular nations, and entire groups of nations,
may nevertheless be thrown back into lower stages by
external misfortunes, or their own internal exhaustion :
important tracts of human culture may long lie fallow :
progress itself may at first be accomplished in an in-
direct manner, through the breaking up of some imper-
fect form of civilisation. In defining, then, the law
of historical progress in its application to particular
phenomena, we must be careful to explain progress
merely as the logical development of those qualities
and conditions which are originally inherent in the
character and circumstances of a nation, or field of
culture. This development in every individual case is
not necessarily an improvement; there may come dis-
turbances and seasons of decay, in which a nation or a
form of civilisation ceases to exist, and other forms
work their way forward, perhaps painfully and by long
and circuitous paths, to carry on the development of
history. Here, too, a law is present in the historic
evolution, inasmuch as its general course is determined
by the nature of things; but this law is not so simple,
nor this course so direct, as we might have anticipated.
Moreover, as the character and sequence of the historic
periods are the result of law and not of chance, the
same may be said of the order and character of the
various developments contained in them. Not that .
these developments can be constructed ἃ priory in
c 2
90 INTRODUCTION.

reference to the general concept of the sphere in ques-

tion; that of the State, for instance, or Religion, or
Philosophy. But for each historic whole, or for each of
its periods of development, a definite course is marked
out by its own fundamental character, by its external
circumstances, by its place in history. That the course
thus prescribed by existing conditions should be ac-
tually followed, is not more wonderful than the fulfil-
ment of any other calculation of probabilities. For,
though accidental circumstances often give an impulse
and a direction to the activity of mdividuals, it is
natural and necessary that among a great number of
men there should be a variety of dispositions—of cul-
ture, of character, of forms of activity, of external con-.
ditions—sufficient to furnish representatives of all the
different tendencies possible under the given cireum-
stances. “It is natural and necessary that each historical
phenomenon should either, by attraction or repulsion,
evoke others which serve to supplement it; that the
yarious dispositions and forces should display themselves
in action; that all the different views of a question
that may be taken should be stated, and all the different
methods of solving given problems should be tried. In
a word, the regular course and organic articulation of
history are not an ἃ priort postulate ; but the nature
of historic conditions and the constitution of the human
mind involve that the historic development should, ποῦς
withstanding all the contingency of the individual,
follow, on the whole and in the main, a fixed law; and
to recognize the working of such regularity in any
given case, we need not abandon the terra firma of
 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. 2]
facts, we need only examine the facts thoroughly, and
draw the conclusions to which they themselves contain
the premises.ἃ .
_ What we ask; therefore, is but the complete applica-
tion of a purely historic method. We would have no
theoretic construction of history, proceeding from theory
to fact; our history must be built up from below, out
of the materials that are actually given. It stands to
reason, however, that these materials cannot be made
use of in their rough state; we must call in the aid of
a searching historical analysis to determine the essence
and internal connection of all the phenomena concerned.
This conception of our problem will not, I trust, be
open to the charges raised against the Hegelian construc-
tion of history. Rightly understood, it can never lead
to the distortion of facts, or the sacrifice of the free
movement of history to an abstract formalism, since it
is upon historical facts and traditions, and upon these
alone, that we propose to base our reasoning as to the
relation of past phenomena: “only in what has been
freely produced shall we seek for historical necessity.»
If this be thought impossible and paradoxical, we might
appeal to the universal conviction of the rule of a
Divine Providence—a conception which before all things
implies that the course of history is not fortuitous, but
is determined by a higher necessity. In case, however,
we are dissatisfied (as we may reasonably be) with
an argument resting solely on faith, we have only to
examine more closely the concept of liberty to convince
ourselves that liberty is something other than caprice
or chance, that the free activity of man has its inborn
22 INTRODUCTION,

measure in the primitive essence of spirit, and in the

laws of human nature; and that by virtue of this
internal subjection to law, even what is really fortuitous
in the individual act becomes necessity in the grand
course of historic evolution. To follow this course in
detail is the main problem of history.
Whether in regard to the history of Philosophy it
is necessary or even advantageous for the writer to
possess any philosophic conviction of his own, is a
question that would scarcely have been raised had not
the dread of a philoscphic construction of history
caused some minds to overlook the most simple and
obvious truths. Few would maintain that the history
of law, for instance, would find its best exponent in a
person who had no opinions on the subject of juris-
prudence ; or political history, in one who embraced no
theory of politics. It is hard to see why it should be
otherwise with the history of Philosophy. How can
the historian even understand the doctrines of the
philosophers; by what standard is he to judge of their
importance ; how can he discern the internal connection
of the systems, or form any opinion respecting their
reciprocal relations, unless he is guided in his labours
by fixed philosophic principles? But the more de-
veloped and mutually consistent these principles are,
the more must we ascribe to him a definite system; and
since clearly developed and consistent principles are
undoubtedly to be desired in a writer of history, we
cannot avoid the conclusion that it is necessary and
good that he should bring with him to the study of the
earlier Philosophy a philosophic system of his own.
 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. 23

It is possible, indeed, that his system may be too

contracted to interpret for him the meaning of his
predecessors ; it is also possible that he may apply it to
history in a perverse manner, by introducing his own
opinions into the doctrines of previous philosophers,
and constructing out of his own system that which he
should have tried to understand by its help. But we
must not make the general principle answerable for
these faults of individuals; and still less can we hope
to escape them by entering on the history of Philosophy
devoid of any philosophic conviction. The human mind
is not like a tabula rasa, the facts of history are not
simply reflected in it like a picture on a photographic
plate, but every view of a given occurrence is arrived at
by independent observation, combination, and judgment
of the facts.¥ Philosophic impartiality, therefore, does
not consist in the absence of all presuppositions, but in
bringing to the study of past events presuppositions
that are true.~ The man who is without any philo-
sophic stand-point is not on that account without any
stand-point whatever; he who has formed no scientific
opinion on philosophic questions has an unscientific
opinion about them. To say that we should bring to
the history of Philosophy no philosophy of our own,
really means that in dealing with it we should give the
preference to unscientific notions as compared with
scientific ideas. And the same reasoning would apply
to the assertion! that the historian ought to form his
system in the course of writing his history, from history
itself; that by means of history he is to emancipate
1 By Wirth in the Jahrbiicher der Gegenwart, 1844, 709 sq. .
94 INTRODUCTION.

himself from any preconceived system, in order thus to

attain the universal and the true. From what point of
view then is he to regard history, that it may do him
this service? From the false and narrow point of view
which he must quit that he may rightly comprehend
history ? or from the universal point of view which
history itself must first enable him to attain? The
one is manifestly as impracticable as the other, and we
are ultimately confined within this circle that he alone
completely understands the history of Philosophy who
possesses true and complete philosophy; and that he
only arrives at true philosophy who is led to it by
understanding history. Nor can this circle ever be
entirely escaped: the history of Philosophy is the test
of the truth of systems; and to have ἃ philosophic
system is the condition of a man’s understanding history.
The truer and the more comprehensive a philosophy is,
the better will it teach us the importance of previous
philosophies; and the more unintelligible we find the
history of Philosophy, the greater reason have we to
doubt the truth of our own philosophic conceptions.
But the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that
we ought never to regard the work of science as finished
in the historic any more than in the philosophic domain.
As in a general manner, Philosophy and Experimental
Science mutually require and condition one another, so
it is here. Each forward movement of philosophic
knowledge offers new points of view to historic reflec-
tion, facilitates the comprehension of the earlier systems,
of their interconnection and relations; while, on the
other hand, each newly attained perception of the
 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. 25

manner in which the problems of Philosophy have been

solved or regarded by others, and of the internal con-
nection and consequences of their theories, instructs us
afresh concerning the questions which Philosophy has
to answer, the different courses it may pursue in an-
swering them, and the consequences. which may be
anticipated from the adoption of each course.
But it is time that we should approach our subject
somewhat more closely.
90 INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER II.
ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. .
§ I—Is Greek Philosophy derived from Oriental
Speculation ?
In order to explain the growth of Greek Philosophy, we
must first enquire out of what historical conditions it
arose; Whether it evolved itself as a native product
from the spirit and culture of the Greek people, or was
transplanted from without into Hellenic soil, and grew
up under foreign influences. The Greeks, we know,
were early inclined to ascribe to the Eastern nations
(the only nations whose culture preceded their own) a
share in the origin of their philosophy ; but in the most
ancient period, certain isolated doctrines merely were
thus derived from the East.! As far as our information
extends, not the Greeks, but the Orientals, were the
first to attribute such an origin to Greek Philosophy
generally. The Jews of the Alexandrian school, edu-
cated under Greek influences, sought by means of this
theory to explain the supposed harmony of their sacred
writings with the doctrines of the Hellenes, agreeably
to their own stand-point and interests ;? and in the same
manner the Egyptian priests, after they had become
1 Cf. infra, the chapters on ject will be found in the chapter
Pythagoras and Plato. relating to the Judaic Alexandrian
2 Further details on this sub- Philosophy.
ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 27

acquainted, under the Ptolemies, with Greek Philosophy,

made great boast of the wisdom, which not only pro-
phets and poets, but also philosophers were said to have
acquired from them.! Somewhat later, the theory gained
admittance among the Greeks themselves. When Greek
Philosophy, despairing of its own powers, began to ex-
pect its salvation from some higher revelation, and to
seek for such a revelation in religious traditions, it was
natural that the doctrines of the ancient thinkers should

1 We find nothingin Herodotus by repeated enquiries. As the

as to any Egyptian origin of Greek priests then represented themselves
Philosophy. In regard to religion, to be the founders of the Greek re-
on the other hand, he not only ligion, so at a later period they
maintains that certain Greek cults claimed to be the founders of Greek
and doctrines (especially the wor- Philosophy. Thus Crantor (ap.
ship of Dionysus and the doctrine Procius in Tim. 24 B) says, in refer-
of ‘lransmigration, ii. 49, 123) were ence to the Platonic myth of the
imported from Egypt to Greece, Athenians and Atlantides: papru-
but says in a general manner ροῦσι δὲ καὶ of προφῆται τῶν Αἰγυ-
(1. 52) that the Pelasgi at first πτίων ἐν στήλαις ταῖς ἔτι σωζομέναις
adored their deities simply under ταῦτα γεγράφθαι A€yovres—there-
the name of the gods, and after- with giving a yaluable hint for es-
wards received the particularnames timating the worth of such state-
of these gods (with the few excep- ments ; and Diodorus asserts, 1. 96:
tions enumerated in ec. 50) from the Ezyptian priests related, ἐκ
Egypt. That this assertion is τῶν ἀναγραφῶν τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς
chiefly founded on the statements βίβλοις, that Orpheus, Muszeus,
of the Egyptian priest appears pro- Lycurgus, Solon, &e., had come to
bable from ec. 50; and still more them; and moreover, Plato, Py-
frome. 54, where Herodotus relates thagoras, Eudoxus, Democritus,
from the mouth of these priests a and (Enopides from Chios, and that
story of two women who, carried relics of these men were still shown
off by Pheenicians from the Egyp- in Egypt. These philosophers had
tian Thebes, founded the first ora- borrowed from the Egyptians the
cles—one in Hellas, the other in doetrines, arts, and institutions
Libya. This story manifestly arose which they transmitted to the Hel-
from a rationalistie interpreta- lenes; Pythagoras, for example,
tion of the Dodonaic legend of the his geometry, his theory of num-
two doves (c. 55), and was imposed bers, and transmigration; Demo-
on the credulous stranger through eritus, his astronomical knowledge;
the assurances of the priests, that Lycurgus, Plato and Solcn, their
what they told about the fate of laws.
these women they had ascertained
28 INTRODUCTION.

be ascribed to the same source ; and the more difficulty

there was in explaining these doctrines from native
tradition, the more readily was their origin attributed
to races, long since revered as the teachers of the
Greeks, and whose wisdom enjoyed the highest reputa-
tion, because the unknown has generally a charm for
the imagination, and seen, as it must be, through a
mysterious haze, is wont to look greater than it really
is. Thus, after the period of Neo-Pythagoreism there
spread, chiefly from Alexandria, the belief that the most
important of the ancient philosophers had been in-
structed by Eastern priests and sages, and that their
most characteristic doctrines had been taken from this
source. This opinion in the following centuries be-
came more and more general, and the later Neo-
Platonists especially carried it to such an extent that,
according to them, the philosophers had been scarcely
more than the promulgators of doctrines perfected ages ~
before in the traditions of the Asiatic races. No wonder
that Christian authors, even after the time of the Refor-
mation, continued the same strain, doubting neither the
Jewish statements as to the dependence of Greek Philo-
sophy on the religion of the Old Testament, nor the
stories which made Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians,
Babylonians and Hindoos the instructors of the ahcient
philosophers.! Modern science has long ago discarded
the fables of the Jews respecting the intercourse of the
1 Among these the Alexandri- the Hellenic philosophers generally
ans were again preeminent. Cle- are represented as having borrowed
mens dwells with especial predilee- portions of the truth from the He-
tion on this theme in his Stromata. brew prophets, and given them out
Plato to him is simply 6 ἐξ “Ἑβραίων as their own (ibid, 312 C, 320 A),
φιλόσοφος (Strom. 1. 274 B); and
 OPINIONS OF ANCIENTS AND MODERNS. 29

Greek sages with Moses and the prophets ; but the idea
that Greek Philosophy partly or entirely originated in
the Pagan East has more facts to urge in its behalf.
It has also found support in the high opinion of Oriental
wisdom induced by our better acquaintance with the
Chinese, Persian and Indian sacred records, and by our
researches into Egyptian antiquity; an opinion which
harmonizes with certain philosophical speculations con-
cerning a primitive revelation and a golden age. More ~
sober philosophy, indeed, questioned the truth of these
speculations, and thoughtful students of history sought
vainly for traces of that high culture which was said
to have adorned the childhood of the world. Our
admiration, too, for the Oriental Philosophy, of which,
according to its enthusiastic admirers, only some frag-
ments had reached the Greeks, has been considerably
modified by our growing knowledge of its true content
and character. When, in addition to this, the old un-
critical manner of confusing separate modes of thought
had been abandoned, and every notion began to be
studied in its historical connection, and in relation with
the peculiar character and circumstances of the people
among whom it appeared, it was natural that the differ-
ences of Greek and Oriental cultivation, and the self-
dependence of the Greek, should again be more strongly
emphasized by those best acquainted with classical anti-
quity. Still, there have not’ been wanting, even quite
recently, some to maintain that the. East had a decisive
influence on the earliest Greek Philosophy; and the whole
question seems by no means so entirely settled that the
History of Philosophy can avoid its repeated discussion.
30 INTRODUCTION,

One point, however, is to be noted, the neglect of

which has not unfrequently brought confusion into this
enquiry. Ina certain sense, the influence of Oriental
conceptions on Greek Philosophy may well be admitted
even by those who consider that Philosophy to be purely
a Greek creation. The Greeks, like the other Indo-
Germanic races, arose out of Asia, and from this their
earliest home they must originally have brought with
them, together with their language, the general ground-
work of their religion and manners. After they had
reached their later abodes, they were still open to in-
fluences which reached them from the Oriental nations,
partly through Thrace and the Bosphorus, partly by
way of the Agean and its islands. The national
character of Greece, therefore, was even in its origin
under the influence of the Oriental spirit, and Greek
religion, especially, can only be understood on the sup-
position that foreign rites and religious ideas from the
North and South-east were superadded to the faith of
Greek antiquity, and, in a lesser degree, even to that of
the Homeric age. The latest of these immigrant gods,
such as Dionysus, Cybele, and the Phcenician Heracles,
can now with sufficient certainty be proved alien in
their origin ; while in the case of others, in the present
stage of the enquiry, we have still to be content with
doubtful -conjectures. In considering the Oriental
origin of Greek philosophy, however, we can only take
into account those Eastern influences, the entrance of
which had nothing to do with the early religion of
Greece, or the development of the Greek character
generally ; for the scope of our work involves our re-
ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 31
vw

garding the philosophy of the Greeks, at any rate

primarily, as a product of the Greek spirit; and to
enquire how that spirit was formed would be beside the
purpose of the History of Philosophy. Only in so far
as the Oriental element maintained itself in its specific
character, side by side with the Hellenic element, are
we now concerned with it. If, indeed, Réth were cor-
rect in asserting, as he does,’ that Philosophy did not
spring from the civilisation and spiritual life of the
Greeks, but was transplanted among them as something
foreign, and that the whole circle of notions lying at
its root came ready made from without, then, and then
only, we might derive Greek Philosophy absolutely
from the East. But if, on the other hand, it was the
immediate product of the Greek philosophers’ own re-
flection, in that case it has essentially a native origin,
and the question can no longer be whether, as a whole, it
vame from the East, but whether Oriental doctrines had
any share in its formation, how far this foreign influence
extended, and to what exten we can still recognize in
it the Oriental element proper, as distinct from the
Hellenic element. These different cases have not
always hitherto been sufficiently discriminated; and
the advocates of Uriental influence especially have fre-
quently neglected to explain whether the foreign
element came into Philosophy directly or through the
medium of the Greek religion. There is a wide differ-
ence between the two alternatives, and it is with the
former alone that we are here concerned.
Those who maintain that Greek Philosophy origin-
_) Geschichte unserer abendlandischen Philosophie, i. 74, 241.
92 INTRODUCTION.

ally came from the East, support their opinion partly

on the statements of the ancients, and partly on the
supposed internal affinity between Greek and Oriental
doctrines. The first of these proofs is very unsatisfac-
tory. Later writers, it is true, particularly the adher-
ents of the Neo-Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic Schools,
speak much of the wisdom which Thales, Pherecydes and
Pythagoras, Democritus and Plato, owed to the teaching
of Egyptian priests, Chaldeans, Magi, and even Brah-
mans. But this evidence could only be valid if we were
assured that it rested on a trustworthy tradition, reaching
back to the time of these philosophers themselves. And
who can guarantee us such an assurance? The assertions
of these comparatively recent authors respecting the
ancient philosophers must be cautiously received even
when they mention their references ; for their historical
sense and critical faculty are almost invariably so dull,
and the dogmatic presuppositions of subsequent philo-
sophy are so intrusively apparent in their language, that
we can trust very few of them even for a correct version
of their authorities, and in no single instance can “we
hope for a sound judgment concerning the worth and
origin of those authorities, or an accurate discrimination
of the genuine from the spurious, the fabulous from the
historic. Indeed, when anything, otherwise unknown to
us, is related by them of Plato, Pythagoras, or any of the
ancient philosophers without any reference to authori-
ties, we may take for granted that the story is founded,
in the great majority of cases, neither on fact nor on
respectable tradition, but at best on some unauthenti-
cated rumour, and still oftener, perhaps, on a misunder-
 ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 33

standing, an arbitrary conjecture, a dogmatic presuppo-

sition, or even a deliberate invention. This is true in
an especial manner of the question as to the relation of
Greek Philosophy with the East ; for, on the one hand,
the Orientals had the strongest inducements of vanity
and self-interest to invent an Eastern origin for Greek
science and culture ; and, on the other, the Greeks were
only too ready to allow the claim. It is precisely with
such unauthenticated statements that we have here to
do, and these statements are so suspiciously connected
with the peculiar standpoint of the authors who make
them, that it would be very rash to build hypotheses of
great importance in history on a foundation so insecure.
If we put aside, then, these untrustworthy witnesses,
and have recourse to older authorities, the result is no
better; we find either that they assert much less than
the later writers, or that their assertions are based far
more upon conjecture than historical knowledge. Thales
may have been in Egypt: we have no certain evidence
of the fact; but it is not likely that he there learned
more than the first rudiments of mathematics. That
Pythagoras visited that country, and that his whole
philosophy originated thence, was first asserted by
Isocrates, in a passage which is more than suspected of
being a rhetorical fiction. Herodotus says nothing
about his having come to Egypt, and represents him
as having derived from the Egyptians only a very few
doctrines and customs, and these at third hand. The
distant journeys of Democritus are better attested ; but
what he learnt in the course of them from the bar-
barians we are not certainly informed, for the story of
VOL. I. D
54 INTRODUCTION.

the Phoenician Atomist Mochus deserves no credit.!

Plato’s travels in Egypt also seem to be historical, and
have at any rate much more evidence in their favour
than the subsequent and improbable statements as to
his intercourse with Phoenicians, Jews, Chaldeans and
Persians. Whatever later authors may have said, or
rather surmised, about the fruits of these travels, Plato
himself clearly expresses his own opinion of the wisdom
of the Egyptians, when he ascribes to the Greeks, as
their special characteristic, a taste for knowledge, and
to the Egyptians, as to the Phoenicians, a love of gain.”
As a fact, he praises them in various passages, not for
philosophic discoveries, but for technical arts and poli-
tical institutions;? there is not a trace, either in his
own writings or in credible tradition, of his having
taken his philosophy from them. Thus the assertions
as to the dependence of Greek on Oriental Philosophy,
when we exclude those that are wholly untrustworthy,
and rightly understand the rest, dwindle down to a very
small number; even these are not altogether beyond
question, and at most only prove that the Greeks in
particular cases may have received certain impulses
from the East, not that their whole philosophy was
imported from thence.
A more important result is supposed to be derived
from the internal affinity of the Greek systems with
Oriental doctrines. But even the two most recent advo-

1 Further details, infra. — Gesch. der Phil. i. 153 sqq.

* Rep. iv.435 E. A passage on 8 Cf. Zeller, Phil. der Gr. Part
which Ritter, in his careful enquiry ii. a, p. 358, note 2; also Brandis,
into the oriental origin of Greek Gesch. der Gr.-rom. Phil. i. 143.
philesophy, rightly lays much stress.
 THEORIES OF GLADISCH AND ROTH. 95
-

cates of the theory are not agreed as to the precise

meaning of this affinity. “~Gladisch, on the one hand,!*
thinks it evident that the principal pre-Socratic systems
reproduced without any material alteration the theories
of the universe of the five chief Oriental nations. x The
Philosophy of the Chinese, he considers, reappears in
Pythagoreism ; that of the Hindoos in the Eleatics;
that of the Persians in Heracleitus; that of the Egyp-
- tians in Empedocles ; that of the Jews in Anaxagoras.”
τ Roth} on the other hand,? no less distinctly affirms
that™ancient Greek speculation arose out of Egyptian
creeds, intermingled, though not to any great extent
except in the cases of Democrittts and Plato, with the
ideas of Zoroaster.” In Aristotle, he says, Greek Philo-
sophy first freed itself from these influences; but in
Neo-Platonism Egyptian speculation once more renewed
its youth, while, at the same time, the Zoroastrian doc-
trines, with a certain admixture of Egyptian notions,
produced Christianity.
If we examine impartially the historical facts, we
shall find ourselves compelled to reject both these
theories, and the improbability of an Eastern origin
and character in regard to Greek Philosophy generally
will more and more appear. The phenomenon which
1 Einleitung in das Verstindniss Hyperboreer und die alien Schinesen,
der Weltgeschichte,2'Th. 1841,1844. 1866. Die Religion und die Philo-
Das Mysterium der qyptischen sophie in ihrer Weltgeschichtlichen
Pyramiden und Obelisken, 1846. Entwicklung, 1852. In what fol-
On Heracleitus, Zeitschrift fiir Al- lows I keep principally to this last
terthums-Wissenschaft, 1846, No. treatise.
121 sq., 1848; No. 28 sqq. Die 2 Gesch. uns. Abendl. Phil.
verschlewrte Isis, 1849. Empedokles i. 74 sqq., 228 sq., 459 sq. In
und die Atgypter, 1858. Hera- the second part of this work he
cleitos und Zoroaster, 1859. Anaz- ascribes to the doctrines of Zoro-
agoras und die Israeliten, 1864. Die aster a share in Pythagoreism.
D2
90 INTRODUCTION.

Gladisch thinks he perceives, even supposing it to exist,

would admit of a twofold explanation. We might
either ascribe it to an actual connection between the
Pythagorean Philosophy and the Chinese, between the
Eleatic and the Hindoo, &c.; or we might regard the
coincidence of these doctrines as naturally resutting,.
without any external connection, from the universality
of the Greek genius, or some other cause. In the
latter case the phenomenon would give no clue to the
origin of Greek Philosophy, nor, however striking such
a fact might appear to us, would it add much to our
historical knowledge of Greek science. If, on the
other hand, there were really such an external historical
connection as Gladisch assumes! between these Greek
systems and their Eastern prototypes, we ought to be
able in some way or other to prove the possibility of
such a connection; to show, from a survey of the actual
circumstances, that there was a probability of such
accurate intelligence concerning Chinese and Hindoo
doctrines having reached Pythagoras and Parmenides;
we must explain the inconceivable phenomenon that the
different Oriental ideas did not become intermingled
on their way to Greece, nor in Greece itself, but
arrived there and maintained themselves separately,
side by side, so as to produce exactly the same number
of Greek systems, and. that in the very order corre-
sponding to the geographical and historical position
of the peoples among whom they arose. Lastly, we
must give some kind of answer to the question how
theories, so evidently borrowed from Parmenides by
1 Cf. especially, in reference to this, Anaxagoras und dic Israeliten, x. sq.
 THEORIES OF GLADISCH AND ROTH. 37

Empedocles and Anaxagoras, and so deeply rooted in

their own doctrines that they must be considered their
scientific points of departure (e.g. the impossibility of
an absolute origination or decease), could be derived in
the case of one philosopher from India, in that of a
second from Egypt, in that of a third from Palestine.
All this appears equally impossible, whether we suppose
the influence of Oriental doctrines on Greek Philosophy
to have been indirect or direct. That it is impossible
to believe in a direct influence of the kind Gladisch
himself admits;! appealing, with justice, to the ut-
terances of Aristotle and of the other ancient authors
concerning the origin of the systems anterior to Plato,
and urging the reciprocal interdependence of these
systems. But does the theory become more probable if
we assume that the Oriental element ‘ entered Philo-
sophy through the instrumentality of Greek religion?’?
Where do we find in Greek religion, especially in the
religious tradition of the centuries which gave birth
to the pre-Socratic Philosophy (except, indeed, in the
dogma of transmigration), a trace of all the doctrines
to which the philosophers are said to have been led by
it? How is it credible that a speculative system like
the Vedanta Philosophy should be communicated by
means of Greek mythology to Parmenides; and Judaic
monotheism, by means of Hellenic polytheism, to
Anaxagoras? How could the Oriental doctrines after
their convergence in the Greek religion have issued
from it unchanged in this definite order ? And
1 Einleitung in das Verstind- die Isr. xi. sq.
niss, &e. ii, 376 sq, <Anax. und 2 Anax. und die Isr. xiii.
98 INTRODUCTION.

if they had done so, how can that which the various
philosophies produced from the same source (their na-
tional religion), even when they undoubtedly borrowed
it one from the other, be referred to utterly different
Oriental sources? It is easy to meet these objections,
which might be greatly multiplied, by saying,’ whether
all this be possible, and how it may have come about,
we will not here enquire, but content ourselves at
present with simply establishing the facts. Such an
answer might suffice if the evidence for the facts only
included the hearing of unimpeachabie witnesses, and
a comparison of their testimony. But that is by no
means the case. The proofs of the parallelism between
Greek and Oriental doctrines which Gladisch claims
to have discovered, would, under any circumstances,
demand investigations much too complicated to leave
the question of its possibility and reasonableness wholly
untouched. If we consider his own representation of
this parallelism, we are met at decisive points by such
uncritical reliance on interpolated writings and untrust-
worthy statements, such confusion of earlier and later
authorities, such arbitrary interpretation of the theories
concerned, that it is plain we have to do not merely
with the proof of the historical fact, but with a connec-
tion and interpretation extending much farther.2 We

1 Loc. cit. xiv. Ῥ. 29sq.) This I do not repeat here,

2 Cf. what is said, infra, of not because Gladisch’s counter-
Heracleitus, of Empedocles, and arguments seem to me ubanswer-
of Anaxagoras; also in the text of able, but because a thorough refuta-
this passage, as it appeared in the tion of his hypothesis would require
second and third editions, about more space than I can devote to it,
the Pythagorean and Eleatic Philo- and because the derivation of Py-
sophy (Zeller, Phil. der Gr. 3rd ed. thagoreism from China, and the
 THEORIES OF GLADISCH AND ROTH. 39

become involved, as already remarked, in the following

contradictions: that characteristics equally to be found
in several Greek philosophers must have had an entirely
different origin in every case; that doctrines evidently
borrowed by one philosopher from another must have
been communicated independently to both from an
Eastern source, and to each man from a separate Eastern
source ;/ that systems which evolved themselves out of
one another, in a historic sequence which is indisputable,
must each have merely reproduced what it had already
received, irrespectively of that sequence, from this or
that Oriental predecessor. How little this construction
of Gladisch comports with actual facts may also be
seen from the impossibility? of bringing. into connection
with it two such radical and important phenomena in
the history of Greek Philosophy as the Ionic Physics
before Heracleitus, and the Atomistic Philosophy.
As to Roth, his view can only be properly considered
in the examination of the separate Greek systems.
So far as it is carried out, I am,. however, unable. to
agree with it, because I fail to see in his exposition of
Egyptian theology a faithful historical picture.. I can-
doctrines of Parmenides from India from the Eleatic doctrine. But the
is really inconceivable, and has dependence is in this case no other
never been elsewhere entertained. and no greater than in the case of
1 Cf. supra, p. 36. Thus ac- Anaxagoras and Empedocles; and
cording to Gladisch, Pythagoras Atomistic has an equal right with
got his doctrine of Transmigration their doctrines to be considered an
from China (where, however, it did independent system. The» omis-
not originate), and Empedocles his sion of Thales, Anaximander, and
from Egypt. Anaximenes, Gladisch (loc. cit.)
2 In regard to the Atomistic leaves unexplained. Yet Thales is
philosophy, Gladisch attempts to the founder of Greek Philosophy,
justify this (Ἅπας. und die Isr. xiv.) and Anaximander the immediate
by saying that it was developed predecessor of Heracleitus.
 40 INTRODUCTION.

not now enter into a discussion of the philosophy of

religion, nor stop to refute the theory! that abstract
concepts, such as spirit, matter, time and space, and
not presentations of personal beings, formed the original
content of the Egyptian religion, and other religions of
antiquity. I must also leave the task of examining the
results which Roth derives? from Oriental texts and
hieroglyphic monuments to those better acquainted
with the subject. For the purposes of the present
enquiry, it is enough to notice that the affinity assumed
by Roth between the Egyptian and Persian doctrines,
and the myths and philosophic systems of the Greeks,
ean only be proved, even on the author's own showing,
if we consent to repose unlimited confidence in untrust-
worthy witnesses, uncertain conjectures and groundless
etymologies. If, indeed, each transference of the names
of Greek gods to foreign deities were an adequate proof
of the identity of these gods, the Greek religion would
hardly be distinguishable from the Egyptian ; if it were
permissible to seek out barbarian etymologies, even
where the Greek signification of a word is ready to
hand,® we might perhaps suppose the whole mythology,
together with the names of the gods, to have emigrated
from the East to Greece;* if Iamblichus and Hermes
1 Loe. cit. p. 50 sq., 228, 181 that the root of Πὰν is πάω, Ion.
566. πατέομαι, Lat. pasco; and that
2 e.g. p. 131 sqq., 278 sqq. Περσεφόνη, as well as Πέρσης and
3 As, for instance, when Roth Περσεύς, comes from πέρθω; and
derives Pan and |’ersephone from that Greek mythology says nothing
the Egyptian language ; translating of a creator spirit Pan, or of a Perses
Pan as Deus egressus, the emanated in the sense of Typhon (if even
creative spirit (loc. cit. 140, 284), one of the Hesiodie Titans be so
and Persephone (p. 162) as the named), or of any slaying of this
slayer of Perses, i.e. of Bore—Seth Perses by Persephone.
or Typhon; whereas it is clear 4 Searcely, however, even in
IMPROBABILITY OF THE ORIENTAL THEORY, 41

Trismegistus were classical authorities for Egyptian an-

tiquity, we might congratulate ourselves on the ancient
records! with which they acquaint us, and the Greek
philosophical sayings which they profess to have dis-
covered ? in old Egyptian writings; if the Atomistic doc-
trine of Moschus the Phcenician were a historical fact,
we might, like Roth,’ attempt to find in the theories of
Pheenician cosmology, respecting the primitive slime,
the sources of a doctrine hitherto believed to have been
derived from the metaphysic of the Eleatics. But if
the universal principle of criticism be applicable to
this, as to other cases—viz. that history accepts
nothing as true the truth of which is not guaranteed
by credible testimony, or by legitimate conclusions
from such testimony—then this attempt of Roth will
only show that the most indefatigable efforts are in-
sufficient to prove a foreign origin in regard to the
essential content of so indigenous a production as
Greek science.*
that case, with the facility of Roth, Alexandrian syncretism, and worth
who on the strength of the above about as much, in the light of
etymologies, and without citing any Egyptian historical evidence, as
authority, transfers the whole my- the book of Mormon is in regard
thus of the rape of Persephone to Jewish.
and the wanderings of Demeter to 2 For example, the distinction
the Egyptian mythology, in order of vovsand ψυχή. Cf. Roth's Anmer-
then to assert that it first came kungen, p. 220 sq.
from Egypt to the Greeks (loc. cit. 3. Loe. cit. 274 sqq.
p- 162). 4 A more detailed examination
1 e.g. the book of Bitys, which of Roéth’s hypotheses will find a
ΒΟΥ (p. 211 sqq.) (on the ground fitting place in the chapter on the
of a very suspicious passage in the Pythagureans; fur, according to
work of the Pseudo-[amblichus on him, it was Pythagoras who trans-
the Mysteries) places in the ‘eight- planted the whole Egyptian science
eenth century before Christ. If this and theology into Greece. Cf.
book ever existed, it was probally also what is said of Anaximander,
a late invention of the period of intra.
42 INTRODUCTION.

A proof of this kind is, generally speaking, very

difficult to establish when it is based solely on internal
evidence. It may happen that not only particular
notions and customs, but whole series of them may bear
a resemblance to another series in some other sphere of
civilisation ; it may also happen that fundamental con-
ceptions may seem to repeat themselves without thus
affording adequate proof that they are historically inter-
connected. Under analogous conditions of develop-
ment, and especially between races originally related
to each other, many points of contact invariably arise,
even when these races have no actual mtercourse;
chance often brings out surprising similarities in de-
tails; and among the more highly civilised races scarcely
any two could be named between which striking paral-
lels could not be drawn. But though it may be natural
in that case to conjecture an external connection, the
existence of this connection is only probable if the
similarities are so great that they cannot be explained
by the above more general causes. It must have been
very astonishing to the followers of Alexander to find
among the Brahmans not only their Dionysus and
Heracles, but also their Hellenic philosophy; to hear
of water being the origin of the world, as with Thales;
of Deity permeating all things, as with Heracleitus ; of
a transmigration of souls, as with Pythagoras and Plato;
‘of five elements, as with Aristotle; of the prohibition
of flesh diet, as with Empedocles and the Orphics;'
and no doubt Herodotus and his successors must have
1 Cf. the accounts of Mega- and Nearchus in Strabo xy. 1, 08
sthenes, Aristobulus, Onesicritus saq., p. 712 sqq.
 IMPROBABILI TY OF THE ORIENTAL THEORY. 43

been often inclined to derive Greek doctrines and usages

from Egypt. But for us, all this is not sufficient proof
that Heracleitus, Plato, Thales and Aristotle borrowed
their theorems from the Hindoos or Egyptians.
It is not merely, however, the want of historical
evidence which prevents our believing in the Oriental
origin of Greek Philosophy ; there are several positive
reasons against the theory. One of the most decisive
lies in the general character of that philosophy. The
doctrines of the most ancient Greek philosophers have,
as Ritter well observes,! all the simplicity and indepen-
dence of first attempts; and their ulterior development
is so continuous that the hypothesis of alien influences
is never required to explain it. We see here no conflict
of the original Hellenic spirit with foreign elements, no
adaptation of misapprehended formule and conceptions,
no return to scientific traditions of the past, in short,
none of the phenomena by which, for example, in the
“Middle Ages, the dependence of philosophy on foreign
sources is evinced. All developes itself quite naturally
from the conditions of Greek national life, and we shall
find that even those systems which have been supposed
to be most deeply influenced by doctrines from without,
are in all essential respects to be explained by the inter-
nal civilisation and spiritual horizon of the Hellenes.
Such a feature would certainly be inexplicable if Greek
Philosophy were really so much indebted to other
countries as some writers both ancient and modern
have believed. On this theory there would be another
strange and unaccountable circumstance,—that the
1 Gesch. der Phil. 1. 172.
 At INTRODUCTION.

theological character of Oriental speculation should be

entirely absent from Greek philosophy. Whatever
science there was in Egypt, Babylonia or Persia, was in
possession of the priestly caste, and had grown up in
one mass with the religious doctrines and institutions.
In regard to mathematics and astronomy, it is quite
conceivable that Oriental science should have been de-
tached from this its religious basis, and transplanted
separately into foreign lands ; but it is most improbable
that the priests should have held theories about the
primitive constituents and origin of the world, capable
of being transmitted and adopted apart from their doc-
trines concerning the gods and mythology. Now in the
most ancient Greek Philosophy we find no trace of
Egyptian, Persian or Chaldean mythology, and its con-
nection even with Greek myths is very slight. Even
the Pythagoreans and Empedocles only borrowed from
the mysteries such doctrines as had no intimate relation
with their philosophy (that is, their attempt at a scien-
tific explanation of nature): neither the Pythagorean
doctrine of numbers, nor the Pythagorean and Empe-
doclean cosmology, can be connected with any theologi-
cal tradition as their source. The rest of the pre-
Socratic philosophy does, indeed, remind us in certain
isolated notions of the mythic cosmogony, but in the
main it developed itself either quite independently of
the religious belief, or in express opposition to it. How
could this possibly be if Greek science were an offshoot
of the sacerdotal wisdom of the East?
We must further enquire whether the Greeks at the
time of their first attempts at Philosophy could have
IMPROBABILITY OF THE ORIENTAL THEORY. 45

been taught anything considerable in this sphere by

Orientals. There is no historical or even probable
evidence to show that either of the Asiatic nations with
which they came in contact possessed any philosophic
science. We hear, indeed, of theological and cosmo-
logical notions, but all these, so far as they really appear
to go back to antiquity, are so rude and fanciful that
the Greeks could scarcely have received from them any
impulse towards philosophic thought which their own
myths could not just as well have afforded. The sacred
books of Egypt probably contained only prescripts for
ritual, ecclesiastical and civil laws, interspersed perhaps
with religious myths; in the scanty notices remaining
of their contents there is no trace of the scientific,
dogmatic theology which modern writers have sought to
discover! To the Egyptian priests themselves, in the
time of Herodotus, the thought of an Egyptian origin
in regard to Greek Philosophy never seems to have
oceurred, eagerly as they strove, even then, to derive
Greek myths, laws, and religious ceremonies from

1 Roth, loc. cit. p. 112 sqq., even the last-mentioned ten proba-
and p. 122. He appeals to Cle- bly treated, not of the nature of
mens, Strom. vi. 633 B sqq. Sylb., the gods, but of religious worship,
where the Hermetic books being and perhaps, in connection with
mentioned it is said: there are ten this, of mythology : when Clemens
books. τὰ εἰς τὴν τιμὴν ἀνήκοντα τῶν says that these writings contained
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς θεῶν καὶ τὴν Αἰγυπτίαν the whole ‘Philosophy’ of the
εὐσέβειαν περιέχοντα - οἷον περὶ Egyptians, the word must be taken
θυμάτων, ἀπαρχῶν, ὕμνων, εὐχῶν, in the indeterminate sense of which
πομπῶν, ἑορτῶν καὶ τῶν τούτοις I have spoken above, p.1sq. More-
ὁμοίων, and ten other books περί over, we do not know in the least
τε νόμων καὶ θεῶν καὶ τῆς ὅλης how old these books were, or
παιδείας τῶν ἱερέων. But that the whether they continued up to the
contents of these books were time of Clemens without alterations
even in part scientific, cannot be and additions.
deduced from the words of Clemens;
40 INTRODUCTION.

Egypt, and little as they shrank from the most trans-

parent inventions! in pursuance of this end. The
scientific discoveries which they claim to have given to
the Greeks? are confined to astronomical determinations
of time. That the doctrine of transmigration originated
in Egypt is only a conjecture of Herodotus : ὅ and when
he says (ii. 109) that the Greeks appear to have learnt
geometry there, he founds the assertion not on Egyptian
statements, as Diodorus does, but on his own observa-
tion. This justifies the supposition that in the fifth
century the Egyptians had not troubled themselves
much about Greek or any other Philosophy. Even
Plato, judging from the previously quoted passage in
the fourth book of the ‘ Republic, must have been
ignorant of the existence of a Phcenician or Egyptian
Philosophy. Nor does Aristotle seem to have been
aware of the philosophic efforts of the Egyptians, will-
ing as he was to acknowledge them as forerunners of
the Greeks in mathematics and astronomy.* Demo-
1 Thus’ (ii. 177) Solon is said b 28; and in Metaph. i. 1,981, Ὁ 23
to have borrowed one of his laws he says: διὸ περὶ Αὔγυπτον ai
from Amasis, who came to the μαθηματικαὶ πρῶτον τέχναι συνέ-
throne twenty years later than the στησαν. ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀφείθη σχολάζειν
date of Solon’s code ; and (6. 118) τὸ τῶν ἱερέων ἔθνος. This very
the priests assure the historian that passage, however, makes it pro-
what they related to him about bable that Aristotle knew nothing
Helen they had heard from Mene- of any philosophic enquiry pursued
Jaus’ own mouth. We have already in Egypt.*
He contends loc. cit.
seen examples of this procedure, that knowledge is ona higher level
supra, p. 27, note 1. when it is pursued only for the end
2 Herod. ii. 4. of knowing, than when it serves the
2.123. purposes of practical necessity, and
4 To the astronomical observa- observes, in connection with this,
tions of the Egyptians (on the that purely theoretic sciences
conjunctions of the planets with therefore first arose in places where
each other and with fixed stars) people were sufficiently free from
he appeals in Meteorol. i. 6, 348, anxiety about the necessaries of
IMPROBABILITY OF THE ORIENTAL THEORY. 47

critus assures us that he himself, in geometrical know-

ledge, was quite a match for the Egyptian sages whose
acquaintance he made.' So late as the time of Diodorus,
when Greek science had long been naturalised in Egypt,
and the Egyptians in consequence claimed for themselves
the visits of Plato, Pythagoras, and Democritus,? that
which the Greeks are said to have derived from Egypt
is confined to mathematical and technical knowledge,
civil laws, religious institutions, and myths; these
only are referred to in the assertion of the Thebans
(i. 50) ‘that Philosophy and the accurate knowledge of
the stars was first invented among them,’ for the word
Philosophy is here equivalent to Astronomy.
Admitting, then, that the Egyptian mythologists
referred to by Diodorus may have given to the con-
ceptions of the gods a naturalistic interpretation in
the spirit of the Stoics ;* that later syncretists (like the
life to be able to devote themselves cians; perhaps Eudemus had al-
to such sciences. “The above-quoted ready expressed the same opinion,
words indirectly confirm this asser- if indeed Proclus in Euclid. 19, 0
tion. Had Aristotle considered (64 f. Friedl.) took this statement
Philosophy as well as Mathematics from him.
to be an Egyptian product, he ' In the fragment in Clemens,
would have been particularly un- Strom. i. 304 A, where he says of
likely to omit it in this connection, himself after mentioning his distant
since it is Philosophy of which he journeys: καὶ λογίων ἀνθρώπων
asserts that as a purely theoretical πλείστων ἐσήκουσα καὶ γραμμέων
scierce it stands higher than all ξυνθέσιος μετὰ ἀποδέξιος οὐδείς κώ
merely technical knowledge. That με παρήλλαξε, οὐδ᾽ οἱ Αἰγυπτίων
the rudiments of astronomy came καλεόμενοι “Αρπεδο:άπται. The ἴπ-
to the Greeks from the barbarians, terpretation of the last word is
and more particularly from the questionable, but the term must in
Syrians and Egyptians, we are told any case include those of the
in the Epinomis of Plato 986 Esq. Egyptian sages who possessed the
987 Dsq. Similarly Strabo xvii. most geometrical knowledge.
1, 3, p. 787, ascribes the invention 2 7. 96, 98. ‘
of Geometry to the Egyptians, and * Cf. ec. 16, 69, 81, 96 sqq.
that of Arithmetie to the Pheeni- 4 Diod. i. 11 sq.
48 INTRODUCTION.

author of the book on the mysteries of the Egyptians,

and the theologians quoted by Damascius)' may have
imported their own speculations into Egyptian myths;
that there may have existed in the time of Posidonius a
Pheenician manuscript reputed to be of great antiquity,
and passing under the name of the philosopher Moschus
or Mochus:2 that Philo of Byblus, under the mask of
Sanchuniathon, may have constructed a rude cosmology
from Phoenician and Greek myths, from the Mosaic
history of creation, and from confused reminiscences of
Philosophy—such questionable witnesses can in no way
prove the real existence of an Egyptian and Phoenician
Philosophy.
Supposing, however, that among these nations, at
the time that the Greeks became acquainted with them,
philosophic doctrines had been found, the transmission
of these doctrines to Greece was not at all so easy as
may perhaps be imagined. Philosophie conceptions,
especially in the childhood of Philosophy, are closely
bound up with their expression in language, and the
knowledge of foreign languages was rarely to be met
with among the Greeks. On the other hand, the inter-
preters, educated as a rule for nothing but commercial
intercourse and the explanation of curiosities, were of
little use in enabling people to understand instruction
in philosophy. Moreover, there is not a single allusion,
on which we can rely, to the use of Oriental works by
Greek philosophers, or to any translations of such works.
1 De Princ.c. 125. Damascius worthy source for the history of
expressly calls them of Αἰγύπτιοι Egyptian antiquity.
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς φιλόσοφοι γεγονότες. They 2 Vide infra, the chapter on
are therefore the most untrust- Democritus.
 NATIVE SOURCES OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 49

If we ask ourselves, lastly, by what means the doctrines

of the Hindoos and the other nations of Eastern Asia
could have been carried into Greece before the time
of Alexander, we shall find that the matter presents
numerous difficulties. All such considerations as these
would, of course, yield to well-attested facts; but it is
a different matter where we are concerned, not with
historical facts, but for the present with mere conjec-
tures. If the Eastern origin of Greek Philosophy were
to be maintained by trustworthy evidence, or by its own
internal characteristics, our conception of the scientific
condition of the Eastern nations and of the relation in
which the Greeks stood to them must be formed in
accordance with that fact’; but since the fact in itself
is neither demonstrable nor probable, it is rendered
still more improbable by its want of harmony with what
we know from other sources on these two points.

δ IL—The Native Sources of Greek Philosophy.

RELIGION.

We have no need, however, to seek for foreign ante-

cedents: the philosophic science of the Greeks is fully
explained by the genius, resources, and state of civili-
sation of the Hellenic tribes. If ever there was a
people capable of creating its own science, the Greeks
were that people. In the most ancient records of their
culture, the Homeric Poems, we already meet with that
freedom and clearness of spirit, that sobriety and mode-
ration, that feeling for the beautiful and harmonious,
which place these poems so distinctly above the heroic
VOL. I. E
 50 INTRODUCTION.

legends of all other nations without exception. Of

scientific endeavour, there is nothing as yet ; no neces-
sity is felt to investigate the natural causes of things;
the writer is content to refer them to personal authors
and divine powers, the explanation that comes upper-
most in the childhood of mankind. The technical arts
too, which support science, are in a very elementary
stage ; in the Homeric period even writing is unknown.
« But when we consider the glorious heroes of the Homeric
Poems—when we see how everything, each phenomenon
of nature, and each event of human life, is set forth in
pictures which are as true as they are artistically per-
fect—when we study the simple and beautiful develop-
ment of these masterpieces, the grandeur of their plan,
and the harmonious accomplishment of their purposes,
we can no longer wonder that a nation capable of ap-
prehending the world with an eye so open, and a spirit
so unclouded, of dominating the confused mass of phe-
nomena with so admirable a sense of form, of moving
in life so freely and surely—that such a nation should
soon turn its attention to science, and in that field
should not be satisfied merely with amassing knowledge
and observations, but should strive to combine particu-
lars into a whole, to find an intellectual focus for
isolated phenomena, to form a theory of the universe
based on clear conceptions, and possessing internal
unity; to produce, in short, a Philosophy.” How natural
is the flow of events even in the Homeric world of gods!
We find ourselves, indeed, in the wonderland of imagi-
nation, but how seldom are we reminded by anything
fantastic or monstrous (so frequent and disturbing an
 THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 51

element in Oriental and Northern mythology) that this

fabled world is wanting in the conditions of reality!
Amidst all the poetry how clearly we recognise that
sane and vigorous realism, that fine perception of what
is harmonious and natural, to which, in later times,
after deeper study of the universe and of man, this
same Homeric heaven necessarily proved such a stum-
bling-block. Thus, although the intellectual culture
of the Homeric period is separated by a wide inter-
val from the rise of philosophy, we can already trace
in it the peculiar genius out of which Philosophy
sprang.
* It is the farther development of this genius as
manifested in the sphere of religion, of moral and civil
life, and in the general cultivation of taste and of the
intellect, which constitutes the historical preparation for
Greek Philosophy.’
The religion of the Greeks, like every positive
religion, stands to the philosophy of that people in a
relation partly of affinity and partly of opposition.
What distinguishes it from the religions of all other
races, however, is the freedom which from the very
beginning it allowed to the evolution of philosophic
thought. If we turn our attention first to the public
ritual and popular faith of the Hellenes, as it is repre-
sented to us in its oldest and most authentic records,
the poems of Homer and Hesiod, its importance in the
development of philosophy cannot be mistaken. The
religious presentation is always, and so also among the
Greeks, the form in which the interdependence of all
phenomena and the rule of invisible powers and uni-
=u ἢ
52 INTRODUCTION.

versal laws first attains to consciousness. However

great may be the distance between faith in a divine
government of the world, and the scientific knowledge
and explanation of the universe as a connected whole,
they have at any rate something in common. Religious
faith, even under the polytheistic form it assumed in
Greece, implies that what exists and happens in the
world depends on certain causes concealed from sensu-
ous perception. Nor is this all. The power of the
gods must necessarily extend over all parts of the world,
and the plurality of the gods is reduced to unity by
the dominion of Zeus and the irresistible power of
Fate. Thus the interdependence of the universe is
proclaimed ; all phenomena are co-ordinated under the
same general causes; by degrees fear of the power of
the gods and of relentless Fate yields to confidence in
the divine goodness and wisdom, and a fresh problem
presents itself to reflection—viz. to pursue the traces of
this wisdom in the laws of the universe. Philosophy,
indeed, has itself been at work in this purification of
the popular faith, but the religious notion first con-
tained the germs from which the purer conceptions of
Philosophy were afterwards developed.
The peculiar nature of Greek religious belief, also,
was not without influence on Greek Philosophy. The
Greek religion belongs in its general character to the
class of natural religions; the Divine, as is sufficiently
proved by the plurality of gods, is represented under
a natural figure essentially of the same kind as the
Finite, and only exalted above it in degree. Man,
therefore, does not need to raise himself above the
 THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 55

world that surrounds him, and above his own actual

nature, that he may enter into communion with the
Deity; he feels himself related to God from the very
outset. No internal change of his mode of thought,
no struggle with his natural impulses and inclinations,
is demanded of him; on the contrary, all that is in
human nature is legitimate in the sight of God—the
most godlike man is he who cultivates his haman powers
most effectually, and religious duty essentially consists
in man’s doing to the glory of God that which is ac-
cording to his own nature. The same stand-point is
evident in the Philosophy of the Greeks, as will be
shown further on; and, though the philosophers as a
rule, took few of their doctrines directly from religious
tradition, and were often openly at variance with the
popular faith, still it is clear that the mode of thought
to which the Hellenes had become accustomed in their
religion was not without influence on their scientific
tendencies. It was inevitable that from the naturalistic —
religion of Greece there should arise, in the first in- /
stance, a naturalistic philosophy.
The Greek religion, furthermore, is distinguished
from other naturalistic religions in that it assigns the
highest place in existence neither to external nature,
nor to the sensuous nature of man, as such, but to hu-
man nature that is beautiful and transfigured by spirit.
Man is not, as in the East, so entirely the slave of
external impressions that he loses his own independence
in the forces of nature, and feels that he is but a
part of nature, irresistibly involved in its vicissitudes.
Neither does he seek his satisfaction in the unbridled
r
54 INTRODUCTION.

ireedom of rude and half-savage races. But, while

living and acting with the full sense of liberty, he con-
siders that the highest exercise of that liberty is to
obey the universal order as the law of his own nature.
Although, therefore, in this religion, Deity is conceived
as similar to man, it is not common human nature that
is ascribedto it. Not only is the outer form of the
gods idealised as the image of the purest beauty, but
their essential nature, especially in the case of the
Hellenic gods proper, is formed by ideals of human
activities. The relation of the Greek to his gods was
therefore free and happy to an extent that we find in no
other nation, because his own nature was reflected and
idealised in them; so that, in contemplating them, he
found himself at once attracted by affinity, and elevated
above the limits of his own existence, without having
to purchase this boon by the pain and trouble of an in-
ternal conflict. Thus, the sensuous and natural become
the immediate embodiment of the spiritual; the whole
religion assumes an esthetic character, religious ideas
take the form of poetry; divine worship and the
object of that worship are made material for art; and
though we are still, speaking generally, on the level of
naturalistic religion, nature is only regarded as the
manifestation of Deity, because of the spirit which re-
veals itself in nature. This idealistic character of the
Greek religion was no doubt of the highest importance
in the origin and formation of Greek philosophy. The
exercise of the imagination, which gives universal
significance to the particulars of sense, is the prepara-
tory stage for the exercise of the intellect which, ak-
 THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 55

stracting from the particular as such, seeks for the

general essence and universal causes of phenomena.
While, therefore, the Greek religion was based upon an
ideal and esthetic view of the world, and encouraged to
the utmost all artistic activity in setting forth this view,
it must have had indirectly a stimulating and emancipa-
ting effect upon thought, and have prepared the way
for the scientific study of things. From a material
point of view, this idealistic tendency of religion was
beneficial principally to Ethics; but from a formal
point of view, the influence of religion extended to all
parts of Philosophy; for Philosophy presupposes and
requires an endeavour to treat the sensible as a manifes-
tation of spirit, and to trace it back to spiritual causes.
Some of the Greek philosophers may possibly have been
too rash in their procedure in that respect ; but this
we shall not at present consider. The more readily we
admit that their doctrines often give us the impression
of a philosophic poem full of bold inventions, rather
than a work of science, the more clearly we shall see
the connection of those doctrines with the artistic
genius of the Greek nation, and with the esthetic
character of its religion.
But althongh Greek Philosophy may owe much to
religion, it owes more to the circumstance that its de-
pendence on religion never went so far as to prevent, or
essentially to restrict, the free movement of science.
The Greeks had no hierarchy, and no inviolable dog-
matic code. The sacerdotal functions were not with
them the exclusive property of a class, nor were the priests
the only mediators between the gods and men; but
56 INTRODUCTION.

each individual for himself, and each community for

itself, had a right to offer up sacrifices and prayers. In
Homer, we find kings and chiefs sacrificing for their
subjects, fathers for their families, each person for him-
self, without the intervention of priests. Even ata later
period, when the development of a public cult in temples
gave more importance to the sacerdotal order, the func-
tions of the priests were always limited to certain offer-
ings and ceremonial observances in their particular
localities ; prayers and sacrifices were still offered by the
laity, and a whole class of matters relating to religious
ceremonial were left, not to priests, but to public func-
tionaries designated by election, or by lot—in part in
combination with officers of the community or state—
to individuals and heads of families. The priests,
therefore, as a class, could never acquire an influential
position in Greece at all comparable with that which
they enjoyed among the Oriental nations.’ Priests of
certain temples, it is true, did attain to considerable
importance on account of the oracles connected with
those temples, but, on the whole, the priestly office con-
ferred far more honour than influence; it was a politi-
cal dignity, in respect to which reputation and external
qualifications were more regarded than any particular
mental capability; and Plato? is quite in harmony

1 This, by the way, is one of been transmitted in connection with

themost striking argumentsagainst it. Ifthis had anywhere been the
the hypothesis of any considerable case, we should find the importance
transmission of cults and myths of the priests become greater the
into Greece from the East; for farther we went back into antiquity,
these Oriental cults are so closely whereas in point of fact it is ex-
bound up with the hierarchical actly the contrary.
system that they could only have 2 Polit. 290 C.
 THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 57

with the spirit of his country when he makes the

priests, in spite of all the honours accorded to them,
merely. servants of the commonwealth.’ But where
there is no hierarchy, a dogmatic code, in thé sense of a
general law of faith, is manifestly impossible ; for there
are no organs to frame and maintain it. Even initself,
however, it would have been contrary to the essence of
Greek religion. That religion is not a finished and per-
fected system that had grown up from one particular spot.
The ideas and traditions which the Greek races brought
with them from their original abodes were carried by
each individual tribe, community and family into dit-
ferent surroundings, and subjected to influences of the
most various kinds. Thus, there arose a multiplicity
of local rites and legends; and from these, a common
Hellenic faith gradually developed itself, not by the
systematising of theology, but by a free convergence
of minds; in which convergence the most important
factor, beside the personal intercourse and religious
ceremonies of the national games and festivals, was Art,
and above all, Poetry. This explains the fact, that in
Greece there was never, properly speaking, a system of
religious doctrine generally admitted, but only a myth-
ology; and that the conception of orthodoxy was abso-
lutely unknown. Every one was indeed required to
honour the gods of the State; and those who were
convicted of withholding the prescribed honours, or of
trying to overthrow the religion of the State, were
often visited with the severest punishments. But
_ 1 Cf. Hermann. Lehrbuch der 44 sq. for more detailed proofs of
Griech. Antiquitéten, ii. 158 sqq., the above statements.
δ8 INTRODUCTION.

though Philosophy itself was thus hardly dealt with,

in the person of some of its representatives, on the
whole, the relation of individuals to the faith of the
community was far freer than among nations who
possessed a definite confession of faith guarded by
a powerful priesthood. The severity of the Greeks
against religious innovation had immediate reference
not to doctrines, but to cult; only so far as a doctrine
seemed to involve consequences prejudicial to public
worship did it become the object of attack. As to
theological opinions, properly so called, they were left
unmolested. The Greek religion possessed neither a
body of theological doctrine nor written sacred records.
It was founded entirely upon traditions respecting
the temples, descriptions of the poets, and notions of
the people: moreover, there was scarcely any tradition
which was not contradicted by others, and in that way
lost much of its authority. Thus, in Greece, faith was
too indefinite and elastic in its form to admit of its
exercising upon reason either an internal supremacy,
or an external restraint, to the extent that we find to
have been the case in other countries.
This free attitude of Greek science in respect to
religion was full of important results, as will be evi-
dent if we consider what would have become of Greek
Philosophy, and indirectly of our own, without this
freedom. All the historical analogies that we can adduce
will give us but one answer; namely, that the Greeks
would then have been as little able as the Oriental na-
tions to attain an independent philosophic science.
The speculative impulse might indeed have been awake,
 THE RELIGION OF THE GREEKS. 59

but, jealously watched as it would have been by theology,

internally cramped by religious presuppositions, and
shackled in its free movement, thought could scarcely
have produced anything more than a religious specula-
tion akin to the ancient theologic cosmologies ; and
even supposing that at a much later period it had
turned to other questions, it could never have had the
acuteness, freshness, and freedom by which the Philo-
sophy of Greece became the teacher of all the ages.
The Hindoos were the most speculative nation of the
East, and their civilisation was of the highest antiquity,
yet how greatly inferior were they, as regards philoso-
phic achievement, to the Greeks! The same must be
said of the Christian and Mohammedan Philosophy in
the Middle Ages, though this had the advantage of being
preceded by the Greek. In both cases, the principal
cause of the inferiority manifestly lay in the depen-
dence of science upon positive dogmas; and the Greeks
are to be considered as singularly fortunate in having
escaped this dependence through the force of their
peculiar genius, and the favourable course of their his-
torical development.
It has been usually supposed that between Philo-
sophy and the religion of the mysteries a closer bond
exists. In the mysteries, according to this view, a
purer, or at any rate a more speculative, theology was
imparted to the initiated ; and, by means of the mys-
teries, the secret doctrines of Eastern priests were trans-
mitted to the Greek philosophers, and through them to
the Greek people in general. But this theory has no
better foundation than the one we have just been dis-
00 INTRODUCTION.

cussing in regard to Oriental Science. It is proved

beyond a doubt, by the most recent and thorough
investigations 'of the subject, that originally no philo-
sophic doctrines were conveyed in these religious cere-
monies ; and that at a later period, when such doctrines
began to be connected with the mysteries, this occurred
under the influence of scientific researches. Philosophy,
therefore, should be regarded rather as having imparted
wisdom to the mysteries than as having received it from
them. The mysteries were originally, as we have every
reason to believe, ritualistic solemnities, which, in their
religious import and character, differed nothing from
the public worship of the gods, and were only carried on
in secret because they were designed for some particular
community, sex, or class, to the exclusion of any other, »
or because the nature of the divinities to whom they
were sacred demanded this form of cult. The first, for
example, applies to the mysteries of the Idean Zeus and
the Argive Here, the second to the Eleusinian mysteries,
and especially to the secret rites of the Chthonian
deities. Mysteries first appeared in a certain opposition
to public religion, partly because elder cults and forms
of worship which had gradually disappeared from the
one were maintained in the other, and partly because
foreign rites like those of the Thracian Dionysus and
1 Among which the following der Klass. Alterth. (under the
have been chiefly consulted: Lo- headings Mythologie, Mysteria,
beck’s fundamental work (Aglao- Eleusinia, Orpneus); lastly, the
phamus, 1829), and the short but Griechische Mythologie of the same
thorough exposition of Hermann author, On the mysteries in
(Griech. Antiq. 11. 149 sqq.), espe- general, cf. also Hegel's Phil. der
cially Preller’s Demeter und Per- Geschichte, 301 sq.; Atsthetik, ii.
sephone, as well as his investiga- 57 sq.; Phil. der [e!. 11. 160 sqq.
tions in Pauly'’s Real-Encyklopedie
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 6]

the Phrygian Cybele were introduced as private cults

under the form of mysteries, and blended themselves, in
course of time, more or less with the ancient secret
rites. But in neither case can the mysteries have con-
tained philosophic theorems, or doctrines of a purer
theology essentially transcending the popular faith.!
This is sufficiently proved by the circumstance that the
mysteries most frequently celebrated were accessible to
all the Greeks. For even had the priests possessed any
higher wisdom, how could they have imparted it to
such a mixed multitude? And what are we to think of
a secret philosophic doctrine into which a whole nation
could be initiated without a long course of previous in-
struction, and without having its faith shaken in the
traditional mythology? Speaking generally, it is not at
all in keeping with the habits of the ancients to take
advantage of ceremonial observances for the purpose of
instructing the people by means of religious discourses.
A Julian might make the attempt in imitation of
Christian customs; but in classical times there is not a
single instance of it, nor does any trustworthy witness
ever assert that the mysteries were designed for the in-
struction of those who took part in them. Their parti-
cular end appears far more in those sacred rites, the
witnessing of which was the privilege of the initiated
(Epoptz); whatever oral communication was combined
with these ceremonies seems to have been restricted to
short liturgical formule, directions for the performance
of the holy rites, and sacred traditions (ἱεροὶ λόγοι). like
* As Lobeck, loc. cit. i. 6 sqq., which distinguishes him, expresses
has exhaustively shown. Leibniz, himself to the same effect in the
with the sound historical judgment Preface to the Theodicee, section 2.
62 INTRODUCTION.

those which were elsewhere connected with particular

acts of worship; tales about the founding of cults and
holy places, about the names, origin, and history of the
gods to whom this worship was sacred; in a word, my-
thological explanations of the cult given by the priests,
or even by laymen, to those who asked for them. These
liturgical and mythological elements were afterwards
made use of to combine philosophical and theological
doctrines with the mysteries, but that such was the case
from the beginning is a theory without foundation.
There is no trustworthy authority for it, and on general
grounds it is unlikely that the mythopceic imagination
should ever have been dominated by philosophic points
of view; or that at a later period there should have been
introduced into mystic usages and traditions ideas and
hypotheses which the scientific reflection of the Greeks
had not as yet attained. In course of time, indeed, with
the deepening of the moral consciousness, the mysteries
gradually acquired a higher signification. When the
school of the Orphics, whose doctrines from the first
are parallel to Greek Philosophy,' was founded in the
1 The first certain trace of the of the Homeric poems) published,
Orphic writings, and of the Or- under the names of Orpheus and
phico-Dionysiac consecrations, is Muszeus, oracular sayings and
to be found in the well-attested hymns (τελεταὶ) which he had
statement (vide Lobeck, loc. cit. 1. himself composed, This forgery
331 sqq., 397 sqq., 692 sqq. ; ef. Ger- falls somewhere between 540 and
hard, Ueber Orpheus und die Or- 520 B.c. It is probable, however,
phiker, Abhandlungen der Berl. not only that Orphie hymns and
Acad. 1861; Hist. Phil. Kl. p. 22, oracles had been in circulation pre-
75; Schuster, De vet. Orphice viously to this, but that the union
theogonie indole, 1869, p. 46 sqq.) of the Dionysiae mysteries with
that Onomacritus (who resided at the Orphie poetry had long ago
the court of Pisistratus and his been accomplished. Two or three
sons, and with two or three other generations later, the names of the
persons, undertook the collection Orphics and Bacchies were used
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 63

sixth century before Christ, or even earlier, the in-

fluence of the philosophers upon this mystic theology
seems to have been far greater than the reaction of the
theologians upon Philosophy; and the more we con-
sider particular detail, the more doubtful it becomes
whether on the whole Philosophy ever borrowed any-
thing considerable from the mysteries or mystic doc-
trimes.
There are two points especially, in regard to which
the mysteries are supposed to have exercised an im-
portant influence on Philosophy: these are Monotheism
and the hope of a future life. A speculative interpre-
tation has also been given to some other doctrines, but
they appear to contain nothing beyond the common
by Herodotus (ii. 81) as identical, their form that they are not a quo-
and Philolaus appeals in support tation from Aristotle, but a remark
of the doctrine of transmigration of Philoponus; and he is probably
(videsinfra, Pythag.) to the utter- only repeating a Neo-Platonic ex-
ances of the ancient theologians and pedient, by which the Aristotelian
soothsayers, by whom we must criticism of the Orphie poems was
chiefly understand Orpheus and to be rendered harmless; that
the other founders of the Orphic Aristotle never so expressed him-
mysteries. Aristotle's testimony self is clear, from the passage in
certainly cannot be adduced in Cicero, N. D. i. 38, 107, which pro-
favour of the higher antiquity of bably refers to the same writing of
the Orphic theology. Philoponus Aristotle: Orphewm Poétam docet
indeed observes (De an. F, ὅ, in re- Aristoteles nunquam fuisse. The
ference to a passage from Aristotle, Orphic theogony is not ascribed to
De an. i. 5, 410, b. 28) that Aris- Onomacritus ; other Orphic wri-
totle, speaking of the Orphic poems, tings are said to have been com-
says the poems ‘called’ Orphic— posed by Cercops, the Pythagorean
ἐπειδὴ μὴ δοκεῖ Opdéws εἶναι τὰ ἔπη, Brontinus, Zopyrus of Heraclea
ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς περὶ φιλοσοφίας (the same who worked with Ono-
λέγει * αὐτοῦ μὲν γάρ εἶσι τὰ δόγ- macritus at the edition of Homer),
ματα’ ταῦτα δέ φησιν (for which Prodicus of Samos, and others,
we ought, most likely, to read (Suidas, "Op. Clemens, Strom. i.
φασὶν) ὄνομα
6 κρεῖττον ἐνέπεσε κατα- 333 A: ef. Schuster loe. cit. and
τεῖναι (read ’ Ονομάκριτον ἐν ἔπεσι p- 55 sq. For further remarks
καταθεῖναι). But the words αὐτοῦ vide infra.)
μὲν γάρ εἰσι τὰ δόγματα show by
‘
 64 INTRODUCTION.

and ordinary thoughts of all mankind.'' Even, however,

in these two cases, the influence seems neither so
certain nor so considerable as has commonly been
believed. Jn regard to the unity of God, the theistic
conception proper is as little to be found in the mystic
as in the popular theology. It is impossible to imagine
how the unity of God in the Jewish or Christian sense?
could be inculcated at the feasts of the Eleusinian
deities, or of the Cabiri, or of Dionysus. It is a
different matter, certainly, in respect to the pantheism
which appears in a fragment of the Orphice theogony,?
where Zeus is described as the beginning, middle, and
end of all things, the root of the earth and sky, the
substance and essence of air and of fire, the sun and
moon, male and female; where the sky is called his
head, the sun and moon are his eyes, the air is his
breast, the earth his body, the lower world his foot,
the ether his infallible, royal, omniscient reason. Such
a pantheism was not incompatible with polytheism,
a soil which the mysteries never quitted. As the
gods of polytheism were in truth only the various
' For example, the mythus of Empedocles to have made allusion
theslaying of Zagreus by the Titans to it—v. 70 (142).
(for further details ef. Lobeck, 1.615 2 We find the unity of God in
sqq.), to which the Neo-Platonists, this sense affirmed in so-called
and before them even the Stoies, Orphie fragments (Orphica, ed.
had given a philosophic interpreta- Hermann, Fr. 1-3), of which some
tion. but which in its original were probably, and others certainly,
meaning was probably only a composed or altered by Alexan-
rather crude variation of the drian Jews.
well-worn theme of the death of 39 Vide Lobeck, p. 520 sqq.;
Nature in winter, with which the and Hermann, Fr.6. Similarly the
thought of the decay of youth and fragment from the Διαθῆκαι (in
its beauty was connected. ‘This Lobeck, p. 440 ; in Hermann, Fr. 4)
myth had no influence on the ear- was εἷς Ζεὺς, εἷς ᾿Αἴδης, εἷς “Ἥλιος,
lier philosophy, even if we suppose εἷς Διόνυσος, εἷς θεὸς ἐν πάντεσσι.
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 65

parts and forces of the world, the different spheres of

nature and of human life, it is natural that the rela-
tions of these spheres among themselves, and the
preponderance of one of them over others, should in
time be brought to light; and, therefore, in all highly
developed naturalistic religions, we see that kindred
deities become blended together, and the whole poly-
theistic Olympus is resolved into the general concep-
tion of an all-embracing divine essence (θεῖον). But
the Greek religion, because of its plastic character, is
just one of those which most resists this fusion of
definite forms of deity. In Greece, consequently, the
idea of the divine unity was arrived at less by way of
syncretism than of criticism; not by blending the
many gods into one, but by combating the principle of
polytheism. The Stoics and their successors were the
first who sought to reconcile polytheism with their
philosophic pantheism, by giving a syncretic interpreta-
tion to polytheism ; the older pantheism of Xenophanes ~
was, on the contrary, bitterly and openly hostile to the
doctrine of the plurality of gods. The pantheism of
the Orphic poems, in the form above described, is
probably much later than the first beginnings of Orphic
literature. The Διαθῆκαι are certainly not anterior to
the Alexandrian Syncretism; nor can the passage re-
specting the theogony, as it now stands, date from the
time of Onomacritus, to which Lobeck!’ assigns the
greater part of the poem. For this passage was in
close connection with the story of Phanes-Ericapeus,
devoured by Zeus. Zeus includes all things in
1 Loe. cit. 611.
VOin* is Ε
66 INTRODUCTION.

himself, because he swallowed the already created

world, or Phanes, that he might then produce all
things from himself. We shall presently show that
the swallowing of Phanes! originally formed no part
of the Orphic theogony. We must, therefore, in all
eases distinguish the original text of the Orphic passage
from the modifications it may afterwards have under-
gone. As part of the original text we may apparently
claim the verse so frequently quoted,? and which is
probably referred to by Plato: ὅ
Ζεὺς κεφαλὴ, Ζεὺς μέσσα, Aids δ᾽ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται."

The idea in this verse, however, and other similar ideas

to be found in those portions of the Orphic writings
supposed to be ancient, contain nothing essentially in
advance of a conception familiar to Greek religion, and
the gist of which was already expressed by Homer when
he calls Zeus the Father of gods and men.® The unity
of the divine element which polytheism itself recog-
nises, was made concrete in Zeus as king of the gods;
and so far, all that exists and all that happens is ulti-
mately referred to Zeus. This idea may perhaps be
expressed by calling Zeus the beginning, middle, and
end of all things; but the expression certainly does not
1 In the enquiry into the Or- the circumstance that the words
phic cosmogony, infra. quoted from Orpheus by Procluy
2 Ap. Proclus in Timeus, 95 F, in Timeus, 310 D; Plat. Theol. 17,
and the Platonic scholiast, p. 451, 8, p. 863: τῷ δὲ Δίκη πολύποινος
Bekk. ἐφείπετο, coincide with the Pla-
5. Laws, iv. 715 ἘΞ Further tonie passage. Δίκη is also called
references as to the employment of πολύποινος in Parmenides. vy. 14.
this verse by the Stoics, Platonists, 5. Cf. also Terpander (about
Neo-Pythagoreins and others, are 650 Bc.), Fr. 4: Zev πάντων ἀρχὰ
given by Lobeck, p. 529 sq. πάντων ἂἀγήτωρ.
‘ This theory is supported by
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES 67

imply that Zeus is himself the ideal complex(Inbegrif)

of all things.'' There is consequently no evidence that
the standpoint of the religious notion, which conceives
the gods as personal beings, side by side with the world,
has here been exchanged for that of philosophic specu-
lation, which regards them as representing the general
essence of the universe.
The case is somewhat different in regard to the
second point in question, belief in immortality. The
doctrine of metempsychosis seems really to have passed
from the theology of the mysteries into Philosophy.
Even this doctrine, however, was in all probability
originally connected, not with all, but only with the
Bacchic and Orphic mysteries. Those of Eleusis, being
sacred to the Chthonian divinities, were regarded as
specially important in their influence upon man’s future
life. The Homeric hymn to Demeter already speaks of
the great difference in the other world between the lots
of the initiated and uninitiated;? and there are later
eulogies of these mysteries, from which it is clear that
they guaranteed happiness not only in this life, but in
the life to come.* There is nothing here, however, to
imply that the souls of the initiated are to come to life
again, or that they are immortal in any other sense
than was admitted by the ordinary faith of the Greeks.
1 Even monotheism allows ex- ὄλβιος, ὃς τάδ᾽ ὕπωπεν ἐπιχθονίων
pressions such as ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων"
δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα ὃς δ᾽ ἀτελὴς ἱερῶν, ὃς τ᾽ ἔμμορος,
(Romans xi. 36)---ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν οὔποθ᾽ ὁμοίην
καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν (Apg. αἶσαν ἔχει, φθίμενός περ, ὑπὸ ζόφῳ
17, 28), without meaning by them εὐρώεντι.
that the Finite is actually merged 3. Cf. the references in Lobeck,
in Deity. i. 69 sqq.
2 y. 480 sqq.
F 2
68 INTRODUCTION.

In this world wealth and fruitful fields! were expected

from Demeter and her daughters in return for worship
rendered to them; and in a similar manner, after death,
the partakers of the mysteries were assured that they
should dwell in Hades, in closest proximity to the di-
vinities they had honoured, while the uninitiated were
threatened with being cast into a marsh.? If these
rude notions, at a later period, and among the more
educated, received a spiritual interpretation,* there is
no reason to suppose that this was so originally, or
that the initiated were promised anything in the
future except the favour of the infernal gods; the
popular opinions about Hades remained quite un-
affected by them. Even Pindar’s celebrated utterances
earry us no farther. For in saying that the partakers
of the Eleusinian mysteries know the beginning and
end of their life,t he does not assert the doctrine of
transmigration,? and though in other passages this
doctrine is undoubtedly brought forward,® it is still
1 Hymn to Ceres, 486 sqq. Civ ἐστι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοισι πάντ᾽ ἐκεῖ
2 Aristides, Eleusin. p.421 Dind. κακά,
The same is asserted of the Diony-
sian mysteries (to which perhaps 4 Thren. Fr. 8 (114 Beran):
this belief itselfmay originally have ὔλβιος, ὅστις ἰδὼν Kew’ elo ὑπὸ
been peculiar) in Aristophanes, χθόν᾽" vide μὲν βίου τελευτάν, οἷδεν
I'rogs, 145 sqq.; Plato, Phedo, 69 δὲ διόσδοτον ἀρχᾶν.
C; Gorgias, 493 A; Republic, ii. 5 For the words can only pro-
863 C; ef. Diog. vi. 4. perly mean that he who has re-
3 Thus Plato in the Phedo and ceived the consecration regards
Gorgias, and, in a lesser degree, life as a gift of God, and death as
Sophocles, in the words (in Plu- the transition to a happier state.
tarch, aud. poét. c. 4, p. 21 F): Preller’s explanation (Demeter und
Persephone, p. 236) seems to me less
ὡς τρισόλβιοι
natural.
κεῖνοι βροτῶν, οἱ ταῦτα δειχθέντες & Ol. il. 68 sqq. Thren. Fr. 4,
τέλη
and infra, p. 70, note 4.
μολοῦσ᾽ ἐς “δου τοῖσδε γὰρ μόνοις
εκεί
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 69

questionable whether the poet borrowed it from the

Eleusinian theology; and even if he did apply the
Eleusinian myths and symbols in this sense, it would not
certainly follow that such was their original meaning.!
In the Orphie theology, on the contrary, transmigra-
tion is clearly to be found, and the probabilities are
very strongly against its having come there through
the medium of the philosophers. Several writers
mention Pherecydes as the first who taught immor-
tality,2 or more precisely, transmigration;* but the
testimony of Cicero and other later authors is not suffi-
cient, in the absence of older evidence,‘ to prove this
statement. Even if we admit the probability that
Pherecydes spoke of transmigration, the assertion of his
having been the first to do so rests only on the fact
that no previous writings are known to contain that

1 The revival of dead nature ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ γίγνονται ἐκ τῶν

in the spring was considered in the τεθνεώτων.
eult of Demeter as the return of 2 Cic. Tusc.i. 16, 38, and after
souls from the under world, and him Lactentius, Jvsti¢. vii. 7, 8.
harvest was looked upon as the Augustin c. Acad. iii. 37 (17), Epist.
descent of the souls thither (vide 137. p. 407, B. Maur.
Preller, Dem. und Pers. 228 sqq. ; 3 Suidas; Φερεκύδης ; Hesychius,
Griech. Mythologie, i. 254,483); and De his qui erud. clar. p. 56, Orelli ;
this does not apply solely to the Tatian c. Grec. ο. 3, 25, according
souls of plants, to which it prima- to the obvious correction in the
rily relates, but to the souls of edition of Maurus. Cf. Porphyry,
men. At these seasons also de- Antr. Nymph. c. 31. Preller alse
parted spirits appear in the upper (Rhein. Mus. iv. 388) refers with
world. It was easy to interpret some appearance of probability
these notions as implying the en- what is quoted by Origen (6. Ceéls.
trance of human s®uls into the vi. p. 304) from Pherecydes, and
visible world from the: invisible, Themist. Or. ii. 38. a, to the doe
and their return into the invisible trine of Transmigration.
again. Cf. Plato, Phedo, 70 C: « Cf. Aristoxenus, Duris and
παλαιὸς μὲν οὖν ἔστι τις λόγος, . . Hermippus—so far as they have
ὡς εἰσὶν [ai ψυχαὶ] ἐνθένδε ἀφι- been quoted in Diog. i. 116 sqgq.
κόμεναιε ἐκεῖ καὶ πάλιν γε δεῦρο and vill. 1 sqq.
70 INTRODUCTION.

doctrine. Still more uncertain is the theory! that

Pythagoras was the first to introduce it. Heracleitus
clearly presupposes this; Philolaus expressly appeals to
the ancient theologians and soothsayers? for the theory
that souls were fettered to the body, and as it were
buried in it,as a punishment. Plato* derives the same
theory from the mysteries, and more particularly from
the Orphic mysteries; and Pindar teaches that certain
favourites of the gods are to be permitted to return
to the upper world, and that those who thrice have
led a blameless life will be sent to the islands of
the blest in the kingdom of Cronos. In this last
representation, we perceive an alteration in the doc-
trine; for whereas the return to corporeal life is else-
¥ Maximus Tyr. xvi. 2; Dio- οἷσι δὲ Φερσεφόνα ποινὰν παλαιοῦ
genes, villi. 14; Porph. v.; Pyth. πένθεος
19. . δέξεται, és τὸν ὕπερθεν ἅλιον κείνων
2 Ap. Clemens, Strom. iii. 433 ἐνάτῳ ἔτει
A, and previously ap. Cicero, Hor- ἀνδιδοῖ ψυχὰν πάλιν,
tens. Fr. 85 (iv. 6, 483 Or.) This ἐκ Tay βασιλῆες ἀγαυοὶ καὶ σθένει
passage, as well as others from ᾿ χραιπνοὶ σοφίᾳ μέγιστοι
Plato, will be quoted at length in ἄνδρες αὔξοντ᾽- ἐς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν
the section on the Pythagorean χρόνον ἥρωες ἁγνοὶ πρὸ ἀνθρώπων
Metempsychosis, infra. καλεῦνται,
3 Phedo, 62 B; Crat. 400 B.
And Ol. 11. 68, after mention of the
Cf. Phedo, 69 C, 70 C; Laws, ix.
rewards and punishments in Hades
870 D; and Lobeck, Aglaoph. 11.
795 sqq. ὅσοι δ᾽ ἐτόλμασαν eotpis
* Pindar’s eschatology follows ἑκατέρωθι μείναντες and πάμπαν
no fixed type (cf. Preller’s Demeter ἀδέκων ἔχειν
und Persephone, p. 239), while, in ψυχάν,͵ ἔτειλαν Διὸς ὁδὸν παρὰ Κρόνου
many places, he adopts the usual τύρσιν ἔνθα μακάρων
notions about Hades, in Thren. 2 νᾶσος [νᾶσον] wkeavides αὖραι περι-
it is said that after the death of ,
πνέοισιν.
the body, the soul, which alone
springs from the gods, remains Thren. Fr. 3 (109), where the
alive; and in two places transmi- wicked have the lower world, and
gration is alluded to, viz. in Thren. the righteous, heaven, assigned as
Fr. 4 (110), quoted by Plato, Meno, their dwelling-place, cannot be ac-
81 B: cepted as genuine.
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 71

where always regarded as a punishment and a means

of improvement, in Pindar it appears as a privilege
accorded only to the best, giving them an opportunity
of earning higher happiness in the islands of the blest,
instead of the inferior happiness of Hades. But this
use of the doctrine presupposes the doctrine itself, and
according to the quotations from Plato and Philolaus,
we must assume that Pindar derived it from the Orphie
mysteries. It is certainly conceivable that it might
still have reached the mysteries through Pythagoreism,
which must early have been connected with the Orphic
cult.! But the most ancient testimonies, and the Py-
thagoreans themselves, refer it solely to the mysteries;
and it is besides very doubtful whether the Pythagorean
doctrines could have been prevalent in Thebes, in the
time of Pindar,’ whereas that city is, on the other hand,
known to have been an ancient seat of the Bacchic and
Orphic religion. Lastly, the doctrine of metempsychosis
is ascribed to Pherecydes, and regarded as anterior to
Pythagoras, not ouly by the writers we have quoted,
but indirectly by all those who make Pherecydes the
teacher of Pythagoras.? We have, therefore, every
reason to believe that it was taught in the Orphic
mysteries prior to the date of Pythagoras. According
to Herodotus, the Orphics obtained it from Egypt:4
-

1 A number of Orphic writings 3 On which vide infra, Pytha-

are said to have been invented by goras and the Pythagoreans.
the Pythagoreans; vide Lobeck, * 11. 123: πρῶτον δὲ καὶ τοῦτον
Aglaoph. i. 347 sqq., and supra, τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοί εἰσι οἱ εἰπόντες,
p- 62, note. ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ ἀθάνατός ἐστι,
2 Cf. what will hereafter be τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος ἐς
said in the history of the Pythago- ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον ἐσδύεται"
rean philosophy, of the propagation ἐπεὰν δὲ περιέλθῃ πάντα τὰ χερσαῖα
of that philosophy. καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ πετεινὰ, αὖτις
72 INTRODUCTION.

but this theory either rests upon a mere conjecture

of his own, or a still more untrustworthy statement of
the Egyptian priests; as historical evidence, it is of
no value whatever. As to the real state of the case,
history tells us nothingge, and no guess that we can
make even approximates to certainty. It is possible
that Herodotus may be right in the main, and that
the belief in transmigration was really transplanted
from Egypt into Greece, either directly, or through
certain intermediaries which cannot precisely be de-
termined. But in that case, we can scarcely agree with
him in supposing the Greeks to have become acquainted
with it in the first beginnings of their culture, still less
can we connect this acquaintanceship with the mythical
personalities of Cadmus and Melampus:; the most pro-
bable assumption would then be, that the doctrine had
been introduced into Greece not very long before the
date when we first meet with it in Greek writings—
perhaps, therefore, about the seventbontlr century.
But it is also conceivable that this belief, the affinity
of which with Hindoo and Egyptian doctrines indicates
an Eastern source, may have originally immigrated
from the East with the Greeks themselves, and have
been at first confined to a narrow circle, becoming after-
wards more important and more widely diffused. It
ἐς ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνειν" Herodotus thought (according to
τὴν περιήλυσιν δὲ αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν ch. 49) that Melampus had intro-
τρισχιλίοισι ἔτεσι. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ duced the cult of Dionysus, which
εἰσὶ οἱ “Ελλήνων ἐχρήσαντο, οἱ μὲν he had learned from Cadmus and
πρότερον οἱ δὲ ὕστερον, ὡς ἰδίῳ his followers,into Greece ; but, on
ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι. τῶν ἔγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ the other hand, in C. 53, he inti-
οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω. Cf. ὁ. 81: mates that he considers the Orphic
τοῖσι ᾿Ορφικοῖσι καλεομένοισι καὶ poems more recent than Homer
Βακχικοῖσι, οὖσι δὲ Αἰγυπτίοισι. and Hesiod.
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES. 73

might be urged, in support of this view, that similar

notions have been found among races which never in
any way came under Egyptian influence.! Nor can we
altogether dispute the possibility of different nations,
without any historical connection, having arrived at
the same opinions concerning a future state. Even so
strange a theory as transmigration seems to us may
thus have been reached in several cases independently
one of the other. For if the natural desire to escape
death engenders a universal belief in immortality, a
bolder fancy, in nations not yet capable of spiritual ab-
straction, might well shape this desire and belief into
the hope and expectation of a return to earthly life. ?
1 According to Herodotus, iv. 14, in primis hoc volunt persuadere
94 sq., the Thracian Gete believed (Druides) non interire animas, sed
that the dead came to the god Zal- αὖ aliis post mortem transire ad
moxis or Gebeleizin; and every alios. Diodor. v. 28, sub fin. : ἐνισχύει
five years they sent a messenger to γὰρ map αὐτοῖς 6 Πυθαγόρου λόγος,
this god by means of a special hu- ὅτι τὰς Ψυχὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀθα-
man sacrifice, entrusted with com- νάτους εἶναι συμβέβηκε καὶ δι᾿ ἐτῶν
munications to their departed ὡρισμένων πάλιν βιοῦν, εἰς ἕτερον
friends. That the theory of trans- σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς εἰσδυομένης. On
migration was involved in this this account many persons, adds Dio-
cannot be deduced from the state- dorus, place letters to their friends
ment of the Greeks of the Helles- on the funeral pile. So Ammian.
pont, that Zalmoxis was a scholar Mare. xv. 9, sub fin.
of Pythagoras, who had taught the 2 If the soul is conceived as a
belief in immortality to the Thra- breath-like essence which dwells in
cians. Herodotus says that it was the body, and leaves it after death
the custom of another Thracian according to the opinion of the
tribe (Her. ν. 4) to bewail the ancients, and especially of the
newly born, and to praise the dead Greeks, the question inevitably
as happy; because the former are arises whence this essence comes,
about to encounter the ills of life, and whither it goes. For answer
whiie the latter have escaped from to this question, a child-like imagi-
them. But this custom proves nition is most easily satisfied with
even less than the other in regard to the simple notion that there is a
metempsychosis. The Gauls, how- place, invisible to us, in which the
ever, are said to have believed, not departed souls remain, and from
only in immortality, but also in which the newly born come forth.
transmigration: Cesar, B. Gall. vi. And we do, in faet, find in many
74 INTRODUCTION.

However this may be, it appears certain, that

among the Greeks the doctrine of transmigration came
not from the philosophers to the priests, but from the
priests to the philosophers. Meantime it is a question
whether its philosophic importance in antiquity was
very great. It is found, indeed, with Pythagoras and
his school, and Empedocles is in this respect allied with
them; a higher life after death is also spoken of by
Heracleitus. But none of these philosophers brought
the doctrine into such a connection with their scientifie
theories as to make it an essential constituent of their
philosophic system: it stands with them all for a self-
dependent dogma side by side with their scientific
theory, in which no lacuna would be discoverable if it
were removed. A philosophic basis was first given to
the belief in immortality by Plato; and it would be
hard to maintain that he would not have arrived at it
without the assistance of the myths which he employed
for its exposition.
From all that has now been said, it would appear
that Greek Philosophy in regard to its origin was no
more indebted to the religion of the mysteries than to
the public religion. The views of nature which were
-contained in the mysteries may have given an impulse
to thought ; the idea that all men need religious con-
secration and purification may have led to deeper study
of the moral nature and character of man; but as

different nations, not merely the this there is but a step to the
belief in a kingdom of the dead, theory that the same souls which
but the idea that souls return to previously inhabited a body should
the body from the lower regions of afterwards euter another body.
the earth or from heaven. From
 THE RELIGION OF THE MYSTERIES, 75

scientific instruction was not originally contemplated

in the tales and practices of the mystic cult, any
philosophic exposition of these presupposed that the
expositor had already attained the philosophic stand-
point; and as the mysteries were after all only made
up of general perceptions and experiences accessible to
everyone, a hundred other things could really perform
for Philosophy the same service that they did. Philo-
sophy did not require the myth of Kore and Demeter
to reveal the alternation of natural conditions, the
passage from death to life and from life to death; daily
observation sufficed for the acquisition of this know-
ledge. The necessity of moral purity, and the advan-
tages of piety and virtue, needed not to be proclaimed
by the glowing descriptions of the priests concerning
the happiness of the initiated and the misery of the
profane. These conceptions were immediately con-
tained in the moral consciousness of the Greeks.
Nevertheless, the mysteries were by no means without
importance in regard to Philosophy, as the results of
our enquiry have shown. But their importance is not
‘so great, nor their influence so direct, as has often been
imagined.

δ Ill.—The Nutive Sources of Greek Philosophy continued.

MORAL LIFE, CIVIL AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS.

Tue ideality of the Greek religion finds its counter-

part in the freedom and beauty of Greek life; it is
impossible to regard either of these characteristics,
strictly speaking, as the ground or consequence of the
76 INTRODUCTION.

other; they grew up side by side, mutually requiring

and sustaining one another, out of the same natural
temperament and under the same favourable conditions.
As the Greek reverenced in his gods the natural and
moral order of the world, without therefore renouncing
in regard to them his own value and freedom, so Greek
morality stands in a happy mean between the lawless
license of barbarous and semi-barbarous races and the
slavish obedience which subjects the peoples of the
East to the will of another and to a temporal and
spiritual despotism. A strong feeling of liberty, and
at the same time a rare susceptibility to measure, form,
and order; a lively sense of community in existence
and action; a social impulse which made it an absolute
necessity for the individual to ally himself to others, |‘
to subordinate himselt to the common will, to follow
the tradition of his family and his country—these
qualities, so essential in the Hellenes, produced in the
limited area of the Greek states a full, free and
harmonious life, such as no other nation of antiquity
can exhibit. The very narrowness of the sphere in
which their moral perceptions moved was in itself
favourable to this result. As the individual knew that
he was free and had a right to protection only as being
a citizen of this or that state, and as, in the same way,
his relation to others was determined by their relation
to the state to which he belonged, every one from the
beginning had his problem clearly marked out for him.
The maintaining and extension of his civil importance,
the fulfilment of his civil duties, work for the freedom
and greatness of his people, obedience to the laws,—
 GREEK POLITICAL LIFE. 77

these constituted the simple end which the Greek

definitely proposed to himself, and in the pursuit of
which he was all the less disturbed because his glances
and endeavours seldom strayed beyond the limits of
his home, because he excluded the idea of seeking the
tule of his actions elsewhere than in the laws and
customs of his state, because he dispensed with all the
reflections by which the man of modern times labours
to reconcile, on the one side, his individual interests
and natural rights with the interest and laws of the
commonwealth, and, on the other, his patriotism with
the claims of a cosmopolitan morality and religion.
We cannot, indeed, regard this narrow conception of
moral problems us the highest possible conception, nor
can we conceal from ourselves how closely the dismem-
berment of Greece, the consuming disquiet of its civil
wars and party struggles, not to speak of slavery and
the neglect of female education, were connected with
this narrowness; but our eyes must not therefore be
closed to the fact that on this soil and from these
presuppositions a freedom and culture arose which
give to the Greeks their unique place in history. It is
easy also to see how deeply and essentially Philosophy
was rooted in the freedom and order of the Greek state.
There was not, indeed, any immediate connection be-
tween them. Philosophy in Greece was always the
private concern of individuals, states only troubled
themselves about it in so far as they interfered with
all doctrines morally and politically dangerous; it
received no positive encouragement or support from
cities and princes until a late period, when it had long
 78 INTRODUCTION.

passed beyond the highest point of its development.

Nor was public education concerned with philosophy,
or science of any kind. At Athens, even in the time
of Pericles, it scarcely included the first rudiments of
what we should call scientific culture; nothing was
attempted beyond reading, writing, and a certain
amount of arithmetic: history, mathematics, physics,
the study of foreign languages, and so forth, were
altogether ignored. The philosophers themselves, and
especially the Sophists, were the first to induce certain
individuals to seek for wider instruction, which, how-
ever, was even then restricted almost exclusively to
rhetoric. Besides the above-mentioned elementary +
arts, ordinary education consisted entirely of music and
gymnastics; and music was primarily concerned, not
so much with intellectual training as with proficiency
in the Homeric and Hesiodic poems, and the popular
songs, singing, playing on stringed instruments, and
dancing. But this education formed complete and
vigorous men, and the subsequent discipline of public
life engendered such self-confidence, demanded such
an exercise of all the powers, such acute observation
and intelligent judgment of persons and circumstances,
above all, such energy and worldly prudence, as must
necessarily have borne important fruit to science when-
ever the scientific need arose. That it could not fail
to arise was certain; for in the harmonious many-
sidedness of the Greek character, the development of
moral and political reflection called forth a correspond-
ing and natural development of speculative thought;
and not a few of the Greek cities had attained, by
 GREEK EDUCATION. 79

means of civil liberty, a degree of prosperity which

ensured leisure for scientific activity to some at least
of their citizens. Although, therefore, in ancient times,
the political life and. education of the Greeks had
no direct concern with Philosophy; and although,
on the other hand, the earliest Philosophy, as a rule,
neglected ethical and political questions, yet the train-
ing of men and the fact that circumstances took the
form required for the production of Philosophy were
important elements in its history. Freedom and
severity of thought were the natural fruits of a free
and law-directed life; and the sound and sterling
characters which grew up on the classic soil of Greece
could not fail, even in science, to adopt their standpoint
with decision, and to maintain it clearly and definitely,
with full and unwavering purpose.’
Lastly, it was one of the chief excellences of Greek
education that it did not split up human nature, but,
by the even development of all the powers of man,
sought to make of him a beautiful whole, a moral work
of art. This trait we may venture to connect with the
fact that Greek science, especially in its commencement,
chose the path that is indeed generally taken by thought
in its infancy—the path downward from above; that it
did not form a theory of the whole from the aggrega-
! This intimate connection of Parmenides gave laws to his native
politics with philosophy is strik- city, and that Zeno perished in his
ingly shown by the fact that many attempt to free his countrymen.
of the ancient philosophers were Empedocles restored democracy in
distinguished as statesmen, legis- Agrigentum; Archytas was no less
lators, poltical reformers and great as a general than as a states-
generals. The political activity of man; and Melissus is probably
Thales and of the Pythagoreans is the same person who vanquished
well known. We are told that the Athenian fleet.
 80 INTRODUCTION.

tion of individuals, but sought to gain a standard for

the individual from the study of the whole, and at once
to shape a collective representation from the existing
| fragments of cosmical knowledge; that philosophy in
Greece preceded the particular sciences.
If we examine somewhat more closely the circum-
stances which conditioned the progress of Greek culture
before the appearance of philosophy, two phenomena
especially claim our attention: these are the republican
form of the government, and the spread of the Greek
races by colonisation. The centuries which immedi-
ately preceded the earliest Greek Philosophy, and those
which partly coincided with it, are the times of the
legislators and of the tyrants, of the transition to those
constitutional forms of government on the soil of which
Greek political life attained its highest perfection.
When the patriarchal monarchy of the Homeric period,
in consequence of the Trojan war and the Doric migra-
tion, and through the extinction, disqualification or
banishment of the ancient royal houses, had entirely
given place to oligarchy, the aristocracy became the
means of spreading freedom and higher culture through-
out the smaller circle of the ruling families. After-
wards when the oppressions and internal deterioration
of these families had evoked the resistance of the
masses, the popular leaders came mostly from the ranks
of their hitherto masters, and these demagogues almost
everywhere eventually became tyrants. But as the
government by a single person, because of its very
origin, found its chief adversary in the aristocracy, and,
as a counterpoise, was forced to fall back for support
 POLITICAL LIFE OF THE GREEKS. 81

upon the people, it became itself a means of training

and educating the people to freedom. The courts of
the tyrants were centres of art and culture;! and when
their rule was overthrown, which generally happened in
the course of one or two generations, their inheritance
of power did not revert to the earlier aristocracy, but to
moderate constitutions founded on fixed laws. This
course of things was as favourable to the scientific as to
the political training of the Greeks. In the efforts and
struggles of this political movement, all the powers
which public life brought to science must have been
aroused and employed, and the feeling of youthful
liberty imparted to the spirit of the Greek people a
stimulus which must needs have affected their specula-
tive activity. Thus the laying of the foundations of
the scientific and artistic glory of Greece was eagerly
carried on side by side with the transformation of her
political circumstances; a connection of phenomena
which is very striking, and which shows that among the
Greeks, as among all healthy nations, culture has been
the fruit of liberty.
This general revolution was effected more quickly
in the colonies than in the mother country; and the
existence of these colonies was of the highest importance
in regard to it. During the 500 years which elapsed
between the Doric conquests and the rise of Greek
Philosophy, the Greek races had spread themselves, by
means of organised emigration, on all sides. The islands
' For example, those of Peri- wise men, there is no tradition of
ander, Polycrates, Pisistratus,and the philosophers being connected
his sons. But, excepting the story with tyrants before the appearance
of Periander’s relation totheseven of the Sophists.
VOL. I. G
82 INTRODUCTION.

of the Archipelago, as far as Crete and Rhodes; the

western and northern coasts of Asia Minor; the shores
of the Black Sea, and the Propontis; the coasts of
Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria; of Magna Grecia and
Sicily, were covered with hundreds of settlements;
Greek colonists had penetrated even to distant Gaul,
to Cyrene, and to Egypt. Most of these settlements
attained to prosperity, culture, and free constitutions,
sooner than the states from which they emanated. Not
only did the very disruption from. their native soil pro-
duce a freer movement, and a different organisation of
civil society, but their whole situation was much more
convenient for trade and commerce, for enterprising
activity, and for all kinds of intercourse with strangers
than was the case with the cities of Greece proper; it
was therefore natural that in many respects they should
outstrip the older states. How greatly they did so, and
how important the rapid growth of the colonies was in
regard to the development of Greek Philosophy, is best
seen from the fact that all the Greek philosophers of
note before Socrates, one or two Sophists only excepted,
belonged either to the Ionian and Thracian colonies, or
to those in Italy and Sicily. Here at the limits of the
Hellenic world were the chief settlements of a higher
culture, and as the immortal poems of Homer were a
gift from the Greeks of Asia Minor to their native
country, so also Philosophy came from the east and west
to the centre of Greek life; there to attain its highest
perfection, favoured by a happy combination of all
forces, and a coincidence of all necessary conditions,
at an epoch when, for most of the colonies, the
 COSMOLOGY. 83

brightest period of their history had aria away be-

yond recall.
How thought gradually developed itself under these
circumstances up to the point at which the earliest
scientific endeavours, in the strict sense of the word,
were made, we learn to some extent from the still
existing records of early cosmology and ethics, though
our information from these sources is far from being
complete.

§ IV.— Native Sources of Greek Philosophy continued.

COSMOLOGY.

In a people so richly endowed as the Greeks, and so

eminently favoured by circumstances in regard to their
intellectual development, reflection must soon have
been awakened, and attention directed to the pheno-
mena of nature and of human life; and attempts must
early have been made, not merely to explain the external
world in reference to its origin and causes, but also to
consider the activities and conditions of mankind from
more general points of view. This reflection was not,
indeed, at first of a specifically scientific kind, for it
was not as yet regulated by the thought of any general
interdependence of things according to fixed law. Cos-
mology, until the time of Thales, and, so far as it allied
itself with religion, even longer, retained the form of
a mythological narrative; Ethics, until the time of
Socrates and Plato, that of aphoristic reflection. The
fortuitous, and sometimes even miraculous, interference
of imaginary beings took the place of the interdepen-
9 2
84 INTRODUCTION.

dence of nature ;instead of one central theory of human

life, we find a number of moral sayings and prudential
maxims, which, abstracted from various experiences, not
unfrequently contradicted one another, and, at the best,
were reduced to no general principles and brought into
no scientific connection with any theory of human
nature. Though it would be a mistake to overlook this
distinction, and to place either the mythic cosmologists
or the gnomic poets in the number of the philosophers,"
as has been done by some writers, both ancient and
modern, yet we ought not, on the other hand, to under-
rate the importance of these early attempts, for they
were at least useful in calling attention to the questions
which science had first to consider, and in accustoming
thought to combine particular phenomena under general
points of view; and thus a good deal was done towards
a beginning of science.
The most ancient record of mythic cosmology
among the Greeks is the Theogony of Hesiod. How
much of this work is derived from still more ancient
tradition, and how much is invented by the poet him-
self and his later revisers, cannot now be discovered
with certainty, nor is this the place to enquire. It is

1 As was certainly done in the ally addicted to representing the

most flourishing period of Greek ancient poets as the earliest philo-
Philosophy by the Sophists and by sophers, by the allegorical inter-
the adherents of systems of natural pretation of their writings ; and in
Philosophy. Plato is evidence of the Neo-Platonists this practice ν

the former in Prot. 316 Ὁ, ef. ibid. passed all bounds. Tiedemann was
338 E sqq.; and of the latter there the first to declare Thales the
is mention in Crat. 402 B; and starting-point of Philosophy, vide /
also in Aristotle, Metaph. 1. 3,983 Ὁ, his Geist der speculativen Philoso-)
27 (cf. Schwegler on this passage). phie, i. Preface, p. xviii. .
The Stoics afterwar ds were especi-
 COSMOLOGY. HESIOD. 85

enough for our purpose to observe that the Theogony,

with the exception of a few subsequent interpolations,
was undoubtedly known to the earliest philosophers in
its present form.' We find in it nothing approaching
to a scientific apprehension or solution of the cosmo-
logical problem. The poet proposes to himself the
question from which ajl cosmogonies and histories of
creation start, and which, indeed, obviously suggests
itself even to the most undisciplined intellect,—the
question as to the origin and causes of all things. But
in the Theogony this question has not the scientific
importance of an enquiry into the essence and reasons
of phenomena. With childlike curiosity the poet asks:
Who made all things? and how did He make them?
and the answer simply consists in positing as the first
being something that cannot be explained away by
thought, and making the rest originate from this by
means of some analogy drawn from experience. Now
experience points out two kinds of origin. Al that
we see either forms itself naturally, or else is made
with a design by definite individuals. In the former
case production takes place by the action of the ele-
ments, by growth, or by generation; in the latter,
either mechanically by the elaboration of some given
material, or dynamically, as we work upon other men

1 Cf. Petersen (Ursprung und shall hereafter consider) and the

Alter der Hesiod: Theog. (Progr.der remarkable utterance of Herodotus,
Hamburgischen Gymn.), 1862), who ii. 53, are decided evidence against
seems to me to have proved at any the supposition that the Theogony
rate this much, whatever we may is no older than the sixth century ;
think of his other theories. The the general character of its con-
polemic of Xenophanes and Hera- ceptions and language, however,
cleitus against Hesiod (which we attest this even more strongly.
80 INTRODUCTION.

by the mere expression of our will. All these analogies

are applied, in the cosmogonies of different nations,
to the origin of the world and of the gods; as a rule,
several of them at once, according to the nature of
the object in question. To the Greeks the analogy
of generation must have been the most obvious, be-
cause, in accordance with the particular bent of their
imagination, they had personified the various parts of
the world as beings akin to humanity, whose origin
could be represented in no other way. Im any case
they must have kept to an analogy drawn from nature,
for Greek thought was too naturalistic and polytheistic
to maintain, like the Zoroastrian and Judaic religions,
that everything had been called into existence by the
mere fiat of a creator. In Greek mythology the gods
themselves were created, and the deities worshipped by
the people belong altogether to a younger race of gods ;
there is, therefore, no divinity who can be regarded as
the first cause of all things, without beginning, and who
possesses absolute power over nature. So in Hesiod it
is the genesis of the gods on which his whole cosmogony
turns. Most of these genealogies, and the myths con-
nected with them, are nothing more than the expression
of simple perceptions, or picture-thoughts, of the kind
that imagination everywhere produces when the know-
ledge of nature is in its infancy. Erebus and Nyx are
the parents of A%ther and Hemera, for day in its
brightness is the son of night and darkness. The earth
brings forth the sea of herself alone, and rivers in her
union with the sky; for the sources of streams are fed
by the rain, while the ocean appears to be a mass of
 COSMOLOGY. HESIOD. 87

water which has been from the beginning in the depths

of the earth. Uranus-is emasculated by Cronos, for the
sun-heat of harvest time puts an end to the fertilising
showers of the sky. Aphrodite springs from the seed
of Uranus, for the rain in spring awakens the genera-
tive impulse of nature. The Cyclopes, Hecatonchires
and giants, the Echidna and Typhceus are children of t
Gea; other monsters are the progeny of night or of
the waters, partly because of their originally -physical |
import, partly because what is monstrous cannot spring
from the bright heavenly gods, but only from darkness
and the unfathomable deep. The sons of Gea, the
Titans, were overthrown by the Olympians; for as the
light of heaven subdues the mists of earth, so the all-
ordering Deity has bound the wild forces of nature.
The thought contained in these myths is very limited;
whatever in them transcends the most obvious per-
ceptions is the result, not of reflection concerning the
natural causes of things, but of an activity of fancy
from which, even when it produces something really
significant, we must be careful not to expect too much.
Even in the combination of these myths, which is
principally, no doubt, the work of the poet, we fail to
discover any leading thought of deeper import.!' The
1 Brandis (Geschichte der tion of the higher principle. But
Griech-Rom. Phil. i. 75) finds not these thoughts are much too ab-
merely in the beginning of the stract to admit of our seeking in
Theogony, but also in the myths them the motive of the mythopeic
of the dethronement of Uranus, and fancy. The poet does not seem to
the conflict of the sons of Cronos have been influenced by any specu-
with their father and the Titans, lative idea even in the arrangement
the doctrine that the determinate of these myths ; the three genera-
proceeds from the indeterminate, tions of the gods merely form the
and that there is a gradual evolu- thread on which he strings his
88 INTRODUCTION.

passage in the Theogony which sounds most like a

philosophic conception of nature, and was almost the
only passage employed by the ancient philosophers in
that sense,! is the commencement of the poem (v. 116
sqq.). Chaos was the first to exist, then came Earth
(with the abyss, or Tartarus) and Eros. Of Chaos were
born Erebus and Night; Earth first brought forth of
herself the sky, the mountains, and the sea; then in
marriage with the sky she produced the progenitors of
the different families of gods, except the few that are
derived from Erebus and Night. This representation
certainly attempts to get at some notion of the world’s
origin, and we may so far consider it as the beginning
of cosmology among the Greeks; but as a whole it is
very crude and imperfect. The poet asks himself what
was really the first of all things, and he finally abides by
the Earth as the immovable basis of the Cosmos. Out-
side the Earth was nothing but gloomy night, for the
luminaries of heaven were not as yet in existence.
Erebus and Night are therefore as old as the Earth. In
order that another should be produced from this first one,
the generative impulse or Eros must have existed from
the beginning. Such then are the causes of all things.
If we exclude all these beings from our thought, there
remains for the imagination only the idea of infinite
space, which at this stage of culture it does not con-
ceive in an abstract manner as empty mathematical
space, but concretely as an immeasurable, waste and

genealogies, and by which he con- the edition of Hesiod of Gaisford-

nects them together externally. Reiz, verse 116.
1 Proof of this will be found in
 COSMOLOGY. HESIOD. 89

formless mass. The first of all things, therefore, in

reality is Chaos. In some such way as this perhaps the
foregoing theory of the beginning of the world may
have arisen in the mind of its author.’ It is founded,
indeed, upon a desire for enquiry, an endeavour to
attain clear and coherent notions, but the interest
’ which rules it is that of the imagination rather than
that of thought. No question is asked concerning the
essence and general causes of things, the problem is
merely how to learn something about the actual facts
relating to the primitive condition of the world and to
its ulterior developments; and in the solution of this
problem, we naturally find that the poet is guided by
the intuitions of his imagination, and not by intelli-
gent refiection. The commencement of the Theogony
is, considering its date, a thoughtful and pregnant
myth, but it is not as yet a philosophy.
The next writer after Hesiod of whose cosmology we
know anything at all definite is Pherecydes of Syros,*
1 Whether this author or some plain this circumstance as showing
older poet was the composer of the that the myths subsequently intro-
Theogony is, as has already been duced belonged to the older tra-
observed, of little importance. dition, and the opening verses
Brandis (Gesch. der Gr.-Rém. Phil. to the author of the Theogony
i. 74) supports the latter theory. itself.
It is unlikely, he says, that the ? For his life, age, and writings,
poet, had he invented the myth of ef. Sturz, Pherecydis Fragmenta, p.
Tartarus as one of the first princi- 1 sqq. Preller in the Rhein. Mus.
ples of the world, or of Eros as the iv. (1846) 377 sqq. Allgem. En-
creative principle, would have made eyclop. of Ersch and Gruber, iii.
no further use of them in his Cos- 22, 240 sqq. Art. Pherecydes, Zim-
mology. But not to speak of the mermann in Fichte’s Zeitschrift fir
doubtful origin of the 119th verse, Philosophie, &c. xxiv. B, 2 H.S.161
which mentions Tartarus, but sqq. (reprinted in Zimmermann’s
which is wanting in Plato (Symp. Studien. Vienna, 1870, p. 1 sqq.).
178 B), and Aristotle (Metaph. i.4, This last, however, credits the old
984 b, 27), I should rather ex- mythographer with much that is
90 INTRODUCTION.

᾿ἃ contemporary of Anaximander;! in later story a mira-

culous person like Pythagoras.? In a work, the title
of which is variously given, he says that there existed
before all things, and from eternity, Zeus, Chronos, and
Chthon.? By Chthon he seems to have understood the
alien to him. Conrad, De Pherecy- 2 Cf. the anecdotes in Diog. i.
dis Syrii etate atque cosmologia. 116 sq.
Coblenz, 1857. 3 The commencement of this
1 He is described as such by work, in Diog. i. 119 (cf. Damas-
Diogenes, i. 121, and Eusebius, cius, De Princ. p. 384; and Con-
Chron. 60 Ol. The former, probably rad, p. 17, 21) was as follows:
following Apollodorus, places his Ζεὺς μὲν καὶ Χρόνος ἐς ἀεὶ καὶ Χθὼν
most flourishing period in the 59th ἦν. Χθονίῃ δὲ ὄνομα ἐγένετο TH,
Olympiad (540 B.c.), and the latter ἐπειδὴ αὐτῇ Ζεὺς γέρας διδοῖ. By
in the 60th Olympiad. Suidas γέρας we cannot, with Tiedemann
(epex.) in a very obscure passage (Griechenlands erste Philosophen,
fixes his birth in ΟἹ. 45 (600-596 172), Sturz (loc. cit. p. 45) and
B.c.). His age is given by the others, understand motion; nor
Pseudo-Lucian (Macrob. 22, a pas- with Brandis the original qualita-
sage where he certainly seems to tive determination, for this latter
be meant) as 85. Neither ofthese is far too abstract a conception for
statements, however, is altogether Pherecydes, and he can hardly have
trustworthy,though perhaps neither regarded the earth as moved.
is far from the truth; and there Neither interpretation, in fact, can
are besides other reasons against be got out of the word; what it
our drawing any such definite con- means is: Since Zeus conferred
clusion as Conrad, who thus sums honour upon her. We may either
up (p. 14) his careful discussion of understand by this honour, what
this question: Pherecydes was always seems to me the most pro-
born in the 45th Olympiad or bable, the adornment of her surface,
shortly before, and died, ‘ octogena- mentioned immediately after (the
rius fere, towards the end of the garment with which Zeus covered
62nd Olympiad. (Between Ol. 45, the earth); or else, with Conrad,p.
1, to 62, 4, moreover, there are only 82, the honour of her union with
71-72 years.) Nor does the asser- Zeus, by which the Earth became
tion that Pythagoras tended him in the mother of many gods (p. 74, 2).
his last illness help us at all, partly Pherecydes means to derive the
because it is itself very untrust- name γῆ from γέρας. This cireum-
worthy, and partly because this stance of itself forbids the substi-
occurrence is placed by some before tution of πέρας for γέρας, proposed
Pythagoras’ emigration to Italy, by Rose, De Arist. libr. ord. 74;
and by others in the last period of but the sense we should get by this
his life. Cf. Porph. Vita Pythag. change is, in my opinion, very un-
455 sq.; Iamb. Vita Pythag. 184, satisfactory.
252; Diog. vill. 40,
 COSMOLOGY. PHERECYDES. 91

earth ; by Chronos, or Cronos,! that part of heaven

nearest the earth, and the deity ruling it ;* by Zeus, the
highest god, disposing and forming the whole universe,
and himself at the same time the highest heaven.’
1 So he is called by Hermias presented in the mythus of Uranus
(Irrisio, c. 12), who expressly says as the seed of the god of heaven ;
that Κρόνος is the same as Χρόνος. that Chronos, according to this
In Damascius, on the contrary, original import, was not the god of
where Conrad, p. 21, also reads Time in abstracto, but the god of
Κρόνον, I find in the manuscripts no the warm season, of the time of
other reading than Χρόνον. harvest, of the sun-heat (Preller,
2 By the Cronos of Pherecydes Griech. Mythol. i. 42 sq.), and, as
is generally understood Time—so such, was a god of heaven—that he
Hermias loc. cit. and Probus on
-.-“ἰτἷτῷ was so regarded by the Pythago-
Virgil’s Eclogues, vi. 31. Phere- reans when they identified the
eydes himself indicates this signifi- vault of heaven with Χρόνος, and
eation when he puts Χρόνος instead called the sea the tears of Chronos
of Κρόνος. Yet itis scarcely credi- (vide infra, Pythagorean system)—
ble that so ancient athinker should if we consider all this, the opinion
have placed the abstract conception given above, concerning which even
of Time among the primitive Conrad’s (p. 22) and Brandis’s
causes ; and Cronos, in fact, ap- adverse judgment (Gesch. der Entw.
pears as a much more concrete na- der Griech. Phil. i. 59) have not
ture when it is told of him (vide shaken me, will appear to have far
infra) that he created from his seed the most probability in its favour.
fire, wind and water, and that he 3 To Zeus, as the divine creator
was the leader of the gods in the of the universe, the passage in Aris-
conflict with Ophioneus. Thatthis totle’s Metaphysics, xiv. 4, 1091 Ὁ,
only means that in course of time 8, refers: of ye μεμιγμένοι αὐτῶν
fire, wind and water arose, and that (scil. τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν) καὶ τῷ
in course of time Ophioneus was μὴ μυθικῶς ἅπαντα λέγειν, οἷον
conquered, I cannot believe. Ifthe Φερεκύδης καὶ ἕτεροί τινες, τὸ
gods at strife with Ophioneus re- γεννῆσαν πρῶτον ἄριστον τιθέασι.
present certain powers of nature, As the notion of Zeus as god of
Cronos, their leader, must be heaven is based upon the idea of
something more real than merely the sky itself, and as the gods of
Time; and if fire, wind and water Pherecydes generally represent at
were formed from the seed of Chro- the same time certain parts of the
nos, this seed must be conceived world, we may assume that he did
as a material substance, and Chro- not discriminate the world-creating
nos must consequently represent a power, which he calls Zeus, from
certain part, or certain constituents, the upper portion ofthesky. The
of the world. Ifwe consider that assertion of Hermias and Probas
fire, wind and water are formed in (loc. cit.) that by Zeus he under-
the atmosphere during tempests, stood AAther, and of Probus (lve.
and that the fertilising rain is re- cit.) that he understood fire, show
 92 INTRODUCTION.
ν

Chronos produces from his seed fire, wind and water;

the three primal beings then beget numerous other gods
in five families. When Zeus, in order that he might
fashion the world,? had changed himself into Eros (who,
according to the ancient theory, must be the world-
that we are here concerned with an at five. Conrad’s modification also
interpretation of the Stoics, and of this interpretation, by which
not with an original and authentic the five μυχοὶ are made to signify
text. That Hermias should reduce the five layers, cireumfolding each
/Ether and Earth to the ποιοῦν and other, of earth, water, air, fire and
πάσχον is also entirely in harmony eether (loc. cit. p. 35), attributes to
with the Stoic point of view. Cf. Pherecydes, as it appears to me, a
Zeller, Phil. der Gr. Part III. a, 119, view of the world that is too scien-
second edition. tific and too similar to Aristotle’s ;
1 Damascius, loc. cit.: τὸν δὲ the theory, especially, of a fiery
Χρόνον ποιῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ γόνου ἑαυτοῦ sphere invisible to us, and the pre-
πῦρ καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ ὕδωρ, .. . ἐξ cise discrimination of ether from
ὧν ἐν πέντε μυχοῖς διῃρημένων fire and air, is, according to all
πολλὴν γενεὰν συστῆναι θεῶν, τὴν other traces of it, much later. It
πεντέμυχον καλουμένην. To the would be more reasonable to sup-
same μυχοί (as Brandis thinks, p. pose that Pherecydes distinguished
81) the statement of Porphyry Olympic gods, fire-gods, wind-gods,
perhaps refers (De antro nymph. water-gods and earth-gods. Suidas
e. 31), according to which Phere- says that the work of Pherecydes
eydes mentions μυχοὺς καὶ βόθρους was named ἑπτάμυχος, from the
καὶ ἄντρα καὶ θύρας καὶ πύλας; μυχοί. Preller (Rh. Mus. 378)
though Porphyry himself sees in conjectures instead mevréuvxos.
them the γενέσεις καὶ ἀπογενέσεις Conrad (p. 35) adds to the above-
ψυχῶν. Preller (Rk. Mus. 382, mentioned five μυχοὶ the two divi-
Encycl.243) thinks that Pherecydes sions of the lower world, Hades and
here intends to speak offive admix- Tartarus. It is supposed(though this
tures, in various proportions, of the is not quite clear from Origen, C.
elementary substances
( A&ther, Fire. Cels. vi. 42) that Pherecydes him-
Air, Water, Earth), in each of self distinguished Hades and Tar-
which one of these elementary sub- tarus. Nothing certain, however, -
stances predominates. Itseems to can be made out on the subject.
me, however, very hazardousto as- Plato, in Soph. 242 C: ὁ μὲν (μῦον
eribe to the ancient philosopher of διηγεῖται) ὡς τρία τὰ ὄντα, πολεμεῖ
Syra a theory of the Elements in δὲ ἀλλήλοις ἐνίοτε αὐτῶν ἄττα πή,
the sense of Empedocles or Aris- τοτὲ δὲ καὶ φίλα γιγνόμενα γάμους
totle (a theory which - presupposes τε καὶ τόκους καὶ τρυφὰς -τῶν
a far more developed stage of phi- ἐκγόνων παρεχεται, doubtless refers
losophie reflection), or to believe to the exposition we have been
that he anticipated Philolaus in considering.
fixing the number of these elements 2 Proclus in Tim. 156 A.
 COSMOLOGY. PHERECYDES. 99

forming force), he made, we are told, ἃ great robe, on

which he embroidered the earth and Ogenos (Oceanos),
and the chambers of Ogenos; he spread this robe over
an oak upborne by wings ' (ὑπόπτερος), that is, he
clothed the framework of earth floating in space? with
the varied surface of land and ocean.? Ophioneus, with
1 His words in Clemens, Strom. tends Chaos, the primitive matter,
vi. 621 A, run thus: Zas ποιεῖ which contains all matters, except
φᾶρος μέγα Te Kai καλόν" Kal ἐν ether, in itself. Out of this,
αὐτῷ ποικίλλει γῆν καὶ ὠγηνὸν καὶ through the working of Zeus or
τὰ ὠγηνοῦ δώματα. In reference Ether, the elemental matters
to this, Clemens (642 A) says: 7 earth, water, air, and fire were
ὑπόπτερος δρῦς καὶ τὸ én αὐτῇ made; and the earth itself when
πεποικιλμένον φᾶρος. separated from the primitive matter
2 The wings in this case denote was called X@ovin, as distinguished
ouly free suspension, not swift from Χθών. But the words quoted
motion. from Diog. p.-72, 3, already ex-
3 Conrad opposes the above clude such a theory; for who would
explanation on twoaccounts. First infer from the mere interchange
he agrees (p. 40) with Sturz (p. 51), between Χθὼν and X@ovin that
that the winged oak is not merely in the one case we are concerned
the framework of the earth, but of with the mixture of all substances,
the whole universe, and that the and in the other with the earth
woof spread over the oak is the sky. which resulted from this mixture ?
Against this, I can only repeat Damascius, whom we have no right
what I have already, in the second to charge with error in this matter,
edition of this work, replied to expressly mentions Ζεὺς, Χρόνος and
Sturz, that the tissue on which X@ovia as the three first principles
land and sea are embroidered (this of Phereeydes (De prince. c. 124, p.
alone can be meant by the words 384). Again, when Pherecydes,
ἐν αὐτῷ ποικίλλει; and Clemens according to Damascius, says that
also calls the φάρος itself πεποι- fire, air and water were made by
κιλμένον) cannot signify the sky. Chronos ἐκ τοῦ γόνου ἑαυτοῦ, how
It would be easier to understand can it be maintained that Zeus
it as ‘the visible things that en- separated them out of X@év? Con-
compass the world’ — therefore rad, lastly, urges that his theory
the surface of the earth and sky best explains the statement (vide
(ef. Preller, Rh. Mus. 387, Encyklo. Achilles Tatius in Phenom. ec. 3,
244); but since earth and ocean 123 E; Schol. in Hesiodi Theog.
are mentioned as the only objects 116; Tzetz. in Lycophron, 145) that
embroidered on the woof, we have Pherecydes, like Thales, made
no ground for thinking of anything water his first principle; but this
besides the terrestrial surface. does not help him much. For that
Secondly, Conrad (p. 24 sqq.) sup- statement rests upon suspicious
poses that by Χθὼν Pherecydes in- testimony, and is besides entirely
94 INTRODUCTION.

his hosts, representing probably the unregulated forces

of nature, opposes this creation of the world, but the
divine army under Chronos hurls them into the deep of
the sea, and keeps possession of heaven.' As to any
further battle of the gods, between Zeus and Chronos,
Pherecydes seems to have been silent.? This is the
erroneous on the chief point, and 42; Max. Tyr. x. 4; Philo of By-
Conrad himself acknowledges (p.26) blus ap. Hus. prep. Ev. i. 10, 33
that in the chaotic primal matter (the latter represents Pherecydes
which he thinks is denoted by the as having borrowed this trait from
name of Χθὼν, Earth must have the Phenicians); Tertullian, De
preponderated, to occasion the cor. mil. e. 7.
choice of this name. If there is 2 Preller (Rh. Mus. 386) seeks
any error, the cause of it may lie to establish the contrary, andI fol-
elsewhere, either in the doctrine of lowed him in my second edition.
Pherecydes himself, or in a misap- But though we find traces, with
prehended account of the doctrine. Apollonius and others (v. infra), of
Even an antithetical comparison of a theogony in which Ophion, Kro-
Pherecydes and Thales, like that in nos and Zeus follow one another as
Sextus, Pyrrh. 111. 30, Math. ix. 360 rulers of the universe, we have no
(Pherecydes made earth, and Thales right to refer this representation
water, the principle of all things), to Pherecydes himself. With him
might, by the careless hand of a Ophioneus fights indeed for the
copyist or compiler, be turned into possession of heaven, but that he
a parallel between them ; or some- had it to begin with is not stated,
one who found Pherecydes classed and it is irreconcilable with the
with Thales, as one of the oldest assertion that Zeus had been there
philosophers, may have ascribed to from eternity, and still more with
him Thales’ doctrine. Perhaps even the utterance of Aristotle (supr. p.
what Pherecydes said of Oceanus, 93); for he adduces as a peculiarity
or his statement about the seed of of Pherecydes that in contradistine-
Cronos, or some other definition tion to the older Theogonies he had
that has not come down to us,may declared the first principle to be
have been explained in this way. the most perfect, asthey are blamed
Whether Pherecydes thought that because βασιλεύειν καὶ ἄρχειν φασὶν
the sea oozed out of the earthcon- ov τοὺς πρώτους, οἷον νύκτα, κ.τ.λ.,
ceived as moist in its primeval ἀλλὰ τὸν Δία, and did not therefore
condition, or was filled by water regard the world-ruling power or
from the atmosphere (the water Zeus as the πρῶτον. Pherecydes
arising from the γονὴ of Cronos), must himself have so regarded him.
is not clear from our documents ; This, as Conrad rightly observes,
for it is certainly possible that the also excludes the theory that Zeus
production of water by Cronos may first became lord of heaven and
not apply to the water of the sea. king of the gods by the overthrow
1 Celsusap. Origen ὁ. Cels. vi. of Cronos.
 COSMOLOGY. PHERECYDES. 95
essential result to be gathered from scattered fragments
and traditions respecting the doctrine of Pherecydes.
If we compare it with the Hesiodic cosmogony, it
undoubtedly evinces progress of thought. We find.
even thus early, a definite attempt to discriminate, on
the one hand, between the material constituents of the
universe —the earth, and the atmospheric elements;
and, on the other, between matter and plastic force.
In what is said of the conflict of Chronos with Ophi-
oneus, we seem to discern the thought that in the
attainment of the present cosmical order the forces of
the abyss were limited by the influence of the higher
elements.’ But the expression of all this is mythical,
and in accordance with the older cosmological mytho-
logy. The world is not formed by the natural operation
of original matter and forces; it is wrought by Zeus
with the mysterious power of a god; the reduction of
phenomena to natural causes, which is the first real
commencement.of Philosophy, is not here to be found.
It would therefore be of little importance to the
history of Philosophy to know that Pherecydes took
certain details of his theory, such as the personality
of Ophioneus, from Phoenician or Egyptian mytho-
logy; but whether important or not, the statement
eannot be adequately proved by the testimony of so
untrustworthy a writer as Philo of Byblus;? and the
distinction between the destroying serpent god of
Pherecydes and the serpent-shaped Agathodzemon is so

1 The serpent is a chthonic ἴοο. cit., and Allg, Encyclo. p. 244.

animal, probably signifying Ophi- 2 In Euseb. loc. cit.
oneus. Vide Preller, Rhein. Mus.
 _

90 INTRODUCTION.

apparent, that we might as well identify the former

with the serpent form of Ahriman, or even, like Origen
(loc. cit.), with the serpent of the Mosaic paradise, if so
obvious, and among the Greeks so common, a symbol
required a foreign derivation to account for it. The
impossibility of referring the whole cosmogony of Phe-
recydes, in its essential features,' to the Egyptians, will
at once appear on an intelligent comparison of his pre-
sentations with the Egyptian myths.? The assertions
of certain later and untrustwerthy writers? as to his
Oriental teachers are of little importance as evidence. ἢ
If our knowledge is imperfect in regard to Phere-
cydes, it is still more so in respect to some others, who
contemporaneously, or nearly contemporaneously, with
him set up various cosmological theories. Of Epimen-
ides, the well-known hierophant of Solon’s time,’ we
1 Zimmermann, loc. cit. next, 1t was easy and obvious to
2 Another doctrine attributed connect the teacher of Pythagoras
to Pherecydes, and which equally (who was known to have held the
“must have come from the East, Egyptian doctrine of Transmigra-
the dogma of Transmigration, has tion), as well as Pythagoras him-
already been discussed, p. 68 sq. self, with the Egyptians. The
3 Josephus, Contr. Apion. 1, 2, Chaldeans, in what concerns Phe-
end, reckons him as belonging to recydes, were perhaps first added
the Egyptian and Chaldean schools. by Josephus; while the statement
Cedren., Synops.i. 94 B, represents of Suidas probably originates with
himastravellinginto Egypt. Suidas Philo of Byblus.
(Pepex.) says he used the secret 5 On the personality of Epi-
writings of the Pheenicians ; the menides, his activity in Athens, and
Gnostic Isidorus in Clemens, Strom. the stories that connected them-
yi. 642 A, represents him as in- selves with him, ef. Diog. i. 109
spired by the prophecy of Cham; BQQ- 5 Suidas, Ἐπιμενίδης : Plu-
by which, however, is probably in- tarch’s Solon, 12; 8. Sap. Conv. 14;
tended, not the Egyptian and Phe- An seni 8. ger. resp.i.12,p. 784; Def.
nician wisdom us a whole, but a orac. i. 1, p. 409; De fac. lun. 24,
Gnostic work bearing that title. 25, p. 940; Plato, Laws, i. 042.D
4 We are, in the first place, (and also my treatise on the /.na-
entirely ignorant on what tradition chronisms of Plato, Abhandlungen
these statements are based; and der Berlinischen Akademie, 1873.
 EPIMENIDES. 97

are told by Damascius that,’ according to Eudemus, he

admitted two first causes,—the Air and Night;? and
proceeding from these a third, Tartarus. From them
sprang two other beings, not precisely designated, whose
union produced the egg of the universe; a denotation
of the celestial sphere which is found in several cos-
mogonies, aud which very naturally resulted from the
representation of the world’s origin as analogous to the
development of animal life. Whether this notion was
transplanted from Western Asia to Greece, whether it
was arrived at independently by Greek mythology, or
whether, lastly, it had been preserved in ancient tra-
dition from the earliest sources of the Greek race,—are
questions we must leave unanswered. From this egg |
other existences were produced. The thought contained |
in this cosmogony, as far as our meagre information
enables us to criticise it, is unimportant, whether we
consider Epimenides himself to have made the altera-
tion in the Hesiodic representation, or, in doing so,
to have followed the example of some more ancient
predecessor. The same holds good of Acusilaos,? who
was much more closely allied to Hesiod, for he repre-
sents Chaos as bringing forth a male and a female
being—Erebus and Night; dither, Eros, Metis, and
History of Philosophy,p. 95 sq.) ciple.
What Damascius quotes from him *Ap. Damascius (Joe. cit.) again
is taken from his own theogony, according to Eudemus; Brandis,
Diog. 1. 111. p- 85, also rightly refers to Plato,
1 De Prine. c. 124, Ὁ». 384, Kopp. Symposium, 178 CU, Schol. Theocrit.
2 These two principles evidently argum. Id. xiii. Clem. Al. Strom.
represent, after the manner of the vi. 629 A. Josephus contra Apio-
Hesiodie Theogony, ἃ sexual nem, 1. 3.
syzygy : the Air, 6 ἀήρ, is the male * Schol. Theocrit. classes him
principle; Night, the female prin- as the son of Night and Aither.
VOL. I. H
98 INTRODUCTION.

a number of divinities being the result of their union.

There are some other traces of cosmogonic tradition ;!
but we pass them over, in order to proceed at once to
the consideration of the Orphic cosmogonies.?
Four versions of such cosmologies are known to us
under the name of Orpheus. In one of these, the
version used by Eudemus* the Peripatetic, and most
probably before his time by Aristotle* and Plato,’
i Alluded to by Brandis. Joe. possible for the theologians, who
cit., p. 86. Itis said that Ibycus, make all things arise out of Night,
Fr. 28 (10), like Hesiod, made Eros and for the physicists, who com-
spring from Chaos; and that the mence with the mixture of all
comic poet Antiphanes, ap. Ire- things, to explain the beginning of
nus (adv. Her. ii. 14, 1), differed motion. Also the second passage
on some points from Hesiod. agrees so little with the ordinary
2 For what follows, cf. Schuster, Orphie cosmology, that Syrianus,
De vet. Orphice Theogonie indole. commenting on it (Schol. in Aris.
Leipzig, 1869. 935 a, 18), finds fault with Aris-
5. Damascius, c. 124, p. 382. totle for misrepresenting the Or-
That by this Eudemus is intended phic doctrine. This passage must
the pupil of Aristotle, is plain from equally pointto a theogony like that
Diogenes, Proem. 9. Cf. Damas- spoken of by Eudemus; for here
clus, p. 384. Night is made the first principle ;
4 Metaph. xii. 6, 1071 b, 26: as with Hesiod, Chaos. and with
ὡς λέγουσιν of θεολόγοι of ἐκ νυκτὸς Homer, Oceanus; the sky it cer-
γεννῶντες. Ibid. xiv. 4, 1091 b, 4: tainly is not in either of the repre-
οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ of ἀρχαῖοι ταύτῃ ὁμοίως, sentations known to us; but in the
ἡ βασιλεύειν καὶ ἄρχειν φασὶν οὐ Eudemic Orpheus, the sky occupies
τοὺς πρώτους“, οἷον νύκτα καὶ οὐρανὸν the second place, and in Hesiod the
ἢ χάος ἢ ὠκεανὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Δία. third. As the Eudemie Orpheus
These words cannot refer simply to alone, as far as we know, with the
systems in which Night, though exception of Epimenides, puts Night
placed among the oldest deities, in the place of Chaos as the first of
occupies only a third or fourth all things, it is very probable that
place (as is the case in the Hesiodiec Aristotle, as well as his scholar
and ordinary Orphic theogony). Eudemus, may be referring to him.
They presuppose a cosmology in § Schuster (loc. cit. 4 564.)
which either Night alone, or Night thinks this is probable from Crat.
in conjunction with other equally 402 B, and Tim. 40 D sq. (where
original principles, has the first by the poets who affirm themselves
place; for Metaph, xii. 6 treats of to be the sons of the gods are
the primitive state which preceded meant Orpheus and Musezeus ; these
all Becoming; and in reference to are mentioned by name, Rep. 364
this, Aristotle says it is equally im- E, while nothing of the kind is said
 ORPHIC COSMOGONIES. 99

Night is represented as the first of all things. Beside

Night are placed the Earth and the sky,’ both of which
apparently proceeded from Night, as with Hesiod the
Earth came forth from Chaos; Night being here sub-
stituted for Chaos.2 The children of Uranus and
Gea are Oceanus and Thetis ;? obviously a very slight
departure from the Hesiodice tradition. A _ second
theogony (perhaps an imitation, or possibly the foun-
dation of Pherecydes’ story of the battle of the gods)
seems to be alluded to by Apollonius,* for he represents
his Orpheus as singing how at first earth and sky and
water separated themselves out of the commingling of
all things, how sun and moon and stars began their
courses, and mountains, rivers and animals came into
being; how Ophion and Eurynome, daughter of Oceanus,
ruled in Olympus, how they were afterwards hurled inte
of Hesiod). It is no argument γενέσθαι τῶν σωμάτων), (πδο5. He
against it (as Schuster shows), that begins with those gods who, as
in the verses quoted by Cratylus, parents, open the series of gods
the marriage of Oceanus and The- springing from sexual union; what
tys is described as the first mar- was prior to the earth and the
riage, whereas they themselves are heavens he does not enquire.
the children of Uranus and Gea; 1 Eudemus, /oc. cit.; Joannes
and because the Timeus begins the Lydus, De mensibus, 11. 7, p. 19,
sketch of the Theogony with the Schow. His words, τρεῖς πρῶται kar’
words, Γῆς τε καὶ Οὐρανοῦ παῖδες Ophea ἐξεβλάστησαν ἀρχαὶ, νὺξ καὶ
᾿Ωκεανός τε καὶ Τηθὺς ἐγενέσθην, it γῆ καὶ οὐρανὸς, are rightly applied
does not follow that Plato denies to this Eudemic ‘Theology of Or-
Night to be thefirst principle. If the pheus’ by Lobeck, 1. 494.
passage related tothe HesiodicTheo- 2 In favour of this theory, vide
gony (which does not, like Plato, Arist. Metaph. xii. 6 (supra, 98, 4),
make Cronos and Rhea children of and especially Damascius, p. 382:
Oceanus and Thetys), Chaos and ἢ δὲ παρὰ τῷ Περιπατητικῷ Εὐδήμῳ
Night would still have been passed ἀναγεγραμμένη ὡς τοῦ ᾿Ορφέως οὖσα
over; but Plato could as well θεολογία πᾶν τὸ νοητὺν ἐσιώπησεν
leave out Night in this passage as . ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς νυκτὸς ἐποιήσατο
Aristotle, Metaph. xiv. 4, the earth ; τὴν ἀχρήν.
and Metaph. i. 8, 989 a, 10 (φησὶ 3 According to Plato; οὗ. p. 98,5.
δὲ καὶ ‘Holodos τὴν γῆν πρώτην * Argonaut. 1. 494 sqq.
H 2
 εὐ

100 INTRODUCTION.

the ocean by Cronos and Rhea, and these in their turn

were overthrown by Zeus. Traces of this theogony are
also to be met with elsewhere ;' but philosophic concep-
tions are as little to be detected in it as in the poems
of Hesiod. A third Orphic cosmogony? places at the
beginning of cosmical development water and primi-
tive slime, which latter solidifies and forms the earth.
From these two a dragon arises, winged, and with the
face of a god: on one side he has the head of a lion,
and on the other that of a bull. He is called by the
mythologists, Heracles and Chronos, the never-aging
one ; with him is united Necessity, or Adrastea (aecord-
ing to Damascius, in a hermaphrodite form), who is
said to be spread abroad incorporeally throughout the
universe to its remotest ends. Chronos-Heracles pro-
duces a gigantic egg,® which, dividing in the midst,
forms with its upper half the sky, and with its lower, the
earth. There seems to have been further mention‘ of a
1 Cf. what is cited by Preller, aside Ophion and Eurynome.
Rhein. Mus. N. F. iv. 386 sq., from 2 Ap. Damascius, 381. Athe-
Lycophr. Alex. v. 1192; and Tzet- nag. Supplic. ec. 15 (18).
zes, inh. 1., Sehol. Aristoph. Nub. 3. According to Brandis, i. 67,
247; Schol. Aischyl. Prom. 965; Chronos first begot Aither, Chaos
Lucian, Tragodopod. 99. Though and Erebus, and afterwards the
Orpheus is not named in these pas- ege of thé world ; Lobeck’s view of
sages, we find in them, as in the the passage (Aglaoph. i. 485 sq.),
Orpheus of Apollonius, that Ophion, however, seems to me undoubtedly
Chronos and Zeus are regarded as correct; according to this view,
the three kings of the gods, of what is said of the begetting of
whom the two first were overthrown 7Ether &e. is referred, not to the
by their successor. Perhaps the cosmogony of Hellanicus, but to
statement of Nigidius Figulus re- the usual Orphictheogony in which
lates to the same theogony (Serv. it is really to be found.
ad Eel, iv. 10), namely, that ac- 4 The confused representation
cording to Orpheus, Saturn and of Damascius leaves it somewhat
Jupiter were the first rulers of the uncertain whether these features
world; the tradition which he fol- really belong to this theogony.
lows, however, seems to have set
 ORPHIC COSMOGONIES. 101

god who had golden wings on his shoulders, bulls’ heads

on his haunches, and a huge snake appearing among
various animal forms on his head; this god, described
by Damascius as incorporeal, is called Protogonos or
Zeus, and also Pan, as bringing order into all things.
Here not only is the symbolism far more complicated
than with Eudemus, but the thoughts, too, are in
advance of the cosmogonies we have been considering.
Behind Chronos and Adrastea are the abstract notions
of time and necessity ; the incorporeality of Adrastea,
and Zeus presupposes a discrimination of corporeal and |
spiritual which was unknown even to Philosophy until
the appearance of Anaxagoras; the spreading out of
Adrastea through the universe reminds us of the
Platonic doctrine of the World-soul; and in the con-
ception of Zeus as Pan we recognise a pantheism, the ©
germ of which lay, indeed, from the beginning in the
naturalistic religion of the Greeks, but which cannot
be proved by authentic evidence to have actually
existed before the period when the individuality of the
various gods had been destroyed by religious syn-
cretism, and when Stoicism had done much to spread
abroad the pantheistic theory of the universe; for none
of the older systems, however pantheistic in tendency,
had so great or so general an influence. The pantheistic
element comes out still more clearly in the story of the
birth and swallowing of Phanes' (infra, pp. 104, 106).

1 That this trait was present in mentioning Phanes from any other
the Orphie theogony of Hellanicus exposition than that from which
is clear from Athenag. c. 16 (20), he had previously made quotations
for it is most improbable that he exactly corresponding with the
should havetaken the Orphic verses Hellanicus theogony of Damascius.
102 INTRODUCTION.

If, therefore, this cosmogony, as is usually supposed,!

was known to Hellanicus of Lesbos in the middle of
the fifth century, we must assign many ideas which ap-
peared only in the later Greek Philosophy to an earlier
period. Lobeck, however (loc. cit.), and Miller ? rightly
question whether such could have been the case.
Damascius himself hints at the doubtful source of the
account he follows ;* its content bears pretty evident
‘internal traces of an after date, and as we certainly
know that spurious writings of a very late period were
circulated * under the name of the Lesbian logographer,
Cf. Schuster, p. 32, whose other Schuster calls, I know not why,
conjectures, however, p. 83, do not Apollodorus. This conjecture has
commend themselves to me. in its favour that Sandon, according
1 Which Brandis accepts, loc. to Suidas, wrote ὑποθέσεις εἰς
cit. p. 66. ᾿Ορφέα; and if Hellanicus, like his
2 Fragmenta hist. Gree. 1. XXx. grandson, and probably also his
3 His words, loc. cit.,are: Τοιαύτη son, was a Stoic, this would agree
μὲν ἢ συνήθης ᾿Ορφικὴ θεολογία. 7 with the fact that the theogony (as
δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἱερώνυμον φερομένη Schuster, loc. cit. 87 sqq. proves)
καὶ Ἑλλάνικον, εἴπερ μὴ καὶ ὃ αὐτός has points of contact with the
ἐστιν, οὕτως ἔχει. ‘They appear to Stoic pantheism and treatment of
me to convey that the work of myths, The saying of Damascius,
which they are treating was attri- however, quoted in note 3, seems
buted to Hieronymus as well as to to me to contradict this assump-
Hellanieus, and that Damascius tion. If Hellanicus of Tarsus, in
himself, or his authcrity, was of the end of the second century before
opinion that under these two names Christ, published an Orphie theo-
one and the same author was con- gony under his own name, it is
cealed ; who in that case naturally difficult to see how this work could
could not have been the ancient bear the name of Hieronymus as
logographer of Lesbos. well, and how Damascius could
* Vide Miller, /oc. cit. Schu- imagine that the same author was
ster, in his excursus on the theo- concealed under these two names.
gony of Hellanicus, loc. cit. pp. 80- Schuster (p. 100) believes that
100, conjectures with Lobeck that Hellanicus wrote the theogony,
its author was Hellanicus, other- but borrowed the material of the
wise unknown to us, the father of first part from a work by Hiero-
the philosopher Sandon (Suidas, nymus. But this theogony cannot
Zdviuv), whose son (the Stoic have been knownas the production
Athenodorus of Tarsus) was the of Hellanicus, for Athenagoras ex-
instructor of Augustus, and whom pressly ascribes to Orpheus the
 ORPHIC COSMOGONIES. 109

there is every probability that the Orphic theology does

not belong to him at all, whatever may be the truth
as to its authorship and the time of its composition.
verses which Schuster rightly con- Epictetus, Diss. 11.19, 14; ef. Pho-
siders as having belonged to this tius, Cod. 161, p. 104 a, 13 sq., for
work; besides, it was natural that the type of a book of fables, and
a poem professing to set forth an cannot possibly have emanated
Orphie theogony should announce from the Lesbian writer, if only
itself as a work of Orpheus. Da- because Moses is mentioned in it
mascius does not say that Hellani- (v. Justin, Cohort.9, p.10 a). We
cus and Hieronymus were des- hear, on the other hand (Joseph.
eribed as the authors of the theo- Ant. i. 3, 6, 9), of an Egyptian
gony ; but as he calls the theogony Hieronymus, who wrote an apxaio-
used by Eudemus, c. 124: 7 παρὰ λογία φοινικικὴ, but who cannot
τῷ περιπατητικῷ Εὐδήμῳ avayeypau- possibly (as Muller, loc. cit., be-
μένη ; so by ἣ κατὰ τὸν “Ἱερώνυμον lieves) be the same person as the
φερομένη καὶ Ἑλλάνικον, he must Peripatetic of Rhodes. It seems
mean a theogony, the contents of a probable conjecture (Miller, ii.
which Hieronymus and Hellanicus 450) that he was the person who,
had expounded, but the author of according to Damascius, had trans-
which, as of all the other theogo- mitted this Orphic theogony ; and
nies, was Orpheus. As to the fact the idea gains considerable support
that the divergences from the com- from the observation (Schuster, Zoe.
monly received Orphic theogony cit. 90 sqq.) that this theogony in
are the same in both eases, and that its commencement, just where it
Damascius conjectures the two au- differs from the ordinary Orphic
thors to be one and the same, the theogony, coincides with the Phe-
easiest explanation seems to be nician cosmogonies. This Hierony-
that this exposition may have been mus may have affixed the name of
found in two manuscripts, of which Hellanicus to the Αἰγυπτιακὰ at the
one bore the name of Hellanicus, same time that he published the
and the other that of Hieronymus, Pheenician history under his own
and that Damascius believed one name, and may have expressed him-
of these to have been falsely self in both works to the same
ascribed to its so-called author by effect concerning the Orphic theo-
the real author of the other. Now gony. That he composed such a
it appears from Porph. ap. Euseb. theogony is, as we have said, un-
prep. ev. x. 3, 10, Suidas, Ζάμολξις, likely. He seems rather to have
Athen. xiv. 652 a, and others (ef. contined himself to developing
Miller, loc. cit. and i. 65 sqq.), that what he took from the common
in later times writings about fo- theogony by borrowing the notion
reign nations were in circulation of water and primitive slime from
under the name of Hellanicus of the Phenician cosmology. His
Lesbos, the authenticity of which exposition must have been used by
there was good reason to doubt; Athenagoras as well as by Damas-
in particular, the Αἰγυπτιακὰ is cius, for a Neo-Platonist can hardly
mentioned as a work that stands in be suspected of dependence on the
104 INTRODUCTION.

Lobeck considers that we have a more ancient

Orphic cosmogony in that designated by Damascius
᾿(ο. 123, p. 380) as the usual Orphic theogony, or the
one contained in the rhapsodies, and of which many
fragments and notices' have been preserved. Here
Chronos is represented as the first of all existences. He
brings forth Ather and the dark immeasurable abyss,
or Chaos: from these he then forms a silver egg, out of
which, illuminating all things, proceeds Phanes, the
first-born god, called also Metis, Eros, and Ericapzeus :
he contains within himself the germs of all gods, and
for this reason, as it would appear, is described as her-
maphrodite, and endowed with various animals’ heads,
and other attributes of the kind. Phanes alone begets
Echidna, or Night, and, in marriage with her, Uranus
and Gea, the progenitors of the intermediate races of
gods, whose history and genealogy are essentially the
same as with Hesiod. When Zeus attains sovereignty
he devours Phanes, and consequently is himself (as in
our previous quotation from Orpheus?) the ideal sum
(Inbegriff) of all things. After having thus united all

Christian apologist (Schuster, jority of commentators, I consider

p.
81); and besides, the exposition of an Eastern origin probable, though
Damascius goes farther than that I must leave it an open question
of Athenagoras; what is said in whether Delitzsch (cf. Schuster,
the former of Hellanicus and Hie- loc. cit.) has most reason for refer-
ronymus is wanting in the latter. ring it to the Cabbalistic designa-
1 Cf. Lobeck, loc. cit. 405 sqq. tion of the first of the ten Sephi-
2 There have been many conjec- roth, }%BIN yx (long-visaged),
tures as to the signification of this or Schelling (Gotth. v. Samothr. W.
name. Cf. Gottling, De Hricap. W. i. Abth. viii. 402 sq.) for
(Jena, 1862), who derives it from preferring the Old Testament
ἔαρ and κάπος or κάπυς (breath), DDS FIN (long-suffering).
ventorum vernalium afflatus ;Schus-
ter, /oc. cit. 97 sq. With the ma- 3 Cf. supra, p. 64 sq.
 ORPHIC COSMOGONIES. 105
things in himself, he again puts them forth, producing
the gods of the last generation, and forming the world.
Among the stories of the younger gods (for the rest of
which I must refer the reader to Lobeck), the most
striking is that of Dionysus Zagreus, son of Zeus and
Persephone, who, rent in pieces by the Titans, comes
to life again in the second Dionysus, after Zeus has
swallowed his heart, which was still entire.
The theory that this whole theogony dates from the
period of Onomacritus and the Pisistratide, since the
time of Lobeck! has found much favour, but I am
unable to support it. The utterances of ancient authors
which are supposed to contain allusions to such a
theogony, do not carry us beyond the theogony which
Eudemus made use of. Its existence is first distinctly
attested in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise on the
world,” subsequently therefore to the Christian era, or
at any rate not long before it;3 for, as we have seen
(supra, p. 65 sq.), the passage from the Platonic Laws
(iv. 715 E) proves nothing, and still less can be de-
duced from the Aristotelian citation,* on which Brandis?
relies so much. Since Plato in the ‘ Symposium’ (178 B)
does net mention Orpheus among those who assert the
antiquity of Eros, we may rather indeed suppose that

1 Lobeck, however, advances it is rather earlier. Varro in Au-

(p. 611) very cautiously, ut statin gustine’s Civit. Dei, vii. 9, gives us
cessurus, si quis Theogoniam Orphi- two verses of his, which seem to
cam Platone aut recentiorem aut refer to the Orphic theogony, and
certe non multo antiguiorem esse perhaps to the particular passage
demonstraverit. quoted from περὶ κόσμου. Yet he
2 C. 7; according to Lobeck (i. was only a later contemporary of
522 and elsewhere) we must sup- Cicero.
pose this to be an interpolation. * Metaph. xiv.4; cf. supra, p. 98,4,
3 The date of Valerius Soranus 5 Loe. cit. p. 69.
100 INTRODUCTION.

the doctrine of this theogony, in regard to Eros-

Phanes, was unknown to him; and since Aristotle’s in-
dications, as above noted, only correspond with the
theogony used by Eudemus, we cannot refer them to
any other. If, however, Plato, Aristotle, and Eudemus
did not possess that representation of the Orphic ἀοο-
trines, which was at a later period in ordinary use, we
must conclude with Zoéga' and Preller,’ that it was
not in circulation until after their time. I agree like-
wise with Zoéga that so learned a mythographer as
Apollonius* would scarcely have made Orpheus sing of
Ophion and Eurynome as the first rulers of the world,
and Cronos and Rhea as the second, if the Orphic tra-
dition then current had recognised Phanes and the elder
gods. Even subsequently to this there are still traces
to show that Phanes, the illuminating one, the centre
of the subsequent Orphic cosmogony, was only another
name for Helios, who, according to the later representa-
tion, was a much younger god.* Lastly, if we consider
the story of Phanes, with the description of Zeus that is
involved in it, with reference to its internal character
and purpose, we shall find that it is impossible to assign

1 Abhandiungen, edited by Wel- Mus. α. 47, p. 164, Bull, from the

cker, p. 215 sqq. Orphic ὅρκοι: ἠέλιόν τε, φάνητα
2 In Pauly’s Real-Encyl. ν. 999. μέγαν, καὶ νύκτα μέλαιναν---φάνητα
3 Cf. supra, p. 99. μέγαν, standing here, as the want
* Diodorus, i. 11 : many ancient of a connecting particle shows, in
poets call Osiris, or the sun, Diony- apposition to ἠέλιον : Helios the
sus : ὧν Εὔμολπος μὲν. . . ἀστρο- great illuminator. Jamblichus,
φανῆ Διόνυσον... “Oppeds δέ: Theol. Arith. p. 60: the Pythago-
τοὔνεκά μιν καλέουσι Φάνητά τε καὶ reans call the number ten φάνητα
Διόνυσον. Macrob.i. 18: Orpheus καὶ ἥλιον. Helios is often named
solem volens intelligi ait inter cetera : φαέθων; eg. Iliad, xi. 735. Od.
. . . ὃν δὴ viv καλέουσι Φάνητά τε vy. 479 ; in the epitaph in Diog. viii.
καὶ Διόνυσον. Theo. Smyrn. De 78, and elsewhere.
 ORPHIC COSMOGONIES. 107

this story to a very early period. Not only do we clearly

discover in it that pantheism of which we have already
spoken,' but the story can only be accounted for by a
desire to reconcile the later interpretation, according to
which Zeus is the ideal sum of all things, and the unity
of the world, with the mythological tradition which
represents him as the progenitor of the last generation
of gods. To this end the Hesiodic myth of the swal-
lowing of Metis by Zeus (in its origin most likely a
rude symbolical expression for the intelligent nature of
the god) is introduced, Metis being combined with
the Helios-Dionysus of the earlier Orphic theology,
with the creative Eros of the cosmogonies, and also
perhaps with Oriental divinities, to form the personality
of Phanes. Such an attempt, it is clear, could not
have been made until the period of that religious and
philosophic syncretism, which from the third century
before Christ gradually gained ground, and was first
reduced to a system by the allegorical interpretation of
myths among the Stoics.2_ To that period therefore we
1 Vide supra, p. 64 sq. tury. In this, however, as it
2 Schuster is of a different seems to me, the peculiar character
opinion, though he agrees with me of the Orphie fragments has not
in placing the rhapsodic theogony been sufficiently attended to. Pan-
not earlier than the last century, theistie conceptions are certainly
or last but one, before Christ. The found in the poets of the fitth cen-
verses, he says (p. 42 sq.), which tury, and even earlier; but it is
are quoted in the writing περὶ one thing to say generally, ‘Zeus
κόσμου, loc. cit., could very well date is Heaven and Earth, and quite
from the time of the Pisistratide, another to identify Zeus in detail,
as they do not go beyond the well- as these verses do, with all the
known fragment of A%schylus different parts of the world, and
(cited Part If. a, 28, 2); and the among other things to attribute
myth of Phanes-Ericapzeus, as well both sexes to him (Ζεὺς ἄρσην
as that of Dionysus Zagreus, need γένετο, Zevs ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο
not have come to Greece from the νύμφη). No representation of the
East earlier than the sixth cen- latter kind can be proved to have
108 INTRODUCTION.

must assign the elaboration of the Orphic theogony

which we have now been considering.
To sum up, then, the results of our enquiry, the
direct gain which Philosophy has derived from the
ancient cosmologies appears to be less than we may
have been disposed to believe. Firstly, because the
conceptions on which they are founded are so simple
that thought could well have attained to them without
any such help, so soon as it began to apply itself to
the scientific investigation of things; and, secondly,
because these cosmologies in their mythical symbolism
are so ambiguous, and intermingled with so many
fantastic elements, that they afford a very uncertain
foundation for intelligent reflection. If, therefore, the
ancient theologians are to be considered the precursors
of the later physicists, their merit, as was asserted at
the outset of our enquiry, mainly consisted in this:
that they turned the current of reflection towards cos-
mological questions, and left to their successors the
problem of explaining the totality of phenomena by
the investigation of its ultimate causes.
existed in the more ancient period. theogony. There is nothing analo-
We cannot even argue directly gous to this thought before the ap-
from schylus, or his son Eu- pearance of the Stoic philosophy.
phorion (the probable author of It seems the most probable suppo-
the fragment), to Onomacritus and sition, therefore, that this feature
the time of the Pisistratide. was really imported from the
Lastly, in the Orphic verses, Zeus Stoics into the Orphie theology,
is said to be all, because he has and was merely a lifeless imitation
concealed all things in himself, and of the theory (Part III. a, 139,
brought them again to light ; and second edition) that the Deity from
that (as already shown on p. 65) time to time took all things back
is the true meaning of the stories into himself, and again put them
about Phanes in the later Orphic forth.
 ETHICAL REFLECTION. 109

§ V.—Ethical Reflection. Theology and Anthropology in

their relation to Ethics.

If the externai world roused the Greeks in their

lively feeling for nature to attempt cosmological specu-
lation, the life and ways of men must no less have
occupied the mind of a nation so intelligent and versa-
tile, so full of freedom and capability in practical life.
It was inevitable, however, that reflection should take
a different course in regard to Ethics from that which
it followed in regard to cosmology. The external
world presents itself even to sensuous perception as a
whole,—a building, the floor of which is the earth, and
_ the roof, the vault of heaven; in the moral world, on
the contrary, the unpractised glance sees nothing at
first but a confused mass of individuals or small ag-
gregates moving about capriciously and promiscuously.
In the one case, attention is chiefly fixed upon the
cosmos, the grand movements of the heavenly bodies,
the varying conditions of the earth, and the influence
of the seasons,—in short, upon universal and regularly
recurring phenomena; in the other case, the interest
centres on personal actions and experiences. There the
imagination is required to fill up the lacune in man’s
knowledge of nature by means of cosmological inven-
tions ;here we require the understanding to set rules
for practical conduct in specific cases. While therefore,
cosmological reflection is from the outset employed
upon the whole, and seeks to elucidate its origin,
ethical reflection restricts itself to particular observa-
tions and rules of life, which are indeed founded on a
 110 INTRODUCTION.

uniform manner of regarding moral relations, but are

not conscionsly and explicitly reduced to general prin-
ciples; and are only connected with more universal
considerations respecting the lot of man, the future
destiny of the soul, and the Divine government, in the
indeterminate and imaginative mode of religious pre-
sentation. Ethical reflection is therefore much more
barren than cosmological; starting from a sound and
intelligent observation of what is real, it has certainly
contributed not a little to the formal exercise of thought ;
/ but having arisen from a practical rather than a scien-
| tific interest, and being concerned rather with particu-
lar cases than with general laws and the essential nature
of moral action,—from a material point of view its
influence on philosophic enquiry has been far less im-
mediate than that of the old cosmology. The pre-
Socratic Nature-Philosophy was directly connected
with cosmology, but it was only in the sequel that
there arose a scientific moral Philosophy, as the philo-
sophic.counterpart of popular wisdom.
Among the writings which show the growth of
this ethical reflection, the Homeric poems must first
be mentioned. The great moral importance of these
poems rests, however, far less on the maxims and moral
observations which occasionally appear in them, than on
the characters and events which they depict. The tem-
pestuous force of Achilles, the self-forgetful love of the
hero for his dead friend, his humanity to the suppliant
Priam, Hector’s courage in death, Agamemnon’s kingly
presence, the ripe wisdom of Nestor, the inexhaustible
cunning, the restless enterprise, the wary persistence of
 ETHICAL REFLECTION. HOMER. 111

Odysseus, his attachment to home and kindred, the

sight of whom he prefers to immortality with the sea-
goddess, the faithfulness of Penelope, the honour every-
where accorded in the poem to valour, prudence,
fidelity, liberality, generosity to strangers and needy
persons ; and, on the other hand, the woes which ensued
from the outrage of Paris, from the crime of Clytem-
nestra, from the treachery of the Trojans, from the
discord of the Greek princes, from the arrogance of
the suitors,—these and the like traits made the poems
of Homer, in spite of all the barbarism and violence
that still prevailed in the spirit of that time, a hand-
book of wisdom for the Greeks and one of the principal
instruments of their moral education. Philosophy, too,
has profited more in an indirect manner from these
pictures of human life than directly from the reflections
accompanying them. The latter are confined to short
scattered moral sayings, like the beautiful utterance of
Hector on fighting for one’s country,! or that of
Alcinous on our duty to desolate strangers,? or exhorta-
tions to courage, constancy, reconciliation, and so forth,
which are given for the most part, not in a general
form, but poetically, in reference to the particular
occasion ;* observations on the acts and ways of men,
and their consequences,’ reflections on the folly of
1 Jl. xii. 243: εἷς οἰωνὸς ἄρι- hortation of Phenix, JJ. ix. 496,
στος, ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης. 508 sqq.; or Thetis’ injunction to
2 Od. viii. 546: ἀντὶ κασιγνή- Achilles, 77. xxiv. 128 sqa.
του ξεῖνός θ᾽ ἱκέτης τε τέτυκται. 4 Such as the sentences: J.
Cf. Od. xvii. 485 and elsewhere. Xviil. 107 sqq. on anger. 717.
3 Such as the numerous speeches xx. 248, on the use of the
of the chiefs: ἀνέρες ἐστὲ &c.; or tongue; Jl. xxii. 315 = sqq.
the discourse of Odysseus, τέτλαθι praise of prudence; the observa-
δὴ κραδίη, Od. xx. 18; or the ex- tion in Od. xy. 399, and others.
 112 INTRODUCTION.

mortals, the wretchedness and uncertainty of life,

resignation to the will of the gods, abhorrence of in-
justice.! Such utterances incontestably prove that not
only moral life, but also reflection on moral subjects,
had made a certain degree of progress in the time to
which the poems of Homer belong, and what has
previously been said on the importance of popular
wisdom in regard to Philosophy applies with equal
force here. We must not, however, on the other hand,
overlook the distinction between these incidental and -
isolated reflections, and a methodical moral Philosophy,
conscious of the end it is pursuing.
Hesiod’s rules of life and moral observations are
of a similar character; but it must be regarded as some
approximation to the modes of scientific reflection, that
he utters his thoughts on human life, not merely in-
cidentally in the course of an epic narration, but in a
didactic poem designed for this express purpose. In
other respects, even apart from the economic directions,
and the various superstitious prescripts, which occupy
| the second part of the “ Works and Days,’ the thoughts
“are as incoherent, and as much derived from single
experiences, as the maxims in the Homeric discourses.
The poet exhorts to justice, and warns against in-
|justice, for the all-seeing eye of Zeus watches over
the actions of men; well-doing alone brings blessing;
\ Thus in Od. xviii. 129 : οὐδὲν sity as he wills. Od. vi. 188: bear
aKidvdTepoy γαῖα τρέφει ἀνθρώποιο what Zeus has ordained. On the
ete. Jl. vi. 146 (cf. xxl. 464): other hand, cf. Od. 132: Man is
οἵη περ φύλλων γενεὴ τοιήδε καὶ wrong to call the gods the authors
ἀνδρῶν. 1|. xxiv. 525: The fate of evil, which he himself has
of mortals is to live among sighs; brought down upon himself by his
Zeus decrees prosperity or advyer- faults.
 HOMER AND HESIOD. 113

crime, on the contrary, will be punished by the gods.!

He recommends frugality, diligence and contentment,
and warmly rebukes the opposite faults;? he says it
is better to keep the toilsome path of virtue than to |
follow the more attractive road of vice;* he counsels
prudence in business, friendliness to neighbours, courtesy
to all who are courteous to τι. He complains of the)
troubles of life, the cause of which he seeks, like the
mythologists, in wrong done to the gods by the pride
and presumption of men.’ In the account of the five
ages of the world,® he describes (it may be under the
influence of historical reminiscences’) the gradual de-
terioration of man and his circumstances. Though in
this Hesiod departs considerably, in many respects, from
the spirit of the Homeric poems, yet the stage attained
by moral reflection is in both cases essentially the
same. But in Hesiod it assumes a more independent
attitude, for which reason only we recognise in him,
rather than in Homer, the precursor of the Gnomic
poets.
We should be better able to trace the farther de-
velopment of this reflection if more remained to us of
1 *Epya καὶ ἡμέραι, 200-283, contented with his originally happy
318 sqq. and childlike state, stretched forth
2 Ibid. 359 sqq. 11 sqq. 296 his hand towards good things
649 which God had forbidden him.
9. Ibid. 285 sqq. 6 Ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι, 108 sqq.
4 Ibid. 368 sqq. 704 sqq. 340 7 Cf. Preller, Demeter und Per-
sqq. sephone, 222 sqq.; Griech. Mythol.
>In the myth of Prometheus i. 59 sq.; Hermann, Ges. Abh. p.
(Ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι, 42 sqq.; Theo- 306 sqq. and others. We must
gnis, 507 sqq-), of which the general not, however, be too minute in our
significance is the same as other conjectures concerning the histo-
mythical explanations of the evils rical circumstances on which this
by which we feel ourselves op- mythus is founded.
pressed; namely, that man, dis-
VOL. I. I
 al

114 INTRODUCTION.

the numerous poems written in the next three centu-

ries. Very few of such fragments as we possess carry
us beyond the beginning of the seventh century, and
these contain scarcely anything relevant to our present
enquiry. Even from the fragments of the seventh
century we can glean but very little. We may listen,
indeed, to Tyrtzus,' exalting courage in battle, and
death for one’s country; or describing the disgrace of
the coward and the unhappiness of the conquered ; we
get from Archilochus? (Fr. 8, 12-14, 51, 60, 65), from
Simonides of Amorgos® (Fr. 1 sqq.), from Mimnermus ὁ
(Fr. 2 e¢ passim), complaints of the transitoriness of
youth, the burdens of old age, the uncertainty of the
future, the fickleness of men; and, at the same time,
exhortations to limit our desires, to bear our fate man-
fully, to commit the results of our actions to the gods,
to be moderate both in sorrow and in joy. We find in
Sappho’ gnomic sentences, such as these: ‘ The beau-
tiful is also good, the good is also beautiful’ (Fr. 102);
‘Wealth without virtue does not profit, but in their
union lies the acme of happiness.’ Nor must we omit
to mention in this connection Simonides’ elaborate
satire on women (ΕἾ. 6). On the whole, however, the
older lyricists, as also the great poets in the end of the
seventh century, Alczus and Sappho, and long after
them Anacreon, seem to have dealt but sparingly in
such general reflections. It was not until the sixth
century, contemporaneously, or nearly so, with the rise
1 Fr. 7-9 in Bergk’s edition of 2 About 700 B.c.
Greek lyrics, to which the follow- 3 Before 650 8.6.
ing quotations relate. Tyrtzus * About 600 B.c.
lived about 685 8.6. 5 About 610 B.c.
 GNOMIC POETS. SIXTH CENTURY. 115

of Greek Philosophy, that the didactic element in

poetry appears to have again attained greater import-
ance. To that period belong the Gnomic poets—Solon, |
Phocylides, and Theognis; their sayings, however, even
irrespective of what we know to be interpolated, are
mostly of doubtful authenticity. During the first half |
of the sixth century Asop also lived, whose legendary |
form seems at any rate to prove that instructive |
fables about animals, in connection with the general
growth of moral reflection, had then become greatly
developed and popularised. In all these writers we
find, as compared with the older poets, an advance
clearly indicating that thought had ripened by the
acquisition of more varied experience, and by the study
of more complex situations. The Gnomic poets of the
sixth century had before their eyes an agitated political
existence, in which the manifold inclinatiors and pas-
sions of men found ample scope, but in which also the
vanity and evil of immoderate aims and intemperate
conduct had been demonstrated on a grand scale.
Their reflections, therefore, are no longer concerned
merely with the simple affairs of the household, the
village, or the ancient monarchy ; the condition of man
as to his political circumstances is the prominent and
determining element even in their general moral pre-
scripts and observations. They heap up lamentations
over the misery of life, the illusions and instability of
men, and the vanity of all human endeavours; but it
is only to assert the more forcibly that the moral
problem consists in seeking man’s greatest happiness
in the maintenance of just measure, in the order of
12
110 INTRODUCTION.

the commonwealth, in the impartial distribution of

justice, in the reasonable repression of his desires.
This tone is already predominant in the elegies ascribed
to Solon. No mortal, we are there told, is happy, all
are full of trouble! (Fr. 14); each thinks to find the
right, and yet no one knows what will be the result of
his doings, and no one can escape his destiny (Fr. 12,
33 sqq., Fr. 18);? hardly any can be trusted (cf. Fr.
41), none keeps measure in his efforts; the people by
its own injustice destroys the city, which the gods would
have protected (Fr. 3, 12, 71 sqq.). As opposed to
these evils, the first necessity is law and order for the
state, contentment and moderation for the individual ;
not wealth, but virtue, is the highest good; superfluity
of possessions begets only selt-exaltation; man can be
happy with a moderate amount, and ought in no case
to draw down upon himself the certain punishment of
God by unrighteous gains.? The well-being of the
state depends upon a similar disposition. Lawlessness
and civil discord are the worst evils, order and law the
greatest good for a commonwealth ; right and freedom
for all, obedience to the government, just distribution
of honour and influence—these are the points which
the legislator should keep in view, no matter what
offence he may give byit.!
1Fr. 14, οὐδὲ μάκαρ οὐδεὶς in Hesiod, Fr. 43, 5 et passim.
πέλεται βροτὸς, ἀλλὰ πονηροὶ 2 In Herodotus, 1, 31, Solon
πάντες ; here πονηρὸς, in opposition distinctly says that death is better
to μάκαρ, is not to be understood for men than life.
actively (πόνος, causing evil), but 3. Fr. 7, 12, 15, 16. ΠῚ ΤΠ8
passively (πόνος, suffering evil, well-known story of Herodotus, i.
ἐπίπονος). as in the well-known 30 sqq.
verse of Epicharmus (vide infra, * Fr. 3, 80 sqq. 4-7, 34, 35, 40.
chapter on Pythagoreism, sub fin.)
 PHOCYLIDES. THEOGNIS. 117

We meet with the same principles in the few au-

thentic fragments that remain to us of the writings of
Phocylides (about 540 B.c.). Noble descent is of no
avail to individuals, nor power and greatness to the
state, unless in the oue case wisdom is superadded, and
in the other order (Fr. 4,5). Mediocrity is best; the
middle rank is the happiest (Fr. 12); justice is the
ideal sum of all virtues.' With these ideas Theognis?
also substantially agrees; but in this writer we find
sometimes his aristocratic view of politics, and some-
times his dissatisfaction with his lot (a consequence
of his own personal and political experiences), brought
into undue prominence. Brave and trustworthy people
are rare, Theognis thinks, in the world (v. 77 sqq.
857 sqq.). Mistrustful circumspection is the more to
be recommended in our intercourse with our fellow
men (vy. 309, 1163), the harder it is to fathom their
sentiments (v. 119 sqq.). Truth, he complains (v.
1135 sqq.), and virtue, sincerity and the fear of God
have deserted the earth; hope alone remains. Vain is
the attempt to instruct the wicked, instruction will not
alter them.? Fate, however, is as unjust as mankind.
The good and the bad fare alike in the world (v. 373
sqq.); good fortune does more for a man than virtue
(v. 129, 653); foolish conduct often brings happiness,
and wise conduct, misery (v. 153, 161 sqq.); sons
suffer for their fathers’ crimes; the criminals them-
' Fr. 18, according to others, Plato remarks in the Meno, 95 Ὁ)
of Theognis, or perhaps taken from it is not very consistent that The-
some unknown writer. ognis should say in v. 27, 31 sqq.
* A native of Megara, contem- δέ passim, that from the good we
porary of Phocylides. learn good ; and from the evil, evil.
* V. 429 sqq., with which (as
118 INTRODUCTION.

selves go unpunished (731 sqq.). Wealth is the only

thing that men admire ;! he who is poor, be he never
so virtuous, remains wretched (137 sqq. 649). The
best thing for man, therefore, is never to be born; the
next best to die as soon as possible (425 sqq. 1013): no
one is truly happy. But though this sounds very dis-
consolate, Theognis ultimately arrives at the same prac-
tical result as Solon; not indeed in reference to politics,
for he is a decided aristocrat—the nobly born are with
him the good; the mass of the people, the bad (eg.
v. 31-68, 183 sqq. 893 et passim). His general moral
standpoint, however, approaches very nearly to that of
Solon. Because happiness is uncertain, and because
our lot does not depend upon ourselves, he tells us we
have all the greater need of patience and courage, of
equability and self-possession in good fortune and in
evil (441 sqq. 591 sqq. 657). What is best for man is
prudence, what is worst is folly (895, 1171 sqq. 1157
sqq.); to guard against arrogance, not to overstep the
right measure, to keep the golden mean, is the height
of wisdom (151 sqq. 331, 335, 401, 753, 1103 οἵ
passim). Here, a philosophic moral principle is of
course still wanting, for these scattered rules of life are
not as yet based upon general enquiries concerning the
essence of moral activity, but the various influences and
experiences are already beginning to unite, much more
consciously and definitely than with the older poets, to
form a uniform and connected theory of human life.
1 699 sqq. Cf, among tan, who by some authors is
others, the Fragment of Alezus in reckoned one of the seyen wise
Diog. 1. 31, and the saying there men.
quoted of Aristodemus the Spar-
 THE SEVEN SAGES. 119

Antiquity itself marked the importance of the epoch

when ethical reflection began to be more decidedly
developed, by the legend of the seven sages. Their
names, as is well known, are variously given,! and
such details as have come down to us respecting their
lives? sound so improbable that we must regard them
as fiction rather than history. The maxims, too, which
are ascribed to them? are intermingled to such an extent
1 Only four are mentioned in mione, Anaxagoras ; if we add Pam-
all the enumerations: Thales, philus and Pisistratus, and the
Bias, Pittacus and Solon. Besides three named by Hippobotus (ap.
these, Plato (Prot. 343 A) names Diog. loc. cit., together with nine
also Cleobulus, Myso and Chilo; others), Linus, Orpheus, and Epi-
instead of Myso, most writers (as charmus, we get in all twenty-two
Demetrius Phalereus ap. Stobeus, persons of very various periods,
Floril. 3, 79; Pausamias, x. 24; who were counted among the seven
Diog. i. 18, 41; Plutarch, Conv. wise men.
5. Sap.) substitute Periander 2 For instance, the anecdote
for-Myso. Euphorus ap. Diog. i. related in Diog. i. 27 sqq., Pheenix
41, and the author mentioned in Athen. xi. 495, and elsewhere
anonymously in Stobzeus, Floril. in different versions, of the tripod
48, 47, have Anacharsis. Clemens, (or, as others say, the goblet, cup,
Strom. 1. 299 B, says the accounts or dish) which was fished up out
fluctuate between Periander, Ana- of the sea, and intended for the
charsis and Epimenides; the last wisest, was first given to Thales,
is mentioned by Leander, who has passed on by him to another, and
also Leophantus in place of Cleo- so on. until at last it returned to
bulus (Diog. loc. cit.) ;Diczearchus him again, and was dedicated by
leaves the choice of the three him to Apollo. Cf. the accounts
doubtful sages to be decided be- of the meetings of the four sages in
tween Aristodemus, Pamphilus, Plutarch; Solon, 4; Diog. 1. 40
Chilo, Cleobulus, Anacharsis, and (where two descriptions of such
Periander. Some include also Py- meetings, probably analogous to
thagoras, Pherecydes, Acusilaus, those of Plutarch, are quoted from
and even Pisistratus, in the num- Ephorus and a certain Archetimus ;
ber (Diog. and Clemens, loc. cit.). ef. also the statement of Plato
Hermippus ap. Diog. (Joc. cit.) men- (Protag. 343 A) about the inscrip-
tions seventeen names among tions they dedicated together at the
which the accounts are divided; temple of Delphi; the interpolated
viz. Solon, Thales, Pittacus, Bias, letters, ap. Diogenes, the assertion
Chilo, Myso, Cleobulus, Periander, in Plut. De Hi. ce. 3, p. 385, about
Anacharsis, Acusilaus, Epimenides, Periander and Cleobulus.
Leophantus, Pherecydes, Aristode- 8 Vide Diog. i. 30, 33 sqq.;
mus, Pythagoras, Lasus of Her- 58 sqq. 63, 69 sqq. 8d sq. 97
190 INTRODUCTION.

with later ingredients, and with proverbial expressions

of unknown origin, that very few can be traced with
any certainty to either of these men.' They are all,
however, of the same character, consisting of isolated
observations, maxims of prudence, and moral sentences
belonging entirely to the sphere of popular and practical
wisdom.? This quite accords with the circumstance
that most of the seven sages were celebrated as states-
men and lawgivers.2 We cannot but agree, there-
fore, with Diczearchus‘ in regarding them as intelligent
men, and capable legislators, but not as philosophers,
or wise men in the sense of the Aristotelian School.?
They only represent the practical culture which, about
the end of the seventh century, received a new impulse
in connection with the political circumstances of the
Greek nation. Though they cannot be reckoned philo-
sqq- 103 sqq. 108; Clemens, apophthegms.
Sirom. 1. 300 A sq. ; the collections $ Solon and Thales were thus
of Demetrius Phalereus and Sosi- distinguished, as is well known; Pit-
ades ap. Stobeus; Florzl. 3,79 sq. ; tacus was Aesymnetes of Mytilene;
Stobeeus himself in different parts Periander, tyrant of Corinth ; Myso,
ofthe same work, and many others. according to Hipponax (Fr. 34 b,
1 For example, the lyric frag- Diog. i. 107), had been declared by
ments in Diog. i. 71, 78, 85; the Apollo the most blameless of men ;
word of Pittacus, which Simonides the name of Bias was used prover-
quotes in Plato, Prot. 339 C; that bially for a wise judge (Hipponax,
of Cleobulus, also quoted by Si- Demodicus, and Heracleitus ap.
monides, ap. Diog. 1. 90; that of Diog. i. 84, 88; Strabo, xiv. 12, p. -
Aristodemus, quoted by Alczus, 636 Cas.; Diodorus, Exc. de virtute
Diog. i. 31. et vit. p. 552 Wess). Chilo is said
2 The remarkable statement of by Herod. (i. 59) to have inter-
Sextus (Pyrrh. τι. 65, M X, 45)— preted a miraculous portent.
which would presuppose physical 4 Diog. 1. 40. Similarly Plu-
enquiriesin others of the wise men tarch, Solon, c. 8 sub fin. The as-
besides Thales; viz. that Bias sertion to the contrary in the
maintained the reality of motion— Greater Hippias, 281 ¢, ascribed to
stands quite alone, and is probably Plato, is manifestly incorrect.
only an idle and ingenious de- 5 Cf. Arist. -Metaph. 1, 4, 2;
ductien from one of his poems or Eth. N. vi. 7
 THE SEVEN SAGES. 121

sophers, in the stricter meaning of the term, they

stand on the threshold of Philosophy, a relation which
tradition has strikingly expressed by distinguishing as
the wisest of the seven, to whom the mythic tripod re-
turns after completing its round, the founder of the
first school of Natural Philosophy.
In order to acquaint ourselves thoroughly with the
soil from which Greek Philosophy sprang, we have
still to consider how far the notions of the Greeks
about God and human nature, before the middle of
the sixth century, had been altered in the course of
advancing culture. That some change had occurred
we may take for granted, for in proportion as the moral
consciousness is purified and extended, the idea of
Deity, from which is derived the moral law and the moral
government of the universe, must also become purified
and extended; and the more man realises his liberty
and his superiority to other natural existences, the
more will he be inclined to distinguish the spiritual
element of his own nature in its essence, origin and
future destiny from the corporeal element. The pro-
gress of morals and of ethical reflection was therefore
of great moment to theology and anthropology; but
their influence was more broadly apparent when Philo-
sophy had attained to an independent development.
The older poets, subsequent to Homer and Hesiod,
in their notions of Deity, do not essentially transcend
the standpoint of their predecessors; we can only
discover, by slight indications, that a purer idea of
God was gradually forming itself, and the presupposed
plurality of gods more and more giving place to the
 122 INTRODUCTION.

conception of Zeus as the moral ruler of the universe. /

Under this aspect Archilochus celebrates him when he

says (Fr.79) that he beholds the works of men, both
the evil sic the good, and even watches over the doings
of animals; and the more the poet is convinced that
fate and fortune order all things, that the mind of man
changes like the day which Zeus allots to him, that the
gods raise those that are fallen, and cast down those
that stand (Fr. 14, 51, 69)—the more earnest are his
exhortations to commit all things to God. So also
Terpander! consecrates the introduction of a hymn
(Fr. 4) to Zeus, as the beginning and director of all
things ;and the elder Simonides sings (Fr. 1) that Zeus
has in his hand the end of all that exists, and orders it
as he wills. But similar passages are to be found even
in Homer; and in this respect the difference between
the two poets is, perhaps, only one of degree. Solon
more decidedly passes beyond the older anthropomorphic
idea of God, when he (13, 17 sqq.) says, ‘ Zeus, indeed,
watches over all things, and nothing is hidden from
him, but he is not aroused to anger by individual acts
as mortals are; when crime has accumulated, punish-
ment breaks in like the tempest which sweeps the
clouds from the sky, and so, sooner or later, retribution
overtakes everyone.’ Here the influence of moral re-
flection reacting upon the notion of Deity cannot be
mistaken.” We see the same reflection in Theognis
1A later contemporary of 160, and other passages), but the
Archilochus, about 680 B.c. express antithesis of Divine retri-
2 That the Divine retribution butive justice, and of human pas-
is often long withheld isa thought sion, shows a purer conception of
which we continually meet with, Deity.
even as early as Homer (JI. iv.
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 125

with a different result; for the thought of the gods’

power and knowledge leads him to doubt their justice.
‘The thoughts of men,’ he says, ‘are vain (v. 141, 402) ;
the gods bring to pass all things as seemeth them good,
and vain are all a man’s efforts if the demon has
destined him to adversity. The gods know the mind
and deeds of the just and of the unjust’ (v. 887).
This consideration is sometimes connected (as in v.
445, 591, 1029 sqq.) with exhortations to resignation,
but in other places the poet irreverently accuses Zeus of
treating good and evil alike, of loading sinners with
wealth, of condemning the righteous to poverty, and of
visiting the sins of fathers on their innocent children.!
If we may suppose such reflections to have been at all
frequent in those times, we can the more easily under-
stand that some of the ancient philosophers should
contemporaneously have opposed to the anthropomor-
phic notions of polytheism an essentially different
conception of God. This conception, indeed, could
only have come from Philosophy; unphilosophic reflec-
tion did no more than prepare the way for it, without
actually quitting the soil of the popular faith.
The same may be said of anthropology. The history
of this order of ideas is completely bound up with the
theories about death and a future state. The dis-
crimination of soul and body originates in the sensuous
1 'V. 373. ἐν ταὐτῇ μοίρᾳ τόν τε δίκαιον ἔχειν;
Ζεῦ φίλε, θαυμάζω σε σὺ γὰρ πάν- ete.
τεσσιν ανασσει...
ἀνθρώπων δ᾽ εὖ οἶσθα νόον καὶ θυμὸν similarly 731 sqq., where the ques
ἑκάστου... tion is likewise asked:
πῶς δή σευ, Kopovidn, τολμᾷ νόος καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἀθανάτων βασιλεῦ, πῶς
ἄνδρας ἀλιτροὺς ἐστὶ δίκαιον K.T.A,
124 INTRODUCTION.

man from his experience of their actual separation,

from beholding the corpse out of which the animating
breath has departed. Therefore the notion of the soul
at first contains nothing but what may be immediately
derived from that experience. The soul is represented
as an essence of the nature of breath or air; as cor-
poreal (for it dwells in the body and quits it at death
in the manner of something extended '), but without the
completeness and power of the living man. In regard
to the soul after its separation from the body and de-
parture to the other world, we know from the Homeric
representations what was thought on the subject;? the
substance of the man is his body ;? the bodiless souls in
Hades are like shadows and shapes of mist, or like forms
which appear in dreams to the living, but cannot be
grasped ; vital power, speech, and memory have deserted
them;‘the sacrificial blood of offerings restores their
speech and consciousness, but only for a little time. A
few favoured ones, indeed, enjoy a happier fate ;° while
1 The soul of a murdered per- and beneath the earth (Od. xi.
son, for instance, escapes through 297 sqq.); Menelaus and Rhada-
the wound. Cf. 11. xvi. 505, 856 ; manthus, who, the one as the son-
xxii. 362, and many other pas- in-law, the other as the son of Zeus,
sages in Homer. were taken to Elysium instead of
2 Od. x. 490 sqq.; x1. 34 sqq. dying. (Od. iv. 561 sqq.) The
151 sqq. 215 sqq. 386 sqq.; 466 strange statement that Hercules
sqq.; xxiv. sub init.; 11, 1. 3; was himself in Olympus, while
xxill. 69 sqq. his shadow remained in Hades
3 The αὐτὸς in opposition to ( Od. xi. 600)—a notion in which
the ψυχὴ, Il. i. 4. later allegorists have sought so
4 This is the usual description, many profound meanings—is to
with which Od. xi. 540 sqq. 567 be explained simply from the fact
sqq. is certainly at variance. that vv. 601-603 are an interpola-
5 e.g. Tiresias, who by the tion of a later period, when the hero
favour of Persephone retained his had been deified, and it was there-
consciousness in Hades; the Tyn- fore impossible to think of him as
daridz, who alternately lived above any longer in Hades
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 125

the saying of Achilles that the life of the poorest la-

bourer is better than dominion over shadows, applies to
all the rest. But as this privilege is limited to solitary
cases, and is connected not with moral worth, but with
some arbitrary favour of the gods, we can hardly seek
in it the idea of future retribution. This idea comes
out, it is true, more strongly in Homer, when he
speaks of the punishments undergone by souls after
death; but here again only marked and exceptional
offences against the gods’ incur these extraordinary
penalties, which, therefore, have rather the character of
personal revenge; and the future state generally, so far
as any part of it, either for good or for evil, goes beyond
an indistinct and shadowy existence, is determined far
more by the favour or disfavour of the gods than by
the merits of mankind.
A more important conception of the future life
might be found in the honours accorded to the dead, and
the idea of universal moral retribution. From the
former sprang the belief in demons, which we first
meet with in Hesiod.? This origin of demons is
shown, not only by the hero-worship which afterwards
sprang up, but by the passage in Hesiod * which says

1 The Odyssey, xi. 575 sqq.,re- poet represents (Fr. 834) Diomede,
lates the punishment of Tityus, like the Homeric Menelaus, as be-
Sisyphus and Tantalus ; and in 77]. coming immortal. Pindar, Nem.
jii. 278, perjured persons are x. 7, says the same thing. Achilles
threatened with punishment here- is placed by Plato in the Islands
after. of the Blest (Symp. 179 E; ef.
2 Ἔργα καὶ ἡμέραι, 120 sqq. Pindar, Ol. ii. 143); Achilles and
139 sq. 250 sqq. Diomede likewise—vide the Scolion
3. Loc. cit. 165 sqq. Cf. Ibycus of Callistratus on Harmodius
Fr. 33 (Achilles we read married (Bergk lyr. gr. 1020, 10, from
Medea in Elysium). The same Athen. xy. 695 B).
126 INTRODUCTION.

that the great chiefs of the heroic times were taken

after their death to the Islands of the Blest. The
theory of opposite states, not merely for individuals,
but for all the dead, is contained in the doctrine we lately
considered of the mystic theologians, that in Hades the
consecrated ones live with the gods, the unconsecrated
are plunged in night and a miry swamp. But this
notion must have acquired a moral significance later
on; at first, even when it was not so crudely appre-
hended, it was still only a means of recommending the
initiatory rites through the motives of hope and fear.
Transmigration ! took its rise more directly from ethical
considerations ; here it is precisely the thought of moral
retribution which connects the present life of man with
his previous and future life. It appears, however, that
this doctrine in early times was confined to a somewhat
narrow sphere, and became more widely diffused first
through the Pythagoreans and then through Plato.
Even the more general thought on which it is founded,
the ethical conception of the other world as a state of
universal retribution, seems to have been slow to receive
recognition. Pindar, indeed, presupposes this concep-
tion,? and in after writers, as in Plato,’ it appears as an
ancient tradition already set aside by the enlightenment
of their time. In the Lyric poets, on the other hand,
we find, when they speak of the life beyond, that they
still keep in all essential respects to the Homeric repre-
sentations. Not only does Anacreon recoil with horror
from the terrible pit of Hades (Fr. 43), but Tyrtzeus
1 Vide supra, p. 67 sqq. 3 Rep. i. 330 D, 11. 363 C.
2 Vide supra, p. 70, note 4.
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 127

too (9, 3) has no other immortality to set before the

brave than that of posthumous fame; Erinna (Fr. 1)
says the glory of great deeds is silent with the dead;
and Theognis (567 sqq. 973 sqq.) encourages himself
in the enjoyment of life by the reflection that after
death he will lie dumb, like a stone, and that in Hades
there is an end of all life's pleasures. There is no
evidence in any Greek poet before Pindar, of the hope
of a future life.
We find then, as the result of our enquiry up to this
point, that in Greece, the path of philosophic reflection
had been in many ways cleared and prepared, before
the advent of Thales and Pythagoras, but that it had
never been actually attempted. In the religion, civil.
institutions, and moral conditions of the Greeks, there
was abundant material, and varied stimulus for scien-
tific thought: reflection already began to appropriate
this material; cosmogonic theories were propounded:
human life was contemplated in its different aspects
from the standpoint of religious faith, of morality, and
of worldly prudence. Many rules of action were set
up, and in all these ways the keen observation, open
mind and clear judgment of the Hellenic race asserted
and formed themselves. But there was as yet no at-
tempt to reduce phenomena to their ultimate ground,
or to explain them naturally from a uniform point of
view from the same general causes. The formation
of the world appears in the cosmogonic poems as a
fortuitous event, subject to no law of nature; and if
ethical reflection pays more attention to the natural
connection of causes and effects, on the other hand it
128 INTRODUCTION.

confines itself far more than cosmology within the limits

of the particular. Philosophy learned indeed much
from these predecessors, in regard both to its form and
matter; but Philosophy did not itself exist until the
moment when the question was propounded concerning
the natural causes of things.
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 129

CHAPTER III.
ON THE CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
Tn seeking to determine the common characteristic
which distinguishes a long series of historical pheno-
mena from other series, we are at once encountered by
this difficulty:—that in the course of the historical
development all particular traits alter, and that conse-
quently it appears impossible to find any single feature
which shall belong to every member of the whole that
we want to describe. Such is the case in regard to
Greek Philosophy. Whether we fix our attention on
the object, method or results of Philosophy, the Greek
systems display such important differences among
themselves, and such numerous points of contact with
other systems, that, as it would seem, we cannot rest
upon any one characteristic as satisfactory for our
purpose. The object of Philosophy is in all ages the
same—Reality as a whole; but this object may be ap-
proached from various sides and treated with more or
less comprehensiveness; and the Greek philosophers
differ in this respect so greatly among themselves, that
we cannot say wherein consists their common difference
from others. In like manner, the form and method
of scientific procedure have so often altered both in
Greek and other philosophies, that it seems hardly
VOL. I. K
130 INTRODUCTION.

possible to borrow any characteristic distinction from

thence. I cannot, at any rate, agree with Fries! in his
assertion that ancient Philosophy proceeds epagogically,
and modern epistematically ; that the one advances from
facts to abstractions, from the particular to the univer-
sal, the other from the universal, from principles, to the
particular. For among the ancient philosophers, we
find the pre-Socratics employing almost exclusively a
dogmatic, constructive method; and the same may be
said of the Stoics, Epicureans, and, more especially, of
the Neo-Platonists. Even Plato and Aristotle so little
confine themselves to mere induction that they make
science, in the strict sense of the word, begin with
the derivation of the conditioned from first principles.
On the other hand, among the moderns, the whole of
the large and influential empirical school declares the
epagogic method alone to be legitimate; while most of
the other schools unite induction with construction.
This distinction, therefore, cannotbe carried out. Nor
can we assent to the observation of Schleiermacher,? that
the intimate relation persistently maintained between
poetry and philosophy is characteristic of Hellenic, as
compared with Indian Philosophy, where the two ele-
ments are so blended as to be indistinguishable from
each other, and with the Philosophy of northern nations,
where they never entirely coincide; and that as soon
as the mythologic form loses itself, with Aristotle, the
higher character of Greek science is likewise lost. The
last assertion is indeed untrue, for it was Aristotle who
conceived the problem of science most clearly and defi-
1 Geschichte der Phil. i. 49 sqq. 2 Ibid. p. 18.
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 131

nitely; and of the other philosophers, not a few were

quite independent of the mythological tradition—for
example, the Ionian physicists, the Eleatics, Atomists,
and Sophists, Socrates and the Socratic Schools, Epi-
curus and his successors, the New Academy, and the
Sceptics; others, with the freedom of a Plato, made
use of mythology merely as an artistic ornament, or
sought, like the Stoics and Plotinus, to support it
by a philosophic interpretation, without allowing their
philosophie system to be conditioned by it. On the
other hand, Christian Philosophy was always depen-
dent on positive religion. In the Middle Ages, this
dependence was far greater than the dependence of
Philosophy upon religion in Greece, and in modern
times it has certainly been no less great. It may be
urged that the Christian religion has a different origin
and a different content; but this is a secondary con-
sideration in regard to the general attitude of Philoso-
phy to Religion. In both cases, unscientific notions are
presupposed by thought without any previous demon-
stration of their truth. But,in fact, no such decisive
- contrast in scientific procedure is anywhere discoverable
as would justify us in ascribing one definite method,
universally and exclusively, to Greek, and another to
modern Philosophy. As little do the results on each
side bear out such a distinction. We find among the
Greeks, Hylozoistic and Atomistic systems, and these
are also to be found among the moderns; in Plato and
Aristotle we see a dualistic idealism opposed to ma-
terialism, and it is this view of the world which has
become predominant in Christendom; we see the sen-
K2
152 INTRODUCTION.

sualism of the Stoics and Epicureans reproduced in

English and French empiricism ; and the scepticism of
the New Academy in Hume; the pantheism of the
Eleatics and Stoics may be compared with the doctrine
of Spinoza; the Neo-Platonic spiritualism with Christian
mysticism and Schelling’s theory of identity ; in many
respects also with the idealism of Leibnitz: even in
Kant and Jacobi, in Fichte and Hegel, many analogies
with Greek doctrines can be shown; and in the ethics
of the Christian period there are few propositions which
have not parallels in the sphere of Greek Philosophy.
Supposing, however, that in all cases parallels were not
forthcoming, still the features peculiar on the one hand
to Greek, and on the other to modern Philosophy, could
only be regarded as generally. distinctive of each, if
they existed in all the Greek systems, and were absent
from all the modern. And of how many characteristics
could this be asserted? Here again, therefore, we have
failed to discover any true mark of distinction.
Nevertheless, an unmistakable family likeness
binds together the remotest branches of Greek science.
But as the countenances of men and women, old people '
and children, often resemble one another, though their
individual features are not alike, so is it with the
spiritual affinity of phenomena that are connected his-
torically. It is not this or that particular characteristic
whica is the same; the similarity lies in the expression
of the whole, in the formation of corresponding parts
after the same model, and their combination in an ana-
logous relation; or if this is no longer the case, in our
being able to connect the later phase with the earlier,
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 158

as its natural consequence, according to the law of a

continuous development. Thus the aspect of Greek
Philosophy altered considerably in the lapse of years;
yet the features which subsequently showed themselves
were already present in its earliest shape ; and however
strange its appearance in the last centuries of its his-
torical existence, closer observation will show that the
original forms are even then discernible, although time-
worn and decomposed. We must not, indeed, expect to
find any particular quality unaltered throughout its whole
course, or equally present in each of the systems; the
general character of Greek Philosophy will have been
rightly determined if we succeed in indicating the pri-
mitive type, in reference to which the different systems,
in their various declensions from it, are intelligible.
If, for this purpose, we compare Greek Philosophy
with the corresponding productions of other nations,
what first strikes us is its marked difference from the
more ancient Oriental speculation. That speculation,
the concern almost solely of the priests, had wholly
developed itself from religion, on which its direction
and content constantly depended; it never, therefore,
attained a strictly scientific form and method, but re-
mained partly in the shape of an external, grammatical,
and logical schematism, partly in that of aphoristic pre-
scripts and reflections, and partly in that of imaginative
and poetical description. The Greeks were the first
who gained sufficient freedom of thought to seek for the
truth respecting the nature of things, not in religious
tradition, but in the things themselves; among them
first a strictly scientific method, a knowledge that follows
154 INTRODUCTION.

no laws except its own, became possible. This formal

character at once completely distinguishes Greek Phiio-
sophy from the systems and researches of the Orientals;
and it is scarcely necessary to speak of the material
opposition presented by the two methods of conceiving
the world. The Oriental, in regard to nature, is not free,
and has consequently been able neither to explain phe-
nomena logically from their natural causes, nor to attain
liberty in civil life, nor purely human culture. The
Greek, on the contrary, by virtue of his liberty, can per-
ceive in nature a reguiar order, and in human life can
strive to produce a morality at once free and beautiful.
The same characteristics distinguish Greek Philo-
sophy from that of the Christians and Mohammedans
in the Middle Ages. Here, again, we find no free en-
quiry: science is fettered by a double authority—by
the theological authority of positive religion, and by
the philosophical authority of ancient authors who had
been the instructors.of the Arabians and of the Chris-
tian nations. This dependence upon authority would
of itself have sufficed to cause a development of
thought quite different from that of the Greeks, even
had the dogmatic content of Christianity and Moham-
medanism borne greater resemblance to the Hellenic
doctrines than was the case. But what a gulf is there
between Greek and Christian in the sense of the early
and medieval Church! While the Greek seeks the
Divine primarily in nature, for the Christian, nature
loses all worth and all right to existence in the thought
of the omnipotence and infinity of the Creator; and
nature cannot even be regarded as the pure revelation
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. = 135

of this omnipotence, for it is distorted and ruined by

sin. While the Greek, relying on his reason, seeks to
know the laws of the universe, the Christian flees from
the errors of reason, which to him is carnal, and
darkened by sin, to a revelation the ways and mysteries
of which he thinks himself all the more bound to
reverence, the more they clash with reason and the
natural course of things. While the Greek endeavours
to attain in human life the fair harmony of spirit and
nature, which is the distinctive characteristic of Hellenic
morality ; the ideal of the Christian lies in an asceti-
cism which breaks off all alliance between reason and
sense: instead of heroes, fighting and enjoying like
men, he has saints displaying monkish apathy; instead
of Gods full of sensual desires, sexless angels; instead
of a Zeus who authorises and indulges in all earthly
delights—a God who becomes man, in order by his
death openly and practically to condemn them. So
deeply rooted an opposition between the two theories of
the world necessitated an equal contrast in the ten-
dencies of Philosophy: the Philosophy of the Christian
Middle Ages of course turned away from the world and
human life, as that of the Greeks inclined to them. It
was, therefore, quite logical and natural that the one
Philosophy should neglect the investigations of nature
which the other had commenced; that the one should
work for heaven, the other for earth; the one for the
Church, the other for the State ; that the science of the
Middle Ages should lead to faith in a divine revelation,
and to the sanctity of the ascetic as its end, and Greek
science to the understanding of nature’s laws, and to the
136 INTRODUCTION.

virtue which consists in the conformity of human life

to nature; that, in short, there should exist between the
two Philosophies a radical opposition coming to light
even when they apparently harmonise, and giving an
essentially different meaning to the very words of the
ancients in the mouths of their Christian successors.
Even the Mohammedan view of the world is in one re-
spect nearer to the Greek than the Christian is, for in
the moral sphere it does not assume so hostile an atti-
tude to man’s sensuous life. The Mohammedan philoso-
phers of the Middle Ages bestowed also greater attention
on natural research, and restricted themselves less ex-
clusively to theological and theologico-metaphysical
questions than the Christians. But the Mohammedan
nations were wanting in that rare genius for the intel-
lectual treatment and moral ennobling of natural in-
stincts by which the Greek was so favourably distin-
guished from the Oriental, who was careless of form,
and carried both self-indulgence and self-mortification
to excess. The abstract monotheism, too, of the Koran
is even more directly opposed to the deified world of the
Greeks than the Christian doctrine is. The Moham-
medan Philosophy, therefore, in regard to its general
tendency, must, like the Christian, be pronounced essen-
tially different from the Greek. In it we miss the free
outlook upon the actual world, and therewith the activity
and independence of thought, so natural to the Greeks ;
and though it starts from a zealous desire for the know-
ledge of nature, the theological presuppositions of its
dogmatic creed, and the magical conceptions of the
latest antiquity, are always in the way. Lastly, the
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 157

ultimate aim which it proposes to itself consists far

more in the consummation of the religious life and the
attainment of mystic abstraction and supernatural illu-
mination, than in the clear and scientific understanding
of the world and its phenomena.
On these points, however, there can be httle con-
troversy. It is a far more difficult task to determine
the specific character of Greek Philosophy as distin-
guished from the modern. For modern Philosophy
itself arose essentially under Greek influence, and by
means of a partial retwm to Greek intuitions; it is,
therefore, in its whole spirit, far more allied to Hellenic
Philosophy than the Philosophy of the Middle Ages, in
spite of its dependence on Greek authorities, ever was.
This similarity is heightened, and the difficulty of
differentiating them increased, by the fact that the old
Philosophy, in the course of its own development,
approximated to the Christian conception of the world
(with which it has been blended in modern science) and
paved the way for that conception. The doctrines
which were the preparation for Christianity are often very
like Christian doctrine modified by classical studies ; the
original Greek doctrines resemble in many respects the
modern doctrines which subsequently developed them-
selves under the influence of the ancients; so that it seems
hardly possible to assign distinctive characteristics that
are generally applicable. But there appears at the outset
this fundamental difference between the two Philoso-
phies—-viz. that the one is the earlier, the other the later ;
the one is original, the other derived. Greek Philosophy
sprang from the soil of Greek national: life and of the
 138 INTRODUCTION.

Greek view of the world; even when it passes beyond

the original limits of the Hellenic sphere and prepares .
the transition from the ancient period to the Christian,
its essential content can only be understood in relation
to the development of the Greek spirit. Even at that
period we feel that it is the abiding influence of
classic ideas which hinders it from really adopting the
later standpoint. Conversely, with the modern philo-
sophers, even when at first sight they seem wholly to
return to the ancient modes of thought, we can always,
on closer inspection, detect motives and conceptions
foreign to the ancients. The only question is, therefore,
where these motives and conceptions are ultimately to
be sought?
All buman culture results from the reciprocal
action of the inward and the outward, of spontaneity
and receptivity, of mind and nature; its direction is,
therefore, principally determined by the relation that
exists between these two sides, which relation, as we
have already seen, was always more harmonious in the
Greek race than in any other, by reason of its peculiar
character and historical conditions. The distinctive
peculiarity of the Greeks lies, indeed, in this unbroken
unity of the spiritual and the natural, which is at once
the prerogative and the confining barrier of this classical
nation. Not that spirit and nature were as yet wholly
undiscriminated. On the contrary, the great superiority
of Greek civilisation, as compared with earlier or con-
temporary civilisations, essentially depends on this fact
—that in the light of the Hellenic consciousness there
disappears, not only the irrational disorder of primitive
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 189

and natural life, but also that fantastic confusion and

interminglement of the ethical with the physical, which
we almost everywhere meet with in the East. The
Greek attains his independence of the powers of nature
by the free exercise of his mental and moral activity;
transcending merely natural ends, he regards the sensible
as an instrument and symbol of the spiritual. Thus
the two spheres are to him separate; and as the ancient
gods of nature were overpowered by the Olympian
deities, so his own natural state gives place to the
higher state of a moral culture that is free, human, and
beautiful. But this discrimination of spirit and nature
does not as yet involve the theory of radical opposition
and contradiction—the systematic breach between them
which was preparing in the last centuries of the ancient
world, and has been so fully accomplished in the Chris-
tian world. ‘The spirit is always regarded as the higher
element in comparison with nature; man looks upon
his free moral activity as the essential aim and content
of his existence; he is not satisfied to enjoy in a
sensuous manner, or to work in servile dependence on
the will of another ; what he does he will do freely, for
himself ; the happiness which he strives for he will
attain by the use and development of his bodily and
mental powers, by a vigorous social life, by doing his
share of work for the whole, by the respect of his fellow
citizens; and on this personal capability and freedom is
founded that proud self-confidence which raises the
Hellene so far above all the barbarians. The reason
that Greek life has not only a more beautiful form, but
also a higher content than that of any other ancient
140 INTRODUCTION.

race, is because no other was able to rise with such

freedom above mere nature, or with such idealism to
make sensible existence simply the sustainer of spiritual.
If tnen this unity of spirit with nature were understood
as a unity without difference, the expression would ill
serve to characterise it. Rightly apprehended, on the
other hand, it correctly expresses the distinction of the
Greek world from the Christian Middle Ages and from
modern times. The Greek rises above the world of
outward existence and absolute dependence on the forces
of nature, but he does not on that account hoid nature
to be either impure or not divine. On the contrary, he
sees in it the direct manifestation of higher powers;
his very gods are not merely moral beings, they are at
the same time, and originally, powers of nature; they
have the form of natural existence, they constitute a
plurality of beings, created, and like unto men, restricted
in their power of action, having the universal force of
nature as eternal chaos before them, and as pitiless
fate above them; far from denying himself and his
nature for the sake of the gods, the Greek knows no
better way of honouring them than by the cheerful en-
joyment of life, and the worthy exercise of the talents
he has acquired in the development of his natural
powers of body and mind. Accordingly moral life also
is throughout founded upon natural temperament and
circumstances. From the standpoint of ancient Greece
it is impossible that man should consider his nature
corrupt, and himself, as originally constituted, sinful.
There is, consequently, no demand that he should re- |
nounce his natural inclinations, repress his sensuality,
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 141

and be radically changed by a moral new birth; no

demand even for that struggle against sensuality which
our moral law is accustomed to prescribe even when it is
no longer based upon positive Christianity. On the con-
trary, the natural powers as such are assumed to be good,
and the natural inclinations as such to be legitimate;
morality consists, according to the truly Greek concep-
tion of Aristotle, in guiding these powers to the right
end, and maintaining these inclinations in right measure
and balance: virtue is nothing more than the intelligent
and energetic development of natural endowments, and
the highest law of morals is to follow the course of
nature freely and rationally. This standpoint is not
a result of reflection, it is not attained by a struggle
with the opposite demand for the renunciation of nature,
as is the case with the moderns when they profess the
same principles; it is, therefore, quite untrammelled
by doubt and uncertainty. Tothe Greek it appears as
natural and necessary that he should allow sensuality
its rights as that he should control it by the exercise of
will and reflection; he can regard the matter in no
other light, and he therefore pursues his course with
full security, honestly feeling that he is justified in so
doing. But among the natural presuppositions of free
activity must also be reckoned the social relations in
which each individual is placed by his birth. The
Greek allows these relations an amount of influence
over his morality, to which in modern times we are not
accustomed. The tradition of his people is to him the
highest moral authority, life in and for the state the
highest duty, far outweighing all others; beyond the
149 INTRODUCTION.

limits of the national and political community, moral

obligation is but imperfectly recognised ; the validity of
a free vocation determined by personal conviction, the
idea of the rights and duties of man in the wider sense,
were not generally acknowledged until the transitional
period which coincides with the dissolution of the ancient
Greek standpoint. How far the classical epoch and
view of human life are in this respect removed from
ours, appears in the constant confusion of morals with
politics, in the inferior position of women, especially
among the Ionian races, in the conception of marriage
and sexual relations, but above all in the abrupt opposi-
tion between Greeks and barbarians,-and the slavery
which was connected withit, and was so indispensable
an institution in ancient states. These shadow-sides of
Greek life must not be overlooked. In one respect,
however, things were easier for the Greek than for us.
His range of vision, it is true, was more limited, his
relations were narrower, his moral principles were less
pure and strict and universal than ours; but, perhaps,
on that very account, his life was the more fitted to
form complete, harmoniously cultured men and classical
characters.'
The classic form of Greek art was also essentially
conditioned by the mental character we have been de-
scribing. The classic ideal, as Vischer * well remarks,
is the ideal of a people that is moral without any break
1 Cf. Hegel's Phil. der Gesch. der Phil. 8. Kant, i. 79 sqq.; and
Ῥ. 291 sq. 297 sqq. 305 sqq.; s- especially the thoughtful and for-
thetik, ii. 56 sqq. 78 sqq. 100 sqq.; cible remarks of Vischer in his
Gesch. der Phil. i. 170 sq.; Phil. sthetik, 11. 287 sqq. 446 sqq.
der Rel. ii. 99 sqq.; Braniss, Gesch. 2 Hsth, ii, 459.
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 143
with nature: there is consequently in the spiritual con-
tent of its ideal, and therefore in the expression of that
ideal, no surplus which cannot be unrestrainedly poured
forth in the form as a whole. The spiritual is not ap-
prehended as opposed to the sensible phenomenon, but
in and with it; consequently, the spiritual attains to
artistic representation only so far as it is capable of
direct expression in the sensible form. A Greek work
of art bears the character of simple, satisfied beauty,
of plastic calm; the idea realises itself in the pheno-
menon, as the soul in the body with which it clothes
itself by virtue of its creating force; there is as yet no
spiritual content which resists this plastic treatment,
and which could not find its adequate and direct repre-
sentation in the sensible form. Greek art consequently
only attained to perfection where, from the nature of the
subject,no task was proposed to it which could not be com-
pletely accomplished in the way we have just described.
In plastic art, in the epic, in classic architecture, the
Greeks have remained unrivalled models for all time;
on the other hand, in music they seem to have been far
behind the moderns; because this art, more than any
other, by its very nature leads us back from the fugitive
external elements of tone to the inner region of feeling
and of subjective mood. For the same reasons their
painting seems only to have been comparable with that
of the moderns in respect of drawing. Even Greek lyric
poetry, great and perfect as it is of its kind, differs no
less from the more emotional and subjective modern
lyric poetry than the metrical verse of the ancients from
the rhymed verse of the moderns; and if, on the one
144 INTRODUCTION.

hand, no later poet could have written a Sophoclean

drama, on the other, the ancient tragedies of fate as
compared with modern tragedies since Shakespeare,
fail in the natural evolution of events from the
characters, from the temperament of the dramatis
persone ; and thus, like lyric poetry, instead of fully
developing its own particular form of art, tragedy has
still in a certain sense the epic type. In all these traits
one and the same character is manifested: Greek art
is distinguished from modern by its pure objectivity;
the artist in his creation does not remain within himself,
in the inner region of his thoughts and feelings, and
his work when accomplished suggests nothing internal
which it has not fully expressed. The form is as yet
absolutely filled with the content; the content in its
whole compass attains determinate existence in the
form ; spirit is still in undisturbed union with nature,
the idea is not yet separated from the phenomenon.
We must expect to find the same character in Greek
Philosophy, since it is the spirit of the Hellenic people
that created that Philosophy, and the Hellenic view of
the world that there receives its scientific expression.
This character first shows itself in a trait which indeed
is not easy to define in an exhaustive and accurate
manner, but which must strike every student in the
writings and fragments of ancient Philosophy: in the
whole mode of treatment, the whole attitude which the
author adopts in reference to his subject. That freedom
and simplicity, which Hegel praises ' in the ancient philo-
sophers, that plastic repose with which a Parmenides, a
1 Gesch, der Phil. i. 124.
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 145

Plato, an Aristotle handle the most difficult questions,

is the same in the sphere of scientific thought as that
which in the sphere of art we call the classic style.
The philosopher does not in the first place reflect upon
himself and his personal condition: he has not to deal
with a number of preliminary presuppositions and
make abstraction of his own thoughts and interests that
he may attain to a purely philosophic mood; he is in
such a mood from the very beginning. In the treat-
ment, therefore, of scientific questions he does not
allow himself to be disturbed by other opinions, nor by
his own wishes ; he goes straight to the matter in hand,
desiring to absorb himself in it, to give free scope to its
working within him; he is at peace as to the results of
his thought, because ready to accept whatever approves
itself to him as true and real.' This objectivity was no
doubt far more easily attainable for Greek Philosophy
than for our own ; thought, having then before it neither
a previous scientific development nor a fixed religious
system, could grapple with scientific problems from their
very commencement with complete freedom. Such ob-
jectivity, furthermore, constitutes not only the strength,
but also the weakness of this Philosophy; for it is
essentially conditional on man’s having not yet become
mistrustful of his thought, on his being but partially
! Take, for example, the well- the shortness of human life.’
known utterances of SjProtagoras: These propositions were in the
‘ Man is the measure of all things, highest degree offensive at that
of Being how it is, of non-Being how period; there was in them a de-
it is not. ‘Of the gods I have mand for a complete revolution of
nothing to say; neither that they all hitherto received ideas. Yet
are, nor that they are not; for how statuesque is the style! With
there is much that hinders me,— what classical calmness are they
the obscurity of the matter and enunciated !
VOL. I. L
140 INTRODUCTION.

conscious of the subjective activity through which his

presentations are formed, and therefore of the share
which this activity has in their content; in a word, on
his not having arrived at self-criticism. The difference,
however, between ancient Philosophy and modern is
here strikingly and unquestionably displayed.
This characteristic suggests further points for re-
flection. So simple a relation to its object was only
possible to Greek thought, because, as compared with
modern thought, it started from a much more incom-
plete experience, a more limited knowledge of nature,
a less active development of inner life. The greater
the mass of facts with which we are acquainted, the
more complicated are the problems which have to be
solved in attempting their scientific explanation. The
more accurately, on the one hand, we have come to in-
vestigate external events in their specific character; the
more, on the other, has our inner eye become keen for
introspection, through the intensifying of religious and
moral life; the more our historical knowledge of human
conditions widens, the less possible is it to apply the
analogies of human spiritual life to natural phenomena,
and the analogies of the external world to the pheno-
mena of consciousness ; to rest satisfied with imperfect
explanations abstracted from limited and one-sided ex-
perience, or to presuppose the truth of our conceptions
without accurate enquiry. It naturally followed, there-
fore, that the problems with which all Philosophy is
concerned should in modern times partially change their
scope and significance. Modern Philosophy begins with
doubt; in Bacon, with doubt of the previous science;
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. | 147

in Descartes, with doubt of the truth of our concep-

tions generally—absolute doubt. Having this starting-
point, it is forced from the outset to keep steadily in
view the question of the possibility and conditions of
knowledge, and for the answering of that question it
institutes all those enquiries into the origin of our
conceptions, which at each new turn that they have
taken have gained in profundity, in importance, and in
extent. These enquiries were at first remote from
Greek science, which, firmly believing in the veracity
of thought, applied itself directly to the search for the
Real. But even after that faith had been shaken by
Sophistic, and the necessity of a methodical enquiry had
been asserted by Socrates, this enquiry is still far from
being the accurate analysis of the intellect undertaken
by modern Philosophy since Locke and Hume. Aristotle
himself, though he describes how conceptions result from
experience, investigates very incompletely the conditions
on which the correctness of our conceptions depends;
and the necessity of a discrimination between their
objective and subjective constituents never seems to
occur to him. Even the scepticism posterior to Aristotle
gave no impulse to any more fundamental and theoretic
investigations. The empiricism of the Stoics and the
sensualism of the Epicureans were based as little as the
neo-Platonic and neo-Pythagorean speculation on en-
quiries tending to supply the lacunz in the Aristotelian
theory of knowledge. The criticism of the faculty of
cognition, which has attained so great an importance
for modern Philosophy, in ancient Philosophy was
proportionally undeveloped. Where, however, a clear
L 2
148 INTRODUCTION.

recognition is wanting of the conditions under which

scientific enquiry must be undertaken, there science
must necessarily itself be wanting in that certainty of
procedure which due regard to those conditions alone
can give. Thus we find that the Greek philosophers,
even the greatest and most careful observers among
them, have all more or less the failing with which
philosophers have been so often reproached. They are
apt to cease their enquiries prematurely, and to found
general concepts and principles upon imperfect or in-
sufficiently proved experiences, which are then treated
as indisputable truths and made the basis of farther
inferences; to display, in short, that dialectical ex-
clusiveness which is the result of employing certain
presentations universally assumed, established by lan-
guage, and recommending themselves by their apparent
accordance with nature, without further enquiring into
their origin and legitimacy, or keeping in view while
so employing them their real foundation in fact.
Modern Philosophy has itself been sufficiently faulty
in this respect; it is humiliating to compare the
speculative rashness of many a later philosopher with
the circumspection displayed by Aristotle in testing the
theories of others, and in examining the various points
of view that arise out of the questions he is discussing.
But in the general course of modern science the demand
for a strict and exact method has more and more made
itself felt, and even where the philosophers themselves
have not adequately responded to this demand, the other:
sciences have afforded them a far greater mass of facts
and laws empirically established; and further, these
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 149

facts have been much more carefully sifted and tested,

and these laws much more accurately determined, than
was possible at the period of ancient Philosophy. This
higher development of the experimental sciences, which
distinguishes modern times from antiquity, is closely
connected with that critical method in which Greek
Philosophy and Greek science generally were so greatly
deficient.
The distinction of subjective and objective in our
conceptions is nearly allied to the distinction of the
intellectual and corporeal, of phenomena within us and
phenomena without. This distinction, like the other,
is generally wanting in clearness and precision with the
ancient philosophers. Anaxagoras, it is true, represents
spirit as opposed to the material world; and in the
_ Platonic School this opposition is developed to its
fullest extent. Nevertheless, in Greek Philosophy, the
two spheres are constantly overlapping one another.
On the one hand, natural phenomena, which theology
had considered to be immediately derived from beings
akin to men, continued to be explained by analogies
derived from human life. On such an analogy were
based not only the Hylozoism of many ancient physi-
cists, and that belief in the animate nature of the world
which we find in Plato, the Stoics and neo-Platonists,
but also the teleology which, in most of the philosophic
schools since Socrates, has interfered with, and not un-
frequently overpowered, the physical explanation of
nature. On the other hand, the true essence of psychic
phenomena was also not determined with accuracy ; and
if only a certain number of the ancient philosophers
150 INTRODUCTION.

contented themselves with such simple materialistic

explanations as were set up by many of the pre-Socratic
physicists, after them by the Stoics and Epicureans,
and also by individual Peripateties; yet even in the
spiritualistic psychology of a Plato, an Aristotle, or a
Plotinus we are surprised to find that the difference
between conscious and unconscious forces is almost ig-
nored, and that hardly any attempt is made to conceive
the different sides of human nature in their personal
unity. Hence it was easy to these philosophers to
explain the soul as compounded of distinct and radi-
cally heterogeneous elements; and hence, too, in their
conceptions relating to God, the world-soul, the spirits
of the stars, and similar subjects, the question of the
personality of these beings is generally so little con-
sidered. It was in the Christian period that the feeling
of the validity and importance of human personality
first attained its complete development; and so it is
in modern science that we first find on this point con-
ceptions sufficiently precise to render the confusion of
personal and impersonal characteristics so frequently met
with in ancient philosophy henceforward impossible.
The difference between Greek ethics and our own has
been already touched upon ; and it need scarcely be said —
that all our previous remarks on this subject equally
apply to philosophic ethics. Much as Philosophy itself
contributed to transform the old Greek conception of
moral life into a stricter, more abstract, more general
morality, the characteristic features of the ancient view
were in Philosophy only gradually effaced, and were
always more or less present down to the latest period of
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 151

antiquity. Not until after Aristotle was the close union

of morals with politics, so inherent in the Greeks, dis-
solved; and down to the time of Plotinus,
we can still
clearly recognise the esthetic treatment of ethics,
which was also essentially distinctive of the Hellenic
spirit.
The spiritual life of the Greeks in the thousand
years that elapsed between the rise and close of their
Philosophy certainly underwent great and important
changes, and Philosophy was itself one of the most
efficient causes by which these changes were brought
about. As Greek Philosophy represents generally the
character of the Greek spirit, it must also reflect the
transformations which in course of time that spirit has
undergone ; and the more so, because the greater num-
ber and the most influential of the philosophic systems
belong to the period when the older form of Greek
spiritual life was gradually melting away; when the
human mind was increasingly withdrawing itself from —
the outer world, to be concentrated with exclusive energy
upon itself—and when the transition from the classic to
the Christian and modern world was in part preparing,
and in part already accomplished. For this reason, the
characteristics which appeared in the philosophy of the
classical period cannot be unconditionally ascribed to
the whole of Greek Philosophy; yet the early character
of that Philosophy essentially influenced its entire sub-
sequent course. We see, indeed, in the whole of its
development, the original unity of spirit with nature
gradually disappearing; but as long as we continue on
Hellenic ground, we never find the abrupt separation
 162 INTRODUCTION.

between them, which was the starting-point of modern

science. |
In the commencement of Greek Philosophy, it is
before all things the external world which claims at-
tention. The question arises as to its causes; and the
answer is attempted without any preliminary enquiry -
into the human faculty of cognition; the reasons of
phenomena are sought in what is known to us through
the external perception, or is at any rate analogous to it.
But, on the other hand, just because as yet no exact
discrimination is made between the external world and
the world of consciousness, qualities are ascribed to cor-
poreal forms and substances, and effects are expected
from them, which could only in truth belong to spiritual
beings. Such are the characteristics of Greek Philo-
sophy up to the time of Anaxagoras. During this
period, philosophic interest chiefly confines itself to the
consideration of nature, and to conjectures respecting
the reasons of natural phenomena; the facts of con-
- sciousness are not yet recognised or investigated as
special phenomena.
This Philosophy of nature was opposed by Sophistie,
which denied man’s capacity for the cognition of things,
and directed his attention instead to his own practical
aims. But with the advent of Socrates, Philosophy
again inclined towards a search for the Real, though
at first this was not formulated into a system. The
lesser Socratic schools, indeed, contented themselves
with the application of knowledge to some one side
of man’s spiritual life, but Philosophy as a whole, far
from maintaining this subjective view of the Socratic
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 158

principle, culminated in the vast and comprehensive

systems of Plato and Aristotle, the greatest achieve-
ments of Greek science. These systems approximate
much more closely to modern Philosophy, on which
they have had an important influence, than the pre-
Socratic physics. Nature is with them neither the
sole nor the principal object of enquiry; side by side
with physics, metaphysics has a higher, and ethics
an equal prominence, and the whole is placed on a
firmer basis by the enquiries concerning the origin
of knowledge and the conditions of scientific method.
Moreover, the unsensuous form is distinguished from
the sensible phenomenon, as the essential from the acci-
dental, the eternal from the transitory; only in the
cognition of this unsensuous essence—only-in pure
thought—is the highest and purest knowledge to be
sought. Even in the explanation of nature, preference
is given to the investigation of forms and aims as com-
pared with the knowledge of physical causes; in man,
the higher part of his nature in its essence and origin
is discriminated from the sensual part; and the highest
problem for mankind is accordingly found exclusively
in the development of his spiritual life, and above all
of his knowledge. Although, however, the Platonic
and Aristotelian systems show themselves thus akin in
many respects to modern systems, yet the peculiar
stamp of the Greek spirit is unmistakably impressed
on them both. Plato is an idealist, but his idealism is
not the modern subjective idealism : he does not hold with
Fichte, that the objective world is a mere phenomenon
of consciousness; he does not, with Leibniz, place per-
154 INTRODUCTION.

cipient essences at the origin of all things; the ideas

themselves are not derived by him from thought, either
human or divine, but thought is derived from partici-
pation in the ideas. In the ideas the universal essence
of things is reduced to plastic forms, which are the
object of an intellectual intuition, in the same way
that things are the object of the sensuous intuition.
Even the Platonic theory of knowledge has not the
character of the corresponding enquiries of the mo-
derns. With them, the main point is the analysis
of the subjective activity of cognition ; their attention
is primarily directed to the development of knowledge
in man according to its psychological course and its
conditions. Plato, on the other hand, keeps almost
exclusively to the objective nature of our presentations;
he enquires far less about the manner in which intui-
tions and conceptions arise in us, than about the value
attaching to them in themselves; the theory of know-
ledge is therefore with him directly connected with
metaphysics: the enquiry as to the truth of the pre-
sentation or conception coincides with that respecting
the reality of the sensible phenomenon and of the Idea.
Plato, moreover, however low may be his estimation of
the phenomenal world in comparison with the idea, is
far removed from the prosaic and mechanical modern
view of nature; the world is to him the visible god,
the stars are living, happy beings, and his whole expla-
nation of nature is dominated by the teleology which
plays so important a part in Greek Philosophy posterior
to Socrates. Though in his ethics he passes beyond the
ancient Greek standpoint, by the demand for a philoso-
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 155

phic virtue founded on science, and prepares the way

for Christian morality by flight from the world of sense ;
yet in the doctrine of Eros he maintains the esthetic,
and in the institutions of his Republic the political
character of Greek morality in the most decided
manner; and despite his moral idealism, his ethics do
not disclaim that inborn Hellenic sense of naturalness,
proportion, and harmony which expresses itself in his
successors by the principle of living according to nature,
and the theory of goods and of virtue founded on that
principle. The Greek type, however, comes out most
clearly in Plato’s mode of apprehending the whole
problem of Philosophy. In his inability to separate
science from morality and religion, in his conception of
Philosophy as the complete and universal culture of
mind and character, we clearly recognise the standpoint
of the Greeks, who made far less distinction between
the different spheres of life and culture than the mo-
derns, because with them the fundamental opposition
of spiritual and bodily perfection was much less de-
veloped and insisted on. Even in Aristotle this stand-
point is clearly marked, although, in comparison with
that of Plato, his system looks modern in respect of its
purely scientific form, its rigorous conciseness, and its
broad empirical basis. He, too, regards the concep-
tions in which thought sums up the qualities of things
as objective forms antecedent to our thought; not
indeed distinct from individual things as to their ex-
istence, but as to their essential nature, independent;
and in determining the manner in which these forms are
represented in things, he is guided throughout by the
1δ0 INTRODUCTION.

analogy of artistic creation. Although, therefore, he

bestows much greater attention on physical phenomena
and their causes than Plato does, his whole theory of the ΩΝ
2e
seS
Ὄ

world bears essentially the same teleologic esthetic

character as Plato’s. He removes the Divine spirit
from all living contact with the world, but in his con-
ception of nature as a uniform power working with full
purpose and activity to an end, the poetic liveliness of
the old Greek intuition of nature is apparent; and
when he attributes to matter as such a desire for form,
and deduces from that desire all motion and life in the
corporeal world, we are reminded of the Hylozoism which
was so closely related to the view of nature we are
considering. His notions about the sky and the hea-
venly bodies which he shares with Plato and most of
the ancients, are also entirely Greek. His ethics alto-
gether belong to the sphere of Hellenic morality. Sen-
sual instincts are recognised by him as a basis for moral
action, virtue is the fulfilment of natural activities.
The sphere of ethics is distinguished from that of
politics, but the union between them is still very close.
In politics itself we find all the distinctive features of
the Hellenic theory of the state, with its advantages and ©
imperfections: on the one hand, the doctrine of man’s
natural vocation for political community, of the moral |
object of the state, of the value of a free constitution;
on the other hand, the justification of slavery and con-
tempt for manual labour. Thus, while spirit is still
closely united to its natural basis, nature is directly
related to spiritual life. In Plato and Aristotle we see
neither the abstract spiritualism, nor the purely physical
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 157

explanation of nature of modern science; neither the

strictness and universality of our moral consciousness,
nor the acknowledgment of material interest which so
often clashes with it. The oppositions between which
human life and thought move are less developed, their
relation is more genial and harmonious, their adjust-
ment easier, though certainly mere superficial, than in
the modern theory of the world, originating as it does
from far more comprehensive experiences, more difficult
struggles, and more complex conditions.
Not until after the time of Aristotle does the Greek
spirit begin to be so greatly estranged from nature that
the classical view of the world disappears, and the way
is being prepared for the Christian. How greatly this
change in its consequences affected also the aspect of
Philosophy, will hereafter be shown. In this period of
transition, however, it is all the more striking to observe
that the old Greek standpoint was still sufficiently
influential to divide the Philosophy of that time very
clearly from ours. Stoicism no longer carries on any
independent investigation of nature ;it withdraws itself
entirely from objective enquiry and substitutes the
interest of moral subjectivity. Yet it continues to look
upon nature as the thing which is highest and most
divine; it defends the old religion, inasmuch as it was
a worship of the powers of nature ;subjection to natural
laws, life according to nature, is its watchword; natural
truths (φυσικαὶ ἔννοια.) are its supreme authority; and
though, in this return to what is primitive and original,
it concedes only a conditional value to civil institutions,
yet it regards the mutual interdependence of all men,
158 INTRODUCTION.

the extension of political community to the whole race,

as an immediate requirement of human nature, in the
same manner as the earlier Greeks regarded political
life. While in Stoicism man breaks with the outer
world in order to fortify himself in the energy of his
inner life against external influences, he yet at the
same time entirely rests upon the order of the universe,
spirit feels still too much bound to nature to know
that it is in its self-conciousness independent of nature.
But nature, consequently, appears as if filled with spirit,
and in this direction Stoicism goes so far that the dis-
tinction between spiritual and corporeal, which Plato
and Aristotle so clearly recognised, again disappears,
matter becomes directly animate, spirit is represented
asa material breath, or as an organising fire ; and, on the
other hand, all human aims and thoughts are transferred
to nature by the most external teleology possible.
In Epicureanism the specific character of the Greek
genius is otherwise manifested. Hylozoism and teleo-
logy are now abandoned for an entirely mechanical
explanation of nature; the vindication of popular re-
ligion is exchanged for an enlightened opposition to it,
and the individual seeks his happiness, not in sub-
mission to the law of the whole, but in the undisturbed
security of his individual life. But that which is_
according to nature is the highest, to the Epicurean as
to the Stoic ; and if in theory he degrades his external
nature into a spiritless mechanism, so much the more
does he endeavour to establish in human life that
beautiful harmony of the egoistic and benevolent im-
pulses, of sensuous enjoyment and spiritual activity,
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 1589

which made the garden of Epicurus the abode of Attic

refinement and pleasant social intercourse. This form
of culture is as yet without the polemical asperities
which are inseparable from modern repetitions of it, on
account of the contrast it presents to the strictness οἵ
Christian ethics; the justification of the sensual element
appears as a natural presupposition which does not
require any preliminary or particular apology. However
much then Epicureanism may remind us of certain
modern opinions, the difference between that which is
original and of natural growth, and that which is
derived and the result of reflection, is unmistakable
on closer examination. The same may be said of the
scepticism of this period as compared with that of
modern times. Modern scepticism has always some-.
thing unsatisfied about it, an inner uncertainty, a secret
wish to believe that which it is trying to disprove.
Ancient scepticism displays no such half-heartedness,
and knows nothing of the hypochondriacal unrest which
Hume himself! so vividly describes; it regards ignorance
not as a misfortune, but as a natural necessity, in the
recognition of which man becomes calm. Even while
despairing of knowledge it maintains the attitude of
compliance with the actual order of things, and from
_ this very source evolves the ἀταραξία which is almost
impossible to modern scepticism, governed as it is by
subjective interests.?
Even neo-Platonism, far removed as it is from the

* On Human Nature, book i. 2 Cf. Hegel’s remarks on the

part iv. section 1, 509 sqq.; subject. Gesch. der Phil. 1. 124
Jacobi’s translation. 54.
100 INTRODUCTION,

ancient Greek spirit, and decidedly as it approaches that

of the Middle Ages, has its centre of gravity still in the
antique world. This is evident, not only from its close
relation to the heathen religions, the last apologist
for which it would certainly not have become had no
essential and internal affinity existed between them, but
also in its philosophic doctrines. Its abstract spiritual-
ism contrasts, indeed, strongly with the naturalism of
the ancients; but we have only to compare its concep-
tion of nature with that of contemporary Christian
writers, we need only hear how warmly Plotinus defends
the majesty of nature against the contempt of the
Gnostics, how keenly Proclus and Simplicius dispute
the Christian doctrine of the creation, in order to see
in it an offshoot of the Greek spirit. Matter itself is
brought nearer to mind by the neo-Platonists than by
the majority of modern philosophers, who see in the
two principles essentially separate substances; for the
neo-Platonists opposed the theory of a self-dependent
matter, and explained the corporeal as the result of the
gradual degradation of the spiritual essence. They
thus declared the opposition of the two principles to
be not original and absolute, but derived and merely
quantitative. Again, though the neo-Platonic meta-
physics, especially in their later form, must appear
to us very abstruse, their origin was similar to that of
Plato’s theory of Ideas; for the properties and causes
of things are here regarded as absolute essential natures,
over and above the world and man, as objects of an
intellectual intuition. Moreover, these essences bear
to each other a definite relation of higher, lower, and
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 161

co-ordinate, and thus appear as the metaphysical coun-

terpart of the mythical gods, whom neo-Platonic alle-
gory itself recognised in them, recognising also in their
progressive emanation from the primitive essence the
analogue of those theogonies with which Greek specu-
lation in the earliest times began.
To sum up what we have been saying. In the
Philosophy of the middle ages, spirit asserts itself as
alien and opposed to nature: in modern Philosophy, it
strives to regain unity with nature, without, however,
losing the deep consciousness of the difference between
the spiritual and the natural: in Greek Philosophy is
represented that phase of scientific thought in which
the discrimination and separation of the two elements
are developed out of their original equipoise and har-
monious co~existence, though this separation was never
actually accomplished in the Hellenic period. While,
therefore, in Greek, as in modern Philosophy, we find
both the discrimination and the union of the spiritual
and the natural, this is brought about in each case in a
different manner and by a different connection. Greek
Philosophy starts from that harmonious relation of spirit
to nature in which the distinguishing characteristic of
ancient culture generally consists; step by step, and
half involuntarily, it sees itself compelled to discrimi-
nate them. Modern Philosophy, on the contrary, finds
this separation already accomplished in the most effec-
tual manner in the middle ages, and only succeeds by
an effort in discovering the unity of the two sides.
This difference of starting-point and of tendency de-
VOL. I. M
162 INTRODUCTION.

termines the whole character of these two great phe-

nomena. Greek Philosophy finally results in a dualism,
which it finds impossible to overcome scientifically; and
even in its most flourishing period the development of
this dualism can be traced. Sophisticism breaks with
simple faith in the veracity of the senses and of
thought. Socrates breaks with unreflecting obedience
to existing custom. Plato opposes to the empirical
world an ideal world, but is unable to find in this ideal
world any explanation of the other; he can only explain
matter as something non-existent, and can only subject
human life to the idea by the arbitrary measures of
his State. Even Aristotle keeps pure spirit entirely
distinct from the world, and thinks that man’s reason
is infused into him from without. In the lesser Socratic
schools and the post-Aristotelian Philosophy this dualism
is still more evident. But we have already seen that,
in spite of this tendency, the original presupposition of
Greek thought asserts itself in decisive traits; and we
shall find that the true cause of its incapacity to re-
concile these contradictions satisfactorily lies in its
refusal to abandon that presupposition. The unity of
spiritual and natural, which Greek thought demands -
and presupposes, is the direct unbroken unity of the
classic theory of the world; when that is cancelled,
there remains to it no possible way of filling up a
chasm which, according to its own stand-point, cannot
exist.. The Hellenic character proper is not of course
stamped with equal clearness on each of the Greek
systems; in the later periods especially, of Greek
 CHARACTER OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 168

Philosophy it became gradually blended with foreign

elements. Nevertheless, directly or indirectly, this
character may plainly be recognised in all the systems ;
and Greek Philosophy, as a whole, may be said to move
in the same direction as the general life of the people
to which it belongs.

M 2
104 INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER: 17.
PRINCIPAL PERIODS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK
PHILOSOPHY.

We have divided Greek Philosophy into three periods,

of which the second begins with Socrates and ends with
Aristotle. The propriety of this division must now be
more closely examined. The utility of such a course
may seem indeed doubtful, since so eminent a historian
as Ritter! is of opinion that history itself recognises no
sections, and that therefore all division of periods is
only a means of facilitating instruction, a setting up of
resting places to take breath ; and since even a disciple
of the Hegelian school? declares that the History of
Philosophy cannot be written in periods, as the links of
History consist wholly of personalities and aggregates
of individuals. This latter observation is so far true
that it is impossible to draw a straight chronological
line across a series of historical phenomena without
separating what is really united, and linking together
what is really distinct. For, in regard to chronology,
the boundaries of successive developments overlap each
other ; and it is in this that the whole continuity and
connection of historic as of natural development con-
1 Gesch. der Phil., 2nd edition, 2 Marbach, Gesch. der Phil.,
Pref. p. xiii. Pref. p. viii.
 PRINCIPAL PERIODS. 165

sists. The new form has already appeared, and has

begun to assert itself independently, while the old form
is still in existence. The inference from this, however,
is not that the division into periods is to be altogether
discarded, but only that it must be based upon facts,
and not merely upon chronology. Each period lasts as
long as any given historical whole continues to follow
one and the same direction in its development; when
this ceases to be the case, a new period begins. How
long the direction is to be regarded as the same must
be decided, here and everywhere, according to the
part in which lies the centre of gravity of the whole.
When from a given whole, a new whole branches off,
its beginings are to be referred to the subsequent
period in proportion as they break with the previous
historical connection, and present themselves under a
new and original form. If any one supposes, however,
that this grouping together of kindred phenomena is
merely for the convenience of the historian or his
reader, and has no concern with the matter itself, the
discussions in our first chapter are amply sufficient to
meet the objection. It surely cannot be considered un-
important, even for the purposes of convenience, where
the divisions are made in a historical exposition; and,
if this be conceded, it cannot be unimportant in regard
to the matter itself. If one division gives us a clearer
survey than another, the reason can only be that it
presents a truer picture of the differences and rela-
tions of historical phenomena; the differences must,
therefore, lie in the phenomena themselves, as well as
in our subjective consideration of them. It is un-
166 INTRODUCTION.

deniable, indeed, that not only different individuals, but

also different periods, have each a different character,
and that the development of any given whole, whether
great or small, goes on for a time in a definite direction,
and then changes this direction to strike out some other
course. It is this unity and diversity of historical
character to which the periods have to conform; the
periodic division must. represent the internal relation
of phenomena at the different epochs, and it is con-
sequently as little dependent on the caprice of the
historian as the distribution of rivers and mountains on
that of the geographer, or the determination of natural
kingdoms on that of the naturalist.
What division then shall we adopt in regard to the
history of Greek Philosophy? It is clear from our
second chapter that the commencement of this history
ought not to be placed earlier than Thales. He was
the first, as far as we know, who, in speaking of the
primitive causes of all things, abandoned mythical
language ;—though it is true that the old custom of
making the history of Philosophy begin with Hesiod is
not even in our days, wholly disearded.' Socrates is
generally considered as the inaugurator of the next
great movement, and for this reason the second period
is usually said to open with him. Some historians,
however, would bring the first period to a close before
the time of Socrates; for example, Ast,? Rixner,* and
Braniss. Others, again, like Hegel, would prolong it
beyond him.
1 Jt is still followed by Fries, * Grundriss ciner Gesch. der
Gesch, der Phil., and Deutinger, Phil., 1 A § 43.
Gesch. der Phil., Vol. 1. 3 Gesch. der Phil., i. 44 8q.
 FIRST PERIOD. 167

Ast and Rixner distinguish in the history of Greek

Philosophy the.three periods of Ionian Realism, Italian
Idealism, and the Attic combination of these two ten-
dencies. Braniss ' starts with the same fundamental dis-
tinction of Realism and Idealism, only he attributes
both these tendencies to each of the first two periods.
According to him, therefore, Greek thought, like Greek
life, is determined by the original opposition of the
Ionic and Doric elements. Absorption in the objective
world is the characteristic of the lonic; absorption in
self, of the Doric race. In the first period, then, this
opposition develops itself in two parallel directions of
Philosophy, the one realistic, the other idealistic; in
the second, this opposition is cancelled, and lost in
the consciousness of the universal spirit; and in the
third, the spirit, deprived of its content through So-
phistic, seeks in itself a new and more lasting content.
According to Braniss, therefore, there are three periods
of Greek Philosophy. The first, beginning with Thales
and Pherecydes, is further represented on the one side
by Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heracleitus ; and on
the other by Pythagoras, Xenophanes, and Parmenides ;
a Doric antithesis being opposed at each stage of this
period to the Ionic thesis; finally, the resylts of the
previous development are summed up in a harmonious
manner by the Ionian Diogenes and the Dorian Empe-
docles. It is recognised that Becoming presupposes
Being, that Being expands itself into Becoming, that
the inner and outer, form and matter, unite in the con-
sciousness of the universal spirit; the percipient spirit
1 Gesch. der Phil, 8. Kant, i, 102 sqq.; 185; 150 sq.
168 INTRODUCTION.

stands over against this universal spirit, and has to reflect

it in itself. Here the second period commences ; and in
its development there are three moments. By Anaxa-
goras, spirit is distinguished from the extended object;
by Democritus, it is opposed to the object as a purely
subjective principle; by the Sophists, all objectivity is
placed in the subjective spirit itself; the universal is at
length completely suppressed, and spiritual life is en-
tirely lost in the actual sensible presence. Thus thrown
back upon itself, however, the spirit is forced to define
its reality in a permanent manner, to enquire what is
its absolute end, to pass from the sphere of necessity
into that of liberty, and in the reconciliation of the two
principles to attain the ultimate end of speculation.
This is the commencement of the third period, which
extends from Socrates to the end of Greek Philosophy.
Much may be urged against this derivation. In the
first place, we must question the discrimination of an
Ionic Realism and a Doric Idealism. What is here
called Dorie Idealism is, as we shall presently find,!
neither idealism nor purely Doric. This at once de-
stroys the basis of the whole deduction. Ast and
Rixner, moreover, divide the Ioni¢ and Dorie Philo-
sophy into two periods: a division quite unwarrantable,
since these two philosophies were synchronous, and
powerfully reacted upon each other. It is to some ex-
tent then more correct to treat them, like Braniss, as
moments of one interdependent historical series. But
we have no right to divide the series, as he does, into
two parts, and make the difference between them
1 Cf. the Introduction to the First Period.
 ͵

FIRST PERIOD. 169

analogous to that between the Socratic and pre-Socratic

Philosophy. Neither of the three phenomena assigned
by Braniss to his second period has this character.
Atomistie (even as to date, hardly later than Anaxa-
goras) is a system of natural Philosophy, as much as
any other of the earlier systems; and to the Empedo-
_ clean system especially (by virtue of a similar attitude
to the Eleatics) it stands in so close an affinity that we
cannot possibly place it in a separate period. It dis-
covers no tendency to regard spirit as purely subjective,
—its sole concern is the explanation of nature. So,
too, in Anaxagoras we recognise a Physicist, and a
Physicist anterior to Diogenes, whom Braniss places
before him. His world-forming mind is primarily a
physical principle, and he makes no attempt to enlarge
the sphere of Philosophy beyond the accustomed limits.
There is, therefore, no good ground for making as
decided a line of demarcation before him as before
Socrates. Even Sophistic cannot be separated from
the systems of the first period, as will presently appear.
The two periods into which Braniss has divided the
pre-Socratic Philosophy are followed by a third, com-
prehending the whole further course of Philosophy to the
end of Greek science. This partition is so rough, and
takes so little account of the radical differences of the
later systems, that it would of itself furnish a sufficient
reason for repudiating the construction of Braniss.
On the other hand, however, Hegel goes too far in
the contrary direction. He considers these differences
so great that the opposition between the Socratic and
the pre-Socratic schools has only a secondary importance
170 INTRODUCTION.

in comparison with them. Of his three main periods,

the first extends from Thales to Aristotle, the second
comprehends all the post-Aristotelian philosophy, with
the exception of neo-Platonism; the third embraces
neo-Platonism. The first, he says,! represents the com-
mencement of philosophising thought until its develop-
ment and extension as the totality of Science. After
the concrete idea has been thus attained, it makes its
appearance in the second period as forming and per-
fecting itself in oppositions: a one-sided principle is
earried out through the whole of the presentation of
the world ; each side developing itself as an extreme,
and constituting in itself a totality in regard to its
contrary. This breaking up of science into particular
systems results in Stoicism and Epicureanism. Scep-
ticism, as the negative principle, opposed itseif to the
dogmatism of both. The affirmative is the cancelling
of this opposition, in the theory of an ideal world, or
world of thought; it is the idea developed into a
totality in neo-Platonism. The distinction between
the old naturalistic philosophy and later science is
brought forward as a ground of classification in the
first period; it is not Socrates, however, who is the
inaugurator of a new series of development, but the
Sophists. Philosophy attains in the first part of this
1 Gesch. der Phil., i. 182 (cf. sqq., 290) makes one period from
ii. 373 sq.). This, however, does Thales to Aristotle (which is the
not quite agree with the previous second according to him), and
distinction of four stages, 1. 118. divides it into three parts: 1,
Similarly Deutinger, whose expo- From Thales to Heracleitus; 2,
sition I cannot further discuss, from Anaxagoras to the Sophists;
either here or elsewhere (/oc. cit. 8, from Socrates to Aristotle.
p. 78 sqq., 140 sqq,, 152 sqq., 226
 FIRST PERIOD. 171

period, in Anaxagoras, to the conception of νοῦς ; in

the second part, vods is apprehended by the Sophists,
Socrates, and the imperfect Socratics, as subjectivity;
and in the third part, νοῦς developes itself as objective
thought, as the Idea, into a totality. Socrates, there-
fore, appears only as continuing a movement begun by
others, not as the inaugurator of a new movement.
The first thing that strikes us in this division is
the great disproportion in the content of the three
periods. While the first is extraordinarily rich in re-
markable personages and phenomena, and includes the
noblest and most perfect forms of classic philosophy,
the second and third are limited to a few systems which
are unquestionably inferior in scientific content to
those of Plato and Aristotle. This at once makes us
suspect that. too much of a heterogeneous character is
included in this first period. And, in point of fact,
the difference between the Socratic and pre-Socratic
philosophy is in no respect less than that between the
post-Aristotelian and the Aristotelian. Socrates not
only developed a mode of thought already existing; he
introduced into Philosophy an essentially new principle
and method. Whereas all the previous Philosophy had
been immediately directed to the object,—while the
question concerning the essence and causes of natural
phenomena had been the main question on which all
others depended,—Socrates first gave utterance to the
conviction that nothing could be known about any
object until its universal essence, its concept, was
determined ; and that, therefore, the testing of our
presentations by the standard of the concept—philo-
 \

172 INTRODUCTION.

sophic knowledge of self—is the beginning and the

condition of all true knowledge. Whereas the earlier
| philosophers first arrived at the discrimination of pre-
sentation from knowledge through the consideration
of things themselves; he, on the contrary, makes all
knowledge of things dependent on a right view as tu
the nature of knowledge. With him, consequently,
there begins a new form of science, Philosophy based
upon concepts; dialectic takes the place of the earlier
dogmatic ; and in connection with this, Philosophy
makes new and extensive conquests in hitherto unex-
plored domains. Socrates is himself the founder of
Ethics; Plato and Aristotle separate Metaphysics from
Physics; the philosophy of nature—until then, the
whole of philosophy—now becomes a part of the whole;
a part which Socrates entirely neglects, on which Plato
bestows hardly any attention, and even Aristotle ranks
below the ‘first philosophy.’ These changes are so
penetrating, and so greatly affect the general con-
dition and character of Philosophy, that it certainly
appears justifiable to begin a new period of its develop-
ment with Socrates. The only question that might
arise is whether to make this beginning with Socrates,
or his precursors the Sophists. But although the latter
course has been adopted by distinguished authors,! it
does not seem legitimate. Sophistic is doubtless the

In addition to Hegel, ef K. F. of the first great period with the

Hermann, Gesch. d. Platonismus, Sophists ;Hermann and Ueberweg
1. 217 sqq. Ast (Gesch. der Phil., make them the commencement of
p- 96). Ueberweg (Grundriss der their second period ; and Ast of his
Gesch, der Phil., i. § 9). Hegel, third.
however, opens the second section
 FIRST PERIOD. 173

end of the old philosophy of nature, but it is not as

yet the creation or beginning of a new philosophy:
it destroys faith in the possibility of knowing the
Real, and thereby discourages thought from the in-
vestigation of nature; but it has no new content to
offer as a substitute for what it destroys; it declares
man in his actions, and in his presentations, to be the
measure of all things, but it understands by man,
merely the individual in all the contingency of his
opinions and endeavours; not the universal essential
nature of man, which must be sought out scientifically.
Though it is true, therefore, that the Sophists share
with Socrates the general character of subjectivity, yet
they cannot be said to have inaugurated, in the same
sense that he did, a new scientific tendency. The closer
definition of the two stand-points proves them to be
very distinct. The subjectivity of the Sophists is only a
consequence of that in which their philosophic achieve-
ment mainly consists—viz., the destruction of the earlier
dogmatism: in itself this subjectivity is the end of all
Philosophy ; it leads to no new knowledge, nor even,
like later scepticism, to a philosophic temper of mind ;
it destroys all philosophic effort, in admitting no other
criterion than the advantage and caprice of the indi-
vidual. Sophistic is an indirect preparation, not the
positive foundation of the new system, which was intro-
duced by Socrates. Now it is usual, generally speaking,
to commence a new period where the principle which
dominates it begins to manifest itself positively with
creative energy, and with a definite consciousness of its
goal. We open such a period in the history of religion «
174 INTRODUCTION.

with Christ, and not with the decay of naturalistic re-

ligions and Judaism; in Church history, with Luther
and Zwinglius, not with the Babylonian exile, and the
schism of the Popes; in political history, with the
French Revolution, not with Louis XV. The history
of Philosophy must follow the same procedure; and,
accordingly, we must regard Socrates as the first repre-
sentative of that mode of thought, the principle of
which he was the first to enunciate in a positive manner,
and to introduce into actual life.
With Socrates then the second great period of Greek
Philosophy begins. On the subject of its legitimate
extent there is even more difference of opinion than on
that of its commencement. Some make it end with
Aristotle,! others with Zeno,” or Carneades;* a third
class of historians, with the first century before Christ ; *
while a fourth is disposed to include in it the whole
course of Greek Philosophy after Socrates, including
the neo-Platonists.° In this case, again, our decision
must depend on the answer to the question, how long
the same main tendency governed the development of
Philosophy? In the first place the close interconnection
of the Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophy
is unmistakeable. Socrates first demanded that all
knowledge and all moral action should start from
knowledge of conceptions, and he tried to satisfy this
demand by means of the epagogic method, which he
introduced. The same conviction forms the starting-
? Brandis, Fries, and others. 4 Tennemann(Grundriss), Ast,
2 Tennemann,inhislargerwork. Reinhold, Schleiermacher, Ritter,
3 Tiedemann, Geist. der Spek. Ueberweg, and others.
Phil. 5 Braniss, vide swpra.
 SECOND PERIOD. 175
point of the Platonic system; but what in Socrates
is merely a rule for scientific procedure, is developed
by Plato into a metaphysical principle. Socrates had
said: Only the knowledge of the concept is true know-
ledge. Plato says: Only the Being of the concept is
true Being, the concept alone is the truly existent.
But even Aristotle, notwithstanding his opposition to
the doctrine of Ideas, allows this: he too declares
the form or concept to be the essence and reality of
things; pure form, existing for itself; abstract intelli-
gence, restricted to itself—to be the absolutely real.
He is divided from Plato only by his theory of the
relation of the ideal form to the sensible phenomenon,
and to that which underlies the phenomenon as its
universal substratum—matter. According to Plato,
the idea is separated from things, and exists for
itself; consequently the matter of things, having no
part in the idea, is declared by him to be absolutely-
unreal. According to Aristotle, the form is inthe
things of which it is the form; the material element in
them must, therefore, be endowed with a capability of
receiving form; matter is not simply non-Being, but
the possibility of Being; matter and form have the
same content, only in different fashion—in the one it
is undeyeloped, in the other developed. Decidedly as
this contradicts the theory of Plato considered in its
specific character, and energetically as Aristotle opposed
his master, yet he is far from disagreeing with the uni-
_yersal presupposition of the Socratic and Platonic philo-
sophy, viz. the conviction of the necessity of knowledge
based on concepts, and of the absolute reality of form.
176 INTRODUCTION.

On the contrary, his very reason for discarding the

doctrine of Ideas, is that Ideas cannot be substantial
and truly existent, if they are separated from things.
Thus far then we have a continuous development of
one and the same principle ; it is one main fundamental
intuition which is presented in these three forms. So-
crates recognises in the concept the truth of human
thought and life; Plato, the absolute, substantial rea-
lity; Aristotle not merely the essence, but also the
forming and moving principle of empirical reality;
and in all we see the development of the self-same
thought. But with the post-Aristotelian schools this
order of development ceases, and thought takes another
direction. The purely scientific interest of Philosophy
gives place to the practical; the independent investiga-
tion of nature ceases, and the centre of gravity of the
whole is placed in Ethics: and in proof of this altered
position, all the post-Aristotelian schools, so far as they
have any metaphysical or physical theory, rest upon
older systems, the doctrines of which they variously
interpret, but which they profess to follow in all essen-
tial particulars. It is no longer the knowledge of
things as such with which the philosopher is ultimately
concerned, but the right and satisfactory constitution
of human life. This is kept in view even in the reli-
gious enquiries to which Philosophy now applies itself
more earnestly. Physics are regarded by the Epicu-
reans only asa means to this practical end; and though
the Stoics certainly ascribe a more independent value
to general investigations concerning the ultimate
grounds of things, yet the tendency of those investiga-
 THIRD PERIOD. 177

tions is nevertheless determined by that of their Ethics.

In a similar manner, the question of a criterion of truth
is answered from a practical point of view by the Stoics
and Epicureans. Lastly, the Sceptics deny all possi-
bility of knowledge, in order to restrict Philosophy
entirely to practical matters. Even this practical | philo-
sophy, however, has changed its character. The earlier
combination of Ethics with polities tas ceased ; in place
of the commonwealth in which the individual lives for
the whole, we find the moral ideal of the wise man who
is self-sufficient, self-satisfied, and self-absorbed. The
introduction of the idea into practical life no longer
appears as the highest object to be attained; but the
independence of the individual in regard to nature and
humanity,—apathy, ἀταραξία, flight from the world of
sense ; and though the moral consciousness, being thus
indifferent to the outward, gains a freedom and univer-
sality hitherto unknown to it, though the barriers of
nationality are now first broken down, and the equality
and affinity of all men, the leading thought of cosmo-
politism is recognised, yet on the other hand Morality
assumes a one-sided and negative character, which was
alien to the philosophy of the classic period. In a word,
‘the post-Aristotelian philosophy bears the stamp of an
abstract subjectivity, and this so essentially separates it
from the preceding systems that we have every right
to conclude the second period of Greek Philosophy with
Aristotle.
It might, indeed, at first sight, appear that an
analogous character is already to be found in Sophistic
and the smaller Socratic schools. But these examples
VOL. 1, N
178 INTRODUCTION.

cannot prove that Philosophy as a whole had received

its later bent in the earlier period. In the first place,
the phenomena which prefigure in this way the after
philosophy are few in number, and of comparatively
secondary importance. The systems which give the
measure of the period and by which the form of Philo-
sophy, generally speaking, was determined, bear quite
another character. And in the second place, this affinity
itself, when more closely examined, is less than it
appears on a superficial glance. Sophistic has not the
same historical significance as the later scepticism ; it
did not arise out of a general lassitude of scientific
energy, but primarily out of an aversion to the pre-
vailing naturalistic philosophy; and it did not, lke
scepticism, find its positive completion in an unscien-
tific eclecticism or a mystic speculation, but in the
Socratic philosophy of the concept. The Megaric
philosophers are rather offshoots of the Eleatics than
precursors of the sceptics; their doubts are originally
directed against sense-knowledge, not against reason-
knowledge. A universal scepticism is not required by
them, nor do they aspire to ἀταραξία as the practical
end of scepticism. Between Aristippus and Epicurus
there exists this striking difference: the former makes
immediate and positive pleasure the highest good, the
latter absence of pain, as a permanent condition. Aris-
tippus seeks the enjoyment of that which the external
world offers; Epicurus seeks man’s independence in
regard to the external world. Cynicism, indeed, pushes
indifference to the outward, contempt of custom, and
repudiation of all theoretic enquiry further than the
 THIRD PERIOD. 179

Stoa, but the isolated position of this school, and the

crude form of its doctrine, sufficiently prove how little
can be argued from it as to the whole contemporary
mode of thought. This remark applies to all these im-
perfect Socratic schools. Their influence is not to be
compared with that of the Platonic and Aristotelian
doctrines; and they themselves prevent the possibility
of their more important action, by disdaining to develop
the principle of intellectual knowledge into a system.
Only after the Greek world had undergone the most
radical changes could attempts like those of the im-
perfect Socratics be renewed with any prospect of
success.
The second period then, closes with Aristotle, and
the third begins with Zeno, Epicurus, and the contem-
porary scepticism. Whether or not it should extend
to the conclusion of Greek Philosophy is a doubtful
question. We shall find later on,’ that in the post-
Aristotelian philosophy three divisions may be dis-
tinguished : the first, including the bloom of Stoicism, ἡ
of Epicureanism, and of the older Scepticism; the
second, the period of Eclecticism, the later Scepticism,
and the precursors of neo-Platonism; the third, neo-
Platonism in its various phases. If we count these
three divisions as the third, fourth, or fifth periods of
Greek Philosophy, there is this advantage, that the
several periods are much more equal in duration than
if we make all three into one period. But though
they are thus equalised chronologically, they become
even more disproportionate in content; for the one
1 Vide the Introduction to Part III.
N 2
180 INTRODUCTION.

century from the appearance of Socrates to the death

of Aristotle embraces an amount of scientitie achieve-—
ment equal to the eight or nine following centuries put
together. And, what is here most essential, Philosophy
in these 900 years moves in the same uniform direction.
It is governed by an exclusive subjectivity, which is
estranged from the purely speculative interest in things,
and reduces all science to practical culture and the
happiness of man. This character is displayed (as we
have just observed), by Stoicism, Epicureanism, and
Scepticism. It is seen in the Eclecticism of the
Roman period, which selects what is probable out of the
different systems entirely from practical points of view,
and according to the standard of subjective feeling and
interest.. Finally, it isan essential part of neo-Platonism.
This will be shown more in detail hereafter ; at present
it is enough to notice that the attitude of the neo-
Platonists to natural science is exactly the same as that
of the ether schools posterior to Aristotle; and that
their physics tend in the same direction as the Stoical
teleology, only more-exclusively. Their ethical doctrine
is also very closely allied to that of the Stoics, being in-
deed the last outcome of that ethical dualism which
developed itself after the time of Zeno; and the dualism
contained in their anthropology had already been pre-
pared by Stoicism. In regard to religion, the position
originally adopted by neo-Platonism was precisely that
of the Stoa, and even its metaphysic, including the
doctrine of the intuition of the Deity approaches much
nearer to the other Aristotelian systems than might at
first sight be supposed. The neo-Platonic theory of
 THIRD PERIOD. 181

emanation, for example, is an unmistakable repetition

of the Stoic doctrine of the Divine reason permeating
the whole universe with its various forces: the only
ultimate distinction between them is the transeendeucy
of the Divine; from which arises for man, the require-
ments of an ecstatic contact with Deity. This transcen-
deney itself, however, is a consequence of the previous
development of science, and of the sceptical denial of all
objective certainty. The human spirit, scepticism had
said, has absolutely no truth within itself. It must,
therefore, says neo-Platonism, find truth absolutely out-
side itself, in its relation to the Divine, which is beyond
its thought and the world cognisable by thought. But
it follows that the world beyond is presented entirely
according to subjective points of view, and determined
by the necessities of the subject; and just as the dif
ferent spheres of the real correspond to the different
parts of human nature, so the whole system is designed
to point out and to open the way for man’s communion
with God. Here too then, it is the interest of human
spiritual life, not that of objective knowledge as such,
which governs the system; and thus neo-Platonism fol-
lows the tendency peculiar to the whole of Philosophy
subsequent to Aristotle. While, therefore, I attach no
undue importance to this question, I prefer to unite the
three sections into which the history of Philosophy after
Aristotle is divided into one period, although its outward
extent far exceeds that of either of the preceding periods.
To sum up, I distinguish three great periods of
Greek Philosophy. The philosophy of the first is
Physics, or more accurately a physical dogmatism; it
182 INTRODUCTION.

is physical, because it primarily seeks to explain natural

phenomena from their natural causes, without making
any definite discrimination of spiritual and corporeal in
things, or the causes of things; it is a dogmatism, be-
cause it directly pursues the knowledge of the objective,
without any previous enquiry into the conception, pos-
sibility, and conditions of knowledge. In Sophistie,
this attitude of thought to the external world is at
an end, man’s capacity for the knowledge of the real
is called in question, philosophic interest is averted
from nature, and the necessity of discovering a higher
principle of truth on the soil of human consciousness
makes itself felt. Socrates answers the demand in
declaring the cognition of the concept the only way to
true knowledge and true virtue; from which Plato
further concludes, that only pure concepts can be true
reality ; he establishes this principle dialectically in
conflict with ordinary presentative opinion, and deve-
lops it in a system embracing Dialectic, Physics, and —
Ethics. Finally, Aristotle discovers the concept in the
phenomena themselves, as their essence and entelechy,
carries it in the most comprehensive manner into all
the spheres of the actual, and establishes the prin-
ciples of the scientific method on a firm basis for after
times. In place of the former one-sided philosophy of
nature there thus appears in the second period a philo-
sophy of the concept, founded by Socrates and perfected
by Aristotle. But since the idea is thus opposed to the
phenomenon, since a full essential Being is ascribed to
the idea, and only an imperfect Being to the pheno-
menon, a dualism arises, which appears indeed more
|
. GENERAL SUMMARY. 185

glaring and irreconcilable in Plato, but which even

Aristotle is unable to overcome either in principle or
in result; for he, too, begins with the opposition of
form and material, and ends with that of God and the
world, of spiritual and sensible. Only the spirit in its
absoluteness, directed to no external object and suf-
ficing to itself, is perfect and infinite; that which is
external to it cannot increase this inner perfection or
de otherwise than valueless and indifferent for it. So,
too, the human spirit ought to seek its unqualified
satisfaction in itself, and in its independence of every-
thing external. Thought in pursuing this tendency
withdraws from the object into itself, and the second
period of Greek Philosophy passes into the third.
Or to state the same more succinctly. The spirit,
we might say, is, during the first stage of Greek
thought, immediately present to itself in the natural
object ; in the second it separates itself from the natural
object, that it may attain a higher truth in the thought
of the super-sensible object; and in the third it asserts
itself in its subjectivity, in opposition to the object, as
supreme and unconditioned. The stand-point, however,
of the Greek world is thereby abandoned, while at
the same time no deeper reconciliation of the opposing
elements is possible on Greek soil. Thought being
thus separated from the actual, loses its content, and
becomes involved in a contradiction, for it maintains
subjectivity to be the final and highest form of being,
and yet opposes to it the Absolute in unattainable
transcendency. To this contradiction Greek Philosophy
ultimately succumbed.
 184 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

FIRST PERIOD.
THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.
INTRODUCTION.

CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY DURING

THE FIRST PERIOD.

Four schools are usually distinguished in the pre-

Socratic period—the Ionic, the Pythagorean, the
Eleatic, and the Sophistic. The character and internal
relation of these schools are determined, partly accord-
ing to the scope, partly according to the spirit of their
enquiries. In regard to the former, the distinctive
peculiarity of the pre-Socratic period is marked in the
isolation of the three branches which were afterwards
united in Greek Philosophy: by the Ionians, we are
told, Physics were exclusively developed ;by the Pytha-
goreans, Ethics ; by the Eleatics, Dialectic: in Sophistic,
we are taught to see the decline and fall of this ex-
clusive science, and the indirect preparation for a more
. comprehensive science.! This difference of scientific
tendency is then brought into connection with the in-
1 Schleiermacher, Gesch. der view, and adopted the following
Phil. p. 18 sq., 51 sq.; Ritter, division: 1. The older Ionian
Gesch. der Phil. i. 189 sqq.; Bran- Physics, including the Heracleitean
dis, Gesch. der Gr.-Rom. Phil. i. doctrine. 2. The Eleaties. 3. The
42 sqq.; Fichte’s Zeitschr. fiir Phi- attempts to reconcile the opposition
los. xiii. (1844) p. 131 sqq. Inhis of Being and Becoming (Empe-
Gesch. der Entwicklungen d. Griech. docles, Anaxagoras, and the Ato-
Phil. (i. 40), which appeared sub- mists), 4. The Pythagorean doc-
sequently, Brandis abandoned this trine. 6. Sophistic.
 PHYSICS, ETHICS, DIALECTIC. 185

trinsic difference between the Ionic and Doric tribes :!

some writers? making this the basis of their whole theory
of ancient Philosophy, and deriving from the particular
traits of the Ionic and Doric character, the philosophic
opposition of a realistic and an idealistic theory of the
world. How the further division of our period is then
connected with this point of view has been shown already.
These differences, however, are by no means so real
or so deeply seated as is here presupposed. Whether
the Pythagorean doctrine was essentially ethical, and
the Eleatic, dialectical in character, or whether these
elements can be regarded as determining the two
systems, we shall presently enquire; and we shall find
that they, as much as any part of the pre-Socratic
Philosophy, arose from the inclination of natural
science to investigate the essence of things, and
especially of natural phenomena. Aristotle makes the
general assertion that with Socrates, dialectical and
ethical enquiries began, and physical enquiries were
discontinued.? Hermann is, therefore, quite justified
1 Cf. Schleiermacher, Joc. cit., nor Dorians, but a union of the
Ῥ. 18 sq. ‘Among the Ionians,’ he two; they are Ionian by birth, and
says, ‘the Being of things in man Dorian by language.’ Ritter ex-
is the predominant interest, and presses similar opinions, Joc. cit.
calm contemplation finds its ex- Ritter shares them to some extent
pression in Epie poetry. Among (p. 47), and in a less degree,
the Dorians the Being of man in Brandis, p. 47.
things predominates ; man strives 2 Ast, Rixner, Braniss (vide
against things, asserts his inde- supra, p. 166 sqq.) Petersen, Phi-
pendence in regard to them, and lologisch. histor, Studien, p. 1 Βαα. ;
proclaims himself as a unity in Hermann, Geschichte und System des
Lyric poetry. Hence the develop- Plato, i, 141 sq., 160; ef. Bockh’s
ment of Physics by the Ionians, excellent remarks on this subject,
and of Ethics by the Pythagoreans. Philolaus, p. 39 sqq.
As Dialectic, is equally opposed tc 3 Part. Anim. i. 1, 642 ἃ,
the two branches of Philosophy, 24: among the earlier philoso-
so the Eleatics are neither Ionians phers there are only scattered fore-
186 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

in saying that it is impossible to maintain, even from

the stand-point of the ancient thinkers, that Dialectics,
Physies and Ethics came into existence together, and
were of equal importance contemporaneously, for there
could have been no question of any leading ethical
principle until the preponderance of spirit over matter
had been recognised ; nor could Dialectic, as such, have
been consciously employed, before form in contrast with
matter had vindicated its greater affinity to spirit.
The object of all philosophic investigation, he con-
tinues, in its commencement was nature, and if even
enquiry was incidentally carried into other spheres, the
standard which it applied, being originally taken from
natural science, remained foreign to those spheres. We
are, therefore, merely importing our own stand-point
into the history of the earliest philosophic systems, in
ascribing a dialectic character to one, an_ ethical
character to another, a physiological character to a
third; in describing this system as materialistic, and
that as formalistic, while all in truth pursue the same
end, only in different ways.'| The whole pre-Socratic
Philosophy is in its aim and content a philosophy of
nature, and though ethical or dialectical conceptions
may appear here and there in it, this never happens
to such an extent, nor is any system snfficiently dis-

casts of the conception of formal ἐπὶ Σωκράτους δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ηὐξήθη,

causes : αὕτιον δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν τοὺς τὸ δὲ ζητεῖν τὰ περὶ φύσεως ἔληξε,
προγενεστέρους ἐπὶ Tov τρόπον τοῦ- πρὸς δὲ τὴν χρήσιμον ἀρετὴν καὶ
τον, ὅτι τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι καὶ τὸ ὁρίσασθαι τὴν πολιτικὴν ἀπέκλιναν οἱ φιλοσο-
τὴν οὐσίαν οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἥψατο μὲν φοῦντες.
Δημόκριτος πρῶτος, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαί- 1 Gesch. und Syst. d. Plato, 1.
ου δὲ τῇ φυσικῇ θεαί-ουωρίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ 140 sq.
ἐκφερόμενος ὑὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγματος,
 PHYSICS, ETHICS, DIALECTIC. 187

s, that we
tinguished in this respect from all the other
ethical.
can properly characterise it as dialectical or
rust any
This result must at once cause us to mist
istic philo-
discrimination of a realistic and an ideal
the spiritual
sophy. True idealism can only exist where
ble, and re-
is consciously distinguished from the sensi
that sense,
garded as the more primitive of the two. In
are idealists.
for example, Plato, Leibniz and Fichte
the necessity
Where this is the case, there always arises
t of enquiry;
for making the spiritual as such the objec
natural
Dialectic, Psychology, Ethics are separated from
IH, therefore, neither of these sciences
philosophy.
Socrates, it
attained a separate development previous to
the spiritual
proves that the definite discrimination of
from the sensible, and the derivation of the sensible
idealism con-
from the spiritual—in which philosophic
the Pytha-
sists——was still alien to this period. Neither
idealists; at
goreans nor the Eleatics are, in reality,
philosophers,
any rate they are not more so than other
In com-
who are assigned to the realistic division.
parison with the older Ionic school, we find, indeed,
pheno-
that they attempt to get beyond the sensible
all things
menon; instead of seeking the essence of
the Py-
like their predecessors in a corporeal substratum,
in Being
thagoreans sought it in Number, the Eleatics
ems
without further determination. But the two syst
if the
do not advance equally far in this direction ; for
of
Pythagoreans give to Number as the universal form
as the
_ the sensible, the same position and significance
Eleaties subsequently to Parmenides give to the abstract
concept of Being, they stop greatly short of the Eleatics
188 THE PRE-SOCRATIU PHILOSOPHY.

in the abstraction of the qualities of the sensible phe-

nomenon. It would, therefore, be more correct to speak
of three philosophic tendencies instead of two: a real-
istic, an idealistic, and an intermediate tendency. We
have really, however, no right to describe the Italian
philosophers as Idealists. For although their first
principle is, according to our ideas, incorporeal, the
precise discrimination of spiritual from corporeal is
with them entirely wanting. Neither the Pythagorean
Number, nor the Eleatic One, is a spiritual essence,
distinct from the sensible, like the Platonic ideas; on
the contrary, these philosophers maintain that sensible
things are according to their true essence, numbers ; or
that they are one invariable substance.' Number and
Keing are the substance of the bodies themselves,—the
matter of which the bodies consist, and for this reason
they are apprehended sensuously. Conceptions of
number and conceptions of magnitude interpenetrate
one another with the Pythagoreans; numbers become.
something extended; and among the Eleatics, even
Parmenides describes Being as the substance which fills
space. So in the further development of the systems,
there is a confusion of spiritual and corporeal. The
Pythagoreans declare bodies to be numbers: but virtue,
friendship and the soul are also numbers, or numerical
proportions ; nay, the soul itself is regarded as a cor-
poreal thing. Similarly, Parmenides says,’ that reason

1 This may be in itself a con- held by the ancient philosophers.

tradiction (as Steinhart points out 2 Aristotle, De An. i. 2, 404 a,
in the Hail. Allg. Literaturz, 1845, 17. Vide infra, Pythagoreans.
Nov. p. 891), but it does not fol- 3 That Parmenides says this
low that it may not have been only in the second part of his
 REALISM AND IDEALISM. 189

in man depends upon the admixture of his bodily parts,

for the body and the thinking principle are one and
the same; even the celebrated proposition about the
unity of thought and Being’ has not the same meaning
with him as in modern systems. It cannot be, as
Ribbing calls it,? ‘the principle of idealism, for it is
not derived from the theorem that all Being arises from
Thought, but conversely from the theorem that Thought
falls under the conception of Bemg; in the former
case only could it be idealistic, in the latter it must be
considered realistic. Again, when Parmenides connects
his Physics with his doctrine of Being, he parallels
the antithesis of Bemg and non-Being, not with the
antithesis of spiritual and corporeal, but with that
of light and darkness. Aristotle asserts that the
Pythagoreans presuppose, like the other natural philo-
sophers, that the sensible world embraces all reality ;3
he makes them to differ from Plato in that they hold
numbers to be the things themselves, whereas Plato
distinguishes the ideas from things;* he describes the
Pythagorean Number, notwithstanding its incorpore-
ality, as a material principle.? He includes Parmenides,
poem proves nothing against the tirely to the explanation of nature
above application of the words. If ὡς ὁμολογοῦντες τοῖς ἄλλοις φυσιο-
ε [4 ΄“ ΄“-

he had been clearly conscious of λόγοις, ὅτι τό γε ὃν τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν

the difference between spiritual and ὅσον αἰσθητόν ἐστι καὶ περιείληφεν ὁ
corporeal, he would not thus have καλούμενος οὐρανός.
expressed himself even in his hypo- + Metaph. i. 6, 987 b, 25 sqq.
thetical explanation of phenomena. > Metaph. i. 5, 989 a, 15:
1 'V. 94 sqq. Φαίνονται δὴ Kal οὗτοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν
, > > ε «“
5 Genet. Darst. der’ platon. νομίζοντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι καὶ ὡς ὕλην
Idzenlehre, i. 378, ef. 28 sq. τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ ws πάθη τε καὶ ἕξεις.
8 Metaph. i. 8, 989 b, 29 sqq. Ibid. b, 6: ἐοίκασι δ᾽ ὡς ἐν ὕλης
The Pythagoreans, it is true, admit εἴδει τὰ στοιχεῖα τάττειν" ἐκ τούτων
non-sensible principles, but they γὰρ ὡς ἐνυπαρχόντων συνεστάναι
nevertheless confine themselves en- καὶ πεπλάσθαι φασὶ τὴν οὐσίαν.
 190 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

with Protagoras, Democritus and Empedocles, among

those who held that the sensible only is the real;! and
it is from this source that he derives the Eleatic theory
of the sensible world.? On all these points we must
allow him to be fully justified. The Italian philo-
sophers likewise commence with an enquiry into the
essence and grounds of sensible phenomena; and they
seek for these in that which underlies things, and is
not perceptible to sense. In so doing, they transcend
indeed the ancient Ionian Physics, but not the later
systems of natural philosophy. That the true essence
of things is to be apprehended not by the senses, but
by the understanding alone, is also taught by Hera-
cleitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Atomistic
Philosophy. They, too, hold that the ground of the
sensible lies in the not-sensible. Democritus himself,
thorough materialist as he was, has no other definition
for matter than the Eleatic conception of Being; Hera-
cleitus considers the law and relation of the whole to
be alone the permanent element in phenomena; Anaxa-
goras is the first who distinguishes spirit clearly and
definitely from matter, and he is for that reason, in a
well-known passage of Aristotle, placed far above all,
his predecessors.? If, therefore, the opposition of Ma~

1 Metaph. iv. 5, 1010 ἃ. 1 Παρμενίδην] διὰ τὸ μηθὲν μὲν ἄλλο.

(after speaking of Protagoras, De- παρὰ τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐσίαν ὕπο-
mocritus, Empedocles. and Parme- λαμβάνειν εἶναι, τοιαύτας δέ τινας
nides): αἴτιον δὲ τῆς δόξης τούτοις, [se. ἀκινήτουΞ5] νοῆσαι πρῶτοι φύσεις
ὅτι περὶ μὲν τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἴπερ ἔσται τις γνῶσις ἢ φρόνησις,
ἐσκόπουν, τὰ δ᾽ ὄντα ὑπέλαβον εἶναι οὕτω μετήνεγκαν ἐπὶ ταῦτα τοὺς
τὰ αἰσθητὰ μόνον. ἐκεῖθεν λόγου“. ᾿
2 De Celo, iii. 1, 298 b, 21 ff: 3 Metaph.i. 8,984 Ὁ, 15: νοῦν δή
ἐκεῖνοι δὲ [οἱ περὶ Μέλισσόν τε καὶ Tis xray
3, «ὃ
ἐνεῖναι
+ τ σὰ
καθάπερ
,
ἐν> τοῖς= ζῴοις
/
 IONIANS AND DORIANS. 191

terialism and Idealism is to furnish a principle of

division for ancient philosophy, this division must be
limited not only,as Braniss maintains, to the epoch pre-
ceding Anaxagoras, but preceding Heracleitus. Even
then, strictly speaking, it is not applicable, nor does
it take account of the intermediate position of the
Pythagoreans between the Ionians and the Eleatiecs.
This double tendency of philosophic thought is also
said to correspond with the opposition of the Ionic and
Doric elements, and, accordingly, all the philosophers
. until the time of Socrates, or rather Anaxagoras, are
assigned either to an Ionic or a Doric series of develop-
ment. This division is certainly more exact than that
of some of the ancient historians,! who divided the
whole of Greek Philosophy into Ionian and Italian.
But even in regard to the most ancient schools, so far
as their internal relations have to be represented, such
a division can hardly be carried out. Among the
Dorians, Braniss counts Pherecydes, the Pythagcreans,
the Eleatics and Empedocles. Ast makes the addition
of Leucippus and Democritus. Now it is difficult to
see how Pherecydes can be placed among the Dorians,
and the same may be said of Democritus, and probably
καὶ ἐν TH φύσει τὸν αἴτιον τοῦ κόσμου Galen (Hist. Phil. ec. 2, p. 228)
καὶ τῆς τάξεως πάσης οἷον νήφων ἐφάνη Kuhn; this last further divides the
παρ᾽ εἰκῆ λέγοντας τοὺς πρότερον. Italian philosophers into Pythago-
1 Diogenes, i. 13; that he is reans and Eleatics, and so far agrees
here following older authorities is with the theory of three schools—
clear (as Brandis /oc. cit. p. 43 Italian, Ionian, and Eleatic (Cle-
shows) from the fact of the schools mens, A/. Strom.i.300¢.) The re-
he mentions only coming down to _vView of the earlier philosophers in
the time of Clitomachus (129-110 Aristotle's first book of Metaphysics
B.c.) ef. Augustine. Civ. Dei, viii. follows the order of dogmatic points
2;the Aristotelian Scholiast, Schol. of view, and would be out of place
in Arist., 323, a, 36, and the Pseudo- in regard to our present purpose.
192 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

of Leucippus. Moreover, the founder of Pythagorism

was by birth an Ionian of Asia Minor; and though the
Doric spirit manifests itself in his mode of life, his
philosophy seems to betray the influence of the Ionian
Physics. Empedocles was born, it is true, in a Doric
colony; but the language of his poem is that of the
Ionian epos. The Eleatic School was founded by an
Ionian of Asia Minor, it received its final development
in an Jonian settlement, and in the person of one of its
last great representatives, Melissus, it returned to Asia
Minor.! There remain, therefore, of pure Dorians, only
the Pythagoreans, with the exception of the founder
of the school, and, if we will, Empedocles. It has
been said that it is not necessary that the philosophers
of either division should belong to it also by birth ;?
and this condition certainly ought not to be insisted on
in the case of every individual. But it is surely indis-
pensable with regard to each division as a whole; all
their members should be either Doric or Ionic, if not
by birth, at least by education. Instead of this, we
find more than half the so-called Dorian philosophers,
not only belonging by birth and extraction to the
Ionian race, but receiving their education from it,
through national customs, civil institutions, and what
is especially important, language. Under these cir-
cumstances, differences of tribe are of very secondary |
moment. They may have influenced the direction of
1 Petersen (Philol. hist. Stu- has been shown by Hermann,
dien, p. 15) also thinks he ean dis- Zeitschrift fir Alterthumsw., 1834,
cover an A®olic element in the p. 298.
Eleatics. That there is not the 2 Braniss, loe. cit. p. 108.
slightest ground for this conjecture
 IONIANS AND DORIANS. 198

ἜΕΨΗ but cannot be Sree as having determined

it.}
In the ulterior development of these two series,
the Ionian and the Dorian, Braniss opposes Thales to
Pherecydes, Anaximander to Pythagoras, Anaximenes
to Xenophanes, Heracleitus to Parmenides, Diogenes of
Apollonia to Empedocles. Such a construction, how-
ever, does great violence to the historical character and
relationof these men. On the Ionian side, it is incor-
rect to place Heracleitus beside the earlier philosophers
of that school, for he does not stand in a relation
of simple progression to Anaximenes, as Anaximenes
stands to Anaximander. Diogenes, on the other hand,
was entirely uninfluenced by the philosophy of Hera-
cleitus ; we cannot, therefore, say with Braniss (p. 128)
that he was expressly related to that philosopher, and
that he summed up the result of the whole Ionic
development. Braniss is even more arbitrary in his
treatment of the Dorians. In the first place, Phere-
cydes, as has already been said (p. 89 sq.), is not, pro-
perly speaking, a philosopher, still less is he a Doric or
idealistic philosopher ; for what we know of him bears a
close relation to the old Hesiodic-Orphic cosmogony, the
mythic precursor of the Ionic Physics. Even the dis-
crimination of organising force from matter, on which
Braniss lays so much stress (p. 108) had been brought
forward in a mythic manner by Hesiod, and in a more
definite and philosophic form by Anaxagoras the Ionian ;
whereas it is entirely wanting in the Italian Eleatics,?
1 So Ritter alsodecides,i.191sq. as plastic force; but this second
2 The second part of Parme- part speaks only from the point of
nides’ poem (vy. 131) mentions Eros - view of ordinary opinion.
VOL. I. Oo
194 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

and is of doubtful value among the Pythagoreans. It is

true that the belief in the transmigration of souls was
shared by Pherecydes with Pythagoras, but this isolated
doctrine, which is rather religious than philosophic,
cannot be taken as decisive for the position of Phere-
cydes in history. Further, if we connect Xenophanes
with Pythagoras, as Parmenides is connected with
Xenophanes, or Anaximenes with Anaximander, we
ignore the internal difference which exists between
the Eleatic stand-point and the Pythagorean. It is
manifestly improper to treat a doctrine which has a
principle of its own, essentially distinct from the
Pythagorean principle, and which developed itself in a
separate school, as a mere continuation of Pytha-
gorism. Again, as we shall presently show, to place
Empedocles exclusively in the Pythagorean-Eleatic
series is to close our eyes to all aspects of the question
but one. Lastly, what right has Braniss to pass over
the later development of Pythagorism accomplished
by Philolaus and Archytas; and the development of the
Eleatic doctrine effected by Zeno and Melissus, while
he recognises men like Anaximenes and Diogenes of
Apollonia, who were in no way more important, as
representatives of particular stages of development?
His scheme is a Procrustean bed for historical pheno-
mena, and the Doric Philosophy suffers doubly. At
the one end it is produced beyond its natural propor-
tions, and at the other it is denuded of members which
are essentially part of its growth.
The same holds good of Petersen’s! earlier attempt
1 Philol. hist. Stud. pp. 1-40. p. 285 sqq.), from whom the above
Cn the other hand. cf. Hermann remarks are partly taken.
(Zeitschr, fur Alterthumsw., 1834,
 IONIANS AND DORIANS. 195

to determine the historical relation of the pre-Socratic

schools. Here, too, the general principle is the oppo-
sition of realism, or rather materialism, and idealism.
This opposition developes itself in three sections, each
of which is again subdivided into two parts: first, the
opposing elements stand over against one another in
sharp contrast; and secondly, there arise various at-
tempts to conciliate them, which, however, accomplish
no real adjustment, but still incline to one or other of
the two sides. In the first section, the oppositions
begin to develop themselves—the mathematical idealism
of the Doric Pythagoreans confronts the hylozoistic
materialism of the older Ionians (Thales, Anaximander,
Anaximenes, Heracleitus and Diogenes). A reconcilia-
tion is next attempted on the idealistic side by the
Eleatics ;on the materialistic by the physician Elothales
of Cos, his son Epicharmus and Alemzon. In the
second section, the contrasts become more marked ; we
encounter, on the one hand, pure materialism, in the
Atomists; on the other, pure idealism in the later
Pythagoreans, Hippasus, Enopides, Hippo, Ocellus,
Timeeus, and Archytas. Between these two, we find on
the idealistic side the pantheism of Empedocles, on the
materialistic side the dualism of Anaxagoras. In the
third and last section both tendencies pushed to excess
equally lead to the destruction of Philosophy throngh |
the scepticism of the Sophists. Thus one uniform
scheme is undoubtedly carried through the whole pre-
Socratic Philosophy, but it is a scheme that scarcely
corresponds with the actual order of history. It is
unwarrantable, as we have just seen, to divide the philo-
ο 2
190 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

sophers of this period into materialists, or realists, and

idealists. Nor can we, for reasons to be stated more
fully later on, admit the propriety of placing Hera-
cleitus in one category with the ancient Ionians, among
the materialists. On the other hand, we must demur
to the separation of the later Pythagoreans from the
earlier; because the so-called fragments of their writings,
which alone would justify it, are certainly to be re-
garded as forgeries of the neo-Pythagoreans. How the
Eleatics can be assigned to an intermediate position
between the Ionians and Pythagoreans, whereas they
carried to the utmost that abstraction from the sensible
phenomena which the Pythagoreans had begun, it is
difficult to say, nor can we concur in opposing to the
Eleatics, Elothales, Epicharmus, and Alemzeon as ma-
terialists with incipient dualism. These men were not,
indeed, systematic philosophers ; but any isolated philo-
sophic sentences they adopted seem to have been chiefly
derived from the Pythagoreans and Eleatic doctrines.
Lastly, how can Empedocles be considered an idealist;
and Anaxagoras with his theory of vods a materialist?
and how can the system of Empedocles, with its six
primitive essences, of which four were of a corporeal
kind, be described as pantheism, and more particularly
as idealistic pantheism ? !
1 Steinhart is allied with Bra- ism, but a mixture of the Doricand ~
niss and Petersen (Allg. Encykl. v. Ionic elements. The Ionic Philo-
Ersch. und Grube, Art. ‘TIonische sophy he considers to have had
Schule,’ Sect. 2, vol. xxii. 457. He three stages of development.
In
distinguishes, like them, the Ionic Thales, Anaximander, and Anaxi-
and Doric Philosophy ; in the case menes, he says, we first find obscure
of the Pythagoreans, however, and ‘and seattered intimations of a
still more in that of the Eleatics, spiritual power that rules in the
what he finds is not pure Dorian- world. In Heracleitus, Diogenes,
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 197

The foregoing discussions have now paved the way

for a positive determination of the character and course
of philosophic development during our first period. I
have characterised the Philosophy of that period (irre-
spectively for the present of Sophistic), as a philosophy
of nature. It is so by virtue of the object which oc-
cupies it: not that it limits itself exclusively to nature
in the narrower sense,—that is to say, to the corporeal,
and the forces unconsciously working in the corporeal;
for such a limit of its sphere would necessarily presup-
pose a discrimination of spiritual and corporeal which
does not as yet exist. But it is for the most part
occupied with external phenomena; the spiritual, so
far as that domain is touched, is regarded trom the
same point of view as the corporeal; and consequently
there can be no independent development of Ethics and
Dialectic. All reality is included under the conception
of Nature, and is treated as a homogeneous mass, and
since that which is perceptible to the senses always
forces itself first upon our observation, it is natural that
everything should at first be derived from those prin-
ciples which appear most adapted to explain sensible
existence. The intuition of nature is thus the starting-
and above all in Anaxagoras, the to me a doubtful proceeding to
recognition of the spiritual princi- separate Empedocles from the
ple becomes constantly clearer. Atomists and Anaxagoras, to whom
Lastly, Leucippus and Democritus he is so nearly related ; nor can I
deny the spiritual principle in a convince myself that the Atomistic
conscious manner, and thus prepare Philosophy had its origin in a reac-
the destruction of this exclusively tion against the theory of a world-
physical philosophy. Leaving out forming spirit, and is later in its
of the question the opposition of origin than the Anaxagorean phy-
the Doric and Ionic elements, the sics. And lastly, as will presently
importance of which Steinhart him- appear, I cannot altogether agree
self considerably restricts, it seems with Steinhart’s view of Diogenes.
198 THE PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.

point of the earliest philosophy, and even when imma-

terial principles are admitted, it is evident that they
have been attained through reflection on the data fur-
nished by the senses, not through observation of spiritual
‘life. The Pythagorean doctrine of numbers, for in-
stance, is immediately connected with the perception of
regularity in the relations of tones, in the distances and
movements of the heavenly bodies; and the doctrine of
Anaxagoras of the vods which forms the world has refer-
ence primarily to the wise organisation of the world,
and especially to the order of the celestial system.
Even the Eleatic theses of the unity and unchange-
ableness of Being are not arrived at by opposing the
spiritual as a higher reality to the sensible pheno-
mena; but by eliminating from the sensible all that
seems to involve a contradiction, and by conceiving the
corporeal or the plenum in an entirely abstract manner.
Here too, therefore, it is, generally speaking, nature
with which Philosophy is concerned.
To this its object, thought still stands in an amme-
diate relation, and considers the material investigation
of nature as its first and only problem. The knowledge
of the object is not as yet dependent on the self-know-
ledge of the thinking subject, on a definite conscious-
ness of the nature and conditions of knowing; on the
discrimination of scientific cognition and unscientific pre-
sentation. This discrimination is constantly spoken of
from the time of Heracleitus and Parmenides, but it
appears, not as the basis, but only as a consequence of
the enquiry into the nature of things. Parmenides
denies the trustworthiness of the sensuous perception,
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 199

because it shows us an immoveable Being ;Empedocles,

because it makes the union and separation of material
substances appear as a process of becoming and passing
away; Democritus and Anaxagoras, because it cannot
reveal the primitive constituents of things. We find
in these philosophers no definite principles as to the
nature of knowledge which might serve to regulate
objective enquiry, in the way that the Socratic demand
for knowledge based on conceptions probably served
Plato: and though Parmenides and Empedocles in
their didactic poems exhort us to the thoughtful con-
sideration of things, and withdrawal from the senses,
they do so almost always in an exceedingly vague
manner ; and it does not follow because such a diserimi-
nation finds place in their poems, that in their systems
it may not be the consequence instead of the presuppo-
sition of their metaphysic. Although, therefore, their
metaphysic laid the foundation for the after develop-
ment of the theory of knowledge, it is not itself, as yet,
a theory of knowledge. The pre-Socratic Philosophy
is, as to its form, a dogmatism : thought, fully believing
in its own veracity, applies itself directly to the object;
and the objective view of the world first gives rise to
the propositions concerning the nature of knowledge
which prepare the way for the later Philosophy of con-
ceptions.
If we ask, lastly, what are the philosophic results of
the first period, we find, as has already been pointed
out, that the pre-Socratic systems attempted no accu-
rate discrimination between the spiritual and the cor-
poreal. The early lonian physicists derived everything
200 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

from matter, which they held to be moved and animated

by its own inherent force. The Pythagoreans substitute
number for matter; the Eleaties, Being, regarded as in-
variable Unity: but neither of them, as we have already
remarked, distinguished the incorporeal principles as to
their essential nature, from the corporeal phenomenon.
Consequently, the incorporeal principles are themselves
apprehended materially, and so in man, soul and body,
ethical and physical, are considered from the same
points of view. This confusion is particularly striking
in Heracleitus, for in his conception of everliving fire
he directly unites primitive matter with motive force
and the law of the universe. The Atomistic philoso-
phy is from the outset directed to a strictly material
explanation of nature, and therefore neither within
man nor without him does it recognise any immaterial
element. Even Empedocles cannot have apprehended
his moving forces in a purely intellectual manner, for
he treats them precisely like the corporeal elements
with which they are mingled in things; so too in man
the spiritual intermingles with the corporeal; blood is
the faculty of thought. Anaxagoras was the first to
teach definitely that the spirit is unmixed with any
material element; but in Anaxagoras we reach the
limit of the ancient Philosophy of Nature. Moreover,
according to him, the world-forming spirit operates
merely as a force of nature, and is represented in a half
sensible form as a more subtle kind of matter. This
particular example, therefore, cannot affect our previous
judgment of the pre-Socratic Philosophy so far as its
general and predominant tendency is concerned.
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 201

All these traits lead us to recognise as the charac-

teristic peculiarity of the first period, a preponderance of
natural research over introspective reflection ; an absorp-
tion with the outer world which prevents thought from
bestowing separate study on any object besides nature,
from distinguishing the spiritual from the corporeal in
an exact and definite manner; from seeking out the
form and the laws of scientific procedure for themselves.
Overborne by external impressions, man at first feels
himself a part of nature, he therefore knows no higher
problem for his thought than the investigation of
nature, he applies himself to this problem, impartially
and directly, without stopping previously to enquire
into the subjective conditions of knowledge; and even
when his investigation of nature itself carries him be-
yond the sensible phenomena as such, yet he does not
advance beyond nature considered as a whole, to an
ideal Being, which has its import and its subsistence
in itself. Behind the sensible phenomena, forces and
substances are indeed sought which cannot be perceived
by the senses; but the effects of these forces are the
things of nature, the essences not apprehended by
sense are the substance of the sensible itself, and no-
thing besides; a spiritual world side by side with the
material world has not yet been discovered.
How far this description applies also to Sophistic
we have already seen. The interest of natural research
and the belief in the truth of our presentments are
now at an end, but no new road to knowledge and higher
reality is as yet pointed out ; and far from opposing the
kingdom of the spirit to nature, the Sophists regard
202 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

man himself as a merely sensuous being. Although,

therefore, the pre-Socratic natural philosophy is
abolished in Sophistic, Sophistic like its predecessers
knows of nothing higher than Nature, and has no other
material to work on; the change consists not in oppos-
ing a new form of science to a previous form, but in
making use of the existing elements, particularly the
Eleatic and Heracleitean doctrines, to introduce doubt
into scientific consciousness, and to destroy belief in
the possibility of knowledge.
Thus we are compelled, by the results of our in-
vestigation, to bring the three oldest schools of Philo-
sophy—the Ionian, the Pythagorean, and the Eleatic—
into a closer connection than has hitherto been cus-
tomary. They are not only very near to each other in
respect to time, but are much more alike in their
scientific character than might at first sight be sup-
posed. While they agree with the whole of the early
Philosophy in directing their enquiries to the explana-
tion of nature, this tendency is in their case more
particularly shown in a search for the substantial
ground of things: in demanding what things are in
their proper essence, and of what they consist; the
problem of the explanation of Becoming, and passing
away, of the movement and multiplicity of phenomena
is not as yet distinctly grasped. Thales makes all
things originate and consist in water, Anaximander in
infinite matter, Anaximenes in air; the Pythagoreans
say that everything is Number; the Eleatics that the All
is one invariable Being. Now it is true that the Elea-
tics alone, and they only subsequently to Parmenides,
 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. ᾿ 208

denied movement and Becoming, whereas the Ionians

and the Pythagoreans minutely describe the formation
of the world. But they neither of them propounded
the question of the possibility of Becoming and of
divided Being in this general manner, nor in the estab-
lishment of their principles did they attempt particular
definitions in regard to it. The Ionians tell us that the
primitive matter changes; that from matter, originally
one, contrary elements were separated and combined in
various relations to form a world. The Pythagoreans
say that magnitudes are derived from numbers, and
from magnitudes, bodies; but on what this process was
based, how it came about that matter was moved and
transmuted, that numbers produced something other
than themselves,—they make no scientific attempt to
explain. What they seek is not so much to explain
phenomena from general principles, as to reduce phe-
nomena to their first principles. Their scientific in-
terest is concerned rather with the identical essence
of things, the substance of which all things consist,
than with the multiplicity of the phenomena and the
causes of that multiplicity. When the Eleatics, there-
fore, entirely denied the Becoming and the Many they
merely called in question an unproved presupposition
of their predecessors ; and in apprehending all reality
as a unity absolutely excluding multiplicity, they only
carried out more perfectly the tendency of the two
older schools. Heracleitus was the first to see in
motion, change, and separation, the fundamental
quality of the primitive essence; and the polemic of
Parmenides fist occasioned Philosophy to enquire more
 204 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

_thoroughly into the possibility of Becoming.’ With

_Heracleitus, then, philosophic development takes a new
direction : the three older systems, on the contrary, fall
together under the same class, inasmuch as they are
all satisfied with the intuition of the substance of which
things consist, without expressly seeking the cause of
multiplicity and change, as such. This substance was
sought by the Ionians in a corporeal matter, by the
Pythagoreans in number, by the Eleatics in Being as
such. By the first it was apprehended sensuously, by
the second mathematically, by the third metaphysi-
cally; but these differences only show us the gradual
development of the same tendency ina progression from
the concrete to the abstract ; for number and mathe-
matical form are a middle term between the sensible
and pure thought; and were afterwards regarded, by
Plato especially, as their proper connecting link.
The turning-point which I here adopt in the
development of the pre-Socratic Philosophy has been
already remarked by other historians in respect of the
Ionian schools. On this ground Schleiermacher? first.
distinguished two periods in the Ionian Philosophy, the
‘ From this point of view it conception of Being and Becoming.
might seem preferable to commence But the connection between Parme-
the second section ofthe first period nides and Xenophanes would thus
with Parmenides, as well as Hera- be broken; and as the doctrine of
cleitus, as my critic in the Reperto- Parmenides, in spite of all its his-
rium of Gersdorf (1844, H. 22, p. torical and scientific importance,
335) proposes, seeing that up to the approximates closely in its content
time of these two philosophers (as and tendency to the earlier sys-
he observes) the question, whence tems, it appears on the whole bet-
all things arose, had been answered ter to make Heracleitus alone the
by theories of matter, and that starting-point of the second section.
Heracleitus and Parmenides were 2 Gesch. der Phil. (Vorl. v. J.
the first to enquire concerning the 1812) p. 33.
 EARLIER AND LATER PHYSICISTS. 206

second of which begins with Heracleitus. Between

this philosopher and his predecessors, he says, there is a
considerable chronological gap, probably in consequence
of the interruption occasioned to philosophic pursuits
by the disturbances in Ionia. Moreover, while the
three most ancient Ionians came from Miletus, Philo-
sophy now spreads itself geographically over a much
wider sphere. Also, in the content of his philosophy,
Heracleitus rises far above the earlier physicists, so
that he may, perhaps, have derived little from them.
Ritter,’ too, acknowledges that Heracleitus differs in .
many respects from the older Ionians, and that his
theory of the universal force of nature places him eure

quite in a separate order from them. Brandis,? in

still closer agreement with Schleiermacher, holds that
with Heracleitus commences a new period in the de-
velopment of the Ionian Phiiosophy, to which, besides
Heracleitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, De-
mocritus, Diogenes, and Archelaus likewise belong;
all these being distinguished from the earlier philo-
sophers by their more scientific attempts to derive the
multiplicity of particulars from a primitive cause, by
their more explicit recognition or denial of the dis-
tinction between spirit and matter, as also of a Divinity
that forms the world; and by their common endeavour
to establish the reality of particulars and their varia-
tions in opposition to the doctrine of the Eleatic One.
These remarks are quite true, and only, perhaps, open to
question with regard to Diogenes of Apollonia. But it
‘ Gesch. der Phil. 242, 248; 2 Gr.-rom. Phil. i. 149.
Ion. Phil. 65.
 900 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

is not enough to make this difference the dividing-line

between two classes of Ionic physiologists ; it is deeply
rooted in the whole of the pre-Socratic Philosophy.
Neither the doctrine of Empedocles, nor that of Anaxa-
goras, nor that of the Atomists can be explained by the
development of the Ionian physiology as such; their
relation to the Eleatics is not the merely negative rela-
tion of disallowing the denialof Reality, Becoming, and
Multiplicity; they positively learned a good deal from
the Eleatic school. They all acknowledge the great
principle of the system of Parmenides, that there is no
Becoming or passing away in the strict sense of the
terms; consequently they all explain phenomena from the
combination and separation of material elements, and
| they in part borrow their concept of Being directly from
'the Eleatic metaphysics. They ought, therefore, to he
placed after the Eleatic school, and not before it. In
regard to Heracleitus, it is less certain whether, or how
far, he concerned himself with the beginnings of the
Eleatic Philosophy ; in point of fact, however, his posi-
tion is not only entirely antagonistic to the Eleatics, but
he may generally be said to enter upon a new course
altogether divergent from that hitherto followed. In
denying all fixedness in the constitution of things, and
recognising the law of their variability as the only per-
manent element in them, he declares the futility of the
previous science which made matter and substance the
chief object of enquiry ; and asserts the investigation
of the causes and laws which determine Becoming and
Change to be the true problem of Philosophy. Thus, |
although the question as to the essence and material
 EARIIER AND LATER PHYSICISTS. 207

substance of things was not overlooked by Hera-

cleitus and his followers, any more than the account of
the formation of the world was omitted by the Ionians
and Pythagoreans, the two elements stand with each of
them in a very different relation. In the one case, the
enquiry as to the substance of things is the main point,
and the notions about their origin are dependent upon
the answer given to this question; in the other, the
chief question is that of the causes of Becoming and
Change, and the manner of conceiving the original
substance of Being depends upon the determinations
which appear necessary to the philosopher to explain
Becoming and Change. The Ionians make things arise
- out of the rarefaction and condensation of a primitive
matter, because this best adapts itself to their notion
of primitive matter; the Pythagoreans hold to a
mathematical construction, because they reduce every-
thing to number; the Eleatics deny Becoming and
Motion, because they find the essence of things in
Being alone. On the contrary, Heracleitus makes fire
the primitive matter, because on this theory only can
he explain the flux of all things; Empedocles presup-
poses four elements and two moving forces; Leucippus
and Democritus presuppose the atoms and the void,
because the multiplicity of phenomena seems to them
to require a multiplicity of material primitive elements,
and the change in phenomena a moving cause; Anaxa-
goras was led by similar considerations to his doctrine
of the ὁμοιομερῆ and the world-intelligence. Both
sets of philosophers speak of Being and Becoming; but
im the one case the definitions respecting Becoming
208 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

appear only as a consequence of their theory of Being;

in the other, the definitions of Being are merely pre-
suppositions in the theory of Becoming. In assigning, Ὁ
therefore, the three most ancient schools to a first
division of pre-Socratic Philosophy, and Heracleitus,
and the other physicists of the fifth century to a second,
we follow not merely the chronological order, but the
internal relation of these philosophers.
The course of philosophic development in the second
division may be more precisely described as follows :—
First, the law of Becoming is proclaimed by Heracleitus
unconditionally as the universal law of the world; the
reason of which he seeks in the original constitution of
matter. The concept of Becoming is next enquired
into more particularly by Empedocles and the Atomists.
Generation is identified with the union, and decease
with the separation of material elements: consequently,
a plurality of original material elements is assumed,
the motion of which has to be conditioned by a second
principle distinct from them; but whereas Empedocles
makes his primal elements of matter qualitatively dif-
ferent one from another, and places over against them
moving force in the mythical forms of friendship and
discord, the Atomists recognise only a mathematical
difference between the primitive bodies, and seek to
explain their motion in a purely mechanical manner
from the operation of weight in empty space; space
they consider indispensable, because without it, as they
believe, no plurality and no change would be possible.
This mechanical explanation of Nature Anaxagoras finds
inadequate. He therefore sets spirit beside matter as
 THE LATER PHYSICISTS. 209

moving cause, discriminates them one from the other as

the compound and the simple, and defines primitive
matter as a mixture of all particular matters; a mix-
ture, however, in which these particular matters exist
and are already qualitatively determined. Heraclei-
tus explains these phenomena dynamically, from the
qualitative change of one primitive matter, which is
conceived as essentially and perpetually changing ;
Empedocles and the Atomic philosophers explain them
mechanically, from the union and separation of different
primitive matters; Anaxagoras finally is persuaded that
they are not to be explained by mere matter, but by
the working of the spirit upon matter. At this point,
in the nature of the case, the purely physical explana-
tion of nature is renounced; the discrimination of spirit
from matter, and the higher rank which it assumes in
opposition te matter, demands a recasting of science
generally on the basis of this conviction. As, however,
Thought is as yet incapable of such a task, the imme
diate result is that philosophy is bewildered in regard
to its general vocation, despairs of objective knowledge,
and places itself, as a means of formal development, in
the service of the empirical subjectivity which acknow-
ledges the validity of no universal law. This is effected
in the third section of the pre-Socratic Philosophy by
means of Sophistie.!
1 Tennemann and Fries adopt distinguish the two main currents
this arrangement ofthepre-Socratie of ancient physics, and, as before
schools on purely chronological uoticed, he separates Sophistic from
grounds. Hegel bases it on scien- the other pre-Socratic doctrines. It
tific observations concerning the is to be found, too, in Braniss, to
internal relation of the systems. whose general presupposition I
He does not, however, expressly must nevertheless demur. Among
VOL. I. P
210 THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

the more recent writers, Noack, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Seep-

and previously Schwegler, adopt my ticism, the third. I cannot now
view ;Haym, on the contrary (ΑἸ. enter upon any detailed examina-
Encyk. Sect. 3 B, xxiv. p. 25 sqq.), tion of these different classifications.
though in harmony with me in It will be seen in the course of
other respects, places Heracleitus this exposition what are my objec-
before the Eleaties. In his history of tions to the theory of Striimpell
Greek Philosophy, p. 11 sq. Schweg- (Gesch. der Theoret. Phil. der Grie-
ler diseusses: 1, the Ionians; 2, chen, 1854, p. 17 sq.), in point of
the Pythagoreans; 3, the Eleatics; chronology as well as the internal
and 4, Sophistic, as the transition to aspects of the subject. His expo-
the second period. He defends sition of the pre-Socratic Philoso-
the subdivision of the Ionians into phy is as follows: First, the older
earlier and later, for the reasons Ionian Physiologists, starting from
stated on p. 202 sq.; and assigns the contemplation of the changes
to theearlier, Thales, Anaximander, in nature, arrive in Heracleitus at
and Anaximenes ; to the later, He- the conception oforiginal Becoming.
racleitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, To this doctrine the Eleaties op-
and Democritus. So also Ribbing pose a system which entirely denies
(Platon. Ideenlehre, i. 6 sqq.) con- Becoming, whilecontemporaneously
siders that since Heracleitus, the later Physicists, on the one
Empedocles, the Atomists, and side Diogenes, Leucippus, and De-
Anaxagoras are, in their principles, mocritus ; on the other, Empedo-
lower than the Pythagoreans and cles and Anaxagoras, reduce it to
Eleatics, they, as well as the oldermere motion. A reconciliation of
Jonians, must be placed before the opposition between Becoming
them. Ueberweg has the follow- and Being, and between Opinion
ing division: 1, the older Ionians, and Knuwledge, was attempted by
including Heracleitus; 2, the the Pythagoreans ; and Sophistic
Pythagoreans ; 3, the Eleaties ; is a dialectic solution of this oppo-
4, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and sition. It will suffice at present
the Atomists. The Sophists he to say that the position of Hera-
places in the second period, of which cleitus, the Eleatics, Diogenes, and
they form the first chapter ; Socra- more especially the Pythagoreans,
tes and his successors, as far as appear to me more or less misre-
Aristotle, constitute the second; presented by this arrangement.
 THALES. 211

§ I—THE EARLIER IONIANS, THE PYTHA-

GOREANS AND ELEATICS.
THE EARLIER IONIAN PuHysiIcs.!

I. THALES?
THALEs is reputed to be the founder of the Ionian
Naturalistic Philosophy. He was a citizen of Miletus,
a contemporary of Solon and Creesus,3 whose ancestors
1 Ritter, Gesch. der Ion. Phil., third edition); Hansen (Abhand-
1821. Steinhart, Jon. Schule, Alig. lungen der kénigl. stichs. Gesellsch.
Encyk. v.; Ersch und Gruber, Sect. der Wissenschaft. vol. xi.; Math.
11., vol. xxii. 457-490. phys. ΚΙ. vol. vii. p. 379); Martin
2 Decker, De Thalete Milesio. (Revue Archéologique, nouv. sér., vol.
Halle, 1865. Older monographs ix. 1864, p. 184), and other autho-
in Ueberweg, Grundriss. der Gesch. rities, that which occurred on the
der Phil., i. 35 sq., 3rd edition. 28th, or, according to the Grego-
3 This is beyond question ; but rian calendar, the 22nd of May,
the chronology of his life (on which 585 B.c. Pliny, in his Natural
ef. Diels on the Chronicle of Apol- History, ii. 12, 53, places it in the
lodorus, Rhein. Mus., xxxi. 1, 15 fourth year of the 48th Olympiad
sq.) cannot be more precisely fixed. (584-5 B.c.), 170 a.v.c.; Eudemus
According to Diogenes i. 37, Apol- ap. Clemens, Stromata, i. 302 A,
lodorus placed his birth in the about the fourth year of the 50th
first year of the 35th Olympiad, Olympiad (580-576); Eusebius in
1.6, 640-639 B.c. Eusebius places his Chron. in Ol. 49, 3, 582-1:
it in the second year of the 35th they, therefore, take the second
Olympiad, and Hieronymus also in eclipse, which is most accurately
the 35th Olympiad, Chron. 1. But calculated by Pliny. About the
this statement is probably founded same time {under the Archon Da-
only on some approximate calcula- masius, 586 z.c.) Demetrius Phale-
tion of’ the eclipse of the sun, reus ap. Diog. i. 22 makes Thales
which Thales is said to have pre- and the rest to have received their
dicted (vide infr. p. 213, 3). This is designation of the seven wise men.
not, asused formerly to be supposed, According to Apollodorus, Diog.
the eclipse of 610 B.c.; but, ac- i. 38, Thales was 78 years old;
cording to Airy (On the Eclipses of (Decker’s proposal, p. 18 sq., to sub-
Agathocles, Thales, and Xerzes, stitute 95 does not commend itself
Philosophical Transactions, vol. to me) according ‘to Sosicrates
exliil. p. 179 sqq.); Zech (Astrono- (wid.), 90; according to Pseudo
mische Untersuchungen der wich- Lucian (Macrob. 18), 100 ;according
tigeren Finsternisse, &c., 1853, p.57, to Syncell. (p. 218 C), more than
with which cf. Ueberweg, Grund- 100. His death is placed by Dio-
riss der Gesch. der Phil, i. 36, genes, loc. cit., in the 58th Olym-
F 2
212 THALES.

are said to have immigrated to their later home from

Pheenicia, but more probably from Beeotia.! The con-

piad; likewise by Eusebius, Hiero- Tonians of Asia Minor (Herod. i.

nymus, and Cyrillus, loc. eit. ; but 146 ; Strabo, xiv. 1, 3, 12, p. 633,
in that ease, as is shown by Diels, 636; Pausan. vii. 2,7). According to
and confirmed by Porphyry (ap. Pausanias, a great number of The-
Abulfaradasch, p. 33, ed. Pococke), ban Cadmeans established them-
his birth cannot have been assign- selves in Priene, for which reason
ed by Apollodorus to Ol. 35, 1, but the name of the place was altered
to Ol. 39, 1 (624 B.c.; 40 years toCadme. Hellanicus in Hesychius
before the eclipse), and the diver- sub voc. also calls the inhabitants
gent statements must be ascribed of Priene Καδμῖοι. For Diogenes,
to some ancient corruption of the i. 22, says: ἦν τοίνυν ὃ Θαλῆς, ὡς
text in the source consulted by μὲν Ἡρόδοτος καὶ Δοῦρις καὶ Δημό-
Diogenes. As to the manner of κριτός φησι, πατρὸς μὲν ᾿Ἐξαμίου,
Thales’s death and his burial-place, μητρὸς δὲ Κλεοβουλίνης, ἐκ τῶν
some untrustworthy accounts are Θηλιδῶν (or Θηλυδ.) οἵ εἰσι Φοίνι-
to be found in Diog. 1. 39, ii. 4; κες, εὐγενέστατοι τῶν ἀπὸ Κάδμου
Plut., Solon, 12; some epigrams καὶ ’Ayhvopos. He thus explains
relating to him, in Anthol. vii. 83 the Φοῖνιξ by ‘descendant of Cad-
sq., Diog. 84, Whether the Thales mus’; following either Duris or
mentioned in Arist. Polit. ii. 12, Democritus, or, at any rate, some
1274 a, 25, as the scholar of Ono- very trustworthy source. Herodo-
macritus, and the teacher of Ly- tus, however, shows by the word
curgus and Zaleucus, isthe Milesian ἀνέκαθεν that not Thales himself,
philosopher, or some other person, but only his rsmote ancestors had
matters little; and the unfavour- belonged to the Pheenicians. If
able judgment, which, according Thales was only in this sense
to Aristotle, ap. Diog. 11. 46 (if, Φοῖνιξ, his nationality, even if the
indeed, the statement be his at all), story of the immigration of Cad-
Pherecydes passed upon. Thales, is mus have any foundation in his-
equally unimportant. tory, is Greek and not Pheenician;
1 Herodotus, i. 170, says of nor is this statement affected by
him: Θάλεω ἀνδρὸς Μιλησίου, τὸ the circumstance (vide Schuster,
ἀνέκαθεν γένος ἐόντος Φοίνικος; Acta soc. philol. Lips. iv. 328 sq. ;
Clemens, Strom. 1. 302 C, simply cf. Decker, De Thale., 9) that the
τ ealls him Φοῖνιξ τὸ γένος ; and, ac- father of Thales perhaps Lore
cording to Diogenes, 1. 22, (where, a name that was Phenician in its
however, Réper, Philol. xxx. 563, origin. Diog., loc. ciz.,and 1, 29,
proposes to read ἐπολιτεύθησαν, according to our text, calls him in
and 7A@ov), he seems to have the genitive Ἐξαμίου. For this we
been regarded as a Pheenician im- must read ’Efautov; and some
migrant, settled in Miletus. This manuscripts have ᾿Ἐξαμύλου or
statement is probably founded on ᾿Εξαμυούλου, which certainly points
the fact that his ancestors belonged toa Semitic extraction. But this
to the Cadmean tribe in Beotia, Greco-Phenician name, like that
who were intermingled with the of Cadmus and many others, may
 BIOGRAPHY. 213

sideration in which he was held by his fellow-citizens is

sufficiently shown by the place which he occupies as
chief of the seven sages.! This has reference in the first
instance, it is true, to his practical ability and worldly
prudence of which other proofs have come down to us; ?
but we hear also that he distinguished himself by his
knowledge of mathematics and astronomy,? and that he
have been kept up centuries long represents him. Plato, Theetetus,
among the Phenicians settled in 174 ἃ; Diog. 34, ef. Arist. Eth. N.
Greece. We cannot infer from it vi. 7, 1141 b, 3, &e. Little more,
a direct Pheenician descent, either however, is to be said for the story
for Thales or his father. His of the oil presses, intended to re-
mother’s name is wholly Greek. fute this opinion; not to mention
1 Cf. p. 119 sq.; Timon ap. the aneedote in Plutarch, So/. anim.
Diog. 1. 34; Cie. Legg. ii. 11, 26; 6. 15, p. 971. The assertion (Cly-
Acad, 11. 37, 118; Aristophanes, tus ap. Diog. 25), μονήρη αὐτὸν
Clouds, 180; Birds, 1009; Plautus, γεγονέναι Kal ἰδιαστὴν, cannot be
Fud. iv. 3, 64; Bacch.i. 2,14. In true in this universal sense; and
Capt. ii. 2, 124, Thales is a pro- the stories about his celibacy, for
verbial name for a great sage. For which ef. Plutarch, Qu. conv. iii. 6,
sayings ascribed to him ef. Diog. i. 3,3; Sol.6,7; Diog. 26; Stobeus,
39 sqq- ; Stobeus, Floril. τι]. 79, 5; Hlori., 68, 29, 34, are equally
Plutarch, S. sap. conv. α. 9. worthless.
2 According to Herodotus, i. 3 Thales is one of the most
170, he counselled the Ionians, be- celebrated of the ancient mathe-
fore their subjugation by the Per- maticians and astronomers. Xeno-
sians, to form a confederation with phanes eulogises him in _ this
a united central government to re- respect, ef. Diog. i. 23: δοκεῖ δὲ
sist them; and, according to Diog. κατά τινας πρῶτος ἄστρολογῆσαι
25, it was he who dissuaded the καὶ ἡλιακὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς
Milesians from provoking the dan- προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος ἐν τῇ
gerous enmity of Cyrus by an περὶ τῶν ἄστρυλογουμένων ἱστορίᾳ"
allianee with Cresus. It is not ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ “Ηρόδο-
consistent with this, and in itself τος θαυμάζει: μαρτυρεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ
is hardly credible that he should “Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Δημόκριτος. Phi-
have accompanied Creesus in his nix ap. Athen. xi. 495, ἃ: Θαλῆς
expedition against Cyrus (as Hero- yap, ὅστις ἀστέρων ὀνήΐστος ete.
dotus relates, i. 75), and by plan- (others read ἀστέων). Strabo, xiv.
ning a canal, should have enabled 1,7, p. 635: Gadrjs... 6 πρῶ-
him to cross the Halys. It is still Tos φυσιολογίας ἄρξας ἐν τοῖς
more incredible that Thales, the Ἕλλησι καὶ μαθηματικῆς. Apuleius
first of the seven wise men, should Floril. iv. 18, p. 88 Hild. Hippo-
have been such ax unpractical lytus Ref. her. i. 1; Proclus in
theorist, as a well-known anecdote Euclid. 19 (vide following note).
214 THALES. ΄

was the first to transplant the elements of these sciences

The anecdote quoted from Plato, theory of the σκαληνὰ τρίγωνα
Theet. 174 A, in the previous note, (Cobet: σκαλ. καὶ tply.), and in
has reference to his reputation as general the γραμμίκη θεωρία; de-
an astronomer. Among the proofs termined the seasons, divided the
related of his astronomical know- year into 365 days, measured the
ledge, the best known is the above- height of the pyramids by the
mentioned prediction of the eclipse length of their shadow (this accord-
which occurred during a battle be- ing to Hieronymus; the same in
tween the armies of Alyattes and Pliny, Hist, Nat. xxxvi. 12, 82; a
Cyaxares or Astyages (Herod. 1. little differently in Plutarch S. sap.
74; Eudemus ap. Clem. Strom. conv. 2, 4, 147); Callimachus ap.
i. 302 A; Cic. Divin, 1. 49, 112; Diog. 22 says that he was the first
Pliny’s Hist. Nat. i. 12, 53); it to mark out the constellation of
was probably in consequence of the Little Bear, which is repeated
this. that the prediction and expla- by Fheo in Aratt Phen. 37, 39,
nation of solar and lunar eclipses and by the Scholiast of Plato, p.
generally were ascribed to him. 420, No. 11, Bekker. Proclus as-
See Diog. loc. cit.; Eusebius, Pr. Hv. serts that he first showed that the
x. 14,6; Augustine, Civ. Dei, viii. diameter halved the circle (i
2; Plutarch, Plac.i1. 24; Stobzeus, Euclid, 44, 157 Friedl.), and- that
Ecl. i. 528, 560; Simplicius, in in an isosceles triangle, the angles
Categ. Schol. in Arist. 64 a, 1, 65 at the base are equal (ibid. 67
a, 80; Ammonius, ibid. 64 a, 18; and 250 Friedl.); that the angles
Schol. in Plat. Remp. p.420; Bekk. at the vertex are equal (cid. 79,
Cie. Rep. i. 16. Theo in the pas- a, 299, according to Eudemus) ;
sage taken from Dercyllides, that triangles are equal when
Astron, ¢. 40, p. 324 Mart, and re- they have two angles and one
peated by Anadolius, in Fabric. side equal to one another; and
Bibl. gr. iii. 464. The latter says, that by means of this proposition
following Eudemus : Θαλῆς δὲ [εὗρε the distance of ships on the sea
πρῶτος ἡλίου ἔκλειψιν καὶ τὴν κατὰ could be measured (ibid. 92 [852] ;
τὰς τροπὰς αὐτοῦ περίοδον [8]. this is also on the authority of
πάροδον] ws οὐκ ἴση ἀεὶ συμβαίνει. Eudemus). Apuleius, Flor. iv.
(On this opinion, which we meet 18, p. 88 H., says that Thales dis-
with elsewhere, cf. Martin loc. cit. covered temporum ambitus, vento-
Ῥ. 48). In partial agreement with rum flatus, stellarum ‘meatus,
this, Diogenes says (i. 24 sq. 27) tonitruum sonora miracula, siderum
that Thales discovered τὴν ἀπὸ obliqua curricula, solis annua rever-
τροπῆς ἐπὶ τροπὴν πάροδον of the ticula (the τροπαὶ, the solstices of
sun, aud declared the sun to be which Theo and Diogenes in the
720 times as large as the moon. previously quoted passages, the
He, or according to others, Pytha- Scholiast on Plato, p. 420 Bekk.,
goras, first proved that the triangles speak) ; also the phases and eclipses
constructed on the diameter of a of the moon, and a method of de-
circle are rectangles (πρῶτον κατα- termining guotiens sol magnitudine
γράψαι κύκλου τὸ τρίγωνον ὄρθο- sua circulum, quem permeat, meti-
γώνιον); that he perfected the atur, Stobzeus ascribes to him
 BIOGRAPHY, 215

into Greece from the countries of the east and south.!

some other philosophical and phy- ap. Diog. 24, 27; the author of the
sical theories hereafter to be men- letter to Pherecydes, ibid. 43;
tioned, also the division of the Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 12, 82;
heavens into five zones (Eel. i. 502, Plutarch, De Js. 10, p. 354; 8. sap.
Plutarch, Place. ii. 12, 1); the dis- como. 2, p. 146; Flac. 12:3; 1;
covery that the moon is illuminated Clemens, Stromata, i. 300 D, 302;
by the sun (7bid., 556, Ρίαο. 11. 28, lamblichus v. Pythag. 12; Scho-
3), the explanation of her monthly liast in Plato, p. 420, No. 11
obscuration, and of her eclipses, Bekk. (cf. Decker, loc. cit., p. 26
560. Pliny, Hist. Nat. xviii. 25, 213, sq.), ἃ conjecture as to the reason
mentions a theory of his about the ot the overflowings of the Nile was
Pleiades, and Theo in Arat. 172, a also attributed to Thales, and may
passage relative to the Hyades. perhaps be connected with this
According to Cicero, Rep. i. 14, he statement (Diodor. i. 38; Diog. i.
made the first celestial globe ; and, 37). fit be true that Thales was —
according to Philostratus, Apol/. engaged in trade (Plutarch, Sol. 2,
li. 5, 3, he observed the stars trom asserts this, prefixing ‘gaciy’), we
Mycale. How much of thesé re- might suppose that he was first led
ports is true cannot now be ascer- to Egypt by his commercial jour-
tained ; that the prediction of the neys, and then made use of his
eclipse of the sun cannot be histo- opportunity for the advancement
rical, Martin shows in the Revue of his knowledge. We cannot,
Archéologique, nouv. sér. vol. ix, however, regard his presence in
(1864) 110 saqq.; ef. especially p. Egypt as absolutely proved, pro-
181 sq. bable as the assertion may be;
1 Arithmetic, says Proclus, iz since the tradition on the subject
Euclid. 19, ο [65] was discovered by cannot be traced further back than
the Phenicians; Geometry by the Eudemus, whose date is still 250
Egyptians. on the occasion of the or 300 years from that of Thales’s
overflowing of the Nile, Θαλῆς δὲ supposed journey, still less can his
πρῶτον eis Αἴγυπτον ἐλθὼν μετήγα- acquaintance with the Chaldzans
γεν εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὴν θεωρίαν be proved by such late and uncer-
ταύτην, καὶ πολλὰ μὲν αὐτὸς εὗρε, tain testimony as that of Josephus,
πολλῶν δὲ τὰς, ἀρχὰς τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν Contra Apionem, i, 2; or the length
ὑφηγήσατο. Whence Proclus got of his stay in Egypt by that of the
this information he does not state, Placita falsely attributed to Plu-
and though it is not improbable tarch (i, 3, 1). A scholium (schol.
that Eudemus may be his au- in Ar. 533, a, 18) states that he
thority, we know not whether the was sent for into. Egypt as a.
whole account comes. from that teacher of Moses—a specimen of
source, nor who may be the autho- the manner in which history was
ritiesof Eudemus. Thales’s Egyp- manufactured in the Byzantine pe-
tian journey, his intercourse with riod and even earlier. That he de-
the priests of that country, and rived philosophical and physical
the mathematical knowledge which theories from the East, as well
he gained from them are spoken as geometrical and mathematical
of by Pamphile and Hieronymus, knowledge, is not asserted by any
216 THALES.

That he inaugurated the school of ancient physicists is

affirmed by Aristotle,! and seems well established. He
is at any rate the first whom we know to have instituted
any general enquiry into the natural causes of things,
in contradistinetion to his predecessors, who contented
themselves partly with mythical cosmogonies, and
partly with isolated ethical reflections.? In answer to
of our witnesses, except perhaps in Metaph. i. 3, p. 21, Bon. The-
IJamblichus and the author of the mist. Or. xxvi. 317, B; Simplicius,
Placita. Réoth’s attempt (Gesch. De an. 8 a, cf. Philop. De an. C 4;
der Abendl. Phil. ii. a, 116 sqq.) to Galen. in Hipp. de Nat. hom. 1. 25,
prove this from the affinity of his end, vol. xv. 69 Kiihn.) Aristotle
doctrine with that of Egypt, falls always speaks of him from some
to the ground so soon as we as- uncertain tradition, or from his
eribe to Thales, only what there own conjecture (Metaph. i. 8, 988
is good reason for ascribing to him. b, 20 sqq., 984 a, 2; De celo, ii.
1 Metaph. i. 3, 983 b, 20. 13, 294 a, 28; De an.i. 2, 405 a,
Bonitz, in commenting on this pas- 19, 6, 5, 4118, Bs eet ae
sage, rightly reminds us that it is 1259 a, 18, ef. Schwegler, in Me-
not Greek Philosophy in general, taph.i.3); similarly Eudemus, ap.
but only the Ionian Physies, the Proclus iz Euclid. 92 (352), Roth
origin of which is here attributed (Gesch. der Abendl. Phil. ii. a, 111.)
to Thales. Theophrastus says (ap. concludes that the supposed Thale-
Simp. Phys. 6 a, m), but only as a sian writings must be genuine, be-
conjecture, that there must have cause of their agreement with the
been physicists before Thales, but propositions attributed to Thales.
that his name caused them all This is a strange inference, for in
to be forgotten. Plutarch, on the the first place he himself only con-
other hand (Solon, c. 3, end), re- siders two of the writings authen-
marks that Thales was the only tic; and as to the contents of these
one of his contemporaries who ex- two, nothing has been handed down
tended his enquiry to other than to us. These writings are the
practical questions (περαιτέρω τῆς ναυτικὴ ἀστρολογία and the treatise
χρείας ἐξικέσθαι τῇ θεωρίᾳ). Simi- περὶ τροπῆς. In the second place
larly Strabo (sup. p. 213, 8) Hip- it is obvious that traditions about
polyt. Refut. Her. i. 1; Diog. i. 24. Thales’s doctrine might as easily
The assertion of Tzetzes (Chil. ii. have been taken from spurious
869, xi. 74) that Phereeydes was writings, as, on the other hand, the
the teacher of Thales has no weight, authors of such writings might
and is besides eontradicted by the have taken advantage of floating
chronology. traditions. Among the works as-
2 Thales does not appear to cribed to Thales the ναυτικὴ aorpo-
have committed his doctrines to λογία (mentioned by Diog. 28,
writing. (Diog. i, 23, 44; Alex. Simpl, Phys. 6 a, m) seems to have
 WATER AS PRIMITIVE MATTER. 217

this enquiry, he declared water to be the matter of

which all things consist, and from which they must have .
arisen.! As to the reasons of this theory, nothing was
known by the ancients from historical tradition. Aris-
totle? indeed says that Thales may have been led to it

been the oldest. According to ἀρχηγὸς φιλοσοφίας ὕδωρ εἶναί φησιν

Simplicius, it was his only work. [se. στοιχεῖον καὶ ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων]
Divgenes says it was held to be a Cic. Acad. ii. 37, 118: Thales...
work of Phocus the Samian. Ac- ex aqua dicit constare omnia, and
cording to Plutarch (Pyth. orac. many others (a list of these is
18, p. 402), who considers it ge- given in Decker, p. 64). We
nuine, it was writtenin verse; it find in Stobeus, Ee/. i. 290, and
seems to be intended by the ἔπη, almost werd for word in Justin.
mentioned in Diog. 34. Whether Coh. ad Gr.c. 5; Plut. Place. i. 3,
the poem, περὶ πετεώρων, ascribed 2,the expression: ἀρχὴν τῶν ὄντων
to him by Suidas (@aA.), is or is ἀπεφήνατο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐξ ὕδατος γάρ
not identical with the ναυτικὴ φησι πάντα εἶναι καὶ εἰς ὕδωρ ava-
ἀστρολογία, cannot be ascertained. λύεσθαι but this is taken from
Two other works, which many Aristotle, who, shortly before the
writers consider to be his only words just now quoted, says that
writings, περὶ τροπῆς καὶ ἰσημερίας, most of the ancient philosophers
are quoted in Diog. 23 (cf. Suidas). knew only of material causes: ἐξ
The Pseudo-Galen (Jn Hippocr. οὗ γὰρ ἔστιν ἅπαντα τὰ ὄντα καὶ
De humor: i. 1, 1, vol. xvi. 37, ἐξ οὗ γίγνεται πρῶτον καὶ εἰς ὃ
K) quotes a work, περὶ ἀρχῶν ; but φθείρεται τελευταῖον... . . τοῦτο
this testimony is itself sufficient to στοιχεῖον καὶ ταύτην ἀρχήν φασιν
prove that the work is not authen- εἶναι τῶν ὄντων. Aristotle is, there-
tic. Neither the verse quoted fore, in reality our only source for
Diog. 35 (cf. Decker, p. 46 sq.), nor the knowledge of Thales’s propo-
the ietter (ibid. 343 sq.) can be sition.
considered as genuine. To which 2 Loc. cit. 4. 22: λαβὼν tows
of these writings Augustine refers τὴν ὑπόληψιν ἐκ τοῦ πάντων
in Civ. D. viii. 2 (where he asserts ὁρᾷν τὴν τροφὴν ὑὕγρὰν οὖσαν καὶ
that Thales left books of instruc- αὐτὸ τὸ θερμὸν ἐκ τούτου γιγνόμενον
tion) it is not of much consequence καὶ τούτῳ ζῶν... καὶ διὰ τὸ
to know. The same may be said πάντων τὰ σπέρματα τὴν φύσιν
of tke doubtful allusions to books ὑγρὰν ἔχειν, τὸ δ᾽ ὕδωρ ἀρχὴν τῆς
of his in Josephus (C. Apion. i. 2), φύσεως εἶναι τοῖς ὑγροῖς. ΒΥ
and of the quotations in Seneea, θερμὸν is not to be understood (as
Nat. qu. iii. 13, 1, 14. 1; iv. 2, 22; by Brandis, i. 114) warmth gene-
vi. 6, 1; Plutarch, Plac. i. 3; iv. rally, including that of the stars
1 ; Diodorus, i. 38 ; Sehol.in Apoll. (see following note); it relates to
Fhod. iv. 269. the vital heat of animals, to which
1 Arist. Metaph. i. 3, 983 b, πάντων is limited by the context.
20: Θαλῆς μὲν 6 Tis τοιαύτης
218 THALES.

through observing that the nourishment of all animals

is moist, and that they all originate from moist germs ;
but this he expressly states to be merely his own conjec-
ture. It is only by later and less accurate authors that
the conjecture of Aristotle is asserted as a fact, with
the farther additions that plants draw their nourish-
ment from water, and the stars themselves from damp
vapours; that all things in dying dry up, and that
water is the all-organising and all-embracing element ; '
that we must assume one primitive matter, because
otherwise it would be impossible to explain the trans-
formation of the elements one into another; and that
that one matter must be water, because everything is
derived from water, by means of rarefaction and con-
densation.? All this makes it difficult for us to come
to any definite conclusion on the subject. It is possible
that the Milesian philosopher may have been influenced
by the considerations that Aristotle supposes ;he may
have started from the observation that everything
living arises from a liquid, and in decaying, returns to

1 Plut. Plac. i. 8, 2 sq. (so Eu- phrastus does not relate to the rea-
sebius, Pr. Hv. xiv. 14, 1, and in sons of the system of Thales, and
essential agreement with this, that we have consequently no right
Stobzeus, loc. cit.); Alex. ad Me- to conclude (as Brandis does, 1. 111
taph. 988 Ὁ, 18; Philoponus, sqq.) the existence of trustworthy
Phys. A, 10; De. an. A, A a; documents concerning Thales’s rea-
Simplicius, Phys. 6 a, 8 a; De soning from the supposed agree-
celo 273 Ὁ, 36; Karst. Schol. in ment of Aristotleand Theophrastus.
Arist. 514 a, 26. It has been al- * Galen, De Elem. sec. Hoppoer.
ready shown by Ritter, i. 210, and i, 4, vol, 1.442, 444, 484, speaking
Krische (Forschungen auf dem Ge- simultaneously of Thales, Anax-
biete der alten Philosophie, 1. 36) imenes, Anaximander, and Herac-
that Simplicius is here speaking leitus. It was in truth Diogenes
only from his own conjecture or of Apollonia (vide infra) who first
that of others, that the subsequent proved the unity of matter by the
passage where he refers to Theo- transformation of the elements.
 WATER AS PRIMITIVE MATTER, 219

a liquid state ; but other observations may likewise have

conduced to this theory, such as the formation of solid
ground from alluvion, the fertilising power of rain and
of streams, the numerous animal population of the
waters ; in conjunction with such observations, the old
myth of Chaos and of Oceanos, the father of the gods,
may also have had some effect on him; but the exact
state of the case cannot be ascertained. Nor can we
say whether he conceived his primitive watery matter
as infinite; for the assertion of Simplicius! is mani-
festly based upon the Aristotelian passage which he is
elucidating ;* and this passage does not mention
Thales. It does not even affirm that any one of the
philosophers who held water to be the primitive matter,
expressly attributed the quality of infinity to that
element. Supposing such an assertion had been made,
it would be more reasonable to refer it to Hippo (vide
infra) than to Thales, for the infinity of matter is else-
where universally regarded as a conception first enter-
tained by Anaximander; Thales most likely never
raised such a question at all.
He is said to have discriminated? from water, as
1 Phys. 105 Ὁ, m: of μὲν ἕν τι be held (with Plato and the Pytha-
στοιχεῖον ὑποτιθέντες τοῦτο ἄπειρον goreans) as something self-depend-
ἔλεγον τῷ μεγέθει, ὥσπερ Θαλῆς μὲν ent, existing for itself. Aristotle,
ὕδωρ, etc. therefore, does not say all the
2 Phys. iii. 4, 208 a, 16: οἱ δὲ Physicists regard primitive matter
περὶ φύσεως ἅπαντες ἀεὶ ὑποτιθέασιν as infinite, but all give to the infi-
ἑτέραν τινὰ φύσιν τῷ ἀπείρῳ τῶν nite some element as substratum;
λεγομένων στοιχείων, οἷον ὕδωρ ἢ and this he could very well say
ἀέρα ἢ τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων. even.if certain physicists had not
5 The question there is. (loc. expressly mentioned the rey of
cit.) not whether primitive matter the first principle. The word
is intinite, but whether the infinite ἅπαντες is limited by the context
is the predicate of a body from to those Physicists who admit an
which it is distinguished, or is to ἄπειρον.
220 THALES.

primitive matter, the deity or spirit which permeates

this matter, and from it forms the world.! Aristotle,?
however, expressly denies that the ancient physiologists,
among whom Thales stands first, distinguished the
moving cause from matter; or that any other philo-
sopher except Anaxagoras (and, perhaps, before him
Hermotimus) had brought forward the doctrine of an
intelligence organising the world. How couid Aristotle
have used such language if he had known that Thales
named God the reason of the world? But if he did not
know it, we may be sure that the assertions of later
writers are net based upon historical tradition. More-
over, the doctrine which is attributed to Thales entirely
accords with the Stoic theology ;* the very expression in
Stobzeus appears to be borrowed from the Stoic termi-
nology ;4 Clemens of Alexandria,’ and Augustine,° dis-
tinctly declare that neither Thales nor the physicists

1 Cie: Ν De. 3. 16; 25., Thales τοῦ στοιχειώδους ὑὕγροῦ δύναμιν

. aquam dixit esse initium re- θείαν κινητικὴν αὐτοῦ. Philoponus,
rum, Deum autem ean mentem, _De An. C. 7 u, makes Thales to
que ex aqua cuncta fingeret, a state- have said: ὡς 7 πρόνοια μέχρι τῶν
ment which, as Krische observes ἐσχάτων διήκει καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτὴν
(Forschungen, 39 sq.), is the same λανθάνει.
in substance, and is apparently 3 Metaph. 1. 8, 984 a, 27 Ὁ. 16.
taken originally from the same 4 God is described, for example
source as that of Stobeeus (Eel. i. by Seneca (Nat. gu. prol. 13) as the
56): Θαλῆς νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου τὸν mens universi; by Cleanthes (vide
θεὸν, and the similar passage in Tertullian, Apologet. 21) as the
Plat. Plac. i. 7, 11 (consequently spiritus permeator universi; by
we must not in Eus. Pr. Hv. xiv. Stobseus, Ecl. i. 178, as δύναμις
16, 5, read with Gaisford : Θαλῆς τὸν κινητικὴ τῆς ὕλης; by Diogenes,
κόσμυν εἶναι θεὸν, but νοῦν τοῦ vii. 138, as νοῦς, which pervades
κόσμου θεόν). Athenag. Supplic. e. all things (δέηκειν).
21; Galen, Hist. Phil. c. 8, p. 2513 5 Strom. ii. 864 C; ef. Tert. e.
Kuhn. Mare. i. 18, Thales aquam (Deum
2 Cicero, loe. cit. ef. Stobeeus, pronuntiavit),
loc. cit.: τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ 5 Civ. D, vii, 2,
δαιμόνων wAjpes’ διήκειν δὲ καὶ διὰ
 ORGANISING FORCE. 221

who succeeded him regarded God or the Divine Spirit

as the framer of the universe, but that Anaxagoras was
the first to hold this doctrine. We may, therefore,
certainly conclude that the opposite theory is an error
of the post-Aristotelian period, the source of which we
shall presently find in some passages of Aristotle. It
by no means follows from this that Thales personally be-
lieved in no god or gods ;! but the tradition that credits
him with the thesis that God is the oldest of all things,
because He has had no beginning, is not very trustworthy.
For this assertion is no better attested than the innu-
merable other apophthegms ascribed to the seven sages,
and was probably attributed to Thales originally in
some coliection of their sayings in the same arbitrary
manner that other sayings were attributed to the rest.
Moreover, Xenophanes is elsewhere invariably considered
as the first who, in opposition to the Hellenic religion,
declared the Deity to have had no beginning. Accord-
ing to certain authors, Thales taught that the world is
full of gods. This statement is much more probable
than the preceding.” But what are we to understand by
1 Plut. S. sap. conv. α. 9; Diog. i. personal θεός. Tertullian (Apolo-
35; Stobeus, Acl. 1.54. This is get. c. 46) transfers Cicero's story
no doubt the meaning also of the (N. D. i. 22, 60) about Hiero and
statements in Clemens, Strom. v. Simonides to Creesus and Thales;
595 A (and Hippolyt. Refut. her. i. but this is a mere oversight.
1), according to which Thales re- 2 Arist. De An. i. 5, 411 a, 7:
plied to the question: ri ἐστι τὸ καὶ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δέ τινες αὑτὴν [τὴν
θεῖον ;τὸ μὴτε ἀρχὴν μήτε τέλος ψυχὴν] μεμῖχθαί φασιν, ὅθεν ἴσως καὶ
ἔχον. For immediately after, Θαλῆς φὠήθη πάντα πλήρη θεῶν
another saying of Thales is quoted εἶναι. Diog. i. 27: τὸν κόσμον
concerning the omniscience of God ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη. Simi-
(the same given in Diog. 36 and larly Stobzeus (vide supra, p. 220, 2).
Valer. Max. vii. 2, 8). Conse- The same proposition is also ap-
quently, the impersonal θεῖον has plied in a moral sense (Cicero, Legg.
here the same significance as the li. 11, 26).
922 THALES.

the expression, the diffusion of the soul throughout the

universe? Aristotle’s cautious ‘ perhaps’ shows us how
little such an interpretation is supported by tradition.
Indeed, it may safely be asserted that not only later
writers, but Aristotle himself, in his own way, ascribed
notions to Thales which we have no right to expect
from him. That he conceived all things as living, and
personified all active forces after the analogy of the
human soul, is certainly probable, because this is in
harmony with the imaginative view of nature which
everywhere, and especially among the Greeks, precedes
scientific enquiry: it is, therefore, quite credible that
he may (as Aristotle affirms) have attributed a soul to
the magnet,! on account of its power of attraction—that
is to say, regarded it asa living being. In the same
manner, doubtless, he conceived his primitive matter as
living, so that, like the ancient Chaos, it could beget
all things by itself, without the intervention of an or-
ganising spirit. It is also entirely consonant with
ancient Greek thought that he should see present
deities in the forces of nature, and a proof in the life
of nature, that nature is full of gods. But we cannot
believe that he combined the several powers of nature,
and the souls of separate beings, in the notion of a
world-soul; for that notion presupposes that the infi-
nite multiplicity of phenomena has become a unity in
the conception of the world; and that efficient power
1 De An. i. 2,405 a, 19: ἔοικε αὐτὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀψύχοις διδόναι
δὲ καὶ Θαλῆς et Gv ἀπομνημονεύουσι ψυχὰς τεκμαιρόμενον ἐκ THs μαγνήτι-
κινητικόν τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν, dos καὶ τοῦ ἤλέκτρου. Cf.Stob. Eel.
εἴπερ τὸν λίθον ἔφη ψυχὴν ἔχειν, 1. 768 : Θαλῆς καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἔμψυχα
ὅτι τὸν σίδηρον κινεῖ. Diog. i. 24: ζῷα. :
᾿Αριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ “Ἱππίας φασὶν
 ORGANISING FORCE. 223

is distinguished from matter and conceived as analo-

gous to the human spirit, not only in particular indi-
viduals, where this is natural in the simpler stages of
opinion, but in the universe generally. Both ideas
seem to lie beyond the first narrow limits of early
philosophy, and the historical evidence does not justify
us in attributing them to Thales! We may con-
clude, therefore, that while he conceived his primitive
matter as living and generative, while he shared the
religious faith of his people, and applied it to the
consideration of nature, he knew nothing of a world-
soul or of a spirit permeating matter and forming the
universe.”
As to the manner in which things originated from
water, Thales seems to be silent. Aristotle certainly
says that the physicists, who hold one qualitatively de-
termined primitive matter, make things arise out of it
by rarefaction and condensation,’ but it does not follow
that all these philosophers without exception were of
that opinion.* Aristotle might have used the same
form of expression if only the majority had held it,
1 Plut. Plac. ii. 1, 2: Θαλῆς hylozoism.
καὶ of am’ αὐτοῦ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον can- ΞΡ;ἐγ. i. 4, at the commence-
not of course be taken as historical ment : ὡς δ᾽ οἱ φυσικοὶ λέγουσι δύο
evidence. τρόποι εἰσίν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐν ποιή-
2 Some such answer must also σαντες τὸ ὃν σῶμα τὸ ὑποκείμενον
be given to the question which, in . τἄλλα γεννῶσι πυκνότητι
the last century, was so vigorously real μανότητι πολλὰ ποιοῦντες ἄρον
debated, but which is now almost οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐνούσας τὰς ἔναν-
wholly neglected, whether Thales τιότητας ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ ᾿Αναξί-
was a Theist or an Atheist. The μανδρός φησιν.
truth is no doubt that he was nei- * Heracleitus, for instance, re-
ther one nor the other; neither in garded things as arising out of fire,
his religious faith nor his philoso- not by rarefaction and condensa-
phy ; his religion is Greek po!lythe- tion, but by transformation.
ism, his philosophy is pantheistic
294 THALES.

and if it appeared to him the most logical theory of

derivation. Simplicius! is the first who expressly con-
nects Thales with Anaximenes as having adopted this
theory ; not only, however, does Theophrastus disagree
with him, but Simplicius tells us himself that his state-
ment is only based upon the general bearing of Aristotle’s
words.?. What is said by Galen ὅ in a passage of doubt-
ful connection, and also by other writers,‘ in a similar
strain, is most likely taken from the same source. It
is most probable, on the whole, therefore, that Thales
never entertained the question, but contented himself
with the indefinite notion that things arose or were
produced out of water.
What we hear from other sources about the doctrine
of Thales consists merely of isolated empirical obser-
vations or conjectures, or else of statements so imper-
fectly guaranteed that they cannot be considered
authentic. The latter holds good not merely of the
various mathematical and astronomical discoveries
and moral maxims which are attributed to him,° of
the assertion® that the heavenly bodies are glowing
1 Phys. 39 a: καὶ of ἕν δὲ kal condensation, vide infra): δῆλον
κινούμενον τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑποθέμενοι, δὲ ὡς καὶ of ἄλλοι TH μανότητι καὶ
ws Θαλῆς καὶ ᾿Αναξιμένης, μανώσει πυκνότητι ἐχρῶντο, καὶ yap’ Αριστο-
καὶ πυκνώσει τὴν γένεσιν ποιοῦντες. τέλης περὶ πάντων τούτων εἶπε κοι-
So 310 a, u, Pseudo-Alex. ix Me- vos, &e.
taph. 1042 b, 33, p. 518, 7; Bon. 8 Vide supra, p. 218, 2.
and the anonymous Schol. in Arist. 4 Hippol. Refut. i. 1; Arnob.
516 a, 14 b, 14. Adv. nat. ii. 10; Philop. Phys.
2 Simpl. Phys. 32 a, u: ἐπὶ yap C. I, 14, who, in both passages,
τούτου μόνου Γ᾿Avatimévous |Θεόφρα- so entirely confuses Thales with
στος ἐν τῇ “Ἱστορίᾳ τὴν μάνωσιν Anaximenes, that he attributes to
εἴρηκε καὶ τὴν πύκνωσιν. (This Thales the doctrine of air as primi-
saying, moreover, ought only tive matter.
to be applied to the ancient 5 Cf. p. 120, and p. 218, 3.
Ionians. Theophrastus ascribed 6 Plut. Plac. ii. 18; 1; Achill.
also to Diogenes rarefaction and Tat. Lsag. ὁ. 11.
 ΟΡΟΟΤΕΙΝΕΒ ATTRIBUTED TO THALES. 225
masses, analogous to the earth, that the moon receives
her light from the sun,' and so forth ; but even of the
philosophic doctrines of the unity of the world,? the
infinite divisibility and variability of matter,’ the un-
thinkableness of empty space,‘ the four elements,* the
mixture of matters,® the nature and immortality of the
soul,’ the demons and the heroes.$ All these originate
with such untrustworthy witnesses, and most of them
either directly or indirectly so entirely contradict more
credible testimony, that we can attach no value to them
whatever. What Aristotle® gives as a tradition is more
likely to be true,—viz. that Thales supposed the earth
1 Plut. Plac. ii. 28, 3; Plut. 1, Thales is not named: of ἀρχαῖοι
Conv. sap. C 15 (ὡς δὲ Θαλῆς λέγει, is the expression used, which is
τῆς γῆς ἀναιρεθείσης σύγχυσιν τὸν evidently more correct, and was
ὅλον ἕξειν κόσμον. can hardly be probably the original expression of
quoted, as the Banquet of Plutarch Plutarch.
is not a historical work. Moreover, 7 According to Plutarch (Place.
the meaning is doubtless merely iv. 2, 1) and Nemes. (Nat. hom. ec.
that the annihilation of the earth 2, p. 28), he described the soul as
would (not will at some time) befol- φύσις ἀεικίνητος ἢ αὐτοκίνητος - ac-
lowed bya destruction ofthe whole cording to Theodoret, Gr. aff. cur.
universe. v. 18, p. 72, as φύσις ἀκίνητος
2 Plat. Plac. ii. 1, 2. (where, however, aetxivntos possibly
5. Plut. Plac. i. 9, 2; Stob. Eel. ought to be read); an interpolation
i. 318, 348. to which the passage of Aristotle
* Stob. i. 378, where the older quoted above doubtless gave occa-
reading, ἐπέγνωσαν, recommended sion. Tertullian, De An. ec. 5 at-
by Roth, Abend/. Phil. ii. 6,7,is tributes to Thales and to Hippo
grammatically inadmissible. the theorem that the soul is com-
° According to the fragment of posed of water. Philoponus, De
the spurious writing, περὶ ἀρχῶν An. c. 7, restricts this to Hippo,
(Galen, vide supra, p. 216, 2), and while, in another passage, De An.
perhaps also Heraclit. Alleg.hom.c. A 4, he ascribes it both to
22, the four elements areexpressly Hippo and Thales. Choerilus ap.
reduced to water. Jt will here- Diog.i.24, and Suidas, Θαλῆς, says
after be shown that Empedocles that he was the first to profess be-
was the first to establish four as lief in immortality.
the number of the material ele- 8 Athenag. Supplic.c.23 ; Plut.
ments. Place. i. 8.
6 Stob. i. 368. In the parallel 9 Metaph. i. 3, 983 b, 21; De
passage of Plutarch’s Placita,i.17, Calo, ii. 13, 294 a, 29.
VOL. I. Q
220 THALES.

to float on the water; for this would harmonise per-

fectly with the theory of the earth’s origin from
water, and easily adapt itself to the old cosmological
notions: we may also connect with it the further state-
ment ' that he explained earthquakes by the movement
of the water. This last assertion, however, seems to
rest entirely on one of the writings falsely ascribed to
Thales, and doubtless the ultimate source of other
doctrines that have been attributed to him. The
statement of Aristotle is better attested, but we gain
little information, even from him, as to the doctrine of
Thales as a whole.” All that we know of it may, in
fact, be reduced to the proposition that water is the
matter out of which everything arises and consists.
The reasons that determined him to this theory can
only now be conjectured; how he more closely defined
the process of the origination of things from water is
also very uncertain; but it is most probable that he
considered primitive matter, like nature in general, tc
be animate, and that he held to the indeterminate con-
ception of beginning or generation, without defining
this as brought about by the rarefaction or condensa-
tion of the primitive matter.
However meagre and insignificant this theory may
seem, it was, at least, an attempt to explain phenomena
by one general natural principle, and in this light it
was of the highest importance; we find that a series of
1 Plut. Plac. iii. 15,1; Hippol. militates against the supposition
Refut. her.i.1; Sen. Nat. qu. vi. (Plut. Plac. τ. 10) that he held the
6; ni. 14. The last, however, earth to be spherical, a conception
seems to refer to a treatise falsely which is foreign to Anaximander
attributed to Thales. and Anaximenes, and eyren to
* On the other hand, thistheory Anaxagoras and Diogenes.
 ANAXIMANDER. 227

more extended enquiries are directly connected with

those of Thales, and that even his immediate successor
was able to attain much more considerable results,

1, ANAXIMANDER?
Wuerseas Thales had declared water to be the primitive
matter of all things, Anaximander? defined this original
1 Schleiermacher, Ueber Anazi- mate ; but there is much to be said
mandros (1811; Werke, Philos. for the conjecture of Diels (Rhein.
ii. 171 sqq.); Teichmiiller, Studien Mus. xxxi. 24) that Anaximander
zur Gesch. der Begr. 1-70. I re- gave his age in his own work as six-
gret that I cannot make use of ty-four ;that Apollodorus (who, ac-
Lyng’s treatise, ‘On den Ioniske cording to Diogenes, had this work
Naturphilosophi, iser Anaximan- in his hands), following some inter-
ders’ (Abdruck aus den Vid. Sels- nal evidence, caleulated that the
kabets Forhandlinger for 1866), as work was written in ‘Ol. 58, 2; and
I am not acquainted with the lan- that the statement of Pliny is
guage in which it is written. based on the same calculation, in-
2 Anaximander was a fellow- asmuch as he found mention of the
citizen of Thales, and also his pupil obliquity of the ecliptic in this
and successor, according to later work. But Diogenes adds, as a
authorities (Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 30; quotation from Apollodorus: ἀκμά-
Math. ix. 360; Hippolyt. Refut. σαντά πη μάλιστα κατὰ Πολυκράτην
her. i. 6; Simpl. Phys. 6 a. m; τὸν Σάμου τύραννον, which is rather
Suidas, &c. ; this is likewise implied surprising, as Anaximander was
by the epithet ἑταῖρος. ap. Simpl. considerably older than Polycrates,
De Calo, 273 b, 38 ; Schol. in Arist. and died about 22 years before
514 a, 28; Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. him. Yet weneed not, with Diels,
i. 8, 1; of Sodalis in Cicero, Acad. loc. cit., assume that these words
il. 37, 118; of γνώριμος, in Strabo, originally related to Pythagoras
i. 1,11, p.7; and the latter is actu- (whose ἀκμὴ certainly falls under
ally interchanged with μαθητὴς, Polyerates, as he is said to have
ibid. xiv. 1, 7, p. 635). According emigrated in his reign when forty
to Apollodorus (Diog. ii. 2) he was years old), for they are also to be ex-
sixty-four years old in the second plained as the inexact reproduction
year of the 58th Olympiad, 546-7 of an observation of Apollodorus
B.c., and died soon afterwards, so respecting Anaximander. I am in-
that his birth must have occurred clined to suspect that Apollodorus,
in Ol. 42. 2 (611 B.c.), or, as Hippo- in order to get a synchronistic date
lytus (Refut. i. 6) thinks, in ΟἹ. 42, after the manner of ancient chrono-
3. Pliny (Hist. Nat. ii. 8, 3) says logists, had made the ἀκμὴ of this
he discovered the inclination of the philosopher (πη) pretty nearly co-
zodiac. The worth of these state- incide with the commencement of
ments we cannot certainly esti- the tyranny of Polycrates, which is
ω 2

α
σ
228 ANAXIMANDER.

element as the infinite, or the unlimited.! By the in-

finite, however, he did not understand,? like Plato and
the Pythagoreans, an incorporeal element, the essence
of which consists exclusively in infinity; but an in-
finite matter: the infinite is not subject but predicate,
it designates not infinity as such, but an object to
which the quality of being infinite belongs. It is in
this seuse only, says Aristotle,® that all the physicists
generally placed in the third year to determine the sizes and distances
of the 53rd Olympiad, and in the of the heavenly bodies. The in-
44th year of Anaximanser’s life. vention of the sundial was as-
Eusebius (Chron.) assigns Anaxi- ae to Anaximander by Diog.
mander to the dlst Olympiad. 1, and Eus. Pr. Ho. x.14,7;
Nothing is known of Is per- i to Anaximenes by Pliny, Nat.
sonal history, but the statement Hist. ii. 76, 187, in both cases er-
(τη, V. H. iii. 17) of his being roneously, as is probable; for the
the leader of the Milesian colony invention, according to Herod. ii.
in Apollonia indicates that he 109, was introduced into Greece by
filled a distinguished position in the Babylonians; but it is possible
his native place. His book, περὶ that one of these philosophers may
φύσεως, is said to have been the have erected in Sparta the first
first philosophical writing of the sundial ever seen there.
Greeks (Diog. 11. 2; Themist. Orat. ? Arist. Phys. ii. 4, 203 b, 10
xxvi. p. 317 C. When Clemens, sqq.; Simpl. Phys. 6 a, and many
Strom. i. 308 C, says the same of others ; see the following note.
the work of Anaxagoras, he is evi- ? As Schleiermacher, loc. cit.
dently confusing him with Anaxi- p. 176 sq., exhaustively proves.
mander). Brandis rightly observes, 5 Phys. 111. 4, 203 a, 2: πάντες
however (i. 125), that according to ὡς ἀρχήν τινα τιθέασι τῶν ὄντων
Diogenes, loc. cit., the work must [τὸ ἄπειρον], οἱ μὲν ὥσπερ οἱ Πυθα-
have been rare, even in Apollodo- γόρειοι καὶ Πλάτων, καθ᾽ αὑτὸ, οὐχ
rus’s time, and Simplicius can only ὡς συμβεβηκόςτινι ἑτέρῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσίαν
have known it through the quota- αὐτὸ ὃν τὸ ἄπειρον. . .. οἱ δὲ
tions of Theophrastus and others. περὶ φύσεως ἅπαντες del ὑποτιθέασιν
Suidas mentions several writings ἑτέραν τινὰ φύσιν τῷ ἀπείρῳ τῶν
of Anaximander’s, but this is χεγομένων στοιχείων, οἷον ὕδωρ ἢ
doubtless a misunderstanding ; on ἀέρα ἢ τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων. Cf. Me-
the other hand, a map .of the world taph. x. 2, 1053 b, 15. According
is attributed to him (Diog. loc. cit. ; to the theory of the Physicists the
Strabo, /oc. cit. after Eratosthenes ; ἐν was not itself a substance, but
Agathemerus, Geogr. 1}η7.. 1). Eu- had some φύσις for its substratum,
demus, ap. Simpl. De Colo, 212 ἐκείνων γὰρ 6 μέν TLS Φιλίαν εἶναί
a, 12 (Schol. in Arist. 497 a, 10) φησι τὸ ἕν ὁ δ᾽ ἀέρα; ὁ δὲ (Anaxi-
says he. was. the first who tried mander) τὸ ἄπειρον.
 THE INFINITE. 229

speak of the infinite; and among the physicists he

unquestionably reckons Anaximander.' According te
the unanimous testimony of later authors,? Anaximan-
der’s main argument for his theory was that the infinite,
and the infinite alone, does not exhaust itself in con-
stantly producing. This is the very argument that
Aristotle quotes? as the chief ground for maintaining
an infinite corporeal matter; and he does so in speaking
of the theory which we recognise as Anaximander’s,
viz. that the infinite is a body distinct from the de-
terminate elements. From the infinite, Anaximander
(whom Aristotle for that reason places beside Empe-
docles and Anaxagoras) derived particuiar kinds of
matter, and the world which is compounded of them,
by means of separation‘ (Ausscheidung), a doctrine
which would be impossible unless the infinite were
itself something material. Lastly, though it is difficult
to discover how this philosopher precisely defined his
infinite, all testimony is agreed as to its corporeal
nature; and among the passages ef Aristotle which
possibly may refer to Anaximander, and of which some
must of necessity refer to him, there is none which
does not imply this corporeal nature.® That he in-
1 Cf. loc. cit. p. 203 b, 18 ; vide αἰσθητόν, cf. c. 4, 203 b, 18, and
infra. Plut. oc. cit.
2 Cie. Acad. ii. 37, 118 ; Simpl. 4 Vide inf. p. 234, 3, and p. 250.
De Celo, 273 b, 38; Schol. 514 a, 5 In our text of Simpl. Phys.
28; Philop. Phys. L, 12 m; Plut. 32 Ὁ, 0, we have: ἐνούσας τὰς
Placita, i.3, 4, and to the same ἐναντιότητας ἐν τῷ ὑὕὑποκειμένῳ
effect Stob. Eel. 1. 292: λέγει οὖν’ ἀπείρῳ ὕντι ἀσώματι ἐκκρίνεσθαί
διὰ τί ἄπειρόν ἐστιν; ἵνα μηδὲν φησιν ᾿Αναξίμανδρος. Instead of
ἐλλείπη, ἡ γένεσις ἢ ὑφισταμένη. ἀσώματι Schleiermacher, loc. cit.
3 Phys. τι. 8, 208, a, 8: οὔτε 178, proposes ἰοτεδα σώματι. Bran-
γὰρ ἵνα 7 γένεσις μὴ ἐπιλείπη, ἀναγ- dis (Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 130) prefers
καῖον ἐνεργείᾳ ἄπειρον εἶναι σῶμα ἀσωμάτῳ; but this could only be
290 ANAXIMANDER.

tended therefore to designate by the infinite a matter

mfinite as to its mass, cannot be doubted;! and it is
admitted on the supposition that ception of magnitude, and, there-
Simplicius by the ἀσώματον here fore, can as little be measured or,
understood that which is not as yet consequently, limited, as the voice
formed into any determinate body. can be conceived of as visible. So
Meanwhile σώματι is not merely understood, the expression ἄπειρον
better sense, but it has also in its has nothing at all to do with the
favour that Simplicius in the pre- Absolute as such: the ἄπειρον in
vious context (p. 32 a, Schol. in this sense coincides much more with
Ar, 334 b, 18) has been speaking that of which it is said (Phys. iii.
of Anaximander’s σῶμα τὸ ὑποκεί- 4, beginning) that it can neither
μενον ; and similarly Aristotle in be ealled ἄπειρον (in the ordinary
the passage immediately preceding sense), nor πεπερασμένον, as, for in-
the one here in question, Phys. 1. stance, the point or the πάθος,
4,187 a, 13, speaks of the σῶμα Michelis himself is forced to allow
τὸ ὑποκείμενον, and elsewhere (vide (p. 7 sq.) that Aristotle never
previous note) of the ἄπειρον σῶμα again mentions this ‘ positive in-
αἰσθητόν. These words signify: finite.’ How little Aristotle ever
‘In the primitive matter conceived ; thought of it, Michelis might have
as ἄπειρον σῶμα. seen hada he studied the passage in
᾿ Michelis (De Anax. Infinito. Phys. 1. 2, 185 a, 32 sqq., where,
Ind. lect. Braunsberg, 1874) indeed without any restriction, it is as-
asserts the contrary in the tone of serted of the ἄπειρον generally, and
one who holds his own infalli- not of any particular kind of
bility to be indisputable. His ἄπειρον, that it is to be found only
arguments, however, seem to me ἐν τῷ ποσῷ, οὐσίαν δὲ ἄπειρον εἶναι
insufficient. He maintains that ἢ ποιότητα ἢ πάθος οὐκ ἐνδέχεται
Aristotle, in a passage never εἰ μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς, εἰ ἅμα καὶ
hitherto understood (Phys. tii. 4, ποσὰ ἄττα εἶεν, for the Absolute is
204 a, 2 sq.), distinguishes the οὐσία, if it is anything; and such
positive infinite or absolute from an οὐσία that the ποσὸν cannot,
the negative infinite, which relates not even κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς, belong
only to the corporeal and the sen- to it. The conception of the Abso-
sible, the former being what Anaxi- lute and that of the ἄπειρον, accor-
mander meant by his ἄπειρον. But ding to Aristotle’s view, plainly
the passage contains no trace of exclude one another; for the Ab-
any such distinction, nor has any solute is the perfected energy, pure
writer previously discovered such ; and simple; the ἄπειρον, on the
it only says that we may either call contrary, is what is always unper-
that’ an ἄπειρον, the measuring of fected, always δυνάμει, never ἐνερ-
which can never be completed ; or yela (Phys. ili. 5, 204 a, 20 6:
that which does not allow of being 6, 206 b, 84 sqq; Metaph. ix. 6,
measured: τῷ μὴ πεφυκέναι διϊέναι, 1048 b, 14), which, consequently,
ὥσπερ ἣ φωνὴ ἄορατος: in other ean be only material cause, and is
words (cf. 6. 5, 204 a, 12), that never employed in any other sense
which does not fall under the con- (Phys. iii. 7, 207, 4, 34 sqq.; ef.
 THE. INFINITE. 231

probably in this sense that we should understand the

expression ἄπειρον. He was induced, as we have seen,
to determine primitive matter in this way, chiefly by
the consideration that primitive matter must be infinite
to be able continually to produce from itself new
essences. It was easy for Aristotle to show (loc. cit.)
6. 6, 206 a, 18 b, 18). Aristotle, must himself, according to this
unquestionably therefore, neither writer; have distorted Anaximan-
himself thought of an immaterial der’s doctrine ; and all other autho-
ἄπειρον, nor attributed it to Anaxi- rities, especially Theophrastus, in
mander. Even in respect of that his utterance, quoted p. 233, 1, must
ἄπειρον, which Michelis wrongly be held guilty of the same thing.
regards as his ‘positive Infinite,’ From this point, however, all pos-
he says expressly, Phys, 111. 5, 204 sibility of any historic demonstra-
a, 13: ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως οὔτε φασὶν tion is at an end, and Michelis
εἶναι of φάσκοντες εἶναι τὸ ἄπειρον substitutes for it a simple sic volo,
οὔτε ἡμεῖς ζητοῦμεν, ἄλλ᾽ ὡς ἀδιέξο- 516 jubeo.
δον. As little can it be said that ! Striimpell (Gesch. der theor.
Aristotle, at any rate, did not Phil. der Gr. 29) ; Seydel (Fortschritt
ascribe to Anaximander’s ἄπειρον, der Metaph. innerhalb der Schule des
a corporeal materiality, for he Jon. Hylozoismus, Leipzig, 1860, p.
manifestly does so in the passages 10); and Teichmiller (Studien zur
quoted, p. 228, 3, and p. 229, 3. Gesch. der Begr. 7, 57) believe that
Michelis’s argument (p. 11), that the ἄπειρον means with Anaximan-
the passage in Metaph. x. 2, 1053 der that which is qualitatively in-
b, 15( vide supra, p. 233, 1) identifies determinate, as distinguished from
Anaximander with Empedocles (it determinate substances. But the
also identifies him with Anaxime- werd seems to have first received
nes), and that, according to my this signification from the Pytha-
view, the same opinion is ascribed goreans, and even with them it isa
to him as to Melissus, proves no- derived signification; the original
thing. We cannot conclude that meaning is ‘the Unlimited’ (only
because the φιλία of Empedocles is that the Unlimited, as applied to
not a corporeal matter that there- numbers, is that which sets no
fore Anaximander’s ἄπειρον is none; limit to division nor to augmenta-
nor can it be pronounced impossible tion, vide infra, Pyth.). For Anaxi-
that Melissus should have been led mander this signification results
to a determination of Being, which partly from the same cause that he
brought him into contact with assigns for the ἀπειρία of primitive
Anaximander, as Plato was brought matter (viz., that it would other-
with the Pythagoreans by his doc- wise be exhausted); and partly
trine of the Unlimited. In fine from this consideration, that it is
(p. 11), Aristotle, of whose words, precisely because of its infinity
moreover (Phys. 111. 4, 203 b, 4), that the ἄπειρον can embrace all
Michelis has a wrong conception, things.
232 ANAXIMANDER.

that this proof is not conclusive; but it might never-

theless have appeared sufficient to the unpractised
thought of the earliest philosophers,' and we must at
any rate allow that Anaximander, by maintaining the
theory, first raised an important question in philo-
sophy.
So far there is little room for disagreement; but
opinions are greatly divided as to the more precise
meaning of Anaximander’s primitive matter. The
ancients are pretty nearly unanimous in asserting that
it did not coincide with either of the four elements
;2
according to some it was not a determinate body at all,
others describe it as intermediate between water and
air, or again between air and fire; while a third account
represents it as a mixture of all particular kinds of
matter; a mixture in which these have been always
contained, as distinct and determinate, so that they
can be evolved from it by mere separation, without any
change in their constitution. ‘This last theory has
formed the basis in modern times? of the assertion

1 The same mistake, however, Anaximander for Anaximenes, re-

was made by Melissus, and after- peated by acopyist from the text of
wards by the Atomist, Metrodorus ; Sextus, or some other author whom
vide infra, Mel. and Metrod. he was transcribing. In the Pyrrh.
2 Authorities will presently be ii1. 30 he gives a correct account of
given. The Pseudo-Aristotelian both these Philosophers.
writing, De Melisso, &e., 6. 2, 975 8 Ritter, Gesch. der Ion. Phil.
b, 22,.alone maintains that his pri- p. 174 sqq., and Gesch. der Phil. i.
mitive matter is water (vide infra) 201 sq., 283 sqq., where his former
and in Sextus, Math. x. 313, it is concession that Anaxagoras held
said that he made all things arise, things to be contained in primitive
ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ ποιοῦ, namely,air. But matter only as to their germ and
although his name is twice men- capability, and not as distinct
tioned, it seems very probable that from each other, is virtually re-
the statement may have sprung tracted.
from the erroneous substitution of
 THE INFINITE. 233

that among the earlier, no less than among the later

Ionie philosophers, there were two classes—the Dy-
namists and the Mechanists—i.e. those who derived all
things from one primitive matter by meansof a vital
transformation, and those who derived them from a
multiplicity of unchanging primitive matters by means
of separation and combination in space. To the first
belong Thales and Anaximenes, Heracleitus and Dio-
genes; to the second, Anaximander, with Anaxagoras
and Archelaus. We will now examine this theory,
-since it has an important bearing not only on the
doctrine before us, but also on the whole history of
ancient Philosophy.
Much may be said in its behalf. Simplicius! ap-
pears to ascribe the same view to Anaximander which
we find in Anaxagoras, viz. that in the separation of
matters from the infinite, kindred elements become
united, gold particles with gold particles, earth with
earth, and so on, these different and distinct kinds of
1 Phys. 6 Ὁ, u; after a descrip- όραΞ᾽ ὑφ᾽ οὗ διακρινόμενα τούς τε
tion of Anaxagoras’s doctrine of κόσμους καὶ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων φύσιν
the primitive elements, he proceeds ἐγέννησαν. ‘Kal οὕτω μέν, φησι,
thus: καὶ ταῦτά φησιν 6 Θεόφραστος λαμβανόντων δόξειεν ἂν ὃ ᾿Αναξαγόρας
παραπλησίως τῷ ᾿Αναξιμάνδρῳ λέγειν τὰς μὲν ὑλικὰς ἀρχὰς ἀπείρους ποιεῖν,
τὸν ᾿Αναξαγόραν. ἐκεῖνος γάρ φησιν τὴν δὲ THS κινήσεως" καὶ τῆς γενέσεως
ἐν τῇ διακρίσει τοῦ ἀπείρυυ τὰ αἰτίαν μίαν τὸν νοῦν᾽ εἰ δέ τις τὴν
συγγενῆ φέρεσθαι πρὸς ἄλληλα, καὶ μῖξιν τῶν ἁπάντων ὑπολάβοι μίαν
ὅ τι μὲν ἐν τῷ παντὶ χρυσὸς ἦν, εἶναι φύσιν ἀόριστον καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος
γίνεσθαι χρυσὸν, ὅ τι δὲ γῆ γῆν, καὶ κατὰ μέγεθος, συμβαίνει δύο τὰς
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον, ἀρχὰς αὐτὸν λέγειν, τὴν τοῦ ἀπείροιν
ὡς ov γινομένων GAN ὑπαρχόντων φύσιν καὶ τὸν vow ὥστε φαίνεται
πρότερον. Cf. p. 51 Ὁ, u: οἱ δὲ τὰ σωματικὰ στοιχεῖα παραπλησίως
πολλὰ μὲν ἐνυπάρχοντα δὲ ἐκκρίνε- ποιῶν ᾿Αναξιμάνδρῳ The same
σθαι ἔλεγον τὴν γένεσιν ἀναιροῦντες, words are quoted by Simplicius,
ὡς ᾿Αναξίμανδρος καὶ ’Avatarydpas. Ῥ. 33 a, as borrowed from Theo-
τῆς δὲ κινήσεως καὶ τῆς γενέσεως phrastus’s φυσικὴ ἱστορία.
αἴτιον ἐπέστησε τὸν νοῦν 6 ᾿Αναξα-
234 ANAXIMANDER.

matter having been already contained in the original

mass. His authority for this statement is supposed to
be Theophrastus. We meet with the same view, how-
ever, elsewbere,' and Aristotle seems to justify it when
he describes Anaximander’s primitive matter as a mix-
ture.?- He also expressly mentions him as one of the
philosophers who thought particular kinds of matter
were developed from the one primitive matter, not by
rarefaction and condensation, but by separation.’ ‘This
proves, apparently beyond question, that Aristotle
himself conceived this primitive matter of Anaximan-
der as analogous to that of Anaxagoras; for that which
has to be separated from matter must previously have
been contained in it. But these reasons, on closer in-
spection, are very insufficient.* In regard to the Aris-
totelian passages, Aristotle himself tells us® that he
uses the expressions ‘separated’ and ‘contained, not
only where one kind of matter is contained in another
1 Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. τἄλλα γεννῶσι πυκνότητι καὶ μανό-
xv. 83 sqq., according to Augus- TNTL πολλὰ ποιοῦντες. ... οἱ δ᾽
tine, Civ. D. viii. 2; Philoponus, €k τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐνούσας Tas ἐναντιότητας
Phys. C, 4. In Irenzeus C. her. 11. ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ ᾿Αναξίμανδρός
14. 2, it is not clear what conception φησι καὶ ὅσοι δ᾽ ἕν καὶ πολλά φασι"
of the ἄπειρον he means: ‘ Anazi- εἶναι ὥσπερ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς καὶ ᾿Αναξα-
mander autem hoc quod immensum γόρας᾽ ἐκ τοῦ μίγματος γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι
est omnium initium subjecit (ὑπέθε- ἐκκρίνουσι τἄλλα.
To) seminaliter habens in semetipso 4 Cf. Schleiermacher, op. cit. p.
omnium genesin. 190 sq.; Brandis, Rhein. Mus. of
2 Metaph. xii. 2, 1069 b, 20: Niebuhr and Brandis, 111. 114 sqq. ;
Kal τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι τὸ Avataydpou ἕν καὶ Gr. Rom. Phil. 1. 132 sq.
Ἐμπεδοκλέους τὸ μῖγμα καὶ ᾿Αναξι- 5 De Celo, ii. 3, 302 a, 15:
μάνδρου. ἔστω δὴ στοιχεῖον τῶν σωμάτων,
3 Phys. i. 4: ὡς δ᾽ οἱ φυσικοὶ εἰς ὃ τᾶλλα σώματα διαιρεῖται, ἐνυ-
λέγουσι δύο τρόποι εἰσίν. of μὲν γὰρ πάρχον δυνάμει ἢ ἐνεργείᾳ. . ..
ἐν ποιήσαντες τὸ ὃν σῶμα τὸ ὑποκεί- ἐν μὲν γὰρ σαρκὶ ξύλῳ καὶ ἑκάστῳ
μενον, ἢ τῶν τριῶν (Water, Air, τῶν τοιούτων ἔνεστι δυνάμει πῦρ καὶ
Fire) τι, ἢ ἄλλο, ὅ ἐστι πυρὸς μὲν γῆ φανερὰ γὰρ ταῦτα ἐξ ἐκείνων
πυκνότερον ἀέρος δὲ λεπτότερον, ἐκκρινόμενα.
 THE INFINITE. 235

actually, but potentially ;therefore, when he says that

Anaximander represents the particular substances as
separating themselves from the primitive matter, it does
not at all follow that they were, as these definite sub-
stances, included within it. The primitive matter can
be equally conceived as the indeterminate essence out
of which the determinate is ultimately developed by a
qualitative change. As to the comparison of Anasi-
mander with Anaxagoras and Empedocles, it may as
easily refer to a remote as to a particular resemblance
. between their doctrines,! and it is the former kind of
1 In the passage just quoted, criminated from him in another-
Phys.i. 4, Aristotle distinguishes respect; he cannot, therefore, be
those philosophers who place primi- counted among those who consider
tive matter in a determinate body primitive matter to be ἕν καὶ πολλά,
from Anaximander and those, ὅσοι and he did not conceive it as a
ἐν καὶ πολλά φασιν, who maintain mass of various matters, retain-
that the ἐν (the primitive matter) ing their qualitative differences in
is at the same time one and many, the mixture. Biusgen (Ueber d.
because it is an assemblage of ἄπειρον Anaximanders, Wiesbaden,
many substances qualitatively dis- 1867, p. 4 sq.) thinks that in this
tinct. We may indeed question passage Anaximander must be
whether Anaximander is to be reckoned among those who admit
counted among these latter; the the ἕν καὶ πολλὰ, as there would
words, καὶ ὅσοι δ᾽, are not conclusive otherwise be no contrast between
against it; since they may not only him and those who assume one
be explained, ‘ and similarly those,’ uniform first principle (Anaxime-
&c., but also, and ‘generally nes, &c.); but he misconceives the
speaking, those.’ But (cf. Seydel train of ideas. Anaximander is
loc. -cit. p. 13) in the subsequent not placed with Empedocles and
passage, ἐκ Tov μίγματος, &c., the Anaxagoras 1n an opposition to
καὶ οὗτοι cannot include Anaxi- Anaximenes and others, in regard to
mander, for he is the only person the Unity or Plurality of primitive
with whom the οὗτοι (through the substances, but in regard to the
καὶ) can be compared, since healone, manner in which things proceed
not the ἕν ποιήσαντες τὸ ὃν σῶμα, from them (rarefaction and conden-
taught an ἔκκρισις of the ἐναντιότη- - sation or separation); it is, how-
τες out of the ἐν. If so, however, ever, at the same time pointed out
the philosophers, ὅσοι ἕν καὶ πολλά how Anaximander differs from
φασιν εἶναι, while they were likened these two philosophers; and subse-
with Anaximander in regard to the quently how they differ from one
ἔκκρισις, are at the same time dis- another. Biusgen’s attempt (p. 6)
236 ANAXIMANDER.

reference that is intended. In the same way Anaxi-

mander’s primitive matter might be called piypua, or
at any rate might be loosely included under this ex-
pression (which primarily relates to Empedocles and
Anaxagoras), without ascribing to Anaximander the
theory of an original mixture of all particular matters
in the specific sense of the phrase.’ We cannot there-
fore prove that Aristotle ascribed this doctrine to him.
Nor does Theophrastus; he expressly says that Anaxa-
to press into his service Phys. i, 2, brought about by a meeting to-
sub init., andi. 5, sub init. is also a gether of the particular substances,
mistake ; for in the first of these as Bisgen (p. 3, 7, 11 sq. of the
passages Anaximander, if he were treatise mentioned in the pre-
named at all, would be ranked ceding note) seems to assume in
among those who assume a μία regard to the ἄπειρον of Anaxi-
ἀρχὴ κινουμένη; and the second mander; this, indeed, is absolutely
does not aim at a complete enume- incompatible with the concept of
ration of the different systems: primitive matter, of the Eternal
Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the and the Unbecome. In consider-
Pythagoreans, are none of them ing the above-mentioned passage,
mentioned, and it is only in a it must also be observed that here ~
forced manner that Heracleitus can the μῖγμα is primarily ascribed
be brought in under the category to Empedocles, and only in the
of those who hold the rarefaction second place to Anaximander, by
and condensation of primitive the addition kal ᾿Αναξιμάνδρου.
matter. We might here admit a slight
1 Separation corresponds to zeugma, so that the word, which
mixing (τῶν yap αὐτῶν μῖξίς ἐστι in its full power could only be
καὶ χωρισμὸς, as it said in Metaph. used of Empedocles, might be ap-.
i. 8.989 b, 4; a passage well worth plied in its general conception
comparing with the one before us); (Unity including in itself a Multi-
if all things arose by separation plicity) to Anaximander, and this
from the primitive matter, this is all the more justifiable, since the
matter was previously a mixture of passage belongs to a section of
all things. In the same way, Aristotle which (perhaps because
therefore, that Aristotle can speak it was originally a draft intended
of a separation or division, when for his own use) is unequalled
the separated elements were only among all his writings for scant
potentially contained in the primi- expression, and in whichthe proper
tive matter, he can likewise, in the meaning of the author is often
same case, speak of a mixture. It only discoverable by completing
is not the least necessary that the thoughts which he has scarcely
μῖγμα should first have been indicated.
 THE INFINITE. 237

goras can only be held to agree with Anaximander on

the subject of primitive matter if we attribute to him as
_his original principle a matter without definite qualities
(μία φύσις ἀόριστος), instead of a mixture of deter-
minate and qualitatively distinct substances.! That
the doctrine of Anaxagoras might ultimately be reduced
to this theory, which is certainly divergent from its
primary sense, had already been remarked by Aristotle.?
Theophrastus? drew the same inference, and makes his
comparison of Anaxagoras with Anaximander contingent
on its admission. This shows that he ascribed to
Anaximander a primitive matter in which no particular
qualities of bodies were as yet present, not a matter
that comprehended all particular substances as such
within itself. Besides, the text in question does not
attribute this latter doctrine to Anaximander; for the
words to which this meaning is ascribed‘ refer to
Anaxagoras.” Moreover these words are not given by
1 In the words quoted between plies to the nearer of two previ-
inverted commas, p. 233, 1, καὶ οὕτω ously named subjects, cf. e.g. Plato,
μέν---᾿Αναξιμάνδρῳ,18 only passage Polit. 303 B; Phedr. 231 Ὁ,
that Simplicius there cites textu- 233 A, Εἰ; Arist. Metaph. i. 4,
ally from him. 985 a, 14 sq.; Sext, Pyrrh. i. 213.
2 Metaph. i. 8, 989 a, 30; ef. That this is only possible when
thid..xii. 2, 1069 b, 21. the idea indicated by ἐκεῖνος and
3 Τὸν ᾿Αναξαγόραν εἰς τὸν ’Ava- nearer in order of words is farther
ξίμανδυον συνωθῶν, as it is said in in the thought of the author I
Simpl. Phys. 33 ἃ. cannot admit (Kern, Beitr. zur:
* Simp. loc. cit. from ἐκεῖνος Darstellung der Phil. des Xeno-
yap to ὑπαρχόντων, where Brandis phanes, Danzig, 1871, p. 11:- Biis-
(Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 13) sees a state- gen’s observations on the same
ment about Anaximander emana- subject, and on the ἄπειρον of
ting from Theophrastus. Anaximander, I must pass over).
5 These words may certainly When, for example, Aristotle says
refer to Anaximander, but they (Metaph. xii. 7, 1072 Ὁ, 22): τὸ
may also refer to Anaxagoras; for yap δεκτικὸν τοῦ νοητοῦ καὶ τῆς
though ἐκεῖνος usually points to οὐσίας νοῦς" ἐνεργεῖ δὲ ἔχων. ὥστ᾽
the more remote, it very often ap- ἐκεῖνο (the ἔχειν and ἐνεργεῖν, ac-
 πό

238 ANAXIMANDER.
Simplicius as a quotation from Theophrastus, but as an
expression of his own opinion. This may be based
upon the testimony of Theophrastus, and the conjecture
is in itself probable enough. But it can only be main-
tual thought) μᾶλλον τούτου (ina derived (not by Anaximander, but)
higher degree than the mere faculty by Anaxagoras from νοῦς. 4.
of thinking) ὃ δοκεῖ ὁ νοῦς θεῖον Anaxagoras, therefore, seems to as-
ἔχειν ;—éxeivo relates not merely sume an infinity of primitive sub-
to what is the nearer in order of stances, and one moving force, vows.
words, but also to the principal 5. If, however, we substitute for
idea ; τούτου to what is farther, the mixture consisting of many
and is only introduced in a compa- substances (ἡ. 6. the theory which,
rison with it. When (Jdid. x. 2, according to this explanaticn, be-
beginning) it is asked whether the longed to Anaximander) a simple
ἐν is a self-dependent substance, as homogeneous mass, the theory of
the Pythagoreans and Plato think, Anaxagoras would harmonise with
ἢ μᾶλλον ὑπόκειταί τις φύσις, καὶ that of Anaximander. Of these
πῶς δεῖ γνωριμωτέρως λεχθῆναι καὶ five propositions, the second would
μᾶλλον ὥσπερ οἱ περὶ φύσεως: ἐκεί- stand in no sort of connection with
νων γάρ, and so forth (vide supra, the third and fourth, and would be
p- 228, 3), it cannot be supposed in striking contradiction to the
that the physicists to which the fifth ; and in the fourth, the infer-
ἐκείνων refers, are farther from Aris- ence that Anaxagoras therefore be-
totle’s thought than the Pythago- lieved in an infinity of matters, has
reans and Plato, Similarly in the no foundation in the preceding
Phedrus, 233 E, the προσαιτοῦντες, proposition: ἐκεῖνος, therefore, can
to which ἐκεῖνοι relates, are not only be Anaxagoras. Even the
only the nearest mentioned term, ἄπειρον, of which this ἐκεῖνος is
but aiso the leading idea. Still less said to have spoken, forms no ob-
could we expect to find this rule stacle, for Anaxagoras (vide p.
of Kern’s scrupulously carried out 879, German text) maintained the
by so recent a writer as Simplicius. ἀπειρία of primitive substance very
In this case it is not Anaximander, decidedly ; and Kern is surprised
but Anaxagoras, of whom he pri- that the expression, ἄπειρον, gene-
marily speaks. If ἐκεῖνος be re- rally used to describe Anaximan-
ferred to Anaximander, we make der’s primitive matter, should
Simplicius say: 1. According to designate that of Anaxagoras, but
Theophrastus Anaxagoras’s doctrine this passage shows (cf. also Me-
of primitive substances is similar taph. i. 7,988 a, 2, where Aristotle
to that of Anaximander. 2. Anaxi- applies to his doctrine the expres-
mander admitted that particular sion ἀπειρία τῶν στοιχείων, as Kern
substances were contained as such himself observes) how little we
in the ἄπειρον, and were moved in need regard that difficulty. Theo-
regard to one another when the phrastus directly reduces the pri-
process of separation took place. mitive substances of Anaxagoras
3. But motion and separation were to the φύσις τοῦ ἀπείρου.
 THE INFINITE. 239

tained so long as it opposes nothing that demonstrably

comes from Theophrastus. Schleiermacher! and Brandis?
have conclusively shown that Simplicius had no accurate
and independent knowledge of Anaximander’s doctrine,
and that his utterances on the subject are involved in
‘glaring contradictions. His evidence, therefore, should
not induce us, any more than that of Augustine and
Sidonius or Philoponus, to attribute to Anaximander a
doctrine explicitly denied to him by Theophrastus. On
the other hand, the testimony of so trustworthy a
witness as Theophrastus, together with the further
evidence hereafter to be cited, justifies us in main-
taining that this philosopher did not regard his primitive
matter as a mixture of particular matters, and that
consequently it is improper to separate him, as an
adherent of a mechanical system of physics, from the
dynamists Thales and Anaximenes. And this so much
the more, as it is improbable, on general grounds, that
the view which Ritter attributes to him should belong
to so ancient a period. The theory of unchanging
primitive substances presupposes, on the one side, the
reflection that the properties of the several kinds of
matter could have had no beginning, any more than
matter as a whole; but among the Greeks we do not
meet with this thought until after the period when the
possibility of Becoming was denied by Parmenides, to
whose propositions on this subject Empedocles, Anaxa-
goras, and Democritus expressly go back. On the other
side, this theory (of unchanging primitive matter) is
united in Anaxagoras with the idea of an intelligence
1 Loe. cit. 180 sq. 2 Gr. Rom. Phil, i. 125.
240 ANAXIMANDER.

that orders the world; and even the analogous notions

of Empedocles and the atomists were conditioned by
their conception of efficient causes. None of these
philosophers could have conceived a primitive matter
as qualitatively unchangeable, if each—Anaxagoras in
νοῦς, Empedocles in Hate and Love, the Atomists in”
the Void—had not also admitted a special principle of
movement. No one has discovered any such doctrine
in Anaximander ;! nor can we conclude, from the small
fragment known to us of his work,’ that he placed
motive force in individual things, and supposed them
to come forth by their own impulse from the original
mixture; it is the infinite itself * that moves all things.
All the conditions, therefore, of a mechanical theory of
physics‘ are here wanting, and we have no ground for
1 Ritter, Gesch. der Phil. i. 284, tive matter. It is not, however,
2 Ap. Simpl. Phys. 6 a: ἐξ ὧν incompatible with the latter theory
δὲ ἢ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι Kal that natural phenomena should
τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ further be mechanically explained,
τὸ χρεών. διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ τίσιν καὶ by the movement and mixing of
δίκην τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου the matters that have issued from
τάξιν. Simplicius adds that Anaxi- the primitive matter. As Anaxi-
mander is speaking ποιητικωτέροις mander (this is proved by Teich-
ὀνόμασιν. miiller, loc. cit., p. 58 sq., and will
3 According to the statement hereafter appear in this work)
in Arist. Phys. iii. 4, quoted infra adopted this latter procedure, it
p. 248, 1. must not surprise us, though the
* 4 That is, of mechanical Phy- inevitable result is that neither
sies in the sense which Ritter gives a purely mechanical nor a purely
to the expression in his division of dynamical explanation of nature
the Ionian Philosophers into Dyna- was proposed and completed by
mists and Mechanists; by Mecha- him. Still less ought it to asto-
nists he understands those who nish anyone (as it does Teich-
make the determinate matters, as miller, p. 24) that I should refuse
such, preexist in primitive matter; to Anaximander a specific moving
by Dynamists, those who make the principle, while I afterwards
distinguishing properties of the de- (vide infra) make the movement
terminate matters first develope of the heavens proceed from the
themselves in their emergence from ἄπειρον. I deny that Anaximander
a qualitatively homogencous primi- had a moving principle distinet from
 ANAXIMANDER. 241

seeking such a theory in Anaximander in opposition to

the most trustworthy evidence.
If Anaximander did not conceive his primitive
matter as a mixture of particular substances, but as a
homogeneous mass, we must next enquire what was
the nature of this mass. The ancients, beginning
with Aristotle, unanimously assert that it consisted of
none of the four elements. Aristotle several times
mentions the view that the primitive matter in re-
gard to its density is intermediate between water and
air,! or between air and fire,? and not a few ancient
writers? have referred these assertions to Anaximan-
der ; for example, Alexander,* Themistius,’ Simplicius,®
Philoponus,’ and Asclepius.$ But although this theory
has been recently defended’ against Schleiermacher’s
objections,!° I cannot convince myself that it is well
the primitive matter, the ἄπειρον: opposed to one another, one element
and I maintain, precisely for that conceived as infinite would an-
reason, that he placed the motive nihilate all the rest. The Infinite
power ip this primitive matter it- must, therefore, be intermediate
self, and derived the motion of the among the various elements. This
heavens from that of the ἄπειρον. thought can hardly helong to
Where is the contradictionὃ Anaximander, as it presupposes
1 De Celo, iii. 5, 303 b, 10; the later doctrine of the elements;
Phys. iii. 4, 203 a, 16; ¢. 5, 205 a, it is no doubt taken from Arist.
25; Gen. et Corr. τι. 5, 332 a, 20. Phys. iii. 5, 204 b, 24.
2 Phys. 1. 4, 187 a, 12, vide inf. 6 Phys. 104; 105 b; 107 a;
p. 248, 1; Gen. et Corr. loc. cit. 112b; De Celo, 273 b, 38; 251
and 11. 1, 328 b, 35; Metaph. 1. 7, a, 29; 268 a, 45 (Schol. in Ar.
988 a, 30; 1. 8, 989 a, 14. 514 a, 28; 510 a, 24. 513 a, 35).
3 Cf. Schleiermacher, /oc. cit. 7 De Gen. et Corr. 3; Phys. A
175; Brandis, Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 132. 10+ € 2-3:
4 In Metaph.i 5, 7, pp. 34, 2; 8 Schol. in Arist. 553 Ὁ, 33.
36, 1; 45, 20; 46, 28; and ap. ° Haym, im der Allg. Encykl.
Simpl. 32 a. iil. Sect. B, xxiv. 26 sq.; F. Kern,
> Phys. 18 a, 33 a; 33 b (pp. in the Philologus, xxvi. 281, and p.
124, 230, 232 sp.). The ground 8 sqq. of the treatise mentioned
of this definition is here, p. 33 a, supra, Ὁ. 237, ὃ.
thus stated: As the elements are 10 Los. cit. 174 sqq.
VOL. I. R
242 ANAXIMANDER.

founded. One of the Aristotelian passages quoted cer-

tainly seems to contain a reference to expressions which
Anaximander employed εἰ but the reference is itself
questionable, and even if it be admitted, it does not
follow that the whole passage relates to him ;? while,

\ De Celo, iii. 5, at the begin- thid. 205 a, 1 sq., is particularly

ning: ἔνιοι γὰρ ἕν μόνον ὑποτίθενται classed among those who regard
καὶ τούτων οἱ μὲν ὕδωρ, οἱ δ᾽ ἀέρα, οἱ the All as limited), and that econ-
> ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον, ἀέρος δὲ sequently the relative clause, ὃ πε-
πυκνότερον, ὃ περιέχειν φασὶ πάντας ριέχειν, &e., cannot contain any
τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἄπειρον ov cf. Phys. iii. reference to those who made fire
4, 203 b, 10 (supra, p. 248, 1), where their primitive matter. But such
the words περιέχειν ἅπαντα καὶ inaccuracies are not so very un-
πάντα κυβερνᾷν are, with some pro- common with Aristotle, and in the
bability, ascribed to Anaximander ; present instance I do not think it
and Hippolytus, Refut. Her. i. 6. impossible that in a comprehensive
2 The words, ὃ περιέχειν---ἄπει- statement, such as we have here,
pov ov admit of two interpretations. he should have ascribed the infinity
They may either be referred solely of matter, either explicitly or im-
to the subject immediately preced- plicitly admitted by the great
ing the ὕδατος λεπτότερον, &c., or majority of philosophers, to all
to the main subject of the whole without exception. and should have
proposition, the ἕν. In the former expressed this doctrine in the
case, those who make primitive words of the man who first intro-
matter a something intermediate duced it. On the other hand, it is
between air and water, would be quite conceivable that one of the
credited with the assertion that this philosophers (or if only one held
intermediate something embraces it, the one philosopher) who made
all things. In the latter case, the the primitive matter intermediate
sense of the passage would be as between water and air, may have
follows: some assume only one adopted Anaximander’s expression,
primitive matter—either water, or περιέχειν πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, to
air, or fire, or a body that is more characterise its infinity (Anaxi-
subtle than water, and more dense mander himself, Phys. ii. 4, only
than air ; and this primitive mat- Says, περιέχειν ἅπαντα); in the
ter, they say, embraces all worlds same way that Anaximenes (vide
by virtue of its unlimitedness. In infra) says of the air that it ὅλον
point of grammar the second in- τὸν κόσμον περιέχει, and Diogenes
terpretation seems to me undoubt- (ir. 6, infra) also applies to the air
edly the best; but one thing may another expression of the Anaxi-
certainly be urged against it (Kern, mandrian fragment: πάντα κυβερ-
Beitrag, &e., p. 10), that, aceord- vaév. The passage we have been
ing to Phys. iii. 5, 205 a, 26, οὐθεὶς considering, therefore, does not
τὸἐν καὶ ἄπειρον πῦρ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ warrant us in ascribing to Anaxi-
viv τῶν φυσιολόγων (Heracleitus, mander a doctrine which, as will
 THE INFINITE. 243

on the other hand, the very next words clearly imply

the contrary. For Aristotle here ascribes to the philo-
sophers, who believed the primitive matter to be some-
thing intermediate between air and water, the theory
that things originated from primitive matter by means
of rarefaction and condensation; and this he distinctly
denies of Anaximander.' No other passage can be
quoted from Aristotle to show that he found this
definition of primitive matter in Anaximander’s writ-
ings.” As to the statements of later writers, they

immediately be shown, is not στοιχείων, may have a more general

ascribed to him by Aristotle. signification, an elemental body,
1 Aristotle thus continues (De different from itself, so that the
Celo, iii. 5) immediately after the matter underlying all particular
words quoted above: ὅσοι μὲν οὖν substanees would be included
τὸ ἐν τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν ὕδωρ ἢ ἀέρα ἢ under the expression. The possi-
ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον ἄέρος δὲ bility of this view appears, not
πυκνότερον, εἶτ᾽ ἐκ τούτου πυκνότητι only from Aristotle’s comprehensive
καὶ μανότητι τᾶλλα γεννῶσιν, &e. use of στοιχεῖον (e.g. Metaph. i. 8,
2 Kern, Philolog. xxvi. 281, 989 a, 30, cf. b, 16, xii. 4; De An.
thought that the passage (quoted 1. 2, 404 b, 11), but also from the
sup. 228, 3), Phys. 111. 4, might be definition of the word (Metaph. v.
so taken; since, according to this, 3); nor does the word λεγομένων
Anaximander must be reckoned present any difficulty, for we have
among the philosophers who con- no right to find an allusion here to
ceive of the Infinite as a body in- ‘the four elements.’ Aristotle, on
termediate between two elements. the contrary, expressly says, Joc.
In the Beitrag zur Phil. der Xen., cit., 1014 a, 32; τὰ τῶν σωμάτων
Ῥ. 8, he prefers to interpret the στοιχεῖα λέγουσιν οἱ λέγοντες εἰς ἃ
words thus: the physicists all as- διαιρεῖται τὰ σώματα ἔσχατα, ἐκεῖνα
sign as substratum to the Infinite δὲ μηκέτ᾽ εἰς ἄλλα εἴδει διαφέροντα,
one of the elements, or that which καὶ εἴτε ἕν εἴτε πλείω τὰ τοιαῦτα,
is intermediate between them. I ταῦτα στοιχεῖα λέγουσιν. Similarly,
cannot adopt this explanation. I De Celo, iii. 8, 802 a, 15 566.
think that Aristotle would have The λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα are, accord-
expressed this thought otherwise. ing to this, those: equally divided
He would have said perhaps: ὗπο- bodies, which form the ultimate
τιθέασιν ἑτέραν τινὰ φύσιν τῷ ἀπείρῳ, constituent or constituents of com-
ἤτι τῶν λεγομένων στοιχείων, ἢ τὸ pound bodies. Such undoubtedly
μεταξὺ τούτῳν. On the other hand, is Anaximander’s ἄπειρον, if we
I still consider that the words, understand by it a matter to which
ἕτεραν Twa φύσιν τῶν λεγομένων the properties of determinate sub-
BR 2
244 ANAXIMANDER.

appear to be entirely based on the passages in Aristotle.

Simplicius, at any rate, cannot be quoting directly from |
Anaximander, otherwise he could not speak so unde-
eidedly as he does,! and he could not ascribe to this phi-
losopher, as if it were a subject of indifference, the double
theory of matter as intermediate between air and fire,
and again as intermediate between air and water ;? for
these two theories obviously exclude one another, and
cannot both have been found in Anaximander’s work.
Nor can Simplicius have found among his predecessors
allusions to that work, otherwise a different turn would at
once have been given to the discussion. The same may —
be said of Porphyry,? who in that case would not have
grounded his opinion (which differs from the opinion of
Alexander) solely upon the Aristotelian passage. This
also holds goodof Alexander* and Philoponus.? These
later statements, therefore, one and all, depend entirely
upon conjecture, and the words of Aristotle were only
referred to Anaximander because they seemed to apply
to no other philosopher. Now it is clear from the un-
doubted testimony of the most trustworthy authorities,
that Anaximander did not consider his primitive matter
stances do not yet belong. We 1 Phys. 32 a.
are almost forced to take this view 3 The former, Phys. 107 a. The
of Aristotle’s words, because the latter, Phys. 105, b. De Colo, 278
passage would otherwise apply nei- b, 38; 251 a, 29.
ther to Anaxagoras, nor to the 3 Simplicius, Phys. 32 a.
Atomists. For neither the ὅμοιο- 4 In Metaph. 983. a, 11; Schol.
μερῆ, nor the atoms, belong to the 553 Ὁ, 22: τὴν ᾿Αναξιμάνδρου δόξαν,
four elements, or to that which is ὃς ἀρχὴν ἔθετο τὴν μεταξὺ φύσιν
μεταξὺ τούτων ;but Aristotle himself ἀέρος τε καὶ πυρὸς, ἢ ἀέρος τε καὶ
maintains the ἀπειρία of the δμοιο- ὕδατοΞ᾽ λέγεται γὰρ ἀμφοτέρως.
μερῆ, and of the atoms; these must 5 Even he is uncertain, in the
also, therefore, be a ἑτέρα φύσις, passages quoted, whether Anaxi-
which serves as substratum to the mander’s Infinite is intermediate be-
ἄπειρον. tween air and fire, or air and water.
 THE INFINITE. 245

as intermediate between two definite kinds of matter;

. but that he either was silent as to its nature, or ex-
pressly described it as that to which none of the pro-
perties of particular substances belongs. For when
Aristotle, in the above-mentioned passage, speaks
generally of those who posited as primitive matter a
definite element, or something intermediate between
two elements, and derived all other things from it by
the processes of rarefaction and condensation, it is
obvious that his design is net to draw a distinction
between these philosophers and others who equally as-
- sumed a primitive matter of the same kind, but made
things to arise out of it in a different manner. On the
contrary, in refuting the theory of a derivation of things
by means of rarefaction and condensation, he believes
that he has refuted the general theory of a primitive
matter of definite quality. This is still clearer from the
passage in the Physics,i. 4.1 ‘Some of them,’ he here
says, ‘starting from the pre-supposition of a determi-
nate primitive matter, make things to originate from it
by means of rarefaction and condensation ; others, like
Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles, maintain
that opposites are already contained in the One primi-
tive matter, and are produced from it by means of
separation.’ Here it is perfectly evident that he con-
ceives rarefaction and condensation to be as essentially
connected with the theory of a qualitatively determined
matter, as separation with that of an original mixture
of all things, or of a matter without qualitative deter-
minateness. Nor can it be otherwise; for in order te
1 Vide supra, p. 234, 3.
246 ANAXIMANDER.

arise by separation out of the primitive matter, parti-

eular matters must either potentially or actually have
been contained in it ; but this would only be possible if
the primitive matter were itself not a particular matter,
not merely intermediate between two other particular
matters: but including them all equally in itself. If
we further consider that this chapter of the Physics
is occupied, not with the manner in which things
originate from elements, but with the number and
nature of primitive substances themselves,! it seems
beyond question that Anaximander was opposed to the
rest of the Jonians, not only from the first point of
view, but from the second, and that consequently his
infinite can have been neither one of the four elements,
which were afterwards admitted, nor an intermediary
between two of these elements. This probably explains
why Anaximander is passed over in Metaph, i. 3, and
also a remark,? which otherwise would have no histori-
cal point, and which the Greek commentators? them-
selves apply to him. ‘Some,’ says Aristotle, ‘seek the
Infinite, not in any particular element, but in that out
of which all particular elements arose; because each
particular substance, conceived as infinite, must exclude
those substances that are opposed to it.’ This reason,
i This Haym, loc, cit., denies; φθείρηται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου αὐτῶν'
but it unquestionably results from ἔχουσι γὰρ πρὺς ἄλληλα ἐναντίωσιν,
C 2. sub init. οἷον ὃ μὲν ἀὴρ ψυχρὸς, τὸ δ᾽ ὕδωρ
2 Phys. iii. 5, 204 b, 22: ἀλλὰ ὑγρὸν, τὸ δὲ πῦρ θερμόν. ὧν εἰ ἦν
μὴν οὐδὲ ἕν καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἐνδέχεται ἐν ἄπειρον ἔφθαρτο ἂν ἤδη τἄλλα;
εἶναι τὸ ἄπειρον σῶμα, οὔτε ὡς λέ- νῦν δ᾽ ἕτερον εἶναί φασιν ἐξ οὗ
γουσί τινες τὸ παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα, ἐξ οὗ ταῦτα.
ταῦτα γεννῶσιν, οὔθ᾽ ἁπλῶς“. εἰσὶ γάρ 8 Simp. 11 ἃ; Themist. 88 a,
τινες, οἱ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι τὸ ἄπειρον, (280 sq.).
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀέρα ἢ ὕδωρ, ὡς μὴ τἄλλα
 THE INFINITE. | 247

indeed, which points to the later theory of the elements,

can hardly have been so stated by Anaximander. But
whether Aristotle inferred it, after his manner, from
some ambiguous utterance, or arrived at it by bis own
conjecture, or whether later authors may, perhaps, have
interpolated it, the doctrine in support of which it is
adduced no doubt belongs originally to Anaximander.
Theophrastus expressly says so! in describing Anaxi-
mander’s Infinite as One matter without qualitative
determinateness; and with this Diogenes? and the
Pseudo-Plutarch,? and among the commentators of
Aristotle, Porphyry, and probably also Nicolaus of
Damascus,‘ agree; of these the two first, at any rate,
appeared to have used a special source. Simplicius
himself says elsewhere the same thing.» That Anaxi-
mander’s primitive matter was not a qualitatively
determined matter is, therefore, certain; the only
doubt that remains is whether he expressly denied to it
all determination, or merely abstained from qualifying
it at all. The latter hypothesis is the more probable of
the two; it is actually maintained by some of our
authorities, and appears simpler and, therefore, more in
accordance with so ancient a system, than the other
theory, which constantly presupposes considerations like
_ those above cited from Aristotle; it also furnishes the

? Ap.Simpl.vide supra, p. 223,1. * Simpl. Phys. 32 a.

2 ἢ, 1: ἔφασκεν ἀρχὴν καὶ στοι- 5 Phys. 111 ἃ: λέγουσιν. οἱ περὶ
Xetov τὸ ἄπειρον, οὐ διορίζων ἀέρα ἢ ᾿Αναξίμανδρον [τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι] τὸ
ὕδωρ ἢ ἄλλο τι. παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐξ οὗ τὰ στοιχεῖα
5. Plac. i. ὃ, 5: ἁμαρτάνει δὲ γεννῶσιν. 6 ἃ: λέγει δ᾽ αὐτὴν
οὗτος μὴ λέγων τί ἐστι τὸ ἄπειρον, [τὴν ἀρχὴν] μήτε ὕδωρ ἄλλο τῶν
πότερον ἀήρ ἐστιν ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ γῆ ἢ καλουμένων στοιχείων, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν
ατινὰ σώυατα. τινὰ φύσιν ἄπειρον. Also 9 b.
248 ANAXIMANDER.
most reasonable explanation of the fact that Aristotle
only mentions Anaximander when he is discussing the
question of the finiteness or infinity of matter, and of
the production of things from it, and not when he is
dealing with its elementary composition; for in the
case we are assuming, no distinct utterance of Anaxi-
mander would have been known to him on this point,
as on the two former (not even the negative state-
ment that the Infinite is not a particular substance),
and so he prefers to be wholly silent on the subject. I
therefore believe that Anaximander held simply to this
proposition: that the Infinite or infinite matter existed
before particular things. As to the material constitu-
tion of this primitive substance, he has given us no
precise information.
Anaximander further taught that the Infinite is
eternal and imperishable.! In this sense he is said
to have designated the first principle of all things
by the expression ἀρχή." He conceived motive power

1 Arist. Phys. ni. 4, 203 b, 10 καὶ πάντας περιέχειν τοὺς κόσμους]

(cf. De Celo, iii. 5; supra, p. 242, thinks likely. More recently Diog.
2). The Infinite is without begin- 11. 1: τὰ μὲν μέρη μεταβάλλειν, τὸ
ning or end, etc.: διὸ, καθάπερ δὲ πᾶν ἀμετάβλητον εἶναι.
λέγομεν, ov ταύτης ἀρχὴ, GAN αὕτη 2 Hippolyt. loc. cit., and Simpl.
τῶν ἄλλων εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ περιέχειν Phys. 32 b, certainly assert this;
ἅπαντα καϊπάντα κυβερνᾷν, ὥς and Teichmiller (Stud. zur Gesch.
φασιν boot μὴ ποιοῦσι παρὰ τὸ ἄπει- der Begr. 49 sqq.), who disputesit,
ρον ἄλλας αἰτίας, οἷον νοῦν ἢ φιλίαν" does violence, as it seems to me, to
καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον: ἀθάνατον the wording of these passages. It
γὰρ καὶ ἀνώλεθρον, ὡς φησὶν ὃ is another question whether the
᾿Αναξίμανδρος καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν statement is true, and this we can
φυσιολόγων. The words in spaced searcely ascertain. Like Teich-
type are probably taken from Anaxi- miiller, I cannot regard it as self-
mander’s work ; only for ἀνώλεθρον, evident, that he employed the ex-
ἀγήρω may have been substituted as pression ἀρχῇ; and my doubt is
Hippolytus, Refut. Her.i. 6 [ταύτην strengthened by the circumstance
(τὴν αρχὴν) δ᾽ ἀΐδιον εἶναι καὶ ἀγήρω that a similar remark about Thales
 PRIMITIVE MATTER. 249

to be combined from the beginning with matter ;! or, as

Aristotle says (oc. cit.), he taught that the Infinite not
merely contained, but directed all things.? He thus
regarded matter, after the manner of the early Hylo-
zoism, as self-moved and living ; and in consequence of
this motion he supposed it to produce all things from
itself. When Aristotle (loc. cit.), therefore, designates
Anaximander’s Infinite as the Divine essence, he
describes it correctly,’ though we do not know whether
Anaximander himself used that expression.*
(that he called water ἀρχὴ) I 3 Roth (Gesch. der Abendl. Phil.
ean discover neither in Diog. i. 27, ii. a, 142) believes that the self-
nor elsewhere ; and consequently I dependent moving force attributed
cannot credit it. But if Anaxi- to the Infinite presupposes an in-
mander did call his Infinite the ἀρχὴ telligence, a conscious spiritual
or the ἄρχὴ πάντων, or designate nature, and that the Infinite of
it in any other similar manner, this Anaximander must thus be con-
would only be saying that the Infi- ceived as infinite spirit; but this is
nite was the beginning of all an entire misapprehension of the
things, which is far enovgh from contemporary modes of thought,
the Platonic and Aristotelian con- and is contradicted by Aristotle’s
cept of the ἀρχὴ, the ultimate cause. well-known assertion (Metaph. i
1 Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 1: 3, 984 b, 15 sq.) that Anaxagoras
᾿Αναξίμανδρον. . . τὺ ἄπειρον φάναι was the first who declared vois to
τὴν πᾶσαν αἰτίαν ἔχειν τῆς τοῦ be the principle of the world. In
παντὸς γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς. appealing for want of any other
Herm. Jrris. c. 4: ᾿Αναξ. τοῦ ὑγροῦ evidence to the words of Theo-
πρεσβυτέραν ἀρχὴν εἶναι λέγει Thy phrastus quoted above (p. 233, 1),
ἀΐδιον κίνησιν, καὶ ταύτῃ τὰ μὲν he has overlooked the fact that
γεννᾶσθαι τὰ δὲ φθείρεσθαι. Hip- Anaximander is here compared
polyt. 1.6.: πρὸς δὲ τούτῳ κίνησιν with Anaxagoras only in respect of
αΐἴδιον εἶναι, ἐν ἧ συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι his definition of the σωματικὰ στοι-
τοὺς οὐρανούς. Simpl. ae 9p. xeia. Not to mention other inac-
ἄπειρόν τινα φύσιν... . ἀρχὴν curacies, this does away with the
ἔθετυ, ns τὴν ἀΐδιον κίνησιν αἰτίαν discovery, of which Roth (Joc. cit.)
εἶναι τῆς τῶν ὄντων γενέσεως ἔλεγε. is so proud, that Anaximander’s
Similarly 107 a; 257 Ὁ. doctrine of the ἄπειρον has more
2 The expression κυβερνᾷν, theological than physical import-
which, in its simplest meaning, ance, and that it is in complete
signifies the guidance of the ship's harmony with the Egyptian theo-
movements by the rudder, here re- logy, as he endeavours to prove.
lates primarily to the movement of + The text of Simpl. Phys. 107
the celestial system. a, which is only a paraphrase of
250 ANAXIMANDER.

We are farther told that he represented particular

substances as developing themselves from the primitive
matter by means of separation (ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ἀποκρί-
veoOa),' and Anaximander himself seems to have used
this word :2 but what he precisely understood by sepa-
ration does not appear. He apparently left this con-
ception in the same uncertainty as that of the primitive
matter, and that which floated before his mind was
merely the general notion of an emergence of the
several matters distinct from one another, out of the
original homogeneous mass. We hear, on the other
hand, that he made the division of heat and cold the
first result of this separation.® From the mixture of

the passage we have quoted from between two elements, and that he
Aristotle, cannot of course be ad- was consequently alluded to «by
duced in support of it. Iam unable Aristotle, De Calo, 111. 5 (vide
to give such a decided negative to supra, p. 212,1); Phys. 1. 4, at the
this question as Biisgen does, loc. beginning (vide supra, p. 234, 3);
cit., p. 16 sq.; but Anaximander ef. Philoponus, Phys. ο. 3.
certainly could not have named his 2 We gather this partly from
Infinite τὸ θεῖον in the monotheistic the use of the word φησὶ in Arist.
sense ; he only called it θεῖον, divine. loc. cit., and also from considering
1 Arist. Phys. 1. 4, vide supra, the manner in which he reduces
p- 284, 3; Plutarch in Eus. loc. cit. ; both the cosmogony of Empedocles
Simpl. Phys. 6 a: οὐκ ἀλλοιου- and that of Anaxagoras to the
μένου τοῦ στοιχείου τὴν γένεσιν concept, ἐκκρίνεσθαι. Moreover, it
ποιεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποκρινομένων τῶν ἐναν- is impossible to see how Aristotle
τίων διὰ τῆς ἀϊδίου κινήσεως. And and his successor could have been
similarly ibid. 82 Ὁ; δ1 b (vide led to attribute the ἔκκρισις to An-
supra, pp. 228, 3; 2338, 1), where, aximander, unless they had found
however, Anaximander’s doctrine it in his writings.
is too much confused with that of 3. Simpl. Phys. 32 Ὁ: τὰς ἐναν-
Anaxagoras, Themist. Phys. 18 a; τιότητας. . . ἐκκρίνεσθαί φησιν
19 a (124, 21V184,.22 sq.) ; Philo- ᾿Αναξίμανδρος. . . ἐναντιότητες δέ
ponus, Piys.C 2. The incorrect εἰσι θερμὸν, ψυχρὸν, ξηρὸν, ὑγρὸν καὶ
statement of Simplicius that Anax- αἱ ἄλλαι. More precisely Plut. (ap.
imander believed in rarefaction and Eus. loc. cit.): φησὶ δὲ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ
condensation, was no doubt based ἀϊδίου γόνιμον θερμοῦ τε καὶ ψυχροῦ
upon the false supposition that his κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμον
primitive matter was intermediate ἀποκριθῆναι, Stob. Hel. i. δ00:
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 251

these two he appears to have derived the fluid element,!

which, like Thales, he regarded as the immediate
(though not, like him, as the ultimate) substance of
the world. On this account, probably, and perhaps
also in imitation of his predecessor, he calls water the
seed of the world.2, From the fluid universal matter,
by successive separations, three kinds of matter were
parted off: the earth, the air, and an orb of fire, which
surrounds the whole like a spherical crust ;* this at least
seems to be the meaning of the scattered indications
᾽ἾΑ. ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος Theophrastus could have said of
[εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν]. That Aristotle, Anaximander what the work about
as is usually believed, reckoned Melissus (vide supra, 232, 2) says
dryness and moisture among the of him; ὕδωρ φάμενος εἶναι τὸ πᾶν,
primordial oppositions, as well as I cannot admit with Kern (Θεοφρά-
cold and heat, Simplicius does στου περὶ Μελίσσου, Philologus,
not say: he himself gives, accord- xxvi. 281, cf. Beitr. zur Phil. d.
ing to the doctrine of Aristotle, Aenoph. 11 sq.); for these words
this explanation of the ‘ ἐναντιότη- describe water, not only as that
τες. out of which the world has arisen,
1 Arist. Meteor. ii. 1, 353 b, 6, but as that of which it eternally
mentions the opinion that the mpa- consists, as its στοιχεῖον (in the
Tov ὑγρὸν at first filled the whole sense discussed in p. 243, 2), and
space around the world, when it this contradicts the most distinct
was dried up by the sun: τὸ μὲν declaration of both these philoso-
διατμίσαν πνεύματα καὶ τροπὰς ἡλίου phers. Still less can I allow, with
καὶ σελήνης φασὶ ποιεῖν, τὸ δὲ λει- Rose (Arist. libr. ord. 75), that
φθὲν θάλατταν εἶναι, and this is Anaxagoras regarded moisture or
why the sea also dries up little by water only as the matter of all
little, Alex. iv h. l., p. 91 a (Arist. things, and that the ἄπειρον, which
Meteor. ed. Idel. i. 268; Theo- all our authorities with one accord
phrasti Op. ed. Wimmer, iii. fragm. attributed to him, was foisted upon
39) remarks: ταύτης τῆς δόξης him by the nomenclature of a later
ἐγένοντο, ὡς ἱστορεῖ ὃ Θεόφραστος, eriod.
᾿Αναξίμανδρός τε καὶ Διογένης. Simi- 2 Vide Plutarch, preceding note.
larly Plac. iii. 16,1 : ᾽Α. τὴν θάλασ- 3 Plut. ap. Eus. according to the
σάν φησιν εἶναι τῆς πρώτης ὑγρασίας quotation, p. 250, 3: καί τινα ἐκ
λείψανον, hs τὸ μὲν πλεῖον μέρος τούτου φλογὸς σφαῖραν περιφῦναι
ἀνεξήρανε τὸ πῦρ, τὸ δὲ ὑπολειφθὲν τῷ περὶ τὴν γῆν ἄέρι, ὡς τῷ δένδρῳ
διὰ τὴν ἔκκαυσιν μετέβαλεν. This φλοιόν, ἧστινος ἀποῤῥαγείσης καὶ εἴς
is the ὑγρὸν of which Hermias (vide τινας ἀποκλεισθείσης κύκλους ὕὑπο-
supra, p. 249, 1) speaks. That in στῆναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην
respect to this theory Aristotle or καὶ τοὺς ἀστέραξ.
252 ANAXIMANDER.

that we find upon the subject.’ The heavenly bodies

were formed of fire and air; when the fiery circle of
the universe burst asunder, and the fire was pent up in
wheel-shaped husks of compressed air, from the apertures
of which it streams forth ; the stoppage of these aper-
tures occasions eclipses of the sun and moon, and the
waxing and waning of the moon are produced in the
same way.” This fire is kept up by the exhalations
1 On the other hand, I cannot able divergencies and lacunze in
agree with Teichmiiller (loc. cit. the accounts. Plutarch, ap. Euseb.
pp- 7, 26, 58) that he conceived only says that the sun and moon
his ἄπειρον as originally a great were formed when the fiery globe
sphere, and the eternal motion of burst asunder, and became en-
it (supra, p. 248 sq.) as a rotation closed within certain circles. Hip-
whereby a spherical envelope of polytus adds that these circles
fire was parted off and spread over have openings in the places when
the surface of the mass. No such we see the stars; the stopping up
notion is ascribed to Anaximander of these occasions eclipses and the
by any of our authorities ; for the phases of the moon. ᾿ According to
σφαῖρα mup’s lay, not round the the Placita, Stobeus, Pseudo-Ga-
ἄπειρον, but around the atmosphere len, and Theodoret, Anaximander
of the earth. Indeed, if we say conceived these circles as analogous
that the Infinite comprehends all to the wheels of a cart ; there were
things, or all worlds (pp. 242, 1; openings in the hollow cirele of the
248, 1), we exclude the presupposi- wheel filled with fire, and through
tion that it is itself comprehended these openings the fire streamed
by the limits of our world. Buta out. Finally, Achilles Tatius says
spherical Infinite is in itself so that Anaximander thought the
great and so direct a contradiction, sun had the form of a wheel, from
that only the most unquestionable the nave of which the light
evidence could justify our ascribing poured in rays (like the spokes)
it to the Milesian philosopher; spreading out as far as the cireum-
and, in poiut of fact, there exists ferenceof thesun. The last theory
no evidence for it at all. formerly seemed to me to deserve
2 Hippolyt. Refut. 1. 6; Plut. the preference. I must, however,
in Eus. loc. cit.; Plac. ii. 20,1; 21, concede to Teichmiller (Studien,
1; 25, 1. (Galen. Hist. Phil. 15); p. 10 sq.), who has carefully ex-
Stob. Ecl. i. 510, 524, 548; Theo- amined all the texts on this subject,
doret, Gr. aff. Cur. iv. 17, p. 58 ; that that of Achilles Tatius does
Achilles Tatius, Jsug. ὁ. 19, p. 138 not look very authentic; and as
sq. All these writers agree in what we are further informed (Plac. ii.
is stated in our text. If, however, 16,3 ; Stob. 516) that Anaximander
we attempt any closer definition of made the stars ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ
this conception, we find consider- τῶν σφαιρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος βέβηκε
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 253

of the earth; and, again, the heat of the sun assists the
drying up of the globe and the formation of the
sky.|. That the moon and planets shine by their own
light ?follows necessarily from Anaximander’s theories
respecting them. The movement of the heavenly
bodies he derived from the currents of air caused
φέρεσθαι, which is confirmed by the times as large as the earth, and the
τροπαὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, attributed to sun itself (the opening of this circle
him by Aristotle (Meteor. ii. 2, 355, which we behold as the sun’s dise)
a, 21), it now appears to me pro- the same size as the earth—this is
bable that Roth (Gesch. der Abendl. incompatible with the theory that
Phil. ii. a, 155) has taken the right the sun’s circle is the sun’s sphere,
view in interpreting the wheel- and its size, consequently, that of
shared circles filled with fire (Roth the sun's orbit ; for that the sun’s
wrongly says encompassed with orbit should be only twenty-eight
fire on the outside) as the starry times as large as the sun’s dise, is
spheres; these spheres, in their a glaring contradiction of ocular
rotation, pour forth fire through an evidence, which we cannot ascribe
aperture, and produce the pheno- to Anaximander. Hippolytus, how-
menon of a fiery body circling round ever, says (as Teichmiiller, p. 17,
the earth. As, however, these rings rightly observes) εἶναι δὲ τὸν κύκλον
only consist of air, Teichmiiller is τοῦ ἡλίου ἑπτακαιεικοσιπλασίονα τῆς
not wrong (p. 32 sq.) in disputing σελήνης, and if we connect with
the theory of solid spheres and a this the statement that the moon is
solid firmament (Roth, loc. cit.; nineteen times as large as the
Gruppe, Cosm. Syst. d. Gr. p. 37 earth, we shall havethe sun’s orbit
sqq.) as held by Anaximander. 513 times the size of the earth’s
In agreement with this view, there circumference, and consequently
is the statement (Stob. 548; Plac. 513 times that of the sun’s cireum-
li. 25, 1; Galen, c. 15) that, ac- ference, which would of course seem
cording to Anaximander, the moon sufficient to Anaximander. But
is a circie nineteen times as large from the nature of our evidence we
as the earth; since it is quite pos- cannot pass certain judgment in
sible that this, philosopher, for the matter.
reasons unknown to us, may have 1 Aris‘. Meteor.ii.1 (ef. p. 251,
considered the circumference of 1); zbid. ec. 2, 355 a, 21, where
the moon’s orbit (which in that Anaximander is not indeed men-
case would coincide with the moon's tioned, but according to Alexan-
sphere) to be nineteen times the der’s trustworthy statement (oc.
size of the earth’s circumference. cit. and p. 93 b) he is ineluded.
When, however, we learn from the 2 What is asserted in the Pla-
same source (Stob. i. 524; Place. cita, τὶ. 28, and Srob. i. 556, of the
20, 1; 21, 1; Galen, Hist. Phil. 6. moon, is denied by Diog. (ii. 1), but
14, p. 274, 276, 279, K.) that he (as appears from the passages we
made the sun’s cirele twenty-eight have quoted) without foundation.
254 ANAXIMANDER.

by the revolution of the spheres;' his theories on their

position and magnitudes? are as arbitrary as we might
expect in the childhood of astronomy; if, however, he
really taught that the stars were carried round by the
movement of circles out of which they received the fires
by which they shine, he claims an important place in
the history of astronomy as the author of the theory of
the spheres. The same would apply to his discovery of
the obliquity of the ecliptic,’ if this has been rightly
1 Arist. and Alex., ef. previous spectively of the testimonies just
note and supra, p. 251,1. In what quoted. Norcan I admit, as Teich-
way the rotation of the heavens is miller alleges, that there is anycon-
effected, Aristotle does not say, tradiction in my connecting (p. 249,
but his words in e. 2, as also in 2) the πάντα κυβερνᾷν, ascribed to
the passage cited p. 251, 1, from the Infinite, with the movement of
e. 1, can scarcely bear any other the heavens, while I here derive
construction this: than that the this movement from the πνεύματα.
heavens are moved by the πνεύμα- When Anaximander says that the
τα, an idea which is also found in Infinite by its own movement pro-
Anaxagoras and elsewhere (Ideler, duces that of the universe, this does
Arist. Meteor. i. 497). Alexander not prevent his describing (cf. 250
thus (/oc. cit.) explains the words sq.) more particularly the manner
of Aristotle, quoted p. 251, 1: in which that movement is brought
ὕγροῦ yap ὄντος τοῦ περὶ τὴν about, and seeking accordingly the
γῆν τόπου, τὰ πρῶτα τῆς ὑγρότητος approximate cause for the revolu-
ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐξατμίζεσθαι καὶ tion of the starry spheres in the
γίνεσθαι τὰ πνεύματά τε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ currents of the air.
τροπὰς ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης, ὡς διὰ 2 Accofding to Stob. 510, and
τὰς ἀτμίδας ταύτας καὶ τὰς ἀναθυμιά- the Plac. 11. 15, 6, he placed the
σεις κἀκείνων τὰς τροπὰς ποιουμένων, sun highest, then the moon, and
ἔνθα ἣ ταύτης αὐτοῖς χορηγία γίνεται the fixed stars and planets lowest
περὶ ταῦτα τρεπομένων. Whether (Réper in Philologus, vii. 609,
the remark that Theophrastus as- wrongly gives an opposite inter-
cribes this view to Anaximander pretation). Hippolytus says the
and Diogenes, refers to this por- same, only without mentioning the
tion of Anaximander’s exposition planets. On the size of the sun
is not quitecertain. Teichmiller’s and moon cf. p. 253. The state-
theory, loc. cit. 22 sqq., that Anaxi- ments of Eudemus, quoted p. 234,
mander derived the movement of 2, refer to these theories.
the firmament from the turning of 3 Pliny, Hist. Nat. 11.8)" 3.
the ἄπειρον, conceived as spherical, Others, however, ascribe this dis-
on its axis, 1 cannot admit, for covery to Pythagoras; vide infra,
the reasons given, p. 262, 1, irre- Pyth.
 .

ee
te
n

FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 255

ascribed to him. In accordance with the notions of

antiquity, Anaximander, we are told, regarded the stars
as gods, and spoke of an innumerable or infinite
multitude of heavenly gods.'
The Earth he supposes to have existed at first in a
liquid state, and to have been gradually formed by the
drying up of the moisture by means of the surrounding
fire; the rest, having become salt and bitter, running
off into the sea.?_ Its shape he conceives as a cylinder,
the height of which is a third part of its breadth; we
inhabit its upper surface.* At rest in the centre of all
things, its equilibrium is maintained because it is
equally distant from the extreme limits of the universe.*
The animals also, he thought, originated from primi-
tive slime, under the influence of the sun’s heat, and as
the idea of a gradual succession of animal species cor-
responding with the periods of geological formation was
1 Cicero, WN. Ὁ. 1. 10, 25 (after 2 Vide supra, p. 251. 1.
Philodemus), Anaximandri autem 3 Plutarch in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8,
opinio est nativos esse Deos, longis 2; Plac. iii. 10,1; Hippolyt. Refut.
intervallis orientes occidentesque 1.6. Diogenes (ii: 1) makes the
eosque innumerahiles esse mundos. form of the earth spherical instead
Plac. 4. 7, 12: ᾿Αναξίμανδρος τοὺς of cylindrical, but this is an error.
ἀστέρας οὐρανίους θεούς. Stob. in Teichmiller goes thoroughly into
the parallel passage Ec/. i. 56: the subject, loc. cit. 40 sqq.
᾿Αναξίμανδρος ἀπεφήνατο τοὺς ἀπεί- * Arist. De Celo, τι. 13, 295 Ὁ,
pous οὐρανοὺς θεούς ;Ps Galen. Hist. 10; Simpl in h. 1. 237 Ὁ, 45 sq.;
Phil. ες. 8, p. 251 Κ΄: ’Avatiuavdpos Schol. 507 b, 20; Diog.ii.1; Hip-
δὲ τοὺς ἀπείρους νοῦς (Heeren in polyt., lec. cit. The assertion of
Stobeeus, loc. cit. rightly substitutes Theo. (Astron. p. 324), taken by
οὐρανοὺς for vows) θεοὺς εἶναι: Cyrill, him from Dercyllides, that Anaxi-
e. Jul. i. p. 28 D: *Avatiuavipos mander thought the earth moved
θεὸν διορίζεται εἶναι τοὺς ἀπείρους around the centre of the universe,
κόσμους. Tert. Adv. Marc. i. 13: is a misapprehension of what he
Anaximander universa ceelestia (Anaximander) said as to the sus-
(Deos pronuntiavit). How we are pension (ap. Simpl. Joc. cit.) of the
to understand the infinite number earth. Alexander expresses himself
of these gods we shall soon more more cautiously.
particularly enquire.
256 ANAXIMANDER.

naturally beyond his reach, he assumed that the land

animals, including man, had at first been fishes, and
afterwards, when they were able to develope themselves
under their new shape, had come on shore and thrown
off their scales.! He is said to have regarded the soul
as of the nature of air,? and we have no reason to think
this improbable; what, however, is more certain, is
that in his theories of the origin of rain, of the winds,
of thunder and lightning,’ almost everything is re-
ferred to the influence of air. But these theories have
little connection with his philosophic doctrine.
As all things were produced from one primitive
matter, so must all return to it; for all things, says our
philosopher, must undergo, according to the order of
time, penance and punishment for their injustice. The
separate existence of individual things is, so to speak, a
wrong, a transgression which they must expiate by their
destruction. Anaxagoras is said to have applied the
same principle to the world as a whole, and to have
admitted, in consequence, that the world would be
destroyed, but that on account of the perpetual motion
of the infinite substance, a new world would be
1 Vide Plutarch ap. Eus. loc. cit.; οὗ the descent of men from fishes
Qu. Con. viii. 8, 4; Plac. v. 19. 4; implied that the use of fish as food
also Brandis, i. 140, but especially was unlawful.
Teichmiiller, loc. cit. 63 sqq., who 2 Theod. Gr. aff.cur. v.18, p.72.
rightly calls attention to the points 3 Plutarch, Place. 1. 271,17, 1%
of contact between this hypothesis Stob. Hcl. 1. 590; Hippolyt. doc.
and the Darwinian theory. But I cit.; Seneca, Qu. Nat. 11. 18 sq.;
cannot follow him in his statement Achilles Tatius in Arat. 33; Plin.
(p. 68) that Anaximander, accord- Hist. Nat. 11.79, 191, makes Anaxi-
ing to Plutarch, Qu. conv. forbade mander foretell an earthquake to
the eating of fish. Plutarch does the Spartans, but adds significantly
not seem to me to say that Anaxi- ‘Si eredimus.’
mander expressly interdicted fish 4 In the fragment quoted, p.
eating, but only that his doctrine 240, 2.
 INFINITE SERIES OF WORLDS. 257

formed ; so that there would thus be an endless series

of successive worlds. This matter, however, is open to
dispute.! We are repeatedly assured that Anaximander
spoke of innumerable worlds, but whether he meant by
this, worlds in juxtaposition, or worlds in succession,—
and whether, upon the former theory, he thought of a
number of complete systems, separate from each other,
or only different parts of one and the same system, are
questions that are not easily answered.? Cicero says that
Anaximander regarded the countless worlds as gods.
This would incline us to the idea of whole systems, like
the worlds of Democritus. The countless * heavens’ of
which Stobzus speaks (as also the Pseudo-Galen) seem
to necessitate the same interpretation, since Cyrillus
substitutes ‘worlds’ for ‘heavens.’ The Placita, how-
ever, have the word ‘ stars,’ and this we must take to
have been Anaximander’s real meaning. For if he had
said the innumerable worlds that are supposed to exist
outside our system are gods, he would not merely have
stood alone among all the ancient philosophers, but it
would be difficult to say how he could have arrived at such
a theorem. For in all periods, and without exception,
gods have been understood to mean beings that are the
objects of human adoration: even the gods of Epicurus
are so, though, on their side, they trouble themselves
little about men.* But these worlds, entirely with-
drawn from our perceptions and sight, and admitted
only on the strength of a speculative hypothesis, are not.

? Vide Schleiermacher, foc. cit. τ. 255, 1.

196 sq.; Krische, Forsch.i. 44 sqq. 3 Cf. Part III. a, 395, second
2 Vide the texts given, supra, edition.
VOL. I. . 8
258 ANAXIMANDER.

capable of inspiring our adoration, and have nothing in

themselves that could appeal to the feeling of piety;
whereas the ancient worship of the stars, deeply rooted
as it was in the Hellenic modes of thought, is to be
met with perpetually, as we know, among the philoso-
phers. Anaximander’s countless gods must, therefore,
be the stars. The explanation of his likewise calling
these gods ‘heavens’ may be found in what we have
gathered about his conception of the stars. That which
we behold under the form of sun, moon, or stars, is to
Anaximander only a luminous aperture in a ring which
is formed of air and filled with fire, and rotates.at a
greater or less distance around the earth. The con-
centric light-emitting rings which thus surround us,
and together with the earth form the universe, might
therefore be properly called heavens, and perhaps they
might be called worlds ;' but it is likewise possible that
later writers, adopting the language of their own times,
may have substituted ‘worlds’ for ‘heavens’ by way
of explanation or emendation. Besides, Anaximander
might well speak in this sense of an infinite number
of heavens, since (in accordance with this theory) he
must have regarded the fixed stars, not as placed in a
single sphere,” but each one as the aperture of its own
ring. For at so early a period as Anaximander’s, it
ought not to surprise us if that which no man could
reckon were called infinite in number,
1 Simplicius, for example, says 2 Such a sphere must have
(in the passage quoted supra, Ὁ. 233, been perforated like a sieve, since
1) of Anaxagoras, to whom nobody each star indicates an opening in
attributed the theory of several it; and (according to p. 254, 2) it
systems, that νοῦς, accordingtohim, would have hidden the sun and
produced τούς τε κόσμους καὶ τὴν moon from us.
τῶν ἄλλων φύσιν.
 INFINITE SERIES OF WORLDS. 259

On the other hand, the assertion which ascribes to

Anaximander an infinity of successive worlds seems to
be borne out by his system. The correlative of the
world’s formation is the world’s destruction; if the
world, as a living being, developed itself at a definite
epoch out of a given matter, it may easily be supposed
that it will also be dissolved, hike a living being, into
its constituent elements again. If creative force and
movement, as essential and original qualities, be
ascribed to this primitive matter, it is only logical to
conclude that by virtue of its vitality it will produce
another world after the destruction of our own; and for
the same reason it must have produced other worlds
prior to the earth. Thus we assume an infinite series
of successive worlds in the past and in the future.
Plutarch, indeed, expressly says of Anaximander, that
from the Infinite, as the sole cause of the birth and
destruction of all things, he considered that the heavens
and the innumerable worlds arise in endless circulation,!
and Hippolytus speaks to the same effect.2, ‘The Infi-
nite of Anaximander, he says, ‘eternal and never
growing old, embraces all the worlds; but these have
each of them a set time for their arising, their exist-

Ap, Mos, Pr. Ev. 1..8, 1: > Refut. i. 6: οὗτος ἀρχὴν ἔφη
(Avativavdpéy pact) τὸ ἄπειρον φάναι τῶν ὄντων φύσιν τινὰ τοῦ ἀπείρον͵ ἐξ
τὴν πᾶσαν αἰτίαν ἔχειν τῆς τοῦ ἧς γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν
παντὸς γενέσεώς τε. .. καὶ φθορᾶς. αὐτοῖς κόσμους. ταύτην δ᾽ ἀΐδιον εἶναι
ἐξ οὗ δή φησι τούς τε οὐρανοὺς καὶ ἀγήρω, ἣν καὶ πάντας περιέχειν
ἀποκεκρίσθαι καὶ καθόλου τοὺς ἅπαν- τοὺς κόσμους. λέγει δὲ χρόνον
τας ἀπείρους ὄντας κόσμους. ἀπεφή- ὡς ὡρισμένης τῆς γενέσεως καὶ τῆς
νατο δὲ τὴν φθορὰν γίνεσθαι καὶ πολὺ οὐσίας καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς. These pro-
πρότερον τὴν γένεσιν ἐξ ἀπείρου positions seem, by the way, to be
αἰῶνος ἄνακυκλουμένων πάντων taken from another source from
αὐτῶν. what follows.
s2
 260 ANAXIMANDER.

ence, and their destruction.’! Cicero, too,? makes

mention of innumerable worlds, which in long periods
of time arise and perish; and Stobzus attributes to
Anaximander the theory of the future destruction of
the world.’ This is also countenanced by the state-
ment that he believed in a future drying up of the sea,*
for in that case there would be an increasing prepon-
derance of the fiery element, which must ultimately
result in the destruction of the earth, and of the system
of which it forms the centre. The same theory of a
constant alternation of birth and destruction in the
universe was held by Heracleitus, who approaches more
closely to Anaximander than to any of the ancient
Ionian physicists, and also most probably by Anaxi-
menes and Diogenes. We have reason, therefore, to
suppose that Anaximander also held it; and that he
already taught the doctrine of a perpetual vicissitude
between the separation of things from the primitive
1 In neither of these passages lasted them all. With Plutarch,
can the innumerable worlds be un- the arising or passing away Tov
derstood otherwise than as succes- παντὸς and the ἀνακυκλουμένων
sive worlds. When Hippolytus πάντων αὐτῶν, sufficiently show that
directly connects with his mention successive worlds are intended.
of the κόσμοι the remark that the * In the passage quoted at
time of their beginning is deter- length, supra, p. 255, 1, where the
mined, this can only mean that words, longis intervallis orientes
these κόσμοι have a definite dura- occidentesque, can only apply to
tion, and we must then explain the worlds of which one arises when the
plurality thus: there are many other disappears, even supposing
worlds, because each world only that Cicero or his authority con-
lasts for a time. The connection fused these worlds with the ἄπειροι
of the two propositions, that the οὐρανοὶ designated as gods by
ἄπειρον is eternal, and that it em- Anaximander.
braces all worlds —points to the 3 Kel. i. 416. Anaximander
same result. It might embrace all εν. φθαρτὸν τὸν κόσμον.
coexisting worlds even if it were 4 Theophrastus, and probably
not eternal; but it could only em- also Aristotle, supra, p. 161, 1.
brace successive worlds, if it out-
 INFINITE SERIES OF WORLDS. 261

matter, and their return to primitive matter ; as well as

an endless series of worlds in succession, which was the
natural result of that doctrine.’ 3
Whether he likewise maintained the co-existence of
an infinite number of systems, or of a plurality of
systems apart from one another, as the Atomists after-
wards did, is another question. Simplicius, and ap-
parently Augustine, assert this of him ;? and some few
modern writers have agreed with them.* But Augus-
tine certainly does not speak from his own knowledge,
and he does not tell us his authority. Nor is Simplicius
1 What Schleiermacher urges new world after the destruction of
(loc. cit. 197) against this theory an old one. Rose’s opinion (Arist.
does not seem to me conclusive. lib. ord. 76) that the theory of
Anaximander, he thinks (according an alternative formation and des-
to the texts quoted, supra, p. 229, truction of worlds is a vetustissima
2, 3), could not have supposed a cogitandi ratione plane aliena has»
time in which generation was ar- been already answered in the text.
rested, and this must have been the We find this theory in Anaximenes, ἡ
case from the commencement of a Heracleitus, and Diogenes (to all
world’s destruction to the arising of whom, however, Kose equally
of a new world. But in the first denies it); and moreover in Empe-
place, the words, ἵνα 7 γένεσις μὴ docles.
ἐπιλείπῃ, do not assert that ‘gene- 2 Simpl. Phys. 257 Ὁ: ei μὲν
ration may never and in no way γὰρ ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσ-
be arrested,’ but rather that ‘the μους ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς οἱ περὶ ᾿Αναξ-
generation of perpetually new beings ίμανδρον καὶ Λεύκιππον καὶ Δημόκρι-
can never cease.’ It does not cease τον καὶ ὕστερον oi περὶ ᾿Επίκουρον,
Af it is continued in a new world γινομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ φθειρομένους
instead ‘of the one destroyed; and ὑπέθεντο ἐπ᾿ ἄπειρην, ἄλλων μὲν
thus it becomes very questionable ἀεὶ γινομένων ἄλλων δὲ φθειρομένων.
whether’ we can attribute to Anaxi- Cf. inf. p. 262,2. Aug. Civ. D. viii.
mander a notion which, strictly 2: rerum principia singularum esse
understeod, would exclude a begin- credidit infinita, et innumerabiles
ning as well as an end of the mundos gignere et quaecunque in is
world; namely, the notion that on ortuntur, eosqgue mundos modo dis-
account of the incessant activity of solvi modo iterum gigni existimavit,
the first cause (vide sup: p. 249, 1) quanta quisque aetate sua manere
the world can never cease tu exist. potuerit.
He might think that he was proving 3 Biusgen especially, p. 18 sq.
this activity all the more conclu- of the work mentioned (supra, p.
sively by making it always form a 235, 1).
202 ANAXIMANDER.

quoting from Anaximander’s writings,' and he μον"

betrays that he is not sure of what he is saying. No
trustworthy evidence from any other source can be
cited in favour of this philosopher’s having held such a
theory,* a theory which his general system not merely
As already observed on p. 287 mos Anudxpitos Ἐπίκουρος ἀπείρους
sj., and clearly proved by the con- κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν
tradictions resulting from the com- περιαγωγήν. τῶν δ᾽ ἀπείρους ἀποφη-
parison of the expressions shown to ναμένων τοὺς κόσμους ᾿Αναξίμανδρος
be his, supra, pp. 232, 1; 241, 6; τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων,
244, 1, 2. Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ μεταξυ
2 Cf. De Celo, 91 b, 34 (Schol. τῶν κόσμων διάστημα, his meaning
in Ar. 480 a, 35): of δὲ καὶ τῷ no doubt is that Anaximander, like
πλήθει ἀπείρους κόσμους, ws ᾿Αναξί- Democritus and Epicurus, believed
μανδρος μὲν ἄπειρυν τῷ μεγέθει τὴν in numberless coexistent worlds,
ἀρχὴν θέμενος, ἀπείρους ἐξ αὐτοῦ and this likewise holds good of
[—rijs] τῷ πλήθει κόσμους ποιεῖν Theodoret (Cur. gr. aff. iv. 16
δοκεῖ, Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκρι- p. 58), who attributes to the same
τος ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους, philosophers, enumerated in the
&e. υιά. 278, Ὁ 48: καὶ κόσμους same order as Stobeeus, πολλοὺς
ἀπείρους οὗτος καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν καὶ ἀπείρους κόσμους. Theodoret,
κόσμων ἐξ ἀπείρου τοῦ τοιούτου however, is evidently not an in-
στοιχείου ὑπέθετο, aS SOK εἴ. dependent witness, but has been
3. The state of the ease in re- drawing upon the text, the words
gard to Cicero and Philodemus has of which Stobzus gives more
already been investigated, pp. 257; completely. The account itself
260, 2; where the passages cited also seems here to be very untrust-
(p. 259, 1, 2) from Hippolytus and worthy. For little confidence can be
Plutarch have also been sufficiently placed in an author who attributes
considered. Plutarch indeed says the ἄπειροι κόσμοι to Anaximenes,
in the preterite: τούς τε οὐρανοὺς Archelaus, and Xenophanes, and
ἀποκεκρίσθαι καὶ καθόλον τοὺς ἅπαν- by the addition of κατὰ πᾶσαν
τας ἀπείρους ὄντας κόσμους, but that περιαγωγὴν, which is quite inappli-
proves nothing; for in the first cable to the Atomists and Epicure-
place the κόσμοι may have the same ans, clearly betrays that he is here
meaning as ovpau'ol (cf. p. 258), and confusing two different theories,
in the next, it might be said of that which makes innumerable sue-
successive worlds that an infinite cessive worlds to proceed from tha
number of them had come forth περιαγωγαὶ (the circular motion
from the ἄπειρον ; for thev had jar of by Plutarch, supra, p.
already been innumerable in the 259, 1), and that which main-
past. It has also been shown (p. tains innumerable contemporaneous
257) that Stobzus, i. 56, proves worlds. What Anaximander really
nothing. When Stobeeus (i. 496) said concerning the equal distance
says ᾿Αναξίμανδρος ’Avatimevns ᾿Αρ- of the worlds, whether his utterance
χέλαος Ξενοφάνης Διογένης Λεύκιπ- related to the distance in space of
 INFINITE SERIES OF WORLDS. 263
does not require, but often actually contradicts. We
might imagine that it necessarily resulted from the
unlimitedness of matter; but the successors of Anaxi-
mander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Diogenes, prove
how little such necessity existed at that early stage of
thought. None of them find any difficulty in supposing
our world to be limited, while the matter surround-
ing it, and not formed into any other worlds, extends
itself to infinity. The reflection which Schleiermacher
attributes to our philosopher,' that there must be many
worlds, in order that death and destruction may rule in
one, while life and vitality prevail in another, appears
much too artifical for the time. It is, therefore,
difficult to see how Anaximander could have been led
to a theory which is so entirely independent of the
sensible intuition, the immediate origin of all ancient
cosmology. Such a theory must, indeed, have been
peculiarly remote from a philosopher holding so de-
cidedly, as Anaximander did, that every particular was
derived from one first principle, and returned to it
ayain.” Democritus was quite logical when he made his
innumerable atoms, which were guided by no uniform
principle, combine with one another inthe most diverse
parts of infinite space, and so form independent world-
systems. Anaximander,on the contrary, starting from his
ecnception of the One Unlimited which rules all things,
could only arrive at the theory of a single universe,
combined by the unity of the force that forms the world.
the οὐρανοὶ, or to the distance in 1 Loe. cit. p. 200 sq.
time of the successive worlds, we 2 As Schleiermacher himself
cannot determine. acknowledges, loc. cit. 197, 200.

e
 904 ANAXIMANDER.

If we now compare Anaximander’s doctrine, as re~

presented in our present enquiry, with what we know of
the doctrine of Thales, we shall find that it is far richer
in content, and betokens a higher development of philo-
sophie thought. J am not indeed inclined to ascribe
any great significance to the conception which is prin-
cipally dwelt on by historians as constituting the most
convenient designation for Anaximander’s principle,
viz., the infinity of primitive matter; for the endless
succession of natural creations, which chiefly determined
Anaximander in adopting it, might have been attained
independently of this principle;' and the unlimited
extension of the world in space, which would have ne-
cessitated it, was not taught, as we have seen, by this
philosopher. On the other hand, it is an important fact -
that Anaximander should have taken for his point of
departure, not a determinate substance like Thales, but
indeterminate and infinite matter; and whatever may
have led him to such a doctrine, it implies an advance
on his part beyond merely sensuous observation. Thales
said nothing about the manner in which things arise
out of the primitive matter. The ‘separation’ of Anaxi-
mander is still sufficiently vague, but it is at any rate
an attempt to form some notion of the process, to reduce
the multiplicity of phenomena to the most general oppo-
sitions, and to attain a physical theory of the genesis of
the world, free from the mythical elements of the an-
cient theogonic cosmology. The ideas of Anaximander
on the system of the world, and the origin of living
beings, not only show reflection, but have exercised
1 As Aristotle observes, vide supra, p. 229, 8.
 HIS HISTORICAL POSITION. 265

important influence on subsequent philosophy. Finally,

he admitted a beginning as well as an end of our world,
-and an infinite series of successive worlds. This doc-
trine evinces remarkable consistency of thought. It is
besides the first step towards the abandonment of the
mythical notion of the origin of the world in time, and
through the idea that creative force can never have
been idle, it prepared the way for the Aristotelian: doc-
trine of the eternity of the world.
I cannot, however, agree in the opinion that Anaxi-
mander should be separated from Thales and from his
successors, and assigned to a special order of develop-
ment. This opinion has been maintained in modern
times and on opposite grounds by Schleiermacher ! and
Ritter: ? by Schleiermacher, because he sees in Anaxi-
mander the commencement of speculative natural
science; by Ritter, because he regards him as the
founder of the mechanical and more experimental
physics. With reference to the latter, it has already
been shown that Anaximander’s theory of nature has as
little a mechanical character as that of his predecessor
or immediate successors, and that he especially approxi-
mates to Heracleitus, the typical dynamist. For the
same reasons, Schleiermacher is incorrect in asserting
that, in contrast with Thales and Anaximenes, his ten-
dency is more towards the particular than the universal;
for Anaximander was remarkably strict in upholding
the unity of animate nature.? He admits, indeed, that
? On Anaximander, Joc. cit. p. 177 sq., 202.
188; Gesch. der Phil. 25, 31 sq. 8 Vide supra, Ὁ. 256, and
5 Gesch. der Phil. i. 214,280 Schleiermacher on Anaximander.
sqq., 345; cf. Gesch. der Ion. Phil. p.197, who is styled by him the
266 ANAXIMENES.

contraries emanate from the primitive substance; but

this proves nothing, since Anaximenes and Diogenes hold
the same opinion. Lastly, I must dispute the assertion
of Ritter! that Anaximander owed nothing to Thales.
Even supposing that from a material point of view
he appropriated none of Thales’ ideas, it was formally
of the highest importance that Thales should first have
instituted the enquiry concerning the universal principle
of all things. We have, however, already seen that Anaxi-*
mander was probably connected with Thales, not only by
his hylozoism, but by the particular theory of the liquid
state of the earth in its commencement. If we farther
consider that he was a fellow citizen and younger con-
temporary of Thales, and that both philosophers were
well known and highly esteemed in their native city, it
seems unlikely that no impulse should have been received
by the younger from the elder; and that Anaximander,
standing midway chronologically between his two com-
patriots, Thales and Anaximenes, should be isolated
from them scientifically. The contrary will become
still more apparent when we see the influence exercised
by Anaximander over his own immediate successor.

Ill. ANAXIMENES.?

Tue philosophic theory of Anaximenes is generally de-

scribed by the proposition that the principle or ground
philosopher ‘whose whole enquiry know hardly anything, except that
inclines so decidedly to the side of he came from Miletus, and that his
unity and the subordination of all father’s name was Euristratus
oppositions.’ (Diog. ii. 3; Simpl. Phys. 6 a).
1 Gesch. der Phil. i, 214. Later writers represent him as
2 Of the life of Anaximenes we a disciple (Cic. Acad. i. 37, 118;
 AIR. 267

of all things is air! That he meant by air somethiug

different from the element of that name, and distin-
guished air, the elementary substance, from the atmo-
spheric air,? cannot be proved, nor is it probable. He
says indeed that air in its pure condition is invisible,
and that it is only perceptible through the sensations
of its coldness, warmth, moisture, and motion ;? but this
Diog. 11.3; Aug. Civ. D. viii. 2); 58, 1. Diels (Rhein. Mus. xxxi. 27)
friend (Simpl. loc. cit. De Calo, 273 is probably right in his conjecture
Ὁ, 45; Scehol. 514 a, 33); ac- that the passage in Diogenes should
quaintance (Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 14, 7) ; be thus transposed: γεγένηται μὲν
or successor (Clem. Strom. i. 301 . περὶ τὴν Σάρδεων ἅλωσιν,
A. Theodoret, Gr. aff. cur. ii. 9, ἐτελεύτησε δὲ τῇ ἑξηκοστῇ τρίτῃ
p- 22, Aug. /. ¢.) of Anaximander. ὀλυμπιάδι, and that Suidas thence
Though it is probable, from the derives his statement: γέγονεν ἐν
relation of their doctrines, that τῇ ve’ ὀλυμπιάδι ἐν τῇ Σάρδεων
there was some connection between ἁλώσει ὅτε Κῦρος 6 Πέρσης Κροῖσον
the two philosophers, these state- καθεῖλεν. Only, says Diels, Suidas
ments are clearly based, not on his- or some later interpolator has
torical tradition, but on a mere wrongly introduced Eusebius’s date
eombination, which, however, has ev τῇ νε΄ ὀλυμπιάδι. The conquest
more foundztion than the strange of Sardis toat Diogenes means is
statement (ap. Diog. ii. 3) that he the conquest by Cyrus (Ol. 58, 3,
was a pupil of Parmenides. Ac- or 546 B.c.), and the word, γέγονεν,
cording to Apollodorus, in Diog. or γεγένηται (as is often the case)
loc. cit., he was born in the 63rd relates not to the birth, but to the
Olympiad (528-524 n.c.), and died time of life, the ἀκμή. The work
about the time of the conquest of of Anaximenes, a small fragment
Sardis. If by the latter is meant of which has been handed down to
the conquest by the Ionians under us, was, according to Diogenes,
Darius in the 70th Olympiad (499 written in the Ionic dialect; the
B.c.), which is used nowhere else two insignificant letters to Pytha-
as a chronological epoch, Anaxi- goras, which we find in Diogenes,
menes would have died 45-48 years are of course apocryphal.
after Anaximander; on the other 1 Arist. Metaph. i. 3, 984 a, ὃ,
hand, in that ease, Ol. 63 would ᾿Αναξιμένης δὲ ἀέρα καὶ Διογένης
ssem much too late for his birth. πρότερον ὕδατος καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἀρχὴν
To obviate this difficulty Hermann τιθέασι τῶν ἁπλῶν σωμάτων, and
(Philos. Ion. et. 9, 21) proposes to all later writers without excep-
substitute for Ol. 63, Ol. 55 (as tion.
given in Euseb. Chron.); and 2 As is assumed by Ritter, i.
Roth (Gesch. der Abendl. Phil. ii. 217, and still more decidedly by
a, 242 sq.) Ol. 53. As, however, Brandis, i. 144.
Hippolytus (efut. i. 7, end) places 8 Hippolyt. Refut. her. 1. 7:
the prime of Anaximenes in Ol. ᾿Αναξιμένης δὲ. . . ἀέρα ἄπειρον ἔφη
908 ANAXIMENES.

is perfectly applicable to the air around us, and our au-

thorities evidently so understand it, for they none of
them ever allude to such a distinction, and the majority
of their texts expressly designate the primitive matter
of Anaximenes as one of the four elements, as a
qualitatively determined body.! On the other hand,
he ascribed one property to the air, which Anaximander
had already employed to discriminate primitive being
from all things derived; he defined it as infinite in
regard to quantity. This is not only universally
attested by later writers,? but Anaximenes himself
implies such an opinion® in saying that the air em-
braces the whole world; for when the air is conceived
as not comprehended by the vault of heaven, it is much
easier to imagine it spread out to infinity than to place
any definite bound to so volatile a substance. Moreover
τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι, ἐξ ov τὰ γενόμενα definita. N. D. i. 10, 26: Anaxi-
τὰ γεγονότα καὶ τὰ ἐσόμενα καὶ menes aera deum statuit, ewmque
θεοὺς καὶ θεῖα γίνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ gigni (a misapprehension on which
ἐκ τῶν τούτου ἀπογόνων. τὸ δὲ εἶδος cf. Krische, 1. 55) esseque immensum
τοῦ ἀέρος τοιοῦτον: ὅταν μὲν ὅμα- et infinitum et semper in motu;
λώτατος 7, ὄψει ἄδηλον, δηλοῦσθαι Diog. ii. 3: οὗτος ἀρχὴν ἀέρα εἶπε
δὲ τῷ ψυχρῷᾷ καὶ τῷ θερμῷ καὶ τῷ καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον ; Simplicius, Pays. ὅ
νοτερῷ καὶ τῷ κινουμένῳ. Ὁ: ᾿Αναξίμανδρον, καὶ ᾿Αναξιμένην
1 Ἐς g. Aristotle, doc. cit., and . ἐν μὲν, ἄπειρον δὲ τῷ μεγέθει τὸ
Phys. i. 4; Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. στοιχεῖον ὑποθεμένους ; ibid. 6-a,
1. 8, 3: ᾿Αναξιμένην δέ φασι τὴν τῶν vide preceding note; ibid. 105 Ὁ,
ὅλων ἀρχὴν τὸν ἀέρα εἰπεῖν καὶ vide supra, p. 219, 1; tbid. 273
τοῦτον εἶναι τῷ μὲν γένει ἄπειρον Ὁ: ἐν τῷ amweip@ .. . τῷ ᾿Αναξιμέ-
ταῖς δὲ περὶ αὐτὸν ποιότησιν ὡρισμέ- vous καὶ ᾿Αναξιμάνδρου. Also Sim-
νον. Simpl. Phys. 6 ἃ, πὶ : μίαν μὲν plicius, De Calo, vide infra; tid.
τὴν ὑποκειμένην φύσιν καὶ ἄπειρόν 91 Ὁ, 82 (Schol. 480 a, 35): ’Ava-
φησιν. .. οὐκ ἀόριστον δὲ. ξιμένης τὸν ἀέρα ἄπειρον ἀρχὴν εἶναι
ἀλλὰ ὡρισμένην, ἀέρα λέγων αὐτήν. λέγων.
So De Celo, vide infra, p. 270, 3. 3 In the words quoted by Β]αῇ,᾿
2 Plut. and Hippol., vide the Plac. i. 3, 6 (Stob. Hel, 1. 296):
two previous notes. Cic. Acad, il. οἷον ἣ ψυχὴ ἣ ἡμετέρα ἀὴρ οὖσα
37, 118: <Anaximenes infinitum συγκρατεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον
aera; sed ea, que ex 60 orirentur πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει,
 AIR. 269

Aristotle! mentions the theory according to which the

world is surrounded by the boundless air. This passage,
it is true, may also apply to Diogenes or Archelaus,
but Aristotle seems to ascribe the infinity of ‘primitive
matter to all those who consider the world to be sur-
rounded by this matter. We can scarcely doubt there-
fore that Anaximenes adopted this conception of Anaxi-
mander. He also agrees with him in the opinion that
the air is in constant movement, is perpetually changing
its forms,” and consequently perpetually generating new
things derived from it; but what kind of movement this
is, our authorities do not inform us.* Lastly, it is said
1 Phys. iii. 4; vide supra, p. tion; thut the infinite air was
219, 2; ibid. c. 6, 206 b, 23: ὥσπερ supposed to rotate from eternity.
φασὶν of φυσιολόγοι, τὸ ἔξω σῶμα I cannot acquiesce in this view, if
τοῦ κόσμου, οὗ ἢ οὐσία ἢ ἄλλο τι only for the reason that not one of
τοιοῦτον͵ ἄπειρον εἶναι. Cf. also the our authorities recognises such a
passage quoted on p. 242,1; De theory. A rotation of the Unlimited
Cels, iii. ὃ. seems to me in itself so contra-
2 Plutarch ap. Eus. Pr. Ev.i. 8, dictory a notion that we ought not
according to the quotation on p. 268, to ascribe it to Anaximenes, except
1: γεννᾶσθαι δὲ πάντα κατά τινα πύ-- on overwhelming evidence: if we
νωσιν τούτου, καὶ πάλιν ἀραίωσιν. would represent to ourselves the
τήν γε μὴν κίνησιν ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀπ- eternal motion of matter, the ana-
άρχειν. Cie. N. D. i. 10 (note 1). logy of the atmospheric air would
Hippolyt. according to the quota- far more readily support the
tion, swp. p. 268, 1: κινεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ theory of a swinging movement.
ἀεί: ob yap μεταβάλλειν ὅσα μεταβάλ- Teichmiiller appeals to Arist. De
λει, εἰ μὴ κινοῖτο... Simpl. Phys. Celo, ii. 13, 295 a, 9: (ὥστ᾽ εἰ Bia
6 ἃ: κίνησιν δὲ καὶ οὗτος ἀΐδιον νῦν ἢ γῆ μένει, καὶ συνῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ
ποιεῖ δι᾿ ἣν καὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν γίνε- μέσον φερομένη διὰ τὴν δίνησιν" ταύ-
σθαι. The reason why he was never- THY γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν πάντες λέγουσιν,
theless reproached, Plut. Plae. i. 3, διὸ δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν
7, for recognising no moving cause, οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συν-
is well explained by Krische, Forsch, ελθεῖν φασίν) ; but this passage (even
54, in reference to Arist. Metaph. i. apart from what will be observed
3, 984 a, 16 sqq. concerning it later on) seems to
3 Teichmiller (Studien, &c. p. me of small importance in the
76 sqq.) thinks, as in regard question; for it does not say
to Anaximander (sup. p. 252, 1), whether the whirling motion which,
that this was a revolving mo- in the formation of the world car-
270 ANAXIMENES.

of him, as of Anaximander, that he declared his primi-

tive matter to be the divinity ;! whether he expressly
did so is questionable and improbable, since like his
‘predecessor (vide supra) he reckoned the gods among
created beings. But in point of fact, the statement is
not untrue, because, for him also, primitive matter was
at the same time primitive force, and so far, the creative
cause of the world.?
Simplicius says? that Anaximenes made air his first
principle because of its variable nature, which especially
fits it to be the substratum of changing phenomena.
According to the utterances of Anaximenes himself,* he
seems to have been led to this theory chiefly by the
analogy of the world with a living being. It appeared
to him (in agreement with the ancient opinion, founded
on the evidence of the senses) that in men and animals
the expiration and inspiration of the air is the cause of
life, and of the cohesion of the body; for when the
breathing ceases or is hindered, life becomes extinct,
ried the terrestrial substances into 2 Roth (Gesch. der Abendl. Phil.
the centre, existed before these il. a, 250 sqq.) opposes Anaximenes
substances; and this by no means to Xenophanes, and says that he
necessarily follows. Democritus, started from the concept of spirit
for instance, does not conceive the as the primitive divinity. He calls
atoms as originally whirling; that him accordingly the first spiritual-
movement arises only at certain ist. But this gives a very false
points from the percussion of the notion of the import of his prin-
atoms. ciple, and the way in which he
1 Cicero, N. D. loc. cit.; Stob. arrived at it.
Eel. i. 56: ’Avat. τὸν ἀέρα (θεὸν 3 De Celo, 273 Ὁ, 45; Schol.
ἀπεφήνατο); Lactantius, 7986. 1. 5, in Arist. 514 a, 88: Avaklueyns δὲ
p. 18: Bip. Cleanthes et Anaximenes ἑταῖρος ᾿Αναξιμάνδρου καὶ πολίτης
aethera dicunt esse summum Deum. ἄπειρον μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέθετο τὴν
Here, however, zther is used in ἀρχὴν, ov μὴν ἔτι ἀόριστον, ἀέρα γὰρ
the modern sense, Tert. contr. Marc. ἔλεγεν εἶναι, οἰόμενος ἀρκεῖν τὸ τοῦ
i. 18, Anaximenes aerum (Deum ἀέρος εὐαλλοίωτον πρὸς μεταβολήν.
pronuntiavrit). 4 Vide supra, p. 268, 3.

e
 _RAREFACTION AND CONDENSATION. 271

the body decomposes and perishes. It was natural for

Anaximenes to suppose that such might also be the
case with the world. For the belief that the world was
animate was very ancient, and had already been intro-
duced into physics by his predecessors. So in the
manifold and important effects of the air, which are
patent to observation, he readily found proof that it is
the air which moves and produces all things. But
philosophy had not yet attained to the discrimination
of motive cause from matter. The above announcement,
therefore, was equivalent to saying that the air is the
primitive matter; and this theory was likewise sup-
ported Ly common observation, and by a conjecture
which might easily occur to the mind. Rain, hail, and
snow, on the one hand, and fiery phenomena on the
other, may equally be regarded as products of the air.
Thus the idea might easily arise that the air must be
the matter out of which all the other bodies are formed,
some of them tending upwards, and others downwards :
and this opinion might likewise be based on the appa-
rently unlimited diffusion of the air in space, especially
as Anaximander had declared the infinite to be the
primitive substance.
All things then, says Anaximenes, spring from the
air by rarefaction or by condensation.! These processes
? Aristotle (Phys. i. 4, sub init. further testimony, ef. Plut. De Pr.
De Celio, iii. 5, sub init. vide supra, Frig. 7, 3, supra, p. 272, 2; Plat.
p- 248, 1) ascribes this theory to a ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 3, supra,
whole class of natural philosophers. p. 269, 2: Hippolyt. Refut. i. 7;
It was so peculiar to Anaximenes Hermias, /rris. 6. 3; Simpl. Phys.
that Theophrastus assigns it to him 6 a; 32 a. The expressions by
alone (perhaps, however, he means which rarefaction and condensation
alone among the earliest philoso- are designated are various. Aris-
phers), vide supra, p. 224, 2, For totle says uavwois and πύκνωσις ; in-
272 ANAXIMENES.

he seems to have regarded as resulting from the move-

ment of the αἰγὶ Rarefaction he makes synonymous
with heating, and condensation with cooling.? The
stages through which matter has to pass in the course
of these transformations he describes somewhat un-
methodically. By rarefaction air changes into. fire;
by condensation it becomes wind, then clouds, then
water, then earth, lastly stones. From these simple
bodies compound bodies are then formed.? The texts
stead of μάνωσις, Plutarch and (οὕτω πως ὀνομάσας καὶ τῷ ῥήματι)
Simplicius have ἀραίωσις, apasov- θερμόν. In support of this, as is
σθαι; Hermias has ἀραιούμενος καὶ furtherobserved, Anaximenes urged
διαχεόμενος ; Hippolytus, ὅταν εἰς that the air which is breathed out
τὸ ἀραιότερον διαχυθῆ. According with the open mouth is warm, and
to Plutarch, De Pr. Frig. (οἴ. Simpl. that which is ejected in closing
Phys. 44 b), Anaximenes him- the lips is cold; the explanation
self seems to have spoken of con- given by Aristotle being that the
centration, of relaxation, extension one is the air inside the mouth, and
or loosening. The Anaximandrian the other the air outside it, Hippol.
doctrine of separation is only at- loc. cit. (p. 267, 3, and note 3, infra).
tributed to him in Moérbeke’s re- According to Porphyry, ap. Simpl.
translation (Ald. 46 a, m) of Phys. 41 a, Ald. Anaximenes re-
Simplicius; De Celo, 91 Ὁ, 48; garded the moist and the dry as
(Schol. 480 a, 44); the genuine fundamental contraries; this state-
text has instead of δὲ ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντα ment is, however, open to suspicion;
γίνεσθαι λέγουσι κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν (50 the more se, because Simplicius
that the transmutation of matters bases it upon a hexameter, which
only follows one direction, and does he says emanated from Anaximenes,
not go on ina circle, as with Hera- but which is elsewhere ascribed to
cleitus) : ὡς ’Avatiwavdpos καὶ ᾿Αναξ- Xenophanes (vide infra, chapter on
ἱμένης. In Phys. 44 a, rarefaction Xenophanes), and which cannot
und condensation are explained by have been taken from the prose
Simplicius in his own name, as ovy- of Anaximenes. Most likely, as
κρισις and διάκρισι5. Brandis thinks (Schol. 338 Ὁ, 31,
1 Vide supra, p. 269,2.
οἵ, p.270. loc. cit.), Ἐενοφάνην should be sub-
= Plat. Pr. Frig: 7, 3, ΡῈ 947: stituted for ᾿Αναξιμένην.
ἢ καθάπερ ᾿Αναξιμένης ὁ παλαιὸς 3 Simpl. Phys. 32 a; and pre-
ᾧετο, μήτε τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐν οὐσίᾳ μήτε viously in the same terms, p. 6
τὸ θερμὸν ἀπολείπωμεν, ἀλλὰ πάθη a: ᾿Αναξιμένης ἀραιούμενον μὲν
κοινὰ τῆς ὕλης ἐπιγινόμενα ταῖς τὸν ἀέρα πῦρ γίνεσθαί φησι, πυκνού-
μεταβολαῖς τὸ γὰρ συστελλύόμενον μενον δὲ ἄνεμον, εἶτα νέφος, εἶτα ἔτι
αὐτῆς καὶ πυκνούμενον ψυχρὸν εἶναί μᾶλλον ὕδωρ, εἶτα γῆν, εἶτα λίθους,
φησι, τὸ δὲ ἀραιὸν καὶ τὸ χαλαρὸν τὸ δὲ ἄλλα ἐκ τούτων: Hippol.
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 273

therefore which suppose Anaximenes to have fixed the

number of the elements at four,' are to be considered
inexact as to this point.
In the formation of the world, the condensation of
the air first produced the earth,? which Anaximenes
conceived as broad and flat, like the slab of a table, and
for that reason, supported by the air. He ascribed
after the passage quoted p. 267, 3: his omnia. WUHermias loc. cit.; Ne-
πυκνούμενον γὰρ καὶ ἀραιούμενον διά-- mes. Nat. Hom. c. 5, p. 74, has the
φορον φαίνεσθαι. ὅταν γὰρ εἰς τὸ same, but less precisely.
ἀραιότερον διαχυθῇ πῦρ γίνεσθαι, 2 Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8,
μέσως δὲ ἐπὰν εἰς ἀέρα πυκνούμενον 3: πιλουμένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος πρώτην
ἐξ ἀέρος νέφος ἀποτελεσθῇ κατὰ τὴν γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν τὴν γῆν. The
πόλησιν, instead of which, perhaps, same follows from the theory that
we should read: μέσως δὲ πάλιν εἰς the stars first arose out of the va-
ἀέρα, πυκν. ἐξ ἀέρ. νέφ. ἀποτελεῖσθαι pours of the earth. Howthe earth
kK. τ. πίλησιν---85 Roper (Phi/ol. vii. came first to be formed, and took
610), and Duncker (in his edition) its place in the centre of the uni-
contend—perhaps, however, ἀνέ- verse, is not explained. The words
μους may be concealed in the πιλουμένου Tov aépos in Plutarch
μέσως, and the following words admit of the notion that in the
should be otherwise amended: ἔτι condensation of the air the densest
δὲ μᾶλλον ὕδωρ, ἐπὶ πλεῖον πυκ- parts sank downwards. Instead
νωθέντα γῆν, καὶ εἰς τὸ μάλιστα πυκ- of this, Teichmiller (oc. cit. p. 83)
νώτατον λίθους. ὥστε τὰ κυριώτατα prefers to account for it by the
THs γενέσεως ἐναντία εἶναι θερμόν τε theory of the whirling motion (of
καὶ ψυχρόν. ... ἀνέμουςδὲ γεννᾶ- which we have spoken supra, p.
σθαι, ὅταν ἐκπεπυκνωμένος ὅ ἀὴρ 269, 3); but the passage from Aris-
ἀραιωθεὶς φέρηται (which no doubt totle, De Calo, ii. 18, there quoted,
means, when the condensed air does not seem to me to justify
spreads itself out anew; unless this course; for the word πάντες in
we should substitute for ἀραιωθείς, this passage cannot be so scrained
ἄρθείς, carried up aloft, which, in as to include every individual phi-
spite of the greater weight of the losopher who ever constructed a
condensed air, would be quite as cosmogony. For example, Plato
possible in itself as the presence (Tim. 40 B) knows nothing of the
(p. 274, 2) of earth-like bodies in Sivnois. Heracleitus never men-
the heavens), συνελθόντα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ tions it, and the Pythagoreans did
πλεῖον παχυθέντα νέφη γεννᾶσθα: not place the earth in the centre
[γενγᾷν, or, συνελθόντος καὶ ἐπὶ of the universe.
πλεῖον παχυθέντος ν. γεννᾶσθαι], καὶ 3 Aristotle, De Celo, ii. 13,
οὕτως εἰς ὕδωρ μεταβάλλειν. 294 b, 13; Plutarch ap. Eus.
» Cie. Acad. ii. 37,118: gigni loc. cit.; Plac. iii. 10, 3, where
autem terram aquam ignem tum ex Ideler, without any reason, would
VOL. I. T
274 ANAXIMENES.

the same form to the sun and stars, which he likewise

thought were floating in the air;'.in regard to their
origin, he supposed that the increasing rarefaction of
the vapours ascending from the earth produced fire;
and that this fire, pressed together by the force of the
rotation of the heavens, formed the stars, to which
a terrestrial nucleus was therefore ascribed.? He is
said to have been the first to discover that the moon
takes her light from the sun, and the reason of lunar

substitute ᾿Αναξαγόρας for *Avati- posed it to be formed of air liqui-

μένης, Hippol. loc. cit. fied by the action of fire). But in
: Hippol. loc. cit.: τὴν δὲ γῆν that case Hippolytus must have
πλατεῖαν εἰναι ἐπ᾽ ἀέρος ὀχουμένην expressed himself very inaccu-
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ rately.
τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα. πάντα γὰρ πύρινα 2 Hippol. loc. cit.: γεγονέναι δὲ
ὄντα ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι διὰ πλάτος. τὰ ἄστρα ἐκ γῆς διὰ τὸ τὴν ἰκμάδα
The flatness of the sun is also ἐκ ταύτης ἀνίστασθαι, Hs ἀραιουμένης
a
spoken of by Stobeus, i. 524; τὸ πῦρ γίνεσθαι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ πυρὸς
Plac. ii. 22, 1 (Avot. πλατὺν es μετεωρι(ζομένου τοὺς ἀστέρας συν-
πέταλον τὸν ἥλιον). Of the stars, ίστασθαι. εἶναι δὲ καὶ γεώδεις φύσεις
on the contrary, the same authori- ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τῶν ἀστέρων συμφερο-
ties (Eel. i. 510; Plac. ii. 14) say μένας ἐκείνοις (or, according to Stob.
that Anaximenes made them ἥλων i. 510: πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν
δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλ- ἀστέρων, περιέχειν δέ τινα καὶ γεώδη
λοειδεῖ: and in accordance with σώματα συμπεριφερόμενα τούτοις
this, Galen (Hist. Phil. 12) says: ἀόρατα). Plut. ap. Eus. Joe. eit.:
’"Avak. Thy περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτην τὸν ἥλιον Kal τὴν σελήνην Kal τὰ
γηΐνην εἶναι (Plac. ii. 11, 1). Our λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὴν ἀρχὴν Tis γενέσεως
text has instead: τὴν περιφορὰν ἔχειν ἐκ γῆς. ἀποφαίνεται γοῦν τὸν
τὴν ekwratw τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον γῆν, διὰ δὲ τὴν ὀξεῖαν κίνησιν
οὐρανόν ; but the pseudo-Galen here καὶ μάλ᾽ ἱκανῶς θερμοτάτην κίνησιν
seems to give the original reading. (perhaps θερμότητα should be
It is possible then that Anaximenes, read here without κίνησιν) λαβεῖν.
as Teichmiller (loc. cit. 86 sqq.) Theodoret asserts (Gr. aff. cum.
supposes, made only the sun, moon iv. 23, p. 59) that Anaximenes
and planets float in the air, and held that the stars consisted of
considered the fixed stars as fas- pure fire. This assertion, which
tened into the crystalline vault of was probably taken from the com-
heaven, in whatever way he may mencement of the notice preserved
have explained the origin of this by Stobeeus, must be judged of in
latter (Teichmiiller thinks that like the light of the foregoing texts.
Empedocles, Plac. ii. 11, 1,he sup-
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 275

eclipses.! The stars, he thought, moved, not from

the zenith towards the nadir, but laterally round the
earth, and the sun at night disappeared behind
the northern mountains ;? the circular form of their
1 Enudemus ap. Theo. (Dercyl- the beginning of the chapter, to
lides), Astrom. p. 324 Mart. mythical ideas about the ocean, on
5 Hippol. /oe. cit.: οὐ κινεῖσθαι which Helios fares back during the
δὲ ὑπὸ γῆν τὰ ἄστρα λέγει καθὼς night from west to east. This in-
ἕτεροι ὑπειλήφασιν. ἀλλὰ περὶ γῆν, terpretation cannot be based upon
ὡσπερεὶ περὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν κεφαλὴν the context, for there is no connec-
στρέφεται τὸ πιλίον, κρύπτεσθαί τε tion between the two passages,
τὸν ἥλιον οὐχ ὑπὸ γῆν γενόμενον, which are besides widely separated
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς γῆς ὑψηλοτέρων from each other. The mode of ex-
μερῶν σκεπόμενον, καὶ διὰ τὴν πλείο- pression also is decidedly against
να ἡμῶν αὐτοῦ γενομένην ἀπόστασιν. such a view. Aristotle always
Stob. 1.510: οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν δὲ, calls the representatives of mythi-
ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι τοὺς eal and half-mythical cosmologies
ἀστέρας. According to these tes- theologians; by μετεωρολογία, on
timonies (that of Hippolytus espe- the other hand (uerewpoAdyos is
cially, seems to come from a trust- never used by him except in this
worthy source), we should include passage), he understands (Meteor. i.
Anaximenes among those of whom 1 sub init.) a specific branch of
Aristotle says in Meteor. ii. 1, 354 natural science (μέρος τῆς μεθόδου
a, 28: τὸ πολλοὺς πεισθῆναι τῶν ταὐτης), and in this, 85 he expressly
ἀρχαίων μετεωρολόγων τὸν ἥλιον μὴ remarks (loc. cit.), he agrees with
φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ γῆν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν γῆν the ordinary use of the words; me-
καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ἀφανίζεσθαι δὲ teorology, meteorosophy, and the
καὶ ποιεῖν νύκτα διὰ τὸ ὑψηλὴν εἶναι like, being common expressions to
πρὸς ἄρκτον τὴν γῆν. Anaximenes designate natural philosophers. Cf.
is the only philosopher, so far as for example, Aristophanes, Nud.
we know, who had recourse to the 228; Xen. Symp. 6, 6; Plato,
mountains of the north, for the Apol. 18 B, 23 D; Prot. 315 C.
explanation of the sun’s nightly We know that Anaxagoras, Dioge-
disappearance, and there is besides nes and Democritus also made the
so great a similarity between the sun go laterally round the earth
words of Hippolytus concerning (infra, vol. ii.). Now it might
him, and those of Aristotle concern- seem that if Anaximenes conceived
ing tae ancient meteorologists, that the segment of the circle which the
we may even conjecture with some sun describes between his rising
probability that Aristotle is here and setting above the horizon, to
thinking specially of Anaximenes. be continued and completed into a
Teichmiuller thinks (Joc. cit. p. 96) whole circle, he must necessarily
that the words, ἀρχαῖοι μετεωρο- have supposed it to be carried be-
λόγοι, do not relate to physical neath the earth. But even if this
theories, but like the ἀρχαῖοι καὶ circle cut the plane of our horizon,
διατρίβοντες περὶ τὰς θεολυγίας, at it would not therefore be carried
2
276 ANAXIMENES.

orbits he attributed resistance of the αἱτ"} In

to the
the stars no doubt we must look for the created gods of

under the earth, that is, under the the stars is absolutely impossible
base of the cylinder on the upper with Anaximenes. Teichmiller
side of which we live (ef. p. 273, 3); (loc. cit.) admits that he held a
it would form a ring passing round lateral rotation of the sun around
this cylinder, obliquely indeed, but the earth, a rotation in which the
still laterally ; it would go not ὑπὸ axis of its orbit stands obliquely
γῆν, but περὶ γῆν. As Anaximenes to the horizon, Only he thinks
made this circle dip at a certain that after its setting it does not
distance from the northern edge of move close round the earth, or
the earth’s habitable surface, which upon the earth behind the high
edge, according to his geographical northern mountains (p. 103)—a
ideas, would not be very far from notion which, so far as I know, no
the northern shore of the Black one has hitherto ascribed to Anaxi-
Sea, he might well believe that menes. In the Plac. 11. 16, 4, and
without some elevation of the earth therefore, also in Pseudo-Galen, 6.
at this, its northern verge, the sun 12, we read, instead of the words
would not entirely disappear from quoted above from Stob. 1. 510:
us, and that in spite of such eleva- ᾿Αναξιμένης, ὁμοίως ὑπὸ (Galen,
tion, some of its light would pene- manifestly erroneously, reads ἐπὶ)
trate to us even at night, if it τὴν γῆν καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι
were not diminished (according to τοὺς ἀστέρας. Teichmiller con-
the opinion of Hippolytus) by the cludes from this passage (p. 98)
great distance. But I by no means that the motion of the sun (of the
exclude the possibility that, ac- heavenly bodies) is the same above
cording to Anaximenes, the sun and beneath the earth, that the
and stars (of the stars, indeed, he circular movement of the firma-
expressly says this) and by infer- ment has the same radius above
ence the planets (if he supposed and below. But περὶ does not
the fixed stars to be fastened into mean above, and whatever kind of
the firmament, vide p. 274, 1) may motion it might in itself characte-
have descended at their setting, rise, as contrasted with ὑπὸ (this
either not at all, or very little be- we have already seen in the passa-
low the surface of the horizon. As ges from Aristotle, Hippolytus and
he imagined them to be flat like Stobzeus), it can only be used for a
leaves (vide p. 274, 1) and, therefore, circular Jateralmovement. In the
borne along by the air, he might Placita, it seems to me we have
easily suppose that when they simply en unskilful correction, oc-
reached the horizon, the resistance casioned perhaps by some mutila-
of the air would hinder their far- tion or corruption of the true text,
ther sinking (vide the following and authenticated by the other
note). What has now been said writers.
will, I hope, serve to showthe true 1 Stobzeus, i. 524, says: ᾿Αναξι-
value of Roth’s strictures (Gesch. μένης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον
der ahendl. Phil. 258) on those who ἀπεφήνατο, ὑπὸ πεπυκνωμένου δὲ
cannot see that a lateral motion of ἀέρος καὶ ἀντιτύπου ἐξωθούμενα τὰ
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 277

whom Anaximenes, as well as Anaximander, is said to

have spoken;' but the same doubt arises in his case as
in. Anaximander’s, viz., whether the infinitely many
worlds ascribed to him ? relate to the stars or to an in-
finite series of successive systems.? However this may
be, we are justified by the testimonies of Stobeeus* and
ἄστρα Tas τροπὰς ποιεῖσθαι. Simi- seems to designate every change in
jarly Place. li. 28,1: ᾽Α. ὑπὸ πεπυ- the orbit of the heavenly bodies,
κνωμένου ἀέρος καὶ ἀντιτύπον which altered the previous direc-
ἐξωθεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα. In both au- tion of their course. Thus the
thors this stands under the heading proposition of Anaximenes quoted
περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου (in Stobeus, above must have been intended to
περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου... καὶ τροπῶν, explain, not the sun’s deviation at
&e.), and they probably, therefore, the solstices, but the circular orbit
meant what are usually called the of the heavenly bodies—those, at
two solstices, which Anaximenes least, which are not fixed in the
might have explained in this man- firmament. At the same time,
ner consistently with his notion of however, it may be that he wishes
the sun. Itis noticeable, however, to explain why their orbits are con-
that they both speak of the dis- tinued without descending, or in
placement (Stobeeus says also τρο- descending very little, beneath the
mat) of the ἄστρα, to which τροπαὶ plane of our horizon, vide previous
in this sense are not elsewhere at- note. By τροπαὶ he would mean in
tributed. It is, therefore, probable that case the inflexion in the curves
that the proposition ascribed by described by them.
these writers to Anaximenes had 1 Hippol. vide supra, p. 267, 8;
originally another meaning, and Aug. Civ. 1). viii. 2: omnes rerum
signified that the stars were forced causas infinito aéri dedit : nec deos
by the resistance of the wind from negavit aut tacuit: non tamen ab
the direction of their course. The ipsis aérem factum, sed ipsos ex
expression employed does not hin- aére factos credidit; and after
der this interpretation. Aristotle him, Sidon. Apoll. xv. 87; ef.
himself speaks (De Celo, ii. 14, Krische, Forsch. 55 sq.
296 b, 4) of τροπαὶ τῶν ἄστρων: 2 Stob. Eel. i. 496; Theod. Gr.
Meteor. ii. 1, 353 Ὁ, 8, of τροπαὶ aff. cur. iv. 15, p. 58.
ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης; and ibid. 355 a, 3 That he did not assume a
25, of τροπαὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; and plurality of co-existent systems, is
Anaxagoras, who is so often allied expressly stated by Simplicius, vide
with Anaximenes in his astrono- p. 278, 1.
mical theories, taught, according * Loe. cit. 416: ᾿Αναξίμανδρος,
᾿ to Hippol. i. 8, line 37: τροπὰς δὲ ᾿Αναξιμένης, ᾿Αναξαγόρας, ᾿Αρχέλαος,
ποιεῖσθαι Kal ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην Διογένης, Λεύκιππος φθαρτὸν τὸν
ἀπωθουμένους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος. σελήνην κόσμον, καὶ οἱ Stwixol φθαρτὸν τὸν
δὲ πολλάκις τρέπεσθαι διὰ τὸ μὴ κόσμον, Kat’ ἐκπύρωσιν δέ, The
δύνασθαι κρατεῖν τοῦ ψυχροῦ. Τροπὴ destruction of the world dy fire is
278 ANAXIMENES.

Simplicius,' which mutually support and complete one

another, in attributing to him the doctrine of an alter-
nate construction and destruction of the world.
The hypotheses concerning the origin of rain, snow,
hail, lightning, the rainbow,? and earthquakes,? which
are ascribed to Anaximenes, sometimes on good au-
thority, are for us of secondary importance; and his
theory of the nature of the soul,’ based chiefly upon
the ordinary popular opinion, he himself does not seem
to have further developed.
This survey of the doctrines attributed to Anaxi-
menes may now enable us to determine the ques-
tion already raised: did Anaximenes owe nothing to
Anaximander except in some minor points of his en-
quiry ?° It seems to me that his philosophy taken as
a whole clearly betrays the influence of his predeces-
sor. For Anaximander had in all probability already
expressly asserted not only the infinity, but the ani-
mate nature and perpetual motion of primitive matter.
Anaximenes reiterates these theories, and, by virtue
of them, seems to reach his conclusion that air is the
primitive matter. It is true that he returns from the
here ascribed, not to Anaximander, Floril. Ed. Mein. iv. 151). Theo
&c., but only to the Stoies ;though in Arat. ν. 940.
it is not improbable that Anaxi- 8 Arist. Meteor. ii. 7, 365 a, 17
mander also held it. Vide supra, b, 6; Plac. iii. 15, 3; Sen. Qu. Nat.
p. 260. vi. 10; ef. Ideler, Arist. Meteorol.
1 Phys. 257 Ὁ. : ὅσοι ἀεὶ μὲν i. 585 sq. Perhaps in this also
φασιν εἶναι κόσμον, οὐ μὴν τὸν αὐτὸν Anaximenes follows Anaximander,
ἀεὶ, ἀλλὰ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον vide supra, p. 256, 3.
κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ὡς 4 In the fragment discussed
᾿Αναξιμένης τε καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ p. 268, 3, and p. 270, from which
Διογένης. doubtless the short statement in
2 Hippol. loc. cit.; Placita, iii. Stob. Hel. i. 796. and Theodoret,
Ὁ 1 ΗΠ ston. 1 690: Joh; Gr. aff. cur. ν. 18, is taken.
Damase. Parall. 5. i. 8, 1 (Stob. 5 Ritter, i. 214.
 HISTORICAL POSITION. 279
᾿
indeterminate conception of infinite substance to ἃ
determinate substance, and that he represents things as
arising out of this not by separation, but by rarefaction
and condensation. But at the same time he is evidently
concerned to maintain what Anaxagoras had held about
the primitive substance; and thus his principle may
be described as the combination of the two previous
principles. With Thales, he accepts the qualitative
determinateness of primitive matter ; with Anaximander
he expressly asserts its infinity and animation. For
the rest he inclines chiefly to Anaximander. Even if
we cannot with justice ascribe to him the doctrine of
the destruction of the world, and of innumerable worlds
in succession, we can still see his dependence on his
predecessor’ in his ideas concerning the primitive
opposition of heat and cold, the form of the earth and
stars, on atmospheric phenomena, in what he says of the
stars as the created gods, perhaps also in the opinion
that the soul is like air in its nature. Yet this depen-
dence is not so great, nor his own original achievement
so insignificant that we should be justified in refusing
to recognise any kind of philosophic progress in his
doctrine.” For Anaximander’s notion of infinite matter
is too indeterminate to explain particular substances,
and the ‘ separation ’ by which he accounts for all pro-
duction of the derived from the original, is open to the
same charge. The determinate substances, according
to him, are not as such contained in the primitive sub-
1 Strimpell, therefore, in doctrines, as with the chronology.
placing Anaximenes before Anaxi- 2 Haym. Allg, Enc. Sect. iii. vol.
mander, is as little in accordance xxiv. 27.
with the internal relation of their
280 LATER IONIANS.

stance: separation is therefore only another expression

for the Becoming of the particular. Anaximenes at-
tempted to gain a more definite idea of the physical pro-
cess, by which things are evolved from primitive matter;
and to that end, he sought the primitive matter itseli
in a determinate body, qualified to be the substratum of
that process. Such an attempt was certainly of great
importance ; and, considering the state of enquiry at
that period, marked real progress. On this account,
the latter Ionian physicists especially followed Anaxi-
menes; to such an extent indeed, that Aristotle at-
tributes the doctrine of rarefaction and condensation
to all those who take a determinate substance for their
principle;! and a century after Anaximenes, Diogenes
of Apollonia and Archelaus again set up his theory of
primitive matter.

IV. THE LATER ADHERENTS OF THE IONIC SCHOOL.

DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

Arter Anaximenes, there is a lacwna in our knowledge

of the Ionic school. If we consulted only the chronology,
this lacuna would be filled by Heracleitus; but the
peculiar nature of his philosophy separates him from
the earlier Ionians. Meanwhile the theories of the
Milesian physicists must have been propagated during
this period, and even have given occasion to farther
definitions. This is clear from the subsequent appear-
ance of similar doctrines, about which, however, our

1 Vide supra, Ὁ. 248, 1.

 HIPPO. 281

information is for the most part very scanty. The

philosophers whom we have to mention in this connec-
tion are chiefly allied with Anaximenes; they make
either the air itself, or a body of the nature of air, their
primitive matter. But the doctrine of Thales likewise
found adherents ;for example, Hippo,'a physicist of the
time of Pericles,? whose country is uncertain,’ and his
personal history unknown.* Like Thales, he declared
1 Cf. Schleiermacher, Werke, and this is, of course, the most
Abtheilung, iii. 405-410; Bergk, probable; others, perhaps con-
Reliquie Comed. Att. 164, 185; fusing him with Hippasus, say
Backhuizen Van den Brink, Varie that he came from Rhegium (Sext.
lectiones ex historia philosophie an- Pyrrh. iii. 30; Math. ix. 361;
tigue (Leyden, 1842), 36-59. Hippolyt. Refut. Her. i. 16), or
2 This is clear from the state- Metapontum (Cens. Joc. cit.). The
ment of the Scholiast of Aristo- same blunder may have occa-
phanes, Nub. 96, exhumed by sioned his being placed by Iambli-
Bergk, that Cratinus in the Pa- chus (loc. cit.) among the Pythago-
noptai ridiculed him (infra, p. reans ; though the author of that
283, 5). His theories also point catalogue scarcely needed this ex-
to a later date.. The detailed en- cuse. Perhaps Aristoxenus had
quiries concerning the formation remarked that he studied the doc-
and development of the fetus seem trines of Pythagoras; and Jambli-
to contain some allusions to Empe- chus, or his authority, therefore
docles (vide Backhuizen Van den made himouta Pythagorean. The
Brink, 48 sq.). He seems also to statement that he came from Melos
be thinking of Empedocles when (Clemens, Cohort. 15 A; Arnob.
he combats the hypothesis that the Adv. Nat. iv. 29) can be more dis-
soul is blood (this, however, is less tinetly traced to a confusion with
certain ; for that idea is an ancient Diagoras (who, in the above-quoted
popularopinion). These enquiries, passages, is coupled with him as an
at any rate, serve to show the ten- atheist), if not to a mere slip of
dency of the later physicists to the the pen, in the text of Clemens.
observation and explanation of or- * From the attacks of Cratinus
ganic life. The more abstract nothing more can be gathered
conception of Thales’ principle, than that he must have resided
whieh Alexander ascribes to him, for some time in Athens; Bergk
is likewise in acevrdance with this. (p. 180) farther concludes from
That he had already been opposed the verse in Athen. xili. 610 b,
by Alemzon (Cens. Di. Nat. c. δ) that he wrote in verse, but it does
is a mistake (Schleiermacher, 409). not follow that he may not also
3 Aristoxemus ap. Cens. Di. have written in prose. The con-
Nat. c. 5, and Iamblichus, V. Pyth. jecture (Backhuizen Van den
267, describe him as a Samian, Brink, p. 55) that Hippo was the
282 HIPPO.

water to be the first principle of all things,! or as Alex-

ander,? probably with more accuracy,’ says, moisture
(τὸ ὑγρὸν), without any more precise determination.
He was led to this chiefly as it seems by considering
the moist nature of animal seed ;* it was at any rate for
this reason that he held the soul to be a liquid analo-
gous to the seed from which, in his opinion, it sprang.’
He probably therefore concluded, like Anaximenes, that
that which is the cause of life and motion must be also
the primitive matter. He made fire originate from
water ; and the world from the overcoming of water by
fire;® on which account his principles are sometimes
author of the writing περὶ ἀρχῶν, already observed, however (p. 218).
falsely ascribed to Thales, and that in so doing they merely turned
quoted supra, p. 216, 2, and p. 226, Aristotle’s conjecture (Metaph. i. 3)
1, is to me very improbable, be- into a formal statement.
cause of the expressions, ἀρχαὶ and δ᾽ Arist. De An. 1. Ὁ. 405 85
στοιχεῖον, which it contains. τῶν δὲ φορτικωτέρων καὶ ὕδωρ τινὲς
1 Arist. Metaph. 1. 3, 984 a, 3; ἀπεφήναντο [τὴν ψυχὴν] καθάπερ
Simpl. Phys. 6 a, 32 a; De Cele, Ἵππων. πεισθῆναι δ᾽ ἐοίκασιν ἐκ τῆς
268 a, 44; Schol. in Arist. 513 a, γονῆς, ὅτι πάντων ὕγρά. καὶ γὰρ
po; Philop. Bean. Aas OL 7. ἐλέγχει τοὺς αἷμα φάσκοντας τὴν
2 Ad Metaphys. p. 21, Bon. ψυχὴν, ὅτι ἣ γονὴ οὐχ αἷμα (he
3. Aristotle classes him gene- sought to prove, according to Cens.
rally with Thales, without defi- loc. cit., by study of animals, that
nitely saying that he made water the seed comes from the marrow)
his first principle; this was first ταύτην δ᾽ εἶναι τὴν πρώτην ψυχήν.
said by later writers. But from Herm. /rris, ὁ. 1 (ef. Justin, Co-
Aristotle’s procedure elsewhere, we hort. e. 7): Hippo considers the
can see that he would have had no soul to be a ὕδωρ γονοποιόν. Hip-
scruple in identifying the ὑγρὸν polyt. loc. cit.: τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ποτὲ
with the more determinate ὕδωρ. μὲν ἐγκέφαλον ἔχειν (read λέγει, or
4 Vide the following note. with Duncker: ἔφη εἶναι) ποτὲ δὲ
Simplicius, De Celo, 273 Ὁ, 36; ὕδωρ, καὶ yap τὸ σπέρμα εἶναι τὸ
Schol. in Arist. 514 a, 26; and φαινόμενον ἡμῖν ἐξ ὑγροῦ, ἐξ οὗ φησι
Philoponus, De An. A, 4, say more ψυχὴν γίνεσθαι. Stob. 1.798 ; Ter-
distinctly that Thales and Hippo tull. De An.c. 5; Philop. De An.
held water to be the primitive ΑΝ:
matter, on account of the mois- 6 Hippol. J. ¢.: Ἵππων δὲ ὁ
ture of the seed and of nourish- ‘Pnyivos ἀρχὰς ἔφη ψυχρὸν τὸ ὕδωρ
ment in general. It has been καὶ θερμὸν τὸ πῦρ. γεννώμενον δὲ τὸ
 HIPPO. 285

asserted to be fire and water.' What his more exact

opinions were as to the constitution of the universe—
whether the erroneous statement that he held the earth
to have been the first,? had any real foundation in fact
—whether in harmony with Anaximander and Anaxi-
menes, he may perhaps have taught that out of fluid,
under the influence of fire, the earth was first formed,
and out of the earth, the stars—we have no means of
determining.* As little do we know on what ground
Hippo was charged with atheism,* as he has been in
several quarters. The unfavourable judgment of Aris-
totle as to his philosophic capacity,® however, greatly
reconciles us to the meagreness of the traditions respect-
ing his doctrine. He was no doubt less of a philoso-
pher than an empirical naturalist, but even as such,
from what we hear of him,® he does not seem to have
attained any great importance.
πῦρ ὑπὸ ὕδατος κατανικῆσαι Thy τοῦ 4 Plut. Comm. Not. ὃ. 31, 4;
γεννήσαντος δύναμιν, συστῆσαί τε Alexander, loc. cit. and other
τὸν κόσμον. commentators; Simpl. Phys. 6 a;
1 Vide previous note and Sex- De An. 8 a; Philop. De An. A,
tus. loc. cit.; Galen, H. Phil. ¢. 5, p. 4; Clemen. Cohort. 15 A, 36 C;
243. Arnob. iv. 29; Athen. xiii. 610 Ὁ;
2 Johannes Diac. Alleg. in Hes. fElian, V. H. ii. 31; Eustach. in
Theog. v. 116, Ὁ. 446. fl. @ 79; Odyss. T 381. What
3 This holds good of the state- Alexander and Clemens say about
ment alluded to (p. 281, 2) that his epitaph as the oceasion of
Cratinus made the same charge this imputation explains nothing.
against Hippo that Aristophanes Pseudo-Alex. in Metaph. vii. 2;
did against Socrates, viz. that he xii. 1, p. 428, 21, 643, 24, Bon., as-
taught that the heavens were a serts that his materialism was the
πνιγεὺς (an oven or hollow cover cause; but this is evidently a
warmed by coals), and that men conjecture.
were the coals in it. Hemay have 5 In the passages cited p. 282,
supposed the sky to be a dome 1, 5.
resting upon the earth; but how 6 Besides what has been al-
this could be brought into connee- ready quoted we should here men-
tion with his other notions, we do tion his theories on birth and the
not know. formation of the fetus, Censor. Di.
284 IDAEUS.

As Hippo was influenced by Thales, so Idaeus of

Himera appears to have been influenced by Anaximenes.'
Anaximenes most likely also originated the two theories
mentioned in some passages by Aristotle;? according
to the one, primitive matter in respect of density stands
midway between water and. air ; according to the other,
between air and fire. That both theories belong to a
younger generation of Ionian physicists is probable, for
they occupy an intermediate position between older
philosophers; the one between Thales and Anaximenes,
the other between Anaximenes and Heracleitus. We
must, however, primarily refer them to Anaximenes,
since he was the first who raised the question of the
relative density of the different kinds of matter, and
who explained the formation of particular substances
by the processes of condensation and rarefaction. In
this way he arrived at the opposition of rarefied and
condensed air, or warm air and cold air; if warm air
were adopted as the primitive element, the result was
an intermediary between air and fire; if cold air, an
intermediary between air and water.?
Nai. c. 5-7, 9; Plut. Plac. v. 5, 3, Διογένης . . ἀέρα [ἀρχὴν
7, 3, into which I cannot now en- ἔλεξαν]. Besides this we know
ter more particularly, and a remark nothing of Ideeus.
about the difference between wild 2 Vide p, 241,1, 2. These pas-
and cultivated plants in Theophrast. sages do not relate to Diogenes,
Pre ant. 1.58} δ pills 2s Ὡς as will presently be shown.
Athen, xili. 610 b, contains a verse 3 In connection with Anaxi-
of his against πουλυμαθημοσύνη, menes we should mention Melesa-
which resembles the famous saying goras ; accordingto Brandis, i, 148,
of Heracleitus; he quotes the same Clemens (Strom. vi. 629, A) names
verse, however, as coming from him as the author of a book trans-
Timon, who might have borrowed scribed from Anaximenes; and as
it from Hippo. holding similar doctrines to those
1 Sext. Math. ix. 360: ’Avagi- of Anaximenes. Clemens also
μένης δὲ Kal ᾿Ιδαῖος 6 Ἱμεραῖος καὶ says: τὰ δὲ Ἡσιόδου μετήλλαξαν
 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA. 285

Diogenes of Apollonia’ is a philosopher with whom

we are better acquainted ; and his doctrine shows in a
striking manner that the Ionic school maintained its
early presuppositions, even when other and-more de-
eis πεζὸν λόγον καὶ ὡς ἴδια ἐξήνεγ- tle. He was a native of Apollonia
kav Εὔμηλός τε καὶ ᾿Ακουσίλαος οἱ (Diog. ix. 57, &e.), by which Ste-
ἱστοριογράφοι. Μελησαγόρον γὰρ phen of Byzantium (De Urb. 8. v.
ἔκλεψεν Topyias ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ p- 106, Mein.) understands Apol-
Εὔδημος ὁὁ Νάξιος οἱ ἱστορικοὶ, καὶ ἐπὶ lonia in Crete, but as he wrote in
τούτοις 6 Προκοννήσιος Βίων... the Ionic dialect, it is doubtful if
᾿Αμφίλοχός τε καὶ ᾿Αριστοκλῆς A this can be the city. His date
Λεάνδριος καὶ ᾿Αναξιμένης, καὶ Ἑλλά- will hereafter be discussed. Ac-
νικος, ἃ soon. But this Melesa- cording to Demetrius Phalerius
goras, who was made use of by ap. Diog. loc. cit., he was in danger
various historians, can scarcely through unpopularity at Athens,
have been any other than the by which is probably meant that:
well-known Logographer, who was he was threatened with similar
also called Amelesagoras (see Miul- charges to those brought forward
ler, Hist. of Gr. ii. 21), and the against Anaxagoras. But there
Anaximenes, whom Clemens names may be some confusion here with
among a number of historians, is Diagoras. The assertion of Antis-
certainly not our philosopher, but thenes, the historian (ap. Diog.
likewise ἃ historian, probably ἰ. ¢.), repeated by Augustine, Civ.
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, men- Dei, viii. 2, that he attended the
tioned by Diogenes, the nephew instructions of Anaximenes 15
of the orator. It is a question, merely based on conjecture, and is
moreover, whether we ought not as worthless in point of evidence as
to read Εὐμήλου instead of Μελη- the statement of Diogenes (ii 6)
σαγόρου, or MeAnoaydpas instead that Anaxagoras was a hearer of
of Εὔμηλος ; and whether the words Anaximenes ; whereas, in all pro-
᾿Αμφίλυχος, &e., are to be con- bability, he was dead before Anaxi-
nected with ἔκλεψεν, and not with menes was born, cf. Krische, Forsch.
τὰ ησιόδου μετήλλαξαν, &c. 167 sq. Diogenes’s work, περὶ
1 The statements of the an- φύσεως, was used by Simplicius,
cients respecting him, and the frag- but (as Krische observes, p. 166)
ments of his work, have been he does not seem to have been ac-
carefully collected and annotated quainted with the second book
by Schleiermacher (Ueber Diogenes of it, which Galen quotes in Hip-
v. Apollonia, third section of his pocr. vi. Epidem. vol. xvii. 1 a,
collected works, ii. 149 sqq.) and 1006-K. That Diogenes composed
by Panzerbieter (Diogenes Apollo- two other works is doubtless an
niates, 1830). Cf. also Steinhart, error of this writer, founded ona
Allg. Eneycl. of Ersch and Gruber, misapprehension of some of his
Sect. I. vol. xxv. 296 sqq.; Mul- utterances (Phys. 32 b), vide
lach, Fragm. Philos. Gr. i. 252 Schleiermacher, p. 108 sq.; Pan-
sqq. Of his life we know very lit- zerbieter, p. 21 sqq.
280 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

veloped ideas had been introduced into it. On one side

he is closely connected with Anaximenes, on another he
in all probability transcends him: not only is his expo-
sition more methodical in form and more careful as to
details, but he is also distinguished from his predecessor
in having ascribed to the air, as primitive cause and
primitive matter, certain spiritual qualities, and having
tried to explain the life of the soul by the air so appre- |
hended. To gain a fixed basis for his enquiry,’ he
determined the general characteristics which must
belong to the primitive essence. On the one hand he
said it must be the common matter of all things, and
on the other, an essence capable of thought. His
argument for the first assertion was the following. We
know that things change one into another, that sub-
stances mix, and that things influence and affect each
other. None of these phenomena would be possible if
the various bodies were distinct as to their essence.
They must therefore be one and the same, must have
sprung from the same substance, and must be resolved
into the same again.? In proof of the second assertion,
1 According to Diogenes, vi. φύσει καὶ οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐὸν μετέπιπτε
81; ix. 57, his work began with πολλαχῶς καὶ ἡτεροιοῦτο, οὐδαμῆ
a
the words: λόγου παντὺς ἀρχόμενον οὔτε μίσγεσθαι ἀλλήλοις ἠδύνατο,
δοκέει μοι χρεὼν εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν οὔτε ὠφέλησις τῷ ἑτέρῳ οὔτε βλάβη
ἀναμφισβήτητον παρέχεσθαι, τὴν δὲ . οὐδ᾽ ἂν οὔτε φυτὸν ἐκ THs γῆς
ἑρμηνηΐην ἁπλῆν καὶ σεμνήν. φῦναι, οὔτε ζῷον οὔτε ἄλλο γενέσθαι
* Fr. 2 ap. Simpl. Phys. 32 Ὁ: οὐδὲν, εἰ μὴ οὕτω συνίστατο, ὥστε
ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκέει, τὸ μὲν ξύμπαν εἰπεῖν, τωὐτὸ εἶναι. ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦτα ἐκ
πάντα τὸ ἐόντα ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑτεροιούμενα ἄλλοτε
ἑτεροιοῦσθαι καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι. καὶ ἀλλοῖα γίγνεται καὶ ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ ἄνα-
τοῦτο εὔδηλον. εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷδε τῷ χωρέει. Fr. 6, ap. Simpl. 33 a:
κόσμῳ ἐόντα νῦν γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ οὐδὲν δ᾽ οἷόν τε γενέσθαι τῶν ἕτεροι-
τἄλλα, boa φαίνεται ἐν τῷδε τῷ ουμένων ἕτερον ἑτέρου πρὶν ἂν τὸ
κόσμῳ ἐόντα, εἰ τουτέων τι ἦν τὸ αὐτὸ γένηται, and Arist. Gen. et
ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου ἕτερον ἐὸν τῇ ἰδίῃ Corr.i. 6, 822, Ὁ, 12. What Dio-
 THE PRIMITIVE ESSENCE. 287

Diogenes appealed in a general manner to the wise and

felicitous distribution of matter in the world;! and
more particularly, to this testimony of our experience—
that life and thought are produced in all living natures
by the air which they breathe, and are bound up with
this substance.? He therefore concluded that the
substance of which all things consist must be a body
eternal, unchangeable, great and powerful, and rich in
knowledge.? All these qualities he thought he dis-
covered in the air; for the air penetrates all things,
and in men and animals produces life and conscious-
ness ; the seed of animals, also, is of a nature like air.
He, therefore, with Anaximenes, declared air to be the
matter and ground of all things.® This is attested
almost unanimously ἢ by ancient writers; and Diogenes
himself says’ that air is the essence in which reason
genes 1x. 57, says he taught—viz. 4 Vide notes 1, 2, and 7.
that nothing comes from nothing > Or as Theophrastus De Sensu
or to nothing—is here indeed pre- 8,42. Cicero, NW. D. i. 12, 29, says
supposed, but whether he expressly the Deity; cf. Arist. Phys. iii. 4
enunciated this principle we do not (supra, p. 248, 1). Sidon. Apoll.
know. xy. 91, discriminates the air of Dio-
1 Fr. 4, Simpl. loc. cit.; οὐ yap genes as the matter endowed with
ἂν οὕτω δεδάσθαι [se. τὴν ἀρχὴν] creative energy, from God, but this
οἷόν τε ἦν ἄνευ νοήσιος, ὥστε πάντων is of course unimportant.
μέτρα ἔχειν, χειμῶνός τε καὶ θέρεος 5 The passages in question are
καὶ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρης καὶ ὑετῶν καὶ given in extenso by Panzerbieter,
ἀνέμων καὶ εὐδιῶν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα εἴ p- 538 sqq. In this place it is
τις βούλεται ἐννοέεσθαι, εὑρίσκοι sufficient to refer to Arist. Metaph.
ἂν οὕτω διακείμενα ὡς ἀνυστὸν 1. 3, 984 a, 5; De An. 405 a,
κάλλιστα. 21; Theophrast. ap. Simpl. Phys.
2 Fr. ὅ,ibid: ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις 6 a.
καὶ τάδε μεγάλα σημεῖα: ἄνθρωπος 7 Fr. 6, ap. Simpl. 33 a: καί
γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα ἀναπνέοντα μοι δοκέει τὸ τὴν νόησιν ἔχον εἶναι
ζώει τῷ ἀέρι, καὶ τοῦτο αὐτοῖς καὶ 6 ἀὴρ καλεόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ψυχή ἐστι καὶ νόησις. . . καὶ ἐὰν καὶ ὑπὸ τούτου πάντα καὶ κυβερνᾶσθαι
ἀπαλλαχθῇ ἀποθνήσκει καὶ ἣ νόησις καὶ πάντων κρατέειν. ἀπὸ γὰρ μοι
ἐπιλείπει. τούτου δοκέει ἔθος εἶναι (instead of
5. ἘΣ. 3 from Simpl, Phys. 33 a. ἀπὸ Panzerbieter here reads αὐτοῦ;
288 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

dwells, and which guides and governs all things, because

its nature is to spread itself everywhere, to order all
and to be in all. Nicolaus of Damascus, Porphyry,'
and in one passage,” likewise Simplicius, attribute to
Diogenes as his first principle the substance intermediate
between air and fire,’ so often mentioned by Aristotle.
This is unquestionably an error, into which they were
probably misled by Diogenes’ opinion, that the soul, by
analogy with which he defines his primitive essence,*
was of the nature of warm air. Nor can I agree with
Ritter’s similar theory,’ that the primitive essence of
Diogenes was not the ordinary atmospheric air, but a
more subtile kind, ignited by heat ; for not only do all
the accounts, and Diogenes’ own explanations, speak of
the air as ¢ that which is usually called air ;’ but accord-
ing to his own principles it would have been impossible
for him, while deriving all things from air by rare-
faction and condensation, to seek the original principle
(that which constituted the basis of all the different
forms and changes of the atmosphere), not in the

this I prefer to Mullach’s amend- ζῷων πνευματῶδές ἐστι καὶ νοήσεις

ment, which retains ἀπὸ, but sub- γίνονται τοῦ ἀέρος σὺν τῷ αἵματι τὸ
stitutes γόος for €6os ) καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ὅλον σῶμα καταλαμβάνοντος διὰ τῶν
ἀφῖχθαι καὶ πάντα διατιθέναι καὶ φλεβῶν.
ἐν παντὶ ἐνεῖναι καὶ ἐστὶ μηδέ ἕν ὅ τι 1 According to Simpl. Phys. 33
μὴ μετέχειτούτου. .. . καὶ πάντων b; 6 b.
τῶν ζῴων δὲ ἢ ψυχὴ τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν, 2 Phys. 44 a.
ἀὴρ θερμότερος μὲν τοῦ ἔξω ἐν é 3 Vide supra, Ὁ. 241, 1.
ἐσμὲν, τοῦ μέντοι παρὰ τῷ ἠελίῳ 4 Cf. the passage cited, p. 287,
πολλὸν ψυχρότερος. This soul is 2, 7, and the general canon of
besides very different in different Aristotle, De An. 1. 2, 405 a, 3, to
beings : ὅμως δὲ τὰ πάντα τῷ αὐτῷ which Panzerbieter (p. 59) refers
καὶ = καὶ ὁρᾷ καὶ ἀκούει καὶ τὴν in support of his hypothesis. Vide
ἄλλην νόησιν ἔχει ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ also p. 268, 2.
πάντα καὶ ἐφεξῆς δείκνυσιν, adds 5 Gesch. der Phil. i, 228 sqq.
Simplicius: ὅτι καὶ τὸ σπέρμα τῶν
 THE PRIMITIVE ESSENCE. 289

common aerial element, but in some particular kind of

air.! Schleiermacher’s conjecture also? is improbable,
that Diogenes himself held air to be the primitive
matter, but that Aristotle was doubtful as to his mean-
ing, and so ascribed to him sometimes the air in
general, sometimes warm or cold air. Such hesitation
on the part of Aristotle respecting the principles of
his predecessors is without precedent; from his whole
spirit and method it is far more likely that he may
have sometimes reduced the indefinite notions of earlier
philosophers to definite concepts, than that he should
have expressed himself in a vacillating and uncertain
manner in regard to their definite theories. Aristotle
repeatedly and decidedly declares that the principle of
Diogenes was air; he then speaks of some philosophers,
without naming them, whose principle was intermediate
between air and water. Now it is impossible that these
statements can relate to the same persons; we cannot
doubt, therefore, that it is air in the common accepta-
tion of the word, which our philosopher maintains to be
the essence of all things.
We find from the above quotations that Diogenes,
in his more precise description of the air, ascribed to it
two properties which correspond to the requirements
1 Though he may have gene- rally to be the first principle, that
rally described the air in compa- there are different kinds of air—
rison with other bodies as the warmer, colder, and so forth. Fur-
λεπτομερέστατον - or λεπτότατον ther particulars on this point will
(Arist. De An. loc. cit.), it does not be given later on.
follow that he held the rarest or * In his treatise on Anaxi-
warmest air alone to be the primi- mander, Werke, 3te Abth. iii. 184.
tive matter; on the contrary, he Cf. on the contrary, Panzerbieter,
says in Fr. 6 (vide infra, p. 291, 1), 56 sqq.
after having declared the air gene-
VOE. I. U
290 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

claimed by him in general for the primal matter. As

the substance of all things, it must be eternal and
imperishable, it must be contained in all things, and
permeate all things; as the cause of life and order in
the world, it must be a thinking and reasonable essence.
In the air these two aspects are united; for, according
to Diogenes’ view, because the air permeates all things,
it is that which guides and orders them; because it is
the basal matter of all, all is known to it; becawse it is
the rarest and subtlest matter, it is the most movable,
and the cause of all motion.! We are expressly told?
that he spoke of the air as the Infinite, and the state-
ment is the more credible, since Anaximenes, whom
Diogenes in other respects follows most closely, employed
a similar definition. Moreover Diogenes describes the
air in the same way that Anaximander describes his
ἄπειρον : and Aristotle says that the infinity of primi-
tive matter was held by most of the physiologists.*
But this definition seems to have been regarded by him
as of minor importance compared with the life and
force of the primitive essence; that is his main point,
and in it he discovers the chief proof of its air-like
nature.
On account of this vitality and constant motion,
the air assumes the most various forms. Its motion
consists, according to Diogenes (who here again follows
1 Videp. 287,7, and Arist.
De An. τούτου τὰ λοιπὰ, γινώσκειν, ἣ δὲ
1.2, 405 a, 21: Διογένης δ᾽, ὥσπερ λεπτότατον, κινητικὸν εἶναι.
2 Simpl. Phys. θΘἃ. Probably
« , Ἂν Ω ε ,
ἕτεροί τινες, ἄέρα (scil. ὑπέλαβε τὴν
ψυχὴν). τοῦτον οἰηθεὶς πάντων λεπτο- after Theophrastus: τὴν δὲ τοῦ
μερέστατον εἶναι καὶ ἀρχήν᾽ καὶ διὰ παντὸς φύσιν ἀέρα καὶ οὗτός φησιν
τοῦτο γινώσκειν τε καὶ κινεῖν τὴν ἄπειρον εἶναι καὶ ἀΐδιον.
ψυχὴν, ἧ μὲν πρῶτόν ἐστι καὶ ἐκ 3 Vide p. 269, 1:
 _RAREFACTION AND CONDENSATION. 291

Anaximenes), in qualitative changes, in rarefaction and

condensation ;! or, which is the same thing, in heating
and cooling; and so there arise in the air endless
modifications in respect of heat and cold, dryness and
dampness, greater or less mobility,? &c., corresponding
to the different stages of its rarefaction or condensation.
For the rest, Diogenes does not seem to have enume-
rated these differences systematically, after the manner
of the Pythagorean categories, though he must have
derived the different qualities of things, some from
rarefaction, some from condensation, and must so far
have coordinated them on the side of heat or cold.*
Nor do we find any trace of the four elements; we
do not know whether he assumed definite connecting
media between particular substances and the primi-
1 Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8,13: τέρην κίνησιν ἔχων, καὶ ἄλλαι πολλαὶ
κοσμοποιεῖ δὲ οὕτως" ὅτι τοῦ παντὸς ἑτεροιώσιες ἔνεισι καὶ ἡδονῆς καὶ
κινουμένου καὶ ἣ μὲν ἀραιοῦ ἢ δὲ χροιῆς ἄπειρο. Panzerbieter ex-
πυκνοῦ γενομένου ὅπου συνεκύρησε plains ἡδονὴ (p. 63 sq.) by taste, as
τὸ πυκνὸν συστροφὴν ποιῆσαι, καὶ the word also stands in Anaxago-
οὕτω τὰ λοιπὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ras Fr. 3; Xenophon, Anab. ii. 3, 16.
τὰ κουφότατα τὴν ἄνω τάξιν λαβόν- Still better would be the analogous
τα τὸν ἥλιον ἀποτελέσαι. Simpl. loc. meaning ‘smell,’ which the word
cit. after the words just quoted : ἐξ has in a fragment of Heracleitus.
οὗ πυκνουμένου καὶ μανουμένου καὶ ap. Hippol. Refut. Her. ix. 10; and
μεταβάλλοντος τοῖς πάθεσι τὴν τῶν in Theophrastus, De Sensu, 16, 90.
ἄλλων γίνεσθαι μορφήν, καὶ ταῦτα Schleiermacher, loc. cit. 154, trans-
μὲν Θεόφραστος ἱστορεῖ περὶ τοῦ lates it feeling (Gefiuhl); similarly
Διογένους. Diog. ix. 57, cf. what is Schaubach (Anazragor. Fragm. p.86)
cited from Aristotle, p. 248. 1, and Affectio; Ritter, Gesch. der Ion.
Arist. Gen. et Corr. ii. 9, 886 a, 3 Phil. 50, behaviour (Verhalien);
- 866. Gesch. der Phil. i. 228, inner dis-
* Fr.6, supra,p.287,7 (after the position (innerer Muth); Brandis,
words 6 tt μὴ μετέχει TovTov): 1. 281, internal constitution (innere
μετέχει BE οὐδὲ Ev ὁμοίως τὸ ἕτερον Beschaffenheit); Philippson, “Yan
τῷ ἑτέρῳ, ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ τρόποι καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη, p. 205, bona conditio
αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἄέρος- καὶ τῆς νοήσιος εἰσίν. interna.
ἔστι γὰρ πολύτροπος, καὶ θερμότερος 3 As Panzerbieter sets forth in
καὶ ψυχρότερος καὶ ζηρότερος καὶ detail, p. 102 sqq.
ὑγρότερος καὶ στασιμώτερος καὶ ὀξυ-
vu 2
202 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

tive substance, or identified the endless multiplicity of

particular substances with the innumerable stages of
rarefaction and condensation, so that the air would
become at one stage of condensation water, at another
flesh, at a third stone. The most probable supposition,
however, and the one which seems to result from the
above statements of his about the different kinds of air,
and also from his opinion on the development of the
foetus (vide onfra)—is that he employed neither of the
two modes of explication exclusively, and, generally
speaking, in the derivation of phenomena, followed no
fixed and uniform method.
The first result of condensation and rarefaction was
to separate from the infinite primitive substance, the
heavy matter which moved downwards, and the light
matter which moved upwards. From the former the
earth was produced; from the latter, the sun, and no
doubt the stars also.! This motion upwards and down-
wards Diogenes was forced to derive in the first place
from heaviness and lightness, and secondly, from the
inherent animation of matter as such. For the moving
intelligence with him absolutely coincides with matter;
the different kinds of air are also different kinds of
thought (Fr. 6); that thought was added to material
substances, and set them in motion,? is a view which
would have been impossible to him. But after the first
division of substances has been accomplished, al] motion
proceeds from the warm and the light.’ Diogenes ex-
plained the soul of animals to be warm air; and so in

1 Plutarch, vide supra, p.290,4. 111 sq.

2 As Panzerbieter represents, 3 Fr. 6, supra, p. 287, 7.
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 293

the system of the world he regarded warm matter as

the principle of motion, the efficient cause; and cold
dense matter,! as the principle of corporeal consistency.
In consequence of heat,’ the universe he thought had
acquired a circular motion from which also the earth
took its round shape.? By this circular motion, how-
ever, he seems to have intended merely a lateral motion ;
and by the roundness of the earth a cylindrical, and
not a spherical shape ; for he assumed with Anaxagoras
that the inclination of the earth’s axis towards its
surface arose subsequently from some unknown cause
(ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου), and that the axis at first ran per-
pendicularly down through the earth.* He was the
' From the union of these by Anaxagoras maintained: μετὰ τὸ
means of νόησις arose (according to συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ
Steinhart, p. 299) sensible air. I τῆς γῆΞ ἐξαγαγεῖν ἔγκλιθῆναί mes
know not, however, on what eyi- τὸν κόσμον éx τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ
dence this assumption is based; it μεσημβρινὸν αὐτοῦ μέρος (ἴσως, adds
seems to me inadmissible for the the author doubtless in his own
reasons I brought forward against name, ὑπὸ προνοίας, in order to
Ritter on p. 288. Nor 401 see any show the difference between the
proof of the accuracy of the further habitable and uninhabitable zones).
observation that ‘the sensible air Anaxagoras, however, said, accord-
is supposed to consist of an infinite ing to Diog. 11. 9: τὰ 8 ἄστρα κατ᾽
number of simple bodies;’ for Dio- ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι ὥστε
genes is never mentioned by Aris- κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς (perpendicu-
totle in the passage, De Part. Anim. larly over the upper surface of the
ii. 1, to which note 38 refers. earth, which, like Anaximenes and
2 Whether primitive heat or others, he supposed to be shaped
the sun’s heat, is not stated, but like a cylinder, ef. vol. ii. Anaz.) τὸν
from Alex. Meteorolog. 93 Ὁ, the ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πέλον, ὕστερον
sun’s heat seems to be intended. δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν ; so that, ac-
3. Diog. ix. 57 : τὴν δὲ γῆν στρογ- cording to this, the stars in their
γύλην, ἐρηρεισμένην ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, daily revolution would at first have
τὴν σύστασιν εἰληφυῖαν κατὰ τὴν ἐκ only turned from east to west late-
τοῦ θερμοῦ περιφορὰν καὶ πῆξιν ὑπὸ rally around the earth's disc, and
τοῦ ψυχροῦ, on which cf. Panzer- those above our horizon would
bieter, p. 117 sq. never have gone belowit. The
* According to the Plac. ii. 8, i obliquity of the earth’s axis to its
(Stobzeus, i. 358; Ps. Galen, ec. 11, surface was produced later, and
to the same effect) Diogenes and caused the paths of the sun and
 407

294 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

more disposed to adopt Anaxagoras’s notion as to the

shape of the earth, and the original motion of the
heavens, since Anaximenes had led him to the same
result. Like Anaximander, he conceived of the earth
in its primeval state as a soft and fluid mass gradually
dried by the sun’s heat. This is also proved by its
having received its form in course of the rotation.
What remained of the primitive liquid became the
seas, the salt taste of which he derived from the evapo-
ration of the sweet portions: the vapours developed
from the drying up of the moisture served to enlarge the
heavens.!. The earth is full of passages through which,

stars to cut the plane of the hori- that the sea and all the waters
zon; hence arose the alternation of must have overflowed the southern
day and night. What we are to part of the earth’s surface. Pan-
think in regard to the details of zerbieter, therefore, conjectures
this system is (as Panzerbieter, p. that Anaxagoras made the heavens
129 sqq. shows) hard to say. If incline not to the south, but to the
the whole universe, that is, the north, and that in the passage in
heavens and the earth, inclined to the Placita we should perhaps read
the south, nothing would have προσβόρειον or μεσοβόρειον, instead
changed in the position of the earth of μεσημβρινόν. But considering
in relation to the heavens, and the that our three texts are agreed
temporary disappearance of most of upon the word, this is scarcely
the stars below the horizon, and the eredible. We shall, however, find
alternation of day and night, would (infra, vol. ii.) that Leucippus and
be inexplicable. If the heavens Democritus believed in a depression
(or which is the same thing, the of the southern part of the earth’s
upper end of the earth's axis) had dise. If these philosophers could
inclined to the south, the sun in discover an expedient unknown to
its revolution around this axis us but satisfactory to them, by
would have come nearer and nearer which they could escape the obvious
the horizon the further south it difficulties of this hypothesis, Dio-
went. It would have risen in the genes and Anaxagoras could also
west and set in the east ; we should have discovered one; and on the
have had midnight when it was in other hand, their theory of the in-
the south ; midday when it was in clination of the earth gives us a
the north. If, on the other hand, clue to the opinions of Leucippus
the earth had inclined to the south and Democritus on the same
and the axis of the heavens had re- subject.
mained unaltered, it would seem 1 Arist. Meteor.ii, 2, 355 a, 21;
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 295

the air penetrates: if the outlets of these are blocked

up, there are earthquakes.! In the same way Diogenes
held the sun and stars” to be porous bodies, of a forma-
tion like pumice stone, the hollows of which are filled
with fire or fiery air. The theory of the origin of the
stars from moist exhalations,* in connection with that
just quoted from Alexander on the growth of the
heavens by the evaporations of the earth, would lead
us to conjecture that Diogenes supposed the sun alone
to have been at first formed from the warm air drawn
upwards, and the stars to have afterwards arisen from
the vapours evolved by the sun’s heat, by which vapours
the sun himself was thought to have been continually
sustained. As this nourishment is at times exhausted
in each part of the world, the sun (so at least Alexander
represents the doctrine of Diogenes) changes his place,
as a beast his pasture.’
Alex. Meteorol. 91a; 93 Ὁ, pro- cit.) that the stars, according to
bably following Theophrastus; cf. Diogenes, are διάπνοιαι (exhalations)
supra, p. 254, 1. τοῦ κόσμου; and he is probably
1 Seneca, Qu. Nat. vi. 15; ef. more correct than Ritter (i. 232)
iv. 2, 28. who, by διάπνοιαι, understands or-
2 Among which he likewise gans of respiration. Theodoret,
reckoned comets, Plac. 111. 2, 9; loc. cit., ascribes the διαπνοὰς to
unless Diogenes, the Stoic, is here the stars themselves; it would be
meant. easier to connect them with the
3 Stob. Eel. i. 528, 552, 508; fiery vapours streaming from the
Plut. Plac. ii. 13, 4; Theod. Gr. aff. stars.
cur.iv.17,p.59. According to the > Cf. p. 254, 1. Some other
last three passages, meteoric stones theories of Diogenes on thunder
are similar bodies; but it would and lightning (Stob. i. 594; Sen.
seem that they only take fire in Qu. Nat. ii. 20), on the winds, Alex.
falling ;vide Panzerbieter, 122 sq. loc. cit. (ef. Arist. Meteor. ii. 1,
4 So, at least, Stob. 522 says of beginning), on the causes of the
the moon, when he asserts that inundation of the Nile (Sen. Qu.
Diogenes held it to be a κισσηροει- Nat. iv. 2, 27; Schol. in Apollon.
des ἄναμμα. Panzerbieter, p. 121 Rhod. iv. 269) are discussed by
sq., interprets in the same way the Panzerbieter, p. 133 sqq. 3
statement in Stob. 508 (Plut. Joc.
296 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.,

Diogenes shared with Anaxagoras and other phy-

sicists the belief that living creatures’ and likewise
plants? were produced out of the earth, no doubt by the
influence of the sun’s heat. In an analogous manner
he explained the process of generation, by the influence
of the vivifying heat of the body of the mother on the
seed.? In accordance with his general standpoint, he
thought the soul to be a warm, dry air. As the air is
capable of endless diversity, souls likewise are as various
as the kinds and individual natures to which they
belong. This substance of the soul he appears to have
derived partly from the seed,’ and partly from the outer
air entering the lungs after birth;® and its warmth,
according to the above theory, from the warmth of the
mother. The diffusion of life throughout the whole body
he explained by the theory that the soul or warm vital
air streams along with the blood through the veins.’ In

1 Placita, ii. 8, 1; Stob. i. 358. τῶν ἑτεροιώσεων᾽ ὅμως δὲ, &e. (supra,
2 Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. p. 287, 7); cf. Theophrastus, De
mm 1,4. Sensu, 39, 44.
3 For further details, ef. Pan- 5 For he expressly remarks that
zerbieter, 124 sqq., after Censorin. the seed is like air (πνευματῶδες)
ΝΣ Nar. ὁ. ὃ, 9; Plat. Plac. v: and foam, and derives thence the
15, 4 ete. designation, ἀφροδίσια. Vide supra,
4 Fr. 6, after the words quoted, p. 287, 7; Clemens, Pedag.i. 105 Ὁ.
p. 291, 1: καὶ πάντων ζῴων δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ 6 Place. v. Va, &:
τὸ αὐτό ἐστιν, ἀὴρ θερμότερος μὲν 7 Simpl. loc. cit. ; ef. Theophras-
τοῦ ἔξω, ἐν ᾧ ἐσμὲν, τοῦ μέντοι παρὰ tus, De Sensu, 89 sqq. From these
τῷ ἠελίῳ πολλὸν ψυχρύτερος. ὅμοιον passages it is clear that Diogenes
δὲ τοῦτο τὸ θερμὸν οὐδενὸς τῶν ζῴων limited the habitation of the soul
ἐστὶν, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀλλή- to no particular organ; the state-
λοις. ἀλλὰ διαφέρει μέγα μὲν οὐ, GAN ment, therefore, in the Placita, iv.
ὥστε παραπλήσια εἶναι, οὐ μέντοι 5, 7, that he transferred the ἥγεμο-
ἀτρεκέως γε ὅμοιον ἐόν... ἅτε νικὸν to the ἀρτηριακὴ κοιλία τῆς
οὖν πολυτρόπου ἐνεούσης τῆς ἕτεροι- καρδίας, can only be accepted in the
ώσιος πολύτροπα καὶ τὰ (Ga καὶ πολλὰ sense that this is the chief seat of
καὶ οὔτε ἰδέην ἀλλήλοις ἐοικότα οὔτε the vivifying air. Cf. Panzerbieter,
δίαιταν οὔτε νόησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθεος 87 sq.
 VITAL AIR. RESPIRATION. 297

support of this doctrine he entered into a detailed, and

according to the then state of anatomical knowledge, an
accurate description of the venal system.' Sensations he
supposed to arise from the contact of the vital air with
external impressions,” and sleep and death from the
partial or entire expulsion of the air by the blood.
The seat of sensation he sought in the air contained in
the brain;* appealing in proof of this to the pheno-
menon, that we are not conscious of external impressions
when we are occupied with something else.® Desire
and disinclination, courage, health, and so forth, were
the effect, he thought, of the various proportions in
which air mingles with the blood.® The intellectual in-
feriority of sleeping and intoxicated persons, of children,
and of animals, he attributed to the greater density and
moisture, and the less perfect circulation of the vital
air.’ The vital air itself, however, he was of course
obliged to presuppose in all living creatures. On this
ground he tried to prove, for example, that fishes and
oysters have also the power of breathing. He even

1 Given by Aristotle, H. Anim. Hearing arises: ὅταν 6 ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν

iii, 2, 511 Ὁ, 30 sqq., commented ἀὴρ κινηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔξω διαδῷ πρὸς
on by Panzerbieter, p. 72 sqq. τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ; sight, when the
2 The somewhat ambiguous image that enters the eye combines
statements, Placita iv. 18, 2; 16, with the air within (μίγνυσθαι).
3; confused by the introduction of 5 Loc. eit. 42: ὅτι δὲ ὃ ἐντὸς
the Stoic ἡγεμονικὸν, are discussed ἀὴρ αἰσθάνεται μικρὸν ὧν μόριον τοῦ
by Fanzerbieter, 86, 90; further θεοῦ, σημεῖον εἶναι, ὅτι πολλάκις
details are given by Theophrastus, πρὸς ἄλλα τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντες οὔθ᾽
loc. cit.; ef. Philippson,“TAn ἄνθρω- ὁρῶμεν οὔτ᾽ ἀκούομεν.
πίνη, 101 sqq. 5 Theophrastus, loc. cit. 48.
* Plan. y. 23,3. 7 Vide supra, p. 296, 2; Theo-
* Smell, says Theophrastus, phrastus, loc. cit. 44 sqq.; Plac.
loe. cit., he attributed τῷ περὶ τὸν v. 20.
ἐγκέφαλον ἀέρι; τοῦτον γὰρ ἄθρουν 8. Arist. De Respir. c. 2, 470 Ὁ,
εἶναι καὶ σύμμετρον τῇ ἀναπνοῇ. 30; Panzer. 95,
 —

298 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

ascribed something analogous to respiration to metals,

supposing them to absorb damp vapours (écyas), and
to exude them again, and thus seeking to explain the
attractive power of the magnet.‘ Only animals, how-
ever, he considered, can breathe the air as such. Plants
are entirely irrational, for the reason that they do not
breathe it.?
Like Anaximander and Anaximenes, Diogenes is
said to have assumed the perpetual alternation of the
world’s construction and destruction, and an endless
number of successive worlds. Simplicius? expressly νι
a
ν

says this, and the statement that Diogenes believed in

an infinity of worlds* must have reference to it, for his
whole cosmogony shows, even more clearly than the
assertion of Simplicius (loc. cit.),” that he could only
conceive the totality of simultaneous things as one
whole limited in space. Stobzeus® speaks of a future
end of the world, and Alexander,’ of a gradual ‘drying
up of the sea, which must both have a similar reference;
and even without this explicit testimony, we must have
supposed Diogenes on this point, likewise, to have been
in agreement with his predecessors.
In considering his theory as a whole, we must allow
that notwithstanding its superiority to the previous phi-
losophic theories in scientific and lterary form, and in
1 Alex. Aphr. Quest. Nat. i. 5 Where κόσμος could not be
23, p. 138, Speng. used in the singular if many con-
2 Theophrastus, loc. cit. 44. temporaneous worlds like those of
3 Phys. 257 Ὁ; vide supra, p. Democritus were in question. Plac.
278, 1. - i. 1, 6 (Stob, 1. 440) seems to refer
4 Diog. ix. 57; Plut. ap. Eus. to Diogenes the Stoic,
Pe; f7o,4. 8; 18; Stob. 1. 496; 51, 416, vide supra, p. 277, 4.
Theodoret, Gr. aff. cur. iv. 15, p. * 7 Meteorol. 91 a, according to
58. Theophrastus, vide supra, p. 251, 1.
 HIS HISTORICAL POSITION. 299

its comparative wealth of empirical knowledge, there is

a contradiction involved in its fundamental conceptions,
If the orderly constitution of the world is only to be
understood. in reference to a world-forming reason, this
presupposes that matter as such does not suffice to
explain it; its cause cannot therefore be sought in one
elementary body, and so Diogenes is forced to ascribe
to this body qualities which not merely from our point
of view, but absolutely and directly, exclude one
another ; for on the one hand he describes it as the
subtlest and rarest, because it is the all-permeating
and all-animating, and on the other, he makes things
arise from it, not only by condensation, but also by
rarefaction, which would be impossible if the primitive
element were itself the rarest in existence.! That it is
not merely? the warm air, or the soul, but air in general
that Diogenes calls the rarest, we are at any rate clearly
told by Aristotle,* who says that Diogenes held the soul
to be air, because air is the rarest element and the
primitive matter; and Diogenes himself (Fr. 6) says
that the air is in all things, and permeates all things,
which could not be unless it were itself the subtlest
element. Nor can rarefaction* refer to a secondary
form of air arising from previous condensation ; for the
ancient philosophers, with one accord, attribute the
power of rarefaction, as well as condensation, to primi-
tive matter;° and this indeed lies in the nature of

1 As Bayle hes already re- 3 In the passage quoted, supra,

marked, Dict. Diogéne. Rem. B. p. 290, 1.
? As Panzerbieter (106) and * As Ritter holds, Jon. Phi.
Wendt zu Tennemann, i. 441, sup-__ p. 47.
pose. 5. Vide supra, p. 290, 4.
900 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

things, for rarefaction and condensation mutually

presuppose each other, and a condensation of one
portion of a body of air is impossible without the
simultaneous rarefaction of another. Thus, there is
a contradiction in the bases of the system, resulting
from the fact that its author adopted the idea of a
world-forming reason, without therefore abandoning the
ancient Ionian materialism, and especially the theories
of Anaximenes on primitive matter.
This circumstance would in itself lead us to con-
jecture that Diogenes’ theory did not wholly arise out
of the development of the ancient Ionian physics, but
under the influence of another philosophy, having a
different standpoint; and that contradictory elements
had therefore appeared in it. This conjecture becomes
still more probable when we see, contemporaneously with
Diogenes, the very definitions which contradict his
materialistic presuppositions, brought forward by Anax-
agoras in connection with a more logical doctrine.
We have no certain information, it is true, as to the
exact date of Diogenes,’ but we have the testimony of
Simplicius,? based probably upon Theophrastus, that

1 The only fixed date, the men- peal to Theophrastus. That Theo-
tion of the aerolite of Aegospota- phrastus really supposed Diogenes
mos, which fell 469 B.c. (Stob. 1. to be later than Anaxagoras seems
508; Theod. Gr. aff. cur. iv. 18, probable likewise, because in dis-
p- 599; and Panzerbieter, p. 1 sq.), cussing their theories he repeatedly
leaves an ample margin. places Diogenes after him. So De
2 Phys. 6 a: καὶ Διογένης δὲ Sensu, 39; Hist. Plant. ii. 1. 4;
6 ᾿Απολλωνιάτης, σχεδὸν νεώτατος vide Philippson,’ Ὕλη ἀνθρωπίνη,199.
τῶν περὶ ταῦτα σχολασάντων, τὰ Diogenes is also described as a
μὲν πλεῖστα συμπεφορημένως γέγρα- younger contemporary of Anaxa-
φε, τὰ μὲν κατὰ ᾿Αναξαγόραν τὰ δὲ goras by Augustine, Civ. Dei, viii.
κατὰ Λεύκιππον λέγων. Cf. supra, 2; and Sidon. Apoll. xv. 89 sqq.;
p, 290, 1; p. 291, 1; with the ap- and for the same reason apparently
 HIS HISTORICAL POSITION. 501

he appeared later than Anaxagoras, and wrote in partial

dependence upon him. The carefulness of Diogenes in
regard to the details of natural science, and especially
the great precision of his anatomical knowledge, would
assign him to a period when observation had made
some advances: the period of a Hippo and a Democritus.!
In the same way we shall find reason to suppose him
later than Empedocles. On these grounds some de-
pendence of Diogenes on Anaxagoras seems probable,
and the internal evidence of their doctrines is wholly in
favour of this view. The striking similarity between
them makes it hardly credible that these doctrines
should have been produced independently of each other.?
Not only do Diogenes and Anaxagoras both require a
world-forming reason, but they require it on the same
ground, that the order of the universe was otherwise
inexplicable to them: both describe this reason as the
subtlest of all things; both derive the soul and life
essentially from it.2 We cannot, however, consider
Anaxagoras as dependent on Diogenes, and Diogenes as
the historical link between him and the older physicists.‘
in Cic. N. D. i. 12, 29, his name bach, Anazag. Fragm. p. 32 ; Stein-
comes last among all the pre-So- hart, Joc. cit. 297, considers Dio-
cratic philosophers. genes to be rather earlier than
! This date is further supported Anaxagoras.
by the circumstance which etersen * Cf. thesection on Anaxagoras,
has shown to be probable in his infra.
Hippocratis Scripta ad Temp. fat. * Schleiermacher on Diog.
Disposita, part i. p. 30 (Hamb. Werke, 3te Abth. ii. 156 sq., 166
1839, Gym-Proegr.), namely that sqq.; Braniss, Gesch. der Phil. s.
Aristophanes, Nub. 227 sqq., is al- Kant, i. 128 sqq., vide supra, p. 167.
luding to the doctrine of Diogenes Krische is less positive, vide Forsch.
spoken of on p. 297, 6; which doc- 170 sq. Schleiermacher, however,
trine in that case must even then afterwards changed his opinion, for
have attracted attention in Athens. in his Gesch. d. Phil. p. 77 he de-
2 Panzerbieter, 19 sq.; Schau- scribes Diogenes as an eclectic with-
902 DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

Schleiermacher indeed thinks that had Diogenes been

acquainted with the work of Anaxagoras, he must have
expressly opposed Anaxagoras’ theory that the air is
something composite ; but in the first place we have no
evidence to show that he did not oppose it;! and in
the second we have no right to apply the standards of
modern philosophy to the methods of the ancients, nor
to expect from these latter a profound investigation of
theories differing from their own, such as even a Plato
did not always impose upon himself. The main prin-
ciple of Anaxagoras, however, the separation of the
organising reason from matter, Diogenes seems to me
clearly enough to oppose, in his 6th Fragment.’
Schleiermacher indeed finds no trace in the passage
of any polemic of this kind, but merely the tone of a
person who is newly introducing the doctrine of νοῦς:
but the care with which Diogenes demonstrates that all
the qualities of intelligence belong to the air, gives me
the opposite impression. In the same way it seems to
me that Diogenes® is so careful to prove the unthink-
ableness of several primitive substances, because he had
been preceded by some philosopher who denied the
unity of the primitive matter. That he is alluding to
Empedocles only, and not to Anaxagoras,‘ is improbable,
considering the many other points of contact between
Diogenes and Anaxagoras. If, however, he had Empe-
docles chiefly in view, that alone would show him to be

out principle belonging, with the Phys. 32 Ὁ: πρὸς φυσιολόγους ἄντει-

Sophists and Atomists, to the third ρηκέναι, obs καλεῖ αὐτὸς σοφιστάς.
section of pre-Socratic philosophy, 2 Vide supra, p. 287, 7.
the period of its decay. 3 Fr. 2, vide supra, p. 286, 2.
! He says of himself in Simpl. 4 Krische, p. 171.
 HIS HISTORICAL POSITION. 905

a younger contemporary of Anaxagoras, and his philo-

sophy might be supposed to have appeared at a later
date than that of Anaxagoras. Schleiermacher con-
siders it more natural that spirit should first have been
discovered in its union with matter, and afterwards in
opposition to it; but this is hardly conclusive in regard
to Anaxagoras’s relation to Diogenes; for the direct
unity of spirit with matter, which was the starting point
of the elder physicists, we do not find in Diogenes; on
the contrary, he introduces thought, because the purely
physical explanation of phenomena does not satisfy him.
But if the importance of thought has once been re-
cognised, it is certainly more probable that the new
principle should be first-set up in abrupt opposition to
material causes, than that it should be combined with
them in so uncertain a manner as by Diogenes.! The
whole question is decided by this fact, that the con-
ception of a world-forming reason is only logically
carried out by Anaxagoras; Diogenes on the contrary
attempts to combine it in a contradictory manner, with
a standpoint entirely out of harmony with it. This in-
decisive sort of eclecticism is much more in keeping
with the younger philosopher, who desires to make use
of the new ideas without renouncing the old, than with
the philosopher to whom the new ideas belong as his
original possession.2 Diogenes is therefore, in my
1 This is also in opposition to subsequent inclination of the vault
Krische, p. 172. of heaven ; the opinion that the stars
2 We cannot argue much from are stony masses; or on the doc-
the agreement of the two philoso- trine of the senses, for such theories
phers in certain physical theories, are, as a rule, so little connected
such as the form of the earth, the with philosophic principles, that
primitive lateral movement and either philosopher might equally
 ,a-

504, DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA.

opinion, an adherent of the old Ionian physics, of the

school ‘of Anaximenes; sufficiently affected by the
philosophic discovery of Anaxagoras to attempt a com-
bination of his (Anaxagoras’) doctrine with that of
Anaximenes, but for the most part following Anaximenes
in his principle and the application of it. That there
would be a retrograde movement,' according to this
view, from Anaxagoras to Diogenes proves nothing;
for historical progress in general does not exclude re-
trogression as to particulars: that Anaxagoras, on the
other hand, cannot be immediately related to Anaxi-
menes?® is true; but we have no right to conclude from
this that Diogenes (rather than Heracleitus, the Elea-
tics or the Atomists) forms the connecting link between
them. Lastly, though the theory of the ὁμοιομερῆ may
be a more artificial conception than the doctrine of
Diogenes,‘ it by no means follows that it must be the
more recent; it is quite conceivable, on the contrary,
that the very difficulties of the Anaxagorean expla-
nation of nature may have had the effect of confirming
Diogenes in his adherence to the more simple and
ancient Ionic doctrine. The same might be con-
jectured in regard to the dualism of the principles
professed by Anaxagoras;° and thus we must regard -
well have borrowed them from the to follow Empedocles.
other. But Diogenes’ explanation i Schleiermacher, Joc. cit. 166.
of the sensuous perception, at any 2 From Anaxagoras to Arche-
rate, shows a development of the laus there is a similar retrogression.
doctrine of Anaxagoras (vide Phi- 8 Schieiermacher, loc. cit.
lippson, Ὕλη ἀνθρωπίνη, 199), and ὁ bid.
his superiority in empirical know- 5. On this account, Brandis (i.
ledge marks him rather as a con- 272) considers Diogenes, with Ar-
temporary of Democritus than a cheiaus and the Atomists, in the
predecessor of Anaxagoras. In his light of a reaction against the
theories also of the magnet he seems dualism of Anaxagoras.
 ᾿΄
CHARACTER AND PLACE IN HISTORY. 808

the theory of Diogenes as the attempt of a later philo-

sopher, partly to save the physical doctrine of Anaxi-
menes and the earlier Ionians as against the innovations
of Anaxagoras, and partly to combine them with each
other.'
However noteworthy this attempt may be, the
philosophic importance of it cannot be ranked very
high ;? the chief merit of Diogenes seems to consist in
his having enlarged the range of the empirical know-
ledge of nature, and laboured to prove more completely
the life and teleological constitution of nature in de-
tail. But these ideas were themselves supplied to him
by his predecessors, Anaxagoras and the ancient phy-
sicists. Greek philosophy, as a whole, had in the time
of Diogenes long since struck out paths that conducted
it far beyond the point of the earlier Ionian physics.

1 As is thought by most modern reciprocal action of things among

writers, cf. Reinhold, Gesch. d. Phil. them-elves presupposes the unity
1. 60; Fries, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 236 of their primitive matter. This is,
sq.; Wendt zu Tennemann, i. 427 in truth, a noteworthy and preg-
sqq.; Brandis, loc. cit. ; Philippson, nant thought, but the conception
loc. cit.,198 sqq.; Ueberweg Grundr. of primitive matter and of the rela-
i. 42, ete. tion of primitive matter to things
2 The doctrine that Steinhart derived, are the same with him as
(Joc. cit. p. 298) finds in him, and with Anaximenes.
considers an important advance, 3 We are reminded of the phy-
viz., ‘that all the Phenomenal is sical notions of Diogenes, or, at any
to be regarded as the self-abnega- rate, of the ancient Ionic school, by
tion of a principle that is perma- the Pseudo-Hippocratie work, περὶ
nent and persistent in itself, goes φύσιος παιδίου (cf. Petersen, p. 30
far beyond any of the actual ex- sq. of the treatise quoted supra,
pressions of Diogenes. In reality, p- 301, 1). Here also we find evi
he merely says (Fr. 2; vide supra, dence of the continuance of that
p- 286, 2) that all becoming and all school.

VOL. I.
306 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

THE PYTHAGOREANS.!

I. SOURCES OF OUR KNOWLEDGE IN REGARD TO THE

PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY.

Amoné all the schools of philosophy known to us, there

is none of which the history is so overgrown, we may
almost say, so concealed by myths and fictions, and the
doctrines of which have been so replaced in the course
of tradition by such a mass of later constituents, as
that of the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras and his school
are seldom mentioned by writers anterior to Aristotle,?
and even from Plato, whose connection with them was
1 The recent literature concern- from it. Chaignet’s careful work
ing Pythagoras and his school is displays much more sobriety. But
given by Ueberweg, Grundr. i. 48. he places far too great confidence
Of more comprehensive works, be- in spurious fragments and untrust-
sides the accounts of Greek philo- worthy statements, and is thus not
sophy in general, and Ritter’s seldom misled into theories, which
Gesch. d. Pythag. Phil. (1826), we cannot stand before a more search-
have the second volume of Roth’s ing criticism. This could scarcely
Gesch. d. Abendlichen Philosophie, be otherwise, since he starts from
which treats at great length (Adz. the presupposition (i. 250, 4) that
1, pp. 261-984, and 2, pp. 48-319) the authorities (without exception)
of Pythagoras; and Chaignet’s are ‘valables, tant quon na pas
work in two volumes, Pythagore démontré Vimpossibilité qwils ne le
et la Philosophie Pythagoricienne. sotent pas, instead of asking in
Roth’s exposition, however, is so each individual case whether the
entirely devoid of all literary and testimony is based on a tradition,
historical criticism, launches out founded on the historieal fact, and
so confidently into the most arbi- only in proportion as this seems
trary conjectures and the most ex- probable, giving credence to it.
travagant fancies, and leaves so 2 The little that can be quoted
much to be desired in regard to the respecting them from Xenophanes,
intelligent apprehension and the Heracleitus, Democritus, Herodotus,
correct reproduction of authorities, Io of Chios, Plato, Isocrates, Anaxi-
that in respect to our historical mander the younger, and Andron
knowledge of Pythagoreanism, of Ephesus, will be noticed in the
hardly anything is to be learned proper place.
 EARLIER AND LATER AUTHORITIES. 807

so close, we can glean very few historical details re-

specting them. Aristotle, indeed, bestowed much
attention on the Pythagorean doctrine; not only dis-
cussing it in the course of his more comprehensive re-
searches, but also treating it in separate treatises:! yet
when we compare what he says with later expositions,
it is found to be very simple and almost meagre. While
later authors can expatiate at length upon Pythagoras
and his doctrines, he is never mentioned, or at most
once or twice, by Aristotle ; his philosophic doctrines
are passed over in silence, and the Pythagoreans are
everywhere spoken of as if the writer were ignorant
whether, and how far, their theories were really derived
from Pythagoras himself.2 Even the accounts which
we get from the writings of the older Peripatetics and
their contemporaries—Theophrastus, Eudemus, Aristo-
1 The statements concerning the d. Fragm. d. Arch. 79 sq.), or by
writings in question, περὶ τῶν Πυθα- Rose's argument from the frag-
γορείων. περὶ τῆς ᾿Αρχυτείου φιλοσο- ment hereafter to be quoted or
dias, τὰ ἐκ τοῦ Τιμαίου καὶ τῶν by what he adduces (Joc. cit.) from
᾿Αρχυτείων, πρὸς τὰ ᾿Αλκμαίωνος, Damascius. Still more hazardous
are given in Part. ii. 6, p. 48, is Rose’s repudiation of all the
second edition. As to the treatise, above writings. The quotation in
περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, vide also Diog. vin. 34, ᾿Αριστοτέλης περὶ
Alexander in Metaph. 542 Ὁ, 5; τῶν κυάμων, would equally apply
Fr. 31,1 Bon.; Stob. Eel. 1. 380; to a portion of the treatise on the
Theo, Arithm. 30; Plut. ap. Gell. Pythagoreans, if, indeed (as is
WN. A.‘iv. 11, 12; Porphyry, V. most likely), there be not some
Pythag. 41; Diog. viii. 19, ef. misunderstanding or interpolation
Brandis, Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 439 sq. ; in the passage.
ii. b 1, 85: Rose, De Arist. libr. 5 οἱ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι;
ord.79 sqq. Perhaps the so-calied Metaph. i. 5, at the beginning; i.
treatises on Archytas and the rest 8, 989 Ὁ, 29; Meteor. 1. 8, 345 a,
are identical with those on the 14; οἱ περὶ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν καλούμενοι
Pythagoreans, or with certain parts δὲ Πυθαγορείοι, De Calo, ii. 18, 293
of them. Meanwhile, however a, 20; τῶν Ἰταλικῶν τινες καὶ κα-
probable it may be that the treatise λουμένων Πυθαγορείων, Meteor. i. 6,
on Archytas is spurious, this is 342 b, 30; ef. Schwegler, Arist.
not substantiated by Gruppe (Ueber Metaph. iii. 44.
>,
308 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

xenus, Diczarchus, Heracleides, and Eudoxus '—are far

slighter and more cautious than the subsequent tradi-
tion ; nevertheless, from them we ean see that legend had
already taken possession of Pythagoras and his personal
history ; and that the later Peripatetics had begun to de-
velop the Pythagorean doctrines according to their fancy.
These sources (of which it is true we possess only
fragments) give us scarcely a single detail which we
did not already know through Aristotle. Farther de-
velopments of the Pythagorean legend, which relate,
however, rather to the history of Pythagoras and his
school, than to their doctrines, appear during the third
and second centuries, in the statements of Epicurus,
Timeus, Neanthes, Hermippus, Hieronymus, Hippo-
botus, and ethers. But it was not until the time of
the Neo-Pythagoreans, when Apollonius of Tyana wrote
his Life of Pythagoras, when Moderatus compiled a
long and detailed work on the Pythagorean Philosophy,
when Nicomachus treated the theory of numbers and
theology in accordance with the principles of his own
school—that the authorities concerning Pythagoras and
his doctrines became copious enough to make such
expositions as those of Porphyry and Jamblichus pos-
sible.2 Thus the tradition respecting Pythagoreanism

1 Roth, Ahendl. Phil. ii. a, 270, 2 To the beginning of this pe-

adds to these Lyco, the opponent of riod belongs also (Part iii. b, 74
Aristotle (ef. Part ii. b, 36, 2, second sqq-) the work from which Alex-
ed.), and Cleanthes the Stoic. But ander Polyhistor (Diog. viii. 24
it is more probable that the former sq.) has taken his exposition of the
was a Neo-Pythagorean than a con- Pythagorean doctrine, and on
temporary of Aristotle ; and the which that of Sextus, Pyrrh. iii.
Cleanthes of Porphyry is certainly 152 sqq.; Math. vii. 94 sqq.; x.
not the Stoic, but most likely a mis- 249 sqq., lhkewise appears to be
spelling for Neanthes (of Cyzicus). based.
 EARLIER AND LATER AUTHORITIES. 909

and its founder grows fuller and fuller, the farther re-
moved it is from the date of these phenomena; and
more and more scanty, the nearer we approach them.
With the range and extent of the accounts, their nature
likewise changes. At first many miraculous stories
about Pythagoras were in circulation. In course of
time his whole history developes into a continuous
series of the most extraordinary events. In the older
statements, the Pythagorean system bore a simple and
primitive character, in harmony with the general
tendency of the pre-Socratic philosophy ; according to
the later representation, it approximates so -greatly to
the Platonic and Aristotelian doctrines that the Pytha-
goreans of the Christian period could even maintain!
that the Philosophers of the Academy and the Lyceum
had stolen their so-called discoveries, one and all, from
Pythagoras.” It is plain that such a development of the
tradition could not have been brought about by history,
for how can we suppose that the writers of the Christian
period had at their command a mass of authentic in-
formation unknown to Plato and Aristotle; and how
can we recognise as genuine Pythagorean doctrines,
propositions which Plato and Aristotle not only do not
attribute to the Pythagoreans, but for the most part

* Porphyry, V. Pyth. 53, pro- could not adopt, and omitting the
bably after Moderatus. remainder, called that the whole
2 It is clear that precisely the of the Pythagorean doctrine; and
opposite was actually the case, and also in the statement of Moderatus
that the ancient Pythagorean doc- (loc. cit. 48) that the number theory
trine contained none of the accre- with Pythagoras and his disciples
tions which afterwards made their had been only symbolical of a
appearance. This is betrayed by higher speculation (cf. Part iii. b,
the author when he says that Plato 96 sq., second edition).
and Aristotle collected allthat they
910 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

expressly deny that they held, and claim as their own

personal discoveries? The so-called Pythagorean dec-
trines which are not acknowledged as such by ancient
authorities are Neo-Pythagorean, and the miraculous
tales and improbable combinations with which Pytha-
gorean history is so largely adorned in the later authors,
no doubt in great part emanate from the same source.
But if the untrustworthy and unhistorical character
of these expositions is in the main indisputable, we
cannot venture to make use of the statements they
contain, even where these statements are not in them-
selves opposed to historical probability, and to the more
ancient and trustworthy authorities; for how can we, in
regard to minor particulars, trust the assertions of those
who have grossly deceived us in the most important
matters? In all cases therefore where the later au-
thorities, subsequent to the appearance of Neo-Pytha-
goreism, are unsupported by other testimony, their
statements may generally be supposed to rest, not on
real knowledge or credible tradition, but on dogmatic
presuppositions, party interests, uncertain legends,
arbitrary inventions, or falsified writings. Even the
agreement of several such authorities cannot prove
much, as they are accustomed to transcribe one from
the other without any preliminary criticism;! their
assertions merit attention only in cases where they may
either be directly referred to older sources, or where
their internal nature justifies us in the belief that they
are founded on historical tradition.
1 Thus Jamblichus copies Por- tions, copied Apollonius and Mo-
phyry, and both of them, as far as deratus.
we may judge from their quota-
 EARLIER AND LATER AUTHORITIES. 511]

What has just been said in regard to the indirect

authorities for the Pythagorean doctrine, equally ap-
plies to the so-called direct sources. Later writers,
belonging almost without exception to the Neo-Pytha-
gorean and Neo-Platonic period, speak of an extensive
Pythagorean literature, the nature and compass of
which we may gather not only from the few writings
we possess, but far more from the numerous fragments
which exist of lost works.! A very small fraction,
however, of these writings may with any probability be
ascribed to the ancient Pythagorean school. Had this
school possessed such a mass of written works, it would ᾿
be hard to understand why the ancient authors should
not contain more distinct allusions to them, and es-
pecially why Aristotle should be so entirely silent as
to Pythagoras’ own doctrine,? when several of these
1 A review of these is given in the fragments of a Πυθαγόρειος
Part 111. Ὁ, p. 85 sqq., second edi- ὕμνος about number (ap. Proclus
tion. Mullach, however, has in Tim. 155 C, 269 B, 331 E, 212
printed, in his second volume of A,6 A, 96 D; Syrian in Metaph. 59
fragments, most of those omitted b; Schol. in Arist. 893 a, 19 sqq.;
in the first. Simplicius, Phys. 104 Ὁ; De Celio,
2 Diogenes, vill. 6, mentions 259 a, 37; Schol. 511 b, 12; ef.
three works of Pythayoras: a παι- Themist. ἐπ Phys. ili. 4, p. 220,
δευτικὸν, a πολιτικὸν, and a φυσι- 22 sq.; in De An.i. 2, pp. 20, 21;
κόν. Heracleides Lembus (about Theo, Mus. c. 38, p. 155; Sext.
180 B.c.) besides these speaks of a Math. iv. 2; vii. 94. 109; Iambl.
treatise, περὶ τοῦ ὅλου, and a ἱερὸς V. P. 162. and Lobeck, loc. cit.)
λόγος, in hexameters. - How this belong to the fepos λόγος of Pytha-
last is related to the ἱερὸς λόγος, goras, it is impossible to prove;
consisting of twenty-fourrhapsodies bat Proclus distinguishes the Py- »
which, according to Suidas, must thagorean hymn very distinctly
be attributed to Orpheus, and ac- from the Orphic poem. Jambl.
cording to others, was written by V. P. 146; cf. Proclus in Tim.
Theognetus the Thessalian, or 289 B, gives the commencement of
Cereops the Pythagorean, and is a second ἱερὸς λόγος in prose, which
probably identical with the Orphic was also ascribed to Telauges.
Theogony (Lobeck, Aglaoph. i. Fragments of this are to be found
714) cannot be discovered. That in iamblichus, Nicom. Arithm. p.
 912 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

writings bear his very name.! But we are expressly

11; Syrian in Metaph.; Schol. in the tale of the philosopher's jour-
Ar. 842 a, 8, 902 a, 24, 911 b, 2, ney to Hades (vide infra, 340, 2).
931 a, 5; Hierocles in Carm. Aur. Nietzsche (Beitr. 2. Quellenkunde,
Ῥ. 166 (Philos. Gr. Fr. ed. Mull. i. d, Laért. Diog., Basel, 1870, p. 16
464 b); ef. also Proclus in Euclid. sq.) refers to the same source the
p- 7 (222 Friedl.). This ἱερὸς statement in Diog. vili.: αὐτοῦ
Adyos, as appears from the above λέγουσι: Kal τὰς σκοπιάδας, substi-
quotations, is chiefly concerned tuting conjecturally σκοπὰς Αἴδαο
with the theological and metaphy- for σκοπιάδας. The verses in Jus-
sical import ofnumbers. In Diod. tin (De Monarch. ας. 2, end) have
i. 98 there is mention of a ἱερὸς reference to a poem forged or in-
Adyos of Pythagoras, by which we terpolated by a Jewish hand;
must probably understand the one other fragments of Pythagorean
in verse, and not the prose work writings are to be found in Just.
which seems to have been later. Cohort. ce. 19 (Clemens, Protr. 47
. Besides the above-named writings C, &e.; cf. Otto, note on the
Heracleides, /oc. cit., notices others; passage in Justin); Porph. De
περὶ ψυχῆς, περὶ εὐσεβείας, “ Helo- Abstin. iv. 18; Iambl. Theol.
thales, and ‘Croton’ (these last Arithm. 19 ; Syrian, Schol. in Arist.
were dialogues, as it would seem), 912 a, 32 b, 4.sqq. It is doubtful
καὶ ἄλλους; Jamblichus (Theol. whether there was a system of
Arithm. p. 19) a σύγγραμμα περὶ Arithmetic in circulation under
θεῶν, probably to be distinguished the name of Pythagoras, to which
from the ἱεροὶ λόγοι; Pliny, Hist. the statement of his baving written
Nat: ἜΣΥ ὦ, 19. xxiv. 7, 156 sq, the first work on Arithmetic may
a book on the influences of plants; refer (vide Malal. 67 a; Cedren.
Galen, De Remed. Parab. vol. xiv. 138 Ὁ, 156 B; Isodor. Orig. 111. 2).
567 Κι, a treatise περὶ σκίλλης; The numerous moral maxims
Proclus, in Tim. 141 D,a λόγος which Stobzeus quotes in the Flo-
πρὸς ΓΑβαριν; Tzetzes. Chil. 11. 888 rilegium from Pythagoras do not
sq. (ef. Harless, in Fabr. Bibl. Gr. seem to have been taken from any
1. 786), προγνωστικὰ βιβλία; Ma- work falsely attributed to him. The
lal. 66 D; Cedren. 138 C, a his- so-called golden poem was by many
tory of the war between the ascribed to Pythagoras, although
Samians and Cyrus; Porphyry, p. it does not itself lay claim to such
16, an inscription on the grave of an origin (vide Mullach in his
Apollo in Delos. Io of Chios (or edition of Hierocles in Carm-aur.
more probably Epigenes, to whom 9 sq.; Fragm. Philos. Gr. i. 410,
Kallimachus attributed the tpiay- and the summaries of the extracts
μοί) asserted that he composed from Stobzeus, loc. cit.), and Iam-
pseudo-Orphie writings (Clemens, blichus, V. P. 158, 198, speaks in
loc. cit.; Diog. viii. 8), and that a general manner of many books
Hippasus had stolen from him a embracing the whole of philosophy,
μυστικὸς λόγος, and from Asto, the which were some of them written
Crotonian, a whole series of works by Pythagoras himself, and some
(Diogenes, viii. 7). A κατάβασις under his name.
εἰς ἅδου seems to have given rise to 1 For the story of the conceal-
 PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. 313

told that Philolaus was the first Pythagorean who

published a philosophical work, that before his time no
Pythagorean writings were known,’ and that Pythagoras
himself wrote nothing;? nor did Hippasus,’ although
we possess some supposed fragments of his work. lam-
blichus* says that Pythagorean writings were in exist-
ment of these writings (vide in/ra, (Demetrius Magnes, the well-known
note 4), which, according to Iambli- contemporary of Cicero) ἐν “Ομωνύ-
chus, was no longer believed, even fois πρῶτον ἐκδοῦναι τῶν Πυθαγο-
in the time of Aristotle, cannot be ρικῶν περὶ φύσεως. Jambl. V. P.
brought forward, more especially 199; vide infra, note 4.
if Io had already been acquainted 2 Porph. V. Pythag. 57 (re-
with them (vide preceding note). peated by Iambl. V. Pyth. 252 54.).
Roth's groundless statement that After the persecution of Cylon:
Aristotle and the other ancient au- ἐξέλιπε Kal ἡ ἐπιστήμη, ἄῤῥητος ἐν
thorities knew only of the Pytha- τοῖς στήθεσιν ἔτι φυλαχθεῖσα ἄχρι
goreans, the exoterics of the school, τότε, μόνων τῶν δυσσυνέτων παρὰ
and not of the esoteric doctrines τοῖς ἔξω διαμνημονευομένων" οὔτε
taught to the Pythagoreans—(an γὰρ Πυθαγόρου σύγγραμμα ἦν, and
indispensable and fundamental so on. Those consequently who
presupposition of his whole expo- escaped from the persecution wrote
sition) will be examined infra. If summaries of the Pythagorean doe-
this statement be disproved, there trine for their adherents. But
is an end of the attempt to recon- Porphyry himself presupposes that
struct the ἱερὸς λόγος of Pythagoras there were ancient Pythagorean
from the fragments of the Orphie writings, and, therefore, adds that
poem, said to be identical with it the Pythagoreans collected them.
(Roth, 11. a, 609-764); since the In Diog. viii. 6, we read : ἔνιοι μὲν
Pythagorean origin of this poem is οὖν Πυθαγόραν μηδὲ ἐν καταλειπεῖν
not only wholly undemonstrable, σύγγραμμά φασι. This is more
but quite incompatible with all emphatically stated in Plut. Alex.
credible accounts of the Pythago- Fort.i. 4, p. 328; Numa, 22; Lu-
rean doctrine. Disregarding Lo- cian, De Sulut. c. 5; Galen, De
beck’s classical labours, Réth con- Hipp. εἰ Plat. i. 25; v. 6, T xv.;
fuses in such an uncritical manner 68, 478, K (although he, in another
statements from Orphic and Py- viace, vide supra, p. 312, quotes a
thagorean works relating to writings work of Pythagoras) ; Joseph. Con.
entirely distinct, and separated from Ap. i. 22, perhaps after Aristobu-
each other by centuries; so that lus; Augustin, De Cons. Evang. i.
his whole pretentious and elaborate 12.
discussion can only mislead those 3 Diog. villi. 84: φησὶ δ᾽ αὐτὸν
who are less instructed, while for Δημήτριος ἐν ὋὉμωνύμοις μηδὲν
the learned it is utterly valueless. καταλιπεῖν σύγγραμμα.
? Diog. viii. 15, but especially 4 V. Pyth. 199: Θαυμάζεται δὲ
section 85: τοῦτόν φησι Δημήτριος Kain τῆς φυλακῆς ἀκρίβεια" ἐν γὰρ το-
514 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

ence, but that until the time of Philolaus they were

strictly preserved as secret by the school, but this asser-
tion can have no weight against the evidence we have
just cited; it is rather indeed a confirmation of the fact
that the later writers themselves could find no authen-
tic traces of the existence of Pythagorean writings
previous to Philolaus. When, therefore, the savants of
the Alexandrian or Roman period presuppose that such
writings must always have existed, at any rate within
the Pythagorean school, this theory is entirely based on
the assertions of the so-called ancient works themselves,
and on the opinions of a generation which could form
no idea of a philosophic school without philosophic
literature, because it was itself accustomed to get its
science from books. Moreover, the internal evidence
of most of these reputed Pythagorean fragments is
strongly against their authenticity. The greater num-
ber of the fragments of Philolaus indeed, as Bockh has
shown in his excellent monograph,' must certainly be
considered genuine, not merely on the score of external
testimony, but also, and far more because in content
and mode of expression they agree with one another,
and are in harmony with all that we know from well
authenticated sources as Pythagorean; there is only
one passaye of any importance in a philosophic point of
view to which we must make an exception.” On the
σαύταιΞς γενεαῖς ἐτῶν οὐδεὶς ὀυδενὶ φαί- seiner Werke, 1819. Cf. also
, “ > ΄- 5» \ 5 ‘ /

νεται τῶν Πυθαγορείων ὑπομνημάτων Preller, Philol. ; Allg. Eneykl. von

\ ~
TEPLTETEVX WS πρὸ τῆς Φιλολάου NAL-
, c
Ersch und Gruber, sect. 111., vol.
κίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος πρῶτος ἐξήνεγκε τὰ XX1ll. 370 sq.
θρυλούμενα ταῦτα τρία βιβλία. 2 Since the above was first
1 Philolaus des Pythagoreer’s written, the genuineness of these
Lehren, nebst den Bruchsticken fragments of Philolaus, already de-
 PHILOLAUS. old

other hand, according to the above quotations, there

nied by Rose; Arist. libr. ord. p. 2, what everyone else had done up to
has been warmly contested by that time. Diogenes, it is true,
Schaarschmidt (Die angebliche afterwards speaks οὗ Empedocles
Schriftstellerei des Philolaus, 1864), alone, and of the exclusion of
and the work to which they belonged poets; but he cannot legitimately
has been assigned to the first, or conclude from this that Neanthes
at earliest, the second century be- ‘did not know as yet of any work
fore Christ. Though I adhere to written by Philolaus.’ Diogenes
my original opinion respecting makes this observation in his bio-
them, I cannot fully expound my graphy of Empedocles; he may
reasons for it in this place, but perhaps have adopted from Nean-
will merely indicate the chief thes only what concerned his sub-
points. To begin with, as regards ject. Or again, Neanthes may
the tradition concerning the writing have merely mentioned the prohi-
of Philolaus, the existence of a bition to which Empedoeles, as the
work under that rame is presup- first of the so-called Pythagorean
posed by Hermippus (ap. Diog. viii. writers, had givenrise. According
85) and Satyrus (δῖα. 111. 9) about to these authorities, too, we must
200 x.c., for they tell us that refer the well-known verses of
Plato bought the work of Philo- Timon. ap. Gell. N. A. ini. 17, to
laus, and copied his Timzeus from the work of Philolaus; for it is
it. Both speak of this work as hardly conceivable that they should
well known, and it is difficult to relate to no particular work, bat
see how, if it did not exist, the to any Pythagorean book whatso-
statement could have arisen. Be- ever (Schaarschmidt, 75). It is
sides, Hermippus borrowed the as- true that Philolaus is never men-
seruion from an older writer. tioned by Aristotle, though a word
Already about 240 B.c. the book is quoted from him in Eva. Eud. ii.
was known to Neanthes, as is 8, 1225 a, 33; and Plato in the
shown by the statement of this Timeéus places his physical theories,
author in Diog. viii. δῦ, that up to not in the mouth of Philolaus, but
the time of Philolaus and Empe- of a Pythagorean otherwise un-
docles the Pythagoreans admitted known. But Plato had every rea-
everyone to their instructions, but son to do this, supposing there
that when Empedocles had made existed a writing of Philolaus
known their doctrines in his poem, which would immediately have ex-
they resolved never to impart them hibited the great difference of his
to any other poet. The design of physical doctrines from those of
Neanthes in this story can only be the Pythagoreans. And with re-
to couple Philolaus with Empedo- gard to Aristotle, though it is im-
cles as one of thefirst Pythagorean possible that he can have derived
writers ; not (as Schaarschmidt, p. his numerous and minute state-
76 thinks) to account for the in- ments about the Pythagorean doc-
troduction of esoteric doctrines by trines merely from oral tradition,
the oral teaching of Philolaus; yet he never mentions his authori-
Philolaus in that teaching, accord- ties; just as elsewhere he quotes
ing to Neanthes himself, only did much from the ancient philosophers
 ile

910 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

can be no question as to the spuriousness of the writings

without saying whence he gets it. rives arguments from some against
We cannot, therefore, argue from others; whereas the question of
his silence respecting Philolaus, identity of authorship was the very
that no work of his was known first he should have determined.
to him. On the other hand, if I, for my part, consider the interval
we compare Metaph. i. 5, 986 b, so great between the fragment in
2 sqq. with the fragment of Phi- Stobzeus, Eel. 1. 420 (vide infra),
lolaus in Stob. Hel. 1. 454 sq. and the large majority of the rest,
(vide infra, 371, 2); Metaph. xiii. both in form and content, that I
6, 1080 b, 20; xiv. 3, 1091 a, 13 could not ascribe all to the same
sq., with Stob. i. 468; Metaph. i. author unless I called them all
5, 985, b, 29 sq. with the fragment alike unauthentic. Schaarsehmidt
in Iambl. Theol. Arithm. p. ὅθ, 22 himself calls attention to the fact
(vide infra, § iii.), it will appear that the utterances of this frag-
very probable that Aristotle in ment about the world-soui are in
these passages is referring to the contradiction to the doctrine of the
work of Philolaus ; and considering central fire elsewhere attributed
the scanty number of the fragments to Philolaus. It further appears
we possess, it is not surprising that to me that, as he has not sufficiently
further proofs are not forthcoming. discriminated between the various
(For other details, ef. Zeller, Aris- fragments, neither has he done so be-
toteles und Philolaos. Hermes. x. tween the fragments of Philolaus’s
178 sq.) Xenocrates, too, accord- work, and the accounts given us of
ing to Iambl. Theol. Arithm. p. 61 that work. He attributes (p. 37) to
sq., occupied himself greatly with the ‘ fragmentist’ the Stoic ἤγεμο- ᾿
the writings of Philolaus; and if νικὸν, and the Platonic Demiurgus
this evidence is not quite unim- in the text, Stob. Ecl. 1. 452, as
peachable, yet it has in its favour well as (p. 30) the expressions,
that Xenocrates agrees with Phi- εἰλικρίνεια τῶν στοιχείων, φιλομετά-
lolaus in his doctrine of ether (vide βολος γένεσις, ibid. 488; whereas
Part ii. a, 809, 1). We meet with the author whom Stobzeus follows
the same theory in the Platonic may in this case, as in many others,
Epinomis (vide /oc. cit. 894, 2), but have applied to ancient doctrines
there also (977 D, sqq.) there seem the language and conceptions of
to be echoes of Philolaus (ap. Stob. later times. On page 38 the con-
1.8, infra, 371, 1). The external clusion drawn by Athenagoras
evidence, however, is decidedly in (Suppl. 6), from a quite indefinite
favour of the supposition that Phi- expression of Philolaus (the Unity
lolaus really composed the writing and Immateriality of God), is
attributed to him, and that we treated as the saying of the so-
have received from tradition genu- called Philolaus himself. On page
ine remnants of it. In his judg- 53 ‘Philolaus’ is said. to speak
ment of the fragments themselves, in Stob. Eel. 1. 580, of a triple
1 cannot agree with Schaarschmidt, sun; though the narrator clearly
as he assigns them all, without ex- distinguishes his own remark
ception, to the same author; and ‘that, according to Philolaus,
on this presupposition easily de- there was in some sort a triple
 ὧν: 7.
ὶ

PHILOLA US. 517

attributed to Pythagoras; and the scattered fragments

sun, from what Philolaus actually resolves the opposition of the
said; and he afterwards directly above and the below into that of
ascribes two suns to Empedocles. the outward and inward. Schaar-
There may indeed be found in the schmidt (p. 38) also finds it incon-
statements of writers like Stobeus, ceivable that Philolaus should have
Pseudo-Plutareh, Censorinus, and called the Central fire, τὸ πρᾶτον
Boethius about Philolaus, many ἁρμοσθὲν τὸ ev (vide infra), but he
inaccuracies, lacunz, and uncer- might have understood it by the
tainties; but we ought not to help of Aristotle, who equally
consider this (as Schaarschmidt speaks of the forming of the ἐν
does, e.g. p. 53 sq., 55 sq. 72) a with reference to the central fire;
proof of the spuriousness of the and according to him, it was a re-
writings which they are describing, cognised theory that the number
for their statements have very One arose from the odd and the
often the same defects in cases even. Nor can we with Schaar-
where they can be confirmed by schmidt (p. 65) consider it un-
more trustworthy evidence. But Pythagorean that the ἄπειρον and
Schaarschmidt seems to me not mepaivoy should be distinguished
seldom to raise objections which from the ἄρτιον and περισσόν ; for
ean only be based on an incorrect we find the same thing in the table
view of the passages and doctrines of contraries (Arist. Metaph. i. 5,
inguestion. He says, for instance 986 a, 23). To pass over other
(p. 32 sqq.), that the passage in instances, Schaarschmidt (p. 47
Stob. Hel. i. 360 contradicts the 544.) cannot admit that the five
statement of Aristotle (De Calo, elements of Philolaus belong to the
ii. 2, 285 a, 10), that the Pytha- ancient Pythagorean doctrine: Ist,
goreans assumed only a right and because the Pythagoreans (he says),
a left in the world, and not an according to Aristotle, admitted no
above and a below, a before and a material element; 2, because Em-
behind; but this latter statement pedocles was the first to teach the
is explained by another from the doctrine of the four elements ; and
work on the Pythagoreans (Schol.in 8, because Aristotle was the first
Arist. 492 b, 39), which even, were who added to these, as a fifth ele-
it spurious, we could scarcely as- ment, ether. All three of these
sign to a period so recent as the reasons I dispute. First, the Py-
Neo-Pythagorean.. The Pytbago- thagoreans no doubt put numbers
reans (we there read) admitted no in the place of material substances
above and below in the ordinary as the ultimate ground of things ;
and proper sense, because they but certain Pythagoreans, for ex-
identified the above with the left ample Philolaus, may nevertheless
side of the world, and the below have sought to explain more pre-
with the right; and at the same cisely how things arise from num-
time the above with the circumfe- bers, by reducing the qualitative
rence, and the below with the fundamental difference of bodies
centre. This last conception seems to the difference of form in their
to be precisely the meaning of the constituent atoms. Plato does
mutilated passage in Stobeus; it this from a similar standpoint.
918 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

of these which have come down to us, both in respect

The Pythagorean doctrine does not discovered by Anaxagoras; more
assert that there are no bodies, but especially as we find Aristotle
only that bodies are something de- (Metaph. i. 5, 985 Ὁ, 30) naming
rived. Second, in regard to Em- νοῦς and ψυχὴ among the things
pedocles, that philosopher was un- which were reduced by the Pytha-
questionably some decads anterior goreans to particular numbers;
to Philolaus; why then may not while, on the other hand, it is
his theory of the elements (as I deserving of note, that the Platonie
suggested in my second edition, and Aristotelian theory of the
p. 298 sq., 508 sq.) have given rise multiplicity of the parts of the
to the theory of Philolaus? Third, soul which was known to other so-
jt cannot be proved that Aristotle called Pythagoreans {vide Part
first taught the existence of a fifth 111. b, 120, 2nd ed.) is absent from
element, though it played an im- this fragment; the differences
portant part in his doctrine. The which exist between the phe-
origin of this idea is evidently Py- nomena of life and those of the
thagorean. AZther is admitted by soul are here directly connected
all the philosophers of the older with the corporeal organs. The
Academy, who retrograded from same argument tells in favour of
Platonism to Pythagoreism ; in the the genuineness of most of these
Epinomis, and by Speusippus, by fragments. The influence of the
Xenocrates, and by Plato himself Platonic and Aristotelian philo-
at the end of his life (Part ii. a, sophy, which is so unmistakeable
809, 1; 860,1; 876, 1; 894, 2, in all pseudo-Pythagorean writings,
2nd ed.). For all these reasons, is not perceptible in them We
I can only agree with Schaar- find much that is fantastic and
schmidt’s conclusions to a very strange to us (for instance, the nu-
limited extent. No doubt the merical symbolism, vide p. 337,
Philolaic fragments have not been third edition), but nothing that is
transmitted to us free from adulte- distinctive of later Pythagoreism,
ration. I have already (pp. 269, such as the opposition of form
305, 2nd ed.) questioned the value and substance, spirit and matter,
of the fragment of the περὶ ψυχῆς, the transcendant conception of
given ap. Stob. Eel. i. 420 sq. I God, the eternity of the world,
have also expressed my doubts the astronomy of Plato and Aris-
(Jhid. 271, 4, 6 ; 247, 3) of the mono- totle, the world-soul and the de-
theistic sentence cited by Philo, veloped physics of the Timezeus.
Mundi Opif. 23 A, and of the The tone and exposition (apart
saying in Jamblichus, im Nicol. from certain particulars which are
Arithm. 11. Of the other frag- to be placed to the account of later
ments, what is quoted in the third expositions) entirely accord with
edition of this work, p. 387, from the conception we should naturally
Theol. Arithm. 22, may perhaps form of the language of a Pytha-
most readily cause hesitation. But gorean in the time of Socrates; it
such a reflection does not seem also contains things which ean
impossible at a period when the scarcely be ascribed to a more re-
conception of νοῦς had already been cent author, such as the distribu-
 PYTHAGOREAN WRITINGS. 919

to their form and content,! can only serve to strengthen

our suspicion. Opinions are likewise unanimous as
to the spuriousness of the treatise on the World-soul,
attributed to Timzus of Locris, but obviously an extract
from the Timzus of Plato. The demonstration of Ten-
nemann?” in regard to this is amply sufficient. As to
Ocellus of Lucania, and his work on the universe, the
only question can be whether or not the work itself
claims to be of ancient Pythagorean origin; for that it
is not, is perfectly evident. Its latest editor, however,
rightly maintains that the work claims for its author
the so-called Pythagorean, to whom ancient writers with
one accord? ascribe it, whenever they mention it at all.
Of the other relics of the Pythagorean School, the most
important are the works of Archytas; but after all that
has been said on this subject in modern times,‘ my
tion of chords (discussed by Béckh. sqq.; ef. the further proof given
Philol. 70), for which, according to by Hermann, Gesch. und Syst. der
Nicom. Harm. i. p. 9, Meib., Pytha- Plat. Phil. i. 701 sq.
goras had already substituted the 3 Mullach, Aristot. de Melisso
octachord. Schaarschmidt’s judg- &e.; e Ocelli Luc. De univ. nat.
ment on the Philolaic fragments is (1845), p. 20 sqq.; Fragm. Philos.
endorsed by Ueberweg, Grundr. i. i. 383; cf. Parti. Ὁ, pp. 83, 99
47, 50, by Thilo, Gesch. d. Phil. 1. 115, second edition.
57, and Rothenbicher, System der + Ritter, Gesch. der Pyth. Phil.
Pyth. nach den Angaben des Arist. 67 sqq.; Gesch. der Phil. i. 377;
(Berlin, 1867). Rothenbiicher and Hartenstein, De Archyte Ta-
seeks to establish his opinion by rentint Fragm. (Leipzig, 1833)—
a criticism of the fragment, ap. both, especially Ritter, discard the
Steb. Eel. i. 454. I cannot, how- greater number of the fragments,
ever, at present enter upon the and these the most important from
discussion of this criticism, as there a philosophic point of view. Eggers
will be opportunity for replying to (De Archyte Tar. Vita Opp. et
its chief allegations later on. Phil., Paris, 1833); Petersen
1 The fragments are mostly (Zeitschrift fir Alierthumsw. 1836,
Doric, but Pythagoras no doubt 873 sqq.); Beckmann (De Pythag.
spoke the Ionic dialect of his na- Reliquiis); and Chaignet (loc. cit.
tive city, where he had lived up to i. 191 sqq., 255 sqq.) recognise the
the period of his manhood. greater number. Gruppe (ier die
2 System der Plat. Phil. i. 98 Fragm. des Archytas) repudiates
990 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

judgment is still that among the numerous longer or

shorter fragments attributed to him, by far the greater
number have preponderating evidence against them;
and those which may be considered authentic can add
little to our knowledge of the Pythagorean philosophy
as a whole, belonging as they do chiefly to mathematics,
or other specific branches of enquiry." This judgment
is not to be set aside by the fact that Petersen,? in
order to explain the undeniably Platonic element in
the so-called books of Archytas, regards him as having
anticipated the Platonic doctrine of Ideas, and Beck-
mann? makes him out in this respect a disciple of
Plato; for not a single ancient authority alludes to
this pretended Platonism of Archytas. Where the rela~
tion between Plato and Archytas is mentioned, we hear
only of a personal relation, or a scientific intercourse
which would by no means involve a similarity in philo-
sophie theories. On the contrary, where the philo-
all without exception; and Mul- quoted by Gruppe, p. 120) to the
lach (Fr. Phil. Gr. 1. 16 86.) effect that of the mathematicians
thinks it probable, that we possess of the Academy (τοὺς παρὰ τῷ
next to nothing of Archytas. Cf. Πλάτωνι ἐν ᾿Ακαδημίᾳ yewuerpas)
Beckmann, p. 1. Archytas and Eudoxus were the
1 Cf. Aristotle, Metaph. viii. 2 two who solved the Delian pro-
g, E,; and Eudemus, ap. Simpl. blem ; and that of the Pseudo-De-
Phys. 98 Ὁ, 108 a; Ptolemeus, mosthenes (Amator. p. 1415), who
Harm. i. 13 ; and Porphyry, in Ptol. says that Archytas was previously
Harm. p. 236 sq., 257, 267, 269, -held in contempt by his country-
277, 280, 310, 318, 315; ef. Part men, but acquired his honourable
iii. Ὁ, 91, second edition, reputation in consequence of his
2 Loe. cit. 884, 890. connection with Plato. The first
8 Toc. cit. 16 sqq. Similarly of these statements is given by
Chaignet, i. 208. Eratosthenes himself as a mer?
4 This, strictly speaking, is legend ; and the second has proba-
true of the two pieces of evidence bly about as much historical foun-
on which Beckmann (p. 17 sq.) relies dation as another assertion in the
so much, namely that of Eratos- same work: that Pericles became
thenes (ap. Eutoe. in Archimed. De the great statesman he was, through
Sphera et Cyl. ii, 2,p. 144 Ox. the teaching of Anaxagoras.
 ARCHYTAS., 821

sophic opinions of Archytas are spoken of, he is always

described as a Pythagorean, and that not only by the
more recent writers subsequent to Cicero’s time,! but
even as early as Aristoxenus,? whose acquaintance with
the later Pythagoreans is beyond question; indeed
Archytas clearly calls himself a Pythagorean,? in a
fragment the authenticity of which can scarcely be
disputed.* It is true that the School of*Archytas is
also mentioned: as an independent school,> but that
does not disprove our thesis. This school is as much a
Pythagorean school as that of Xenocrates is Platonic,
οὐ that of Theophrastus Peripatetic. If, however,
Archytas was a Pythagorean, he cannot have been at
the same time an adherent of the doctrine of Ideas;
1 Among these Beckmann (p. chus, V. P. p. 251 (of δὲ λοιποὶ
16) cites the following: Cic. De τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἀπέστησαν τῆς
Orat. ili. 34, 139 (a passage which Ἰταλίας πλὴν Αρχύτου τοῦ Ταραντί-
is remarkable, because while agree- vov), for in the time of Archytas
ing in other respects with the above there was no longer any necessity
mentioned testimony of the Pseudo- for the Pythagoreans to flee from
Demosthenes, it makes Philolaus, Italy ; the passage is, however, so
instead of Plato, the instructor of mutilated, that we cannot even
Archytas; we must read with
discover the connection in which
Orelli, Philolaus Archytam, and the statement occurred in Aristox-
not Philolawm Archytas). Ibid. Fin. enus,
v. 29, 87; Rep. i. 10; Valer. Max. * Cf. Part ii. b, 711 sq., and
iv. 1, ext.; vil. 7, 3, ext.; Apul. infra, p. 364, 4. δῖον. Floril. 101,
Dogm. Plat. i. 3, p. 178, Hild.; 4, calls him a Pythagorean, Suidas
Diog. viii. 79; Hieron. Epist. 53, ᾿Αριστόξ.. more precisely, a pupil of
T. 1, 268, Mart. Olympiodor. Γ΄. Xenophilus, the Pythagorean.
Plato, p. 3, Westerm. To these * According to Porph. in Pto-
may be added, besides Iamblichus, lem. Harm. p. 236, his work,
Ptolemzus, Harm. i. c. 13 sq. περὶ μαθηματικῆς, began with these
2 Diog. viii. 82: γεγόνασι δ᾽ words: καλῶς μοι δοκοῦντι [se. of
᾿Αρχῦται τέτταρες... τὸν δε Πυθα- Πυθαγόρειοι] τὸ περὶ τὰ μαθήματα
γορικὸν ᾿Αριστόξενός φησι μηδέποτε διαγνῶναι" καὶ οὐθὲν ἄτοπον, ὀρθῶς
στρατηγοῦντα ἡττηθῆναι. Beck- αὐτοὺς περὶ ἕκαστον θεωρεῖν" περὶ
mann’s doubt of this passage is γὰρ Tas τῶν ὅλων φύσιος ὀρθῶς
unfounded. Cf. also Diog. 79. We διαγνόντες ἔμελλον καὶ περὶ τῶν κατὰ
should be inclined to read’Apximmov μέρος οἷα ἐντὶ ὄψεσθαι.
for ᾿Αρχύτου in the text of Iambli- 5. Vide Beckmann, p. 23.
VOL. I. ¥
 922 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

for it is not merely impossible to prove!’ that this

doctrine was known to the Pythagoreans, but Aristotle’s
evidence is most distinctly to the contrary.” Since
therefore in the fragments of the so-called Archytas we
encounter Platonic as well as Peripatetic doctrines and
expressions, we must consider these a sure sign of a
later origin, and consequently reject by far the greater
number of the fragments. Even supposing the modern
ease for their defence were successful, they could not be
regarded as records of the Pythagorean doctrines; for
if they can only be rescued by making their author a
Platonist, we cannot be sure in any given case how far
they reproduce the Pythagorean point of view.
A contemporary of Archytas, Lysis the Tarentine,
has latterly been conjectured by Mullach* to be the
author of the so-called Golden Poem; but the corrupt
passage in Diogenes viii. 6 * is no evidence for this, and
the work itself is so colourless and disconnected, that it
looks rather like a later collection of practical precepts,
some of which had perhaps been long in circulation in
a metrical form.> In any case, however, it does not
* Plato’s utterances in the So- 3 In his edition of Hierocles,
phist, 246 sqq. cannot, as Petersen p. 20; Fragm. Philos. i, 413.
(loc. cit.) and Mallet (Ecole de 4 γέγραπται δὲ τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ
Megare, lili. sq.) believe, relate to συγγράμματα τρία, παιδευτικὸν, πολι-
the later Pythagoreans (cf. ii. a, τικὸν, φυσικόν: τὸ δὲ φερόμενον ws
215 sq.), and the polemic of Aris- Πυθαγόρου Λύσιδός ἐστι τοῦ Ταραν-
totle’s Metaphysics against a num- τίνου.
ber-theory bound up with the > As is certainly true of the
doctrines of Ideas is directed not well-known Pythagorean oath, v.
against Pythagoreans, but the va- 47 sq., which is generally con-
rious branches of the Academy. sidered as the property of the whole
2 Metaph. i. 6,987 Ὁ, 7, 27 school, and, according to Jambl.
sqq.; cf. 6. 9, beginning; xiii. 6, Theol, Arithm. p. 20, is also to be
1080 b, 16, c. 8, 1083 b, 8; xiv. met with in Empedocles (cf. Ast.
3, 1090 a, 20; Phys. iii. 4, 208 in Theol. Ariihm. and Maullach,
a, 3. notes on the golden poem, doc. cit.) ;
 PYTHAGOREAN FRAGMENTS. 823

materially contribute to our knowledge of the Pytha-

gorean philosophy.
In regard to the remaining fragments, with few
and unimportant exceptions, those which bear the names
of well-known ancient Pythagoreans, such as Theano,
Brontinus, Clinias, and Ecphantus, are certainly spur-
ious. Most of them, however, are attributed to men
of whom we either know nothing at all, or are ignorant
when they lived. But as these fragments precisely
resemble the rest in their content and exposition, we
_cannot doubt that they too claim to be of ancient
Pythagorean origin. If they have no such origin, they
must be considered deliberate forgeries, and not the
genuine productions of a later Pythagoreanism approxi-
mating to the Platonic or Peripatetic philosophy.
Moreover, the later Pythagoreanism which professes to
be older than Neo-Pythagoreanism, has been altogether
derived from these fragments, whereas all historical evi-
dence agrees that the latest ramifications of the ancient
Pythagorean School do not extend beyond the time of
Aristotle. In truth, few or no elements of ancient
Pythagoreanism are to be found in these numerous
passages. Of these fragments and of the other vestiges
of Pythagoreanism, so much as claims our attention
from a philosophic point of view will be treated further
on; we shall also discuss more at length the fragments
we possess of the writings of certain philosophers whose
relation to Pythagoras is not quite ascertained, such as
Hippasus and Alemzon.
the same may probably hold good it, ap. A. Gell, vi. 2, proves nothing
of v.54. Consequently the quota- in regard to the age of the poem.
tion which Chrysippus makes from
ὙΣΖ
 PYTHAGORAS.

Il. PYTHAGORAS AND THE PYTHAGOREANS.

ConsIDERING the number of traditions in existence

respecting the foynder of the Pythagorean school, the
amount which can be relied on with any historical
probability, when separated from the labyrinth of un-
certain legends and later conjectures, is very small.
We know that his father’s name was Mnesarchus,! that
Samos was his home-and doubtless also his birthplace ;?
1 Heracleitus, ap. Diog. viii. il. Ὁ, 393) and Krische (De Societ.
6, Herodotus, iv. 95, and most of a Pyth. condite scopo politico, p. 3,
the other authorities. The name, etc.) that he came of a Tyrrheno-
Marmacus, given to him, according Pelasgic family, which had emi-
to Diog. viii. 1, by several writers, erated from Phlius to Samos.
is perhaps founded merely on a Pausanias (ii. 138, 1 sq.) actually
scriptural error. Justin (xx. 4) relates as a Phlian legend that
calls him Demaratus, which is Hippasus, the great grandfather of
most likely also founded on seme Pythagoras, went from Phlius to
confusion or another. Samos, and this is confirmed by
2 He is called a Samian by Diog. L. viii. 1; in the fabulous
Hermippus (ap. Diog. viii. 1), by tale of Ant. Diogenes, ap. Porph.
Hippobotus (Clem. Strom. 1. 300, V. P. 10, and in the better attested
D), and by later writers almost statement, zbid. 2, Mnesarchus is
without exception; Jamblichus spoken of as a Tyrrhenian who had
(V. P. 4) mentions the statement emigrated from his home. On the
that both his parents were descend- other hand, the statement in Plut.
ed from Anceus, the founder of Qu. Conv. viii. 7, 2, that he was an
Samos; Apollonius, however (ap. Etruscan by birth is evidently a
Porph. V. P. 2), asserts this of his mistake, as also the opinion (ap.
mother only. His Samian origin Porph. 5) that he originally came
may be reconciled with the state- from Metapontum ; Neanthes (in-
ments that he was a Tyrrhenian stead of which our text of Por-
(vide Aristoxenus, Aristarchus, phyry, as we have seen, gives Cle-
and Theopompus, ap. Clement. and anthes) ap. Porph. V. P. 1, makes
Diogenem, loc. cit.; the similar Mnesarchus a Tyrian, who, on ac-
passage in Theodoret, Gr. aff. cur. count of his services at Samos,
1. 24,8, 7, together with Eus. Pr. received the right of citizenship
Ev. x. 4, 18, is taken from that there (Clemens and Theod. Joc. cit.
of Clemens; Diodor. Hragm. p. say incorrectly that he asserted
554 Wess.) or a Phliasian (anony- Pythagoras himself to have been a
mous writer cited by Porph. Pyth. Tyrian ora Syrian) ; but the state-
p. 5); if we suppose with O. Mul- ment is of little consequence, since
ler (Geschichte der hell. St. τι. St. it may be explained partly by a
 HIS DATE. 325

but the time of his birth, death, and removal to Italy

can only be approximately determined ;! the statements
confusion of Τύριος and Τυῤῥηνὸς, Tatian, Con. Gree. ec. 41; Cyrill.
and partly from an attempt to ac- in Jul. i. 18 A; Euseb. Chron.
count for the supposed oriental Arm. T.-ii1. 201, vide Krische, p.
wisdom of the philosopher by his 11). Diodorus (Joc. cit.) even gives
extraction. Probably in reference Ol. 61, 4, and Diogenes, viii. 45, Ol.
to this story, Iamblichus, V. P. 7, 60. Both statements are probably
represents him as having been born founded on the assertion of Aris-
during a journey of his parents to toxenus, who, following Porphyry
Sidon. The well-known story of 9, makes Pythagoras emigrate to
Heracleides of Pontus, and of Sosi- Italy in his fortieth year, to escape
erates (ap. Cic. Tusc. v. 3,8; Diog. from the tyranny of Polycrates.
1. 12; viii. 8; ef. Nicom. Arithm. According to the date assigned to
sub. init.) about Pythagoras’ con- the commencement of the tyranny,
versation with the tyrant Leo of the former or the latter date was
Phlius, in which he declared him- fixed for Pythagoras (ef. Rohde,
self to be a φιλόσοφος, points to a Quellen des lambl.in his Biogr. des
connection with Phlius. Pyth.; Rhein. Mus. xxvi. 568 sq. ;
1 The calculations of Dodwell Diels, Ub. Apollodor’s Chronika, ibid.
and Bentley, the former of whom xxxi. 25 sq.). If the fortieth year
places his birth in Ol. 52, 3, and of the philosophe~'s life be placed
the latter in Ol. 43, 4, have been in Ol. 62, 1, we get Ol. 52, 1 as
sufficiently refuted by Krische, loc. the date of his birth (572 B.c.);
cit. p. 1, and Brandis, 1.422. The this would agree with the text of
usual opinion now is that Pytha- Eusebius, Chron., which states that
goras was born about the 49th he died in the Ol. 40, 4 (497 B.c.),
Olympiad, that he came to Italy if we suppose him to have attained
about the 59th or 60th, and died his 75th year (Anon. ap. Syncell.
in the 69th. This is no doubt ap- Chron. 247 c.). The traditions as
proximately correct, and greater to the length of his life vary exceed-
exactitude cannot be attained; ingly. HeracleidesLembus (ap. Diog.
even the statements of the ancients vill. 44) gives it as 80 years (which
are probably based only upon un- may have been derived from Diog.
certain estimates, and not upon viii.'10); but most writers, follow-
distinct chronological traditions. ing Diog. 44. have 90: Tzetz. Chii.
According to Cicero, ep. ii. 15; xi. 93, and Syne. loc. cit., say 99 ;
Se pate. 4.96, 36; ‘ty. 1,2; A. Iamblichus (265) nearly 100; the
ἘΠῊΝ ave 2); tambl. V. P. 35, biographer, ap. Phot. (Cod. 249, p.
Pythagoras came to Italy in the 438 b, Bekk.) 104; a Pseudo-Py-
62nd Olympiad, the fourth year of thagorean, ap. Galen. (Rem. Para.
Tarquinius Superbus (532 B.c.), T. xiv. 567 K) 117, or more. If
whereas Liv. i. 18, represents him Pythagoras (as asserted by Iambl.
as teaching there under Servius 265) was at the head of his school
Tullius. Others, doubtless after for 39 years, and if his arrival in
Apollodorus, name the 62nd Ol. as Italy occurred in 532 B.c., his death
the period in which he flourished must have occurred in 493 n.c., and
(so Clem. Strom. i. 302 B, 332 A; supposing him to have been 46
 PYTHAGORAS.

of the ancients as to his teachers seem almost entirely

(Iambl. 19) when he came into statements are entirely destitute of
Italy, we should get 588 as the evidence. Réth supposes that
year of his birth. If, on the other Iamblichus may have borrowed
hand (lambl. 255), the attack on them from Apollonius (of Tyana),
his school, which he is said not to but even if this were true, we must
have survived very long (vide infra still ask where Apollonius obtained
p. 282, 1, third edition), be brought them? There is no mention even
into direct connection with the of the so-called Crotonian memoirs
destruction of Sybaris (510 B.c.), on which Apollonius (ap. Iambl.
his death must have taken place in 262) founds his narrative of the
the sixth century. Lastly, Antilo- expulsion of the Pythagoreans
echus in Clem. Strom. i. 309 B. from Croton. This narrative,
places the ἡλικία of Pythagoras however, cannot be reconciled with
(not his birth as Brandis, 1. 424, Roth’s ecaleulation, as it makes the
says) 312 years earlier than the residence of Pythagoras in Croton
death of Epicurus, which, according precede the destruction of Sybaris
to Diog. x. 15, happened in Ol. (Iambl. 245). Now it is true that
127, 2; this would bring us to ΟἹ. his death must be put back at least
49, 2, and the philosopher’s birth to 470 B.c.. if, as Diceearchus and
must be put back to the beginning others maintain (vide infra), the
of the sixth century. We are ta- attack on the Crotonian Pythago-
ken still farther back by Pliny, reans, from which Lysis and Ar-
who, according to the best attested chippus alone are said to have es-
reading of Hist. Nat. 11. 8, 37, as- caped, took place in the lifetime of
signs an astronomical discovery of Pythagoras; nay, in that case, we
Pythagoras to the 42nd Olympiad, must even allow 18 or 20 years
or the 142nd yeur of the City; more ; for the birth of Lysis, as we
while, on the contrary, his abbre- shall find, can scarcely have oc-
viator, Solinus, ec. 17, says that curred before 470. The only in-
Pythagoras first came to Italy ference from this, however. is that
during the consulate of Brutus, the statement must be discarded;
therefore A. U. C. 244-5, or 510 that Diczearchus does not here de-
B.c. Roth (p. 287 sq.) combines serve the credit of trustworthiness
with this last statement the asser- which Porphyry (V. P.56) accords
tion of Iambl. (V. P. 11, 19) that to him; and that no thoughtful
Pythagoras left Samos at the age critic could regard this judgment
of eighteen, received instruction of Porphyry’s as decisive in fayour
from Pherecydes, Thales, and of the narrative of Diceearchus.
Auaximander; was 22 years in Pythagoras cannot have lived to the
Egypt, and after its conquest by year 470 B.c.: this is evident from
Cambyses (525 B.c.), 12 more in the manner in which he is spoken of
Babylon; and at the age of 56 by Xenophanes and Heracleitus,
again returned to Samos. Conse- both of whom are before that date
quently he places his birth in 569 (vide infra, p. 381, 1, third edition,
B.c.; his return to Samos in 513 283, 3); their expressions certainly
B.c.: his arrival in Italy in 510; do not give us the impression of re-
and his death in 470. But these lating to a person still alive. More-
 HIS TRAVELS. 527

destitute of any secure historic foundation,! and even

his connection with Pherecydes, which has in its
favour an old and respectable tradition,? is not quite
beyond a doubt. Of his distant journeyings, which
over, none of our authorities, except Diog. viii. 3, Pythagoras was ac-
Solinus, who is not to be depended quainted. The Scholiast of Plato,
upon, place the arrival of Pytha- p- 420, Bekk. says that he first
goras in Italy later than Ol. 62. attended Pherecydes’ instructions,
For Iamblichus himself (that is to then those of Hermodamas,
say, Apollonius) does not intend this afterwards those of Abaris, the
(V. P. 19) when he says that he Hyperborean (vide infra). Thus
first came there twelve years after it is plain that as time went
the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses on, celebrated names continued
(therefore after 425 B.c. Even to be added to the list. Abaris
Apollonius, ap. Iambl. 256, as al- and Epimenides are, however,
ready observed, makes him outlive also called disciples of Pythagoras
by very little the destruction of (Iambl. 135).
Sybaris), but Iamblichus is too care- 2 Besides the text already
less or too ignorant of chronologi- quoted, Diog. i. 118 sq.; viii. 40
cal matters to remark the contra- (after Aristoxenus), Andron, and
diction into which his narrative Satyrus; the epitaph of which
has fallen. It is clear, however, Duris, ap. Diog. i. 120, speaks;
that none of our informants had at Cic. Tusc. 1. 16, 88; De Div. i. 50,
their command trustworthy and 112; Diodor. Fragm. p. 554; Ps.
exact chronological details as to Alex. im Metaph. 828 a, 19, Fr.
the life of Pythagoras. Perhaps, 800, 24 Bon. &e.
indeed, all their statements were 3 For in the first place it was
inferred from a few notices, e.g. very natural that the thaumatur-
concerning his migration in thetime gist, Pythagoras, should have been
of Polycrates, or the Pythagorean- represented as the pupilof an older
ism of Milo, the conqueror at the contemporary of similar character,
Traés. We must, therefore, leave who likewise held the dogma of
it undecided whether and how long Transmigration ; and secondly, the
the philosopher survived the end accounts on the subject are not
of the sixth century. agreed as to details. According to
1 Diog. viii. 2, names Phere- Diog. viii. 2, Pythagoras was
eydes and Hermodamas, a des- brought to Pherecydes at Lesbos,
cendant of the Homerid Creophy- and after Pherecydes’ death, handed
lus of Samos, and, according to over to Hermodamas in Samos.
Jambl. 11, himself called Creophy- Iambl. 9, 11, says that he was
lus. Neanthes (ap. Porph. 2, 11, instructed by Pherecydes first in
15) adds to these Anaximander, Samos, and then in Syros. Por-
Iamblichus (9, 11, 184, 252) Thales. phyry (15, 56) says, following
Instead of ‘Vhales, Apuleius (Floril. Diczarchus and others, that he
ii. 15, p. 61, Hild.) names Epime- tended his master, who was sick in
nides, with whom, according to Delos, and buried him before his
 928 PYTHAGORAS.

are said to have acquainted him with the wisdom and

religious ceremonies of the Phenicians,' the Chaldeans,”
the Persian Magi,’ the Hindoos,! the Arabians,’ the
departure to Italy; on the other Porph. 6 say that he learned as-
hand, Diodorus (loc. cit.), Diog. viii. tronomy from the Chaldeans. In
40, and Jambl. 184, 252, following Justin xx. 4, he is said to have
Satyrus and his epitomiser, Hera- travelled to Babylon and Egypt,
cleides, say that shortly before his ad perdiscendos siderum motus ori-
own death he went from Italy to ginemque mundi spectandam. Apul.
Delos for that purpose. Floril. ii. 15, states that he was
1 According to Cleanthes (Ne- instructed by the Chaldeans in
anthes), in Porphyry, V. P. 1, astronomy, astrology, and medicine.
Pythagoras was brought as a boy According to Diogenes in the book
to Tyre by his father, and there of Prodigies (ap. Porph. 11) he
instructed by ‘the Chaldzeans.’ learned the interpretation of dreams
Iambl. V. P. 14, says that when he from the Chaldzans and Hebrews
left Samos on his great travels, he (or from the Hebrews only?). In
first went to Sidon, and there met Iambl. V. P. 19; Theol. Arithm.
with prophets, the descendants of p. 41, we are told that in the con-
the ancient Mochus (vide supra, p. quest of Egypt by Cambyses he
48, and infra, chapter on the was carried as a prisoner to Baby-
Atomists, note 2), and other hiero- lon, remained twelve years in that
phants; that he visited Tyre, city, where in his intercourse with
Biblus, Carmel, &c., and was initi- the Magi, he not only perfected
ated into all the mysteries of the himself in mathematics and music,
country. Porphyry (V. P. 6) is but completely adopted their reli-
more moderate; he merely states gious prescripts and practices.
that Pythagoras is said to have That Iamblichus is here following
gained his arithmetical knowledge some older authority (Apollonius,
from the Pheenicians. no doubt), is shown by the state-
2 According to Neanthes, Py- ment of Apul. Floril. 11.15. Many
thagoras had, when a boy, been maintain that Pythagoras was ta-
instructed by the Chaldeans (vide ken prisoner by Cambyses in his
previous note). According to all Egyptian campaign, and was only
other testimony, he first came to set at liberty a long time after by
Babylon from Egypt, either of his Gillus the Crotonian; and that in
own accord, or as the prisoner of consequence of this he had the
Cambyses. This statement ap- benefit of the instructions of the
pears in its simplest form in Strabo, Persian Magi, especially Zoroaster.
xiv. 1. 16, p. 638: Πυθαγόραν ἵἷστο- 3 Pythagoras must early have
potow. . . . ἀπελθεῖν cis Αἴγυπτον been brought into connection with
kal Βαβυλῶνα φιλομαθείας χάριν. the Magi, and especially with Zo-
Clemens, Strom. 302 C, merely roaster, if what Hippolytus says is
says: Χαλδαίων τε καὶ Μάγων τοῖς true (Refut. Her. i. 2, p. 12 D);
᾿ ἀρίστοις συνεγένετο ; Eus. Pr. Ev. ef. vi. 23: Διόδωρος δὲ 6 Ἐρετριεὺς
x. 4,9 sq.; Antipho, ap. Diog. viii. (a writer otherwise unknown) καὶ
δ; Schol. Plat. p. 420, Bekk. ᾿Αριστόξενος 6 μουσικός φασι πρὸς
 «.

HIS TRAVELS. 929

Ζαράταν τὸν Χαλδαῖον ἐληλυθέναι thisrelationshipis Alexander(Poly-

Πυθαγόραν he imparted to Pytha- histor). who, according to Clemens,
goras his doctrine, which Hippoly- Strom. i. 304 B, said in his work
tus proceeds to describe, but in a on the Pythagorean symbols: Na-
very untrustworthy manner. This Capatw τῷ ᾿Ασσυρίῳ μαθητεῦσαι τὸν
statement of Hippolytus, how- Πυθαγόραν. This Ναζάρατοςis evi-
ever, is hardly sufficient to prove dently Zoroaster ; if, indeed, Zapata
that Aristoxenus asserted a per- ought not to be substituted. That
sonal acquaintance between Pytha- Pythagoras visited the Persian
goras and Zoroaster. He may, Magi we are likewise told in Cie.
perhaps, have observed the simi- Fin. v. 29, 87; cf. Tusc. iv. 19,
larity of the two doctrines, and 44; Diog. vill. 3 (perhaps after
hazarded the conjecture that Py- Antipho) ; Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 4; Cy-
thagoras was acquainted with rill. ὁ. Jul. iv. 188 Ὁ: Schol. in
Zoroaster ; for there is no certainty Plat. p.420, Bekk.; Apul. (vide pre-
at all that Hippolytus himself ceding note); Suidas, Πυθ. Valer.
knew the work of Aristoxenus. Max. villi. 7, 2, assert that he
What he says about the Zoroas- learned astronomy and astrology
trian doctrines which Pythagoras in Persia from the Magi. Anto-
adopted cannot have been taken as nius Diogenes relates, ap. Por-
it stands from Aristoxenus, because phyry, V. P. 12 (ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ
it presupposes the story about Py- Θούλην ἀπίστοις, the well-known
thagoras’ prohibition of beans to book of fables described by Phot.
be true, while, as we shall presently Cod. 166, and treated not only by
find, Aristoxenus expressly con- Porphyry, but also by Réth, 11. a,
tradicts it. Besides, the evidence 343, as a work of the highest au-
of Aristoxenus would merely prove thenticity), that he met Ζάβρατος in
that even in his time similari- Babylon, was purified by him from
ties had been discovered between the sins of his previous life, and in-
the Pythagorean and the Zoro- structed in the abstinences neces-
astrian doctrine, then well known sary to piety, and in the nature
in Greece (cf. Diog. Laért. 1. 8 sq. ; ‘ana reasons of things.
Damasce. De Prince. 125, p. 384, and 4 Clem. Strom. i. 304 B: axn-
that these resemblances had been κοέναι τε πρὸς τούτοις TadaTa@v καὶ
explained after the manner of the Βραχμάνων τὸν Πυθαγόραν βούλεται
Greeks by the hypothesis of a (namely, Alexander in the work
personal relation between the quoted in the previous note) ; after
two authors. Plutarch seems to him, Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 4,10; Apul.
have derived his shorter state- Foril. ii. 15: of the Brahmins
ment from the same source as whom he visited, he learned gue
Hippolytus ; there is, therefore, all mentium documenta corporumque
the less reason to doubt that here exercitamenta, quot partes animi,
too, as in Hippolytus, Zaratas ori- guot vices vite, que Diis manibus
ginally meant Zoroaster ; supposing pro merito sui cuique tormenta vel
even that Plutarch himself, who premia. Philostr. Κ΄. Apoll. viii. 7,
(De Is. 46, p.369) makes Zoroaster 44, says that the wisdom of Pytha-
to have lived 5000 years before the goras was derived from the Egyp-
Trojan war, discriminated them. tian γυμνῆται and the Indian sages
Our most ancient authority for > Diog. in Porphyry, 11.
990 PYTHAGORAS.

Jews,! the Thracians,? the Druids of Gaul,® but above

1 That Pythagoras borrowed Pythagoras himself (not Telauges
many of his doctrines from the as Roth 11. a, 357, Ὁ, 77, supposes)
Jews is asserted by Aristobulus in says in the fragment of a ἱερὸς λόγος
Eus. Pr. Ev. xiii. 12, 1, 3 (ix. 6, 3), in Jambl. V. P. 146, ef: 151, and
and the same is repeated by Joseph. following that authority, Procl. in
Con. Ap. i. 22, and Clem. Strom. v. Tim. 289 B; Plat. Theol. i. 5, p. 18.
560 A (who thinks that the ac- Conversely, in the legend of Zal-
quaintance of Plato and Pythago- moxis (ap. Herod. iv. 95, and
ras with the Mosaic writings is others after him, e.g. Ant. Diog.
shown in their doctrines). Cyrill. ap. Phot. Cod. 166, p. 110 a;
6. Jul. i. 29 D, Jos. appeals in sup- Strabo, vii..3, 5; xvi. 2, 39,p.297,
port of this to Hermippus, who, in 762; Hippolyt. vide next note),
his work on Pythagoras, says: the doctrine of immortality of the
ταῦτα δ᾽ ἔπραττε καὶ ἔλεγε τὰς Thracian Gete is derived from
᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Θρακῶν δόξας μιμούμε- Pythagoras.
vos καὶ μεταφέρων eis ἑαυτόν. He 8 Surprising as this sounds, it
had also said the same, as Origen, is undeniably asserted by Alex-
ὁ. Cels. i. 18, relates with the word ander in the passage quoted p.
λέγεται, ἐν TE πρώτῳ περὶ νομοθε- 329, 4; and Roth (ii. a, 346) is
τῶν, If even these authors derived entirely on a wrong track when he
their statements from Aristobulus, discovers in it a misunderstanding
it is not certain that Hermippus of the statement that Pythagoras
really expressed himself thus ; but met in Babylon with Indians and
supposing he did so, it would only Calatians (an Indian race mentioned
prove that this Alexandrian sage, in Herod. iii. 58, 97, who, being of
of the early part of the second cen- a dark colour, he calls also Ethio-
tury before Christ, had found the pians, 6. 94, 101). The idea pro-
assertion among the Alexandrian bably arose in this way. The
Jews. and believed it; or else that Pythagorean doctrine of Transmi-
he had himself observed some gration was found, or supposed to
similarities between the Pythago- be found (vide supra, p. 73,1), among
rean and Jewish doctrines, and the Gauls, as every such simila-
had inferred from them that Py- larity was thought to be based
thagoras was acquainted with the upon a relation of teacher and
customs and doctrines of the Jews. taught, either Pythagoras was
2 Hermippus, ap Jos., vide pre- made a disciple of the Gauls, as
ceding note. This statement was by Alexander, or the Druids were
no doubt based upon the likeness made disciples of the Pythagorean
of the Pythagorean mysteries to philosophy, as by Diodorus and
those of the Orphics, and especially Ammian (vide supra, 73, 1), into
in their common doctrine of Trans- which, according to Hippolyt.
migration. In consequence of Refut. her.i. 2, 9 E; ibid. e. 25,
this likeness, Pythagoras was re- they were regularly initiated by
presented as the pupil of the Thra- Zamolxis. Iambl. (151) says also
cians; he had, it is said, received that Pythagoras was instructed by
his consecration from Aglaopha- the Celts, and even by the Ibe-
mus in Libethra; as the pseudo- rians.
 HIS TRAVELS. 58

all with the mysteries of the Egyptians'—even the

journey to Egypt, though this is comparatively the
best attested and finds supporters? among quite recent
1 The first known author who rance at length overcame, gained
speaks of Pythagoras being in admittance to the Egyptian mys-
Egyptis Isocrates, Bus. 11: ὃς (Πυθ.) teries and holy rites. He says
ἀφικόμενος eis Αἴγυπτον καὶ μαθητὴς also that he learned the Egyptian
ἐκείνων γενόμενος thy T ἄλλην φιλο- language. From this author,
σοφίαν πρῶτος εἰς τοὺς “Ἑλληνας- ἐκό- Clemens, Strom. i. 302 ec, and
μισε, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ τὰς Theodoret, Gr. aff. cur. i. 15, p. 6,
ἁγιστείας Tas ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιφανέσ- no doubt derive their statement
τερον τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπούδασεν. The that he was circumcised in Egypt.
next testimony, Cic. Fin. v. 29, 87, Anton, Diogenes (ap. Porph. V. P.
merely says Agyptum lustravit ; 11) says that he learned the wisdom
similarly Strabo (vide supra, 328,1); of the Egyptian priests, especially
Justin, Hist. xx. 4; Schol. in Plato, their religious doctrine, the Egyp-
p. 420, Bekk.; Diodorus, i. 96, 98, tian Janguage and the three
learned much more from the state- kinds of Egyptian writing. Jam-
ments of the Egyptian priests, said blichus, V. P. 12 sqq. (ef. p.
to be taken from their sacred wri- 325, note), gives a circumstantial
tings, vide supra, p. 27,1. Plut. account of his wonderful voy-
Qu. Conv. viii. 8, 2, 1, makes out age from Mount Carmel to Ezypt
that Pythagoras was a long while (whither, according to Theol.
in Egypt, and adopted the precepts Arithm. 41, he had fled from the
concerning the ἱερατικαὶ ἀγιστεῖαι, tyranny of Polycrates), and goes on
such as the prohibition of beans to tell of his 22 years’ intercourse
and fish. The same authority, with the priests and prophets, in
De 15. 10, p. 354, derives the Py- which he learned all that was worth
thagorean symbolism from Egypt; knowing, visited all the temples,
Ps.-Justin (Cohort. 19) says the Py- gained access to all the mysteries,
thagorean doctrine of the Monad as and devoted himself to astronomy,
the first principle came from there. geometry, and religious exercises.
According to Apul. Floril. 11. 15, The king in whose reign Pythago-.
Pythagoras learned from the Egyp- ras came to Egypt is called by
tian priests cerimoniarum poten- Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 9, 71)
tias, numerorum vices, geometrie Psemetnepserphres (for which the
formulas; according to Valer. manuscripts also give Semetnep-
Mex. viii. 7, 2, he found in the an- sertes and other forms); the priest
cient books of the priests, when he who instructed him is said by Plu-
had learned the Egyptian writing, tarch, De Js. 10, to have been
innumerabilium seculorum observa- Oinupheus of Heliopolis. Clem.
tiones; Antipho (Diog. viii. 3 and Strom,i.303 C, names Sonches. Plu-
Porph. V. P. 7 sq.) relates how tarch (De Js. 26; Solon, 10) makes
Polycrates introduced him to Ama- Sonches the instructor of Solon.
sis, and Amasis to the Egyptian 2 E.g. independently of Roth,
priests; and how he thus after Chaignet (Pythagore, i. 43 sqq.;
many difficulties, which his perseve- li. 353), who is very inaccurate when
352 PYTHAGORAS.

writers—cannot be satisfactorily established. The most

ancient evidence for this journey, that of Isocrates, is
more than a hundred and fifty years later than the
event to which it refers, and moreover is contained,
not in a historical work, but in a rhetorical oration
which itself makes no pretension to historical credi-
bility.'. Such testimony has obviously no weight at
all; and even if Isocrates did not himself originate
the idea that Pythagoras had been in Egypt, there
would still remain the doubt whether the source from
which he took it was grounded on historical tradition.
This, however, is not only beyond the reach of proof,
but is contrary to all probability. Herodotus, it is
true, remarks on the analogy of one Pythagorean usage
with a custom of the Egyptians ;? he also says that the
he says (1. 46) that I declare it of him, but he certainly does not
certain that Pythagoras never went attribute to him impossible deeds,
to Egypt. I say it is undemon- nor acts of bestial savagery: ἔπειτ᾽
strable that he was there; I never ei καὶτυγχάνομεν ἀμφότε-
said it was demonstrable that he pot ψευδῆ λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν
was zot there. ἐγὼ μὲν κέχρημαι τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις,
1 The Busiris of Isocrates is οἷς περ χρὴ τοὺς ἐπαινοῦντας, σὺ δ᾽
one of those works in which the οἷς προσήκει τοὺς λοιδοροῦντας. It
Greek rhetors, after the time of is evident that writings which an-
the Sophists, sought to surpass one nounce themselves as - rhetorical
another in panegyrics on evil or inventions cannot be of the smalles:
worthless persons and things, and value ; and if we cannot prove from
in accusations against men univer- this work that Busiris was the
sally admired. The Rhetor Poly- author of the whole Egyptian cul-
crates had written an apology for ture, neither can we accept it as
Busiris. Isocrates shows him how historical evidence for the presence
he should have handled his theme. of Pythagoras in Egypt, and hiscon-
He explains his points of view very nection with the Egyptian priests.
candidly, c. 12. The adversary of 2 11.81. The Egyptian priests
Busiris, he says, has ascribed wear linen trousers under their wool-
wholly incredible things to him, len garments, in which they were not
such as the diverting of the Nile allowed to enter the temple, or to
from its course, and the devouring be buried. ὁμολογέουσι δὲ ταῦτα
of strangers. It is true that Iso- τοῖσι Ορφικοῖσι καλεομένοισι καὶ
crates cannot prove what he affirms Βακχικοῖσι, ἐοῦσι δὲ Αἰγυπτίοισι, καὶ
 HIS TRAVELS. 959

belief in Metempsychosis came from Egypt into Greece;!

but he never hints that Pythagoras brought it thither,
seeming rather to assume that it had been transmitted
to the Greeks? before the time of that philosopher.
As to the presence of Pythagoras in Egypt, though
there was every opportunity for mentioning it, he pre-
serves so strict a silence that we can only suppose he
knew nothing of it.2 Nor does Aristoxenus seem to
have been aware of it.4 Thus there is an entire dearth
of all trustworthy evidence respecting the supposed
Πυθαγορείοισι. That is, ‘ they agree cients’ who introduced the doctrine
in this respect with the so-called of Transmigration into the Orphic
Orphics and Bacchies, who, how- Dionysiac mysteries. In that case
ever, are in truth Egyptians, and Pythagoras would not have required
with the Pythagoreans;’ ποῦ, as to go to Egypt, in order to become
Roth (ii. a, 381) and (in spite of acquainted with this doctrine.
the previous remark) Chaignet (1. 5. For Roth’s explanation (ii.
45) translate it: ‘They agree in b, 74) that Herodotus purposely
this with the usages of the Orphic avoided mentioning Pythagoras
and Baecchie rites of consecration, from his antipathy to the Cro-
which, however, are Egyptian and toniates, who were hostile to the
Pythagorean.’ Thurians, is not only very far-
1 11.123. The Egyptians first fetched, but demonstrably false.
taught Immortality and Transmi- Herod. does mention him in ano-
gration: τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶ ot ther place (iv. 95), and with the
Ἑλλήνων ἐχρήσαντο, οἱ μὲν πρότερον, honourable addition : Ἑλλήνων οὐ
οἱ δὲ ὕστερον. ὡς ἰδίῳ ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι" τῷ ἀσθενεστάτῳ σοφιστῇ Πυθαγόρῃ -
τῶν ἐγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ and in ii. 123 (previous note) he
΄
γράφω. ’ passes over his and other names,
2 Though it is probable that not from aversion, but forbearance.
Herodotus, in the passage just If he is silent as to his connection
quoted, when speaking of the later with Egypt, the most natural rea-
philosophers who adopted the doc- son for his silence is that he knew
trine of Transmigration, was espe- nothing of any such connection.
~ elally referring to Pythagoras, he Also in ii. 81 (vide supra, p. 332, 2),
does not necessarily mean that Py- he would doubtless have expressed
thagoras himself acquired it in himself otherwise, if he had derived
Egypt. Herodotus names Melam- the Pythagoreans from Egypt in
pus as having imported the Egyp- the same manner as the Orphics.
tian Dionysiac cultus into Greece 4 None of our authorities, at
(vide supra, 71, 4); it would seem, any rate, who speak of Pythago-
therefore, that Melampus is pri- ras Egyptian journeys, refer to
marily alluded to among the ‘an- Aristoxenus.
994 PYTHAGORAS.

journeys of Pythagoras in the East; our authorities :

become more copious as we recede from the philoso-
pher’s own time, and more meagre as we approaeh it ;
before the beginning of the fourth century they entirely
fail. Each later writer has more to tell than his pre-
decessor ; and in proportion as the acquaintance of the
Greeks with the Oriental civilised nations increases, -
the extent of the journeys which brought the Samian
philosopher to be instructed by them likewise increases.
This is the way that legends are formed and not his-
torical tradition. We cannot, indeed, pronounce it im-
possible that Pythagoras should have gone to Egypt or
Pheenicia, or even to Babylon, but it is on that account
all the more indemonstrable. The whole character
of the narratives of his journeys strengthens the sup-
position that, as they now stand, they can have been
derived from no historical reminiscence ; that it was not
the definite knowledge of his intercourse with foreign
nations which gave rise to the theories as to the origin
of his doctrine; but, conversely, the presupposition of
the foreign source of his doctrine which occasioned the
stories of his intercourse with the barbarians. There
is quite enough to account for such a presupposition,
even if it were founded on no actual contemporary
tradition, in the syncretism of later times, in the false.
pragmatism! which could only explain the similarity of
Pythagorean doctrines and usages with those of the
East by the theory of personal relations between Py-
thagoras and the Orientals, and in the tendency to
1 There is no English equivalent the tendency to explain the history
for the German word Pracgmatismus, of thought by imaginary combina-
which may perhaps be explained as tions of fact.—Note by Translator.
 HIS EMIGRATION. 335

panegyric of the Pythagorean legend which loved to

concentrate the wisdom of the whole human race in
its hero.! The statement that Pythagoras visited Crete
and Sparta, partly to become acquainted with the laws
of those countries, partly that he might be initiated
into the mysteries of the Idan Zeus, stands on no
better foundation.” The thing is in itself conceivable,
but the evidence is too uncertain, and the probability
of any historical tradition as to these details too scanty
to allow of our placing any trust in the assertion. So,
too, the theory that the philosopher owed his wisdom
to Orphic teachers * and writings, even though it may
not be wholly wrong as to the fact, is doubtless based,
as it stands, not on any historical reminiscence, but on
the presuppositions of a period in which an Orphic
theosophy and literature had formed itself to some
extent under Pythagorean and Neo-Pythagorean in-
fluences. The truth is, that we possess no document
which deserves to be considered a historical tradition
concerning the education of Pythagoras and the re-
sources at his command. Whether it be possible to
supply this want by inferences from the internal nature
of the Pythagorean doctrine, we shall enquire later on.
The first luminous point in the history of this
1 Because Pythagoras could from writings which he studied;
scarcely have attained that ‘ poly- it is possible, however, that these
mathy,’ for which he is extolled by may have been collected by him
Heracleiius (vide infra, p. 336, 4), previously on his journeys.
otherwise than by travels (Chaig- 2 Justin. xx. 4; Valer. Max.
net, i. 40; Schuster, Heracl. 372), vill. 7, ext. 2; Diog. viii. 3 (Epi-
it does not at all follow that he menides); Iambl. 25; Porph. 17,
went to Egypt, or visited non-Hel- ef. p. 368, 2.
lenic countries. Moreover, Hera- 3 Vide supra, p. 330, 2.
cleitus rather derives his learning
 336 PYTHAGORAS.

philosopher is his emigration to Magna Grecia, the date

of which we cannot precisely fix,’ nor can we do more
than conjecture the reasons which led to it.? His
activity, however, does not seem to have begun in
Italy. The ordinary accounts, it is true, do not leave
space for a long period of activity in Samos. Other
texts, however, maintain that he at first laboured there
successfully * for some time, and if this assertion, con-
sidering the fables connected with it and the untrust-
worthiness of its evidence, may hardly seem deserving
of notice, yet the manner in which Pythagoras is
mentioned by Heracleitus and Herodotus would appear
to bear it out.4 MHeracleitus soon after the death
of this philosopher speaks of his various knowledge
and of his (in Heracleitus’s opinion erroneous) wisdom,
as of a thing well known in Ionia.® Now, it is not
likely that the report of it had first reached Ionia from
Italy. For, according to other testimony (vide wnfra),
1 Vide supra, p. 324, 2. Jambl. 28 says he did so in order to
2 The statements of the ancients avoid the political activity, which
are probably mere arbitrary con- the admiration of his fellow-citizens
jectures. Most of them assert with would have forced upon him.
Aristoxenus (ap. Porph. 9) that the 3 Antipho. ap. Porph. 9; Jambl.
tyranny of Polycrates occasioned 20 sqq., 26 sqq.
his migration (Strabo, xiv. 1. 16, p. ‘ As Ritter pertinently re-
638 ; Diog. viii. 3; Hippoly:. Refut. marks, Pyth. Phil. 31. What
i, 2, sub init.; Porph. 16; The- Brandis says to the contrary does
mist. Or. xxiii. 285 b; Plut. Plac. not appear to me conclusive.
i. 8, 24; Ovid. Metam. xv. 60, ete.), 5 Fr. 22, ap. Dies. iva. Ὁ:
and that this assertion contradicts Πυθαγόρης Μνησάρχου ἱστορίην
the uncertain story of Polycrates’s ἤσκησεν ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πάντων,
commendatory letters to Amasis is καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγρα-
no argument against it. But it φὰς ἐποίησεν ἑωυτοῦ σοφίην, πολυμα-
cannot be considered as proved, θηΐην, κακοτεχνίην. (Of. ibid. ix. 1.)
since the combination was perfectly The words ἐκλεξ. . . συγγραφὰς,
obvious. Others (Iambl. 20, 28) which I cannot think inserted by
say that he emigrated because the the narrator, must refer to writings
Samians had too little taste for previously mentioned by Hera-
philosophy. On the other hand, cleitus. Cf. p. 227, 2; 2nd edit.
 PYTHAGORAS IN ITALY. 337

the spread of Italian Pythagoreanism was brought

about by the dispersion of the Pythagoreans long after
the death of the master. Again, the well-known and
often qnoted narrative of Zalmoxis! presupposes that
Pythagoras had already played the same part in his
own country that he afterwards played in Magna Grecia.
In this story a Getic divinity takes the form of a
man and communicates with Pythagoras. The motive
of that fiction evidently is to explain the presumed
similarity of the Getic belief im immortality with
the Pythagorean doctrine (vide supra, p. 73, 1); yet
the story could never have been invented if the name
of the philosopher had been unknown to the Greeks on
the Hellespont, from whom Herodotus received it, and
if in their opinion his activity had first commenced
in Italy. Whether among his countrymen he found
less appreciation than he had hoped for, or whether
other reasons, such as the tyranny of Polycrates or the
fear of the Persian invasion, had disgusted him with
his native city, in any case he left it and took up his
abode in Crotona, a city with which he may possibly
have had some personal connections, and which may
well have commended itself to him on account of the
far-famed salubrity of its site and the vigorous activity
of its inhabitants.? Here he found the proper soil for
1 Herod. iv. 95. tine of that name mentioned in
2 According to a statement (ap. Herod. iii. 188), liberated him
Porph. 2), he had some previous from his Persian imprisonment.
connection with Crotona, having According to Iambl. 33, 36, 142,
travelled thither as a boy with his Pythagoras visited many other
father; but this is hardly more Italian and Sicilian towns besides
historical than the story mentioned Crotona, especially Sybaris. That
by Apuleius, Floril. ii. 15, that he went first to Sybaris, and thence
Gillus, the Crotoniate (the Taren- to Crotona, however (vide Roth, ii.
VOL. I.
998 PYTHAGORAS.

his endeavours, and the school he established was until

its dispersion so exclusively associated with lower Italy,
that it is often described as the Italian school.’
But this portion of his life is still so much obscured
by fabulous legends that it is hard to discover anything
with a historical foundation in the mass of pure in-
vention. If we may believe our informants, even the
person of Pythagoras was surrounded with miraculous
splendour. A favourite, and even a reputed son, of
Apollo,” he is said to have been revered by his followers
as a superior being,’ and to have given proof of this his
higher nature by prophecies and miracles of all kinds.’

a, 421), is nowhere stated. Roth can scarcely have been alive at the
deduces from the words of Apollo- date of Pythagoras’s birth; the
nius, ap. Iambl. 255, on which he other two names must likewise be
puts an entirely wrong interpreta- considered doubtful. Xenocrates
tion, and from Jul. Firmic. Astron. (as I have already observed in
p- 9. (Crotonam et Sybarim ecul Part ii. a, 875, third edition) may
incoluit), that after the destruction perhaps have mentioned the state-
of Sybaris, Pythagoras betook him- ment as a report, but he cannot
self to the estates which the Syba- himself have adopted it.
rites had given him; that, however, 3 Porph. 20; Iambl. 30, 255.
and everything else that he says After Apollonius and Nicomachus;
about this country life, is pure Diodor. Fragm. p. 554; Aristotle,
imagination. ap. Iambl. 31, 144, quotes as a
1 Aristot. Metaph. i. 5, 987 a, Pythagorean classification: τοῦ
9. c. 6, sub. init.; δι 7, 988 a, 29; λογικοῦ ζῴοι τὸ μέν ἐστι θεὸς, τὸ δ᾽
De Celo, ii. 13, 293 a, 20; Meteor. ἄνθρωπος, τὸ δ᾽ οἷον Πυθαγόρας ; and
i. 6, 342 Ὁ. 30; ef. Sextus, Math. /Elian. ii. 26, attributes to him the
x. 284: Hippolyt. efut. i. 2; often repeated statement (also in
Plut. Place. i. 3, 24. Diog. viii. 11, and Porph. 28) that
2 Porph. 2, appeals in support Pythagoras was called the Hyper-
of this to Apollonius, Iambl. ὃ 544.» borean Apollo. Cf. the following
to Epimenides, Eudoxus, and Xeno- note.
erates ; but the first of these three 4 According to félian, Joc. cit.
names can only be introduced here ef. iv. 17, Aristotle had already re-
through a mere blunder. For the lated that Pythagoras had been
well-known Cretan mentioned by simultaneously seen in Crotona and
Porph. 29, and Iambl. 135, 222, as Metapontum, that he had a golden
a disciple of Pythagoras, and by thigh, and had been spoken to by a
others, vide p. 327, 1, as his teacher, river god. This statement, how-
 PYTHAGORAS IN ITALY. 339

He alone among mortals understood the harmony of

the spheres;! and Hermes, whose son he was in a prior
state of existence, had allowed him to retain the re-
membrance of his whole past amidst the various phases

ever, has such a suspicious sound, wild beasts by a word, foretelling

that one might be tempted to con- of the future, and so forth, are to
jecture an error in the words, xa- be found in Plutarch, Joc. cit.:
κεῖνα δὲ προσεπιλέγει 6 τοῦ Νικομά- Apul. De Magia, 31; Porph. 23
χου, with which lian introduces sq.; Iambl. 36, 60 sqq., 142, who
it, and to suppose that Nicoma- unfortunately, however, have not
chus, the celebrated Neo-Pythago- named the ‘trustworthy ancient
rean, and not Aristotle, was lian’s writers’ to whom they owe their
authority ; had not Apollon. Mirabil. information; cf. also Hippol. Re-
c. 6, likewise quoted the same thing Fut.i. 2, p. 10. It is clear from
from Aristotle. It cannot possibly the statement of Porphyry, ap.
have been Aristotle himself, how- Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 3, 4, that even in
ever, who .stated these things. the fourth century there were
He must have mentioned them stories current in proof of Pytha-
merely as Pythagorean legends, goras’s supernatural knowledge of
and then himself have been taken the future. Andronis said to have
by iater writers as the authority spoken in his Τρίπους of the prophe-
for them. ‘This, indeed, is possi- cies of Pythagoras, and especially
ble, and therefore these statements of an earthquake which he fore-
can furnish no decisive proof of told from the water of a stream
the spuriousness of the Aristote- three days before it happened.
lian treatise, περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, Theopompus then transferred these
which they naturally recall to us. stories to Pherecydes. The verses
The same miracles are related by of Empedocles, ap. Porph. 80.
Plutarch, Numa, ec. 8; Diog. viii. and Jambl. 67, relate things muck
11; Porph. 28 sqq.; Iambl. 90 less wonderful. They do not im-
sqq.; 134, 140 sq. (the two latter ply supernatural knowledge, for
after Nicomachus; cf. Rohde, Ph. the ancients (aceording to Dioge-
Mus. xxvii. 44). According to nes, vill. 5£) were not agreed as to
Plutarch he showed his golden thigh whether the verse referred to Py
to the assembly at Olympia; ac- thagoras or to Parmenides. For
cording to Porphyry and Jambli- the rest it is quite credible that
chus, to the Hyperborean priest of during the lifetime of Pythagoras.
Apollo Abaris. For further par- and immediately after his death,
ticulars, vide Herod. iv. 36 (cf. rumour may have asserted much
also Krische, De Societ. a Pyth- that was miraculous about him, as
cond. 37), who refers the legends of was subsequently the case with
Abaris, told by later writers, with Empedocles.
some probability, to Heracleides 1 Porph. 30; Iambl. 65; Simpl.
Ponticus. Many other miracles, in Arist. De Celo, 208, Ὁ, 43, 211
often of the most extravagant a, 16; Schol. in Arist. 496 b, 1.
description, such as the taming of
κ ἃ
940 PYTHAGORAS.

of his existence.! There is mention even of a descent

into Hades.? His doctrines are said to have been im-
parted to him in the name of his divine protector by
the mouth of the Delphic priestess Themistoclea.? Τὸ
cannot, therefore, be wondered at that on his first
appearance in Crotona* he attracted much atten-
1 Diog. viii. 4 sq. after Herac- γεγονὼς Αἰθαλίδης, where the pre-
leides (Pont.); Porph.26,45; Iambl. sent λέγειν points to some writing;
63; Horat. Carm., i. 28. 9; Ovid. ef. what Rohde, doc. cit. further ad-
Metam. xv. 160; Lucian, Dial. Mort. duces. That writings of this kind
20, 8,οἱ pass. Tertull. De. An. 28, were not strange to the Pythago-
31. Aceording to A. Gellius, iv. reans is well known. The Orphie
11, Clearchus and Diczarchus, the Katabasis is said to have been
disciples of Aristotle, asserted that composed by the Pythagorean Cer-
Pythagoras maintained that he had cops (Clem. Strom. 1. 333 A).
formerly existed as Euphorbus, 3 Aristox. ap. Diog. vill. 8, 21;
Pyrander and others ; butthe-verses Porph. 41. Α statement so
of Xenophanes, ap. Dicg. vill. 96, mythical, and so improbable in
say nothing of any recollection of itself, gives us, however, no
a previous state of existence. He right to identify Pythagoreanism
is also said to have kept up con- with the Delphic philosophy, as
stant intercourse with the soul of Curtius does, Griech. Geschich. 1.
a friend who had died (Herm. in 427.
Joseph. Con. Ap. i. 22), Further 4 Diczearchus, ap. Porph. 18 ;
particulars later on. ef. Justin. Hist. xx. 4; speaks of
2 By Hieronymus, no doubt the lectures, which, in the first instance,
Peripatetic, ap. Diog. viii. 21, ef. he delivered before the Council of
38; Hermippus, vide Diog. viii. Elders (τὸ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχεῖον),
41, in imitation of the story of and then by command of the autho-
Zalmoxis (Herod. iv. 95), puts an rities before the youths, and finally
insipid natural interpretation upon the women. A lengthy and decla-
this legend, about which Tertullian, matory account of the contents of
De An. c. 28, is unnecessarily these leciures is given in Jambl.
angry. Its true origin is probably V. P. 37-57, and a modernised
to be found in a work attributed to paraphrase in Roth, ii. a, 425-450.
Pythagoras, called Κατάβασις eis I do not believe that this enlarged
ddov. Cf. Diog. 14 : ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς version is taken from Diczarchus κα
ἐν τῇ γραφῇ φησι, δ᾽ ἑπτὰ (for partly because it seems too poor in
which Rohde, 2h. Mus. xxvi. 558, content for this philosopher, and
appealing to Iambl. Theol. Arithm. partly because Diczarchus, accor-
p- 41, would substitute ἑκκαίδεκα) ding to Porphyry, makes Pythago-
καὶ διακοσίων ἐτέων ἐξ aldew παρα- ras appear first before the ruling
γεγενῆσθαι ἐς ἀνθρώπους. Lbid. 4: council, and then before the
τοῦτόν φησιν Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς youths; whereas in Jamblichus he
περὶ αὑτοῦ τάδε λέγειν, ὡς εἴη ποτὲ is represented to have made his first
 PYTHAGORAS IN ITALY. 941

tion,’ and soon acquired the highest renown throughout

Italy.? Disciples, both men and women,’ flocked to
him, not only from the Greek colonies, but from the
whole of Italy;* the most celebrated legislators of
appearance in the gymnasium, and was presented by the Romans with
then on the report of his lecture the right of citizenship; but he
there, to have been commanded to has been deceived by a forged
speak before thecouncil. It would writing, vide Welcker, Klein. Schrif-
seem that a later biographer of Py- ten,1.350. According to Plutarch,
thagoras had. added to the state- loc. cit., and Pliny, Hist. Nat.
ments of Diczarchus; and it is xxxiy. 6, 26, a pillar was subse-
probable that this was none other quently, at the time of the Samnite
than Apollonius ; since Iamblichus war, erected to him in Rome as the
in his V. P. 259 sq. adduces a nar- wisest of the Greeks.
rative from him in a similar style, 3 Porph. 22 : προΞςῆλθον δ᾽ αὐτῷ,
and (as Rohde, Rhein. Mus. xxvii. ὡς φησὶν ᾿Αριστόξενος. καὶ Λευκανοὶ
29, remarks) Apollonius, idid. 264, καὶ Μεσσάπιοι καὶ Πευκέτιοι καὶ
expressly makes mention of the Ῥωμαῖοι. The same, without the
temple of the Muses, to the build- appeal to Aristoxenus, is to be
ing of which, according to section found in Diog. viii. 14: Nic. ap.
50, these discourses of Pythagoras Porph, 19 sq.; Iambl. 29 sq., 265
had given occasion. Apollonius sqq. 127 (where mention is made
himself (as is proved by Rohde, of an Etruscan Pythagorean).
loc. cit. 27 sq. from Iambl. section 4 Cf. as to the Pythagorean
56; cf. Diog. vill. 11; and Just. women, Diog. 41 sq.; Porph. 19
xx. 4, sub. fin.; cf. also Porph. sq.; Iambl. 30, 54, 132, 267, end.
V. P. 4) seems to have based his As tothe most celebrated of them,
own account on an exposition of Theano, who is generally called the
the Timzus, and to have also made wife, but sometimes the daughter
use of sayings reported by Aris- of Pythagoras, οἵ. Hermesinax,
toxenus and others; cf. lambl. ap. Athen. xiii. 599 a; Diog. 42;
section 37, 40, 47, with Diog. viii. Porph. 19; Iambl. 132, 146, 265;
22, 23; Stob. Floril. 44, 21 (ii. Clem. Strom. i. 309 ; C. iv. 522D;
164, Mein.), section 55 with Stob. Plut. (ὑπ). Pree. 31, p- 142; Stob.
74, 53. Eel. i. 302; Flor.l. 74, 32, 53, 53;
1 Vide besides what has been Floril. Monae. 268-270 (Stob.
already quoted, the legendary ac- Fluril. Ed. Mein. iv. 289 sq.). As
count of Nicomachus, ap. Porph. to the children of Pythagoras,
20, and Iambl. 30 ; Diodor. Fragm. Porph. 4 (where there is a state-
p- 594; Fayorin. ap. Diog. vill. 15; ment of Timzus of Tauromenium
Valer. Max. viii. 15, ext. 1. about his daughter, repeated in
2 Cf. Alcidamas, ap. Arist. Hieron. Adv. Jovin. i. 42); Diog.
Phet. τι. 23, 1398 b, 14: Ἰταλιῶται: 42 sq.; Iambl. 146; Schol. in Plat.
Πυθαγόραν (ἐτίμησαν). Plutarch, p. 420, Bekk. As to his household
Numa, 6. 8, states, on the authority economy, Jambl. 170.
of Epicharmus, that Pythagoras
 PYTHAGORAS.

these countries! owned him for their teacher, and by

his influence, order, freedom, civilisation, and law
were re-established in Crotona and all Magna Grecia.”
Even the Druids of Gaul are called his disciples by
later writers.° The Pythagorean school is represented
to us not merely as a scientific association, but also,
and principally, as a religious and political society.
Entrance into it was only to be obtained by a strict
probation, and on condition of several years’ silence.*
The members recognised each other by secret signs’;ὅ

1 Especially Zalencus and Cha- cond edition.

rondas, of which this is asserted 9 Diog. vill. 3; Porph. 21 sq.,
by Seneca, Hp. 90, 6, and also by 54; Iambl. 88, 50, 132, 214; Cic.
Posidonius; similarly Diog. vii. Tuse. y. 4, 10; Diodor. Fragm. p.
16 (whether this is taken from 554; Justin. xx. 4; Dio Chrysost.
Aristoxenus cannot be _ ascer- Or. 49, p. 249 R.; Plut. C. Prine.
tained); Porph. 21; Iambl. 33, Philos. 1. 11, p. 776; ef. the sup-
104, 180, 172 (both probadly fol- posed conversation οὐ Pythagoras
low Nicomachus): cf. Adlian, V. with Phalaris ;Iambl. 215 sqq.
H. iii. 17; Zaleucus is also men- 8 Vide supra, Pp. 8... ἘΠ πὶ
tioned in this connection ap. Diodo- 330.
rum, x1i. 20. Now Zaleucus was cer- ‘ Taurus, ap.. Gell. 1.9; Diog.
tainly a hundred years earlier than viii, 10; Apul. Floril. ii. 15;
Pythagoras, and so probably was Clem. Strom. vi. 580, A; Hippol.
Charondas (cf. Hermann, Griech. Refut. i. 2, p. 8, 14; Iambl. 71
Antiquit. i. section 89); if, on sqq. 94; cf. 21 sqq.; Philop. De
the other hand, we recognise this An. D, 5; Lucian, Vit. Auct. 3.
Charondas (vide Diodorus, xii. 11; The tests themselves, among which
Schol. in Plat. p. 419), as the law- that of physiognomy is mentioned
giver of Thurii (445 B.c.), he would (Hippolytus called Pythagoras the
be much too young for a personal discoverer of physiognomy), and
disciple of Pythagoras. The ap- the duration of the silent noviciate,
pearance of suchstatements, there- is variously given. The counte-
fore, inthe above-mentioned writers, nance of the teachers was hidden
is a fresh proof how little real his- from the novices by a curtain, as
torical foundation exists, even for in the mysteries. Cf. Diog. 15.
ancient and widely spread accounts 5 Tambl. 238. The Pentagon
of Pythagoras. Some other Pytha- is said to have been such a sign
gorean lawgivers are named in (Schol. in Aristoph.; Clouds, 611,
Jambl. 130, 172. The story of i, 249, Dind.; Lucian, De Salut. α.
Numa’s relations with Pythagoras δ). Krische, p. 14, thinks the
is discussed in το]. 111. b, 692, se- gnomon also.
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 949
Κ΄
SeΨΑΙ͂Ό

only a certain number of them were admitted into

the inner circle and initiated into the esoteric doctrines
of the school:! persons not belonging to the society
were kept at a distance,” unworthy members were
excluded with contumely.? According to later ac-
counts, the Pythagoreans of the higher grade had all
their goods in common,‘ in obedience to a minutely
1 Gellius, loc. cit., names three in the conceptions of Pythagoras,
classes of Pythagorean disciples: which are genuinely Egyptian.
ἀκουστικοὶ or novices ;μαθηματικοὶ, These were the Pythagoreans, and
φυσικοί; Clem. Strom. v. 575 D; these alone (to them belonged Em-
Hippolyt. Refut. i. 2, p. 8, 14; pedocles, Philolaus and Archytas,
Porph. 37; Iambl. V. P. 72, 80 and Plato and his followers were
“a9 87 sq.; and Villoison’s Anecd, allied to them), to whom the ac-
216—two, the Esoterics and counts of Aristotle have reference,
της δδῇ the former were also and who were generally recognised
called Mattimnaticiane, and the by the ancients before the period
latter Acousmaticians; according of the Ptolemies. Now all the au-
to Hippolytus and Jamblichus, the thors who mention such a distine-
Esoterics were called Pythagore- tion call the exoterics Pythagorists,
ans, and the exoterics Pythagorists. and the esoterics, the true disciples
The unknown writer, ap. Phot. Cod. of Pythagoras, Pythagoreans ; and
249, distinguishes Sebasti, Politici, the anonymous writer in Photius
and Mathematici; also Pythago- applies this name only to the se-
rici, Pythagoreans, and Pythago- cond generation. But Roth finds
rists ; ealling the personal scholars away out of this difficulty. We
of Pythagoras, Pythagorici; the have only to correct the anonymous
scholars ot these, Pythagoreans; and writer to the extent of understand-
the ἄλλως ἔξωθεν ζηλωταὶ, Pythago- ing Acousmaticians under Pytha-
rists. On these statements (the goreans; and in respect to Iam-
recent date of which he does not blichus to substitute ‘ Pythagorici
consider) Réth (ii. a, 453 sq.; 756 for Pythagoreans, and Pythagore-
sq.; 823 sqq.; 966 b, 104) grounds ans for Pythagorists (Réth has
the following assertion. Themem- overlooked the passage in Hippo-
bers of the inner Pythagorean lytus), and all will be right.’ On
school (he says) were called Pytha- these arbitrary conjectures a the-
gorics, and those of the outer cir- ory is built up, which is entirely
cle Pythagoreans; there was an to overturn, not only the hitherto
important distinction between their accepted theory of Pythagoreanism,
doctrines, all the systems of the but the testimony of Philolaus,
Pythagorcans being tounded on the Plato, Aristotle, &c.
Zoroastrian dualism, which (ac- 2 Apollon. ap. Iambl. 257.
cording to p. 421 sq., it was im- 3 Jambl. 73 sq., 246; Clemens,
ported into Crotona by the physi- Strom. v. 574, D.
cian Democedes) is not to be fcund + The oldest authorities for
944 PYTHAGORAS.

prescribed rule of life reverenced among them as a

divine ordinance. ! This also enjoined linen clothing,?
and entire abstinence from bloody offerings and animal
food,* from beans and some other kinds of nourish-
ment;* even celibacy is said to have been imposed

this are Epicurus (or Diocles) ap. Cas.; and to the Pythagoreans
Diog. x. 11; and Timeeus of Tau- generally by the poets of the Alex-
romenium, tid. vili. 10; Schol. andrian period, ap. Diog. viii. 37
in Plat., Phedr. p. 319, Bekk. 84. ; Athen. 111. 108 sq.; iv. 161
Subsequently, after the appear- a, sqq.,163 ἃ. Later on, the state-
ance of the Neo-Pythagoreans, who ment became almost universal;
must have taken their notions vide Οἷς: NV. D. iii. 36, 88; Rep.
chiefly from the ideal Platonic i. 8; Strabo, vil. 1, pee
state, the statement is universal; Diog. viii. 18, 20,22; Porph. V. P.
vide Diog. viii. 10; Gell. loc. cit.; 7; De Abstin.i. 15, 28; Iambl. 54,
Hippol. Refut.i. 2, p. 12; Porph. 68, 107 sqq., 150; Plut. De Hsu
20; Jambl. 30, 72, 168, 257, &c. Carn. sub init.; Philostr. loc. cit.;
Phot. Lex. κοινὰ, makes Pythago- Sext. Math. ix. 12, 7 sq., and many
goras introduce community of goods others.
among the inhabitants of Magna * Heracleides (no doubt of Pon-
Grecia, and cites Timeeus as an tus) and Diogenes, ap. Joh. Lyd.
authority. De Mens. iv. 29, p. 76; Callima-
1 Porph. 20, 82 sqq.; follow- chus, ap. Gell. iv. 11; Diog. viii.
ing Nicomachus and Diogenes, the 19, 24, 58, following Alexander,
author of the book of prodigies; Polyhistor and others ; Cie. Divin.
Iambl. 68 sq., 96 sqq., 165, 256. i. 80, 62; Plut. Qu. Conv. viii. 8,
The latter gives a detailed descrip- 2; Clemens. Strom. iii. 485, D;
tion of their whole daily life. Porph. 43 564. ; Iambl. 109; Hip-
2 Jambl. 100, 149; both as pol. Refut. i. 2, p. 12 ; Lucian, V.
it would seem (Rohde, Rhein. Mus. Auct. 6, ete. According to Her-
xXxvil. 35 sq., 47) originally from mippus and others, ap. Diog. 39
Nicomachus, section 100, indirectly sq., Pythagoras was slain in his
from Aristoxenus, who, however, flight, because he would not escape
was only speaking of the Pythago- over ἃ bean field. Neanthes (ap.
reans of his own time; Apuleius, Jambl. 189 sqq.) relates the same
De Magia, ¢. 56; Philostr. Apollon. of Pythagoreans in the time of
i, 32, 2, who adds to the prescripts, Dionysius the elder. He also tells
of linen clothing a prohibition to’ a further legend, to be noticed
cut the hair. Others speak only infra, as to the pertinacity with
of white garments, e.g. ‘lian, which the reason of the bean pro-
ΤΌΣΗ tay. 32. hibition was kept secret. This last
* First attributed to Pythago- with a little alteration is trans-
ras himself by Eudoxus, ap. Porph. ferred to Theano, by David, Schol.
V. P. 7, and Onesicritus (about in Arist. 14 a, 30. Pythagoras is
320 B.c.), Strabo, xv. i. 65, p. 716 also said to have prohibited wine
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 945

upon them.! Older writers, indeed, who are more to

be trusted, say nothing of the community of goods,’
though they extol the loyalty of the Pythagoreans
towards friends and co-associates.3 The precepts as to
food and clothing (over and above the general principle
of moderation and simplicity‘) are reduced by these
writers to a few isolated ordinances ὃ in connection with
(lambl. 107, 69, and Epiph. Her. Athen.ii. 46 sq.; x. 418 e; Porph.
p- 1087 B). The prohibition of 33 sq. ; Iambl. 97 sq.; Diog. viii. 19.
beans is discussed at length by 5 Aristoxenus, ap. Athen. x.
Bayle, Art. Pythag. Rem. H. 418 sq.; Diog. viit. 20; Gell. iv.
1 Ap. Clem. Strom. ii. 434 ¢ 11, expressly denies that Pythago-
(Clemens himself contradicts it); ras abstained from meat; he only
ef. Diog. 19: οὔποτ᾽ ἐγνώσθη refused the flesh of ploughing oxen
(Pyth.) οὔτε διαχωρῶν οὔτε ἀφροδι- and bucks (the former probably on
σιάζων οὔτε μεθυσθείς. account of their utility, and the lat-
2 Vide supra, 343, 4, and ter on account of their lustfulness).
Krische, p. 27 sq., who rightly Plutarch (Gell. loc. cit.; ef. Diog.
finds a reason for this statement in vill. 19) quotes the same statement
a misunderstanding of the proverb from Aristotle. According to him,
κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων, which was pro- the Pythagoreans merely abstained
bably not peculiar to the Pythago- from particular parts of animals
reans (cf. Aristotle, Eth. N. ix. 8, and from certain fishes (so that ap.
1168 b, 6). It is, however, also Diog. vili. 13, only the remark
ascribed to Pythagoras by Timeus, about the unb!oody altar, and not
ap. Diog. 10; Cie. Leg. i. 12, 34, the story about Pythagoras, can
and Ant. Diog. ap. Porph. 33. have been taken from Aristotle).
5. Cf. the well-known story of Plutarch, Qu. Conv. vili. 8, 1, 3,
Damon and Phintias, Cic. Off. iti. and Athen. vii. 308 ¢, say that
10, 45; Diodor. Fragm. p. 554; the Pythagoreans eat no fish and
Porph. 59; Iambl. 233 sq. after very little meat, chiefly the flesh
Aristoxenus, to whom Dionysius of offerings; similarly Alexander,
himself told the story, and others. ap. Diog. vill. 33, speaking of
Also other anecdotes, ap. Diodor. many prohibitions of food (often
loc. cit.; Iambl. 127 sq., 185, 237 without historical foundation) does
sqq., and the more general state- not mention abstinence from flesh.
ments in Cie. Off. i. 17, 56; Diod. Even Ant. Diog. (ap. Porph. 34,
loc. cit.; Porph. 33, 59; Iambl. 36) and Iambl. 98 (in an account
229 sq.; also Krische, p. 40 sq. which no doubt is indirectly taken
These stories, however, for the from Aristoxenus) are agreed on
most part presuppose the existence this point with these writers,
of private property among the though differing from them on
Pythagoreans. many others, and Plut. Numa, 8,
* Aristoxenus and Lyco,. ap. says of the Pythagorean offerings
346 PYTHAGORAS.

particular forms of worship ;'! whether these ordinances

originated with the Italian Pythagoreans, or only belong
that they were, for the most part, the same words as Porphyry ; and
bloodless. On the other hand, though the contradiction of Aristox-
Theophrastus must have ascribed enus itself presupposes that such a
to the Pythagoreans the abstention prohibition was even at that period
from flesh, which is asserted of the attributed to Pythagoras, it never-
Orphie Pythagorean mysteries of theless shows that 1t was not ac-
his time (cf. Pt. ii. a, 29, 1, 3rd knowledged by those Pythagoreans
ed.; Pt. 111, Ὁ, 65 sg. 2nd ed.), if all whose tradition he followed. Gell.
that we read in Porph. De Ads/in. loc. cit, explains the story of the
ii. 28, is taken from him. Bernays, beans as a misunderstanding of a
however (Theoph. v. d. Fromm. symbolical expression; the most
p. 88), thinks, probably with jus- probable explanation is that a cus-
tice, that the sentences which treat tom, which really belonged to the
of the Pythagoreans, δι᾽ ὅπερ. . . Orphies, was transferred to the an-
παρανομίας, are added by Porphyry. cient Pythagoreans ; cf. Krische, p.
But, even according to this repre- 35. The statement that the Py-
sentation, they, at least, tasted the thagoreans wore only linen clothes
flesh of offerings, so that they is contradicted by the account in
must have had animal sacrifices. Diog. viii. 19 (cf. Krische, p. 31),
The sacrifice ofa bull is ascribed to where he excuses them clumsily
Pythagoras on the oceasion of the enough for wearing woollen gar-
discovery of the Pythagorean prin- ments, by asserting that linen at
ciple, and other mathematical dis- that time was unknown in Italy.
coveries (Apollodor. ap. Athenzeum, According to Herod. ii. 81, the
x. 418 sq., and Diog. viii. 12; Cic. whole matter is reduced to this:
N. D. iii. 36, 88; Plut. Qu. Conv. that in the Orphie Pythagorean
mit 234. o> NP Sued. ΓΙ: mysteries the dead were forbidden
p- 1094; Procl. ix Euel. 110 u, to be buried in woollen clothes.
426 Fr. Porph. V. P. 36, infers ! As Alexander (Diog. viii. 33)
from this the sacrifice of a σταίτινος expressly says: ἀπέχεσθαι βρωτῶν
βοῦς), and he is also said to have θνησειδίων Te κρεῶν καὶ τριχλῶν Kal
introduced meat diet among the μελανούρων καὶ φῶν καὶ τῶν φοτόκων
athletes: vide infra. Inregard to ζῴων καὶ κυάμων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὧν
beans, Aristoxenus (ap. Gellius, παρακελεύονται καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς
loc. cit.) maintains that Pythago- ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιτελοῦντες, cf. Plut.
ras, far from prohibiting them, Qu. Conv. viii. 8, 8, 15. That the
particularly recommended this Pythagoreans had peculiar reli-
vegetable. It is, therefore, pro- gious services and rites, and that
bable, that Hippol. fefut. i. 2. p. these formed the external bond of
12, and Porph. 43 sqq., derived their society, must be presupposed
their absurd account (mentioned from Herod. 11. 81. Plato also
also by Lucian, Vit. Auct. 6) of the (Rep. x. 600 B) speaks of a πυθαγό-
prohibition of beans, not from ρειος τρόπος τοῦ βίου, by which the
Aristoxenus, but from Antonius disciples of Plato weredistinguished
Diogenes, from whom Joh. Lydus, from others. Such a distinctive
De Mens. iv. 29, p. 76, quotes it in peculiarity in their mode of life
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 947

to the later Orphics of Pythagorean tendencies ; whether,

consequently, they arose from Pythagoreanism or trom
the Orphic mysteries, we do not certainly know. The
celibacy of the Pythagoreans is so entirely unrecog-
nised even by later writers that they represent Py-
thagoras as married,' and cite from him and from his
school numerous precepts concerning conjugal life (vide
infra). Among the sciences, besides philosophy proper,
the Pythagoreans chiefly cultivated mathematics, which
owes to them its first fruitful development.? By ay-

would, in itself, lead us to con- Philolaus and Archytas. Even at

jecture something of a religious a later period Magna Grecia and
character; and this appears still Sicily continued to be the principal
more clearly from such historical seat of mathematical and astrono-
accounts as we possess of the prac- mical studies. Considerable know-
tical life of the Pythagoreans, and ledge and discoveries in mathema-
from what may be accepted as tics and astronomy were ascribed
genuine of the ceremouial prescripts to Pythagoras himself; ef. Aristox.
in Diog. 10, 33 sqq.; Iambl. 163 ap. Stob. Hel. i. 16, and Diog. viii.
sq., 256; also from the early con- 12; Hermesianax and Apollodor.
nection of Pythagoreanism with ap. Athen. xiii. 599 a, x, 418 sq.,
the Bacchic Orphic mysteries, the and Diog. i. 25; viii. 12; Cie.
evidence for which is to be found N. D. iii. 36, 88; Plin. Hist. Nat.
partly in the above references, li. 8, 37 ;Diog. viii.11,14; Porph.
and partly in the forgery of Orphic V.P. 36; Plut. Qu. Conv. viii. 2,
writings by Pythagoreans (Clemens, 4, 3; N. P. Suav. Vivi. 11, 4, p.
Strom, i. 333 A; Lobeck, Aglaoph. 1094; Plac. ii. 12; Procl. in Eucl.
347 sqq.; ef. Ritter, 1. 363, 293). 19 τῇ (where, instead of ἀλόγων,
1 Vide supra, p. 341, 4, and we should doubtless read ἀναλύό-
Musonius, ap. Stob. Flori. 67, 20; yov), 110, 111 (65, 426, 428 Fr.);
ef. Diog. 21. Stob. Eel. 1.502 ; Lucian, Vit, Aucet.
5 It is searcely necessary to 2: τίδὲ μάλιστα οἶδεν ;ἀριθμητικὴν,
quote evidence for this, as Arist. ἀστρονομίαν, τερατείαν, “γεωμετρίαν,
Metaph. i. 5. sub init. (of καλού- μουσικὴν, γοητείαν, μάντιν ἄκρον
μενοι Πυθαγόρειοι τῶν μαθημάτων βλέπεις. Although Pythagoras
ἁψάμενοι πρῶτοι ταῦτα προήγα- unquestionably gave the impulse
γον καὶ ἐντραφέντες ἐν αὐτοῖς to the fruitful development of
τὰς τούτων ἀρχὰς τῶν ὄντων mathematics in his school, it is im-
ἀρχὰς φήθησαν εἶναι πάντων), since possible, from the fragmentary and
it is sufficiently proved by the wholly untrustworthy statements
whole character of the Pythagorean about him, to form any conception
doctrine, and by the names of of his mathematical knowledge at
948 PYTHAGORAS.

plying mathematics to music they became the founders

of the scientific theory of sound, which enters so deeply
into their system.! The practical importance of music,
however, was quite as great among them; it was
cultivated partly as a means of moral education, partly
in connection with the art of medicine; ? for this, too,’
all approximating to historical cer- the Pythagoreans regarded Har-
tainty. Even the state of mathe- mony and Astronomy as two sister
matical science in the Pythagorean sciences.
school, at the time of Philolaus and * Vide Porph. 32; Iambl. 33,
Archytas, could only be described 64, 110 sqq., 163, 195, 224; Stra-
by one accurately acquainted with bo, 1. 2, 3, p. 16; =. 3, 10 pee
ancient mathematics, and by such Plut. Js. et Os. α. 80, p. 384; Virt.
a one only with the greatest caution Mor. c. 3, Ὁ. 441; Cie. Tuse. iv. 2;
and reserve. We shall confine our- Sen. De ira, 111. 9; Quintil. Jnstiz.
selves here to what concerns the 1. 10, 32; ix. 4, 12; Censorin. Dz.
general principles of the number- Nat: 12; lian, Vo ἘΠ πὶ 9.
theory and harmony, or the concep- Sext. Math. vi. 8; Chamaleo, ap.
tions of the system of the universe. Athen. xiii, 623 (on Clinias).
Roth Gi a 962 b, 314) quotes These accounts, no doubt, contain
with essential omissions and altera- much that is fabulous, but their
tions a passage from Varro, L. historial foundation is beyond ques-
lat. v. 6, to prove that Pythagoras tion. ‘fhe Harmony of the Pytha-
made a map in Tarentum, of which goreans presupposes a diligent
Varro says not a word. He is study of music. The moral appli-
there speaking of a bronze image of cation of this art corresponds to
Europa on the bull which Pytha- the character of the Dorie life and
goras (Pythagoras of Rhegium, of the cultus of Apollo; and we
the well-known sculptor of the elsewhere find that that cultus was
beginning of the fifth century) connected with music as a medici-
made at Tarentum. Marc Capella, nal cure. In accordance with this
De Nupt. Philol. vi. 5, p. 197, the Pythagorean music is repre-
Grot., attributes to Pythagoras the sented as grave and quiet, and the
determination of the terrestrial lyre as their chief instrument.
zones, and not a map. Athen. iv. 184 e, however, enume-
1 According to Nicomachus, rates a whole series of Pythagorean
Harim.i.10; Diog. viii. 12; Iambl. flute-players.
115 sqq. and others (vide infra). 8 Diog. vill..12; Porphy aan
Pythagoras himself invented har- Jambl. 119, 163. Apollon. ap.
mony. What is more certain is, Jambl. 264. Celsus, De Medic. i.
that it was first developed in his Pref. names Pythagoras among
school, as is shown by the name the most celebrated physicians. Cf.
and the theories of Philolaus and what is said further on about Ale-
Archytas, on which more hereafter. mzon’s connection with the Py-
Plato says in Rep, vii. 530 D, that thagoreans.
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 949

as well as gymnastic,’ flourished among the Pytha-

goreans. As might be expected, after the proof of
supernatural wisdom related in the myth of the Samian
philosopher (vide swpra), Pythagoras and his school
are said to have applied themselves to prophecy.? Asa
help to morality, we are told that strict daily self-
examination was, among other things,’ especially en-
joined on the members of the society. Since, however,
at-that period, ethics were inseparable from politics,
we are also told that the Pythagoreans not enly occu-
pied themselves zealously with politics® and exercised
the greatest influence on the legislation and administra-
tion of the cities of Magna Grecia,° but also that they
constituted in Crotona and other Italian towns a regular
political confederation,’ which, by its influence upon the
deliberative assemblies ® of these towns, really held the

1 Cf. Iambl. 97; Strabo, vi. 1, Diodor. loc. cit.; Diog. viii. 22;
12, p. 263; Justin. xx. 4; also Porph. 40; Iambl. 164 sq., 256.
Diodor. Fragm. p. 554. Milo, the * According to Iamblichus, 97,
celebrated athlete, is well known the hours after meals were devoted
to have been a Pythagorean. The to politics, and Varro, vide Augus-
statement (Diog. 12sq., 47 ; Porph. tin. De Ord. ii. 20, maintains that
V. P. 15; De Abs. i. 26; Iambl. Pythagoras only communicated his
25) that Pythagoras introduced political doctrines to the ripest of
meat diet among the athletes, his scholars.
which is, however, scarcely histo- © Vide supra, p. 341,5; 342, 1,
rical, seems to refer to Pythagoras and Valer. Max. viii, 15, ext. I;
the philosopher. ibid. α. 7, ext. 2.
2 Cie. Divin. i. 3, 5; 11. 58, 7 Consisting, in Crotona, of 300
119: Diog. 20, 32; Iambl. 93, members; according to some ac-
106, 147, 149, 163; Clem. Strom. counts. of more.
ij eee oe Plat. .Flac. v. 1, 3; * In Crotona, these were desig-
Lucian (vide supra, p. 338, 4), nated by the name of of χίλιοι (Iam-
Magical arts were likewise attri- blichus, V. P. 45, 260, after Apollo-
buted to Pythagoras, Apul. De nius), which is so large a number
Magia, c. 27, p. 504. for a senate, that it might lead us
3 Diodor. Fragm. p. 555. rather to suppose that the ruling
* Carm, Aur. y.. 40 sqq., and portion of the citizens was intended.
after this source, Cic. Cato, ii. 38 ; Diod, xii. 9, calls them σύγκλητος,
 δ'
ae

350 PYTHAGORAS.

reins of government, and employed their power to pro-

mote an aristocratic organisation of the ancient Doric
type.’ They no less rigorously maintained the doctrine
of their master, and silenced all opposition with the
famous dictum αὐτὸς ἔφα.“ We are told, however, that

Porph. 18, τὸ τῶν γερόντων ἀρχεῖον. office. Still less does it follow
Both Diodorus and Iamblichus, from Plato, Rep. x. 600 C, that
however, speak of the δῆμος and the Pythagoreans abstained from
ἐκκλησία, which, according to lam- political activity; though, accord-
blichus, 260, only had to resolve ing to this passage, their founder
upon that which was brought before himself worked, not as a statesman,
it by the χίλιοι. but by personal intercourse. The
1 Tambl. 249, after Aristoxenus, strictly aristocratic character of
254 sqq.; after Apollonius, Diog. the Pythagorean politics appears
vill. 3; Justin. xx. 4. Polybius, ii. from the charges against them in
39, menticns the Pythagorean συνέ- Jambl. 260; Athen. vy. 213 f (ef.
δρια in the cities of Magna Grecia. Diog. viii. 46; Tertull. Apologet.
Plut. C. Prine. Philos. 1. 11, p. 777, ce. 46), and from the whole
speaks of the influence of Pytha- persecution by Cylon. Chaig-
goras on the leading Italiotes, and net's theory (i. 54 sq.). however,
Porph. 54 says the Italians handed that the government of Crotona
over the direction of their states was first changed by Pythagoras
to the Pythagoreans. In the con- from a moderate democracy into
test between Crotona and Sybaris, an aristocracy is supported by no
which ended in the destruction of tradition; it is, on the contrary,
the latter, it was, according to contradicted by the passage in
Diodorus, respeet for Pythagoras Strabo, vii. 7, 1. p. 384 (after
which decided the Crotonians to Polybius, 11. 39,5), where it is said
refuse to deliver up the fugitive of the Italians: pera τὴν στάσιν
Sybarite nobles, and to undertake τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους τὰ
a war with their more powerful πλεῖστα τῶν νομιμῶν μετενέγκασθαι
rival. It was Milo, the Pythago- παρὰ τούτων (the Achzans, who
rean, who led his countrymen to had a democratic constitution),
the fatal battle on the Traés. which would not have been neces-
Cicero, indeed (De Orat. iii. 15, 46 ; sary if they had only required to
ef. Tusc. ν. 23, 66), includes Pytha- re-establish their own democratic
goras with Anaxagoras and Demo- institutions; while, on the other
eritus among those who renounced hand (vide previous note), the
political activity in order to live ἐκκλησία decided many things,
entirely for science; but this does even under the Pythagorean ad-
not destroy the former evidence, ministration.
since in the first place it is uncer- 2 Cic. N. D. i) 5-10 ies
tain whence Cicero derived his in- vill. 46; Clemens, Strom. ii. 369
formation; and in the second, Py- C; Philo. Qu. in Gen. i. 99, p. 70.
thagoras himself held no public
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 951

this doctrine was carefully kept within the limits of

the school, and that every transgression of these limits
was severely punished.! In order that the doctrine
might be quite incomprehensible to the uninitiated,
the Pythagoreans, and in the first instance the founder
of the school, are said to have employed that symbolical
mode of expression in which are contained most of the
maxims handed down to us as Pythagorean.?
1 Aristoxenus, Diog. viii. 15, to the elder Dionysius the reason
says it was a principle of the Py- of Pythagoras'’s prohibition of
thagoreans, μὴ εἶναι πρὸς πάντας beans. On the other hand, it is a
πάντα ῥητά, and, according to question whether the statement of
Iambl. 31, Aristotle reckons the Timeus, in Diog. viii. 454, on which
saying about Pythagoras, quoted that of Neanthes is unquestionably
. 338, 3, among the πάνυ ἀπόῤῥητα founded, that Empedocles, and
of the school. Later writers (as afterwards Plato, were excluded
Plut. Numa, 22; Aristocles, ap. Eus. from Pythagorean teaching, being
Pr. Ev. xi. 3,1; the Pseudo-Lysis, accused of AoyorAorlia—really re-
ap. Jambl. 75 sqq., and Diog. viii. fers to the publishing of a secret
42; Clem. Strom. v. 574 D; Iambl., doctrine, and not to the proclaiming
V. P.199, 226 sq., 246 sq.; π. Kou. improperly of Pythagorean doc- .
μαθ. ἐπιστ; Villoison, Anecd. ii p. trines as their own. Moreover, we
216; Porph. 58; an anonymous cannot give much credit to the
person, ap. Menage, Diog. viii. ; testimony of an author, who, in
cf. Plato, Hp. ii. 314 A) dilate spite of all chronology, makes
much on the strictness and fidelity Empedocles (loc. cit.) the personal
with which the Pythagoreans kept pupil of Pythagoras.
even geometrical and other purely 2 Iamblich. 104 sq., 226 sq.
scientific theorems as secrets of Collections and interpretations of
their fraternity, and on the abhor- Pythagoreansymbols are mentioned
rence and punishment of the gods by Aristoxenus in the πυθαγορικαὶ
which overtook every betrayal of ἀποφάσεις, and by Alexander Puly-
this mystery. The first proof in histor and Anaximander {πὸ
support of this opinion is the asser- younger, ap. Clem. Strom. i. 304,
tion (sup. p. 315) of Neanthes about B. Cyrill. 6. Jul. iv. 188 D; Iambl.
Empedocles and Philolaus, and in V. P.101,145; Theol. Arithm, p.
the legendary narrative of the same 41; Suidas, ᾿Αναξίμανδρος (cf.
author, as also of Hippobotus, ap. Krische, p. 74 sq.; Mahne, De
Jambl. 189 sqq. (considerably more Aristoreno, 94 sqq.; Brandis, i.
recent, ef. Diog. viil. 72), according 498) ; another work, said to be of
to which Myllias and Timycha ancient Pythagorean origin, bearing
suffer to the uttermost, the latter the name of Androcydes, is dis-
even biting out his own tongue, like cussed, part iii. b, 88, second edi
Zeno in Elea, in order not to reveal tion. Aristotle’s work on the Py-
ὡςὧνbo PYTHAGORAS.

How much of these statements may be accepted as

historical it is difficult to determine in detail; we can
only establish approximately certain general results.
We see that so early as the time of Aristotle, Aristoxe-
nus, and Diczarchus, many miraculous tales respecting
Pythagoras were in circulation ; but whether he himself
appeared in the character of a worker of miracles
cannot be ascertained. The manner in which he is
spoken of by Empedocles and Heracleitus' renders it
probable that, for long after his death, he was merely
esteemed as a man of unusual wisdom, without any super-
natural character. This wisdom seems to have been
chiefly of a religious kind, and to have served religious
ends. Pythagoras appears as the founder of a religious
association with its own rites and ceremonies; thus he
may have passed for a seer and a priest, and may have
declared himself as such: this is extremely likely
from the whole character of the Pythagorean legend,
thagoreans seems to have given very uncertain, and in the second,
many of these symbols (vide Porph. what is genuinely Pythagorean is
41; Hieron. ὁ, Ruf. iii. 39, T. 11. hard to distinguish from later in-
565, Vall.; Diog. viii. 34), and va- gredients. In regard to the Py-
rious authors (as Demetrius of thagorean Philosophy, they are of
Byzantium mentioned by Athen. x, little importance. Collections of
452 c) have spoken of them inci- these sentences are to be found in
dentally. From these ancient com- Orelli, Opuse. Grec. Vet. Sent. i, 60
pilations probably came the greater sq.; Mullach, Fragm. Philos. i.
part of the sentences ascribed to 504 sqq.; Godttling, Ges. Ahhand.
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans i. 278 sq., 11. 280 sq., has subjected
by later writers, as Plutarch (es- them to athorough criticism. But
pecially in the συμποσιακὰ), Sto- his interpretations are often too
beus, Athenzus, Diogenes, Por- artificial, and he is apt to seek
phyry, and Iamblichus, Hippolytus, unnecessarily for hidden meanings
&e. These sentences, however, in prescripts, which originally
cannot be much relied upon as re- were of a purely ritualistic cha-
presenting the Ethics and religious racter. Cf. also Rohde, Rk. Mus.
doctrine of the Pythagoreans ; for xxvi. 561.
in the first place their meaning is 1 Vide supra, p. 336, 4; 338, 4.
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 909

and from the existence of Pythagorean orgies in the

ν
a

fifth century; but that does not make him by any

means the extraordinary phenomenon presupposed by
the later tradition; he merely stands in the same
category with Epimenides, Onomacritus, and other men
of the sixth and seventh centuries. Further, it seems
certain that the Pythagorean society distinguished
itself above all other similar associations by its ethical
tendency; but we can get no true idea of its ethical
aims and institutions from the later untrustworthy
authorities. Pythagoras doubtless entertained the
design of founding a school of piety and morality,
temperance, valour, order, obedience to government
and law, fidelity to friends, and generally for the en-
couragement of all virtues belonging to the Greek, and
particularly to the Doric conception of a good and brave
man; virtues which are particularly insisted on in the
sentences attributed with more or less probability to
Pythagoras. For this purpose he appealed first to the
religious motives which resulted from the belief in the
dominion of the gods, and especially from the doctrine
of transmigration; then he had recourse to the educa-
tional methods and usages of his native country, such
as music and gymnastics. We are assured by the most
trustworthy traditions that these two arts were zealously
practised in the Pythagorean school. With these may
have been also connected (vide supra) the use οἵ cer-
tain therapeutic and secret remedies. Incantation, song,
and religious music probably played the part attributed
to them in the myths; this is rendered probable by the
whole character of the art of medicine in ancient times,
VOL. I. AA
354 PYTHAGORAS.

closely allied as it was with religion, sorcery and music;

while, on the other hand, the statement that the Pytha-
gorean art of medicine consisted mainly of dietetics ! is
confirmed, not merely by its connection with gymnastic
and by the whole character of the Pythagorean mode of
life, but also? by Plato’s similar view.’ It is probable
too, that the Pythagoreans adopted the practice in their
society of common meals, either daily or at certain
times;* but what later authors have said about their
community of goods is certainly fabulous; and the
peculiarities ascribed to them concerning dress, food,
and other habits of life must be reduced to a few traits
of little importance.’ Furthermore, although the politi-
cal character of the Pythagorean society is undeniable,
yet the assertion ® that its entire design was of a purely
political kind, and that every other end was subordi-
nated to this, goes far beyond any proofs deducible from
history, and is neither compatible with the physical and
mathematical bent of the Pythagorean science, nor with
1 Tambl. 163, 264. lapsam optimatium potestatem non
2 Rep. iil. 405 C sqq.; Tim. modo in pristinum restitueret, sed
88 Ὁ sqq. firmaret amplificaretque ; cum sum-
3 Cf. on the medical art of the mo hoc scopo duo conjuncti fuerunt,
Pythagoreans and their contempo- moralis alter, alter ad literas spec-
raries, Krische, De Societ. a Pyth. tans. Discipulos suos bonos pro-
Cond. 40 ; Forschungen, &c. 72 sqq. bosque homines reddere voluit
* As Krische supposes, De Pythagoras et ut civitatem mode-
Societ. &e. 86, relying on the muti- rantes potestate sua non abuterentur
lated passage of Satyrus, ap. Diog. ad plebem opprimendam, et ut plebs,
yili. 40; cf. Iambl. 249; vide the intelligens suis commodis consuli,
writers quoted, Ὁ. 3438, 4, who conditione sua contenta esset. Quo-
throughout presuppose community niam vero honum sapiensque mode-
of goods. ramen (non) nisi a prudenteliterisque
5 Cf. p. 344 sqq. exculto viro exspectari licet, philoso-
6 Krische, 1. ¢., p. 101, con- phiae studium necessarium duit
cludes thus: Societatis (Pythagori- Samius tis, qui ad civitatis clavum
cae) scopus fuit mere politicus, ut tenendum se accingerent.
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 35 Or

the fact that the most ancient authorities represent

Pythagoras to us rather as a prophet, a wise man and a
moral reformer, than as a statesman.! The alliance of
Pythagoreanism with the Doric aristocracy seems to me
the consequence and not the reason of its. general
tendency and view of life, and though the tradition
which bids us recognise in the Pythagorean societies of
Magna Grecia a political combination may in the
main be worthy of credit, yet I find no proof that the
religious, ethical, and scientific character of the Pytha-
goreans was developed from their political bias. The
contrary seems, indeed, more probable. On the other
hand, it is difficult to admit that scientific inquiry was
the root of Pythagoreanism. For the moral, religious,
and political character of the school cannot be explained
by the theory of numbers and mathematics, in which,
as we shall presently find, the distinguishing pecu-
liarities of the Pythagorean science consisted. Pytha-
goreanism seems rather to have originated in the moral
and religious element, which is most prominent in the
oldest accounts of Pythagoras, and appears in the
early Pythagorean orgies, to which also the sole doctrine
which can with any certainty be ascribed to Pythagoras
himself—the doctrine of transmigration—trelates. Py-
thagoras desired to effect, chiefly by the aid of religion,
a reform of the moral life; but as in Thales, the first
physical speculation had connected itself with ethical
reflection, so here practical ends were united with that
form of scientific theory to which Pythagoras owes his
place in the history of philosophy. Again, in their
1 Vide supra, texts quoted pp. 336; 346, 1; 350, 1.
AaA2
356 PYTHAGORAS.

religious rites alone must we seek for the much talked

of mysteries of the Pythagorean Society. The division
of esoteric and exoteric (if this indeed existed among
the ancient Pythagoreans) was purely a religious dis-
tinction. It resulted from the traditional distinction
between greater and lesser initiations, between com-
plete and preparatory consecrations.'. That philosophic
doctrines or even mathematical propositions, apart from
their possible religious symbolism, should have been
held secret, is in the highest degree improbable ; 5 Phi-
lolaus at any rate, and the other authorities from whom
Plato and Aristotle derived their knowledge of Pytha-
goreanism, can have known nothing of any ordinance
of this nature.®
The political tendency of the Pythagorean com-
munity was fatal to its material existence and to a
1 In regard to the later con- Ῥ. 809, 2, declare the celebrated pro-
ception of the importance of this positions of the Pythagoreans to be
distinction, I cannot agree with something exoteric, the true mean-
Rohde (Rh. Mus. xxvi. 560 sq.) ing of which can only be discovered
in explaining it from the supposed by regarding them as symbols of
fact that after there appeared a deeper doctrines kept up as a mys-
Pythagorean philosophy the adhe- tery by the school, and lost from
rents of this philosoply regarded general tradition. That the true
the original Pythagoreanism, which philosophy of the Pythagoreans
was limited to religious prescripts should be represented as an occult
and observances, as merely a pre- doctrine, only imparted to a select
paratory stage ofthe higher know- minority even of the disciples, is
ledge; this seems to me to be an guite in harmony with this ten-
invention of the Neo-Pythagoreans, dency, which, indeed, is its most
who thus attempted to represent obvious explanation.
as the opinion of Pythagoras what 2 So also Ritter, Pyth. Phil.
they themselves had foisted upon 52 sq. το.
him, and to explain away the entire 3 What Porphyry, 58, and
silence of ancient tradition on the Iamblichus, 2538, 199, say in its de-
subject. It is only in their writings fence, carries on the face of it the
that these two classes of Pythago- stamp of later invention. Cf.
reans are recognised; and it is Diog. vill. 55 (supra, p. 315).
they who, in the passages discussed
 THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL. 951

great part of its members. The democratic movement

in opposition to the traditional aristocratic institutions,
which in time invaded most of the Greek States, de-
clared itself with remarkable rapidity and energy in
the populous and independent Italian colonies, in-
habited by a mixed population, excited by ambitious
leaders. The Pythagorean συνέδρια formed the centre
of the aristocratic party: they therefore became the im-
mediate object of a furious persecution which raged
with the utmost violence throughout lower Italy. The
meeting houses of the Pythagoreans were everywhere
burnt ; they themselves murdered or banished, and the
aristocratic constitutions overthrown. This continued
until at length, through the intervention of the Achzans,
an agreement was brought about by which the re-
mainder of the exiles were allowed to return to their
homes.' As to the date and more precise details of
this persecution, accounts differ considerably. On the
one hand, Pythagoras himself is stated to have been
killed ? in it; and, on the other, it is said of certain
1 So much we can gather from στάσεως καὶ παντοδαπῆς ταραχῆς.
the detailed accounts presently to On this rests the assertion that the
be noticed, and also from the state- Achzans united Crotona, Sybaris,
ments of Polybius, ii. 32, who says and Caulonia in a league and con-
(unfortanately only incidentally,and vention, and thus introduced their
without any mention of date) : καθ᾽ constitution into those cities.
ous γὰρ καιροὺς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὴν 2 The various accounts are
Ἰταλίαν τόποις κατὰ τὴν μεγάλην these: Ist, according to Plut. Stoic.
Ἑλλάδα τότε προΞξαγορευομένην ἐνέ- Rep. 37, 3, p. 1051; Athenag.
πρησαν τὰ συνέδρια τῶν Πυθαγορείων, Supplic. α. 31; Hippolyt. Refut.
μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ γινομένου κινήματος i. 2, sub fin.; Arnob, Adv. Gent.
ὁλοσχεροῦς περὶ τὰς πολιτείας, ὅπερ i. 40; Schol. in Plat. p. 420, Bekk.
εἰκὸς, ὡς ἂν τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν ἐξ and a passage in Tzetz. Chil. xi.
ἑκάστης πόλεως οὕτω παραλόγως 80 sqq., Pythagoras was burned
διαφθαρέντων, συνέβη τὰς κατ᾽ alive by the Crotoniates. Hippo-
ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους Ἑλληνικὰς lytus adds that Archippus, Lysis,
πόλεις ἀναπλησθῆναι φόνου καὶ and Zamolxis escaped from the
358 PYTHAGORAS.
|
Pythagoreans of the fourth and fifth centuries that they |
had escaped from the persecution. Crotona is most
.."
e

conflagration, and Plutarch’s words that more than the forty were put
seem to admit the possibility that to death. He, like most of the
he only meant an attempt at other authorities, seems to mention
burning. 2. Nearest to this comes Cylon as the author of the persecu-
the account of Diog. vili. 39, that tion. As to the sojourn of Pythago-
Pythagoras and his people were in ras in Tarentum, Roth, ii. a, 962,
the house of Milo when the enemy refers to Claudian, De Consul. Fil.
set fire to it; that he escaped in- Mall. Theod. xvii. 157: At non
deed, but was intercepted in his Pythagore monitus annique silentes
flight, and killed; the greater Famosum Ocebalii luxum pressere
number of his friends (forty of Tarenti; but these words appa-
them) were also put to death : only rently only attest the well-known
afew, among whom were Archippus fact that Tarentum was afterwards
and Lysis, escaped. 3. According a chief centre of Pythagoreanism.
to Porph. 57 and Tzetz. loc. cit, Roth moreover makes out of Oeba-
others think that Pythagoras him- lium Tarentum a Tarentine of the
self escaped from the attack in Cro- name of Oebalius, whose luxurious
tona to Metapontum, his disciples life Pythagoras vainly attempted
making a bridge through the fire to regulate, which is even a greater
for him with their bodies; and all, discovery than that about the map
except Lysis and Archippus, being of Europe, which the philosopher is
destroyed; that he there starved said to have made in Tarentum
himself to death, being weary of (vide supra, p. 347, 2). 5. Accord-
life, as Porphyry says; or died of ing to the mutually complementary
want, according to Tzetzes. 4. accounts of Neanthes, ap. Porph.
According to Diczarchus, ap. Porph. 55; of Satyrus and Heracleides
56 sq., and Diog. viii. 40, Pytha- (Lembus), ap. Diog. viii. 40; and
goras at the time of the attack on of Nicomachus, ap. Iambl. 251,
the forty Pythagoreans, was in the Pythagoras at the time of Cylon’s
town, but not in the house; he fled attack was not in Crotona at all,
to the Locrians, and thence to Ta- but in Delos with Pherecydes, to
rentum, and was rejected by both. tend in his illness and bury him;
Proceeding to Metapontum, he when on his return he found that
there, after forty days’ starvation his followers, with the exception
(ἀσιτήσαντα, says Diogenes; ἐν of Archippus and Lysis, had been
σπάνει τῶν ἀναγκαίων διαμείναντα, burned in Milo’s house or slain, he
says Porphyry; hence, no doubt, betook himself to Metapontum,
Tzetzes’ theory), died. This view where (according to Heracleides,
is followed by Themist. Orat. xxiii. ap. Diogenem) he starved himself
Ῥ. 285 Ὁ; the account in Justin’s to death. 6. According to the ac-
Hist. xx. 4, seems also to have count of Aristoxenus (ap. lambl.
arisen from it; here sixty Pytha- 248 sqq.), Cylon, a tyrannical and
goreans are said to have been ambitious man, being angry that
destroyed, and the remainder Pythagoras had refused him ad-
banished. Dicearchus also says mission into his society, commenced
 Γ

a
ὝΨψαι, DEATH OF PYTHAGORAS. 559

generally named as the place where the first decided

attack was made, and Metapontum as the place where
a violent struggle with the philo- funeral of the philosopher with
sopher and his followers during the deepest reverence; in Aristid.
the last years of Pythagoras’s life. Quint.Ve Mus. τι. 116 Meib. that
In consequence of this, Pythagoras Pythagoras before his death re-
himself emigrated to Metapontum, commended the use of the mono-
where he died; but the struggle chord to his disciples. These ac-
continued, and after the Pythago- counts agree best with the present
reans had maintained themselves version, as they all presuppose
for some time longer at the head that the philosopher was not per-
of the states, they were at last sonally threatened up to the time
attacked at Crotona during a po- of his death, and when Plut. Gen.
litical consultation in the house of Socr. 13, p. 583, speaks of the ex-
Milo, and all, except the two Ta- pulsion of the Pythagoreans from
rentines, Archippus and Lysis, various cities, and of the burning
were destroyed by fire. Archippus of their house of assembly in Me-
retired to his native city, and Ly- tapontum, on which occasion only
sis to Thebes ; the rest of the Py- Philolaus and Lysis were saved—
thagoreans, with the exception of though Metapontum is substituted
Archytas, abandoned Italy and tor Crotona, and Philolaus for Ar-
lived together in Rhegium (which, chippus—the silence in regard to
however, is also in Italy), until the Pythagoras himself, and the placing
school, as the political conditions of the whole persecution in the
became worse and worse, gradually period after his death, are both in
died out. (The confusion at the accordance with the statements of
eud of this account Rohde, Raz. Aristoxenus. So Olympiodorus in
Mus. xxvi. 565, explains by an Phed. p. 8 sq. mentions the Pytha-
inversion, which commends itself goreans only, and not Pythagoras,
equally to me. The true mean- as having been burned; Philolaus
ing is that the Pythagoreans and Hipparchus (Archippus) alone,
lived at first together in Rhegium, he says, escaped. 7. The account
but when things became worse, of Apollonius, ap. Iambl. 244 sqq.,
they, with the exception of Archy- resembles that of Aristoxenus.
tas, left Italy.) This was the ac- According to this, the Pythagorean
count which Diodorus, Fragm. p. aristocracy very early excited dis-
556, had before him, as appears satisfaction; after the destruction
from a comparison with lambl, of Sybaris and the death of Pytha-
248, 250. Apollonius, Mirab. c. goras (not merely his departure:
6, makes Pythagoras fly to Meta- ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐτελεύτησεν, it is said, and
pontum betore the attack which he in connection with ἐτελεύτησεν, the
foretold. In Cic. Fin. v. 2, we are previous ἐπεδήμει and ἀπῆλθε are
told that the dwelling of Pythago- to be explained), this dissatisfac-
ras and the place of his death were tion was stirred up by Cylon and
shown in Metapontum; in Valer. other members of noble families
Max. vill. 7, ext. 2, that the whole not belonging to the society, and
city of Metapontum attended the on the partition of the conquered
900 PYTHAGORAS.

Pythagoras died; but there are so many discrepancies

as to details, that a complete reconciliation of the
various statements is impossible. What is most pro-
bable is that the first public outbreak must have taken
place after the death of Pythagoras, though an opposi-
tion to him and his friends may perhaps have arisen
during his lifetime, and caused his migration to Meta-
pontum. The party struggles with the Pythagoreans,
thus begun, may have repeated themselves at different
times! in the cities of Magna Grecia, and the varia-
tions in the statements may be partially accounted for
as recollections of these different facts. The burning of
the assembled Pythagoreans in Crotona and the general
assault upon the Pythagorean party most likely did not
take place until the middle of the fifth century; and,
lastly, Pythagoras may have spent the last portion of
his life unmolested in Metapontum.?
lands broke out into open hostility. killed in flight, while the remainder
The Pythagoreans were dispersed of the Pythagoreans, to the number
during one ef their assemblies, of thirty-five, were burned in
then defeated in combat, and after Tarentum.
ruinous disturbances, the whole 1 As is now generally supposed,
Pythagorean party was driven out according to Bockh. Philol. 10.
of three neighbouring cities by the 2 The above suppositions are
judges, who had been corrupted, chiefly based on the following
and a distribution of lands and re- grounds: Firstly, by far the greater
mission of debts was decreed. Not number, and the most creditable
till after many years did the authorities, maintain that Pytha-
Achzans accomplish the return of goras died in Metapontum (ef.
the exiles, of whom about sixty Jambl. 248); and even those who
came back; but even these fell in place the burning of the house in
an unfortunate encounter with the Crotona in his life-time, for the
Thurians. 8. Lastly, Hermippus most part assert that he himself
(ap. Diog. vill. 40; cf. Schol. in escaped. Although it is clear
Plat. loc. cit.), differing from all from the contradictoriness of these
other accounts, says that Pythago- latter statements that no univer-
ras was with his friends, fighting sally accepted tradition existed at
at the head of the Agrigentines the time, yet the fact itself that
against the Syracusans, and was Pythagoras fled to Metapontum

|
d
 _ DISPERSION OF THE PYTHAGOREANS. 861

It was only after the dispersion of the Italian asso-

ΠΡΎΜΟ
Ὁ
a

ciations, and in consequence of this dispersion that the

must have been pretty firmly es- and universal tradition. Now
tablished, since the most improba- Lysis, at an advanced age, was the
ble expedients were resorted tu by instructor of Epaminondas (Aris-
the authors of these statements to tox. ap. Iambl. 250; Diodor. Joc.
reconcile it with their other theo- cit.; Neanthes, ap. Porph. 55;
ries. Other accounts say that he Diog. vill. 7; Plut. Gen. Soer. 13;
was put to death in Crotona or Dio Chrysos. Or. 49, p. 248; R.
Sicily, but this is no doubt an in Corn. Nepos. Epam. ec. 1), and the
stance of what so often happens in birth of Epaminondas cannot be
regard to Pythagoras—that facts supposed earlier than 418-420
about his school, or a portion of B.c.; not only because he fought
his school, are transferred to him vigorously at Mantinea in 362, but
personally. Secondly, the occasion also because Plut. De Lat. Viv. 4,
of Pythagoras’s retreat to Meta- 0, p. 1129, names his fortieth year
pontum could not have been the as the period at which he began to
incendiary attack on the assembly be important. and this period (ac-
at Crotona; the attack must have cording to Vit. Pelop. c. 5, end, ec.
occurred many yefirs after his 12; De Gen. Socr. 3, p. 576) could
death. Aristoxenus and Apollo- not have been before 378 B.c., the
nius say this expressly. Aristoxe- deliverance of Thebes. Supposing
nus, however, is the authority Lysis to have been fifty years older
whom we should most expect to than his pupil, we thus arrive at
reproduce the Pythagorean tra- 468-470 8.6. as the earliest date of
dition of his time. With what his birth, and the attack in Crotona
right Apollonius appeals in section could scarcely, even in that case,
262 to τὰ τῶν Κροτωνιατῶν ὑπομνή- have occurred before 450 B.c. It
ματα, we do not know. If even is more probable, however, that the
any work that might be so desig- difference between the ages of Ly-
nated were within his reach, the sis and Epaminondas was not so
designation might apply to any great (according to Plut. Gen. Socr.
Crotoniate writing whatsoever. 8,138, Lysis died shortly before the
Roth, however, thinks it manifestly deliverance of Thebes), and that
implies ‘contemporary records,’ the Crotonian massacre must be
and he deduces from them, not placed about 440 B.c., or even later.
only the somewhat unimportant The statement of Aristoxenus
point for which they were cited, abeut Archytas and that of Apol-
but the whole narrative of Apollo- lonius—that a portion of the Py-
nius. Moreover, the different ac- thagoreans, who had been expelled
counts assert with singular unani- from Crotona, returned after the re-
mity that only Archippus and Ly- conciliation effected by the Achzans
sis escaped from the massacre; and —points to some such date. For
as this is maintained even by those although, according to Polyb. ii.
who place that event in the life- 39, 7, the attacks of Dionysius the
time of Pythagoras, it must, at Elder (who came to the throne in
any rate, be based on an ancient 406) left the three Italian cities
. 362 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Pythagorean philosophy became more widely known in

Greece, although the Pythagorean rites had previously
(Crotona, Sybaris, and Caulonia) makes the burning of Milo’s house
no opportunity for the consolida- take place an indefinite time after
tion and maintenance of the new the death of Pythagoras ; and the
institutions borrowed from the latter, instead of the burning, re-
Acheans some time (μετά τινας lates another incident in the time
χρόνους) after the adjustment of of Cylon. Even Aristotle (ap.
the Pythagorean troubles—yet the Diog. il. .446, ef. vili. 49) inci-
Achzan mediation could scarcely dentally mentions Cylon’s enmity
have occurred earlier than from against Pythagoras, which had be-
ten to fifteen years previous to the come proverbial. These earlier
end of the Peloponnesian war ; but conflicts, however, cannot have oc-
Polybius himself seems to assume casioned the overthrow of the Py-
that the troubles to which the thagoreans in Lower Italy. This
burning of the Pythagorean houses can only have happened (even ac-
gave the signal, were not very dis- cording to Polybius) when the
tant chronologically from the in- burning of the council house in
tervention of the Acheans. It Crotona gave the signal for similar
matters not that the Pythagorean acts in other places, anda universal
assembly which was burned is storm broke out against the Py-
universally placed in the house thagoreans. When, therefore,
of Milo, and that the authors of Aristoxenus says that the Pythago-
the deed are also called by Aris- reans kept the lead of public affairs
toxenus Cylonians; for Milo’s in the cities of Magna Grecia for
house may have remained the meet- some time after the first attack
ing place of the Pythagoreans after upon them, there is every reason for
the death of its owner, as Plato’s crediting the statement. Fourthly.
garden was that of the Academy; If the first popular movement
and ‘ Cylonians ’ seems, like Pytha- against the Pythagoreans was con-
goreans, to have been a party name, fined to Crotona, and if they finally
which survived the chief from maintained themselves there, it is
whom it was derived; cf. Aristox. not probable that Pythagoras, con-
loc. cit, 249. Thirdly. It is never- trary to the principles of his school,
theless probable that before the should have starved himself to
death of Pythagoras, a party ad- death, or even have died of hun-
verse to the Pythagoreans was ger. It rather seems as if, even
formed by Cylonin Crotona, which in Aristotle’s time, tradition had
party may have been strengthened been silent as to the particular
mainly by the demand for a divi- circumstances of his death, and
sion of the conquered lands, and that the lacuna was subsequently
by the victorious conflict with the filled by arbitrary conjectures ; so
Sybarites ; and that this disturb- that Aristoxenus is here most
ance may have determined Pytha- worthy of credit, when he restricts
goras to remove to Metapontum. himself to the remark: κἀκεῖ Aéye-
This is admitted by Aristoxenus ται καταστρέψαι τὸν βίον. Chaignet
and Apollonius, though the former i. 94, objects to the foregoing that
:

δ,
——
LATER PYTHAGOREANS. 363

gained entrance there,’ and certain individuals had

turned their attention to the philosophic doctrines of
the school.? At this period, at all events, we first hear
of Pythagorean writings *and of Pythagoreans who lived
elsewhere than in Italy. The first of these with whom
we are acquainted, is Philolaus.* We know that he
was a contemporary of Socrates and Democritus, and
probably was older than either; that in the last decade
of the fifth century he resided in Thebes,’ and that he
if the Pythagoreans had been cleitus generally speaks so slight-
banished from Italy for seventy ingly; or, at any rate, the writings
years, they would not have been of Pherecydes and Anaximander.
called the Italian philosophers The passage concerning P)thagoras
(vide supra, p. 338, 1). Iknow not and his universal knowledge per-
with what eyes he can have read haps stood in the same connection
a discussion, which expressly at- as the polemic against the ancient
tempts to show that the Pythago- poets.
reans were not expelled till 440, 3 Vide supra, p. 313.
and returned before 406. * For Archippus, who is repre-
1 Vide supra, p. 346, 1. sented in Hieron. c. Ruf. iii. 469,
2 Vide the expression of Hera- Mart. (vol. 11. 565, Vall.) as teach-
eleitus, quoted p. 336, 5, and the ing with Lysis in Thebes, was a
assertions of Thrasyllus, Glaucus, somewhat younger contemporary
and Apollodorus, ap. Diog. ix. 38, of Lysis. The siatement seems to
according to which Democritus was have arisen from the two names
acquainted with Philolaus, that he being elsewhere mentioned to-
spoke with admiration of Pythago- gether; for all other authorities
ras in a treatise called after him, agree that Archippus returned to
and, in general, had made indus- Tarentum after the conflagration
trious use of the Pythagorean doc- in Crotona, and that Lysis went
trines. Democritus, however, was alone to Thebes. Vide the passa-
certainly younger than Philolaus, ges quoted supra, p. 357, 2.
and it is doubtful how far Herac- 5 Plato, Phedo, 61 D; Diog.
leitus had kriowledge of Pythagoras loc. cit. Diog; viii. 84, names Cro-
as a philosopher. His words seem tona as the native city of Philo-
rather to refer to the founder of laus ; all other authorities, Taren-
the religious association. He tum. Cf. Bockh, Philol. p. 5 sqq.,
charges Pythagoras with κακοτε- where the erroneous statements
xvin; and the συγγραφαὶ, from that he escaped from the fire in
which he is said to have gained Crotona (Plut. Gen. Socr. 13, vide
his false wisdom, may either mean supra, p. 359); that he was the
Orphie hymns, or the ancient my- instructor of Plato (Diog. ii. 4),
thological poems, of which Hera- and a personal pupil of Pythagoras
564 LATER PYTHAGOREANS.

was the author of the first exposition of the Pythagorean

system.’ Lysis must also have come to Thebes about
the same time as Philolaus, and probably resided there
up to the second decade of the fourth century.? Plato?
assigns Timzeus the Locrian to the same period, but it
is not certain whether or not this Timeus was a his-
torical personage. Among the disciples of Philolaus
is mentioned Eurytus,‘ of Tarentum or Crotona, who
must also be supposed to have spent a part of his life
out of Italy, since those of his pupils who are known
to us came, one of them from Thrace, the others from
Phiius.°® These scholars of Eurytus are called by Aris-

(Iambl. V. P. 104), with others of 3 In the Timeeus and Critias ;

a similar kind, are refuted. Ac- ef. especially Tim. 20 A.
cording to Diog. vill. 84, Philolaus 4 Jambl. 139, 148, calls him a
was put to death in Crotona on scholar of Pythagoras. He also,
suspicion of aiming at the Tyranny. in section 148, names Crotona as
He must, therefore, have returned his native city ; in section 67, how-
to Italy, and become implicated in ever, agreeing with Diog. viii. 46;
the final party conflicts with the Apul. Dogm. Piat. (sub init.) ;
Pythagoreans. Tarentum ; section 266 represents
1 Cf. supra, pp. 313; 314, 2; him, together with a certain Thea-
and Béckh, Philol. p. 18 sqq., who rides, as living in Metapontum;
rightly contests the assertion that this statement, however, stands in
the work of Philolaus was first a very doubtful connection. Diog.
brought to light by Plato. Preller 111. 6, and Apul. doc. cit. mention
(Allg. Encycl. iii. Sect. vol. xxiii. him among the Italian instructors
371), at any rate, does not convince of Plato. Some tenets of his will
me of the contrary. The result of be mentioned further on. The frag-
Bockh’s enquiry, p. 24 sqq., is, that ments in Stob. Hel. i. 210, and Clem.
the work bore the title περὶ φύσεως, Strom. v. 559 D, do not belong to
that it was divided into three him, but to an imaginary Eurysus,
books, and is identical with the and are no doubt spurious.
writing to which Proclus gives the 5 We know little more of them
mystical name of βάκχαι. than what is said in Diog. vill, 46
amr. ip. 361; and Iambl.'V..P. (cf. Jambl. Vita Pythag. 251):
185; ibid. 75 sqq.; Diog. viii. 42, τελευταῖοι yap ἔγένοντο τῶν Πυθα-
a portion of a letter said to be his. γορείων ots καὶ ᾿Αριστόξενος εἶδε,
Further details as to the writings Ξενόφιλός θ᾽ ὁ Χαλκιδεὺς ἀπὸ Θράκης
attributed to him, p. 322, Part 111. καὶ Φάντων ὃ Φλιάσιος καί Ἐχεκράτης
b, 37, second edition. καὶ Διοκλῆς kai Πολύμναστος, Φλιάσ-

?
δ
a
δὦ

DIODORUS, CLINIAS. 365

toxenus the last of the Pythagoreans, and he says that
with them the school, as such, became extinct.! The
school, according to this, must have died out in Greece
proper soon after the middle of the fourth century,
though the Bacchic Pythagorean rites may have con-
tinued? to exist some time longer, and may have fur-
nished a pretext to Diodorus of Aspendus,* for desig-
nating his cynicism as Pythagorean Philosophy.
Even in Italy, however, the Pythagorean school was
not annihilated by the blow which destroyed its political
ascendency. Though the persecution may have ex-
tended to most of the Greek colonies, it can hardly

cot καὶ αὐτοί. ἦσαν δ᾽ ἀκροαταὶ Φιλο- from the city of Aspendus, in
λάου καὶ Εὐρύτου τῶν Ταραντίνων. ΟΥ̓ Pamphylia, is mentioned by Sosi-
Xenophilus we are told (Plin. His?. crates, ap. Diog. vi. 13, as the in-
Nat. vii.50,168; Valer. Max. viii. 13, ventor of the Cynic garb, or, as
3; Lucian, Macrob. 18) that he at- Athen. iv. 163, more accurately
tained the age of 105 in perfect says, the person who first wore it
health. The two last authorities among the Pythagoreans. With
appeal to Aristoxenus in support this Timzus, ap. Athen. Joe. cit.
of this statement. Pliny and the agrees. Jambl. 266 calls him a
Pseudo-Lucian call Xenophilus the pupil of Aresas, the Pythagorean;
musician ; according to the lat- but this is manifestly false, as
ter, he lived in Athens. LEche- -Aresas is said to have escaped from
crates is the same person who is the persecution of Cylon, and Dio-
mentioned in the Phedo and in the dorus, according to Athenzeus, must
ninth Platonic letter. Cic. Fin. v. have lived about 300. To the same
29, 87, wrongly calls him a Locrian, period Lyco seems to belong, whois
ef. Steinhart, Plato's Werke, iv. called by Diog. (v. 69) Πυθαγορικὺς,
558. and whose attacks upon Aristotle
1 Vide previous note, and are spoken of by Aristocles, Eus.
Iambl. loc. cit.: ἐφύλαξαν μὲν οὖν Pr. Ev. xv.2,4sq. The latter says
τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἤθη καὶ τὰ μαθήματα, of him, Λύκωνος τοῦ λέγοντος εἶναι
καίτοι ἐκλειπούσης Tis αἱρέσεως ἕως Πυθαγορικὸν ἑαυτόν, and includes
ἐντελῶς ἠφανίσθησαν. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν him among those adversaries of
᾿Αριστόξενος διηγεῖται. Diodor. xy. Aristotle who were contemporary
76. The last Pythagorean philo- with him, or somewhat later.
sophers lived in the third year of (This was overlooked, supra, p.
the 103rd Olympiad (366 B.c.). 308, 1.) It is probably the same
* As will be shown later on. person who is called in Iambl. 267
3 This Diodorus, who came ἃ Tarentine.
 a
=

We
ap

900 LATER PYTHAGOREANS.

have done so to all, and in certain cities Pythagorean

teachers would seem to have maintained their position
even before the restoration of peace. At all events, if
the sojourn of Philolaus in Heraclea,' for instance, be a
historical fact, it perhaps may have occurred previously
to that epoch. In this same town is said to have
lived Clinias the Tarentine,? who in any case was no
doubt a near contemporary of Philolaus.? As to his
philosophical importance, we can decide nothing. Many
proofs have come down to us of the purity, gentleness,
and nobility of his character ;* but we possess very few
of his philosophic propositions, and these are by no
means of unquestionable authenticity.’ Prorus is men-
tioned as another of his contemporaries in Cyrene,® to
which city, if this statement be true, Pythagoreanism
must have spread from its original centre. In the first
half of the fourth century, it even attained, in the person
of Archytas,’ to new political importance. We know
1 Tambl. 266, where from the 65 sq. are evidently spurious, as
context the Italian Heraclea can may be seen from the mode of ex-
alone be meant; this city was a pression. So no doubt is the state-
colony from Tarentum and Thurii, ment about the One in Syrian, on
founded in the fourth year of the Meiaph. Schol. in Ar. 927 a, 19
86th Olympiad. sqq. A small fragment, which we
2 Tambl. 266 sq. find in Iambl. Theol. Arithm. 19,
’ As is presupposed by the bears no definite mark of being
apocryphal story in Diog. ix. 40, spurious; but, on the other hand,
that he and Amyclas restrained its authenticity cannot be demon-
Plato from burning the writings strated. Lastly, Plut. Qu. Conv.
of Democritus. 111, 6, 8, is a passage of small im-
4Tambl. V. P. 239; cf. 127, portance, whether genuine or not.
198; Athen. xiii. 623 sq. after § According to Diodorus, Fragm. ~
Chameleon; AZlian. V. H. xiv. 23; p- 554, Wess., -Clinias, learning
Basil. De Leg. Gree. libr. Opp. 11. that Prorus had lost his property,
179 ἃ (Serm. xiii.; Opp. 111, 549 journeyed to Cyrene to the relief
c.); ef. note 3. of this brother Pythagorean, who
5 The two fragments of an was personally unknown to him.
ethical character in Stob. Flori. 1. 7 What we know of his life is
 ARCHYTAS. 367

little, however, with certainty concerning his scientific

theories ; nor can we determine how far a philosophic
impulse was connected with this renewed life of the
school. Soon after the period of Archytas the Pytha-
gorean school, even in Italy, seems to have died out, or
at any rate, to have been represented only by some
isolated followers. Aristoxenus, at least, speaks of it as
an entirely extinct phenomenon,' and we have no in-
formation from other sources as to the longer continu-
ance of the school,” although the knowledge of its doc-
trines was not confined to the sages of Greece.?
Besides those Pythagoreans we have spoken of,
limited to a very few statements. 36, 78; Plut. Ed. Puer. 14, p. 10;
Born in Tarentum (Diog. viii. 79, Des. Num. Vind. 5, p. 551; other
&e.), a contemporary of Plato particulars ap. Athen. xii. 519 b;
and of Dionysius the younger El. xii. 15; xiv. 19; Diog. 79).
(Aristox. ap. Athen. xii. 545 a; His death by drowning is well
Diog. loc. cit. ; Plato, Hp. vii. 338 known from Horace. As to his
6), said to be Plato’s instructor writings, vide supra, p. 320 sqq.,
(Cic. Fin. v. 29, 87; Rep.i. 10; and Part 111. Ὁ, 88 sqq., second
Cato, 12, 41); according to ano- edition.
ther equally untrustworthy account ' Vide supra, p. 364, 4.
(vide supra, 320, 4) his pupil—he ? For Nearchus the Tarentine,
was equally great as a statesman to whom Cato (ap. Cic. Cato, 12, 41)
(Strabo, vi. 3, 4, p. 280: προέστη refers the tradition of a discourse
τῆς πόλεως πολὺν χρόνον ; Athen. of Archytas against pleasure, is
loc. cit.; Plut. Prec. Ger. Reip. probably an imaginary person, and
28, 5, p. 821; Al. V. Z. iii. 17; is not even called by Cicero a Py-
Demosth. Amator. vide supra, p. thagorean. It is Plutarch who, in
320, 4) and as a general (Aristox. repeating Cicero’s statement (Cato
ap. Diog. viii. 79, 82, vide supra, Maj. α. 2) first so describes him.
p. 321, 2; lian, V. ZH. vii. 14). This discourse, the pendant to the
He distinguished himself in math- hedonistic discourse which Aristo-
ematics, mechanics, and alae! xenus, ap. Athen: xii. 545 Ὁ sqq.,
(Diog. viii. 83; Horat. Carm. puts into the mouth of Polyarchus
28; Ptolem. Harm. i. 13; ΤΜΕ in the presence of Archytas, no
in "iol. Harm. 313; Proclus in doubt arose, either directly or in-
Eue. 19 [66 Friedl. after Eude- directly, out of this passage of Aris-
mus]; Apul. Apol. p. 456 ; Athen. toxenus.
iv. 184 e), of a noble and well 3 Vide infra, Part iii. b, 68 sq.,
balanced character (Cic. Tusc. iv. second edition,
 a

908 THE PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. ¥

many others are named in the confused and ill-arranged

catalogue of Iamblichus,' and elsewhere. But several
of these names evidently do not belong to the Pytha- ee
e

goreans at all; others have possibly been introduced by

subsequent interpolators; and all are worthless for us,
because we know nothing further about the men they
designate. There are, however, some few men who are
connected with the Pythagorean school, but do not
properly belong to it, whom we shall have to notice
later on.

Ill. THE PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY ; ITS FUNDA-

MENTAL CONCEPTIONS; NUMBER AND THE ELE-
MENTS OF NUMBER. ;

In order to estimate rightly the philosophy of the

Pythagoreans, it is of the highest importance that we
should distinguish in their doctrines and institutions
that which is philosophical in the narrower sense from
that which has arisen from other sources and motives.
The Pythagoreans constitute primarily not a scientific,
but a moral, religious, and political association ;? and |
though a definite tendency of philosophic thought was
developed in this association at an early period, and
probably by its very founder, yet its members were not
all philosophers, nor were all the doctrines and opinions
1 Vit. Pyth. 267 sqq. their enemies. This seems to ex-
2 Vide supra, 352sq. Thename plain Aristotle’s expression, of
‘Pythagoreans’ or ‘ Pythagorici’ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι (vide swpra,
seems to have been originally, like p. 307, 2), ef. Diczearch. ap. Porph.
Cylonists or Orphici, a party de- 56: πΠυθαγόρειοι δ᾽ ἐκλήθησαν 7
signation of a political or religious, συστασις ἅπασα ἣ συνακολουθήσασα
rather than a philosophical kind, αὐτῷ.
bestowed on them, perhaps, by
ee
ΡΥ
NUMBER. 369

which they entertained the result of philosophic enquiry.

On the contrary, many of these may have arisen inde-
pendently of such enquiry, and may have related to
objects with which the Pythagorean philosophy never
concerned itself. Although, therefore, in considering
these doctrines and opinions, we ought not to lose
sight of their possible connection with the purely
philosophic doctrines, yet we must not reckon all that
is Pythagorean as belonging to the Pythagorean Philo-
sophy. As well might we regard all that is Hellenic
as Greelx philosophy, or all that is to be found among
Christiz.a peoples as Christian philosophy. We have
consequently to enquire in each particular case how
far any Pythagorean doctrine is philosophic as to its
content, that is, how far it may or may not be ex-
plained by the philosophic character of the school.
The most generally distinctive doctrine of the
Pythagorean philosophy is contained in the proposition
that number is the essence of all things, that every-
thing, in its essence, is number.! How we are to under-
1 Aristot. Metaph.i. 5: ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς ἐφαίνετο τὴν φύσιν
τούτοις καὶ πρὸ τούτων οἱ καλούμενοι ἀφωμοιῶσθαι πᾶσαν, οἱ δ᾽ ἀριθμοὶ
Πυθαγόρειοι τῶν μαθημάτων ἁψάμενοι πάσης τῆς φύσεως πρῶτοι, τὰ τῶν
πρῶτοι ταῦτα προήγαγον καὶ ἐντρα- ἀριθμῶν στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων στοιχεῖα
φέντες ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰς τούτων ἀρχὰς πάντων εἶναι ὑπέλαβο"", καὶ τὸν ὅλον
τῶν ὄντων apxas ῴήθησαν εἶναι οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀριθμόν.
πάντων. ἐπεὶ δὲ τούτων οἱ ἀριθμοὶ Cf. ibid. τι. ὃ, 1002 a, 8: of μὲν
φύοει πρῶτοι, ἐν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ οἱ πρότερον τὴν οὐσίαν
ἐδόκουν θεωρεῖν ὁμοιώματα πολλὰ καὶ τὸ ὃν ζοντο τὸ σῶμα εἶναι...
τοῖς οὖσι καὶ γιγνομένοις, μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ δ᾽ ὕστερον καὶ σοφώτεροι τούτων
ἐν πυρὶ καὶ γῇ καὶ ὕδατι, ὅτι τὸ μὲν εἶναι δόξαντες τοὺς ἀριθμούς. Cf.
τοιονδὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν πάθος δικαιοσύνη, the following note. It seems un-
τὸ δὲ τοιονδὶ ψυχὴ καὶ νοῦς, ἕτερον necessary to add to these Aristo-
σὲ καιρὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡς εἰπεῖν telian passages the explanations
ἕκαστον ὁμοίως" ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἁρμονικῶν of later writers, such as Cleero,
ἐν ἀριθμοῖς δρῶντες τὰ πάθη καὶ Acad. ii. 37, 118, Plut. Plac. 1.
τοὺς λόγους, ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα 8, 14, &e.
VOL. I. BB
970 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

stand this formula, however, is a point on which our

authorities are in appearance not fully agreed. On the
one side, Aristotle frequently asserts that, according to
the Pythagorean theory, things consist of numbers,! or
of the elements of numbers;? that numbers are not
“merely qualities of a third substance, but immediately,
and in themselves, the substance of things; and form
the essence of things; yet for that very reason, do not
exist apart from things, like the Platonic ideas.* He,
therefore, in considering the relation of the Pytha-
gorean numbers to his four kinds of causes, places
them among the material, as well as the formal causes;
for the Pythagoreans, he says, sought in numbers at
1 Vide previous note, and Me- taph. i. 5, 987 a, 14: τοσοῦτον δὲ
taph. xiii. 6, 1080 b, 16: καὶ of προσεπέθεσαν [oi Πυθαγόρειοι] ὃ
Πυθαγόρειοι δ᾽ Eva τὸν μαθηματικὸν καὶ ἴδιόν ἐστιν αὐτῶν, ὅτι τὸ πεπερα-
[ἀριθμὸν] πλὴν οὐ κεχωρισμένον, σμένον καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ Ev οὐχ
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τούτου τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας ἑτέρας τινὰς φήθησαν εἶναι φύσει»,
συνεστάναι φασίν (or, as in 1. 2: οἷον πῦρ ἢ γῆν ἥἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον,
ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐνυπαρχόντων ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν
ὄντα τὰ αἰσθητά). Κρ]. α. 8, οὐσίαν εἶναι τούτων ὧν κατηγοροῦν-
1083 b, 11: τὸ δὲ τὰ σώματα ἐξ ται, διὸ καὶ ἀριθμὸν εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν
ἀριθμῶν εἶναι συγκείμενα καὶ τὸν ἁπάντων. Similarly Phys. iii. 4,
ἀριθμὸν τοῦτον εἶναι μαθηματικὸν 203 a, 8, of the ἄπειρον alone;
ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν... ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τὸν Metaph. i. 6, 987 Ὁ, 22; 111. 1, 996
ἀριθμὸν τὰ ὄντα λέγουσιν' τὰ γοῦν a, 5: ibid. c..-4, 1001 2 ae
θεωρήματα προσάπτουσι τοῖς σώμασιν init. of the ὃν and the ἕν.
ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνων ὄντων τῶν ἀριθμῶν. 3 Metaph. i. 5 (vide previous
xiv. 8. 1090 a, 20: οἱ δὲ Πυθαγό- note), ¢. 6, 987 Ὁ, 27: 6 μὲν [Πλά-
ρειοι διὰ τὸ ὁρᾷν πολλὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν των τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς παρὰ τὰ αἰσθητὰ,
πάθη ὑπάρχοντα τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς οἱ [Πυθαγόρειοι] δ᾽ ἀριθμοὺς εἶναί
σώμασιν, εἶναι μὲν ἀριθμοὺς ἐποίησαν φασιν αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα... τὸ μὲν
τὰ ὄντα, οὐ χωριστοὺς δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ οὖν τὸ ἕν καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς παρὰ τὰ
ἀριθμῶν τὰ ὄντα, whence the cen- πράγματα ποιῆσαι καὶ μὴ ὥσπερ οἱ
sure in 1. 82: ποιεῖν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ Πυθ. &c. Aristetle often makes
φυσικὰ σώματα, ἐκ μὴ ἐχόντων βάρος use of the same distinction to dis-
μηδὲ κουφότητα ἔχοντα κουφότητα criminate the Pythagorean doc-
καὶ βάρος. 1. 8, 990 b,21: ἀριθμὸν δ᾽ trine from the Platonic; ef. Metaph.
ἄλλον μηθένα εἶναι παρὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν xiii. 6 (vide note 1), 6. 8, 1083 b,
τοῦτον», ἐξ οὗ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. 8; xiv. 8, 1090 a, 20; Phys. iii. 4,
2 Vide previous note, and Me- 203 a, 3.

a,-
ine
ag
ih
 NUMBER. 91]
ee
ΨΥ
ἽΝ

once the matter and the qualities of things.) With

this Philolaus in substance agrees; since he not only
describes number as the law of the universe, and that
which holds it together, the power that rules over gods
and men, the condition of all definition and know-
ledge,” but he calls the Limit and the Unlimited, which
1 Metaph. i. 5, 986 a, 15: αἰσθήσει πάντα γνωστὰ καὶ ποτάγορα
φαίνονται δὴ καὶ οὗτοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀλλάλοις κατὰ γνώμονος φύσιν (cf.
νομίζοντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι καὶ ὧς ὕλην Bockh, 1. 5.) ἀπεργάζεται, σωματῶν
τοῖς οὖσι καὶ ὡς πάθη τε καὶ ἕξεις. καὶ σχίζων τοὺς λόγους χωρὶς ἑκάσ-
To this belongs also the passage in τους τῶν πραγμάτων τῶν τε ἀπείρων
986 b, 6: ἐοίκασι δ᾽ ὡς ἐν ὕλης εἴδει καὶ τῶν περαινόντων. ἴδοις δὲ καὶ οὐ
τὰ στοιχεῖα τάττειν᾽ ἐκ τούτων γὰρ μόνον ἐν τοῖς δαιμονίοις καὶ θείοις
ὡς ἐνυπαρχόντων συνεστάναι καὶ πε- πράγμασι τὰν TO ἀριθμῶ φύσιν καὶ
πλάσθαι φασὶ τὴν οὐσίαν :whether τὰν δύναμιν ἰσχύουσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν
we refer these words, with Bonitz, τοῖς ἀνθρωπικοῖς ἔργοις καὶ λόγοις
in the first instance, to the ten πᾶσι πάντα καὶ κατὰ τὰς δαμιουργίας
Oppesitions previously enumerated τὰς τεχνικὰς πάσας καὶ κατὰ τὰν
(vide infra), or directly to the στοι- μουσικάν. ψεῦδος δ᾽ οὐθὲν δέχεται ἁ
χεῖα τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ (mentioned, 986 a, τῶ ἀριθμῶ φύσις οὐδὲ ἁρμονία: οὐ
17), the Uneven or Limited, and γὰρ οἰκεῖον αὐτοῖς ἐντι τᾶς γὰρ
the Even or Unlimited; for the ten ἀπείρω καὶ ἀνοήτω (-dtTw) καὶ ἀλόγω
opposites are only the ulterior de- φύσιος τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ 6 φθόνος ἐντί͵
velopment of the fundamental and similarly afterwards, probably
opposition of the Limited and Un- taken from another place, we read,
limited. Aristotle probably had ψεῦδος δὲ οὐδαμῶς ἐς ἀριθμὸν ἐπιπενῖ.
in his mind the passage from Phi- πολέμιον γὰρ καὶ ἐχθρὸν αὐτῶ τᾷ
lolaus, quoted p. 372, 1, as has φύσι: ἃ δ᾽ ἀλάθεια οἰκεῖον καὶ σύμφυ-
already been observed, p. 316. Tov τᾷ τῶ ἀριθμαῶ γενεᾷ. Fr. 2
2 Fr. 18 (Bockh, 139 sqq.) ap. (Béckh, 58) ap. Stob. i. 456: καὶ
Stob. Eel. i. 8: θεωρεῖν δεῖ τὰ ἔργα πάντα γα μὰν τὰ γιγνωσκόμενα
Kal τὰν ἐσσίαν τῶ ἀριθμῶ καττὰν ἀριθμὸνἔχοντι" οὐ γὰρ ὅτιῶν οἷόν τε
δύναμιν, ἅτις ἐντὶ ἐν τᾷ δεκάδι" μεγά- οὐθὲν οὔτε νοηθῆμεν οὐτε γνωσθῆμεν
λα γὰρ καὶ παντελὴς καὶ παντοεργὸς ἄνευτούτω. With the above agrees
καὶ θείω καὶ οὐρανίω βίω καὶ ἀνθρω- substantially the assertion of Iam-
πίνω ἀρχὰ
ἁ καὶ ayeumy .. . ἄνευ δὲ blichus, in Nicom. Arithm. p. 11
ταύτας πάντα ἄπειρα καὶ ἄδηλα καὶ (ap. Bockh, p. 137), which is re-
ἀφανῆ: νομικὰ γὰρ & φύσις τῶ ἄριθ- peated by Syrian, in Metaph.
μῶ καὶ ἃγεμονικὰ καὶ διδασκαλικὰ (Schol. in Ar. 902 a, 29, 912 b,
τῶ ἀπορουμένω παντὸς καὶ ἀγνοου- 17): Φιλόλαος δέ φησιν ἀριθμὸν
μένω παντί. οὐ γὰρ ἧς δῆλον οὐθενὶ εἶναι τῆς τῶν κοσμικῶν αἰωνίας
οὐθὲν τῶν πραγμάτων οὔτε αὐτῶν διαμονῆς τὴν κρατιστεύουσαν καὶ
ποθ᾽ αὑτὰ οὔτε ἄλλω ποτ᾽ ἄλλο, εἰ αὐτογενῆ συνοχήν, but these words
μὴ ἧς ἀριθμὸς καὶ ἁ τούτω ἐσσία: cannot have occurred in a genuine
νῦν δὲ οὗτος καττὰν ψυχὰν ἁρμόζων work of Philolaus.
BE2
972 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

are the two constituents of numbers, the things from

which all is formed.!. On the other hand, however,
Aristotle likewise says that the Pythagoreans represent
things as arising from the imitation of numbers, the
manifold similarities of which with things they per-
ceived.2. In another place he seems to confine the
immanence of numbers in things to one portion of the
Pythagorean school ;* and in later accounts the state-
ment that all things consist of numbers, is opposed
by the assertion that things are formed, not out of
numbers, but after the pattern of numbers.‘ We are

1 Fr. 4, ap. Stob. 1. 458 (Bockh, will always exist, is divine.

62): ὃ μὲν ἐστὼ [ -- οὐσία] τῶν πρα- 2 Metaph.i. 6, 987 Ὁ, 10, con-
γμάτων ἀΐδιος ἔσσα καὶ αὐτὰ μὲν ἃ cerning Plato, τὴν δὲ μέθεξιν (the
φύσις θείαν τε (Mein. con]. θέία ἐντὶ) participation of things in the
καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρωπίναν ἐνδέχεται γνῶσιν Ideas) τοὔνομα μόνον μετέβαλεν" οἱ
πλέον (Mein. πλάν) γα, ἢ ὅτι οὐχ μὲν γὰρ Πυθαγόρειοι μιμήσει τὰ
οἷόν τ᾽ ἧς οὐθενὶ τῶν ἐόντων καὶ ὄντα φασὶν εἶναι τῶν ἀριθμῶν, Πλά-
γιγνωσκομένων bp’ ἁμῶν γνωσθῆμεν, των δὲ μεθέξει τοὔνομα μεταβαλών.
μὴ ὑπαρχούσας αὐτᾶς [τῆς ἁρμονίας] Aristoxenus, ap. Stob. i. 16: Πυθα-
ἐντὺς τῶν πραγμάτων ἐξ ὧν ξυνέστα yopas ... πάντα τὰ πράγματα
ὃ κόσμος τῶν τε περαινόντων καὶ τῶν ἀπεικάζων τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς. Cf. the
ἀπείρων (according to Béckh’s cor- expressions, ὁμοιώματα and ἄφο-
rection). Meineke reads μὴ ὕπαρ- μοιοῦσθαι in the passage quoted
χοίσας τᾶς ἐστοῦς τῶν πραγμάτων, above from Metaph. i. 5, and the
and Rothenbiicher, System des ἀριθμῷ δέ τε πάντ᾽ ἐπέοικεν, ap.
Pythag. p. 72, founds upon the ab- Plut. De An. Procr. 33, 4, p. 1080;
surlity of this merely conjectural Theo. Mus. ὁ. 38; Sext. Math. iv.
reading, a proof of the unauthen- 2; vii. 94, 109; Iambl. V. Pyth.
ticity of the fragment. In the 162; Themist. Phys. 32 ἃ (220,
commencement of the fragment 22 Sp.); Simpl. De Calo, 259 a,
the words αὐτὰ μὲν ἃ φύσις are not 39 (Schol. in Arist. 511 Ὁ, 19).
very good sense, and even Mein- 3 De Celo, iii. 1 sub. fin.: ἔνιοι
eke’s amendment, μόνα ἃ φύσις, γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συνιστᾶσιν
does not satisfy me. I would ὥσπερ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινές.
sooner (as already observed in 4 Theano, ap. Stob. Eel. 1. 302:
Hermes, x. 188) discard the pev as συχνοὺς μὲν Ἑλλήνων πέπεισμαι
a repetition of the words before νομίσαι φάναι Πυθαγόραν ἐξ ἀριθμοῦ
ἐστώ, but it would be better still πάντα φύεσθαι. .. ὃ δὲ [so Hee-
to read ἀΐδιος ἔσσα καὶ del ἐσομένα ren]οὐκ ἐξ ἀριθμοῦ κατὰ δὲ ἀριθμὸν
φύσις :the essence of things, as a ἔλεγε πάντα γίγνεσθαι, etc. The
nature which is eternal and which pseudo-Pythagoras is represented

j
ἢ
4
ΕΝ
καὶ

NUMBER. 378

also informed that the Pythagoreans distinguished

between numbers and the things numbered, and es-
pecially between Unity and the One.’ From this it
has been inferred that they developed their doctrine of
numbers in different directions; one division of the
school holding numbers to be the inherent ground of
things, and another seeing in them merely prototypes.?
Aristotle, however, gives no countenance to such a
theory. In his work on the heavens, indeed, he is only
speaking of a portion of the Pythagoreans when he
says they made the world to consist of numbers; but
it does not follow that the rest of the school explained
the world in a different way. He may very possibly
have expressed himself in this manner, because all
theories of numbers were not developed into a con-
struction of the universe,? or because the name of
Pythagoreans denoted others besides the Pythagorean
philosophers,* or because he himself had access to the
cosmological writings of some only among these philo-
as saying the same thing ‘in the κοσμοποιΐας and κριτικὸν κοσμουργοῦ
ἱερὸς λόγος, vide Iambl. im Nicom. θεοῦ ὄργανον.
Arithm. p. 11, and Syrian in Me- 1 Moderatus, ap. Stob. Hel. i.
taph. (Schol. in Ar. 902 a, 24), 20; Theo. Math. Ὁ: 4. Further
when he describes number as the details later on.
ruler of forms and ideas, the stan- 2 Brandis, Rhein. Mus. v. Nie-
dard and the artistic faculty by buhr und Brandis, ii. 211° sqq.;
which the Deity created the world, Gr. Rom. Phil. i. 441 sqq.; Her-
the primitive thought of the Deity. mann, Geschich. und Syst. d. Plat.
Vide also Hippasus (whose doc- 1. 167 sq., 286 sq.
trine on this point is not opposed 3 He does not really say that
to that of Pythagoras, as was main-only a portion of the Pythagoreans
tained after Brandis, in the first made things to consist of numbers,
edition of this work, i. 100; ii. but: ἔνιοι τὴν φύσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν
515; but is treated as a develop- συνιστᾶσι, or as it stands pre-
ment of it); ap. Iambl. loc. cit.; viously: ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συντιθέασι τὸν
Syn. Schol. in Ar. 902 a, 31, 912 οὐρανόν.
b, 15; Simpl. Phys. 104 b, when 4 Vide supra, p. 369.
he calls number παράδειγμα πρῶτον
914 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

sophers.!_ But he elsewhere attributes both doctrines—

viz., that things consist of numbers, and that they are
copied from numbers—to the Pythagoreans generally ;
and the two statements appear not in widely separated
passages, but in such close juxtaposition, that if they
had been in his opinion irreconcilable, their contradic-
toriness could not possibly have escaped him. Becawse
the Pythagoreans discovered many similarities between
numbers and things, he says (Metaph. i. 5; xiv. 3)
they held the elements of numbers to be the elements
of things; they perceived in number (he adds in the
same chapter) koth the matter and the qualities of
things; and in the same place that he ascribes to them
the doctrine of the imitation of things by numbers,
Metaph. i. 6, he asserts that they differed from Plato
in considering numbers, not as Plato did the ideas as
separate from things, but as the things themselves.
From this it is evident that the two statements ‘ num-
bers are the substance of things,’ and ‘ numbers are the
prototypes of things,’ do not, in Aristotle’s opinion, ex-
clude one another ;? the Pythagoreans, according to his
1 Aristotle is fond of employ- these words that Aristotle believed
ing limitations and guarded ex- some lifeless things to act with
pressions. Thus we continually consciousness, neither does it fol-
find Yows and similar words where low from the passage in De Celo
he is giving utterance to his most that some Pythagoreans made the
decided opinions (e.g. Metaph. viii. world to consist of something other
4, 1044 b, 7); and the same is the than numbers.
ease with ἔνιοι, when he says, for 2 Thus in Metaph. i. 5 (to
instauce, De Gen. et Corr. ii. 5 init. : which Schwegler in his commen-
εἰ γάρ ἐστι τῶν φυσικῶν σωμάτων tary on this passage rightly calls
ὕλη, ὥσπερ καὶ δοκεῖ ἐνίοις, ὕδωρ καὶ attention), the conception of the
ἀὴρ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, or, as in Metaph. ὁμοίωμα itself is transferred to the
i. 1, 981 b, 2: τῶν. ἀψύχων corporeal elements, for it is said
ἔνιτα ποιεῖν μὲν, οὐκ εἰδότα δὲ ποιεῖν the Pythagoreans thought they
ἃ ποιεῖ, As we*cannot infer from observed in numbers many simi-

a
tἈΝ
τὺ
ΨΘΑΨΗΥ NUMBER. 375

representation, considered things to be the copies of

numbers, for the very reason that numbers are the
essence of which things consist, and the properties of
which must therefore be cognisable in them. Philolaus
places number in this same relation to things when he
describes it (loc. cit.) as their law and the cause of
their properties and relations; for there is the same
relation between law and its fulfilment as between pro-
totype and copy. Later writers, indeed, conceive the
Pythagorean numbers entirely after the manner of the
Platonic ideas—as models external to things. There
are traces, however, even among those writers of the
contrary opinion.’ But we cannot attach much im-
portance to the testimony of persons who are evidently
unable to distinguish earlier theories from later, or the
Pythagorean doctrines from those of the Platonists and
Neo-Pythagoreans.?
The meaning of the Pythagorean fundamental doc-
trine then is this :—All is number, i.¢., all consists of
numbers; number is not merely the form by which
the constitution of things is determined, but also the
larities to things, μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν πυρὶ, the Ideas, Stob. Ecl. i. 326, asserts
γῇ καὶ ὕδατι, and on the other that Pythagoras sought them in
hand, Aristotle (Phys. ii. 3, 194 b, numbers and their harmonies, and
26) calls the Form which he regards in geometric proportions, ἀχώριστα
as the immanent-essence of things, τῶν σωμάτων.
παράδειγμα. 2 For this reason I consider it
1 Theo, for example, loc. cit. p. unnecessary to discuss the mani-
27, remarks on the relation of the festly incorrect statements of Syrian
Monad to the One: ᾿Αρχύτας δὲ and Pseudo-Alexander in regard to
καὶ Φιλόλαος ἀδιαφόρως τὸ ἕν καὶ Metaph. xiii., xiv., which continu-
μονάδα καλοῦσι καὶ τὴν μονάδα ἕν. ally confuse the Pythagoreans and
Also Alexander (ad Metaph. i. 5, Platonists. In xiii. 1, indeed, they
985 b, 26, p. 29, 17. Bon.) pre- eall the theory of Ideas, as well as
supposes the same when he says of the Xenocratie distinction of the
the Pythagoreans: τὸν νοῦν μονάδα Mathematical sphere and the Sen-
τε καὶ ἐν ἔλεγον ; and coucerning sible, Pythagorean.
 376 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

substance and the matter of which they consist.’ It is

one of the essential peculiarities of the Pythagorean
standpoint that the distinction of form and matter is
not as yet recognised. We regard numbers only as an
expression for the relation of substances, they directly
seek in them the essence and substance of the real.
The Pythagoreans (as we are told by Aristotle,’ and
also by Philolaus?) were doubtless led to this theory by
perceiving that all phenomena are ordered according to
numbers ; that especially the relations of the heavenly
bodies, and of tones, and, generally speaking, all
mathematical conceptions, are governed by certain
numbers and numerical proportions. This observation
is itself connected with the ancient use of symbolic
round numbers, and with the belief in the occult power
and significance of particular numbers,? which belief
was current among the Greeks as among other nations,
and probably existed from the very commencement in
the Pythagorean mysteries. But as Plato subsequently
gave substance to the _Idea—as the Eleatics made the
real, which was at first conceived as a predicate of all
things, the sole and universal substance—so by virtue
of the same realism, which was so natural to antiquity,
_ the Pythagoreans regarded mathematical, or more ac-
curately, arithmetical determinations, not as a form or
1 Metaph.i. 5, xiv. 3, vide supra, cult of Apollo (vide Preller, Mythol. —
p. 369, 1, 370, 1. i. 155); the many triple orders in
2 Vide the passages quoted p. the mythology — Hesiod’s exact
370 sq. Further particulars here- prescripts concerning lucky and
after. unlucky days of the year (Ep. καὶ
8 In proof of this we need only ἦμ., 763 sqq.); Homer’s preference
call to mind the importance of the for certain numbers, and the like,
number seven (so celebrated among mentioned in Ps. Plut. V. Hom.
the Pythagoreans), especially in the 145.

wi
δ.)
 NUMBER. 377

a quality of things, but as their whole essence, and

without any discrimination or restriction, said gene-
rally :—All is number. This is a mode of presentation
which sounds strangely enough’ to us; if, however, we
consider how great an impression must have been pro-
duced upon the receptive mind by the first perception
of a universal, and unalterable mathematical order in
phenomena, we shall better understand how number
came to be reverenced as the cause of all order and
definiteness ; as the ground of all knowledge; as the
divine power that rules in the world; and how thought
accustomed to move, not in the sphere of abstract
conceptions, but in that of intuitions, could hypostasise
number, as the substance of all things.
All numbers are divided into odd and even, to _
which, as a third class, the even-odd (ἀρτιοπέρισσον)
is added,' and every given number can be resolved
either into odd or even elements.? From this the
1 Philol. Fr. 2. ap. Stob. i. 456, Math. i., p. 36; ef. Moderatus ap.
&e. ὅ ya μὰν ἀριθμὸς ἔχει δύο μὲν Stob.i. 22: ὥστε ἐν τῷ διαιρεῖσθαι
ἴδια εἴδη, περισσὸν καὶ ἄρτιον, τρίτον δίχα πολλοὶ τῶν ἀρτίων εἰς περισσοὺς
δὲ am ἀμφοτέρων μιχθέντων ἄρτιο- τὴν ἀνάλυσιν λαμβάνουσιν ws 6 ἕξ καὶ
πέρισσον. ἑκατέρω δὲ τῶ εἴδεος δέκα. This is the true reading.
πολλαὶ μορφαί. By the ἀρτιοπέ- Gaisford would keep ἑξκαίδεκα,
ρισσον we must understand either which is against the sense; and
the One, which was so called by the Heeren, with whom Meineke agrees,
Pythagoreans (vide infra, p. 379, 1), conjectures, not very happily, ὀκτω-
but which we should scarcely ex- καίδεκα. :
pect to be described as a separate * Cf, the words in the passage
species; or those even numbers, from Philolaus ap. Stobeus, 1. 456:
which, when divided by two, give τὰ μὲν yap αὐτῶν ἐκ περαινόντων
an uneven result. Vide lambl. in περαίνοντα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ περαινόντων τε
Nicom. p. 29 : ἀρτιοπέρισσος δέ ἐστιν καὶ ἀπείρων περαίνοντά τε καὶ οὐ
6 καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν eis δύυ ἴσα κατὰ τὸ περαίνοντα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀπείρων ἄπειρα
κοινὸν διαιρούμενος, ov μέντοι γε τὰ φανέονται. Among numbers, of
μέρη ἔτι διαιρετὰ ἔχων, GAA’ εὐθὺς which Philolaus is chiefly thinking,
ἑκάτερον περισσόν. So in Nikom. those which result from uneven
Arithm. Isag. i. 9, p. 12; Theo, factors only belong to the first
378 THE PY THAGOREANS.

Pythagoreans concluded that the odd and the even are

the universal constituents of numbers, and furthermore,
of things. They identified the uneven with the
ἔω
ἀ
ὦt
heh
o

limited, and the even with the unlimited, because

the uneven sets a limit to bi-partition, and the even
does not.! Thus they arrived at the preposition that
class ; those which result from even ἐν Kal χωρὶς ὅτὲ μὲν ἄλλο γίνεσθαι
and uneven factors, to the second ; τὸ εἶδος, ὁτὲ δὲ ἕν. These words
those which result from.even fac-. were explained by the Greek com-
tors only, to the third. mentators (Alex. ap. Simpl. 105 b;
1 This is the reason given by Schol. 362 a, 30 sqq. and Sim-
the Greek commentators of Aris- plicius himself; Themist. Joe. cit.
totle. Simpl. Phys., 105° ἃ : οὗτοι Philop. K. 13) unanimously as
δὲ τὸ ἄπειρον τὸν ἄρτιον ἀριθμὸν follows: A gnomon is a number
ἔλεγον, διὰ τὸ πᾶν μὲν ἄρτιον, ὥς which, being added to a square,
φασιν οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ, εἰς ἴσα διαιρούμε- gives another square; and as this
νον ἄπειρον κατὰ τὴν διχοτομίαν. 7 is a property of all uneven num-
γὰρ εἰς ἴσα καὶ ἡμίση διαίρεσις ἐπ᾽ bers (for 17+3=27, 2745=387,
ἄπειρον, τὸ δὲ περιττὸν προςτεθὲν 3°+7=4? and so on) such num-
Am
=;

περαίνει αὐτὸ, κωλύει γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὴν bers (as Simpl. 105 a, Philop. K.
εἰς τὰ ἴσα διαίρεσιν. οὕτω μὲν οὖν 13, expressly assert) were called
οἱ ἐξηγηταὶ (to whom Alexander by the Pythagoreans γνώμονες. By
doubtless belongs). Similarly, the addition of odd numbers to
Philop. Phys. K. 11, ibid. 12: one, we get only square numbers
τὸ μὲν yap περιττὸν περατοῖ καὶ (1+3=2?; 14+38+5=3? and so
ὁρίζει, τὸ δὲ ἄρτιον τῆς ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον on), and therefore numbers of one
τομῆς οἴτιόν ἐστιν, ἀεὶ τὴν διχοτο- kind ; whereas in any other way—
μίαν δεχόμενον. Themist. Phys. whether by adding together odd
82 ἃ, p. 221 Speng. The Pytha- and even numbers (so Philop.
goreans declare the ἄρτιος ἀριθμὸς says), or by adding even numbers
only as unlimited: τοῦτον yap εἶναι only to the one (so say Alexan-
Ths εἰς τὰ ἴσα τομῆς αἴτιον ἥτις der, Simplicius, and Themist.), we
ἄπειρος. Aristotle himself says, obtain numbers of the most diffe-
Phys. iii. 4, 203 a, 10: of μὲν (the rent sorts, ἑτερομήκεις, τρίγωνοι,
Pythagoreans) τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι τὸ ἑπτάγωνοι, &c., and consequently
ἄρτιον" τοῦτο γὰρ ἐναπολαμβανόμενον an unlimited plurality of εἴδη.
(the uneven included) παρέχειν τοῖς This interpretation seems to me
οὖσι τὴν ἀπειρίαν. This, indeed, preferable to those of Roth, /oc. cit.
asserts that the even must be the and Prantl (Arist. Phys. 489). To
cause of unlimitedness, but not bring them into barmony with the
why it should be so; nor do we text of Aristotle was a difficulty,
gather this from the additional even to the old commentators. The
words, σημεῖον δ᾽ εἶναι τούτου τὸ most probable supposition appears
συμβαῖνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν" περιτι- to be that the words, which are
θεμένων γὰρ τῶν γνωμόνων περὶ τὸ obscure, from the excessive con-
 LIMITED AND UNLIMITED. 379

all consists of the Limited and the Unlimited.! With

ciseness of καὶ χωρὶς, mean this: παλαιοὶ, κρείττονες ἡμῶν Kal ἐγγυ-
that if on the one hand the γνώμονες τέρω θεῶν οἰκοῦντες, ταύτην φήμην
be added to the one, there arises παρέδοσαν, ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς μὲν καὶ ἐκ
one and the same kind of numbers; πολλῶν ὄντων τῶν ἀεὶ λεγομένων
but if, on the other hand, the other εἶναι, πέρας δὲ καὶ ἀπειρίαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
numbers, without the γνώμονεξ, ξύμφυτον ἐχόντων. Ibid. 23. C:
different kinds. So that καὶ χωρὶς τὸν θεὸν ἐλέγομέν που τὸ μὲν ἄπειρον
would signify: καὶ περιτιθεμένων δεῖξαι τῶν ὄντων, τὸ δὲ πέρας. The
τῶν ἀριθμῶν χωρὶς τῶν γνωμόνων. latter is also called, 23 E, and 26
1 Arist. Metaph. 1. 5, 986 ἃ, B, πέρας ἔχον; and the different
17: τοῦ δὲ ἀριθμοῦ [νομίζουσι] kinds of the Limited are (p. 24
στοιχεῖα τό τε ἄρτιον καὶ TH περιτ- D), included under the name περα-
tov, τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν πεπερασμένον toeides. Aristotle, like Plato (Me-
τὸ δὲ ἄπειρον, τὸ δ᾽ ἐν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων taph. i. 8, 990 a, 8; xiv. 3, 1091
εἶναι τούτων (καὶ γὰρ ἄρτιον εἶναι a, 18), has πέρας for what he had
καὶ περιττὸν), τὸν δ᾽ ἄριθμὸν ἐκ τοῦ called, Metaph. i. 5, πεπαρασμένον.
ἑνὸς, ἀριθμοὺς δὲ, καθάπερ εἴρηται, There is, in fact, no difference be-
τὸν ὅλον οὐρανόν. Philol. Fr. 1, tween these various appellations;
ap. Stob. i. 454: ἀνάγκα τὰ ἐόντα they are all intended to denote the
εἶμεν πάντα ἢ περαίνοντα ἢ ἄπειρα, ἢ idea of Limitation, which, how-
περαίνοντά τε καὶ ἄπειρα. This is ever, aS 8 rule, is apprebended,
probably the commencement of his after the manner of the ancients,
work, succeeded by the proof of as concrete, and might be expres-
this theorem, of which the follow- sed either actively or passively,
ing words only have been preserved either as Limiting or Limited, for
by Stobzeus, ἄπειρα δὲ μόνον οὐκ ἀεὶ that which limits another by its
[οὔ κα εἴη Mein.|, and these in ad- admixture with it must in itself
dition by Iambl. iz Nicom. 7, and be something Limited (cf. Plato,
in Villoison, Anecd. 11. 196: ἀρχὰν Tim. 35 A, where the indivisible
yap οὐδὲ τὸ γνωσούμενον ἐσσεῖται substance as such is the binding
πάντων ἀπείρων ἐόντων, vide Bockh, and limiting principle). Ritter’s
p- 47 sqq. Schaarschmidt, on the observations, impugning the au-
other hand (Schrift. des Philol.61), thenticity of Aristotle’s expressions
reproduces the text of Stobzeus (Pyth. Phil. 116 sqq.), are, there-
without any mention of the lacune fore, hardly well founded. Nor is
in it; and Rothenbiicher, Syst. d. it of any consequence that in the
Pyth. 68, makes objections to this above quotation sometimes num-
text, which immediately disappear bers, sometimes the constituents of
upon a right apprehension of what number (the Limited and Unlim1-
Philolaus really said: ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ted), and sometimes (as we shall
φαίνεται οὔτ᾽ ἐκ περαινόντων πάντων see further on) the unity of these
ἐόντα οὔτ᾽ ἐξ ἀπείρων πάντων, δῆλόν elements, Harmony, are mentioned
τ᾽ ἄρα ὅτι ἐκ περαινόντων τε καὶ as the ground and substance of
ἀπείρων ὅ τε κόσμος καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ things; for if all things consist of
συναρμόχθη. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς. numbers, all things must necessa-
ἔργοις. τὰ μὲν γὰρ, etc., vide previous rily be composed of the universal
note; ef. Plato, Phileb. 16, C: οἱ μὲν elements of number—the Limited
980 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

this proposition is connected the following observation:

that everything unites in itself opposite characteristics,
These characteristics they tried to reduce to the funda-
mental opposition of the limited and the unlimited,
odd and even. The limited and the uneven was held,
however, by the Pythagoreans, in agreement with the
popular belief, as the better and more perfect, the un-
limited and the even as the imperfect.’ Wherever,
therefore, they perceived opposite qualities, they re-
garded the better as hmited or uneven, and the worse
as unlimited and even. Thus, according to them, all
things were divided into two categories, of which one
was on the side of the limited, and the other on that
of the unlimited.?, The number of these categories was
then more precisely fixed by the sacred number ten,

and Unlimited; and as these ele- so far are identical with the Limi-
ments only constitute number in ted and Unlimited.
their harmonic combination, all 1 Vide next note, and Arist.
things are likewise Harmony, cf. Eth. N. ii. 5, 1106 b, 29: τὸ yap
pp. 909, 1: 370, 25 384, 1 κακὸν τοῦ ἀπείρου, ὧς of Πυθαγόρειοι
Lastly, if Bockh (Philol. 56 sq.) εἴκαζον, τὸ δ᾽ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ πεπερα-
objects to the exposition cf Aris- σμένου. It will be shown further
totle that odd and even num- on that among the Greeks and Ro-
bers must not be confounded with mans odd numbers were considered
the Unlimited and the Limited, more lucky than even.
because being determined they all 2 Arist. Hth. N. i. 4, 1096 b,
participate in Unity and are limi- 5: πιθανώτερον δ᾽ ἐοίκασιν οἱ Πυθα-
ted; and Brandis, on the other γόρειοι λέγειν περὶ αὐτοῦ [τοῦ ἑνὸς],
hand, conjectures (i. 452) that the τιθέντες ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν συστοιχίᾳ
Pythagoreans sought for the Limi- τὸ ἕν, Metaph. xiv. 6, 1098 b, 11
ting principle in uneven numbers, (on Pythagoreans and Academics
or gnomic numbers (which are also with Pythagorean tendencies):
uneven numbers) or in the decad, ἐκεῖνο μέντοι ποιοῦσι φανερὸν, ὅτι τὸ
we may reply that the Hven and εὖ ὑπάρχει καὶ τῆς συστοιχίας ἐστὶ
the Odd are not the same as odd τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ τὺ περιττὸν, τὸ εὐθὺ,
and even number ; the latter is ne- τὸ ἴσον, αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνίων ἀριθμῶν,
cessarily and always determinate; not to mention later writers, such
the former are constituents of all as Ps, Plut. V. Hom. 145.
numbers, whether even or odd, and
 TABLE OF OPPOSITES. 381

and the ten fundamental oppositions were as follows :—

1. Limited and Unlimited ; 2. Odd and Even; 3. One
and Many; 4. Right and Left; 5. Masculine and
Feminine; 6. Rest and Motion; 7. Straight and
Crooked ; 8. Light and Darkness; 9. Good and Evil;
10. Square and Oblong.! It is true that this classi-
fication belongs only to a portion of the Pythagoreans,
who were probably later members of the school;? but
' Arist. Metaph. i. &, 986 a, 22 somewhat forgotten his previous
(directly after the quotation on p. utterances, for he says: ‘That
379, 1): ἕτεροι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων Archytas referred motion to the
τὰς ἀρχὰς δέκα λέγουσιν εἶναι τὰς Unlimited I still maintain, in
κατὰ συστοιχίαν (in two series di- spite of Zeller’s objection.’) This
rectly opposed to one another, the derivation of motion we also find in
Good and the Evil) λεγομένας, Arist. Phys. 111. 2, 201 b, 20: ἔνιοι
πέρας καὶ ἄπειρον, περιττὸν καὶ ἑτερότητα καὶ ἀνισότητα Kal Td ph
ἄρτιον, ἕν καὶ πλῆθος, δεξιὸς καὶ ov φάσκοντες εἶναι τὴν κίνησιν,
ἀριστερὸν, ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ, ἠρεμοῦν which Simpl. Phys. 98 ἃ, Ὁ, and
καὶ κινούμενον, εὐθὺ καὶ καμπύλον, Philop. Phys. i. 16, connect with
φῶς καὶ σκότος, ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακὸν, τε- the Pythagoreans, and Plato agrees
τράγωνον καὶ ἐτερόμηκες. That the with them, cf. Part ii. a, 808, 1.
Pythagoreans derived motion from There is all the less reason to con-
the Unlimited is also asserted by test the assertion of Eudemus
Eudemus, ap. Simpl. Phys. 98 b: (with Chaignet, v. 146), since, ac-
Πλάτων δὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν cording to Alemzon, the gods and
καὶ τὸ μὴ ὃν καὶ τὸ ἀνώμαλον καὶ the stars are always moving (vide
ὅσα τούτοις ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ φέρει τὴν infra), and the soul, too, is in con-
κίνησιν λέγει... stant motion.
βέλτιον δὲ αἴτια The ceaselessness
[se. τῆς κινήσεως λέγειν ταῦτα
of this motion, the fact that, as
ὥσπερ ᾿Αρχύτας, καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγον τὸ Alemzon says, it connects the be-
δ᾽ ἀόριστόν, φησι, καλῶς ἐπὶ τὴν ginning with the end, might be con-
κίνησιν of ἸΤυθαγόρειοι καὶ 6 Πλάτων sidered a perfection, even though
ἐπιφέρουσιν, &e. Brandis (i. 451 ; motion itself were an imperfection ;
Rhein. Mus. ii. 221) concludes from it shows that the heavenly bodies
this passage that Archytas referred themselves consist of the Limiting
motion to the Limiting; but he is and Unlimited. Réth’s statement
deceived by the expression, αἴτιον, (Philol. Fragm., περὶ ψυχῆς, 21)
which, in any case, should be com- that in the table of the ten oppo-
pleted by τῆς κινήσεως, even if we sites it is only motion externally
adopt his reading, αἴτιον λέγειν produced, which is placed on the
ὥσπερ ᾿Αρχύτας. (In the Gesch, side of the ἄπειρον, is entirely
der Entw. der Griech. Phil. i. 169, groundless.
he has modified his view of this 5 Chaignet 11. 50 sq. questions
passage. He must, however, have this, because, according to Aristo-
982 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

it was universally admitted both by earlier and later

Pythagoreans that things are compounded out of
opposing elements ; and ultimately, out of the odd and
the even, or the limited and the unlimited; and there-
fore they must all have reduced the given phenomena
to these and similar opposites.' The drawing up of a
tle (vide infra § vii.) Alemzon had the Even, that we can hardly con-
already admitted the ten opposi- ceive of the one without the other.
tions, ‘tels que nous venons de les How could this doctrine of the
exposer.’ But Aristotle asserts, as Pythagoreans ever have arisen,
is quite obvious, not that Alemzon and what importance would it have
admitted the ten opposites, but had for them had it not been ap-
that, in agreement with the Pytha- plied to concrete phenomena?
goreans, he assumed human life to Granting that Aristotle may, per-
be ruled by oppositions; which, haps, in the passages cited from
however, he did not like them re- the Nicomachean Ethics, have had
duce to fixed and definite cate- primarily in view the table of the
gories. Aristotle, in short, asserts ten opposites; granting that less
pretty nearly the contrary of what stress is to be laid on Metaph. xiv.
Chaignet finds in him. 6, because this passage does not
' Vide sup. p. 378 sq. Brandis relate merely to the Pythagoreans :
thinks he discovers in this a trace granting that the slight difference
of a different manner of conceiving to be found in the enumeration
the Pythagorean philosophy( Rhein. in Plutarch (De Is. c. 48) is to
Mus. ii. 214, 239 sqq.; Gr. rom. be regarded as unimportant, and
Phil. i. 445, 502 sqq.). All, how- that the septuple table of Enu-
ever, that can be inferred from the dorus (ap. Simpl. Pays. 39 a;
words of Aristotle is this: that αὐ vide infra, p. 388, 1) as well as —
the Pythagoreans did not hold the the triple table, Diog. vii. 26,
decuple table of oppositions, bat prove little, because these writers
some of them held only the funda- evidently mix up later doctrines;
mental opposition of the Odd or granting that, for the same reason,
the Limited, and the Even and the we cannot attach much weight to
Unlimited. This does not exclude the text of Ps. Alex. in Metaph.
the possibility that these latter xii. 6, 668, 16; and lastly, that the
Pythagoreans may have applied different arrangement of the seve- Pa
ao
ΡΨ
that fundamental opposition to the ral members in Simpl. Phys. 98 a,
explanation of phenomena, and and Themist. Phys. 30 b, 216, is
may have reduced to it the oppo- immaterial to the present question ;
sites which they observed in things. yet it lies in the nature of things
Such attempts, indeed, were so that even those who had not the ee
P

directly necessitated by the gene- decuple table, must have applied

ral theory of the school that things and developed the doctrine of op-
are a combination of the Limited posites; not, indeed, according to
and the Unlimited, the Odd and that fixed scheme, but in a freer
 TABLE OF OPPOSITES. 989

table of such opposites was nothing more than a formal

development ; for the comprehension of the fundamental
doctrines of Pythagoreanism this table is of the less
importance, since in it the separate numbers are not
the result of any deduction according to a definite
principle, but out of all the opposites that are given to
us empirically, certain of the most prominent,’ chosen
in a somewhat arbitrary manner, are enumerated, until
the number ten is complete. So also the apportion-
ment of the particular concepts to the several series is
to a great extent arbitrary, although generally speaking
we cannot mistake the leading point of view, which
consists in an attempt to assign the uniform, the perfect,
the self-completed, to the Limited; and the opposite
categories of these, to the Unlimited.
According to this theory the primary constituents
of things are of a dissimilar and opposite nature; a
bond was therefore necessary to unite them, and cause

manner. That other oppositions, p. 288 (and similarly De Ei. ap. D.

besides the ten, were observed is ce. 8, p. 388) derives the comparison
clear from Aristotle, ap. Simpl. of the uneven with the male, and
De Calo, 173a,11; Schol.in Arist. the even with the female, γόνιμος
492 a, 24, τὸ οὖν δεξιὸν καὶ ἄνω γάρ ἐστι [ὁ περιττὸς ἀριθμὸς] καὶ
καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἀγαθὸν ἐκάλουν, τὸ δὲ κρατεῖ τοῦ ἀρτίου συντιθέμενος, καὶ
ἀριστερὸν καὶ κάτω καὶ ὄπισθεν κακὸν διαιρουμένων εἰς τὰς μονάδας, ὃ μὲν
ἔλεγον, ὡς αὐτὸς ᾿Αριστοτέλης ἱστό- ἄρτιος, καθάπερ τὸ θῆλυ, χώραν
pnoev ἐν τῇ τῶν Πυθαγορείοις (for μεταξὺ κενὴν ἐνδίδωσι, τοῦ δὲ περιτ-
which Karsten, clearly unjustifi- τοῦ μόριον ἄεί τι πλῆρες ὑπολείπε-
ably, reads, Πυθαγόρα), ἀρεσκόντων ται. It is said that Pythagoras
συναγωγῇ. The prohibition of designated odd numbers, and espe-
placing the left thigh over the cially the Monad, as male; and
right (Plut. De Vit. pud. 8, p.532) even numbers, especially the Dyad,
is connected with the preference of as female, vide Ps. Plut. 7. Hom.
right and left. 145; Hippol. Refut. vi. 23, i. 2, p.
' As may easily be shown, even 10; Alex. ad. Metaph. 1. 5, 29, 13;
irrespectively of the reasons for Bon. Schol. 540 b, 15; Philop.
which, e.g. Blutarch, Qu. rom. 102, Phys. K. ii. ef. Sext. Matt. v. 8.
984 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

them to be productive. This bond of the elements is

harmony,! which is defined by Philolaus as the unity of
the manifold, and the accord of the discordant.” As
therefore the opposition of the elements is present in
all things, so must harmony be present likewise; and it
muy with equal propriety be said that all is number
and that all is harmony,’ for every number is a definite
union, or a harmony of the odd and the even. But, as
with the Pythagoreans, the perception of the inherent
contradictions in things primarily connects itself with
the idea of number, so the recognition of the harmony
which reconciles these contradictions 1s connected with
the idea of musical relations; harmony as conceived by
1 Philol. ap. Stob. i. 460, in Aristotle (De An. i. 4) himself
continuation of the passage quoted quotes the theory that the soul is
supra, p. 372, 1: ἐπεὶ δέ τε ἀρχαὶ ἃ harmony, καὶ yap 'τὴν ἁρμονίαν
ὑπᾶρχον οὐχ ὅμοϊῖαι οὐδ᾽ ὁμόφυλοι κρᾶσιν καὶ σύνθεσιν ἐναντίων εἶναι
ἔσσαι, ἤδη ἀδύνατον ἧς ἂν καὶ αὐταῖς (just so Philolaus, vide following
κοσμηθῆμεν, εἰ μὴ ἁρμονία ἐπεγένετο, note) καὶ τὸ σῶμα συγκεῖσθαι ἐξ
ᾧτινι ἂν τρόπῳ ἐγένετο. τὰ μὲν ὧν ἐναντίων, and Plato puts the same
ὅμοῖα καὶ ὁμόφυλα ἁρμονίας οὐθὲν into the mouth of a pupil of Philo-
ἐπεδέοντο τὰ δὲ ἀνομοῖα μηδὲ laus (Phedo, 86 B).
ὁμόφυλα μηδὲ ἰσοτελῆ ἀνάγκα τὰ 2 Nicom. Arithm. p. 59 (Bockh,
τοιαῦτα ἁρμονίᾳ συγκεκλεῖσθαι, εἰ Philol. 61) ἔστι yap apuovia πολυμι-
μέλλοντι ἐν κόσμῳ κατέχεσθαι. The γέων ἕνωσις καὶ διχᾶ φρονεόντων
proposition that ccntraries only, σύμφρασις. This definition is often
and not similar things, require quoted as Pythagorean, vide Ast.
Harmony is thought so strange by in hoc loc. p. 299. Béckh aseribes
Rothenbicher (Syst. d. Pyth. 73) it to Philolaus. with probability,
that it seems to him a decided on the strength of the above pas-
argument against the authenticity sage.
of the fragment. But this singu- 3 Arist. Metaph. i. 5: τὸν ὅλον
larity only arises because Rothen- οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀριθμόν.
bicher, manifestly against the Cf. Strabo x. 3, 10, p. 468 Cas.:
opinion of the au‘hor, substitutes μουσικὴν ἐκάλεσε Πλάτων καὶ ἔτι
the zepatvovra for the ὅμοια, and πρότερον οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν φιλοσο-
the ἄπειρα for the ἀνόμοια. For φίαν, καὶ καθ᾽ ἁρμονίαν τὸν κόσμον
the rest, not only do Heracleitus συνεστάναι φασί. Athen. xiii. 632
(vide infra) and others, following, Ὁ: Tlv@ayépas ... καὶ τὴν τοῦ
him, maintain that every Harmony παντὸς οὐσίαν διὰ μουσικῆς ἀπο-
presupposes an opposite, but φαίνει συγκειμένην.
 HARMONY. 385

them is nothing else than the octave,! the relations of

which therefore Philolaus proceeds at once to expound,
when he wishes to describe the essential nature of har-
mony.” Strange as this may seem to us, it was natural
enough to those who were not as yet accustomed to
distinguish definitely general concepts from the par-
ticular phenomena, through which they arrived at the
perception of these concepts. In the concord of tones
the Pythagoreans recognise the general law of the union
of opposites: they therefore call every such combination
harmony (as Heracleitus and Empedocles likewise do),3
1 ‘Apuovia is the name for the passage in Sextus, Math. iv. 6, may
octave, ef. e.g. Aristox. Mus. ii, also refer to it; this passage like-
36: τῶν ἑπταχόρδων ἃ ἐκάλουν wise correctly explains the mean-
ἁρμονίας. Nikom. Harm. Introd. ing of Harmony: ὡς γὰρ τὸν ὅλον
1. 16: of παλαιότατοι. . . ἁρμονίαν κόσμον κατὰ ἁρμονίαν λέγουσι διοι-
μὲν καλοῦντες τὴν διὰ πασῶν, ete. κεῖσθαι, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ζῷον ψυχοῦσθαι.
ee”
yes
σὰ
Ὄπ,
ὧδ

Lie
5. Ap. Stobzeus, i. 462 (Nicom. δοκεῖ δὲ ἢ τέλειος ἁρμονία ἐν τρισὶ
Harm. i. 17);he thus continues, συμφωνίαις λαβεῖν τὴν ὑπόστασιν,
immediately after the passage just τῇ τε διὰ τεττάρων καὶ τῇ διὰ πέντε
quoted: apuovias δὲ μέγεθός ἐντι καὶ τῇ διὰ πασῶν. As to the har-
συλλαβὰ (the fourth) καὶ δι’ ὀξειᾶν monic system, vide infra.
(the fifth) τὸ δὲ δι’ ὀξειᾶν μεῖζον 3 Bockh, Philol. 65, has rather
τᾶς συλλαβᾶς ἐπογδόῳ (a tone = 8 a different interpretation ofthis.
:9) ἔστι yap ἀπὸ ὑπάτας és μέσαν He says: ‘ Unity is the Limit, but
συλλαβὰ, ἀπὸ δὲ μέσας ποτὶ νεάταν the Unlimited is indefinite Duality,
ae
OE
OCC
δι’ ὀξειᾶν, ἀπὸ δὲ νεάτας ἐς τρίταν which becomes definite Duality ©
συλλαβὰ, ἀπὸ δὲ τρίτας és ὕπάταν since twice the measure of Unity
δι’ ὀξειᾶν" τὸ δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ μέσας καὶ is included in it; Limitation is,
τρίτας ἐπόγδοον᾽ ἃ δὲ συλλαβὰ therefore, given through the deter-
ἐπίτριτον, τὸ δὲ δι᾽ ὀξειᾶν ἡμιόλιον" mination of Duality by means of
τὸ διὰ πασῶν δὲ διπλόον (the fourth Unity; that is, by fixing the pro-
= 8: 4 the fifth = 2: 3, the oc- portion, 1: 2, which is the mathe-
tave = 2: 4). οὕτως ἁρμονία πέντε matical proportion of the Octave.
ἐπόγδοα καὶ δύο διέσιες, δι ὀξειᾶν δὲ The Octave is, therefore, Harmony
τρί ἐπόγδοα καὶ δίεσις. συλλαβὰ δὲ itself, through which the opposite
δύ᾽ ἐπόγδοα καὶ δίεσις (the lesser primitive causes were united.’
<_< semi-tone called afterwards λεῖμμα What prevents me from adopting
= 243: 256). An explanation of this ingenious view is my inability
this passage is given by Béckh, absolutely to identify the Limit
Philol. 65-89, and after him, by and Unlimited with Unity and
Brandis, 1. 456 sqq. Perhaps the Duality.
You. 1: cc

|el
lalallala
i
3386 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

and transfer to it the relations of musical harmony,

which they were the first to determine.!
Before we go further, however, it seems necessary
to examine some different opinions concerning the
Pythagorean doctrine of first principles; opinions
founded partly on the statements of ancient authors,
and partly on the conjectures of modern scholars. Ac-
cording to our exposition so far, the Pythagorean system
started from the proposition that all is, in its essence,
number. From this results the doctrine of the primi-
tive opposites ;and consequently, the opposition of the
crooked and the straight, the limited and the unlimited
precede all others. The unity likewise of these oppo-
sites was sought in number alone, which was therefore
defined more particularly as harmony. Many of our
authorities, however, represent the matter differently.
They assert that the entire system was founded on the
opposition of unity and duality, which is then reduced
to the opposition of spiritual and corporeal, of form and
substance, of the Deity and matter, and is itself derived
from the Deity as the original Unity. According to
another theory, the starting point of the system was not
the arithmetical conception of number and its constitu-
ents, but the geometrical conception of the limits of
space and of unlimited space. A third opinion bases
the system not on the consideration of number, but on
the distinction of the limited and unlimited. We have
now to enquire how much in all this is in accordance
with historical evidence and internal probability.
The first of the above-mentioned theories is found
1 Further details hereafter,
 UNITY AND DUALITY. 387

soon after the commencement of the first century be-

fore Christ in Alexander Polyhistor. The Pythagoreans,
he tells us, appealing to statements of the Pythagoreans,
regarded Unity as the beginning of all things; from
Unity arose indefinite Duality, which was related to
Unity as matter to the efficient cause; from Unity and
Duality sprang numbers, and from numbers, points, &e.!
This view is developed in the extensive excerpts in
Sextus? from a Pythagorean work. According to it,
the Pythagoreans, in a full discussion of the subject,
maintained that the causes of sensible phenomena can
lie neither in what is sensibly perceptible, nor in any-
thing corporeal, nor even in mathematical figures, but
only in Unity and indeterminate Duality, and that all
logical categories are in the end reducible to these
two principles. They, therefore, regarded Unity as
efficient cause, and Duality as passive matter, and sup-
posed not merely numbers, but also figures, bodies,
ae
| elements, and the world itself, to originate from the
———E—————

co-operation of the two principles.* These principles

1 Diog, viii. 24 sq.: φησὶ δ᾽ 6 x, 249-284; vii. 94, 109. Itis

᾿Αλέξανδρος ἐν ταῖς τῶν φιλοσόφων evident that these three texts are
διαδοχαῖς; καὶ ταῦτα εὑρηκέναι ἐν based upon the same work.
Πυθαγορικοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν. ἀρχὴν 3 Cf. Math. x. 261: ὁ Πυθαγόρας
μὲν ἁπάντων μονάδα. ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἀρχὴν ἔφησεν εἶναι τῶν ὄντων τὴν
μονάδος ἀόριστον δυάδα ὡς ἂν ὕλην τῇ μονάδα, TS κατὰ μετοχὴν ἕκαστον
pordd: αἰτίῳ ὄντι ὑποστῆναι: ἐκ δὲ τῆς τῶν ὄντων ἕν λέγεται, καὶ ταύτην
μονάδος καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου δυάδος τοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτότητα μὲν ἑαυτῆς νοουμένην
ἀριθμούς" ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τὰ σημεῖα, μονάδα νοεῖσθαι, ἐπισυντεθεῖσαν δ᾽
ete. In the same sense the mythical ἑαυτῇ καθ᾽ ἑτερότητα ἀποτελεῖν τὴν
Zaratas, the instructor of Pythago- καλουμένην ἀόριστον δυάδα, ete.
ras, ap. Plut. Procr. An. 2, 2, p. Section 276: ἐξ ὧν γίνεσθαί φασι
1012, ealled the One the father, and τότ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς ἕν καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ
indeterminate Duality the mother Tovtois πάλιν δυάδα, ἀπὸ μὲν Tis
, Ll Ll > A ~

of numbers, ef. p. 389, 3.

΄ U ° > " ΄
πρώτης μονάδος τὸ ἕν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς
2 Pyrrh. iii. 152-157; Math. μονάδος καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου δυάδος τὰ
cc2

ee
δον
πα
988 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

receive a further interpretation from the Neo-Pytha-

goreans and Neo-Platonists. The Pythagoreans, says
Eudorus,! reduced all things ultimately to the One, by
which they understood nothing else than the highest
Deity; they derived from this two principles, the One
and indefinite Duality, God and matter; under the
former they classed everything that is good, under the
latter everything evil. Consequently they used various
names to designate these principles. The One they
called the uneven, the masculine, the ordered. ‘That
which is opposed to unity they called the even, the
feminine, the unordered, &c. Inasmuch, however, as
this second element is derived from the One, the One
alone is to be regarded as first principle in the true
sense of the word. Similarly, Moderatus? asserts that

δύο: δὶς yup τὸ ἕν Bio... κατὰ τοὺς ἄνδρας" εἰ “γὰρ ἡ μὲν τῶνδε, ἣ
5 ‘ ε n «

ταῦτα (ἰ. ταὐτὰ) δὲ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δὲ τῶνδε ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ οὐκ εἰσὶ κοιναὶ
ἀριθμοὶ ἐκ τούτων ἀπετελέσθησαν, πάντων ἀρχαὶ ὥσπερ τὸ ἕν. καὶ πάλιν.
τοῦ μὲν ἑνὸς ἀεὶ περιπατοῦντος, τῆς διό, φησι, καὶ κατὰ ἄλλον τρόπον
δὲ ἀορίστου δυάδος δύο γεννώσης καὶ ἀρχὴν ἔφασαν τῶν πάντων τὸ ἕν ὡς
εἰς ἄπειρον πλῆθος τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἂν καὶ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῶν ὄντων πάντων
exrewovons. ὅθεν φασὶν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγενημένων, τοῦτο δὲ εἶναι
ταύταις τὸν μὲν τοῦ δρῶντος αἰτίου τὸν ὑπεράνω θεόν... φημὶ τοίνυν
ec / /

λόγον ἐπέχειν τὴν μονάδα, τὸν δὲ τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πυθαγόραν τὸ μὲν ἕν
τῆς πασχούσης ὕλης τὴν δυάδα. πάντων ἀρχὴν ἀπολιπεῖν κατ᾽ ἄλλον
Vide ibid. on the formation of δὲ τρόπον δύο τὰ ἀνωτάτω στοιχεῖα
figures and things from numbers. παρεισάγειν, καλεῖν δὲ τὰ δύο ταῦτα
1 Simpl. Phys. 89 a: γράφει στοιχεῖα πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις" τὸ
δὲ περὶ τούτων ὃ Εὔδωρος τάδε' κατὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ὀνομάζεσθαι τεταγμέ-
τὸν ἀνωτάτω λόγον φατέον τοὺς γον, ὡρισμένον, γνωστὸν, ἄῤῥεν,
Πυθαγορικοὺς τὺ ἕν ἀρχὴν τῶν πάν- περιττὸν, δεξιὸν, φῶς, τὸ δὲ ἐναντίον
των λέγειν, κατὰ δὲ τὸν δεύτερον τούτῳ ἄτακτον etc. ὥστε ws μὲν
λόγον 5ύο ἀρχὰς τῶν ἀποτελουμένων ἀρχὴ τὸ ἕν ὡς δὲ στοιχεῖα τὺ ἕν καὶ
εἶναι, τό τεὲν καὶ τὴν ἐναντίαν τούτῳ ἢn ἀόριστος
ἀό δυὰς ἀρχαὶ, ἄ ἄμφω ἐν
δυὰς ἄρχαὶϊ, ἐν ὄντα
ὄ
φύσιν, ὑποτάσσεσθαι δὲ πάντων τῶν πάλιν, καὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἄλλο μέν ἐστιν
κατὰ ἐναντίωσιν ἐπινοουμένων τὸ μὲν ἐν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν πάντων, ἄλλο δὲ ἕν
a ae) \ ~ Ul La

ἀστεῖον τῷ ἑνὶ τὸ δὲ φαῦλον τῇ πρὸς τὸ τῇ δυάδι ἀντικείμενονὃ καὶ μονάδα

τοῦτο ἐναντιουμένῃ φύσει: διὸ μηδὲ καλοῦσιν.
εἶναι τὸ σύνολον ταύτας ἀρχὰς κατὰ
Ὁ
2 Porph. Vita Pythag. 48 564.
 UNITY AND DUALITY. 389

the Pythagoreans briefly designated by the One the rela-

tion of unity, identity and equality, the ground of all
concord and of all fixed consistency; andby duality,}
the principle of all multiplicity, inequality, division,
and change. In agreement with this, we read in the
Plutarchic Placita? that of the two principles of Pytha-
goras, Unity denoted the good, reason, or deity; and
indefinite Duality, evil, matter, and the demons. Of
these two writers, the former only is at the pains to
tell us that the doctrines he ascribes to the Pythago-
reans were not stated by them in so many words, but are
merely hinted at in their number-theory. Other writers
of later times express themselves to the same effect.3
SF
eeTeer
1 Porphyry says himself, sec- πάντα eis ἀριθμοὺς ἀναφέρων sad
tion 88: ἐκάλει yap τῶν ἀντικειμέ- δύο τὰς ἀνωτάτω ἀρχὰς ἐλάμβανε,
νων δυνάμεων τὴν μὲν βελτίονα τὴν μὲν ὡρισμένην μονάδα, τὴν δὲ ἀό-
μονάδα καὶ φῶς καὶ δεξιὸν καὶ ἴσον ριστον δυάδα καλῶν" τὴν μὲν ἀγαθῶν,
καὶ μένον καὶ εὐθὺ, τὴν δὲ χείρονα τὴν δὲ κακῶν οὕσαν ἀρχήν, because, as
δυάδα καὶ σκότος καὶ ἄἂριστερὸν καὶ is afterwards explained, everything
περιφερὲς καὶ φερόμενον. good is συμφωνίας οἰκεῖον, and
2.1.8, 14 8α. (Stob. 1. 800): Πυ- everything evil arises from discord
θαγόρας. .. ἀρχὰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς... and strife. Hippol. Reefut. vi. 23:
πάλιν δὲ τὴν μονάδα καὶ τὴν ἀόριστον Πυθ. τοίνυν ἀρχὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀγέν-
δυάδα ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς. σπεύδει δ᾽ αὐτῷ νητον ἀπεφήνατο τὴν μονάδα, hoes
τῶν ἀρχῶν ἣ μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν νητὴν δὲ τὴν δυάδα καὶ πάντας
αἴτιον καὶ εἰδικὸν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ νοῦς, ὃ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀριθμούς. καὶ τῆς μὲν
θεὺς, ἢ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ παθητικὸν καὶ ὑλικὸν, δυάδος πατέρα φησὶν εἶναι τὴν
ὅσπερ ἐστὶν 6 ὁρατὸς κόσμος. i. 7, μονάδα, πάντων δὲ τῶν γεννωμένων
14 (Stob. i. 58; Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. μητέρα δυάδα, γεννητὴν γεννητῶν.
15, 6; Galen. c. 8, p. 251): Πυθα- His teacher, Zaratas, also called
yopas τῶν ἀρχῶν Thy μὲν μονάδα Unity, Father, and Duality, Mo-
θεὸν (so Hippolyt. Refut. i. 2, p. 8; ther; cf. p. 387, 1; Ps. Justin.
Epiph. Exp. Fid. p. 1087, A) καὶ Cohort. 19 (cf. ch. 4): τὴν yap μονάδα
τἀγαθὸν, ἥ τις ἐστὶν ἢ τοῦ évis ἀρχὴν ἁπάντων λέγων (se. Πυθαγ.)
φύσις, αὐτὸς 6 νοῦς τὴν δ᾽ ἀόριστον καὶ ταύτην τῶν ἀγαθῶν «ἁπάντων
δυάδα δαίμονα καὶ τὸ κακὸν, περὶ ἥν αἰτίαν εἶναι, δι’ aAAnyopias ἕνα
ἐστι τὸ ὑλικὸν πλῆθος, ἔστι δὲ καὶ τε καὶ μόνον διδάσκει θεὸν εἶναι;
6 ὁρατὸς κόσμος. Syrian, ad. Metaph. Schol. in Arist.
3 Cf. the Pseudo-Plutarch (per- 842 a, 8; ef. 931 a, 5:—Most of
haps Porphyry) Vita Homeri, the Pythagoreans call the cause of
145, according to whom Pythagoras all things the Monad and the Dy-

ee
990 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

The pseudo-Archytas! differs only frdm this interpre-

tation in making the distinction more prominent
between the primitive essence and the two -derived
principles, and in apprehending the latter not in the
Pythagorean, but in the Aristotelian form. He indi-
cates as the most universal principles, form and matter;
form corresponds to the regulated and determinate,
and matter to the unregulated and indeterminate;
form is a beneficent, and matter a destructive nature ;
but he discriminates both from the Deity, which, stand-
ing above them, mcves matter towards form, and
moulds it artistically. Lastly, numbers and geometrical
figures are here represented, after the manner of Plato;
as the intermediate link between form and matter. It

ad; Pythagoras himself inthe ἱερὸς of Stoicism is betrayed in the

λόγος calls it Proteus (from πρῶτος) identification of ὕλη and οὐσία,
and the Dyad or Chaos. Other which is never met with in the
Pseudo-Pythagorean fragments, of earlier philosophers. Even if Pe-
which the contents are similar, are tersen could succeed in tracing a
given in Part ii. b, 99, second part of the questionable termino-
edition. logy in Arist. Metaph. viii. 2, 1043
‘ In the fragment quoted, ap. a, 21, to Archytas (which is impos-
Stobzeum,i.710 sq. The spurious- sible if we duly distinguish in this
ness of this fragment has been ex- passage Aristotle’s own comments
haustively shown by Ritter (Pythaq. from his quotatiors of Archytas) ;
Philos. 67 sq.; Gesch, der Phil. i. even if Petersen’s conjecture were
377 sq.) and by Hartenstein (De well founded that the fragments in
Arch, Fragm. 9 sqq.). The only Stobzeus are taken from Aristotle’s
fault of the latter ishis attempt to excerpts from Archytas (although
save a portion of the fragment. the Doric dialect still appears in
Petersen's remarks (Zeitschrift them), there would still be grave
Sir Alterthumsw. 1836, 873 sqq.) reason to doubt the authenticity of
contain nothing weighty enough to the passage. Archytas did not
contravene this judgment, in which separate the motive cause from
Hermann (Plat. Phil.i, 291) rightly the elements of number, as Her-
concurs. The Aristotelian and mann well observes, in citing a text
Platonic element in the thoughts (vide supra, p. 381, 1), according to
and expressions is so evident that which that philosopher character-
any further demonstration seems ised inequality and indeterminate-
superfluous ;and even the influence ness as the cause of motion,
s
 GOD AND MATTER. 391
is affirmed in more than one place! that the Pytha-
goreans exalted the Deity above the opposition of
principles, and derived the principles from Deity.
Unity as Deity, and antecedent to this opposition, was
called the One. Unity as opposed to duality, and as
a member of the opposition, was called the Monad.?
1 Syrian in Met. Schol. 927 a, τὸ ἕν ἐστι καὶ οὐσίωται ἐν τῷ ἕν εἶναι.
19: ἄξιον δὴ τούτοις ἢ τὰ Κλεινίου Cf. also the ἀΐδιος θεὸς ap. Plut.
τοῦ Πυθαγορείου παραβάλλειν, . .. Plac. iv. 7, 4; Pseudo-butherus
ἡνίκα ἂν αὐτὸ [τὸ ἐν] σεμνύνων ap. Stob. Eel. i. 12 (Unity is the
ἀρχὰν εἶναι τῶν ὄντων λέγῃ καὶ uncreated, the supreme cause,
νοατῶν μέτρον καὶ ἀγένητον καὶ &e.); Lheol. Arithm. p. 8, and
ἀΐδιον καὶ μόνον καὶ κυριῶδες, αὐτὸ Athenag. Suppl. c. 6: Δύσις δὲ καὶ
τὸ (rejected by Usener. I should my- ὄψει ζΟψιμος cf. Iambl. V. P. 267)
self prefer αὐτό Te) ἑαυτὸ δηλοῦν ἢ τὰ 6 μὲν ἀριθμὸν ἄῤῥητον (an irrational
τοῦ θείου Πλάτωνος &e. Also ibid. number, here doubtless an irra-
925 Ὁ, 28: ὅλως δὲ οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῶν tional numerical root) δρίζεται τὸν
ὡσανεὶ ἀντικειμένων οἱ ἄνδρες ἤρχον- €edy, ὁ δὲ τοῦ μεγίστου Tay ἀριθμῶν
το, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν δύο συστοιχιῶν τὴν παρὰ τῶν ἐγγυτάτων [τοῦ ἐγγυ-
τὸ ἐπέκεινα ἤδεσαν, ὡς μαρτυρεῖ τάτω] ὑπεροχὴν, which Athenagoras
Φιλόλαος τὸν Gedy λέγων πέρας καὶ explains, no doubt correctly, by
ἀπειρίαν ὑποστῆσαι, . .. καὶ ἔτι saying that the highest number
πρὸ τῶν δύο ἀρχῶν τῆν ἑνιαίαν αἰτίαν designates the decade, and the
καὶ πάντων ἐξῃρημένην προέταττον, number nearest to it nine, so that
ἣν ᾿Αρχαίνετος (or, according to the the whole is only a fanciful cir-
conjecture of Béckh, Philol. 54, cumlocution for Unity.
149, in which Yartenstein, Arch. 2 Eudorus, loc. cit. sup. p. 388,
Fragm. 12, concurs: ᾿Αρχύτας, a 1; Hippol. Refut.i.2, p. 10: ἀριθμὸς
reacing which Usener had ad- γέγονε πρῶτος ἀρχὴ. ὕπερ ἐστὶν ἕν,
mitted in the text) μὲν αἰτίαν mpd ἀόριστος ἀκατάληπτος, ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ
αἰτίας εἶναί φησι, Φιλόλαος δὲ Tar πάντας “τοὺς ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον δυναμένους
πάντων ἀρχὰν εἶναι διισχυρίζεται, ἐλθεῖν ἀριθμοὺς κατὰ τὺ πλῆθος. τῶν
Βρυτῖνος δὲ ὡς τοῦ παντὸς καὶ οὐ- δὲ ἀριθμὼν ἀρχὴ γέγονεκαθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν
σίας δυνάμει καὶ πρεσβείᾳ ὑπερέχει ἢ πρώτη μονὰς, ἥτις ἐστὶ μονὰς ἄρσην
(Roéth’s corrections of this passage γεννῶσαπατρικῶς πάντας τοὺς ἄλλους
are superfluous and mistaken). Cf. ἀριθμούς. δεύτερον δὲ ἣ δυὰς θῆλυς
also ibid. 935 Ὁ, 13: ἔστι μὲν ὑπε- ἀριθμὸς ἕο. Syrian (in Metaph.
ρούσιον παρά τε τῷ Πλάτωνι τὸ ἕν Schol. 917 Ὁ, δ) quotes as from
καὶ τἀγαθὸν καὶ παρὰ Βροντίνῳ τῷ Archytas the following text: ὅτι
Πυθαγορείῳ καὶ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὧς εἰπεῖν τὸ ἕν kal ἣ μονὰς συγγενῆ ἐόντα
τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ διδασκαλείου τοῦ τῶν διαφέρει ἀλλήλων, and appeals to
hae
᾿ Πυθαγορείων ὁρμωμένοις. Pseudo- Moderatus and Nicomachus in sup-
Alex. in Metaph. 800, 32: οἱ μὲν, port of this distinction. Proclus
ὥσπερ Πλάτων καὶ Bpotivos 6 Πυθα- in Tim. 54 Dsq. The first Being
γόρειος, φασὶν ὅτι τὸ ἀγαθὺν αὐτὸ is, according to the Pythagoreans,
 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

But although these statements have found much

favour with modern writers, they are not sufficiently
attested to warrant our adopting even their essential
substance. It has already been observed that we can
trust the information of later writers about the Pytha-
gorean philosophy, and especially of Neo-Pythagorean
and Neo-Platonic writers, only to the extent that their
sources are known to us. But these sources are in the
present instance either not mentioned, or else they are
contained in writings the authenticity of which is more
than doubtful. In regard to the long fragment of
Archytas, this has already been shown; there can
scarcely be any question of it in the case of the quo-
tations from Brotinus, Clinias, and Butherus;! the
the ἕν. which is above all opposi- ἀριθμητοῖς for ἀριθμοῖς, but this is
tions; the second, the ideal Monad the less likely, as Photius has the
or the Limit, and indeterminate same. It is plain that here all is
duality or the Unlimited. Simi- eaprice and confusion. The com-
latly Damase. De Prine. c. 48, 46, men'ators of Aristotle, such as
p: 115, 122: the ἕν, according to Pseudo-Alexander (in Met. 775, 31,
Pythagoras, precedes the Monad. 776, 10 Bon.), Simpl. (Phys. 32 Ὁ),
On the contrary, Moderatus ap. are accustomed to-consider the doce-
Stob. Eel. i. 20, says if these words trine of Unity and indeterminate
belong to him: τινὲς τῶν ἀριθμῶν Duality as Pythagorean.
ἀρχὴν ἀπεφήναντο τὴν μονάδα τῶν 1 In Clnias the spuriousness
δὲ ἀριθμητῶν τὸ ἕν. Theo. Math, is evident even from the expres-
c. 4, also agreeing with this says sion μέτρον τῶν νοητῶν. In the
in his own name that the Monad fragment given by Brotinus the
is above the One. Sextus (vide proposition that the primitive
supra, p. 387, 3), the Cohortatio essence is superior to being in
of Justin. c. 19, and the anony- force and dignity is taken word
mous author ap. Photius, Cod. 249, for word from the Republic of
Ῥ. 438 Ὁ, consider the Monad to be Plato, vi. 509 B; and when to
the highest, when they say that Being is added vows, the Aristo-
the Monad is the divinity, and telian divinity, this addition clearly
that it stands above the One: τὴν proves that this is a writing of the
μὲν γὰρ μονάδα ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς εἶναι period of Neo-Pythagoreanism or
τὸ δὲ ἐν ἐν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς (Just.) Neo-Platonism. The words ὅτι τὸ
Roper in the Philol. vii. 546, ἀγαθὸν &e., can only belong te
thinks that we should substitute that period.
 INITY AND DUALITY. 999

artificial character of the citation in Athenagoras is

a sufficient reason for mistrusting it ; even in the short
saying of Archenetus (or Archytas) the language and
standpoiut of a later period are clearly discernible;'
- and lastly, in a passage said to be from Aristotle, a
τἑν
νυν
νυν
νυν
definition of matter is attributed to Pythagoras him-
self, which, in accordance with the doctrine of the
older academy, presupposes the distinction between
form and matter,? evidently showing either that the
writing is itself a forgery, or that it contains a false
statement. The expositions, too, which Sextus and
Alexander Polyhistor have followed, bear unmistakeable
marks of the eclecticism which after the second half of
the second century before Christ began to blend the
philosophical systems together, and to confuse the
ancient with the recent.? For these reasons the testi-
1 The language, for this use of work on Archytas (of which we do
αἰτία without any particular quali- not possess elsewhere the smallest
fication, is first found in Plato and fragment) was spurious; or else
Aristotle, and presupposes their that Damascius had wrongly attri-
enquiries eoncerning the idea of buted to Pythagoras what was said
cause: the point of view, for in in that work, and was, perhaps,
the expression αἰτία πρὸ αἰτίας the only known to Damascius at third
divinity is elevated above all cos- hand. What he makes Pythagoras
mic principles in a manner never say could not even have been said
known before the time of the Neo- by the Pythagoreans, before Plato.
Pythagoreans. Aristotle, on the other hand, tells
2 Damase. De Prine. Arist. us (Metaph. xiv. 1087 b, 26) that
Fragm. 1514 a, 24: ᾿Αριστοτέλης certain Platonists opposed to the
δὲ ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αρχυτείοις ἱστορεῖ καὶ ἐν the ἕτερον and the ἄλλο as the
Πυθαγόραν ἄλλο τὴν ὕλην καλεῖν material principle; and Ps. Alex.
ὡς ῥευστὴν καὶ ἀεὶ ἄλλο γιγόμενον. (777, 22 Bon.) applies this asser-
Chaignet, ii. 73 sq. takes this as tion to the Pythagoreans. It
certain. In my opinion, the cir- would seem that the statement of
ecumstance that Aristotle is here Damascius, or of the work used
affirming something about the doc- by him, has occasioned a similar
trine of Pythagoras, and above all, misunderstanding.
the substance of this affirmation, 3. This is especially evident in
clearly seems toshow either that the Sextus. Even the dialectic charac-
994 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

monies in question are valueless ; and neither the doc-

trine of Unity and indefinite Duality, nor the identifi-
cation of the primal Unity with Deity, and all that
depends upon it, can any longer be attributed to the
ancient Pythagoreans.
Among the later Pythagoreans whose tendencies
were Platonic, Unity and Duality, as we see from what
has been quoted above, play an important part; but
among the earlier philosophers, Plato is the first who
can be proved to have employed them, and the Aristo-

ter of his argument definitely indi- he gives, we find the Stoic and
cates a recent date. Moreover, not’ Aristotelian distinction of matter
only the Atomists, but Epicurus and efficient cause. This distinction,
and Plato, are mentioned by name, as with the Stoics, enters even into
and allusion is made to their works the One primitive essence. Further
(P. iii. 152; M. x. 252, 257, 258). on, we find the Stoie doctrine of
We find in Math. vii. 107, a very the universal transformation of
improbable anecdote of the sculptor matter (τρέπεσθαι δι’ ὅλων), a doc-
of the Colossus of Rhodes, a pupil trine which is wholly foreign to
of Lysippus. Contrary to all the the ancient Pythagorean cosmo-
statements of Aristotle, the separa- logy, as will presently be shown;
tion of numbers from things, and then the Stoic conceptions of the
the participation of things in num- εἱμαρμένη, of the ideutity of the
bers (M/. x. 263 sqq., 277 ; vil. 102), Divine with the vital warmth or
are attributed not merely to the wether; its immanence in things
Pythagoreans, but to Pythagoras (διήκειν), and the kinship of men
himself (P. 111.153; "Μ΄. x. 261 sq.). with the Divine, which is founded
The Pythagoreans are represented upon this immanence. We also
as freely making use of Pytha- find the Stoical notions of the pro-
gorean and even of Aristotelian pagation of souls, an analogous
categories. There is no doubt, opinion to that of the Stoics on
thereture, that this exposition is sensation, and the purely Stoical
of recent date, and quite untrust- theory, according to which the
worthy, and that the defence of it, faculties of the soul are resolved
which Marbach (Gesch. d. Phil. i. into currents of air (τοὺς λόγους
169) has attempted, superficially ψυχῆς ἀνέμους εἶναι). These traits
enough, is altogether inadmissible. sufficiently prove the impossibility
In the exposition of Alexander of regarding the exposition of
these recent elements are less Alexander as an ancient Pytha-
striking, but, nevertheless, they gorean document. Other details
are unmistakeable. At the very will be given further on.
commencement of the extract which
 UNITY AND DUALITY. 395

telian passages which might seem to ascribe them to

the Pythagoreans, and which were constantly explained
in this sense by the ancient commentators, relate entirely
to Plato and the Academy.' Neither in Alexander’s
excerpts from Aristotle’s work on the Good,? in which
the Platonic doctrine of Unity and indefinite Duality
is developed at length, nor in what Porphyry * says on
the same subject, are the Pythagoreans mentioned ; +
and though Theophrastus once alludes to indefinite
Duality, after previously naming the Pythagoreans to-
gether with Plato, the brevity with which he sums up
the doctrines of both prevents our drawing any: in-
ference from this allusion. Moreover, according to the
statements of Alexander and Porphyry, Plato places
this doctrine in close connection with the theory of the
Great and Small, which Aristotle declares categori-
' Metaph. xiii. 6, 1080 b, 6. αὑτήν. ὅλως δὲ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἄνευ
The commencement of the chapter ταύτης τὴν τοῦ ὅλου φύσιν [
εἶναι,
shows clearly that there is no ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἰσομοιρεῖν τῆς ἑτέρας ἢ καὶ
question in this passage of the τὰς ἀρχὰς avaytias, This is the
Pythagoreans. Aristotle only reading adopted by Brandis. Wim-
speaks of them in the sequel, and mer has: τὰς ἑτέρας &c. Perhaps
in reference to something else. It the right reading of the passage
is the same with the passage, c. 7, may be: ἰσομοιρεῖν τ. apy. ἐναντίας
1081 a, 14 sqq.; 1082 a, 13. This ἢ καὶ ὑπερέχειν τὴν ἑτέραν. διὰ καὶ
whole chapter treats solely of the οὐδὲ τὸν θεὸν, ὅσοι τῷ θεῷ τὴν
Platonic theory of numbers. Lastiy, αἰτίαν ἀνάπτουσι, δύνασθαι πάντ᾽ ἐπὶ
xiv. 3, 1091 a, 4, also refers to τὸ ἄριστον ἄγειν, ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ, ἐφ᾽
Plato, and to him only. ὅσον ἐνδέχεται: τάχα δ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἂν
2 Comment. on Met. i. 6, Ὁ. 41, 32 προέλοιτ᾽, εἴπερ ἄναιρεῖσθαι συμβή-
sq. Bon.; and Simpl. Phys. 32'b; 104)0. σεται τὴν ὅλην οὐσίαν ἐξ ἐναντίων
3 Ap. Simpl. Phys. 104 b. γε καὶ [ἐν] ἐναντίοις οὖσαν. The
4 Met. (Frag. 12, Wimm.) 33, jast words, beginning at τάχα, are
p. 322, 14 Brand.: Πλάτων δὲ καὶ most likely added by Theophrastus
ot Πυθαγόρειοι, μακρὰν τὴν ἀπόστα- himself, but in the whole text there
σιν ἐπιμιμεῖσθαί ye θέλειν ἅπαντα: is such a mixture of Pythagorean-
καίτοι καθάπερ ἀντίθεσίν τινα ποιοῦσι ism and Platonism that it seems
τῆς ἀορίστου δυάδος καὶ τοῦ ἕνόξ᾽ impossible to determine from this
ἐν ἣ καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ ἄτακτον passage alone what was peculiar to
καὶ πᾶσα ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀμορφία καθ᾽ each of the two factors.
396 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

cally to be a conception peculiar to Plato and unknown

to the Pythagoreans.' Aristotle and Philolaus always
cite the odd and the even, or the limited and unlimited,
and these alone as elements of number.? Even where
Aristotle speaks of numbers being produced from the
One,® he understands by the One only the number one
and never adds to it duality, which he could not
possibly have omitted if the One were incapable of pro-
ducing number except in combination with duality;
lastly, many authorities expressly deny that the Pytha-
goreans held the theory of Unity and Duality. It
may be considered almost unquestionable then that
this doctrine did not belong to the ancient Pytha-
goreans.” The subsequent interpretations which iden-
1 Metaph. i. 6, 987 Ὁ, 25: τὸ Thy τε μονάδα Kal Thy δυάδα" οἱ δὲ
δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπείρου ὡς ἑνὸς δυάδα ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου πάσας κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς
ποιῆσαι καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον ἐκ μεγάλου τὰς τῶν ὅρων ἐκθέσεις», δι’ ὧν ἄρτιοί
καὶ μικροῦ, τοῦτ᾽ ἴδιον (se. Πλάτωνι). τε καὶ περιττοὶ νοοῦνται, οἷον τῶν ἐν
Phys. 11. 4, 203 a, 10: οἱ μὲν [Πυ- αἰσθητοῖς τριῶν ἀρχὴν τὴν τριάδα
τρῶς, τὸ ἄπειρον εἶναι τὸ ἄρτιον &e. Ps.-Alex. in Metaph. xiv. 1
. Πλάτων δὲ δύο τὰ ἄπειρα, τὸ Ῥ- 775, 29; ibid. 776, 9: τοῖν mev
os καὶ τὸ μικρόν ; cf. ibid. 111. 6, οὖν περὶ Πλάτωνα γεννῶνται οἱ ἀριθ-
206 b, 27. The first of these μοὶ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀνίσου δυάδος, τῷ δὲ
passages does not directly assert Πυθαγόρᾳ ἣ γένεσις τῶν ἀριθμῶν
that the Pythagoreans were not ac- ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους. Similarly
quainted with the dyad, that is to Syrian ad h. ἰ. Schol, 926 a, 18.
say, the δυὰς ἀόριστος, but that they 5 Vide Brandis, De perd. Arist.
were unacquainted with the dyad libr. p. 27; Ritter, Pythag. Phil.
of the Great and Small. 133; Wendt. De rer. prince. 860.
2 Vide supra, p. 377. Pyth. 20 sq.; and others. Béckh,
3 Metaph. i. 5, vide supra, p. on the contrary, regarded the One
378, 1. Cf. the remarks, xiii. 8, and indeterminate Duality as
ieee. 20 +)xiv. 1. 1087 b, 7: ¢ belonging to the Pythagorean doc-
4, 1091 b, 4, relative to an opinion trine (Philol. 55); and Schleier-
similar to that of the Pythago- macher considers those two prin-
reans. It is clear from the text, ciples as synonymous with God
xiii. 8, 1083 a, 36 sq., that it is and matter, the principle deter-
not the Pythagorean opinion itself. mining and the principle deter-
* Theo. Smyrn. I 4. p. 26: ἁπλῶς mined (Geschich. der Phil. Ὁ. 56).
δὲ ἀρχὰς ἀριθμῶν οἱ μὲν ὕστερόν φασι
 GOD AND MATTER, B97

tify the One with Deity, and Duality with matter, are
utterly to be discarded. For this radical distinction
of the corporeal and spiritual, of matter and efficient
force, is quite at variance with the theory which chiefly
determines the character of Pythagoreanism, viz. that
numbers are the essence of which things consist. If
once a discrimination were admitted between matter
and the formal principle, numbers would become, like
the Platonic ideas, mere forms, and could no longer be
considered as the substantial elemeuts of the corporeal.
Such a distinction, however, is only ascribed to the
Pythagoreans by writers to whose evidence, as we have
seen, very limited credence can be given. Aristotle on
the contrary emphatically declares! that Anaxagoras
was the first philosopher who discriminated spirit from
matter, and he on this account includes the Pytha-
goreans among those who recognised only sensible
existence.” But most of the statements that have come
down to us respecting the Pythagorean doctrine of the
divinity are immediately connected with the theory
of Unity and Duality, of spirit and matter. The
divinity seems to have been conceived partly as the
first term of this opposition, and partly as the higher
unity which precedes the opposition, engenders the two
opposing elements as such, and brings about their
union. If, therefore, this discrimination was first
added to Pythagoreanism by the later adherents of the
school, the same must have been the case in regard to
the Pythagorean conception of God; and the question
is whether the idea of God had generally any philo-
1 Metaph.
‘ip i. 3, 984 b, 15. 2 Vide supra,
(pra, Ῥ p. 189.
 —

908 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

sophic import for the Pythagoreans, and especially,

whether it was involved in their theory of ultimate
causes. This question cannot be answered by an appeal
to the religious character of Pythagoreanism, nor by the
citation of passages, which express, in a religious form,
the dependance of all things on God, the duties of
Divine worship, the greatness, and the attributes of
God; for we are not at present concerned with the
enquiry how far the Pythagorean theology co-existed
side by side with the Pythagorean philosophy, but how
far it had any logical connection with the philosophic
doctrines of the school; whether, in short, the idea of
God was deduced by the Pythagoreans from their
philosophic theory of the universe, or was used by them
to explain 1{.} General as this latter assumption may be,
it appears to me unfounded. The Deity, it is thought
by some, was distinguished by the Pythagoreans as
absolute unity, from unity conceived as in opposition,
or from the limit; consequently, it was also dis-
tinguished from the world, and exalted above the whole
sphere of opposites.2 Others say* that the first one,
1 It is no refutation of my tesianism. Heyde likewise main-
views to say, as Heyde says (Ethices tains, ¢bid., that we ought only to
Pythagoree Vindicie, Erl. 1854, p. leave out from a philosophic sys-
25), that every philosopher borrows tem such points as the author οὗ
considerably from common opinion. the system expressly declares not
Tlie opinious which a philosopher to belong to it. This would at
derives from this source are only once render any discrimination of
to be considered part of his philo- the essential and the accidental in
sophie system if they are in some such matters impossible.
way connected with his scientific * Bockh, Phil. 53 sq. ; Brandis,
views. Apart from these, they are 1. 483 sq.
merely personal opinions, imma- 3 Ritter, Pythag. Phil. 113 Βα.»
terial to the system; as, for ex- 119 sq., 156 sq.; Geschich. d. Phil.
ample, the pilgrimage of Descartes i, 387 sq., 393 sq.; Schleiermacher,
to Loretto is immaterial to Car- loe. cit.
 GOD AND MATTER. 399

or the limited, was at the same time apprehended as

Deity. This, however, is asserted only by Neo-
Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic authorities, and in
fragments of interpolated writings emanating from the
same circle.! Aristotle, in the various passages where
! Besides the fragments already duced into Philosophy by Plato’s
quoted, the fragment of Philolaus, idea of the world-soul. These two
περὶ ψυχῆς, ap. Stob. i. 420 (Boéckh, doctrines were, as we shall pre-
Philol. 163 54.), is, in my opinion, sently see (δ iv. Cosm.), unknown to
in the same case. It bears so the true Pythagoreans; and, in-
many marks of a recent origin that deed, what our author says of the
I cannot consider it authentic, nor world-soul presents in its details a
ean I even adopt as probable decidedly Platonic and Aristotelian
Bockh’s theory (defended by character, while Pythagorean theo-
Brandis, Geschich. d. Entw. i. 173 ries, properly so-called, are wholly
sq.) that the foundation was wanting. The discrimination made
authentic, but that something has by the pseudo-Philolaus between
been added by one authority in the world above the moon, which
quoting it. The very commence- he calls the ἀμετάβλητον or ἀεικί-
ment recalls the Timzus of Plato vntov, and the world below the
(33 A sq.; 34, B) and still more moon, which he calls the peraBda-
Ocellus Lucanus, ὁ. i. 11. The λον, or ἀειπαθὲς, doubtless resembles
words (p. 422), τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων the Pythagorean ideas, but the
τούτων, τοῦ μὲν ἀεὶ θέοντος θείου, manner in which it is apprehended
τοῦ δὲ hel μεταβάλλοντος γεννατοῦ has greater affinity with Aristotle
κόσμους, remind us in the most (ef. for example, what is quoted
striking manner of the text, c. 2, Part ii. b, 331, 3; 338 sq., second
sub fin. of Ocellus Lucanus, and edition), and especially the trea-
the Cratinus of Plato, 397 C. tise Π. κόσμου, c, 2, 392 a, 29 sq.
To dispose of this coincidence ’ The influence of the Aristotelian
(Chaignet, ii. 81) by the substitu- terminology is unmistakeable in
tion of ἐόντος for θέοντος would in these words : κόσμον ἦμεν ἐνέργειαν
itself be arbitrary and unjustifi- ἀΐδιον θεῶ τε Kal γενέσιος κατὰ
able, even if the θεῖον had not been συνακυλουθίαν τᾶς μεταβλαστικᾶς
designated previously as the ἀεικί- φύσιος. The opposition of the cara
vatov, which ἐξ αἰῶνος eis αἰῶνα τὸ αὐτὸ Kal ὡσαύτως ἔχον and the
περ:πολεῖ (cf. § iv. Cosm.). The γινόμενα καὶ φθειρόμενα πολλὰ does
eternity of the world (and not not belong, it is certain, to the
merely its endless duration, as epoch anterior to Plato: the obser-
Brandis, Joc. cit., maintains; the vation that by means of generation
words are: ἧς ὅδε 6 κόσμος ἐξ the perishable receives its form in
αἰῶνος καὶ ἐς αἰῶνα διαμένει), which an imperishable manner is found
is taught in the fragment in ques- even in Plato and Aristotle, and
tion, a favourite theme of the Neo- seems to presuppose the distinc-
Pythagoreans, was, according to all tion made by both these philoso-
the indications of Aristotle, intro- phers between form _and matter.
 yo

400 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

he expounds the Pythagorean theory of the ultimate

reasons of things, never says a word about their doc-
trine of God.! Theophrastus even seems to draw an
Lastly, Bockh remarks that the most likely borrows from it what
closing words, τῷ γεννήσαντι πατέρι we shall cite further on, But this
καὶ δημιουργῷ, are derived from only proves that the book was
Timeus, 37 C; but we can scarcely known by this writer of the fifth
for this reason attribute them to century A.D., and regarded by him
the person who reports them. Ad- as an authentic work of Philolaus ;
mitting that some of these coinci- and even if, in the manuscript he
dences cannot be explained except was using, it was joined with Philo-
on the theory of an interpolation, laus’ real work, this is no proof of
it would still be very difficult to its authenticity.
believe in the authenticity of this 1 It is said in Metaph. xiii. 8,
work when we consider how much 1083 a, 20, that numbers are the
is united there, which, striking primitive element, καὶ ἀρχὴν αὐτῶν
enough, per 86, is inconceivable in εἶναι αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν, but this One is not
combination, except on the supposi- designated as the Divinity; and
tion that the work is of recent date. besides, the passage is not con-
Rohr (De Philol. Fraq., περὶ ψυχῆς, cerned with Pythagoreans, but with
Lpz. 1874, p. 12 sq.) thinks that by a fraction of the Platonists who
sacrificing the last sentences from followed the doctrines of Pytha-
the words διὸ καὶ καλῶς ἔχει, he goras. Similarly, Metaph. xiv. 4,
can save the rest as a work of 1091 b, 13 sqq., when Aristotle
Philolaus; but this is a yain at- speaks of those who identify the
tempt, as I shall prove, in reference Absolute One with the Absolute
to the most decisive points—the Good (αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸ
eternity of the world and the εἶναί φασινῚ, he means the adherents
world-soul. But if this fragment of the theory of Ideas, as is proved
is interpolated, there is no reason by the expressions αὐτὸ τὸ ἐν, ἀκίνη-
to suppose that the Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ τοι οὐσίαι, μέγα καὶ μικρὸν (1. 32).
περὶ ψυχῆς, from which it is bor- This opinion is the view of the
rowed, according to Stobzeus, is the Platonists ; vide Schwegler and
third volume of the known work of Bonitz ad. h. l. and Zeller, Plat.
Philolaus. Boeckh and Schaar- Stud. p. 278. In a third text,
schmidt assert this—the former Metaph. i. 5 (vide supra, p. 379, 1;
(loc. cit.) on the pre-supposition ef. xii. 6, 1080 b, 31: τὸ ἕν στοι-
that the fragment is authentic; xetov καὶ ἀρχήν φασιν εἶναι τῶν
the latter believing that none of ὄντων) it is said that the Pytha-
the fragments of Philolaus are so. goreans deduce numbers from the
It is probable that this treatise was One; but this is the number one
a separate work, distinct from the which cannot be the Divinity, be-
source of the authentic fragments. cause it must itself result from the
Claudianus Mamertus probably had Odd and Even. Ritter (Gesch, ὦ.
it before him in his confused state- Piil. i. 388) makes, in reference
ments, De Statu An. 11. 7, quoted to this point, the following objec-
by Béckh, Philol. 29 sqq., and he tion: As number, that is to say,

vs
 GOD AND MATTER. 401

express distinction! between the Pythagoreans and

those who represent the Deity as efficient cause.”
Philolaus indeed calls the one the beginning of all
things,? but he can scarcely mean anything more by
this than what Aristotle says: viz., that the number
one is the root of all numbers, and therefore, since all
things consist of numbers, it is also the principle of
all things. He further describes God as the sole
the ‘Even and the Odd,’ only re- place simply says : ὅπως TO πρῶτον
sults from the One, the One cannot ἐν συνέστη ἔχον μέγεθος ἀπορεῖν
have resulted from these: the ἐοίκασιν. In the first place this
words ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τούτων do not does not mean that they regard
therefore signify derived from both, the One as not derived, but that
but consisting of both. This ob- the problem of its derivation puz-
jection is based upon a manifest zles them; whence it would rather
νου
νην
confusion: the Even and Odd follow that this problem is based
number is ποῦ the Even and the upon their other definitions in re-
Odd; the expression, ‘that is to spect to the One. In the second
say, is consequently not legiti- place, the question in this passage
mate, and the only sense which the is not whether Unity in general is
words of Aristotle can have, ac- derived from first principles, but
cording to the context, is the fol- whether the origin of the first cor-
lowing: first, the One arises out poreal unity, as such, the formation
of the Odd and the Even, and of the first body in the midst of
then the other numbers proceed the universe (that is to say, the
δὴ
ari?
|
Sey
ee
from the One. Vide Alexander central fire), has been explaimed i
in
αὐ ἢ. ἰ. Lastly,in Metaph. xiii. 6, a satisfactory manner.
1080 b, 20; xiv. 3, 1091 a, 13, 1 In the passage quoted, p.
the first corporeal unity is spoken 395, 4.
of, but it is characterised very dis- 5 Plato and his School. Cf. the
tinetly |as derived, for in xiv. 3, we words: διὸ καὶ οὐδὲ τὸν θεὸν &e.,
read, of μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι πότερον Tim. 48 A; Theet. 176 A.
οὐ ποιοῦσι ἢ ποιοῦσι γένεσιν[ τοῦ ἑνὸς} 3 In the fragment ap. Iambl.
οὐ δεῖ διστάζειν" φανερῶς γὰρλ έγουσιν, in Nicom. 109 (cf. Syrian in Me-
ὧς τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἐπι- taph. Schol. 926 a, 1; vide supra,
πέδων εἴτ᾽ ἐκ χροιᾶς εἴτ᾽ ἐκ. σπέρματος p- 391, 2, and Bockh, Philol. 149
εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ὧν ἀποροῦσιν εἰπεῖν, εὐθὺς τὸ sq.), the authenticity of which, in-
ἔγγιστα τοῦ ἀπείρου ὅτι εἵλκετο καὶ deed, is not quite certain, though
ἐπεραίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πέρατος. Here, there is nothing absolutely against
again, I am obliged to contradict it: ἕν ἀρχὰ πάντων.
the remark of Ritter (oc. cit.) 389 * It is thus that the biographer
that, according to the text, Mer. in Photius Cod. 249 a, 19, under-
xiii. 6, this One cannot be anything stands the passage: τὴν μονάδα
derived. But Aristotle in that πάντων ἀρχὴν ἔλεγον Πυθαγόρειοι,
VOL. I. DD
 4

402 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

ruler of the universe, exalted above all things,' em-

bracing all things with his care;” but this proves
nothing in respect to the philosophic import of the
concept of God in his system. For the first of these
propositions, if it really comes from Philolaus,? merely
ἐπεὶ τὸ μὲν σημεῖον ἀρχὴν ἔλεγον for the Jewish and Christian
γραμμῆς, τὴν δὲ ἐπιπέδου, τὸ δὲ .. Alexandrians often avail them-
σώματος. τοῦ δὲ σημείου προετι- selves of falsified writings to prove
νοεῖται ἣ μονὰς, ὥστε ἀρχὴ τῶν Monotheism. Béckh also conjec-
σωμάτων ἣ μονάς. If even these tures that the passage may not bea
words referred to the Divinity, it verbal quotation; but there are no
would be necessary to know the decisive proofs of its spuriousness,
connection in which they stand, in for I cannot consider the αὐτὸς
order to say whether the One is αὐτῷ ὅμοιος, &c., as ‘ Post Platonic
here designated as the Divinity, or modern categories ’(Schaarschmidt,
if the sense is not simply this: Schrifst. des Philol. 40). The pro-
‘One thing is the beginning of all position that the universe or the
other things, and this one thing is Divinity is ἀεὶ ὅμοιον, πάντη ὅμοιον
the Divinity.’ In the first case is attributed already to Xeno-
only would the passage have a phanes. Parmenides calls Being
philosophic bearing ; in the second πᾶν ὅμοιον (vide infra, Parm.).
it would be a religious proposition, Moreover, the opposition of the
such as we find elsewhere (e.g. in αὑτῷ ὅμοιος, ἕτερος τῶν ἄλλων does
Terpander, vide supra, p..122). . not presuppose more dialectic cul-
: Philo, mundi opif. 23 A: μαρ- ture than the opposition ἑωυτῷ
τυρεῖ δέ μου τῷ λόγῳ Kal Φιλόλαος πάντοσε τωυτὸν, τῷ δ᾽ ἐτέρῳ μὴ
ἐν τούτοις ἐστὶ γάρ, φησιν, ὃ ἣγε- τωυτὸν (Parm. y. 117, in relation
pov καὶ ἄρχων ἁπάντων θεὸς εἷς, del to one of Parmenides’ elements),
ὧν, μόνιμος, ἀκίνητος, αὐτὸς and not nearly so much as the
αὑτῷ
ὅμοιος, ἕτερος τῶν ἄλλων. arguments of Zeno against Multi-
The
Pythagorean conception of God is plicity and Motion. If it be ob-
similarly expounded in Plut. Numa, jected that a strict Monotheism is
e. 8. incompatible with the theological
2 Athenag. Supplic. c. 6: καὶ point of view of the Pythagoreans,
Φιλόλαος δὲ ὥσπερ ἐν φρουρᾷ πάντα we may fairly enquire whether the
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ περιειλῆφθαι λέγων, cf. fragment is to be understood in
Plato, Phedo, 62 Β: the λόγος ἐν this sense, and whether the expres-
ἀποῤῥήτοις λεγόμενος, ws ἔν τινι sion ἡγεμὼν καὶ ἄρχων ἁπάντων θεὸς
φρουρᾷ ἐσμεν οἷ ἄνθρωποι is hard to excludes other gods. It may be
understand, οὐ μέντοι ἀλλὰ τόδε that this fragment only presents to
γέ μοι δοκεῖ. . εὖ λέγεσθαι, τὸ us that belief in a supreme God
θεοὺς εἶναι ὑμῶν τοὺς ἐπιμελομένους which we find before and contempo-
καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἕν τῶν rary with Philolaus, in Aschylus,
κτημάτων τοῖς θεοῖς εἶναι. Sophocles, Heracleitus, Empedocles,
3 This is not guaranteed quite and others, and which was not in-
certainly by the assertion of Philo; compatible with Polytheism.
 GOD AND MATTER. 403

expresses in a religious form a thought which was then

no longer confined to the schools of philosophy, and
which sounds more like the language of Xenophanes
CUS
tC
—————

than anything peculiarly Pythagorean. The second

σὐὐτνν--
—_—
proposition taken from the Orphico-Pythagorean mys-
teries' is entirely of a religious and popular nature.?
Neither one nor the other is employed as the basis of
philosophic definitions. If, lastly, Philolaus asserted
that the Deity brought forth limit and unlimitedness,$
this certainly presupposes that all is to be referred to
the Divine causality; but as no account is given how
God brought forth the first causes, and how he is related
to them, this theorem merely bears the character of a
religious presupposition. From a philosophic point of
view it merely shows that Philolaus knew not how to
explain the origin of the opposition of the Limited and
Unlimited. He seems to think that they, as he says in
another place of harmony,‘ arose in some way which it
is impossible accurately to define. Even in the time of
γον»
ψυ
νον
συν

Neo-Pythagoreanism the prevailing distinction of the

supra-mundane One from the Monad was not universally
acknowledged.? We cannot but admit, therefore, that
1 This clearly appears from pra, p. 389, 3, whose testimony is
Plato, loc. cit. confirmed by the evidence of Plato
? Here again it may be ques- in the Philebus, 23 C (supra, p.
tioned whether Athenagoras exactly 379, 1). On the other hand, Pro-
reproduces the words that he quotes, clus, Plat. Theol. p. 132, only
and if instead of τοῦ θεοῦ, the quotes as coming from Philolaus
original text may not have con- the proposition that all consists of
tained τῶν θεῶν, as in Plato. We the Limited and Unlimited. The
are not even sure whether the proposition that God has engen-
quotation is from the work of dered these elements he gives as
Philolaus at all. It may be merely Platonic. 5
a vague reminiscence of the pas- * Vide supra, p. 383, 2.
sage in Plato. 5 Supra, p. 375; ef. p. 391, 2.
3 According to Syrian, vide sz-
DD2
404 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the Pythagoreans believed in gods. It is also probable

that they followed the monotheistic tendency (which
after the time of Xenophanes exercised such an im-
portant influence on Greek philosophy) so far as amidst
the plurality of gods to proclaim, with greater emphasis
than the popular religion, the unity (ὁ θεὸς, τὸ θεῖον) ;!
at the same time, however, the import of the idea of
God in relation to their philosophic system seems to
have been small,” nor does it appear to have been closely
interwoven with their enquiry concerning the first prin-
ciples of things.’
I am consequently the less able to believe that the
Pythagoreans taught a development of God in the
universe, by which He gradually arrived at perfection
through imperfection.* This theory is closely connected
? But certainly in connection them an immediate postulate, and
with the popular belief; so that not a scientific problem. Ré6th (ii.
for them, as for the generality of a, 769 sqq.) himself, repugnant as
people, the θεῖον is identical with this assertion naturally is to him,
Zeus. Cf. their theories as to the is obliged to confess that the
oversight exercised by Zeus and all sacredness and inviolability of
connected with it. Pythagoras’ circle of ideas, in re-
2 Bockh, Phil. 148, observes gard to religious speculation, left
that without the theory of a little room for the free intellectual
higher Unity, above the Limited development of his school; and
and Unlimited, there would re- that among the writings (authentic
main no trace in the system of according to Roth) left to us by
the Pythagcreans, renowned as the Pythagoreans, there is none
they were for their religious ideas, which has properly a speculative
of the Divinity. This remark does charaeter; but that they are all
not prejudice my opinion in the religious and popular works. Is
least. I do not deny that they not this to say, as I do, that the-
reduced everything to the Divinity, ological convictions here appear
but I contend that in so doing, primarily as the object of religious
they did not proceed in a scientific faith, and not of scientific enquiry?
manner; and this seems to me the 3 Cf. what is said in the next
easier to understand, because by section on the theory that the Py-
virtue of their religious character, thagoreans taught the existence of
this dependance of all things in a world-soul.
respect to the Divinity was for 4 Ritter, Pyth. Phil. 149 sqq.;
 DE VELOPMENT OF GOD IN THE WORLD. 405

with the statement that they held the One to be the

Deity. For the One is described as the Even-Odd, and
as the Odd is the perfect, and the Even the imperfect,
so, it is argued, they supposed not only the perfect but
the imperfect, and the reason of imperfection, to be in
God, and accordingly held that the perfect good can
only arise from a development of God. I must protest
against such an inference, if only upon the ground that
I dispute the identity of the One with the Deity. But
even irrespectively of this, it could not be true, for
though the number one was called by the Pythagoreans
the even-odd, the One which is opposed as one of the
primitive causes to indefinite Duality is never so called,'
and never could he; and the number one, as that which
is derived from the primitive causes, and compounded
of them, could in no case be identified with the Deity.?
Aristotle certainly says that the Pythagoreans, like
Speusippus, denied that the fairest and best could have
existed from the beginning;? and as he mentions this
theory in connection with his own doctrine of the eter-

Gesch. d. Phil. 398 sqq., 436; this assertion originally belongs.

against Ritter, vide Brandis, Rhein. 2 Cf p. 400, 1.
Mus. of Niebuhr and Brandis, ii. 3 Metaph. xii. 7, 1072 b, 28:
227 sqq. φαμὲν δὲ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι ζῷον ἀΐδιον
1 Not even in Theophrastus ἄριστον... ὅσοι δὲ ὑπολαμβάνου-
(supra, p. 395,4). The statements σιν, ὥσπερ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ Στεύ-
of Theophrastus would prove no- σιππος, τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ ἄριστον
thing in regard to this question, μὴ ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι, διὰ τὸ καὶ τῶν
even if they could as a whole be φυτῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἀρχὰς αἴτια
considered as applying to the Py- μὲν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ καλὸν καὶ τέλειον
thagoreans. For it does not follow, ἐν τοῖς ἐκ τούτων, οὐκ ὀρθῶς οἴονται.
because God is unable to conduct The ethical interpretation of this
all things to perfection, that he is, passage, attempted by Schleierma-
therefore, himself imperfect. Other- cher (Gesceh. d. Phil. 52), is not
wise he would be imperfect more worth discussing.
especially with Plato, to whom
400 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

nity of God, it has the appearance of having also been

applied by the Pythagoreans to the notion of Deity.
In the first place, however, it does not at all necessarily
follow from this that the Divinity was at first impertect,
and afterwards attained to perfection. As Speusippus
concluded from this proposition that the One as the first
principle must be distinct from the good and from the
Deity,! so the Pythagoreans may in like manner have
separated them.? But it is also a question whether the
theorem which Aristotle disputes was ever advanced by
the Pythagoreans with respect to the Deity ; for Aristotle
does not always quote the definitions of the earlier
philosophers quite in the connection in which their
authors originally stated them, as may be proved by
numerous examples. We do not know what sense may
have been given to this proposition in the Pythago-
rean system. It may have referred to the development
of the world from a previous state of imperfection, or
to the production of the perfect number (the decad)
from the less perfect ;* or to the position of the good
in the table of opposites,° or to some other object. We
1 Vide the chapter on Speusip- logians who, according to Metaph.
pus, Part 11. a, 653 sq. 2 a. xiv. 4, 1091 a, 29 sqq., maintained
? This is also the opinion which that αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ ἄριστον
Aristotle attributes to them when are ὑστερογενῆ, and that they only
he says that they did not consider appeared in the course of the de-
the One as the Good itself, but as a velopment of the cosmos. But it
certain kind of good. Eth. N.i. 4, results from the preceding context,
1096 Ὁ, 5: πιθανώτερον δ᾽ ἐοίκασιν as well as from the expression
οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγειν περὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸ ἀγαθὸν, that the Platonists are
τιθέντες ἐν τῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν συστοιχίᾳ here intended (Speusippus). Aristo-
τὸ ἐν (in the table of the ten con- tle explicitly says: mapa τῶν θεο-
tradictories) οἷς δὴ καὶ Σπεύσιππος λόγων τῶν νῦν τισιν.
ἐπακολουθῆσαι δοκεῖ. * As Steinhart says, Plato's
8 Chaignet, ii. 108, identifies Werke, vi. 227.
the Pythagoreans with those theo- 5 Cf. note 2.
 DEVELOPMENT OF GOD. 407

are not therefore justified by this Aristotelian passage,

in ascribing to the Pythagoreans a doctrine which not
only contradicts Philolaus’ representation of the Deity,
but is quite unknown to antiquity;' though, if it had
really existed among the Pythagoreans, it might on
eS
as
νυν
ὙΠ
,σσπαντν.
κχσασπαααπ
Ν
that very account be expected to receive all the more
definite mention from the ancient writers.
Having in the foregoing pages opposed the theolo-
gico-metaphysical interpretation of the Pythagorean
first principles, I must now declare myself no less
strongly against the theory that these principles pri-
marily refer to space-relations, and side by side with
the arithmetical element, or instead of it, denote
something geometrical, or even altogether material.
Aristotle says the Pythagoreans treated numbers as
space-magnitudes;* he often mentions the theory that
geometrical figures are the substantial element of
which bodies consist,? and his commentators go further,
1 The ancient philosophers, it 2 Metaph. xiii. 6, 1080 Ὁ, 18
is true, frequently maintain that sqq. after the quotation on p.
the world was developed from a 370, 1: τὸν yap ὅλον οὐρανὸν κα-
rudimentary and formless state, τασκευάζουσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν, πλὴν οἵ
but never that the Divinity was μοναδικῶν, ἀλλὰ τὰς μονάδας ὗὕπο-
developed The doctrine of Hera- λαμβάνουσιν ἔχειν μέγεθος " ὅπως δὲ
cleitus and the Stoics contained no τὸ πρῶτον ἐν συνέστη ἔχον μέγεθος,
such teaching. For the successive ἀπορεῖν ἐοίκασιν... μοναδικοὺς δὲ
forms of the Divine essence are τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς εἶναι πάντες τιθέασι
something entirely different from πλὴν τῶν Πυθαγορείων, ὅσοι τὸ ἕν
a development of that essence out στοιχεῖον καὶ ἀρχήν φασιν εἶναι τῶν
of an imperfect state. The primi- ὕντων: ἐκεῖνοι δ᾽ ἔχοντα μέγεθος.
tive fire which, as the germ of the Cf. next note, and what has been
world, is antecedent to the world, quoted p. 400, 1, from Metaph.
is here regarded as the most per- πῖν. 9: Κ
fect existence, the κόρος. Lastly, 3 Metaph. vii. 2, 1028 Ὁ, 15:
if the Theogonies represent parti- δοκεῖ δέ τισι τὰ TOD σώματος πέρατα,
cular gods as generated, this doc- οἷον ἐπιφάνεια καὶ γραμμὴ καὶ στιγμὴ
trine cannot be directly transferred καὶ μονὰς, εἶναι οὐσίαι μᾶλλον, ἢ τὸ
to the Deity, conceived as One. σῶμα καὶ τὸ στερεόν ; ili. 5, 1002
408 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

declaring that the Pythagoreans held mathematical

figures to be the principle of the corporeal, and reduced
them to points or units ; that they regarded these units
partly as something extended in space, and partly also
as the constituents of numbers; and consequently
taught that corporeal things consist of numbers.! We
find similar thoughts among other writers of the later
period,’ though they do not precisely attribute them

a, 4: ἀλλὰ phy τό γε σῶμα ἧττον ἀσύνθετον, τῶν δὲ σωμάτων πρῶτα

οὐσία τῆς ἐπιφανείας, καὶ αὕτη τῆς τὰ ἐπίπεδα εἶναι (τὰ γὰρ ἁπλούστερά
γραμμῆς, καὶ ἣ γραμμὴ τῆς μονάδος τε καὶ μὴ συναναιρούμενα πρῶτα τῇ
καὶ τῆς στιγμῆΞ᾽ τούτοις γὰρ ὥρισται φύσει) ἐπιπέδων δὲ γραμμαὶ κατὰ τὸν
7) σῶμα, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄνευ σώματος οὐτὸν λόγον, γραμμῶν δὲ στιγμαὶ,
ἐνδέχεσθαι δοκεῖ εἶναι, τὸ δὲ σῶμα ἃς οἱ μαθηματικοὶ σημεῖα, αὐτοὶ δὲ
ἄνευ πούτων εἶναι ἀδύνατον. διόπερ μονάδας ἔλεγον... αἱ δὲ μονάδες
of μὲν πολλοὶ &e. (vide supra, p. ἀριθμοὶ, of ἀριίμοὶ ἄρα πρῶτοι τῶν
369, 1), xiv. 8, 1090 a, 80 (supra, ὄντων. Ps.-Alex. tn Metaph. xiii.
p. 370, 1), ibid. 1090 Ὁ, 5: εἰσὶ δέ 6, p.723 Bon.: καὶ of Πυθαγόρειοι
τινες οἱ ἐκ τοῦ πέρατα εἶναι καὶ δὲ ἕνα ἀριθμὸν εἶναι νομίζουσι, καὶ
ἔσχατα, τὴν στιγμὴν μὲν γραμμῆς, τίνα τοῦτον ; τὸν μαθηματικὸν, πλὴν
ταύτην δ᾽ ἐπιπέδου, τοῦτο δὲ τοῦ οὐ κεχωρισμένον τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ws
στερεοῦ, οἴονται εἶναι ἀνάγκην τοιαύ- οἱ περὶ Ξενοκράτην, οὐδὲ μοναδικὸν,
τας φύσεις εἶναι. De Celo, iii. 1, τουτέστιν ἀμερῆ καὶ ἀσώματον (μονα-
298 b, 33: εἰσὶ δέ τινες, of καὶ πᾶν δικὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀμερὲς καὶ ἀσώματον,
σῶμα γεννητὸν ποιοῦσι, συντιθέντες ἐνταῦθα δηλοῖ), ἀλλὰ τὰς μονάδας
καὶ διαλύοντες ἐξ ἐπιπέδων καὶ εἰς καὶ δηλονότι καὶ τοὺς ἄριθμοὺς ὕπο-
ἐπίπεδα. Aristotle, however, seems λαμβάνοντες μέγεθος“ ἔχειν ἐκ τούτων
to be thinking only of Plato, and τὰς αἰσθητὰς οὐσίας καὶ τὸν ἅπαντα
quotes expressly the Timeeus. At οὐρανὸν εἶναι λέγουσιν. ἔχειν δὲ τὰς
the end of the chapter, after having μονάδας μέγεθος κατεσκεύαζον of
refuted this opinion, he says: τὸ δ᾽ Πυθ. διὰ τοιούτου τινὸς λόγου. ἔλεγον
αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ τοῖς ἐξ ἀριθμῶν οὖν ὅτι ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τοῦ πρῶτου ἑνὸς
συντιθεῖσι τὸν οὐρανόν" ἔνιοι γὰρ τὴν αὗται συνέστησαν, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον ἕν
φύσιν ἐὲ ἀριθμῶν συνιστᾶσιν, ὥσπερ μέγεθος ἔχει, ἀνάγκη καὶ αὐτὰς με-
τῶν Πυθαγορείων twés. Metaph. μεγεθυσμένας εἶναι. In the other
xiv. 5, 1092 b, 11, can hardly passages of the Metaphysics which
refer to this subject. Vide Pseudo- we have quoted in the preceding
Alex. ad. h. 1. notes, Alexander and his epitomiser
1 Alex. in Metaph. i. 6, 987 b, do not speak of the Pythagoreans.
53; p. 41 Bon.: ἀρχὰς μὲν τῶν 2 Nikom. Inst. Arithm. ii. 6,
ὔντων τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς Πλάτων τε καὶ p- 45; Boeth. Arithm. 11. 4, p.
οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ὑπετίθεντο, ὅτι ἐδόκει 1328; Nikom. ii. 26, p. 72, does
αὐτοῖς τὸ πρῶτον ἀρχὴ εἶναι καὶ τὸ not relate to this question.
 NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES. 409

to the Pythagoreans. Philolaus attempts to derive

sometimes the corporeal in general, and sometimes the
physical fundamental qualities of bodies from figures,
and figures from numbers. From this Ritter concludes,!
and Hermann? and Steinhart? agree with him, that
the Limiting principle of the Pythagoreans was the
unit, or, viewed in regard to space, the point; and the
Unlimited, the interspace or the void; when, therefore,
they said that all things consist of the Limit and the
Unlimited, they meant that all things are composed of
points and empty interspaces, and when they asserted
that all things are number, this was only to express that
these points together forma number. Reinhold+ and
Brandis’ contest this, not because they maintain more
strongly the arithmetical nature of the Pythagorean
numbers, but because they would have them regarded
as material; for in their judgment, the Pythagoreans
understood by the Unlimited, the material cause of the
corporeal,® and accordingly numbers, of which all things
consist, must have been conceived by them as some-
thing corporeal: number, Reinhold considers, arises
from the determination of the indeterminate matter by
Unity or Limit, and things are called numbers because
all things consist of a manifold element determined by
Unity. Against this, Ritter rightly urges? that we ought
to distinguish between the Pythagorean doctrines them-
1 Pyth. Phil. 93 sqq., 187; Metaphysik, p. 28 sq.
Gesch. der Phil. i. 403 sq. 5 Gr. Rein. Phil. 1, 486.
2 Plat. Phil. 164 sqq., 288 sq. 6 According to Brandis, some-
3 Haller. Allg. Literaturz. 1845, thing similar to breath or fire.
895 sq. Similarly, Chaignet ii. According to Reinhold, indetermi-
33 5 36, 1} 29. ἃς nate, manifold, unformed matter.
§ Beitrag zur Erl. d. Pyth. 7 Gesch. der Phil. i. 405 sq.
410 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

selves and Aristotle’s conclusions from them. The ma-

teriality of the Pythagorean numbers was first deduced
by Aristotle from the doctrine that all is number ;! the
Pythagoreans can never have explained numbers and
their elements as something corporeal ; for Aristotle ex-
pressly says that they did not intend, by their concept
of the Limited, the Unlimited and the One, to describe
a substratum of which these concepts were predicated ; ?
and this would unquestionably have been the case if
the Unlimited had been, in their opinion, merely un-
limited matter. He observes that the number of
which all things consist must, according to their theory,
have been mathematical number, and he charges them
on this account with the contradiction of making bodies
arise from the incorporeal, and the material from the
immaterial. This conclusion, however, can only be
valid from an Aristotelian or some other later standpoint.
To anyone accustomed to discriminate between corporeal
and incorporeal, it must seem evident that bodies can
1 Arist. Metaph. xiii. 6, inter- ἐστιν, De Colo, 111. 1, end: the
mingles his own explanations with Pythagorean doctrine, according to
the Pythagorean doctrine, as Ritter which all is number, is as illogical
remarks, loc. cit. This appears in as the Platonic construction of the
the use of such expressions as: elementary bodies: τὰ μὲν ‘yap
μαθηματικὸς ἀριθμὸς (opposed to the φυσικὰ σώματα φαίνεται βάρος
ἀρ. VONTOS), ἀριθμὸς ov κεχωρισμένος, ἔχοντα καὶ κουφότητα, τὰς δὲ μονά-
αἰσθηταὶ οὐσίαι. This procedure is δας οὔτε σῶμα ποιεῖν οἷόν τε συντιθε-
very usual with him elsewhere. μένας οὔτε βάρος ἔχειν. Metaph. i.
2 Vide supra, p. 370, 1. 8, 990 a, 12, even supposing that
8 Metaph. xiii. 8, 1083 b, 8: magnitudes could result from the
6 δὲ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τρόπος TH μὲν Limited and the Unlimited, τίνα
ἐλάττους ἔχει δυσχερείας τῶν πρό- τρόπον ἔσται τὰ μὲν κοῦφα τὰ δὲ
τερον εἰρημένων τῇ δὲ ἰδίας ἑτέρας" βάρος ἔχοντα τῶν σωμάτων ; wid.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ μὴ χωριστὸν ποιεῖν τὸν xiv. 8 (vide supra, p. 370, 1), where
ἀριθμὸν ἀφαιρεῖται πολλὰ τῶν ἀδυνά- also the Pythagoreans are reckoned
των᾽ τὸ δὲ τὰ σώματα ἐξ ἀριθμῶν among those who only admitted
εἶναι συγκείμενα καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ- mathematical number.
τον εἶναι μαθηματικὸν ἀδύνατόν
 NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES. 411

only be compounded out of bodies, and su it inevitably

follows that numbers and their elements must be some-
thing corporeal if bodies are to consist of them. The
special characteristic of the Pythagorean Philosophy
however lies in this, that such a distinction is as yet
unrecognised, and that,in consequence, number as such
is regarded not only as the form, but as the matter of
the corporeal. Yet number itself is not on that account
necessarily conceived as corporeal; for it is clear that
qualities and relations which no one except the Stoics, ἡ
or before their time, ever considered as bodies, were
expressed in the Pythagorean Philosophy by numbers.
The Pythagoreans not only defined man, or plants, or
the earth by numbers, but asserted that two is opinion,
four justice, five marriage, seven the opportune time,
etc.! Nor is this simple comparison. The meaning in
both cases is that the specified number is properly and
directly the thing with which it is compared. It is a
confounding of symbol and concept, a mixture of
the accidental and the substantial, which we cannot
discard without mistaking the essential peculiarity of
Pythagorean thought. As we cannot assert that bodies
were regarded as immaterial by the Pythagoreans, be-
cause, according to them, bodies consisted of numbers,
so neither, on the other hand, can we infer that num-
bers must have been something corporeal, because they
could not otherwise have been the elements of bodies.
Bodies meant to them all that presents itself to the
sense-perception ; numbers meant that which is appre-
hended by mathematical thought; and the two things
1 Vide infra, ὃ iv.
 PYTHAGOREANS.
e
412 THE

were directly identified, while the inadmissibility of

such a procedure was unnoticed. For similar reasons,
it is of no avail to prove that the One, the Unlimited
and the Void receive a material signification in the
Pythagorean physics. We read, it is true, that in the
forming of the world, the nearest part of the Un-
limited became attracted and limited by the first One,’
and that outside the world was the Unlimited, from
which the world inhaled empty space and time.? In
this connection the One certainly appears as material
unity, and the Unlimited to some extent as unlimited
space, to some extent also as an infinite mass; but it
by no means follows that the two conceptions have
always the same meaning apart from this order of ideas:
on the contrary, we have here an instance of what we
so often find with the Pythagoreans—that a general
conception receives a special determination from its
application to a particular case, although this determi-
nation does not on that account essentially belong to
the conception, nor exclude other applications of it, in
which it may be used in a different sense. It was only
by the help of such a method that the Pythagoreans
could apply the theory of numbers to concrete phe-
nomena. It is possible that in certain cases the One,
the Unlimited, Number, &c., may have been regarded
as corporeal. But we cannot conclude from this that
they were wniversally conceived as such. We must
remember that numerical determinations are very va-
riously employed by the Pythagoreans, and that the
1 Vide supra, Ὁ. 400, 1, and Cf. ili. 4, 203 a, 6; Stobeeus, Ecl.
p. 407, 2. i. 380; Plut. Plac. ii. 9,1. Further
2 Arist. Phys. iv. 6,213 Ὁ, 22. details, infr. Cosmology.
 NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES. 415

unlimited and the limited are of different kinds,! which

are not clearly distinguished because the language of
Philosophy was as yet too unformed, and thought too
unpractised in logical deduction and the analysis of
concepts.
For similar reasons I must contest Ritter’s theory.
That the Pythagoreans derived bodies from geometrical
figures is true, and will be shown later on; it is also
true that they reduced figures and space-dimensions to
numbers, the point to Unity, the line to Duality, and so
on, and that they reckoned infinite space, intermediate
space, and the void under the head of the Unlimited.?
But it does not follow from this that by Unity they
understood nothing but the point, by the Unlimited
nothing but empty space; here again all that we have ©
just said as to the application of their principles to
phenomena holds good. They themselves designate
by the name of the Unity not the point merely, but
the soul; by that of Duality, not the line merely, but
opinion; they make time as well as empty space enter
the world from the Unlimited. It is evident that
the conceptions of the Limit, the Unlimited, Unity,
Number, have a wider compass than those of the point,
the void and figures; figures, at any rate, are expressly
distinguished from the numbers by which they are
1 Ritter says (i. 414) that the be said of the Pythagorean system.
Indeterminate as such can have no 2 Cf. p. 414, 2, and Arist. De
species; but in the first place this Celo, ii. 13, 293 a, 30, where it is
expression is in itself incorrect; for spoken of as an opinion of the
the unlimited in space, the un- Pythagoreans that the limit is
limited in time, qualitative un- more noble (τιμιώτερον) than that
limitedness, &c., are so many kinds which lies between. From this we
of the Unlimited. And in the may conclude that the μεταξὺ is
second place it could not possibly closely related to the Unlimited.
414 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

defined;! and the void is spoken of in a manner that,

strictly interpreted, must apply to the Limiting, and
not to the Unlimited.? Not much stress, however, can
be laid upon the last-mentioned circumstance, because
the Pythagoreans seem to have here involved themselves
in a contradiction with their other theories.
But the most decisive argument against the in-
terpretations we have been enumerating is derived
from the consideration of the Pythagorean system as a
whole; for its arithmetical character can only be
understood if we suppose that the conception of num-
1 Arist. Metaph. vii. 11, 1036 also prefers πνεῦμα) ws ἀναπνέοντι
b, 12: ἀνάγουσι πάντα εἰς τοὺς καὶ τὸ κενὸν, ὃ διορίζει Tas φύσεις
ἀριθμοὺς καὶ γραμμῆς τὸν λόγον τὸν . καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι πρῶτον ἐν τοῖς
τῶν δύο εἶναι φασιν. Cf. xiv. 5, ἀριθμοῖς " τὸ γὰρ κενὸν διορίζειν τὴν
1092 b, 10: ὡς Εὔρυτος ἔταττε, τίς φύσιν αὐτῶν (which Philop. De
ἀριθμὸς τίνος, οἷον ὁδὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπου, Gen. An. 51 a, develops no doubt
δδὶ δὲ ἵππους Plato spokeina simi- merely according to his own fancy).
lar manner of a number of the Similarly Stobeus, i. 380. Now
plane and of the solid, but he did the separating principle as such
not therefore regard numbers as is also the limiting principle ; for
extended or corporeal (Arist. De the assertion of Brandis that the
An. i. 2, 404 b, 21; ef. Part 11. a, difference of numbers is derived
636, 4; 807, 2, thirdedition). In from the Unlimited, and their
Metaph. xiii. 9, 1085 a, 7 figures, determination from Unity, is un-
from the point of view of Platonists tenable. What constitutes the
who favoured Pythagoreanism, are distinction of one thing from
expressly called τὰ ὕστερον γένη another, except its determination
τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, the class which comes in regard to that other thing? If
after number (the genitive ἀριθμοῦ then we hold to the proposition
is governed by ὕστερον, not by that the void is the principle of
γένη; cf. Metaph. i. 9, 992 b, 18). separation, it must itself be placed
2 The void is considered as se- on the side of the limiting, and con-
parating all things from each sequently that which is separated
other. Arist. Phys. iv. 6, 213 b, by the void must be placed
22 : εἶναι δ᾽ ἔφασαν καὶ of Πυθαγόρειοι on the opposite side. We must,
κενὸν, καὶ ἐπεισιέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ with Ritter, i. 418 sq., consider the
éx τοῦ ἀπείρου πνεύματος (which One as a continuous magnitude
Chaignet [ii. 70, 157], as it seems split up by the void. But this
to me unnecessarily, would have would manifestly be to change each
omitted or changed into πνεῦμα. into its contrary.
Tennemann [Gesch. d. Phil. i. 110]
 NATURE OF THEIR PRINCIPLES. - 415

ber formed its point of departure. Had it started

from the consideration of unlimited matter, and of
particles of matter, a system of mechanieal physics,
similar to the Atomistic system must have been the
result. Nothing of this kind is to be found in pure
Pythagoreanism. The number-theory, on the other
hand, the most essential and specific part of the system,
could never in that case have arisen: the proportions
of bodies might perhaps have been defined accord-
ing to numbers, but there would have been no pos-
sible reason for regarding numbers as the substance of
things. This, the fundamental conception of the whole
system, can only be accounted for, if the system be
dominated by the idea of numerical relations, if its
original tendency were to regard bodies as numbers,
and not numbers as bodies. We are expressly told that
Eephantus, a later philosopher, who scarcely can be
numbered among the Pythagoreans at all, was the first
to explain the Pythagorean Monads as something
corporeal! The ancient Pythagoreans cannot have
held such an opinion, for in that case they must have
believed the corporeal to have been something original,
instead of deriving it, as we have just shown that they
did, out of mathematical figures.? Nor can they have
>

1 Stob. Ecl. i. 808: Ἔκφαντος principles as incorporeal, stands in

Συρακούσιος εἷς τῶν Πυθαγορείων connection with other statements of
πάντων [ἀρχὰ-] τὰ ἀδιαίρετα σώματα a very suspicious character, and can-
καὶ τὸ κενόν. (Cf. ibid. p. 448.) not, therefore, be made use of here.
τὰς γὰρ Πυθαγορικὰς μονάδας οὗτος 2 This would still be true, even
πρῶτος ἀπεφήνατο σωματικάς. For if the conjecture of Brandis (i.
further details on this philosopher, 487) were well founded—viz., that
vide § vii. The statement, ap. besides the attempt already quoted,
Plut. Plac. i. 11,3; Stob. i. 336, other attempts were made by the
that Pythagoras regarded the first Pythagoreans to explain the deri-
410 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

originally meant by the Unlimited infinite matter. The

Unlimited must have acquired this import indirectly
in its application to the cosmos; otherwise it is in-
comprehensible how they came to explain the Unlimited
as the Even. The same considerations hold good as
against the theory of Ritter. Since geometrical
figures were derived from numbers, the elements of
figure—that is to say the point and the interspace—
must be posterior to the elements of number, and so
they were unquestionably regarded by the Pythagoreans.
For the odd and the even cannot be derived from the
point and the interspace, whereas it is quite con-
ceivable from the Pythagorean point of view that the
odd and the even should first have been discriminated
as elements of number, that the more general antithesis
of the Limiting and the Unlimited should thence have
been attained, and in the application of this to space re-
lations, that the point should have been regarded as the
first limit of space, and empty space as the unlimited.
Had the Pythagorean philosophy taken the opposite
course, and proceeded from space dimensions and figures
to numbers, the geometrical element in it must have
predominated over the arithmetical; figure, instead of
number, must have been declared to be the essence of
things; and the system of geometrical figures must
have taken the place of the decuple numerical system.
Even harmony could no longer have had the great
significance that it possessed for the Pythagoreans,
vation of the thing extended; for this point, for the passage in Arist.
the thing extended would remain Metaph. xiv. 3 (vide p. 400) does
in this case something derived; not justify this conclusion; cf.
but we have no eertain evidenceon Ritter, i. 410 sq.
 STARTING-POINT OF THE SYSTEM. 417

since the relations of tones were never reduced by them

to space relations.
Having thus shown the essentially arithmetical
character of the Pythagorean principles, it only re-
mains to enquire how these principles were related to
one another, and wherein lay the specific point of
departure of the system; whether the Pythagoreans
were led from the proposition that all is number to the
discrimination of the elements of which numbers and
things consist, or conversely from the perception of the
primitive opposites to the doctrine that the essence of
things lies in number. The exposition of Aristotle
tells in favour of the first opinion; for, according to
him, the Pythagoreans first concluded from the simi-
larity of things to numbers, that all things were num-
bers, and afterwards coupled with this proposition the
distinction of the opposite elements of which numbers
consist.! Philolaus, on the contrary, began his work
with the doctrine of the Limit and the Unlimited,?
which might incline us to presuppose that this, or an
analogous definition, contained the proper root of the
Pythagorean system, and that the Pythagoreans had
only reduced all things to number because they thought
they perceived in number the first combination of the
limited and the unlimited, of unity and multiplicity.’
This, however, is not necessarily the case ;Philolaus, for
the sake of logical argument, may very likely have placed
1 Vide supra, p. 369, 1; 370,1. Duality, or of Unity and Multi-
2 Supra, p. 39, 1. plicity, as the principle of the Py-
3 Cf. Marbach, Gesch. d. Phil. thagorean doctrine—e.g. Braniss,
i. 108, Ritter, Pyth. Phil. 134 sq., Gesch. der Phil. 8. Kant, i. 110 sq.,
and generally all those who con- 114 sq., &e.
sider the opposition of Unity and
VOL. I. EE
418 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

that last which, historically, was the beginning of the

system. On the other hand, we must certainly consider
the exposition of Aristotle as primarily his own view,
not as direct evidence establishing a fact. Yet there is
every probability that this view is based upon an exact
knowledge of the real interconnection of the Pytha-
gorean ideas. It is, indeed, most likely that the start-
ing point of a system so ancient, and so independent of
any earlier scientific developments, would have been
formed by the simplest and most obvious presentation ;
that the thought which was less developed therefore,
and more directly connected with relations sensibly
perceived, the thought that all is number, would have
been prior to the reduction of number to its ele-
ments; and that the arithmetical distinction of the
even and the odd would have preceded the more
abstract logical distinction of the unlimited and the
limited. If we maintain this latter distinction to have
been the fundamental idea from which sprang the
further development of the system, it is hard to see
why it should immediately have taken an arithmetical
turn, instead of a more general and metaphysical
direction. The proposition that all is number, and
composed of the odd and the even, cannot possibly be
derived from the theories concerning the limited and
unlimited; but these might very easily and naturally
have arisen out of that proposition.' The exposition,
therefore, of Aristotle, is fully justified. The funda-
mental conception from which the Pythagorean philo-
sophy starts, is contained in the proposition that all is
1 Cf. supra, p. 376 sq.
 APPLICATION OF THE NUMBER-THEORY. 419

number ; in the next place, the opposite determinations

in number—the odd and the even—were distinguished
and compared, at first indeed very unmethodically,
with other opposites, such as right and left, masculine
and feminine, good and evil; the more abstract ex-
pression of the limited and unlimited, although at a
later time this opposition was placed by Philolaus at
the head of the system, and so appears in the decuple
table of categories, must belong to a more developed
stage of reflection. Thus the principal ideas of this
system are developed simply enough from one thought,
and that thought is of a kind which might easily
occur to the reflecting mind from the observation of
the external world, even in the childhood of science.!

IV. THE PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY (continued).

SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE NUMBER-THEORY, AND

ITS APPLICATION TO PHYSICS.

In the further development and application of their

number-theory, the procedure of the Pythagoreans was
for the most part unmethodical and arbitrary. They
sought in things, says Aristotle,? a similarity with
1 After the remarks on p. 312, 1; texts of Aristotle and Philolaus only
343, 4, I think it is unnecessary to spurious Pythagoreanism. Sucha
append a criticism of the exposition discussion becomes absolutely out
of the theory of numbers and of the of the question when the historian
Pythagorean theology given by Réth intermingles in an entirely arbi-
(ii. a, 632 sq., 868 sq.). It is im- trary manner his own ideas with
possible to enter on a discussion of the sources he adopts.
the primitive form of the Pytha- 2 Metaph. i. 5 (cf. p. 369, 1):
gorean doctrine with anauthor who καὶ ὅσα εἶχον ὁμολογούμεα νδεικνι νας
seeks true Pythagoreanism in the ἔν τε τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἅρμο-
Orphic fragments, and sees in the νίαις πρὸς τὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πάθη καὶ
BE2
420 THE PYTHAGOREANS. —
numbers and numerical relations; and the category of.
numbers which in this manner they obtained as an object,
they regarded as the essence of that object. If, however,
in any case reality did not entirely agree with the presup-
posed arithmetical scheme, they resorted to hypotheses
like that of the counter-earth to procure agreement.
Thus they said that justice consisted of the equal multi-
plied by the equal, or in the square number, because it re-
turns equal for equal ; and they therefore identified jus-
tice 1 with four, as the first square number, or nine, as the
first unequal square number. So seven was the critical
time, because in the opinion of the ancients, the
climacteric years were determined by it; five, as the
union of the first masculine with the first feminine
number, was called marriage; one was reason, because
it is unchangeable; two, opinion, because it is variable
and indeterminate.? By further combinations of such
μέρη καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὕλην διακόσμησιν, in the sequel to make the definition
ταῦτα συνάγοντες ἐφήρμοττον. κἂν of justice also from the inverse
εἴ τί που διέλειπε προσεγλίχοντο proportion. The same thought of
τοῦ συνειρομένην πᾶσαν αὐτοῖς εἶναι remuneration is expressed in the
τὴν πραγματείαν, which is immedi- complicated, and evidently later,
ately proved by the example of the definition ap. Iambl. Theol. Arithm.
counter-earth. Ῥ. 29 sqy
1 They also denominated justice * Arist. Metaph. i. 5; vide p.
the. ἀντιπεπονθὸς, Arist. Hth. Nic. 369; ἐδιά. xiii. 4, 1078 b, 21: of
γ. 8, sub init.; M. Mor. i. 34, 1194 δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι πρότερον περί τινων
a, 28; Alex. in Met. vide next ὀλίγων (ἐζήτουν καθόλου δρίζεσθαι),
note. Here, however, not the in- ὧν τοὺς λόγους εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς
verse ratio in the mathematical ἀνῆπτον. οἷον τί ἐστι καιρὸς ἣ τὸ
sense, but simply remuneration, δίκαιον ἢ γάμος. Similarly, ibid.
seems to be intended: for there xiv. 6, 1093 a, 18 sq., where
results from the judge doing to the the Pythagoreans are not named,
offender what the offender has done but where they are certainly al-
to the offended, not an inverse, but luded to. M. Mor. i. 1, 1182
a direct ratio A:B=B:C. But a, 11, where the definition of
it is possible that the expression justice as ἀριθμὸς ἰσάκις ἴσος is
ἀντιπεπονθὸς led the Pythagoreans attributed to Pythagoras. Alex-

o
«
 APPLICATION OF THE NUMBER-THEORY. 491

analogies, there resulted theorems like these: that this

or that conception had its seat in this or that part of
the world; opinion, for example, in the region of the
earth; the proper time in that of the sun, because
they are both denoted by the same number.! In ἃ
ander, in Metaph. i. 5, 985 b, 26, τοῦ τρία περιττοῦ τὴν γένεσιν ἔχει
p- 28, 23 Bon.: τίνα δὲ τὰ ὁμοιώματα . νοῦν δὲ καὶ οὐσίαν ἔλεγον τὸ ἕν"
ἐν Tots ἀριθμοῖς ἔλεγον εἶναι πρὸς τὰ τὴν γὰρ ψυχὴν ὡς τὸν νοῦν εἶπε
ὄντα τε καὶ γινόμενα, ἐδήλωσε. τῆς (Arist. 1. ¢.). διὰ τὸ μόνιμον δὲ καὶ
μὲν γὰρ δικαιοσύνης ἴδιον ὑπολαμβά- τὸ ὅμοιον πάντη καὶ τὸ ἀρχικὺν τὸν
νοντες εἶναι τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός τε καὶ νοῦν μονάδα τε καὶ ἕν ἔλεγον (simi-
ἴσον, ἐν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς τοῦτο εὗὑρίσ- larly, Th. Ar. p. 8, where further
κοντες ὃν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὸν ἰσάκις details will be found. Philolaus,
ἔσον ἀριθμὸν πρῶτον ἔλεγον εἶναι δι- however [vide infra], assigned
καιοσύνην... τοῦτον δὲ οἱ μὲν τὸν τέσ- Reason to the number seven) ἀλλὰ
σαρα ἔλεγον (80 4150 Iambl. Th. Ar. καὶ οὐσίαν, ὅτι πρῶτον 7 οὐσία. δόξαν
Ῥ. 24, from a more complicated rea- δὲ τὰ δύο διὰ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἄμφω μετα-
son). . of δὲ τὸν ἐννέα, ὅς ἐστι πρῶτος βλητὴν εἶναι: ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ κίνησιν
τετράγωνος. (This is a ‘reading αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπίθεσιν (2) But here,
of Bonitz,’ instead of στερεὸς, as already, especially in the reasons
given by the manuscripts.) ἀπὸ adduced for the support of the
περιττοῦ τοῦ τρία ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν γενομέ- various designations, many recent
νου (cf. Iambl. p. 29) καιρὸν δὲ elements seem to be intermingled.
πάλιν ἔλεγον τὸν ἑπτά" δοκεῖ γὰρ τὰ This is still more largely the case
φυσικὰ τοὺς τελείους καιροὺς ἴσχειν in regard to the other commenta-
καὶ γενέσεως καὶ τελειώσεως κατὰ tors of the passage in Aristotle
ἑβδομάδας, ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπου. καὶ γὰρ (Schol. in Arist. p. 540 b sqq.)
τίκτεται ἑπταμηνιαῖα, καὶ ὀδοντοφυεῖ and such writers as Moderatus ap.
τοσουτῶν ἐτῶν, καὶ ἡβάσκει περὶ τὴν Porph. Vit. Pythag. 49 sqq.; Stob.
δευτέραν ἑβδομάδα, καὶ γενειᾷ περὶ i. 18; Nicomachus ap. Phot. Cod.
τὴν τρίτην καὶ τὸν ἥλιον δὲ, ἐπεὶ 187; Jambl. Theol. Arithm. 8 sq. ;
αὐτὺς αἴτιος εἶναι τῶν καρπῶν, φησὶ, Theo, Math. c. 3, 40 sqq.; Plut.
δυκεῖ, ἐνταῦθά φασιν ἱδρῦσθαι Kal’ ὃ ὃ De Is. 6. 10, 42, 75, p. 354, 367,
ἕβδομος ἄριθμός ἐστιν (in the seventh 381; Porph. De Abstin. 11. 36 ὅτε.
place of the periphery of the I therefore abstain from making
world) ὃν καιρὸν λέγουσιν. . . ἐπεὶ further citations from these au-
δὲ οὔτε γεννᾷ τινὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ δεκάδι thors, for although in what they
ἀριθμῶν ὁ ἑπτὰ οὔτε γεννᾶται ὑπό quote there may be many things
Tivos αὐτῶν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶν really belonging to the ancient
ἔλεγον αὐτὸν (cf. Th. Ar. p. 42, 54, Pythagoreans, yet we can never be
&e.) . . . γάμον δὲ ἔλεγον τὸν certain on this point. In general,
πέντε, ὅτι 6 μὲν γάμος σύνοδος the text that we have quoted above,
ἄῤῥενός ἐστι καὶ θήλεος, ἔτι δὲ κατ᾽ from Aristotle, Me¢. xiii. 4, should
αὐτοὺς ἄῤῥεν μὲν τὸ περιττὸν θῆλυ make us mistrustful of these state-
δὲ τὸ ἄρτιον, πρῶτος δὲ οὗτος ἐξ ments.
ἀρτίου τοῦ δύο πρώτου καὶ πρώτου 1 Cf. on this point what is said
422 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

similar manner, certain numbers,! or certain figures and

further on, of the relation of the the series of celestial bodies), and
terrestrial region to Olympus, and that consequently these concepts
Arist. Meiaph. i. 8, 990 a, 18. belong to these regions (opinion to
How is it possible to explain the the earth, and the proper time
celestial phenomena on the Pytha- [vide preceding note] to the sun):
gorean hypotheses? ὅταν yap ἐν does it follow from all this that the
τῳδὶ μὲν τῷ μέρει δόξα καὶ καιρὸς corresponding spheres of the uni-
αὐτοῖς ἢ, μικρὸν δὲ ἄνωθεν ἢ κάτωθεν verse are or are not identical with
αδικία (al. ἀνικία, according to these concepts? ’
Iambl. Theol. Arithm. Ὁ. 28, we 1 Joh. Lydus, De mens. iv. 44,
might conjecture ἀνεικία, but Alex. Ρ. 208, Roth, Φιλόλαος τὴν δυάδα
thinks ἀνικία more probable, cf. p. Κρόνου σύνευνον (Rhea, the Earth,
429, 6), καὶ κρίσις ἢ μῖξις, ἀπόδειξιν vide the following note) εἶναι λέγει
δὲ λέγωσιν, ὅτι τούτων μὲν EV ἕκασ- (because the Earth is the second
τὸν ἀριθμός ἐστι, συμβαίνει δὲ κατὰ celestial body counting from the
τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ἤδη πλῆθος centre). Moderatus ap. Stob. 1.
εἶναι τῶν συνισταμένων μεγεθῶν διὰ 20: Πυθαγόρας. . . Tots θεοῖς ἀπει-
τὸ τὰ πάθη ταῦτα ἀκολουϑεῖν τοῖς κάζων ἐπωνόμαζεν [τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς],
τόποις ἑκάστοις, πότερον οὗτος 6 ὡς ᾿Απόλλωνα μὲν τὴν μόναδα οὖσαν
αὐτός ἐστιν ἀριθμὸς 6 ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, (according to the etymology which
ὃν δεῖ λαβεῖν ὅτι τούτων ἕκαστόν he assigns to the name of the god,
ἐστιν, ἢ παρὰ τοῦτον ἄλλος. This a privative and πολύς, and which is
passage has never been fully ex- very common among later writers,
plained, either by recent commenta- ef. vol. ili. a, 306, 6, 2nd εα.) Ἄρτεμιν
tors, or by Christ, Stud. in Arist. δὲ τὴν δυάδα (perhaps because of the
libr. metaph. coll, (Berlin, 1858), resemblance of Ἄρτεμις and &prios)
p-23sq. The best expedient seems τὴν δὲ ἑξάδα γάμον καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην,
to be to substitute for διὰ τὸ 651d’ τὴν δὲ ἑβδομάδα καιρὸν καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶν.
(as, perhaps, was done by Alexan- ᾿Ασφάλιον δὲ Ποσειδῶνα τὴν ὀγδοάδα
der), and to insert “τοῦτο᾽ before (the number of the cube ; the cube
ἤδη (1 formerly conjectured τοδὲ, [vide infra] is the form of the
instead of ἤδη, but Alexander is in Earth, and Poseidon is the γαι-
favour of ἤδη). The meaning be- hoxos), καὶ τὴν δεκάδα Παντέλειαν.
comes then: ‘If the Pythagoreans The Theol. Arithm. give many
place in certain determinate parts names of this sort for numbers.
of the heavens opinion, the proper The assertions of Moderatus in
time, &c., and in support of this respect of the numbers one, two,
doctrine assert that each of these seven, and eight, are confirmed by
concepts is a determinate number Plutarch De Js. c. 10, p. 854; in
(opinion, for example, is the num- part also by Alexander (vide the
ber two), and that furthermore, note before the last). Alexander
this or that portion of the universe says in the same place, ὁ. 76 (cf.
comprehends in itself precisely Theol. Arith. p. 9), that the Dyad
that number of celestial bodies was also called Eris aud τόλμη.
(the terrestrial region, for example, On the other hand, Philo, De
is the place of two, because the Mundi Opif. 22 E, affirms that
earth occupies the second place in the other philosophers compare the
 APPLICATION OF THE NUMBER-THEORY. 428

their angles,! were assigned to particular gods; here

number seven to Athene, but that [ἀνέθηκε] θεοῖς τὴν δὲ τετραγωνικὴν
the Pythagoreans compare it to the τρισίν. Lbid,: τὴν γὰρ τοῦ δυωδεκα-
Supreme God, which they do for γόνου γωνίαν Διὸς εἶναί φησιν 6 Φι-
the same reason, because it neither λόλαος, ὡς κατὰ μίαν ἕνωσιν τοῦ Διὸς
begets nor was begotten. This last ὅλον συνέχοντος τὸν τῆς δυωδεκάδος
interpretation is manifestly of later ἀριθμόν. As to the reasons for
origin. As to the general fact, these assertions, tradition tells us
that numbers were designated by nothing. What Proclus says on
the names of the gods, there seems the subject is evidently based on his
no doubt. own conjectures, springing for the
1 Plut. De 15. ο. 75: ofδὲ Πυθα- most part from the sphere of Neo-
γόρειοι καὶ ἀριθμοὺς Kal σχήματα Platonic ideas. It would seem the
θεῶν ἐκόσμησαν προσηγορίαις. τὸ most probable solution to admit
μὲν γὰρ ἰσόπλευρον τρίγωνον ἐκάλουν that the angle must have been con-
᾿Αθηνᾶν κορυφαγενῇ καὶ Τριτογένειαν, secrated to Rhea, Demeter, and
ὅτι τρισὶ καθέτοις ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν Hestia, as goddesses of the earth;
γωνιῶν ἀγομέναις διαιρεῖται. Lhid. because the square is the surface
6. 80: λέγουσι γὰρ (οἱ Πυθ.), ἐν ἀρτίῳ which limits the cube, and the cube,
μέτρῳ ἕκτῳ καὶ πεντηκοστῷ γεγονέναι as we shall see, was, according to
Τυφῶνα' καὶ πάλιν, τὴν μὲν τοῦ Philolaus, the primitive form of
τρινώνου (se. γωνίαν) “Αδου καὶ the earth. But this explanation
Διονύσου καὶ ”Apeos εἶναι" τὴν δὲ τοῦ does not agree with the names of
τετραγώνου Ῥέας καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτης καὶ the goddesses, Hera and Aphrodite,
Δήμητρος καὶ Ἑστίας καὶ Ἥρας" τὴν mentioned by Plutarch. Was the
δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαγόνου Διός: τὴν δὲ acute angle of the triangle conse-
ἑκκαιπεντηκονταγωνίου Τυφῶνος, ὡς crated in the same sense to Hades,
Εὔδοξος ἱστόρηκεν. Procl. in Eucl. Dionysos, Ares,and Cronos? (Per-
i. p. 86 (130 Fr.): καὶ yap παρὰ haps because the primitive form of
τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις εὑρήσομεν ἄλλας fire is the tetrahedron limited by
γωνίας ἄλλοις θεοῖς ἀνακειμένας, four equilaterai triangles, and that
ὥσπερ καὶ ὃ Φιλόλαος πεποίηκε τοῖς in these gods we find the destructive,
μὲν τὴν τριγωνικὴν γωνίαν τοῖς δὲ and also the warming, nature ot
τὴν τετραγωνικὴν ἀφιερώσας, καὶ fire.) This is a question we cannot
ἄλλας ἄλλοις καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν πλείοσι now discuss. As to the dodecagon,
θεοῖς. Ibid. p. 46 (166 ἢ Fr.): Béckh (Philol. 157) has already
εἰκότως ἄρα ὁ Φιλόλαος Thy τοῦ τρι- remarked that it cannot be reduced
γώνου γωνίαν τέτταρσιν ἀνέθηκε to the dodecahedron, which Philc-
θεοῖς, Κρόνῳ καὶ “Αδῃ xal”Ape καὶ laus designates as the primitive
Διονύσῳ. Ibid. p. 48 (178 Fr.): form of AXther and of the celestial
δοκεῖ δὲ τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις τοῦτο [τὸ sphere; for the dodecahedron is
τετράγωνον διαφερόντως τῶν τετρα- limited by regular pentagons.
πλεύρων εἰκόνα φέρειν θείας οὐσίας Nevertheless, the agreement οἱ
. καὶ πρὸς τούτυις 6 Φιλόλαος... these two witnesses, both much
τὴν τοῦ τετραγώνου γωνίαν Ῥέας καὶ versed in mathematics, leaves no
Δήμητρος καὶ Ἑστίας ἀποκαλεῖ. Ibid. doubt that they really found this
Ρ. 174 Fr.: τὴν μὲν τριγωνικὴν fact in the source they were con-
γωνίαν 6 Φιλόλαος τέτταρσιν ἀνῆκεν sulting. But this difficulty does
424 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

again, only isolated and arbitrary points of comparison

are in question. It was unavoidable ' from the capri-
cious irregularity of this whole procedure, that among
all these comparisons there should be numerous contra-
dictions ; that the same number or figure should receive
various significations,? and on the other hand, that the
not authorise the modifications of schmidt is especially perplexed by
the text, and the forced interpre- the attribution of the dodecagon to
tations which Roth, ii. b, 285 sq., Zeus, while the fragments of Phi-
advocates on the ground of common lolaus regard the decad as the
sense; they could hardly be based number which rules the universe.
on the Pythagorean mathematics, This presents to me no greater
from which it is by no means self- difficulty than to find in the theory
evident that theangle of the triangle of Philolaus respecting the ele-
could only have been consecrated ments, the dodecahedron made the
to three deities, and the angle of primitive form of Aither, or in the
the square to four. (Plutarch and theory of harmony the octave divi-
Proclus both have τὴν γωνίαν, and ded into six tones instead of ten.
not τὰς γωνίας; and Proclus ex- The system of number could not
pressly adds that the same angle be directly applied to geometrical
could be assigned to many gods; figures. In the same way that,
their opinion, therefore, is not that among solids, the dodecahedron
each of the three angles of the tri- was attributed to the universal
angle, and each of the four angles element, so among plane figures,
of the square, had its special divi- bounded by straight lines, the
nity.) On the other hand, this equilateral dodecagon, easy to con-
difficulty gives us no right to reject struct out of a square by means
the whole statement of the his- of equilateral triangles, taking a
toric Philolaus, and to ascribe it square as point of departure; easy
to a Pseudo-Philolaus, author of also to inscribe in a cirele—and the
the fragments (Schaarschmidt, angle of which (= 150 degs.) is equal
Schriftst. d. Philol. 43 sq.). The to the angle of the square (90 degs.)
truth is that we are ignorant of the and of the equilateral triangle (60
source of these strange assertions: degs.), might have been chosen as
it does not follow that they may the symbol of the universe and of
not have had some foundation the supreme god who rules the
which Philolaus, from his own world as a whole (the twelve gods
point of view, may have thought of the myth).
sufficient. If we once enter the ' Cf. Arist. Metaph. xiv. 6,
region of imagination, it is difficult 1093 a, 1: εἰ δ᾽ ἀνάγκη πάντα ἀριθ-
to set bounds to arbitrary caprices. μοῦ κοινωνεῖν, ἀνάγκη πολλὰ συμβαί-
Those we have been considering νειν τὰ αὐτά. That which is desig-
were doubtless not so arbitrary as nated by the same number must be
what Aristotle(videznfra, p. 425, 2) similar.
quotes from cEurytus. Schaar- 2 Compare in this respect with

ὲ
 APPLICATION OF THE NUMBER-THEORY. 425

same object or concept should sometimes be denoted

by one figure and sometimes by another; what whim-
sical vagaries were permitted in regard to this subject
even in the ancient Pythagorean school, we can see from
the example of Eurytus, who attempted to prove the
signification of particular numbers by putting together
the figures of the things they designated out of the
corresponding number of pebbles.’
The Pythagoreans, however, did not content them-
selves with this arbitrary application of their principles,
but sought to carry them out methodically by more
precisely defining the numerical proportions according
to which all things are ordered, and applying them to
the different classes of the Real. We cannot indeed
assert that the whole school entered on these discus-
sions, and observed in their procedure the same plan ;
even with regard to the work of Philolaus, which alone

what results from the preceding gards the rest, it is impossible to

notes, the statements that justice say what really belonged to the
18 designated by the number five ancient Pythagoreans.
(Iambl. Theol. Arith. p. 30, 33) or 1 According to Aristotle, Me-
three (Plut. /s. 75); health by the taph. xiv. 5, 1092 b, 10 (where the
number seven (Philolaus, ap. Iambl. words, τῶν φυτῶν, l. 13, seem more-
Th. Ar. p. 56) or six (ibid. p. over to involve a fault certainly
38) ; marriage by the numbers five, very ancient), and Theophr. Me-
six, or three (Theol. Arithm. p. 18, taph. p. 312 Br. (Fr. 12, 11); vide
34); the sun by the decad (7h. the excellent commentary of Alex-
Ar. p. 60); light by the number ander (in this case, the real Alex-
seven (Philolaus, Joe. cit.) and by ander) ad. Met. p. 805, Bon.; cf.
the number five (Theol. Ar. 28); also Syrian ia Metaph. Schol. 938
the spirit by the monad, the soul a, 27. 1 cannot understand how
by the dyad, opinion (δόξα) by the Chaignet, 11. 125, can deny to me
triad, the body or sensation by the the opinior that the ancient Pytha-
tetrad (Theo of Smyrna, c. 38, p. gorean school ‘avait au moins semé
152; Asclep. loc. cit. 541 a, 17, le germe Pou est sortie toute cette
cf. p. 420, 2). It is true that the symbolique de fantaisie,’ in spite of
last-mentioned passage is certainly the preceding demonstrations, cited
posterior to Plato; and that, as re- by himself (p. 126).
426 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

could give us any clue on this subject, our knowledge

is too scanty to allow of our determining with certainty
the position which particular enquiries assumed in it.
We shall, however, be adhering pretty closely to the
natural connection of these enquiries if we first con-
sider the number-system as such; next its application
to tones and figures; thirdly, the doctrine of the ele-
mentary bodies and notions about the universe; and
finally, the theories on the terrestrial natures and man.
It would be easy to reduce these divisions to more
general points of view, but this I think ought not to be
done, since we know nothing of any division of the
Pythagorean system of philosophy corresponding with
the later discrimination of three principal parts, or any
other classification of the kind.
In order to reduce numbers themselves to a fixed
schema, the Pythagoreans employed the division of
odd and even, and also the system of decads. The
former has been already alluded to (p. 377); in its
further development various species were discriminated
from the even as well as from the odd; whether these
species were the same as are enumerated by later
writers! is not quite certain, nor can we be sure how
1 Nicom. Inst. Arithm. p. 9 ἀρτιοπέρισσον (vide supra, p. 377, 1),
sq.: Theo. Math.i.c. 8 sq. Three Similarly three kinds of numbers
kinds of numbers are here distin- are distinguished in regard to un-
guished among the even numbers, even numbers, the πρῶτον καὶ
the ἀρτιάκις ἄρτιον (the numbers ἀσύνθετον (the first numbers); the
that ean be divided by even num- δεύτερον καὶ σύνθετον (numbers
bers down to Unity, like 64); the which are the product of several
περισσάρτιον (the numbers which, uneven numbers, and are, there-
divided by 2, give even numbers, fore, not divisible merely by unity,
but which, divided by any even as 9, 15, 21, 25, 27); and lastly,
number higher than 2, give uneven the numbers divisible separately
numbers like 12 and 20); and the by other numbers than unity, but
 THE NUMERICAL SYSTEM. 427

many of the other divisions! of numbers which we find

in more recent authors? belong to the ancient Pytha-
gorean doctrine. Many of these ideas, no doubt, really
belonged to the Pythagoreans.* But all these arith-
metical principles, if we except the general distinction
of odd and even, were far less important in regard to
the Pythagorean cosmology than to Greek arithmetic,
which here also followed the direction given to it by
this school. The importance of the decuple system in
relation to the Pythagoreans is much greater. For as
they considered numbers over ten to be only the repe-
tition of the first ten numbers,‘ all numbers and all
powers of numbers appeared to them to be comprehended
in the decad, which is therefore called by Philolaus,°
great, all-powerful and all-producing, the beginning
and the guide of the divine and heavenly, as of the
terrestrial life. According to Aristotle,® it is the

the relation of which to others is 3 For example, the theory of

only to be defined by unities, as 9 gnomons (supra, p. 3878, 1) of
and 26. square and cubic numbers, ἀριθμοὶ,
1 On the one hand, Philolaus in τετράγωνοι and ἑτερομήκεις, of dia-
the fragment quoted on p. 377, 1, gonal numbers (Plato, Rep. viii.
speaks of many kinds of even and 546 B sq. ; ef. p. 429, 6).
odd; on the other, he does not, 4 Hieroel. in Carm. Aur. p. 166
like more recent writers, give the (Fragm. Phil. i. 464): τοῦ δὲ ἀριθμοῦ
ἀρτιοπέρισσον as a subdivision of τὸ πεπερασμένον διάστημα 7 δεκάς.
the even, but as a third kind, side 6 γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέον ἀριθμεῖν ἐθέλων ἀνα-
by side with the odd and the κάμπτει πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἕν. Τῦ 15 for
even. this reason that Aristotle blames
2 Such as the distinction of Plato, and indirectly also the Py-
square, oblong, triangular, poly- thagoreans, for only counting num-
gonal, cylindric, spherical, corpo- bers up to ten. Phys. 111. 6, 206
real, and superficial numbers, &c., b, 80; Metaph. xii. 8, 1078 a,
together with their numerous sub- 19; xiii. 8, 1084 a, 12:εἰ μέχρι
divisions, ἀριθμὸς δύναμις, κύβος, &c. δεκάδος 6 ἀριθμὸς, ὥσπερ τινές
Cf. Nicomachus, Theo, Iamblichus, φασιν.
Boethius, Hippolyt. Refut. i. 2, p. 5 Vide supra, p. 371 2.
10, &e. 6 Metaph.i. 5, 986 a, 8: ἐπειδὴ
428 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

perfect and complete, which includes in itself! the whole

essence of number; and as nothing, generally speaking,
would be knowable without number, so in particular,
we are indebted solely to the decad that knowledge is
possible to us.?- Four has a similar importance, not
merely because it is the first square number, but chiefly
because the four first numbers added together produce
the perfect number, ten. In the famous Pythagorean |

oath, Pythagoras is therefore celebrated as the revealer —

ν ΦΩ
ὡς

of the quaternary number (Tetractys), and this in its

turn is praised as the source and root of the eternal
nature.? Later Pythagoreans are fond of arranging all

τέλειον 7 δεκὰς εἶναι δοκεῖ Kal πᾶσαν δόντα τετρακτὺν, παγὰν ἀενάου φύ-
περιειληφέναι τὴν τῶν ἀριθμῶν φύσιν. σιος ῥιζώματ᾽ (or: ῥίζωμά 7°)
Philop. De An. C, 2, u: τέλειος yap ἔχουσαν. On this oath and the
ἀριθμὸς ὁ δέκα, περιέχει γὰρ πάντα quaternary number vide Cari. S
ἀριθμὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Whether this 15 Aur. v. 47 sq.; Hierocles in Carm.
taken from Aristotle’s treatise on Aur. ν. 166 f. (Hragm. Phil, i. 464
the good, as Brandis, i. 473, con- sq-); Theo, Math. c. 38; Lucian, De
jectures, 1s uncertain. Salut.c.5; V. Auct.4; Sext. Math.
1 Hence the decuple classifica- 94 sqq.; iv.2; Plut. Place. i. 3, 16;
tions, in cases where the totality of Iambl. Th. Ar. p. 20; cf. Ast. on
the Real is in question; as in the the passage and Miullach in loc. cit.
table of opposites and the system of the golden poem. The date of
of the heavenly bodies. these verses cannot be determined
2 Philol. loc. cit. ; and doubtless with certainty. According to the “

in regard to this passage, Iambl. Theol. Ar., they were found in Em- ee
eeee

Theol. Ar.p. 61: πίστις γε μὴν κα- pedocles, and from his point of
λεῖται, ὅτι κατὰ τὸν Φιλόλαον δεκάδι view the four elements should be
καὶ τοῖς αὐτῆς μορίοις περὶ τῶν ὄντων regarded as the four roots of the
ov παρέργως καταλαμβανομένοις πίσ- universe. Butin this case, instead
τιν ἔχομεν. Cf. what 15 said in the of γενεᾷ, it would be necessary to
same place about the work of read with Sextus, iv. 2,and others,
Speusippus, who shared the opinion ψυχᾷ (cf. Fabricius in loc. cit. of Fa-
of Philolaus. Theo of Smyrna, c. bricius), and by the word, παραδοὺς
49, also says that Philolaus spoke. to understand (with Mosheim, in
at length of the decad, but we Cudworth. Syst. Intell. 1. 580) the
know nothing of the treatise attri- Deity. It seems to me more likely
buted to Archytas on this subject, that Pythagoras is here celebrated
and quoted by ‘Theo. as the inventor of the Tetractys.
3 Οὐ μὰ Toy ἁμετέρᾳ γενεᾷ παρα- It is, perhaps, on account of these
 THE NUMERICAL SYSTEM. 429

things in series of four:' how far this is derived from

the ancient Pythagoreans cannot be determined. But
each of the other numbers has its particular value.
One is the first from which all the other numbers arise,
and in which the opposite qualities of numbers, the
odd and the even, must therefore be united ;? two is the
first even number; three the first that is uneven and
perfect, because in it we first find beginning, middle
and end;* five is the first number which results by
addition from the first even and the first uneven
number.* Six is the first number which results from
them by multiplication. Six multiplied by itself gives
a number which again ends in six; all the multiples
of five end either in five or ten ;° three, four, and five,
are the numbers of the most perfect right-angled
triangle, which together form a particular proportion ;°
verses that Xenocrates calls his Theo, p. 72: λέγεται δὲ καὶ 6 τρία
second principle τὸ ἄενναον (cf. τέλειος, ἐπειδὴ πρῶτος ἀρχὴν καὶ
Part. ii. a, 866, 1, third edition). μέσα καὶ πέρας ἔχει. Tambl. Theol.
1 e.g. Theo and Theol. Arithm.1.c. Arithm. p. 15, gives an improbable
2 Vide supra, p. 401, and re- and confused reason, μεσότητα καὶ
specting the ἀρτιοπέρισσον, Theo, ἀναλογίαν αὐτὴν προσηγόρευον.
p. 30: ᾿Αριστοτέλης δὲ ἐν τῷ πυθα- 4 Vide supra, p. 420, 1; 422, 1;
γορικῷ τὸ ἕν φησιν ἄμφοτέρων Anatol. ap. lambl. Th. Ar. Ὁ. 34 (be-
μετέχειν τῆς φύσεως" ἀρτίῳ μὲν γὰρ sides many other properties of the
προστεθὲν περιττὸν ποιεῖ, περιττῷ δὲ number 6): ἐξαρτίου καὶ περισσοῦ
ἄρτιον, ὃ οὐκ ἂν ἡδύνατο, εἰ μὴ ἀμφοῖν τῶν πρώτων, ἄῤῥενος καὶ θήλεος,
ταῖν φύσεοιν μετεῖχε, a proof which δυνάμει καὶ πολλαπλασιασμῷ γίνεται,
is as singular as the proposition it hence it is called ἀῤῥενόθηλυς and
is intended to demonstrate συμφέ- γάμος. These denominations are
ρεται δὲ τούτοις καὶ ᾿Αρχύτας. Plu- alsu found loc. cit. p. 18; Plut. De
tarch givesthe same reason. Plut. Fi. α. 8; Theo, Mus.α. 6; Clemens.
De Ei. α. 8, p. 388. Strom. vi. 683 C; Philop. Phys.
3 Arist. De Calo, i. 1, 268 a, KG It.
10: καθάπερ yap φασὶ καὶ of Πυθα- > Plut. De Ei. c. 8, p. 388,
γόρειοι. τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὰ πάντα τοῖς § Iambl. Theol. Arithm. p. 26,
τρισὶν ὥρισται: τελευτὴ γὰρ καὶ 43 ; Procl. in μοί. 111 m (428 Fr.),
μέσον καὶ ἀρχὴ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἔχει τὸν who attributes to Pythagoras him-
τοῦ παντὸς, ταῦτα δὲ τὸν THs τριάδος. self the construction of this trian-
430 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

seven! is the only number within the decad which has

neither factor nor product; this number is moreover
compounded out of three and four, the significance of
which has just been discussed ; lastly, to pass over other
things, it is together with four the mean arithmetical a

proportion between one and ten.? Eight is the first 3"

ῇ
cube,’ and the great Tetractys is formed out of the ᾿
«

four first uneven and the four first even numbers, the
sum of which (36) equals the sum of the cubes of one,
two, and three. Nine, as the square of three, and
the last of the units, must have had a special import-
ance.» With the Pythagoreans themselves, of course,
these arithmetical observations were not separated from
their other researches on the significance of numbers ;
and, judging from individual examples, we may suppose
that they carried them much farther in a mathematical
gle, according to an uncertain tra- long to the ancient Pythagoreans.
dition. Cf. Alex. in Metaph. i. 8, 1 Vide supra, p. 420, 2, and ee
aee
e
990 a, 23; Philo. De Vit. Contempl. Jambl. Thecl. Arithm. p. 48 sq. Be-
899 B (41). According to this cause the number 7 has no factors,
passage the perfect right-angled Philolaus called it ἀμήτωρ, ac- I
ea

triangle is that of which the sides cording to Joh. Lydus, De Mens. 11.
= 8 and 4, and of which conse- il, p.72; cf. also Clemens, Strom.
quently the hypothenuse = 6. vi. 683 D; Chaleid. in Tim. 88,
This last is called δυναμένη, because p. 188; Mull. sqq.
its square is equal to the sum of 2 ῸΡῚ +3 = 4,4 + 3 7,
the squares of thesides. Thesides 7+ 83 = 10.
are called δυαστευόμεναι ; the hy- 3 Vide supra, 422, 1; Iambl. Th.
pothenuse is also called ἀνικία (ap. Ar, p. 54; Clemens, loc. cit. &e.
Alex.) ; this denomination is pro- 4 Plut. De Is. c, 75; Schol. p.
bably more primitive than the 38; ἣ δὲ καλουμένη τετρακτὺς, τὰ
ἀνεικία of the Pseudo-Megillus, ap. ἐξ καὶ τριάκοντα, μέγιστος ἣν ὅρκος,
Iambl. Theol. Arithm. p. 28; this ὡς τεθρύληται' καὶ κόσμος ὠνόμασται,
ἀνεικία, like γάμος, indicates the τεσσάρων μὲν ἀρτίων τῶν πρώτων,
combination of the odd and the τεσσάρων δὲ τῶν περισσῶν εἰς τὸ
even. The expressions we find in αὐτὸ συντελουμένων ἀποτελούμενος.
Plato, Rep. vili. 546 B: αὐξήσεις For further details, ef. De An.
δυνάμεναί τε Kal δυναστευόμεναι. Procr. 30, 4, p. 1027.
This proves these opinions to be- 5 Vide Iambl. Th. Ar. p. 57 sq.
 HARMONY. 451

direction than could be shown in the present exposi-

tion. The later writers, however, give us very little
certain information on this subject. Even what I
have now taken from them very possibly does not
altogether originate with the primitive school, but
there is no doubt that it truly describes the character
of the ancient Pythagorean theory of numbers.
Number and Harmony being with the Pythagoreans
almost equivalent conceptions, their arithmetical system
was closely connected with their system of Harmony.!
The different nature of the two spheres however
necessitated for each a separate mode of treatment.
While therefore the numbers were arranged according
to the number ten, the measure of tones is the octave.
The chief divisions of the octave are the fourth and the
fifth: the relation of tones in it is measured according
to the length of the resonant strings, for the fourth
as 3:4; for the fifth as 2:3; for the whole octave
as} 24 Other details, such as the variation of par-
1 The Pythagoreans called the ? This arrangement of the tones
harmonic theory κανονικὴ, accord- in the octave certainly belongsto the
ing to Porphyry, in Piol. Harm. ancient Pythagorean school, vide
(in Wallisii Opp. Math. i1.), p. the passage from Philolaus, quoted
207, and Ptolemais of Cyrene, who p. 385, 2. As to the discovery and
is cited by Porphyry. Notwith- measure of the octave, however,
standing, the word, ἅἁρμονική, must there is much uncertainty. Ac-
also have been in use among them. cording to one account, which is
Aristoxenus (Harm. Elem. sub found in Nicem. Harm. i. 10 sq.;
init.; wd. p. 8) gives this as the Tambl. in Nicom.171 sq.; Vit. Py-
ordinary designation for the theory thag. 115 sq.; Gaudent. Isag. 13
of tones (7 καλουμένη ἁρμονικὴ). In sq.; Macrob. in Somn. Scip. ii. 1;
the same way he constantly calls Censorin, De Die Nat. c. 10; Boeth.
the adherents of the Pythagorean De Mus.i. 10 sq.; it was Pytha-
theory of ἁρμονικοὶ, of καλούμενοι goras himself who discovered the
ἁρμονικοὶ ; we find even in Archy- harmonic system. He is said to
tas the expression, ἁρμονικὴ avado- have observed that the sounds of
yia, for a certain numerical the blacksmith’s hammer in the
relation. forge produce a fourth, a fifth, and
432 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

ticular tones; the coneords that result from them ; the

anoctave. On further examination they could not have based it upon
he discovered thet the weight of experiments; but observing in a
the hammers was in the same pro- general manner that the height of
portion as the acuteness of the tones the tones increased with the tension
which they produce. He then, by of the strings, they concluded that
meansof different weights, extended both increased in the same propor-
strings of the same thickness and tion. It is also possible, however,
length, and found that the acuteness that this hasty conclusion was
of the tones was proporticnate to drawn by theirsuccessors. Lastly,
the weight. To obtain an har- the opinion that Pythagoras him-
monic proportion of a fourth be- self discovered the arithmetical
tween the most elevated string of proportion of tones had been al-
the heptachord, and that of the ready enunciated, according to
fourth (μέση), a fifth between this Heracleides, ap. Porph. in Pool.
and the lowest (νήτη), and inversely Harm. (in Wallisii Opp. Math. ii.)
a fourth between the νήτη and the ὁ. 8, p. 218, by Xenoecrates; and
fifth string from above (παραμέση, whoever this Heracleides may have
or according to the ancient division been, whether Heracleides Lembus
and the ancient denomination, or the grammarian of that name
τρίτη), a fifth between this and the who lived at Rome under Claudius
highest string, and a tone between and Nero (Suid. H. c. 1)—Hera-
the μέση and the rapauéon (= 8:9), cleides Ponticus it certainly was
a weight is required for the ὑπάτη not—we have no reason to doubt
of 6, for the μέση of 8, for the that Xenocrates really said this of
παραμέση (τρίτη) of 9, for the vary Pythagoras. But the accuracy of
of 12. Similarly, say Boethius and the statement is not better proved
Gaudentius, other experiments by the testimony of Xenocrates
have shown that in regard to one than by more recent testimony.
string equally extended (the mono- We cinnot say that the thing is
chord eanon, the invention of which impossible, but we may well sus-
is attributed to Pythagoras, Diog. pect that here, as in many other
viii. 12), that the height of the instances, a discovery made by the
tones is in inverse proportion to successors of Pythagoras has been
the length of the vibrating string. attributed to himself. The last
Boethius gives some further experi- assertion is well established. The
ments with bells. In this account Pythagoreans must have started
the story of the smith’s hammer is from observations on the propor-
manifestly a story which is at once tion of the length of strings which,
refuted by the physical impossibi- being the same in thickness and
lity of the fact. It is also singular tension, produce sounds of different
that the height of the sounds is acuteness. We gather this from
given as proportional to the tension the testimony of ancient writers,
of the strings, or to the weight drawn from the Pythagorean
which produces this tension, while sources themselves. In no other
jn reality it is only proportional to way can the indications which we
the square root of the forces of find. in Philolaus respecting the
tension. If then it is true that the fourth, the fifth, and the octave, be
Pythagoreans held this opinion, explained. It is for this reason
 FIGURES. 433

different species and musical modes! I may leave to

the history of musical theories, since these details do
not stand in any close connection with the philosophic
view of the world adopted by the Pythagoreans.?
that among the ancient musicians such as have been given above.
the highest number designates the Moreover it had not escaped the
lowest sound; and that in the Pythagoreans that the concord of
harmonie series (vide the Timeus two sounds is greater in proportion
of Plato) the progression is not as the integral numbers expressing
from the lower tones to the higher, their proportion are small. Porph.
but from the higher to the lower. (in Ptol. Harm. 280) gives us a
The number by which a sound is Pythagorean explanation from Ar-
designated has no relation to the chytas and Didymus of this prin-
vibrations of the air of which they ciple. The artificial character of
are compounded, but to the length this explanation should not make
of the string which creates them. us doubtful as to its antiquity.
It is only at this point that we can 1 The species (γένη) depend on
form any exact idea of the dis- the distribution of strings, the
coveries of the Pythagoreans con- modes (τρόποι, ἁρμονίαι) depend on
cerning sounds. The Pythagoreans the pitch of the instruments. There
were ignorant of the fact that the were three kinds—the diatonie,
height of sounds depends on the chromatic, and enharmonic; and
number of vibrations of the air. three modes—the Doric, the Phry-
Archytas, for example, in the frag- gian, and the Lydian. Already, in
ment quoted ap. Porph. l. 6. p. 236 Plato’s time, accessory modes had
sq. (Mullach. Frag. Phil. 1. 564 Ὁ), been added (Rep. 111. 398 E sqq.).
and in Theo, Mus. p. 94, expressly At a later time they became con-
says that sounds become higher in siderably increased. The distinc-
proportion as they move more tion of the γένη, at any rate, belongs
rapidly ; and the same hypothesis to the Pythagoreans. Ptol. Harm.
is the basis of the doctrine of the 1. 13 (ef. Porph. ἐπ Péol. 310, 313
spheral harmony, as it is explained sq.) speaks of this in regard to
by Plato (Tim. 67 B), Arist., and Archytas.
much later by Porph. (in Ptol. 2 Vide besides the passages
Harm. 217, 235 sq.) and the Pla- quoted p. 431, 2; 388, 2; and from
tonist AZlianus, quoted by Por- Ptol. Harm. 1. 13 sq., the explana-
phyry (p. 216 sq.), Dionysius the tions of Béckh, Philol. 65 sqq., and
musician (p. 219), and many others. Brandis, Gr. Rém. Philol. i. 454
What the Pythagorean theory of sq.. and particularly on the ancient
sounds established is merely this: theory ef sounds; Béckh, Stud.
that all other conditions being and Daub and Creuzer, iii. 45 sq.
equal, the height of the sounds is (Klein. Schrift. τ. 186 sq.); De
in inverse proportion to the length Metris Pindari, p. 203 sqq.; and
of the vibrating strings, and that Martin, Etudes sur le Timée, i. 389
the intervals of sound in the octave, 8q.; li. 1 sq.
determined by this measure, are
VOL. I. FF
454 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

After tones, the number theory was next applied

to geometrical figures, and it is not necessary to be a
Pythagorean to see that the form and relations of
figures are determined by numbers. If, therefore,
the Pythagorean and the Greek mathematicians in
general were accustomed to apply geometrical terms
to numbers,! and to discover arithmetical and_har-
monical proportions in figures,’ the habit was perfectly
natural. The Pythagoreans, however, did not stop
here, but as they saw in numbers generally the essence
of things, they sought to derive figures and bodies
immediately from definite numbers. Aristotle at any
1 Vide supra, p. 427, 2, 3. 1188, who sees harmonic propor-
2 We have already found an ex- tion in the relation of the numbers
ample of this, p. 426, 6, in the Py- 6, 8, 9, 12 a ἁρμονικὴ μεσότης is
thagorean triangle. The demon- ἢ ταὐτῷ phpe τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν
stration of the harmonic proportion ὑπερέχουσα καὶ ὑπερεχομένη, as
in the cube is somewhat similar. Plato, Tim. 36 A; cf. Hpinom. 991
By harmonie proportion (ἀναλογία A, characterises it. This propor-
ἁρμονικὴ, called also ὑπεναντία) is tion is called harmonie, because
understood, as distinguished from the first numbers between which
the arithmetical and geometrical they exist (3, 4, 6, or 6, 8, 12) ex-
proportion, a proportion between press the fundamental proportions
three quantities so that the diffe- of the octave (ἁρμονία). For, on
rence between the middle number the one hand, 8 is greater than 6
and first is to tae first as by a third of 6, and less than 12
the difference between the middle by a third of 12; on the other
number and the last is to the last. hand, 6:8 is the fourth, 8:12
This is found when the quantities the fifth, 6:12 the octave. The
are of such a kind ὥστε ᾧ ἂν same numbers are to be found in
mpatos bpos τῶ δευτέρω ὑπερέχῃ the cube, which has 6 surfaces, 8
ἑαυτῶ μέρει, ταύτῳ ὃ μέσος τῶ τρίτω angles, and 12 terminal lines, and
ὑπερέχει τῶ τρίτω μέρει (Archyt. is, therefore, called γεωμετρικὴ
up. Porph. in Ptol. Harm. p. 267; ἁρμονία by Philolaus according
Fragm. Phil. ii. 119). A similar to Nicom. Jnst. Arith. τι. 26, p. 72
indication is to be found in Nicom. (cf. Cassiodorus, Exp. in Psalms.
Inst. Arithm. ii. 25, p. 70, mm a de- ix. vol. ii, 36 Ὁ, Gar. Bockh,
tailed explanation of the three Philol. 87 sq.); Simpl. De An. 18
proportions; Jambl. im Micom. b; Boéthius, Arith. ii. 49 (ef.
Arithm. p. 141; Plut. De An. Proer. Philop. De An. E 16) also remark
15, p. 1019. We find a less exact that the cube was sometimes called
netice in Plut. De Mus. 22, p. ἁρμονία or harmonia geometrica.
 _ FIGURES. 455

rate tells us that they defined the line as the number

two ;! Philolaus we know explained four as the number
of the body ;? and Plato seems to have called three and
four ‘the number of the surface,’ and ‘the number of
the solid.”** Plato furthermore derived the line from
two, the plane from three, and the solid from four ;4
and Alexander ascribes the derivation of solids from
planes, planes from lines, and lines from points or
monads, alike to Plato and the Pythagoreans.> We
may, therefore, certainly assume that the Pythagoreans,
in regard to the derivation of figures, identified one
with the point, two with the line, three with the plane,
1 Metaph. vii. 11, 1036 b, 7. Asclep. Schol. in Arist. p. 541 a,
It is often difficult to determine 23: τὸν δὲ τέσσαρα ἀριθμὸν ἔλεγον
whether the matter of an object [of Πυθ.] τὸ σῶμα ἁπλῶς, τὸν δὲ
should, or should not, be included πέντε τὸ φυσικὸν σῶμα, τὸν δὲ ἐξ τὸ
in its definition; hence ἀποροῦσί ἔμψυχον. It is true that a very
τινες ἤδη καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ κύκλου Kal TOD improbable reason is given for this,
τριγώνου, ὧς οὐ προσῆκον γραμμαῖς viz., because 6=2x 8, and that
ὁρίζεσθαι καὶ τῷ συνεχεῖ (as if the the even designates the body, and
definition that a triangle con- the — the soul.
tained within three lines did not * Arist. quotes (De An. i. 2,
sufficiently designate the essential 404 b, 18), as borrowed from
nature of the triangle) . καὶ Plato's lectures on philosophy :
ἀνάγουσι πάντα εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς, νοῦν μὲν τὸ er, ἐπιστήμην δὲ τὰ δύο
καὶ γραμμῆς τὸν λόγον τὸν τῶν δύο . τὸν δὲ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου ἀριθμὸν
εἶναί φασιν. τινὲς, it is certain, δόξαν, αἴσθησιν δὲ τὸν τοῦ στερεοῦ.
means the Pythagoreans ; the Pla- * Arist. loc. cit.;; Metaph. xiv.
tonists are subsequently expressly 3, 1090 b, 20; Ps.-Alex. in Me-
distinguished from the Pythago- taph, Xill. 9, p. 706, 14 Bon.: τὴν
reans. δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἕν, φησιν ἀρχὴν οὐχ
2 In a passage which we shall ὁμοίως εἰσῆγον ἅπαντες, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν
consider further on, Iambl. Th. Ar. αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς. τὰ εἴδη τοῖς με-
Ρ. 56: Φιλόλαος δὲ μετὰ τὸ μαθημα- γέθεσιν ἔλεγον ἐπιφέρειν, οἷον δυάδα
τικὸν μέγεθος τριχῆ διαστὰν ἐν μὲν γραμμῇ, τριάδα δὲ ἐπιπέδῳ, τε-
τετράδι, ποιότητα καὶ χρῶσιν ἐπιδει- τράδα δὲ στερεῷ. τοιαῦτα γὰρ ἐν τοῖ:
ξαμένης τῆς φύσεως ἐν πεντάδι, περὶ Φιλοσοφίας ἱστορεῖ περὶ Πλά-
ψύχωσιν δὲ ἐν ἑξάδι, νοῦν δὲ καὶ twvos. Cf. Zeller, Plat. Studien,
ὑγείαν καὶ τὸ ὕπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον 237 sq.; Brandis, De Perd. Arist.
φῶς ἐν ἑβδομάδι, μετὰ ταῦτά φησιν lib. p. 48 sq.
ἔρωτα καὶ φιλίαν καὶ μῆτιν καὶ ἐπί- > Vide p. 408, 1.
νοιαν ἐν ὄγδοάδι συμβῆναι τοῖς οὖσιν.
9
FF =
450 THE PYTHAGOREANS.
.

four with the solid; their reason for this being that
the straight line is limited by two points, the first
rectilinear figure by three lines, the simplest regular
body by four surfaces, whereas the point is an indivisible
unity.! But by virtue of their general tendencies they
must necessarily have believed that this derivation of
the figures of Lodies involved a similar derivation of
the corporeal itself,? for, as we have before remarked,*
they supposed bodies to consist of the lines and planes
enclosing them, as they supposed lines and figures to
consist of numbers.
According to Philolaus, the elementary nature of
bodies depends upon their form. Of the five regular
bodies, therefore, he assigned the cube to the earth,
the tetrahedron to fire, the octohedron to air, the
icosahedron to water, the dodecahedron’ to the fifth
1 Tt is thus that this doctrine is
doubt referred to in the question
always explained by the ancients; put by Aristotle to the Pythago-
reans (vide p. 400), viz., Whether
ef. p. 407, 3; 408, 1; and the passages
quoted by Brandis, J. ὁ. and Gr.- the first body arose from surfaces
rom. Phil.i. 471; Nikom. Arithin. or from something else?
ii. 6; Boéth. Arithm. 11. 4, Ὁ. 1328; 3 Vide p. 407 sq.
Theo. Math. 151 sq.; Iambl. Th. 4 Ap. Stob.i. 10 (Béckh Philot,
Ar. p. 18 sq.; Speusippus, zd. p. 160): καὶ τὰ ἐν τᾷ σφαίρᾳ σώματα
64; Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 154; Math. (the five regular bodies) πέντε ἐντί.
iv. 4, vil. 99 (x. 278 sqq.); Joh. τὰ ev τᾷ σφαίρᾳ (the bodies which
Philop. De An. C, 2; Ding. viii. 25. are in the world—Heeren and
No doubt these passages imme- Meineke would omit these words)
diately apply to the derivation of πῦρ, ὕδωρ καὶ ya καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ ὃ Tas
geometry, socommon after the time σφαίρας ὕλκας (such is the text of
of Plato. But it is probable that codex A. Bockh, and others read
the Platonic doctrine was the same a Tas σφαίρας ὅλκάς: Meineke, a
on this point as the Pythagorean; Tas σφαίρας κυκλάς; Schaarschmidt,
for the combination in question Fragm. d. Philol. p. 50, 6 τᾶς
certainly rests on the standpoint σφαίρας ὄγκος, or even @....
of the theory of numbers. ὁλότας; Heeren, 6 τᾶς σφαίρας
2 As is presupposed in the ὅλκος, which according to him
passages quoted. Such a construc- designated ether as that which
tion of bodies from surfaces is no draws and moves the globe of the
 THE ELEMENTS. 437

element which embraces all the others; that is to

say, he held that the smallest constituent parts of
these different substances had the supposed form.! If
we might assume that Plato, who borrowed these
definitions from Philolaus, also followed him in the
particulars of his construction, we must believe that
Philolaus adopted a somewhat complicated procedure 2
in the derivation of the five bodies; but this theory
is not only unsupported by any adequate evidence,?
but even in the exposition of Plato there are consider-
able arguments against it.* Whether this derivation
world. Perhaps we should read: these theories, viz. that among the
6 τ. op. κύκλος, OF TO τ. σφ. ὅλας) disciples of Plato all those who in-
πέμπτον. Plut. Ρίαο. ii. 6, 5 (Stob. cline the most to Pythagoreanism,
i. 450, Galen. c. 11): Πυθαγόρας so far as our information extends
πέντε σχημάτων ὄντων στερεῶν, on this subject, admit the fifth
ἅπερ καλεῖται καὶ μαθηματικὰ, ἐκ element, ether, in addition to the
μὲν τοῦ κύβου φησὶ γεγονέναι τὴν other four. This circumstance
γῆν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς πυραμίδος τὸ πῦρ, ἐκ equally contradicts the idea that
δὲ τοῦ ὀκταέδρου τὸν ἀέρα, ἐκ δὲ the author of the passage in ques-
τοῦ εἰκοσαέδρου τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ tion borrowed the fifth body from
δωδεκαέδροι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν. Aristotle. Vide p. 317.
Cf. Stobzeus, i. 356, where, as in 2 Vide Part ii. a, 675 sq. 3rd
Diog. viii. 25 (Alex. Polyh.), there is edition.
no mention of the fifth element: οἱ 3 For Simpl. De Celo, 252 b,
ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου toy κόσμον σφαῖραν 43 (Schol. in Arist. 510 a, 41 sq.),
κατὰ σχῆμα τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων. ean scarcely have taken his state-
1 In what concerns the four ment from Theophrastus, to whom
elements, there can be no doubt he refers merely for his assertion
that the words of Philolaus have about Democritus. It is more pro-
this meaning. It is only in regard bably derived from the pseudo-
to the fifth of the regular bodies, Timeus (De An. Mundi), from
the dodecahedron, that a question whom he has previousiy (452 b, 14)
might be raised. Are we to un- quoted a passage (p. 97 E sq.).
derstand that the elementary par- This is most likely the source of
ticles of the substance which, ac- the statement of Hermias, /rris,
cording to Philolaus, has formed ec. 16, which attributes to Pytha-
the globe of the world (1.6. the goras and his school the whole
outer shell of the globe) present Platonic construction.
this form? or is it the globe itself * The Platonic construction of
which does so? There is one cir- the elementary bodies by means of
cumstance which favours the first of right-angled triangles cannot be
-
458 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

of the elements belonged to the earlier philosophers,

or was originated by Philolaus, and whether in connec-
tion with this the four elements, omitting the fifth, came
from the Pythagoreans to Empedocles, or conversely
with the addition of the fifth, from Empedocles to the
Pythagoreans, is a question that the historical evidence
does not enable us to decide ;! there are grounds, how-
ever, for preferring the second of these alternatives.
The theory of Philolaus presupposes too high a develop-
ment of geometrical knowledge to be compatible with
great antiquity, and we shall hereafter find that
Empedocles was the first who introduced the more
accurate conception of the elements, and maintained
that they were four.? This construction, therefore, is
probably to be attributed to Philolaus.
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the
Pythagorean notions concerning the origin and con-
stitution of the world, so far as we are acquainted with
them, connect themselves with the other presuppositions
of the system, independently of the doctrine of the

applied to the dodecahedron. Con- passage in Aristotle, De Celo, iil.

sequently, if this construction were 5, 304 a, 9 sq.
made the point of departure, it 1 The celebrated verses of the
would be impossible to see in the Golden Poem are of uncertain
dodecahedron a specific elementary origin, vide p. 428, 3; 322. Evi-
form; and, in fact, Plato sets aside dence like that of Vitruvius, viii.
the dodecahedron, Tim. 55 C, ef. Pref. (cf. Sextus, Math. x. 283;
40 A, in a manner which seems to Diog. viii. 25), which attributes the
imply that this fitth body was doctrine of the four elements to Py-
known to him from another source, thagoras and Epicharmus, as well
but that he was unable to make as to Empedocles, cannot, of course,
use of it in his exposition. Inde- be taken into aceount. The frag-
pendently of the Platonic method ment of the pseudo-Athamas, ap.
of reducing the elements to certain Clem. Strom. vi. 624 D, is cer-
figures, there existed a second and tainly not authentic.
simpler method, as is proved by the # Vide infra, Emped.
 THE ELEMENTS. 459

elements. A fragment of Philolaus,' indeed, in regard

to the origin of the world, maintains that the world
always has been, and always will be; which would
incline us to believe the statement? that the Pythago-
reans in what they said of the formation of the universe
intended only to assert the logical dependence of the
derived in respect to the primitive, and not an origin of
the universe in time.* But as we have before shown
the spuriousness of the passage, and as Stobzeus does
not give us the sources or the reasons for his statement,
no argument can be based on this evidence. On the
other hand, Aristotle distinctly says that none of the
earlier philosophers held the world to be without begin-
ning, except in the sense of the doctrine which is never
ascribed to the Pythagoreans, viz., that the substance of
the world is eternal and imperishable, but that the world
itself is subject to a constant vicissitude of generation
and destruction; and what we know of the theories
1 Ap. Stob. 1, 420 (vide supra, Apeloget. 11 ; Theophilus, Ad Autol.
p-399, 1): ἧς ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ἐξ αἰῶνος 11. 7, 26, who for that reason ac-
καὶ εἰς αἰῶνα διαμένει. . . . εἷς ἐὼν euses Pythagoras of setting the
kal συνεχὴς καὶ φύσι διαπνεόμενος necessity of nature in the place of
καὶ περιαγεόμενος ἐξ ἀρχιδίω. Τῦ 15 Providence.
immaterial in regard to the ques- 3 So Ritter thinks,i.417. But
tion before us, whether we read in maintaining at the same time
with Meineke, instead of ἀρχιδίω, (ibid. p. 436, vide supra, p. 404)
ἀϊδίω, or, still better, with Rose that the Pythagoreans held the
(Arist. lib. ord., p. 35), apxas aisle. gradual development of the world,
2 Stob. 1. 450: Πυθαγόρας φησὶ he evidently contradicts himself.
γεννητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον Brandis, i. 481; Chaignet, ii. 87;
ov κατὰ χρόνον. That Pythagoras Rohr, De Philol. Fragm. περὶ
regarded the world as never having ψυχῆς», p. 31.
had a beginning is often affirmed * De. Cale, i.. 10, 279 b, 12:2
by later writers, vide inf. p. 440, 2, γενόμεμον μὲν ἅπαντες εἶναί φασιν
e.g. Varro, De re rust. ii. 1, 3, who [τὸν οὐρανὸν], ἀλλὰ γενόμενον oi
ascribes to him the doctrine of the μὲν ἀΐδιον, οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν. .. οἱ &
eternity of the human race; Cen- ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οἥτως Gre δὲ ἄλλωϑ9.
sorin. Di., Nat. 4, 3; Tertull. ἔχειν φθειρόμενον. καὶ τοῦτο aei δια-
440 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

of his predecessors only confirms this assertion.? The

expedient, also, by which Stobzeus, or rather the Neo-
Pythagorean whom he here follows,? endeavours to save

τελεῖν οὕτως ὥσπερ ᾿ΕἘμπεδοκλῆς 6 world formed from it is also eter-

᾿Ακραγαντῖνος καὶ “Ἡράκλειτος 6 nal. Lastly, if Aristotle (Metaph.
Ἐφέσιος. In regard to these last, xiv. 3, 1091 a, 12) says, against
it is said, p. 280 a, 11, that their the Platonic theory of numbers,
opinion accords with the theory ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ γένεσιν ποιεῖν ἀϊδίων
which represents the world as eter- ὄντων, we cannot conclude from
nal, and only subject to a change this passage, as Chaignet does (ii.
of form. Cf. Phys. viii. 1. 250 b, 87; in his citation he is more than
18: ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὲν ἀπείρους τε κόσ- inaccurate) that the Pythagoreans,
μους εἶναί φασι καὶ τοὺς μὲν γίγνεσ- in describing the formation of the
θαι τοὺς δὲ φθείρεσθαι τῶν κόσμων, world, did not intend to discuss
ἀεί φασιν εἶναι κίνησιν. a creation of the world in time.
. ὅσοι δ᾽
ἕνα (sc. κόσμον εἶναι), ἢ οὐκ ἀεὶ This remark (even if it were cer-
(= ἢ ἀπείρων ὄντων οὐκ ἀεὶ TOUS μὲν tainly proved to refer to the Py-
γίγνεσθαι, ete. the doctrine of Em- thagoreans) is not concerned with
pedocles) καὶ περὶ τῆς κινήσεως the formation of the world, but
ὑποτίθενται κατὰ λόγον. with the origin of numbers from
1 Chaignet (i. 249; ii. 84) ap- the Great and Small. Now Aris-
peals, in opposition to this opinion, totle, speaking in his own name,
to the well-known saying of Herac- describes numbers as eternal. If
leitus (inf. vol. ii. Her.). But as I Chaignet thinks he can prove by
have already observed in Hermes, the help of the passage (De Celo,
x. 187, that which Heracleitus here i. 10; vide preceding note) that
characterises as uncreated and im- the eternity of the world was
perishable is not the system of the taught before Aristotle, he com-
world, the eternity of which was pletely misunderstands the sense
taught by Aristotle and thepseudo- of the passage ; ἀΐδιος there means
Philolaus, but only the πῦρ ἀείζωον, infinite duration, not the absence
the primitive substance which, in of commencement, which alone is
developing itself, formed the world, here in question.
and into which the world resolves 2 We have elsewhere shown
itself. All the physicists presup- (Part iii. b, 114 sq.) how general
pose such an uncreated principle, the doctrine of the eternity of the
without deducing from it the eter- world was among the Neo-Pytha-
nity of the world, cf. on Xenoph. goreans. That the statement of
The same answer may be given to Stobeus only reproduces their
Rohr’s objection (p. 31), urging opinion, is proved by his attri-
that in the fragment quoted p. 372, buting to Pythagoras, whose doc-
1, Philolaus called the ἐστὼ τῶν trine is unknown to Aristotle, a
πραγμάτων eternal. The ἐστὼ distinction which greatly trans-
τῶν πραγμάτων, the Limit and cends the standpoint of his epoch,
the Unlimited, may be eternal ; and in reality is only affirmed by
but it does not follow that the the Platonic school.» Chaignet
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 44]

the eternity of the world for the Pythagorean system,

is attributed by Aristotle to the Platonists' only;
neither he nor his commentators ever mention the
Pythagoreans in that connection. This would surely
have been impossible if he had been acquainted with
an exposition of Philolaus or any other Pythagorean,
which not only maintained that the world was without
beginning or end in the most decided manner, but on
the very grounds brought forward in his own system.
Irrespectively of this objection, however, it is most im-
probable that the ancient Pythagorians should have
conceived the universe as an eternal product of the world-
creating energy. The distinction between the logical
dependence of things on their causes, and their origin
in time, requires a longer practice and a finer develop-
ment of thought than we can suppose possible among
the earliest thinkers. If they enquired into the origin
of the world, it was natural for them to think of its
commencement in time: as we see from the ancient
theogonies and cosmogonies. Not till some time had
elapsed was it necessary to abandon this point of view,
and then on two considerations: 1. That matter must

and Rohr consider that they have εἶναι γενόμενον δὲ, οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής"
found in the testimony of Stobzeus ὁμοίως γάρ φασι τοῖς τὰ διαγράμματα
sufficient evidence as to the doc- γράφουσι καὶ σφᾶς εἰρηκέναι περὶ τῆς
trine of Pythagoras and the ancient γενέσεως, οὐχ ὡς γενομένου ποτὲ,
Pythagoreans. But we cannot ἀλλὰ διδασκαλίας χάριν ὧς μᾶλλον
trust writers, whose sources it is γνωριζόντων, ὥσπερ τὸ διάγραμμα
impossible to trace beyond the γιγνόμενον θεασαμένους. Itisclear ©
Neo-Pythagorean epoch; and least from what follows that certain
of all, can we trust so recent a Platonistsare hereintended. Sim-
compiler. plicius and other writers say that
1 De Celo, i. 10, 279 b, 30: ἣν Xenocrates is alluded to, and also
δέ τινες βοήθειαν ἐπιχειροῦσι φέρειν Speusippus.
ἑαυτοῖς τῶν λεγόντων ἄφθαρτον μὲν
442 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

be without origin, and 2, that the world-forming energy

can never be conceived as inactive. The former idea, as
far as we know, was first enunciated by Parmenides, the
latter by Heracleitus ; and the conclusion drawn thence
even by them and their successors was not the eternity
of our universe: Parmenides inferred from his propo-
sition the impossibility of becoming and passing away,
and accordingly he declared the phenomenal world gene-
rally to be illusion and deception. Heracleitus, Empe-
docles, and Democritus maintained, each in his own
way, an infinity of worlds of which every one had had a
beginning in time. Lastly, Anaxagoras, adopting the
ordinary theory of a sole and unique world, supposed this
likewise to have shaped itself at a definite period out of
the unformed primitive matter. On the other hand,
Aristotle never thought of attributing a description of
the origin of the world to the philosophers who main-
tained its eternity so consciously, and on principle, as
the reputed Philolaus, There is, therefore, little reason
to doubt that what is stated concerning the Pythagorean
theory of the formation of the world really refers to a
beginning of the world in time. Im fact, any other
interpretation of the texts is inadmissible. According
to the Pythagoreans, the central fire was first formed
in the heart of the universe; this is also called by
them the One or the Monad, because it is the first body
of the world; the mother of the Gods, because it is this
which engenders the heavenly bodies; they also call it
Hestia, the hearth or the altar of the universe, the
guard, the citadel or the throne of Zeus, because it is
the central point in which the world-sustaining energy
 FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 445

has its seat.! How this beginning of the world itself

came about, Aristotle (loc. cit.) says they were unable
to explain, and we cannot certainly discover from his
language whether they even attempted an explanation.’
After the formation of the central fire, the nearest
portions of the unlimited, which according to the
obscure notions of the Pythagoreans signified at once
infinite space and infinite matter, were constantly being
attracted to this centre, and becoming limited through
1 Vide p. 444, 4; 446, 1; Arist. ealled two, and the sun, seven
Metaph. xiv. 3; xii. 6 (supra, p. (vide supra, p. 421). But how
400; 407,2); Philol. ap. Stob. 1. this determinate part of the world
468: τὸ πρᾶτον ἁρμοσθὲν τὸ ἕν ἐν was related to the number one, or
τῷ μέσῳ Tas σφαίρας (the sphere of distinguished from it, was not
the world) Ἑστία καλεῖται. The stated. Vide p. 410 sq.
same, ibid. 360: 6 κόσμος εἷς ἐστιν" 2 Aristotle says (Metaph. xiv.
ἤρξατο δὲ γίγνεσθαι: ἄχρι τοῦ μέσου. 3), vide sup. p. 400: τοῦ ἑνὸς συσ-
The text may be more exact, but ταθέντος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιπέδων εἴτ᾽ ἐκ
ἀπὸ τοῦ μέσου would certainly be χροιᾶς, which signifies indeed much
clearer. Ibid. p. 452; vide infra, the same thing as ἐξ ἐπιπέδων ; cf.
p. 446,1; Plut. Numa,e.11: κόσμου Arist. De sensu, 3, 439 a, 30: of
οὗ μέσον of Πυθαγορικοὶ τὸ πῦρ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν χροιὰν
ἱδρύσθαι νομίζουσι, καὶ τοῦτο Ἑστίαν ἐκάλουν εἴτ᾽ ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ὧν
καλοῦσι καὶ μονάδα. Cf. Iambl. ἀποροῦσιν εἰπεῖν. But we cannot
Th. Arithm. Ὁ. 8: πρὸς τούτοις φασὶ infer from this (as Brandis does,
[οἱ Πυθ.] περὶ τὸ μέσον τῶν τεσσά- 1.487) that the Pythagoreans really
ρων στοιχείων κεῖσθαί τινα ἑναδικὸν followed all these methods to ex-
διάπυρον κύβον. οὗ τὴν μεσότητα plain the formation of the body.
τῆς θέας (instead of this word, we still less that all these modes of
should doubtless read θέσεως) καὶ explication had reference to the
Ὅμηρον εἰδέναι λέγοντα (Il. viii. 16). Central fire. But Aristotle might
Therefore, continues the author, express himself in this way, even
Parmenides, Empedocles, and others had the Pythagoreans said nothing
say: τὴν μοναδικὴν φύσιν Ἑστίας as to the manner in which bodies
τρόπον ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρύσθαι καὶ διὰ τὸ wereformed. Similarly in Metaph.
ἰσόῤῥοπον φυλάσσειν τὴν αὐτὴν xiv. 5, 1092 a, 21 sq., he puts the
edpav. We see from these passages question to the adherents of the
how the πρῶτον ἕν in Aristotle is number-theory—‘ how numbers re-
to be understood. The central sult from their elements,’ μίξει or
fire, because of its place and its συνθέσει, ws ἐξ ἐνυπαρχόντων, OF ὡς
importance for the universe, was amb σπέρματας, aor ὡς ἐκ τοῦ
called the One in the same sense ἐναντίου;
that the earth, for example, was
444 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

this attraction,' until by the perpetual continuation

and extension of that process (thus we must complete
the accounts) the system of the universe was at last
finished.
The universe was conceived by the Pythagoreans
as a sphere.? In the centre of the whole they placed,
as we have seen, the central fire; around this ten
heavenly bodies* moving from west to east describe
their orbits ;* farthest off, the heaven of fixed stars,
next the five planets; then the sun, the moon, the
earth, and tenth, and last, the counter-earth, which the
Pythagoreans invented in order to complete the sacred
number of ten. ‘he extreme limit of the universe was
formed by the fire of the periphery, which corresponded
to the central fire.® The stars they believed were
1 Arist. loc. cit.; ef. supra, p. unless that motion was from west
400.1. The same doctrine seems to to east. Whether the Pythagoreans,
be the foundation of the ¢efiikéexa- like Aristotle (cf. Bockh, ὦ. Kosm.
tion in Plut. Plac. 11.6, 2: Πυθαγό- System, Ὁ. 112 sq.), understood
pas ἀπὸ πυρὸς καὶ τοῦ πέμπτου this movement from west to east
στοιχείου [ἄρξασθαι τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ as a movement from east to east,
κόσμου, only that here the unlimi- or from right to right, and called
ted is confounded with the περιέχον the east side the right, because the.
of Aristotle, the Atther. movement starts from that side; .
* Spatpa isthe usual expression, as Stobeus thinks, Eel. 1. 358
p. 442, 1; 436, 4. (Plut..Plac. 1. 10; (Galen, 6: 1.
3 The Pythagoreans are said to p. 269), seems to me doubtful.
have been the first to determine 5 Arist. De Celo, ii. 18, sub
their order in a precise manner. init.: τῶν πλείστων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου
Simpl. De Calo, 212 a, 18 (Schol. κεῖσθαι λεγόντων [τὴν γῆν]...
497 a, 11): ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ, τὴν ἐναντίως οἱ περὶ τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν, καλού-
τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγο- μενοι δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν. ἐπὶ
ρείους πρώτους ἀναφέρων. μὲν γὰρ τοῦ μέσου πῦρ εἶναι φασι,
* As foilows as a matter of τὴν δὲ γῆν ἕν τῶν ἄστρων οὖσαν
course in regard to the earth and κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον νύκτα
the other bodies of the universe. τε καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν. ἔτι δ᾽ ἐναντίαν
For the apparent diurnal motion ἄλλην ταύτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν,
of the sun, from east to west, could ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὕνομα καλοῦσιν, οὐ
not be explained by the motion of mpos τὰ φαινόμενα τοὺς λόγους καὶ
the earth around the central fire, τὰς αἰτίας ζητοῦντες, ἀλλὰ πρός
 SYSTEM OF THE WORLD. 445

fixed in transparent circles or spheres, by the revolu-

tion of which upon their axes they were carried round.!
τινας λόγους καὶ δόξας αὑτῶν τὰ ἑβδόμην yap αὐτὸν τάξιν ἔχειν
φαινόμενα πρυσέλκοντες καὶ πειοώ- [pacity of Πυθ.] τῶν περὶ τὸ μέσον
μενοι συγκοσμεῖν (which is explained καὶ τὴν Ἑστίαν κινουμένων δέκα
in the following manner in Metaph. σωμάτων" κινεῖσθαι γὰρ μετὰ τὴν
1. 5, 986 a, 8): ἐπειδὴ τέλειον 7 δε- τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαῖραν καὶ τὰς πέντε
Kas εἶναι δοκεῖ Kai πᾶσαν περιειληφέ- τὰς τῶν πλανήτων, μεθ᾽ ἣν [ἢ ὃν]
ναι τὴν τῶν ἀριθμῶν φύσιν, καὶ τὰ ὀγδόην τὴν σελήνην, καὶ τὴν γῆν
φερόμενα κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν δέκα μὲν ἐνάτην, μεθ᾽ ἣν τὴν ἀντίχθονα.
εἶναί φασιν, ὄντων δὲ ἐννέα μόνον Béckh has already refuted (Philol.
τῶν φανερῶν διὰ τοῦτο δεκάτην τὴν 103 sq.) the anonymous author in
ἀντίχθονα ποιοῦσιν), τῷ γὰρ τιμιω- Photius, p. 439 b, Bekk, who at-
τάτῳ οἴονται προσήκειν τὴν τιμιωτά- tributes to Pythagoras twelve Dia-
τὴν ὑπάρχειν χώραν. εἶναι δὲ πῦρ cosms and passes over the counter-
μὲν γῆς τιμιώτερον, τὸ δὲ πέρας τῶν earth,the fire of the centre and of the
μεταξὺ, τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον καὶ τὸ μέσον circumference, and places instead
πέρας. .. ἔτι δ᾽ of ye Πυθαγύρειοι a circle of fire, a circle of air, and
καὶ διὰ τὸ μάλιστα προσήκειν φυλάτ- a circle of water, between the moon
τεσθαι τὸ κυριώτατον τοῦ παντόΞπ' and the earth.
τὸ δὲ μέσον εἶναι τοιοῦτον" ὃ Διὸς 1 Alexander treats this opinion
φυλακὴν ὀνομάζουσι, τὸ ταύτην ἔχον as Pythagorean ; Theo (Astron. p.
τὴν χώραν πῦρ. Ibid, 293, b, 19: 212, Mart.) mentions Pythagoras
[τὴν γῆν φασι] κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ himself as having been the first to
τὸ μέσον, οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην ἀλλὰ discover κατ᾽ ἰδίων τινῶν κύκλων
καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. Stob. Ecl. i. καὶ ἐν ἰδίαις δὲ σφαίραις (Cod. ἰδ.
488: Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ διαφοραῖς) ἐνδεδεμένα καὶ δὲ ἐκείνων
κέντρον, ὅπερ Ἑστίαν τυῦ παντὸς κινούμενα (sc, τὰ πλανώμενα) δοκεῖν
καλεῖ καὶ Διὸς οἶκον καὶ Μητέρα ἡμῖν φέρεσθαι διὰ τῶι ζῳδίων. We
θεῶν, βωμόντε καὶ συνοχὴν καὶ μέτρον find these ideas in Plato and Par-
φύσεως" καὶ πάλιν πῦρ ἕτερον ἀνωτά- menides, which confirms their
τω τὺ περιέχον. πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσε: antiquity, and proves that the
τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τυῦτο δέκα σώματα Pythagoreans. perhaps after the
θεῖα χορεύειν (hence probably the example of the founder of their
χορεῖαι of the stars, ap. Plato. Tim. school, were the authors, or, at any
40 c) οὐρανὸν (that is to say, the rate, the chief representatives, of
heaven of fixed stars; it is clear the theory of the spheres, which
from the end of the passage which was of such importance in Greek
will be quoted farther on, that the philosophy. It is impossible to
expression belongs to the narrator), decide whether, in their opinion.
πλανήτας, μεθ᾽ ovs ἥλιον, ἐφ᾽ & σε- all the heavenly bodies were carried
λήνην, ὑφ᾽ ἧ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ἣ τὴν along by spheres, i.e. by hollow
ἀντίχθονα, μεθ᾽ ἃ σύμπαντα τὸ πῦρ globes ; or whether the fixed stars
Ἑστίας ἐπὶ τὰ κέντρα ἱτῷ κέντρῳ] alone were fastened to a hollow
τάξιν ἐπέχον. Alexander ad Me- globe, and the planets to simple
taph. 1.5, p. 20, Bon. (vide supra, p. circles, as Plato supposed. Roth
402, 2), on the subject of the sun: (ii. a, 808 sq., 244) attributes to the
440 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Among the bodies of the universe the central fire

occupies the first place, not only from its position, but
because, on account of this position, it is the centre of
gravity and support of the whole, the measure and
bond of the universe,! which indeed sprang solely from
it and through its operation. The Pythagoreans were
accustomed to conceive all such relations not merely
mathematically and mechanically, but at the same
time dynamically; we should therefore have expected
that they would attribute to the central fire an im-
portant influence upon the whole, even if this were not
confirmed by the analogy of their doctrine of the forma-
tion of the world, and their opinions (presently to be
considered) on the origin of the fire of the sun.’ Later
accounts, however, in connection with this, assert that
the soul, or the spirit of the universe, was supposed to
Pythagoreans, and even to Pytha- δημιουργός, where the ἡγεμονικὸν is
goras, the theories of eccentric certainly Stoic and the Demiurgus
circles, and epicycles. Not only Platonic ; but the comparison of the
are we without sufficient evidence central fire with the keel of the ship
on this point (for Nicomachus and of the universe seems to be truly
Tamblichus ap. Simpl. De Calo, Pythagorean. Nicom. (ap. Phot.
227 a, 17; Schol. 503 b, 11, are Cod. 187, p. 148 a, 32) also, among
not trustworthy), but the theory is many later documents, brings
opposed to the whole tenor of an- forward a statement, according to
cient astronomy. As to the opinion which the Monad was called by
of Roth (/. ¢.), according to which the Pythagoreans Ζανὸς πύργος,
Eudoxus, Caliippus, and Aristotle which must have come from some
were acquainted with the theory of ancient tradition. Proclus, i Tim.
epicycles, it becomes quite untena- 172 B: καὶ of Πυθαγόρειοι δὲ Zavds
ble after due consideration of the πύργον ἢ Zavos φυλακὴν ἀπεκάλουν
passages in question in Aristotle τὸ μέσον. ;
and his commentators. Vide Part 2 This is confirmed by the
ii. 344 sqq., 2nd ed. testimony of Parmenides (the Py-
1 Vide p. 441, 1; 444, 4; also thagorean origin of this testimony
Stob. i. 452: τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν [Φι- will be shown in its proper place),
λόλαος ἔφησεν) ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ according to which the divinity
πυρὶ, ὕπερ τρόπεως δίκην προὐπε- that regulates the whole has his
βάλλετο THS τοῦ παντὸς σφαίρας, 6 seat in the midst of the universe.
 SYSTEM OF THE WORLD. 447

be diffused throughout the whole! from the central fire,

or from the circumference; but this is probably a
subsequent expansion and modification of the ancient
doctrine, and the source of this modification must be
sought in the doctrines of Plato and of the Stoies.?
1 For example, the Pseudo- 21, 78: Audieham Pythagoram
Philolaus ap. Stob. 1.420 (cf. p. 438, Pythagoreosque . . nunquam dubi-
3) ἔχει δὲ Kal τὰν ἀρχὰν Tas κινάσιός tassé, quin ex universa mente divina
τε καὶ μεταβολᾶς ὃ κόσμος εἷς ἐὼν delibatos animos haberemus. Plut.
καὶ συνεχὴς καὶ φύσι διαπνεόμενος Plac. Qu. viti. 4, 3, p. 1007:
καὶ περιαγεόμενος ἐξ ἀρχᾶς ἀϊδίω. καὶ to the question, ‘ What is Time ?’
τὸ μὲν ἀμετάβολον (the unchange- Pythagoras replied, ‘The Soul of
able part of the world) ἀπὸ τᾶς τὸ the World.” Plac. iv. 7, 1: Πυθ.
ὅλον περιεχούσας ψυχᾶς μέχρι σε- Πλάτων ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὴν ψυχήν"
λάνας περαιοῦται, τὸ δὲ μεταβάλλον ἐξιοῦσαν γὰρ εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς
ἀπὸ τᾶς σελάνας μέχρι Tas yas’ ψυχὴν ἀναχωρεῖν πρὸς τὸ ὁμογενές.
ἐπεὶ δέ γε καὶ τὸ κινέον ἐξ αἰῶνος Sext. Math. ix. 127: The Pytha-
εἰς αἰῶνα περιπολεῖ, τὸ δὲ κινεόμενον, goreans and Empedocles teach that
ὡς τὸ κινέον ἄγει, οὕτω διατίθεται, men are not only related to each
ἀνάγκα τὸ μὲν ἀεικίνατον (Chaignet, other and the gods, but also to the
ii. 81, proposes to substitute axi- animals, ἕν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν πνεῦμα
vatov for this word, but the im- τὸ διὰ παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου διῆκον
mobility of the κινέον is not to be ψυχῆς τρόπον, τὺ καὶ ἑνοῦν ἡμᾶς
proved by alleging that it ἐξ αἰῶνος πρὸς ἐκεῖνα" for this reason it is
περιπολεῖ), τὸ δὲ ἀειπαθὲς εἶμεν, καὶ wrong to kill and eat animals.
τὸ μὲν v@ καὶ ψυχᾶς ἀνάκωμα( )πᾶν, Stob. i. 453; Simpl. De Calo,
τὸ δὲ γενέσιος καὶ μεταβολᾶς. Alex. 229 a, 38 (Scho!l. in Arist. 505
Polyh. ap. Diog. viii. 25 sqq.: κόσ- a, 32): of δὲ γνησιώτερον αὐτῶν
μον ἔμψυχον, νοερὸν, σφαιροειδῆ... (τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν) μετασχόντες πῦρ
ἀνθρώποις εἶναι πρὸς θεοὺς συγγέ- μὲν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ λέγουσι τὴν δημιουρ-
νειαν κατὰ τὸ μετέχειν ἄνθρωπον γικὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐκ μέσου πᾶσαν
θερμοῦ, διὸ καὶ προνοεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν τὴν γῆν ζωογονοῦσαν καὶ τὸ ἀπεψυγ-
quay... διήκειν τ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μένον αὐτῆς ἀναθάλπουσαν" διὸ of
ἀκτῖνα διὰ τοῦ αἰθέρος τοῦ τε ψυχροῦ μὲν Ζανὸς πύργον αὐτὸ καλοῦσιν, ὡς
καὶ παχέος (air and water)... αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Πυθαγορικοῖς ἱστέρησεν.
ταύτην δὲ τὴν ἀκτῖνα Kal εἰς τὰ οἱ δὲ Διὸς φυλακὴν, ὡς ἐν τούτοις, οὗ
βένθη δύεσθαι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ζωοποιεῖν δὲ Διὸς θρόνον, ὧς ἄλλοι φασίν. Cod.
πάντα. . εἶναι δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν Coisl. Schol. 505 a, 9: διὸ καὶ πλεχ-
ἀπόσπασμα αἰθέρος καὶ τοῦ θερμοῦ θῆναι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ψυχὴν ἐκ
_ καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ. . ἀθάνατόν τ᾽ εἶναι μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανόν.
αὐτὴν, ἐπειδήπερ καὶ τὺ ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἀπέσ- 5 In regard to the fragment of
πατται ἀθάνατόν ἐστι. Cic. N. ἢ. Philolaus and the testimony of
i. 11, 27: Pythagoras, qui censuit, Alexander, it has already been
animum esse per naturam rerum shown (p. 393, 2; 399, 1) that they
omnem tntentum et commeantem, ex cannot be considered authentic. As
guo nostri animi carperentur, Cato, to the question before us, it must,
448 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Aristotle, in discussing the theories of the ancient

philosophers about the soul,! quotes from the Pytha-
goreans only the celebrated assertion that the particles
emanating from the sun are souls, and he infers from
hence, not without difficulty, that they regarded the
soul as the moving principle. Now it is very improbable
that Aristotle should have confined himself to this

apart from what is said in the text, ferent from that of the Pythago-
at once appear strange that the reans, which we shall discuss fur-
soul (in agreement with Plato and ther on, and the number four
Aristotle) should be relegated to applied to the element. Cicero
the periphery of the world, with- speaks in quite the same manner,
out mention being made of the and it is very possible that this |
central fire, with which the author writer, who did not hesitate to use
seems wholly unacquainted. It is the most recent and the most con-
equally strange that the soul and venient documents in his exposition
the θεῖον should be regarded as the of ancient systems, may have in
eternally moved and the eternally this instance referred to Alexander
moving (the Pythagoreans con- himself. The definition given in
sidered the θεῖα σώματα, or the Plutarch does not seem to belong e

to the ancient Pythagoreans. The

ὦ
constellations, but not the θεῖον in
the absolute sense of the word as ἡγεμονικὸν of Stobzeus is evidently
subject to movement. On the con- Stoic. Simplicius, and the writer
trary, they placed movement on the who reproduces his evidence, clearly
side of the Unlimited, cf. p. 402, 1 ; did not know how to distinguish
381,1). It is easy to see in this a the original dcetrines of Pythago-
reproduction of a passage in Plato reanism from the new. Nor can we
(Crat. 397 ¢), and of another in mistake the recent origin of a frag-
Aristotle (De An. 1, 2, vide infra, ment quoted by Clemens, Cohort. 47,
p- 458, 4), on Alemeeon, the result c: 6 μὲν θεὸς εἷς" χ᾽ οὗτος δὲ οὐχ, ὥς
of a misunderstanding. Nor can τινες ὑπονοοῦσιν, ἐκτὺς τᾶς διακοσ-
we fail to recognise the influence of μήσιος, GAN ἐν αὐτᾷ, ὅλος ἐν ὅλῳ
Platonic and Aristotelian ideas in τῷ κύκλῳ, ἐπίσκοπος πάσας γενέσιος,
the doctrine of the eternal moye- κρᾶσις τῶν ὅλων" Gel ὧν καὶ ἐργάτας
ment of the soul in a circle, and τῶν αὐτοῦ δυνάμιων καὶ ἔργων ἅπάν-
the language used to express that των, ἐν οὐρανῷ φωστὴρ καὶ πάντων
doctrine. In the exposition of πατὴρ, νοῦς καὶ ψύχωσις τῷ ὅλῳ a

Alexander, and in the short state- κύκλῳ (T@-w-w), πάντων κίνασις.

ment of Sextus, the Stoic element (The same in the recension of Po.
is equally apparent; witness the Justin, Part iii. b, 102, 1, 2 A.)
πνεῦμα διὰ παντὸς διῆκον, the con- The polemic of the Stoic Pantheism
ception of the human soul origi- against the Aristotelian Deism is
nating from the Divine soul by manifest here.
emanation, the cosmology, so dif- 1 De An.i. 2; vide inf. p.476, 2.
μὰ
ἮΨ

THE WORLD-SOUL., 449

assertion, if such important and fully-developed con-

ceptions as those we have quoted were known to him ;
and it is equally unlikely that conceptions of such
importance should have escaped the notice of anyone
so intimately acquainted as Aristotle. was with the
Pythagorean doctrine.’ We cannot therefore ascribe

1 The second hypothesis is evi- goreans from those who considered

dently impossible. The first loses - the soul as the ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως
any probability it might seem to (for example, the pseudo-Philolaus)
have, if we consider with what care when, after describing their ideas
and completeness Aristotle quotes on the soul (404 a, 20), he pro-
everything which his predecessors ceeds thus, 404 a, 20: ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ
have said on the subject of the soul. δὲ φέρονται καὶ ὅσοι λέγουσι τὴν
At the commencement, and at the ψυχὴν τὸ αὑτὺ κινοῦν, &e. He eould
end of the chapter, he expresses his not have expressed himself in such
intention of enumerating all pre- a manner if they had been the ear-
vious opinions: τὰς τῶν προτέρων hest precursors of Plato on this
’
δόξας συμπαραλαμβάνειν ὅσοι τι περὶ point; cf. Hermes, x. 190. The
αὐτῆς ἀπεφήναντο, and at the end: objections made by Chaignet and
τὰ μὲν οὖν παραδεδομένα περὶ ψυχῆς Rohr have no great weight. The
... ταῦτ᾽ ἐστίν. That which the former says (ii. 176): Since Aris-
pseudo-Philolaus asserts so de- totle concludes from the Pythago-
cidedly, namely, that the soul is rean conception of solar corpus-
the κινητικὸν, is precisely what eles that the soul is endowed with
Aristotle dares not attribute cate- motive force (404 a, 21, ἐοίκασι
gorically to the Pythagoreans (404 yap οὗτοι πάντες ὑπειληφέναι τὴν
a, 16: ἔοικε δὲ καὶ Td παρὰ τῶν κίνησιν οἰκειότατον εἶναι τῇ ψυχῇ),
Πυθαγορείων λεγόμενον τὴν αὐτὴν it necessarily follows from this
ἔχειν διάνοιαν). It would be very that he attributes to the Pythago-
surprising that the Pythagoreans reans a World-soul. Rohr speaks
should not be named among those in a similar manner (J. ¢., p. 21).
who regarded the soul as one of But the fact that Aristotle is here
the elements, if they had really making a simple deduction, of
said what Alexander Polyhistor, which he himself is not certain, is
Cicero, and others, attributed to enough to show the impossibility
them. The only thing that might of his having had in his possession
be objected is that Aristotle was so precise an explication as that of
speaking of the human soul, and our fragment. Chaignet (ii. 84) ap-
not of the soul of the world. But peals to the other fact that, accord-
this is not the ease. He speaks of ing to Aristotle (vide izfra, Alc-
the soul in general, and notably of meon), Alemzon also ascribes to
the soul of the world: the pre- the stars a soul eternally in motion.
tended Pythagoreans speak also of But Aristotle says nothing of the
the human soul. Now Aristotle kind. He merely affirms that, ac-
expressly distinguishes the Pytha- cording to Alcmzon, the θεῖα, the
VOL. 1. GG
450 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the doctrine of the world-soul to the Pythagoreans,

and even if they supposed that heat and vital force
flowed into the universe from the central fire, this
ancient materialistic notion is very different from the
theory of a world-soul conceived as a particular incor-
poreal essence.
Around the central fire, the earth, and between the
two, the counter-earth, revolve in such a manner, that
the earth always turns the same side to the counter-
earth and the central fire ; and for this reason, the rays
of the central fire do not come directly to us, but in-
τ
directly from the sun. V hen the earth is on the
same side of the central fire as the sun, we have day;
when it is on the other side, night.' Some accounts,

sky and the stars, are in perpetual τὸ μέσον τὴν ἀντίχθονα φέρεσθαί
movement, which does not at all φασι, γῆν οὖσαν καὶ αὐτὴν, ἀντίχθονα
imply that this philosopher reduced δὲ καλουμένην διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἐναντίας τῇδε
all movements toa unique spiritual τῇ γῇ εἶναι: μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα
principle. distinct from the body of ἣ γῆ ἧδε, φερομένη καὶ αὐτὴ περὶ τὸ
the world, and diffused throughout μέσον, μετὰ δὲ τὴν γῆν ἣ σελήνη
the universe. Lastly, Rohr (/. c.. (οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ πέρατι τῶν
p. 21) cites Plato’s Phedo, 86 B Πυθαγορικῶν ἱστορεῖ)" τὴν δὲ γῆν ὡς
sqq., to prove that the opinion ἐν τῶν ἄστρων οὖσαν κινουμένην περὶ
spoken of by Arist. De An. i. 4, τὸ μέσον κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον
and according to which the soul is σχέσιν νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν" ἣ δὲ
regarded as the harmony of the ἀντίχθων κινουμένη περὶ τὸ μέσον καὶ
body, belonged to the Pythago- ἑπομένη τῇ γῇ οὐχ δρᾶται tp ἡμῶν
reans. But I do not see how we διὰ τὸ ἐπιπροσθεῖν ἡμῖν ἀεὶ τὸ τῆς
ean infer from this that the Pytha- γῆς σῶμα. According to this pas-
goreans admitted a soul of the sage the side of the earth which
world (did Aristoxenus and Di- we inhabit is always turned away
eearchus admit one?). We shall from the central fire and the
presently see that we have no counter-earth. Plut. Plae. 111. 11,
right to attribute such a doctrine to 3 (Galen, c. 21): Φιλόλαος 6 Πυθα-
the Pythagorean school. γόρειος, τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον" τοῦτο γὰρ
1 Arist. De Celo, ii. 13; vide ἴεναι τοῦ παντὸς ἑστίαν. δευτέραν δὲ
supra, Ὁ. 444, 4; Simpl. in h. 1. τὴν ἀντίχθονα: τρίτην δὲ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν
299 a, 16 (Schol. 505 a, 19): of γῆν ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένην τε καὶ πε-
Πυθαγόρειο. ... ἐν μὲν τῷ μέσῳ ριφερυμένην τῇ ἀντίχθονι" παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ
τοῦ παντὺς πῦρ εἶναί φασι, περὶ δὲ μὴ Opacba ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇδε τοὺς ἐν.
=
ὙΠ

SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE. 451

it is true, reject the central fire and the motion of

ἐκείνῃ. Ibid. 13: of μὲν ἄλλοι μένειν should in reality be the position of
τὴν γῆν Φιλόλ. δὲ 6 Πυθαγ. κύκλῳ the counter-earth, but this interpre-
περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύ- tation seems to me mistaken. We
κλου λοξοῦ ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ may very well suppose, with Bockh,
σελήνῃ. Stob. i. 530 (similarly that this expression means that the
Plut. Place. ii. 20,7; Galen, 6. 14, Ὁ. earth turns its face from the central
275): Φιλόλαος 6 Πυθαγόρειος ta- fire, and turns it towards the exte-
λοειδῇ τὸν ἥλιον, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ rior circumference; and that the
ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, contrary holds good of the counter-
διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε Pas καὶ earth. If even we refer this expres-
τὴν ἀλέαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς sion simply to the situation of the
ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ counter-earth in regard to the earth,
πυρῶδες, καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς it simply implies that it is diametri-
κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές: εἰ μή τις καὶ cally opposite to the earth; that is
τρίτον λέξει τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνόπτρου to say, ison the prolongation of the
κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς earth’s axis (not on the side of it) ;
ἡμᾶς αὐγήν. Achill. Tat. in Ar. whether on this side or that of the
Prolegg. ¢. 19, p. 138 Pet.: Φιλό- central fire is left undetermined.
Aaos δὲ (τὸν ἥλιόν φησι) TO πυρῶδες The opinion of Béckh is confirmed,
καὶ διαυγὲς λαμβάνοντα ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ not only by the word ἑπομένην in
τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς πρὸς ἡμᾶς πέμπειν the text of Simplicius, but also by
τὴν αὐγὴν διά τινων ἀραιωμάτων, the whole analogy of the Pytha-
ὥστε κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τρισσὸν εἶναι τὸν gorean doctrine, according to which
ἥλιον. ete, (the sense is the same as the series of heavenly bodies was
in Stobeeus, but the text appears de- continued without interruption from
fective). In considering these state- the periphery as far «s the central
ments, the first question that pre- fire, and not terminated on the
sents 1561 is: How did the Pytha- other side of the central fire (cf.
a
goreans conceive the position of the Béckh, Kl. Schr. ii. 320 58α.,
counter-earth inregard to the earth where some other objections of
and the central fire ? From ‘he na- Schaarschmidt against the earlier
ture of these things in themselves, exposition of Béckh are refuted).
two courses seem open. They might As to the sun and the solar light,
have placed it either between the Achilles Tatius (as well as Stobzeus
earth and the central fire on the and the author from whom he takes
radius of the terrestrial orbit his information)? seems to admit
which goes from one to the other; that the solar light is the reflection
or they might have placed it on the of the fire of the circumference.
other side of the central fire, at the Béckh (Philol. 124 sq.) thinks
extremity of a line going from the that this opinion is erroneous, and
earth through the central fire, believes that the central fire is the
and prolonged as far as the orbit luminous souree, the rays of which
of the counter-earth. Schaarschmidt the sun reflects to us ; he afterwards
(Schrifst. d. Philol. 33) quotes the (Onters. ib. d. kosm. Syst. d. Pla-
ἐναντίαν, ἐξ ἐναντίας of Aristotle ton, 94) gave the preference to the
and Simplicius to prove that such, opinion of Martin (Eiudes sur le
according to the Pythagoreans, Timée, ii. 100), according to which
GG 2
453 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the earth, and make the counter-earth the moon,! or

the second hemisphere, of the earth.? But this is
an erroneous interpretation of the old Pythagorean
doctrine, from the standpoint of later astronomy. It
is impossible that these accounts can be based upon
any tradition as to the theories of the ancient Pytha-
goreans, or of Pythagoras himself. It is only among

the sun concentrates and reflects, αὐτὴν χρόνου ἡμερῶν γάρ ἐστιν αὕτη
not only the light of the central καὶ νυκτῶν aitia . . . ἀντίχθονα δὲ
fire, but also that of the external τὴν σελήνην ἐκάλουν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι,
fire. No doubt the διηθεῖν would ὥσπερ καὶ αἰθερίαν γῆν, ete. As
not exclude a reflection of the the doctrine here given as purely
central fire (as Bockh has suf- Pythagorean is expressly distin-
ficiently shown, Philol. 127 sq.), guished from the Aristotelian ex-
but, on the other hand, the reflec- position, we are all the more certain
tion of the triple sun (a doctrine as to the origin of the former. a
ae
it
i
which could not have come from Clemens (Strom. v. 614 C), even
Philolaus himself, ef. p. 316) is thinks that the Py :hagoreans meant
no proof that the solar light is de- by the counter-earth, heaven, in the
rived from the central fire, and not Christian sense of the word.
from the fire of the periphery. 2 Alex. Polyhistor. ap. Diog.
Only it would seem that if this viii. 25. The Pythagoreans taught
latter fire can enlighten the sun, κόσμον . . - μέσην περιέχοντα τὴν
it must also be visible tous. But γῆν καὶ αὐτὴν σφαιροειδῆ καὶ περι-
we shall see further on that οἰκουμένην. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἀντίποδας,
the Pythagoreans perhaps really καὶ τὰ ἡμῖν κάτω ἕἑκείνοις ἄνω.
thought they saw this fire in the Similarly the anonymous author,
milky way. This beliefaccords with ap. Phot. Cod. 249 (vide p. 444, 4)
the opinion (contained in all the pas- says that Pythagoras teaches the
sages quoted) that the rays of this existence of twelve spheres, which
fire, as well as those of the central are: the heaven of fixed stars, the
fire, are concentrated and sent back seven planetary spheres (including
by the sun, as by a sort of burning sun and moon), the circles of fire,
glass. It is not stated whether the of air, and of water, and in the
Pythagoreans supposed that the centre the earth. The other de-
other planets and fixed stars were tails clearly show Aristotelian
foci of the same kind, but less in- influence.
tense, for these rays. 3 As Martin thinks (Zt. sur le
1 Simpl. J. c. 229 a, 37; Schol. Timée, ii. 101 sqq.), and Gruppe
505 a, 32: Kal οὕτω μὲν αὐτὸς τὰ (D. Kosm, Syst. d. Griechen, p. 48
τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἀπεδέξατο: οἱ δὲ sq.). According to their view, Py-
γνησιώτερον οὐτῶν μετασχόντες, thagoras and the oldest Pythago-
ete. (vide sup. p. 447, 1) ἄστρον δὲ reans represented the earth as an
τὴν γῆν ἔλεγον ὡς ὄργανον καὶ immovable sphere in the centre of
 CENTRAL FIRE. COUNTER-EARTH. 453

the Pythagoreans of the fourth century that we find

the doctrine of the earth’s revolution on its axis,!
which presupposes that the counter-earth and the
central fire were abandoned as separate parts of the
universe. It matters little whether they were absolutely
suppressed, or the counter-earth regarded as the western
hemisphere, and the central fire placed in the interior

ἢ the universe. The do:trine of the Philosophen Gricchenlands, p. 448

central fire, and the revolution sq.; Bockh, De Plat. Syst. Cel.
around this fire, was subsequently Globor. p. xi. sq.; Kl. Sckhrif. iii.
advanced, Gruppe believes, by Hip- 272); Philol. 121 sq.; Martin,
pasus. or some other predecessor Etudes, ὅσα. 11. 92 sq.
of Philolaus, but at first without 1 According to Cic. Acad. ii.
the counter-earth; it was only a 39, 123, Theophrastus named as
corruption of this doctrine which the author of that opinion the Sy-
inserted the counter-earth between racusan Hicetas. Later on we find
the earth and the central fire. The it in Eephantus (Hippolyt. Re«fut.
groundlessness of these hypotheses, 1. 15, p. 30; Plut. Place. ii. 13, 3),
which Béckh has refuted (1. c. p. 89 and Heracleides (Part ii. a, 887,
sqq.) very effectually, is manifest third edition). Martin, d. 6. 101,
when we examme from a critical 125, and Gruppe, l. 6. 87 sqq.,
point of view the evidence on which think we may attribute also to
they are based. The doctrines which Hicetas the central fire and the
Gruppe takes for traces of true planetary movement of the eart!
Pythagoreanism are rather indica- around that fire. Cf. however
tions of a period which was unable Béckh, D. kosm. Syst. Pl. 122 sqq.
to place itself at the ancient Py- He shows that in the passage of
thagorean standpoint. Lastly, Plutarch, Plac. iii. 9 (where, in-
when Roth (ii. ἃ, 817 sq. b, 247 deed, Eusebius, Pr. Ev. xv. ἐδ,
54.) maintains that Pythagoras gives our actual text, but where
and his school understood, by the Pseudo-Galen. Hist.- Phil. 21, p.
eounter-earth, the hemisphere op- 293, does not mention the name
posite to ours; that they placed of Hicetas), an error has probably
the earth in the centre of the uni- crept in, by the omission of some
verse, and aseribed to it a move- words ; and that the original text
ment around its axis—this asser- may have stood thus: Ἱκέτης 6
tion is not worthy of a refutation. Πυθαγόρειος μίαν, Φιλόλαος δὲ
It is now universally recognised ὃ Πυθαγόρειος δύο, ete. Tradi-
that Copernicus and others were tion tells us nothing as to the date
wrong in attributing to the Pytha- when Hicetas lived; but Béckh’s
goreans the doctrine of the rotation conjecture (l. c. 126) that he was
of the earth on its axis, and the the teacher of LEcphantus and
revolution of the earth round the younger than Philolaus seems
sun. Vide Tiedemann (Dé ersten probable.
454 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

of the earth. To the same period may perhaps belong

the theory that the comet is a separate planet;! this
eighth planet might serve, when the counter-earth had
been discarded, to maintain the number ten in regard
to the heavenly bodies.” The conjecture may, however,
have emanated from those who were ignorant of the
system of the ten heavenly bodies and the counter-earth,
or rejected it. There is no doubt that the Pythagoreans
considered the shape of the earth to be spherical :* its
1 Arist. Meteorol. i. 6, 342 b, separated by a space more or less
29: τῶν δ᾽ Ἰταλικῶν tives καὶ great, turn their plane sides towards
καλουμένων Πυθαγυρείων ἕνα λέγου- each other. He has been led to
σιν αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν κομήτην) εἶναι this opinion merely by the presup-
τῶν πλανήτων ἀστέρων. A similar position (2, ὁ. 329 sq.) that the
opinion is saidto have been expres- Pythagoreans arrived at their doc-
sed by Hippocrates of Chios (cire. trine of the counter-earth by the
450), and his disciple, A’schylus. partition of the earth into two
Also Alex. im h. l. (Arist. Meteor hemispheres. He atterwards ad-
ed. Idel. i. 180); Plut. Place. iii. mits that Aristotle had no idea of
2, 1; Stob. Eel. i. 576. These such an opinion, but represents the
last added that others of the Py- earth and the counter-earth of the
thagoreans regarded the comet Pythagoreans as two complete
merely as a luminous reflection. spheres. But there is no ground
Olympiodorus (p. 188, Idel.) at all, in my judgment, for this
transfers to Pythagoras himself supposition of Bockh as to the
what Aristotle says of ‘some Py- origin of the Pythagorean doctrine.
thagoreans. The Scholiast ad If they once conceived the earth as
Arat. Diosem. 359 (ap. Idel. J. ὁ. a sphere, it was certainly more
Ῥ. 380 sq.), doubtless through natural—in case a tenth heavenly
an error, gives a general appli- body seemed necessary—to admit
eation to the text relative to the the counter-earth as a second
Pythagoreans, and counts Hippo- sphere than to divide the earth it-
eratus among the philosophers of self into two hemispheres. The
that school; and it is probably in analogy of the other stars also
this sense that he is called, ap. makes it probable that the earth
Alex. eis τῶν μαθηματικῶν. and the counter-earth were con-
2 The central fire might still ceived as spheres, as well as the
preserve its significance, even if it sun andmoon. Lastly, if Aristotle
were conceived as surrounded by has represented the matter thus,
the earth as by a hollow sphere. we can scarcely give the preference
3 Bockh (KI. Schr. ii. 335 sq.) to any other testimony. Alex. (ap.
thinks that the Pythagoreans con- Diog. vili. 25 sq.) says that the
eeived the earth and the counter- Pythagoreans regarded the earth
earth as two hemispheres which, as spherical, and inhabited in its
 SOLAR ECLIPSES. 455

position towards the central fire and the sun was such
that it should turn its western hemisphere to the central
fire! At the same time, they did not overlook the in-
clination of the earth’s orbit towards the sun’s ;? this
was necessary in their cosmical system, not merely to
explain the changes in the seasons, but because the
earth would otherwise have every day prevented the
light of the central fire from reaching the sun, by its
passage between them. Solar eclipses were accounted
for by the passing of the moon between the earth and
sun; and lunar eclipses by the interposition of the
earth or other heavenly bodies between the sun and
moon.? The Pythagoreans held the sun and moon to
circumference (which implies the (vide supra, p.254,3). According
idea of antipodes). Favorinus says to Theo (Astron. p. 322 Mart.
(ap. Diog. viii. 48) that Pythagoras end; Fragm. ed. Spengel, p. 140),
affirmed it to be round (στρογγύλη). Eudemus attributed it to Enopides
But neither of these assertions —if we may read in the fragment
should outweigh the evidence of λόξωσιν instead of διάζωσιν. The
Aristotle. assertion of the Placita, that Eu-
1 Gruppe, loc. cit., p. 65 sqq., demus had taken it from Pythago-
thinks that the earth presented to ras, would incline us to suppose
the sun the northern hemisphere, (as Schafer justly observes) that
and to the central fire the southern ; Eudemus had claimed it for him-
healsothinksthatthe Pythagoreans self (Schafer, Die Astron. Geogra-
regarded the side turned towards phie der Griechen §c., Gymn. progr.
the central fire as the upper. But Flensb. 1873, p. 17). In Diod. 1.
Bockh has completely refuted this 98, some Egyptian sages assert
hypothesis (D. kosm. Syst. Pl. that CEnopides had learned the in-
102 sqq; cf. Ki. Schr. iii. 329). clination of the ecliptic in Egypt,
2 Plut. Plac. ii. 13, 2 (Galen, which equally presupposes that he
e. 14, 21): Φιλόλαος. . . κύκλῳ must have been the first to intro-
περιφέρεσθαι [τὴν γῆν] περὶ τὸ πῦρ duce it into Greece. In that case
κατὰ κύκλου λοξοῦ. bid. τι. 12, 2 the Pythagoreans would have de-
(Stob. 1. 502; Galen, c. 12): Πυθα- rived it from him. According to
yopas πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται Proclus (in Eucl. 19, 66th Fragm.)
τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου, (Enopides was a little younger than
ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὃ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπί- Anaxagoras, and a little older than
νοιαν σφετερίζεται. Cf. c. 28, 6. Philolaus.
According to others, Anaximander ® On eclipses of the sun, vide
had already made this discovery Stob. i. 526; on those of the moon
4δ0 THE PYTHAGORLIANS.

be vitreous spheres,! which reflected back light and

warmth to the earth.? At the same time we are told
that they conceived the stars as resembling the earth,
and surrounded like the earth by an atmosphere ;?
vide Arist. De Celo, ii. 18, 293 b, therefore, consider the statement
21. He says, after speaking of the of Eusebius as erroneous.
counter-earth: ἐνίοις δὲ δοκεῖ καὶ 2 Whence came light and heat
πλείω σώματα τοιαῦτα ἐνδέχεσθαι to the sun and the moon? We
φέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ μέσον, ἡμῖν δὲ have already discussed this ques-
ἄδηλα διὰ τὴν ἐπιπρόσθησιν τῆς γῆ". tion in regard to the sun (p. 450, 1).
διὸ καὶ τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλείψεις As to the moon there can be no
πλείους ἢ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου γίγνεσθαί doubt that her light was supposed
φασιν: τῶν γὰρ φερομένων ἕκαστον to be derived, not directly from the
ἀντιφράττειν αὐτὴν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μόνυν central fire, but from the sun which,
τὴν γῆν. Similarly Stob, Eel. 1. in the time of Philolaus, had long
558 (Plae. ii. 29, 4; Galen, 6. 16). been regarded as the source of the
Schiifer thinks he has discovered moon’s light. For if the moon
the reason of this opinion (J. ὁ. p. had received her light from the
19), independently of the greater central fire, she must always have
number of lunar eelipses, in the been enlightened, since she pre-
phenomenon mentioned by Pliny, sents the same side to the cen-
H. Nat. ii. 18, 57, and the date of tral fire as to the earth. Aris-
which we do not know. Pliny totle mentions also (vide supra,
says that the moon was in eclipse 455, 3) the opinion (incompatible
at her setting, while the rising sun with the assertion of Philolaus of
was already visible above the ho- ten heavenly bodies) that other
rizon, a phenomenon explicable by bodies besides the earth cause
refraction. We find the same eclipses of the moon. We cannot
opinion in Anaxagoras, vide infra, perceive in this, as Béckh does
vol. IT. (Philol. 128) and Martin (Etudes,
1 Vide p. 450, 1, and Plut. Plae. 99), an interposition of these small
ii. 25, 7 (Stob. i. 552): Πυθαγόρας planets between the central fire
κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα τῆς σελήνης. and the moon, but the interposition
(Similarly Galen, c. 15.) As re- of these planets between the sun
gards the form of the sun, the and the moon. Why the moon is
Flacita (ap. Kuseb. Pr. Hu. xv. 23, not enlightened by the central fire,
7) describe it as a vitreous dise or is enlightened too faintly to be |
(δίσκος); but this deseription is visible to us without the hght of |
not found in any other text, and the sun, is not explained by any
expressly contradicts what is said document that we possess. >
νὰ

in Stob. 1. 526: of Πυθ. σφωιροειδῆ 3 Stob. i. 514: “Ἡρακλείδης καὶ

τὸν ἥλιον. Moreover, the Pytha- of Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων
goreans must have attributed to κόσμον ὑπάρχειν γῆν περιέχοντα
the sun the same shape as to the ἀέρα τε (Plut. Plac. ii. 13, 8;
moon, the spherical form of which Galen, ο. 13, add: καὶ αἰθέρα) ἐν τῷ
is never disputed. We must, ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι" ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δόγματᾳ
 THE STARS. 457

they attributed to the moon, plants and living beings

far larger and fairer than those on the earth.’ This
theory was founded, it would seem, partly on the ap-
pearance of the moon’s disc, which resembles the
earth ; and partly on the desire to discover a special
abode for the souls who had quitted the earth, and for
the dzmons.? Also they thought that the stars, which
like the earth were planets, but which belonged to a
better portion of the universe, must possess everything
that serves to adorn the earth, in a more perfect
manner. Of the planets, the order of which the
Pythagoreans were the first to determine,*? Mercury
and Venus, the two which later astronomy places be
tween the sun and the earth, were placed by them
between the sun and Mars.* Pythagoras is said to
ἐν τοῖς ᾿Ορφικοῖς φέρεται. κοσμο- pression may be inexact, and the
ποιοῦσι γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων. author means to say that the dura-
1 Plut. Ρίαο. ii. 30, 1 (Galen, tion of the day light is equal to
6. 15): of Πυθαγόρειοι (Stob. 1. 562 : 15 complete terrestrial days. In
τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς, ὧν ἐστι any case, however (as we have ob-
ΦιλόλαοΞ) γεώδη φαίνεσθαι τὴν σε- served p. 317), the inaccuracy of
λήνην διὰ τὸ περιοικεῖσθαι αὐτὴν our document proves nothing
καθάπερ τὴν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν γῆν, μείζοσι against the authenticity of the
ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς καλλίοσιν" εἶναι yap work of Philolaus.
πεντεκαιδεκαπλασίονα τὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς 2 The first remark is to be
ζᾶα τῇ δυνάμει μηδὲν περιττωματικὸν found in the passage quoted in the
ἀποκρίνοντα καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν τοσαύτην previous note; the second notion
τῷ μήκει. Bockh (131 sq.) suspects comes from the Orphic poems, and
with reason some error in the last the saying ascribed to Pythagoras
statement. For if one terrestriai by Iambl. V. P. 82: τί ἐστιν ai
day corresponds with one revolu- μακάρων νῆσοι ; ἥλιος, σελήνη.
tion of the earth around the central 3 Eudemus, ap. Simpl. De Οοἰο,
fire, the moon, whose period of 212 a, 13; Schol. 497 a, 11.
revolution is 29 times and a half * Cf. on this subject, besides
greater, ought to have days as Jong the texts cited p. 444, 4; 420, 2,
as a terrestrial month—that is, in Plato, Rep. x. 616 E; Tim. 28 D;
round numbers, 30 terrestrial days. Theo Astron. 6. 15, p. 180. Against
The size and strength of the in- these testimonies we have the fol-
habitants correspond to the length lowing: Nicom. Harm. 6, 33 sq.;
of the day. But perhaps the ex- Plin, Hist. Nat. ii. 22, 84 ;Censorin,
458 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

have discovered that Venus is both the morning and the

evening star.! The heaven of fixed stars, in common
with the other heavenly bodies, revolves around the
central fire ;2 but as its apparent diurnal revolution is
interrupted by,the movement of the earth, the Pytha-
goreans must have here conceived a far longer period
of revolution, imperceptible in relation to the daily
revolution of the earth: they seem however to have
been led to this theory not by actual observations, but
merely by dogmatic presuppositions on the nature of
the stars.2 They reckoned motion among the essential
qualities of the heavenly bodies, and in the unchange-
able regularity of their courses found the most obvious
proof of the divinity of the stars, in which they believed,
like most of the ancients.‘ According to the period of
revolution attributed to the fixed stars, they seem to
have determined the universal year,—a conception
Di. Nat. 18, 3; Chaleid. in Tim. e. the evidence quoted p. 444, 4. Vide
71, p. 155 (197 Mull.), and other Bockh;D.Kosm. Syst. Pl. p. 99 sq.
statements of more recent origin, (as against Gruppe, 1. 6. 70 sqq.).
which follow the order that was 3 The precession of the equi-
afterwards adopted. But these noxes, of which Béckh is thinking
texts have as little authority as the (loc. cit. p. 93, 99 sqq.; Philol. 118
verses of Alexander of Ephesus sq.), was only discovered at a much
(contemporary of Cicero, as to whom later time by Hipparchus, as we
ef. Martin, in his edition of Theo's find from other sources.
Astronomy, p. 66 sq.; Meineke, 4 Vide (besides Neo-Pythago-
Anal. Alex. 371 sq.; Muller, Hist. rean writers, such as Onatas, ap.
Gr. iii. 240); ap. Theo, loc. cit. Stob. i. 96, 100; Ocellus, 6. 2, and
(where they are wrongly attributed the Pseudo-Philolaus, ap. Stob. 1.
to Alexander the A%tolian); Chal- 422). Plato, who, especially in the
eid. loc. cit. (who attributes them Phedrus, 246 E sqq. (Bockh proves
to Alexander of Miletus, the well- this, Phi/ol. 105 sq. and most wri-
known Polyhistor); Heraclit. Ad/eg: ters have agreed with him), kas in-
Hom. ec. 12. Alexander does not contestably followed. Pythagcrean
once mention the Pythagoreans. ideas; and Aristotle, De An. i. 2,
1 Diog, vil. 14; cf. ix. 23; 405 a, 29; cf. 455, 1, 3, 4; vide
Plin. ii. 8, 37. also supra, p. 444, 4.
2 This certainly results from
 THE STARS. 459

which Plato no doubt borrowed from them.' At any

rate it is closely connected in the Platonic philosophy
with the doctrine of metempsychosis, in which he chiefly
followed the Pythagoreans, and is also dominated by the
number ten, in a manner so entirely Pythagorean, that
the supposition has much in its favour.?
1 Vide part IT. a 684, 4. Bockh, p. 135); that the 29 and
2 We must, however, distinguish a half days of the lunar month give
from this cosmical year the cycle of 59 half days—.e., the same number
59 years, in which were 21 inter- as the 59 years of the cycle; that
calary months—that is to say, the the 59 years and 21 months are
great year invented by Philolaus, or equal to 729 months; and the
eyen as some say, by Pythagoras, 3643 days of the solar year are
in order to make the solar and equal to 729 half days; lastly that
lunar months coincide. Plut. Place. 729 is the cube of 9 and the square
ii. 32; Stob. i. 264; Censorin. Di. of 27, or the first cube of an uneven
Nat. 18,8; vide for further details, number (henee the number 729 has
Béckh, Philol. 133 sqq. The re- for Plato also—Rep. ix. 587 E—-
volution of Saturn was also called an especial significance). However
the great year; Fhot. Cod. 249, p. this may be, 1 am disposed to think
440 a, 20. According to Censo- (as Bockh does) that itis mure hkely
rinus, Joc. cit., and 19, 2, Philolaus that some Pythagorean of the fifth
reckoned the duration of the solar century, whether trom his imperfect
year at 364 days and a half. knowledge or other causes, may
Bockh thinks this incredible, be- have reckoned the year at 3645
cause the year of 365 days had days, than that a well-informed
then long been known in Egypt, writer of the first or second century
and he gives an explanation of the B.c., a time when the year of 365
passage in Ceusorinus, which cer- days had beeome quite usual, should
tainly does not remove all difficul- from ignorance have shortened this
ties. Schaarschmidt, p. 57, natu- period by halfa day. This seems
rally sees nothing in this theory to me so wholly improbable that if
but a proof of ignorance in the there were no means of connecting
Psendo-Philolaus. It seems to me this computation of 3643 days with
by no means established that the Philolaus (which Ido not admit),
Egyptian year was known to I should be content with the fol-
Philolaus, and still less, that he lowing conjecture. Censorinus, or
-had such decisive reasons for main- the author whom he follows, must
taining the Egyptian reckoning have arrived at these 364} days
that no considerations could have in- by a calculation founded on state-
duced him to deviate from it. Such ments relative to the great year
considerations might be found by a of Philolaus. These statements
Pythagorean, who placed numbers may have been altered through the
and characteristic numerical paral- fault of a copyist or in some other
lelisms above all things, in this (cf. way; and Philolaus, in reality,
400 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Compared with the ordinary notions of the ancients,

this theory shows a remarkable progress in astronomy.
For while they, presupposing that the earth was at rest,
derived the changes of day and night and the seasons
exclusively from the sun, an attempt was here first
made to explain day and night, at any rate, by the
motion of the earth; and though the true explanation,
the revolution of the earth on its axis, was not as yet
discovered, yet the Pythagorean doctrine in its imme-
diate astronomical result direetly led up to this, and
as soon as the phantastic ideas, which alone resulted
from the speculative presuppositions of Pythagoreanism,
had been given up, the counter-earth as western hemi-
sphere necessarily merged into the earth; the central
fire was transferred to the earth’s centre, and the move-
ment of the earth around the central fire was changed
into a revolution on its own axis.!
The famous harmony of the spheres was a conse-
quence of the movement of the heavenly bodies. For
as every quickly moved body preduces a tone, the
Pythagoreans believed it must be the same with the
heavenly bodies. They supposed the acuteness of these
tones to be according to the rapidity of motion, and
this again to be in proportion to the distance of the
several planets, the intervals of the planets corresponded
with the intervals of sounds in the octave. Thus they
arrived at the theory that the heavenly bodies in their
may have made 59 solar years moon, we get for the year 365
equal to 59 lunar years, plus 22 days, as exactly as we get 3644, if
months (instead of 21), and, there- we make 59 years equal to 729
fore to 730 revolutions of the months.
moon; in which case, if we take 1 As Bockh well observes,
293 days for the revolution of the Philol. 128.
 HARMONY OF THE SPHERES. 461

rotation produce a series of tones,’ which together form

an octave, or, which is the same thing, a harmony.” The

1 Arist. De Cele, ii. 9, sub find other proofs which, however,

init.: φανερὸν δ᾽ ἐκ τούτων, ὅτι καὶ are hardly necessary, after this
τὸ φάναι γίνεσθαι φερομένων [τῶν detailed explanation from our
ἄστρων] apuovlay, ὡς συμφώνων principal authority.
γινομένων τῶν ψόφων, κομψῶς μὲν ? It has already been observed
εἴρηται καὶ περιττῶς ὑπὸ τῶν εἶπόν- (p. 388,1, 2) that the Pythagoreans
των, οὐ μὴν οὕτως ἔχει τἀληθές. primarily understand by harmony
δοκεῖ γάρ τισιν, and farther on, the octave. It is also the octave
more precisely : τοὺς Πυθαγορείους which is in question in the har-
ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, τηλικούτων φερομέ- mony of the spheres In the first
νων σωμάτων γίγνεσθαι ψόφον, ἐπεὶ place the name itself indicates this,
καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν οὔτε τοὺς ὄγκους and in the second the comparison
ἐχόντων ἴσους οὔτε τοιούτῳ τάχει of the planets with the seven
φερομένων᾽ ἡλίου δὲ καὶ σελήνης, ἔτι strings of the ancient lyre was too
τε τοσούτων τὸ πλῆθοΞ5 ἄστρων καὶ obvious to be overlooked by the
τὸ μέγεθος φερομένων τῷ τάχει Pythagoreans. It is also clear,
τοιαύτην φορὸν, ἀδύνατον μὴ γίγνε- from the evidence of the an-
σθαι ψόφον ἀμήχανόν τινα τὸ cients. Inthe passage just quoted
μέγεθος. ὑποθέμενοι δὲ ταῦτα καὶ from Aristotle, the words λόγοι τῶν
τὰς ταχυτῆτας ἐκ τῶν ἀποστάσεων συμφωνιῶν can scarcely mean any-
ἔχειν τοὺς τῶν συμφωνιῶν λόγους, thing else than the relations of the
ἐναρμόνιόν φασι γίνεσθαι τὴν φωνὴν octave; for, according to Aristox-
φερομένων κύκλῳ τῶν ἄστρων. Or, enus the Peripatetic (iil. 45) of
according to the commentary of the eight symphonies of which the
Alexander (Ad Metaph. i. 4, p. later theory treats (Aristox. Harm.
29, 6 Bon. 542 a, 5: οἵ 31 1. 20; Euclid. Introd. Harm. p. 12
Bon. 542 Ὁ, 7): τῶν yap σωμάτων sq.; Gaudentius, Jsag. p. 12), the
τῶν περὶ τὸ μέσον φερομένων ἐν harmonists before his time only
ἀναλογίᾳ τὰς ἀποστάσεις ἐχόντων employed the first three, called the
. . ποιούντων δὲ καὶ ψόφον ἐν τῷ Diatessaron, Diapente, and Diapa-
κινεῖσθαι τῶν μὲν βραδυτέρων βαρὺν, son (fourth, fifth, octaye). Simi-
τῶν δὲ ταχυτέρων ὀξὺν, τοὺς ψόφους larly in the verses of Alexan-
τούτους κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἀποστάσεων der of Ephesus (mentioned supra,
ἀναλογίαν γινομένους ἐναρμόνιον τὸν p. 457, 4), despite the musical
ἐξ αὑτῶν ἦχον ποιεῖν. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἄλογον errors in the further development
ἐδόκει τὸ μὴ συνακούειν ἡμᾶς τῆς of the thought, which Martin
φωνῆς ταύτης, αἴτιον τούτου φασὶν (Theo, Astron. 358 sq.) exposes,
εἶναι τὸ γενομένοις εὐθὺς ὑπάρχειν following Adrastus and Theo, the
τὸν ψόφον, ὥστε μὴ διάδηλον εἶναι tones of the seven planets and
πρὸς τὴν ἐναντίαν σιγήν" πρὸς ἄλλη- their intervals correspond with
λα γὰρ φωνῆς καὶ σιγῆς εἶναι τὴν those of the seven-stringed lyre.
διάγνωσιν, ὥστε καθάπερ τοῖς χαλ- Moreover, Nicomachus (Harm. 6, 33
κοτύποις διὰ συνήθειαν οὐθὲν» δοκεῖ sq.), followed by Boethius (Mus. i.
διαφέρειν, καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώτοις ταὐτὸ 20, 27), says expressly that the
συμβαίνειν. We shall presently seyen planets correspond exactly
402 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

fact that we do not hear these tones, they explained by

saying that we are in the condition of people who live
in their distances and their tones highest sound, and the lowest to
with the strings of the heptachord. the moon. In Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii.
In contrast with the ancient system 22, 84, Pythagoras determines, ac-
(vide p. 457, 4) he places the sun in cording to the same system, the
the centre; of the seven strings, distance of celestial bodies. The
the lowest, having at the same time distance of the moon from the earth
the highest tone (νη τη), corresponds (reckoned by Pythagoras at 126,000
with the moon; the highest, but stadia according to c. 21), being
having the gravest tone (ὑπάτη), taken as equivalent to one tone,
corresponds with Saturn. But Ni- that between the sun and moon is
eomachus does not forget to re- placed at 23 tones, and that be-
mark that his predecessors made tween the heaven of fixed stars
the moon ὕὑπάτη (Alex. Ephes. J. 6. and the sun at 34: za septem tonos
says carelessly the Farth), and effict quam diapason harmoniam
thence ascended to Saturn the vocant. No doubt this last is a
νήτη; this is admitted by Alex. misunderstanding; but a misun-
Aphr. among others (vide preceding derstanding that might easily arise,
note). From the same ancient if we reflect that the earth, be-
source, as it appears, Aristides ing immovable, could not produce
Quint. Mus. iii. 145, derives his any sound; that consequently the
explanation, τὸ διὰ πασῶν τὴν τῶν real distance of the sonorous bodies
πλανητῶν ἐμμελῇ κίνησιν [προσση- answers exactly to that of the
μαίνει], and it is likewise from chords; for, from the moon to the
ancient sources that Emmanuel sun is a fourth (the sun only takes
Bryennius, Harm. (Oxon. 1699), this place in the new theory), from
Sect. i. 363, explains more particu- the sun to the heaven of fixed stars
larly which of the planets corre- a fifth, and the eight sounds united
sponds with each of the seven form an octave of six tones. The
strings as to tone, assigning the other calculation (according to
lowest tone to the moon, the high- Plut. De An. Procr.31, 9, 102, 8 sq.,
est to Saturn, the μέση to the sun. and Censorin. Di. Nat. ἃ. 13), which
Cicero, or an ancient author whom reckons from the earth (placed as the
he takes as guide ( Somn. δ. 5), is προσλαμβανόμενος one tone lower
manifestly thinking of the hepta- than the ὑπάτη) to the sun three
chord and of the octave when he tones and a half, and from thence
says of the eight celestial bodies to the heaven of fixed stars, 25—
endowed with motion, that two of gives, it is true, the correct number
them, Mercury and Venus, have the of tones—six; but it omits the
same tone; there are consequently muteness of the earth (for we have
in all, seven different sounds: quod nothing to do here with the theory
docti homines nervis imitati atque of Philolaus of the movement of
cantibus aperuere sihi reditum in the earth), and it does not agree
hunc locum. Only he makes the with the division of the octachord
heaven of fixed stars take part in which requires a fifth, from the
the music; to them he ascribes the μέση to the νήτη. These authors,
τ᾿

HARMONY OF THE SPHERES. 463

in a smith’s forge ; from our births we are unceasingly

hearing the same sound, and so are never in a position
to take note of its existence from the contrast of silence.!
like Cicero and Pliny, make the development of the harmonic sys-
fixed heaven, the ἀπλανές, partici- tem and the augmentation of the
pate in the celestial music. On the number of chords which they pre-
other hand, at the commencement suppose, are of a later date. Ac-
of the chapter, Censorinus restricts cording to an opinion ascribed to
it to the seven planets, which is Pythagoreans by Plutarch (/. ¢. 31),
correct. The contradiction of this each of the ten celestial bodies,
with what he elsewhere says, is animated by movement, is sepa-
another proof that he is following rated from the body below it’ by a
an ancient source, the meaning of distance three times as great as
which he does not fully compre- the distance separating this from
hend. According to Martin (Etudes the next lowest. This opinion has
sur le Timée, ii. 37), the sounds of nothing to do with the calculation
the octave, being produced simul- of tones in the spheral harmony,
taneously, do not form a symphony. and the same remark applies to
But the Pythagoreans did not allow what Plato says (Rep. x. 616 C
their imaginations to be fettered, sqq.; Zim. 36 D, 38 C sqq.) of the
either by this difficulty or by others distances and velocity ofthe planets,
we have mentioned, and which are though harmony is mentioned in
for the most part examined by Aris- the first of these passages. Among
totle. Macrob. Somn. Scip. ii. 1, sub moderns, cf. on this question, first
fin., reckons the extent of the celes- the classical essay of Béckh in the
tial symphony at four octaves, anda Studien v. Daub und Creuzer, iii.
fifth (departing from the system of 87 sqq. (now KI. Schr. iii. 169 sq.),
harmonic numbers in the Timeus, where the correspondence of the
ii. 37 by one tone only, vide part IT. celestial harmony with the dis-
a, 653 sq.). Anatolius, ap. Iambli- tances of the heptachord is also
chum, Theol. Arithm. 56, distribu- explained in regard to the ancient
ting after his manner the tones system ; and lastly, Martin, Etudes,
among the celestial bodies, makes il. 37 sqq.
it two octaves and a tone. Plu- 1 This is the opinion of Aris-
tarch, J. 6. ο. 32, quotes an opinion totle and Heracleitus, Alleqg. Hom.
afterwards contested by Ptolemy e. 12, p. 24 Mehl. The latter
(Harm. iii. 16), according to which adds, as a possible reason, the great
the sounds of the seven planets distance of the heavenly bodies.
answer to those of the seven inva- Simplicius, it istrue, De Celo, 211,
riable chords ir the lyre of fifteen a, 14; Schol. 496 b,11 sqq. thinks
strings; then he quotes another this too ordinary a reason to be
opinion, according to which the held by a school, the founder of
distances of the planets would be whieh had himself heard the har-
analogous to the five tetrachords of mony of the spheres, and gives
the complete system. These ideas this sublimer reason (also indicated
cannot possibly have belonged to by Cicero, Somn. ec. 5, together
the ancient Pythagoreans, for the with that of Aristotle) that the
404 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

This notion of the spheral harmony had no connection

originally with the system of the ten heavenly bodies,!
but related only to the planets; for ten tones would
have resulted from the motion of ten bodies; whereas
seven sounds are required for harmony, according to
the ancient harmonic system which is based on the
heptachord; and eight, if the octachord be adopted.
Now one or other of these numbers is always assigned
to the harmony of the spheres by all who discuss
it particularly? The number must originally have
been seven; for down to the time of Philolaus, the
Pythagorean theory recognises only the seven notes
of the heptachord.3 The testimony of Aristotle’ does
not contradict this. It is possible, in the first place,
that he had Plato or certain Platonists in his mind as
music of the heavenly bodies is not fers the celestial harmony to the
perceptible to the ears of ordinary heaven of fixed stars and to the
mortals. Porphyry expresses this planets; Hippol. Refut. i. 2, p. 8,
idea ina physical manner (7 Pol. who refers it solely to the planets.
Harm. p. 257) when he says that Censorin. Di. Nat. c. 13: (Pythagq.)
our ears are too narrow to perceive hunc omnem mundum enarmonion
these powerful sounds. Archytas esse ostendit. Quare Dorylaus
seems to have anticipated him in scripsit esse mundum organum
this, vide the fragment quoted in Dei: alii addiderunt, esse id ἑπτά-
Porph. 1. 6. and supra, p. 306 sq. xopdov, guia septem sint vagae
Δ Perhaps it is for this reason atellae, quae plurimum moveantur.
that Philolaus does not mention it 3 As Bockh shows, Philol. 70
(so far, at least, as we can discover sq., appealing to the passage of
from the fragments that remain of Philolaus quoted p. 385, 2. Arist.
him). What Porph. V. Pyth. 31, Probl. xix. 7; Plut. Mus. 19; Ni-
placing himself at the point of com. Harm.i. 17, ii. 27 ; ef. Boeth.
view of the geocentric system, says Mus. i. 20. The assertion of
of the nine sonorous celestial Bryennius, Harm. sect. i. p. 365,
bodies, called by Pythagoras the that Pythagoras was the discoverer
nine muses, betrays a recent ori- of the octachord cannot here be
gin, if only by the un-Pythagorean considered,
interpretation of the ἀντίχθων. 4 Who, it is true, must be also
2 Of. on this subject (besides thinking of the fixed stars when
what has been cited. p. 461, 2), he uses the expression τοσούτων τὸ
Plato Rep. x. 616 sq., who re- πλῆθος ἄστρων. :
 FIRE OF THE PERIPHERY. 465

well as the Pythagoreans; and it is a question, in the

second place, whether, supposing him to mean the
Pythagoreans only, he simply reproduces their theory
without any admixture of his own presuppositions.
But the theory of the spheral harmony, though it
primarily related to the planets alone, was based on
a universal thought, the very thought that Aristotle
attributes to the Pythagoreans (Metaph. 1, 5), viz.,
that the whole universe is a harmony. This thought
directly resulted, as we have seen, from the perception
or presentiment of a regular order in the distances and
movements of the heavenly bodies: what the eye sees
in observing the stars, that the ear hears in the concord
of tones.! Engrossed with symbols, and little con-
cerned with the precise discrimination of concepts, the
Pythagoreans identified harmony with the octave;
after this it was easy for them to regard the celestial
harmony also as an octave, and the seven planets as
the golden strings of the heavenly heptachord. This
poetical thought doubtless came first; the intellectual
arguments which, according to Aristotle, were brought
forward to justify it are certainly posterior.
The chief function of the fire of the cireumference,
in the Pythagorean theory, was to hold the cosmos
together as a covering embracing the whole, and on
this account they seem to have called it necessity.? It
} Plato, Rep. vii. 430 Ὁ: xw- Harm. p. 236 (Fragm. Philos. i.
duvever, ἔφην, ws πρὸς ἀστρονομίαν 564): περί τε δὴ Tas τῶν ἄττρων
ὄμματα πέπηγεν, &s πρὸς ἐναρμόνιον ταχυτᾶτος Kal ἐπιτολᾶν καὶ δύσιων
φορὰν ὦτα πεπηγέναι, καὶ αὗται παρέδωκαν ἁμῖν διάγνωσιν, καὶ περὶ
ἀλλήλων ἀδελφαί τινες αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι γαμετρίας καὶ ἀριθμῶν καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα
εἶναι, ὡς οἵ τε Πυθαγόρειοί φασι καὶ περὶ μουσικῆς" ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ μαθή-
ἡμεῖς, ὦ Γλαύκων, συγχωροῦμεν. Cf. para δοκοῦντι εἶμεν ἀδελφεά.
Archytas ap. cph. ia Δἰοίσηι. 2 This appears to me to result
VOL. I. HH
466 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

is not improbable also that they derived the light of

the stars from it, and in a certain degree that of the
sun;! there are reasons too for supposing that they
believed that this fire, or a radiation from it, was seen
in the milky way.’ Beyond the circle of fire lay the
from the mutilated passage ap. buch f. wissensch. Krit. 1828, 2,
Plut. Plac. i. 25, 2 (Stob. 1. 158 ; 379) regards ᾿Ανάγκη as synony-
Galen. c. 10, p. 261; Theod. Cur. mous with harmony. Butaltbough
Gr. Aff. vi. 18, p. 87): Πυθαγόρας Diog. says (vill. 85) that, according
ἀνάγκην ἔφη περικεῖσθαι τῷ κόσμῳ. to Philolaus all things take place
Ritter (Pyth. Phil. 183) finds in ἀνάγκῃ Kal ἁρμονίᾳ, we must not
this passage the thought that the conclude from this that Philolaus-
Unlimited in embracing the world identified necessity with harmony ;
transforms it to something limited, for it could not be said of harmony
and subjects it to natural neces- that: it envelopes the world.
sity. But according to the Pytha- 1 Vide p. 450, 1.
gorean doctrine, the Unlimited 2 This conjecture, which we
cannot be conceived as that which already find in Béckh (Philol. 99),
embraces or limits; περαῖνον and is founded upon the intimation
ἄπειρον are diametrically opposed which he also gives (Kl. Schr, iii.
to each other. Similarly, the 297 sq.) that Plato, in speaking of
ἀνάγκη, by which Plato in the the light which envelopes the
Timeus certainly means natural world (Rep. x. 616 B sq.), as the
necessity as distinguished from ὑποζώματα of a ship, in all proba-
the divine activity working to an bility is thinking of the milky way.
end, cannot have had this significa- Of this light it is said that in its
tion with the Pythagoreans ; for bosom the circles of heaven unite
the idea of this opposition is, as —and it is from these circles that
we have seen (supra, p. 397), alien the spindle of ᾿Ανάγκη proceeds,
to them. Necessity seems rather that spindle which (617 B) turns
to mean, with them, the bond of upon the knees of ᾿Ανάγκη. If we
the universe ; and when they say combine these passages with those
that it embraces the world, we quoted in the preceding note, it
think most naturally of the fire of seems probable that the fire of the
the periphery. Plato seems to periphery, which, as the bond of
confirm this view when (ep. x. the world, was called ᾿Ανάγκη, is
617 B), inspired. with the Pytha- the same as the milky way. With
gorean spirit, he makes the spin- this passage of Plato we may also
dle with the circles of the cosmos connect the statement ap. Stob. Eel.
turn upon the knees of ᾿Ανάγκη, 1. 256: of ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου τὸν κόσμον
which consequently here embraces σφαῖραν... μόνον δὲ τὸ ἀνώτατον γ
all the spheres alike. Jn the same πῦρ κωνοειδές. According to Béckh, ti
manner Iambl. writes (7h. Arithm. Plato compares this light to a δ
" ὦ

column, because the vertical cone

ja

Ῥ. 61): τὴν ᾿Ανάγκην οἱ θεολόγοι TH a

©
τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ. ἐξωτάτῃ ἄντυγι of the milky way would appear so x 2

(circle) ἐπηχοῦσι. Wendt. (Jahr- if seen from some particular point δι

 ο΄ [HE UNLIMITED. 407

Unlimited, or the unlimited air (πνεῦμα): from which

the universe draws its breath.! That there must be
outside the world. It is a ques- ἑκάστων τὰς χώρας ἀεί. Plut. Place.
tion, however, whether the Pytha- li. 9 (Galen. 6. 11): οὗ μὲν ἀπὸ
goreans did not rather believe that Πυθαγόρου. ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου
the fire of the periphery flamed up κενὸν (cf. next note), εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖ
from the northern summit of the 6 κόσμος καὶ ἐξ ov. But, for the
milky way, in a great column rest- reason already given, p- 465, 2, we
ing on a wide base and terminating ought not to identify this Unli-
ina point, and whether this opinion mited with the fire of the peri-
did not influence the exposition of phery, for it is nowhere described
Plato. I-cannot agree with the as being fiery, but as the boundless
alterations in the text proposed by air (Arist. supra, p. 414. 2), from
Krohn (D. Platon. Staat, p. 282 which the world inhales its πνοή.
sq.). This doctrine of the fire of It is true that the passage in Sim-
the periphery, or at least of its plicius, which will presently be
identity with the milky,way, seems cited, makes the heaven of fixed
to have been contined to a part of stars to be immediately bounded
the school. For in what concerns by the ἄπειρον ; but it is a question
the milky way, Aristotle, although whether Archytas understood by
the fire of the periphery was not ἔσχατον the heaven of fixed stars,
unknown to him (vide De Calo, ii. and not the outermost circle of fire.
13; the words τὸ δ᾽ ἔσχατον καὶ For the words ἤγουν τῷ ἄπλανεῖ
τὸ μέσον πέρας. cited p. 444, 4, οὐρανῷ are certainly a gloss of the
evidently relate to this fire). quotes historian; a Pythagorean would
(Metercol. i. 8) from the Pythago- not have ealled the external part
rean school (τῶν καλουμένων Πυθα- of the world οὐρανός. Roth thinks
γορείων τινὲς) the opinion that the (ii. a, 831 sq.; b, 255) that by the
milky way is the trace or course of ameipov placed outside the world
one of the stars that fell in the we should understand the primitive
catastrophe of Phaeton; or else a divinity as the infinite spirit. But
course once traversed by the sun, this opinion is evidently erroneous,
but now abandoned. This opinion together with all that depends upon
is also found in Olymp. and Philo- it—for the ἄπειρον as compared
ponus ad h. 1. (i. 198, 203, Id.), with the Limited is, from the Py-
and in Stob. Hel. 1.574 (Plut. Place. thagorean point of view, something
iii. 1, 2), without any other indica- evil and imperfect ;the ἀνόητον καὶ
tion of its source. Such opinions ἄλογον (Philol. ap. Stob. Ecl.i. 10).
cannot be attributed to Philolaus. In the Pythagorean fragments,
1 Arist. Phys. iii. 4, 203 a, 6: even the most recent, the word
of μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι τον Elva τὸ ἄπειρος is never applied to the
ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἄπειρον. Ibid. iv. Deity. If Aristotle speaks of the
6; vide supra, p. 414, 2; Stob. i. ἄπειρον πνεῦμα outside the world.
380: ἐν δὲ τῷ περὶ τῆς Πυθαγόρου this does not tell in favour of
φιλοσοφίας πρώτῳ γράφει [᾿Αριστο- Roéth’s opinion, but against it.
τέλη5)], τὸν οὐρανὸν εἶναι ἕνα, ἐπει- Does Aristotle, or any other
σάγεσθαι δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνον philosopher anterior to the Stoies,
τε καὶ πνοὴν καὶ τὸ κενὸν, ὃ διορίζει ever call the spirit πνεῦμαὃ
HH®?
 : “'
468 THE PYTHAGOREANS. ws

an Infinite of this kind outside the world, Archytas

had proved.! From it, time as well as the void had
entered the world.? But this notion is exceedingly
obseure and vague, for which, not only our authorities,
but the Pythagoreans themselves are doubtless respon-
sible. On the one hand, by the void we must under-
stand empty space, which here, as often besides, is not
distinguished from space filled with air; on the other
hand, the void divides all things, even numbers, from
each other. Thus two different meanings of the ex-
pression, the logical and the physical, are confused
together ;and with the same confusion of thought, time,
on account of its successive infinity, is said to come
1 Simpl. Phys. 108 a: ᾿Αρχύτας nature of the Unlimited rests, all
δέ, ὥς φησιν Evdnuos, οὕτως ἠρώτα relating to that idea must belong
τὸν λόγον᾽ ἐν τῷ ἐσχάτῳ ἤγουν τῷ to Eudemus; the only thing which
ἀπλανεῖ οὐρανῷ γενόμενος, πότερον belongs to Archytas is the ques-
ἐκτείναιμι ἂν τὴν χεῖρα ἢ τὸν ῥάβδον tion: ἐν τῷ ἐσχάτῳ --- οὐκ ἄν; We
εἰς τὸ ἔξω, 7) οὐκ ἄν; τὸ μὲν οὖν μὴ find another proof in favour of
ἐκτείνειν, ἄτοπον: εἰ δὲ ἐκτείνω, empty space in Arist. Phys. iv. 9,a
τοι σῶμα ἢ τόπος Td ἐκτὸς ἔσται. statement reproduced and com-
διοίσει δὲ οὐδὲν, ὡς μαθησόμεθα. ἀεὶ mented on by Themist. in h. 1. 48
οὖν βαδιεῖται τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ a (302 sq.); Simpl. Phys. 161 a:
7) del λαμβανόμενον μέρος, καὶ ταῦ- De Celo, 267 a, 33. According
Tov ἐρωτήσει, καὶ εἰ ἀεὶ ἕτερον to him, Xuthus said that without
ἔσται, ep ὃ ἢ ῥάβδος. δηλονότι καὶ the Void, there could not be rare-
ἄπειρον. καὶ εἰ μὲν σῶμα, δέδεικται faction or condensation, and that in
τὸ προκείμενον᾽ εἰ δὲ τόπος, ἔστι δὲ order that there might be move-
τόπο: τὸ ἐν ᾧ σῶμά ἐστιν ἢ δύναιτ᾽ ment, some bodies must transcend
ἂν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ δυνάμει ὡς ὃν χρὴ the boundaries of the world, to
τιθέναι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀϊδίων, καὶ οὕτως ἂν make room for the bodies in motion.
εἴη σῶμα ἄπειρον καὶ τόπος. The The world must overflow (κυμανεῖ
explanations of Eudemus are here τὸ ὅλον). Simplicius calls this
added to the demonstration of Xuthus Ξοῦθος ὁ ΠΠυθαγορικός. But
Archytas, as is proved by the ex- it is not stated whether he was a
pressions βαδιεῖται and ἐρωτήσει, true Pythagorean, or had merely
and the Aristotelian phrase (Phys. (vide iufra, p. 415), in the manner
iii..4. 208 Ὁ, 80; Metaph. ix. 8, of Eephantus, combined the theory
1050 a. 6): τὸ δυνάμει ὡς ὄν, &e., of atoms with the Pythagorean
and as it is precisely on that phrase doctrine.
that the proof of the corporeal 2 Arist. Phys. iv. 6; Stob.i380.
 SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE. 469

from the Unlimited, that is, from infinite space. In

this we see the fantastic method of the Pythagorean
school, of which we have already had so many proofs.
We have no right to attempt to destroy it by a precise
definition of the concepts, nor to draw from it conclu-
sions, which have no other certain warrant within the
system.! For the same reason it ought not to surprise
us that time, which, according to the above representa-
tion, entered the firmament from the Unlimited, should
itself again be identified ? with the celestial sphere; the
former doctrine involves the concept of time as without
limit; the latter asserts that the sky is by its motion
the measure of time : the perfect reconciliation of these

' Cf. p. 411 sq. reans as the tears of Cronos.

isi iae.1. 21 (Stob: 1. Cronos is the god of the sky whose
248 ; Galen. 6. 10,p. 25): Πυθαγό- tears (the rain) had, as they con-
pas τὸν χρύνον τὴν σφαῖραν τοῦ ceived, formed the sea, vide supra,
περιέχοντος (Galen. : τ. περιέχ. ἡμᾶςp- 91, 2. I cannot recognise my
οὐρανοῦ) εἶναι. a statement which is opinion in the terms employed by
confirmed by Aristotle and Sim- Chaignet, ii. 171 sq., to reproduce
plicius. For Aristotle says, Phys. the above remark. Nor can I dis-
iv. 10, 218 a, 33: of μὲν yap τὴν cuss either his objections or his
τοῦ ὅλου κίνησιν εἶναί φασιν [τὸν attempt to find the sense of the
Χρόνον], οἱ δὲ τὴν σφαῖραν αὐτὴν, Pythagorean definition in Pseudo-
and Simplicius further remarks, p. Pythagorean writings.
165: of μὲν τὴν τοῦ ὅλου κίνησιν 3 Arist. 1. ¢., gives another mo-
καὶ περιφορὰν τὸν χρόνον εἶναί tive: ἡ δὲ τοῦ ὅλου σφαῖρα ἔδοξε
φασιν, ὧς τὸν Πλάτωνα νομίζουσιν ὅ μὲν τοῖς εἰποῦσιν εἶναι ὃ χρόνος“, ὅτι
τε Εὔδημος, κ. τ. A., οἱ δὲ τὴν ἔν τε τῷ χρόνῳ πάντα ἐστὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ
σφαῖραν αὐτὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὡς τοὺς τοῦ ὅλου σφαίρᾳ, and the definition
Πυθαγορικοὺς ἱστοροῦσι λέγειν oi attributed to Arehytas in Simpli-
παρακούσαντες ἴσως τοῦ ᾿Αρχύτου cius may be interpreted in this
(the categories falsely ascribed to sense. But this reason does not
Archytas; ef. Pt. iii. b, 113, 2 ed.) seem to have come from Archytas.
λέγοντος καθόλου τὸν χρόνον διάσ- I should rather conjecture it to
τημα τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φίσεως. Ina have been given after his time.
similar manner, according to Plut. Cronos must at first have been
De 15. 32, p. 364; Clem. Strom. v. with the Pythagoreans, as with
571 B; Porph. Vit. Pyth. 41, the Pherecydes, a symbolical name for
sea was spoken of by the Pythago- the sky. Vide preceding note.
470 THE PYTHAGOREANS. ae

two doctrines was doubtless not attempted by the

Pythagoreans.!
This theory necessitated the abandonment of the
original view of the world as a surface vaulted over by
a hemispherical cavity ; and the conception of upper
and lower was reduced to that of greater or lesser
distance from the centre;? the lower,or that lying
nearer to the centre, was called by the Pythagoreans the
1 T cannct regard them as ac- D. kosm. Syst. 120 sq.): ἀπὸ τοῦ
cordant, nor can I agree with μέσου τὰ ἄνω διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν τοῖς
Bockh (Philol. 98) that the Py- κάτω ἐστὶ, τὰ ἄνω τοῦ μέσου ὑπε-
thagoreans called Time the sphere ναντίως κείμενα τοῖς κάτω (1.6,, the
of the embracing, so far as it has order of the spheres, from above
its foundation in the Unlimited. to the centre, is the contrary of the
For, on the one hand, the Unli- order from the centre to the lowest
mited could not be designated as point) Tots yap κάτω τὰ κατωτάτω
σφαῖρα τοῦ περιέχοντος ; and, on μέσα ἐστὶν ὥσπερ τὰ ἀνωτάτω καὶ
the other, this expression is other- τὰ ἄλλα ὡσαύτως. πρὸς γὰρ τὸ μέσον
wise explained in the passage of ταὐτά ἐστιν ἑκάτερα, ὅσα μὴ μετε-
Aristotle hitherto overlooked. The νήνεκται (--πλὴν ὅτι μετεν.; cf.
indication of Plutarch (Plat. Qu. Boéckh, Philol. 90 sq.; D. kosm.
vill. 4, 8, p. 1007), according to Syst. 120 sq.). In the words τοῖς
which Pythagoras defined Time as γὰρ κάτω, eic., the text is evidently
the soul of the All or of Zeus, corrupt. To correct it, I should
merits no reliance. Cf. p. 466 sq. propose, (1) either to strike out
* This point, it is true, is not μέσα, which is only a conjecture
established by the testimony of for μέγα, and is entirely wanting
Aristotle, De Celo, ii. 2, 285 a, 10. in several manuscripts; so that
Aristotle, in considering the ques- the sense would then be: ‘for to
tion whether the heavens have an those who are on the under side,
above and a below, aright anda the lowest seems highest ;’ or else
left, a before and a behind, finds it (2), to read τοῖς yap κάτω (for those
strange that the Pythagoreans δύο who inhabit the region of the
μόνας ταύτας ἀρχὰς ἔλεγον, τὸ δεξιὸν world, which, according to the or-
καὶ τὸ ἀριστερὸν, τὰς δὲ τέτταρας dinary opinion is below, and which
παρέλιπον οὐθὲν ἧττον κυρίας οὔσαξ. from our point of view is on the
But this means to say that in other side of the centre) κατωτάτω
the table of opposites, vide p. 381, τὰ μέσα ἐστὶν ὥσπερ τοῖς ἄνω, καὶ
these. two categories alone are τὰ ἄλλα ὡσαύτως. The corrections
mentioned. In fact, however, the proposed by Leop. Schmidt, Quest.
Above and the Below in the uni- Epicharmee, Bonn,’ 1846, p. 63,
verse were reduced to the Exterior and by Nutzhorn (Philol. xxii.
and the Interior. Philol. ap. Stob. 1865, p. 887), seem to me not very
Eel. i, 360 (Bockh, Philol. 90 ff; happy.
 ‘THE UNIVERSE. 471

right side of the world; that which was farther from

the centre, the left; for they regarded the movement
of the heavenly bodies from west to east as a progressive
motion, and accordingly they assigned to -the centre,
as befitted its importance in the universe, the place of
honour on the right side of the bodies of the world.'
They also held the upper portions of the universe to
be the most perfect, and distinguished the outermost
circle of fire from the circles of the stars, dividing these
again into the circles above and below the moon;
so that the universe was divided into three regions,
Olympus, Cosmos, and Uranos.? Olympus contained
1 Simpl. De Calo, 175 Ὁ, 31; to the opposition of the superior
Schol. 492 Ὁ, 39: (οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι) and inferior hemispheres of the
@s αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῆς συνα- earth; in regard to this, the Py-
γωγῆς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν ἱστορεῖ, τοῦ thagoreans maintain, in opposition
ὅλου οὐρανοῦ τὰ μὲν ἄνω λέγουσιν to Aristotle, that our hemisphere
εἶναι τὰ δὲ κάτω, καὶ τὸ μὲν κάτω is turned towards the periphery of
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δεξιὸν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ ἄνω the world, and is in ordinary lan-
ἀριστερὸν, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ κάτω guage the superior hemisphere.
εἶναι. These words seem to con- Aristotle, from his standpoint,
tradict what Aristotle says, De Celo, called it the right; the Pythago-
ji. 2, 285 b, 25: (οἱ Πυθαγ.) ἡμᾶς reans must have called it the left.
ἄνω Te ποιοῦσι Kal ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ μέρει, 2 Vide preceding note and Stob.
τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκεῖ κάτω καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀριστερῷ. i. 488, the continuation of the text
Béckh, however (ὦ. kosm. Syst. cited p. 444, 4: τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀνωτάτω
106 sq.), has shown how the two μέρος τοῦ περιέχοντος, ἐν ᾧ τὴν εἶλι-
assertions are compatible, and how κίνειαν εἶναι τῶν στοιχείων Ολυμ-
the objections are to be met, which, mov καλεῖ [Φιλόλαος] τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν
according to Simplicius, loc. cit., τοῦ ᾽Ολύμπου φορὰν, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς πέντε
both he and his predecessor, Alex- πλανήτας μεθ᾽ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης
ander, and more recently Gruppe, τετάχθαι. κόσμον, τὸ T ὑπὸ τούτοις
d. kosm. Syst. d. Gr. 65 sqq., ὑποσέληνόν τε καὶ περίγειον μέρος,
brought forward. The mention ἐν ᾧ τὰ τῆς φιλομεταβόλου γενέσεως“,
of the συναγωγὴ, in Simplicius, οὐρανόν. καὶ περὶ μὲν τὰ τεταγμένα
relates to the division of the Uni- τῶν μετεώρων γίγνεσθαι τὴν σοφίαν
verse into an upper or external, περὶ δὲ τὰ γενόμενα τῆς ἀταξίας τὴν
and a lower or internal region, ἀρετὴν, τελείαν μὲν ἐκείνην. ἀτελῆ
the latter, including the earth and δὲ ταύτην. ΟἿ onthis point Béckh,
the counter-earth, is on the right. Philol. 94 sq., and supra, p. 316.
The statement of the treatise on The opposition of the terrestrial
the heavens, on the contrary, refers and celestial spheres appears also

7S,
472 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the elements in their purity;! Cosmos?was the place of ἡ

ordered and uniform motion, Uranos that of Becoming —
and Change.® Whether the central fire was included
in Olympus and the heaven of fixed stars in Cosmos, we
do not know; but both conjectures are probable: the
position of the counter-earth is more doubtful; it is
possible that the Pythagoreans, who were chiefly con-
cerned with the opposition of the terrestrial and supra-
terrestrial, never considered this question. Finally, in
the extract of Stobzus a movement of Olympus is

in the exposition (full of Stoical Limited and Unlimited? For the

opinions) of Diog. vill. 26, and Unlimited only, the ἄπειρον out-
in the semi-peripatetic exposition, side the world (vide p. 467, 1),
ap. Phot. 439 b, 27 sqq., but the of which Béckh is thinking, eculd
tripartite division of Philolaus is not be designated by the plural
here wanting. It is, on the con- TTOLK ELA,
trary, implied in the Epinomis of 2 The Cosmos, that is, in the
Plato, 978 B, by the words: ἐὰν narrower sense of the word. For
γὰρ ἴῃ τις ἐπὶ θεωρίαν ὀρθὴν τὴν in general the word Cosmos has
τοῦδε, εἴτε κόσμον εἴτε "Ολυμπον with the Pythagoreans its ordinary
εἴτε οὐρανὸν ἐν ἡδονῇ τω λέγειν, meaning of the universe (e.g. Philol.
precisely because the author dis- Fr. 1, ef. p. 879, 1). Itis even said
cards it. Parmenides,v. 141, 137 that Pythagoras was the first to-
(vide infra, Parm.), calls the outer- use this expression (Plut. Place. 1].
most envelope, dAuuros ἔσχατος; 1; Stob. ἃ «460; ;Galena yen dies
on the other hand, he calls the Phot. 440 a, 17). What is true
starry heaven, not κόσμος, but in the statement is probably this,
οὐρανός. We must not, however, that the Pythagoreans were fond
infer from this, as Krische does of employing the word to designate
(Forsch. 115), that Philolaus can- the harmonious order of the world.
not have used the word οὐρανός in But even at the time of Xenophon
speaking of the lower region; his it was not in general use, as 1s plain
terminology is not necessarily from Xen. Mem. 1. 1, 11; ὃ καλού-
always the same as that of Parme- μενος ὑπὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν κόσμος, cf.
nides. Plato, Gorgias, 508 A.
1 That is to say it consisted of 8 What Epiph. Erp. fid. p.
the purest substance; for the ter- 1087 B, says, using a later ter-
restrial elements evidently do not minology, 15 not altogether inexact:
exist in Olympus; even the word ἔλεγε δὲ (Πυθ.) rx ἀπὸ σελήνης κάτω
στοιχεῖα is scarcely to be consi- παθητὰ εἶναι πάντα, τὰ δὲ ὑπεράνω
dered Pythagorean. Or are we to τῆς σελήνης ἀπαθῆ εἶναι.
understand by this expression the
 THE UNIVERSE. 473

spoken of, but it is uncertain whether he is not here

transferring to Olympus what is applicable only to the
heaven of fixed stars.
This astronomical theory of the universe is con-
nected, as we have seen, with the idea of the respiration
of the world and of its right and left sides. In this
we see the favourite ancient comparison of the world
with a living creature ; but, after our previous enquiries
concerning the world-soul, we cannot allow that this ‘

thought had any important influence on the Pytha-

gorean system.
It might be inferred from a passage of the Placita’
attributed to Plutarch, that the Pythayoreans, like
Anaximander and Heracleitus, believed in the periodic
generation and destruction of the world. This passage,
however, probably asserts nothing more than that the
vapours into which, by the effect of heat and moisture,
earthly substances are resolved, serve for nourishment
to the world or the stars.?_ It therefore relates only to
the destruction of individual things: in regard to the
1 ΤΙ 5,3: Φιλόλαος διττὴν εἶναι φιλόλ.- ἀποχυθέντος, as they are
τὴν φθορὰν, τοτὲ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ cited in the Placita, only after
πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τοτὲ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕϑατος φθορὰν he adds τοῦ κόσμουι As
σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος to the sense of the obscure words,
ἀποχυθέντος“ καὶ τούτων εἶναι τὰς which have perhaps been inexactly
ἀναθυμιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου. reported, I follow Bickh (Phi/ol.
This statement, both here and in 110 sq.), whose interpretation seems
Galen. ὁ. 11, is preceded by the to me more probable than that of
words πόθεν τρέφεται ὃ κόσμος. Chaignet, 11. 159. Chaignet ex-
Under the same title Stobzeus says, plains the passage thus: i] y a deur
ἘΠ]. 1. 452: Φιλόλαος ἔφησε, τὸ μὲν causes de dépérissement, Tune quand
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὺς ῥυέντος, τὸ δὲ ἐξ le feu s échappe du ciel, Pautre quand
ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ce few. . . se répand de [eau de la
ἀέρος ἀποχυθέντος εἶναι τὰς ἄναθυ- lune.
μιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου, Whereas 2 As was said. by Heracleitus
in the chapter on Becoming and and the Stoies.
Perishing, 1, 418, he cites the words
474 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

universe generally, it would appear that the Pythago-

reans did not believe in any destruction of the world;
what the Pseudo-Plutarch! tells us on the subject is no
doubt merely derived from Timzus the Locrian, or
other similar sources. It is clear on the contrary, from
Eudemus, that they thought, as the Stoics did after-
wards, not only that the same persons who had lived in
the world would re-enter it at a later period; but that
they would again do the same actions and live in the
same circumstances ;? this is confirmed by a passage in
Porphyry, not in itself of much weight. This theory
was no doubt connected with the doctrine of Trans-
migration and of the great year of the world: if the
heavenly bodies were to occupy the same place as
before, everything else would return to the same condi-
tion, and consequently the same persons would be
present under the same circumstances. But it is a
question whether this doctrine belonged to the whole
school, or only to a portion of it.
The Pythagoreans appear to have occupied them-
selves very little with the study of terrestrial nature: at
any rate, with the exception of one slight attempt on
the part of Philolaus, tradition is silent on the subject.
1 Place. ii. 4, 1 (Galen. 6. 11, ἔχων buty καθημένοις οὕτω (this is
p. 265). the right punctuation), καὶ τὰ ἄλλα
2 In the fragment of his Phy- πάντα ὁμοίως ἕξει, καὶ τὸν χρόνον
sics ap. Simpl. Phys. 173 a, he εὔλογόν ἐστι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι.
enquires whether the same time 3. V. Pyth. 19. Of the doctrines
which has been, shall be again, or of Pythagoras, those of immortality
not? and the answer is: that and the transmigration of souls are
which comes after is only qualita- the best known : “πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ὅτι
tively the same as that which has κατὰ περι: 'δους τινὰς τὰ γενόμενά
gone befere: Ei δέ τις πιστεύσειε ποτε πάλιν γίνεται, νέον δ᾽ οὐδὲν
τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις, ὡς πάλιν τὰ αὐτὰ ἁπλῶς ἔστι.
ἀριθμῷ, κἀγὼ μυθολογήσω τὸ ῥαβδίον
 TERRESTRIAL NATURE. THE SOUL. 475

In regard to Philolaus,! we are told that in the same

way that he derived geometrical determinations (the
point, the line, the surface, the solid) from the first four
numbers, so he derived physical qualities? from five, the
soul from six; reason, health, and light? from seven;
love, friendship, prudence, and inventive faculty from
eight. Herein (apart from the number schematism) is
contained the thought that things represent a graduated
scale of increasing perfection; but we hear nothing of
any attempt to prove this in detail, or to seek out the
characteristics proper to each particular region.*
Nor, in all probability, did the Pythagoreans carry
their enquiries respecting the soul and man very far.
Later writers indeed descant much on the origin of the
soul from the world-soul, and on its ethereal, divinely-
related, eternally-moved, immortal nature. There is
even a fragment of Philolaus which contains these
statements.° I have already shown,® however, that this
fragment can scarcely be considered genuine, and that
1 Tambl. Theol. Ar. 56; cf. As- laus, is a later interpretation of
clep. in Metaph. i. 5. These pas- this expression.
sages have been quoted, p. 438, 2. 3 τὸ im αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον φῶς,
In Theol. Ar. p. 34 sq., it is stated therefore not light in the ordinary
that six is regarded by the Pytha- sense, but some quality or state of
goreans as the number of the soul, man; or in general, health, well-
and perhaps Aristotle may be al- being.
ready alluding to Philolaus when 4 We find only an isolated trace
he speaks (Metaph. 1. 5, quoted on of any discussions in regard to ,
p. 369, 1) of the assertion: ὅτι τὸ living beings in the passage, Arist.
τοιονδὶ (sc. ἀριθμῶν πάθος) ψυχὴ καὶ De Sensu, 5, 445 a, 16, according
νοῦς. to which certain Pythagoreans sup-
2 ποιότητα καὶ χρῶσιν. The posed some animals lived upon
colour no doubt describes in a odours. Vide infra, p. 480, 2, for
general manner the external nature other quotations.
(cf. Arist. De sensu, c. 3, 439 a, 5 Cf. the texts cited, p. 447, 1.
80: of Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν 6 Vide pp. 447, sq.; 399, 1;
χροιὰν ἐκάλουν), ἃπα ποιότης, which 390, 1; 395, 3.
does not appear to belong to Phiio-
476 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

consequently the theory of his having devoted a special

book of his work to the soul must remain doubtful; I
have also shown that the other authorities are apt to
intermingle the doctrines of the Stoics and Platonists
with the Pythagorean tradition. If we consult our
most trustworthy source, Aristotle, we find him to have
been little acquainted with the Pythagorean psycho-
Ἰοργ. For in his comprehensive survey of all that his
predecessors had taught on the nature of the soul, he
simply says of the Pythagoreans that some of them held
the solar corpuscles to be souls, and others that which
sets them in motion.? The doctrine that the soul isa
harmony, is alluded to by Aristotle, without mention of
any name,’ and in Plato‘ it is maintained by a pupil of
Philolaus. Maerobius? ascribes it to Philolaus himself,

' Vide supra, p. 447 sq. is only an induction of Aristotle.

2 De An. i. 2, 404 a, 16, after But Aristotle himself gives this
having mentioned first of all the as his own induction: he only
Atomists among those who con- quotes, as belonging to the Pytha-
sidered the soul as the motive goreans, ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ ταῦτα
principle, and self-moved: ἔοικε δὲ κινοῦν. It is not the same thing
καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων λεγό- to say: the solar corpuscles are
μενον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν" moved by # soul, and the soul is,
ἔφασαν γάρ τινες αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι generally, the moving principle.
τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα, οἱ δὲ τὸ 3 De An. i. 4, sud init.: Kal
ταῦτα κινοῦν, a conception which ἄλλη δέ τις δόξα παραδέδοται περὶ
Aristotle (most likely it is merely ψυχῆς . . . ἁρμονίαν γάρ τινα αὐτὴν
his own conjecture) derives from λέγουσι: καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἁρμονίαν κρᾶσιν
the facet that the solar corpuscles καὶ σύνθεσιν ἐναντίων εἶναι, καὶ τὸ
move, ever. when the wind 18 per- σῶμα συγκεῖσϑαι ἐξ ἐναντίων. Polit.
fectly still. I do not understand vill. ὅ a: διὸ πολλοί φασι τῶν
the censure which Schlottmann σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι τὴν
passes upon me (D. Vergdngliche ψυχὴν, οἱ δ᾽ ἔχειν ἁρμονίαν.
u. Unvergingliche in d. menschl. 4 Phedo, 85 E sqq.
Seele nach Arist. Halle, 1873, p. 5 Sonn. i. 14: Plato dixit ani-
30). He says that I misinterpret mum essentiam se moventem, Xeno- ἡ
this text, and the text cited. p. 448, crates nunwrum se moventem, Aris-
in asserting that the definition of toteles ἐντελέχειαν, Pythagoras et
the soul as the moving principle Philolaus harmoniam.
 THE SOUL. 477

and even to Pythagoras. Philoponus connects with it

the statement also made by Stobzus, that the soul is
a number.! This statement in itself is not at all im-
probable: if everything is number and harmony, the
soul may well be so. But the general proposition that
the soul is harmony or number, says nothing; we only
get a specific determination concerning the essence of
the soul, when it is described as by Plato and Aristotle
(loc. cit.) as the number or harmony of the body to
which it belongs. That it was so defined by the
Pythagoreans we are never told, and such a view would
ill accord with their belief in immortality ;? if, there-
fore, it had been found within the school, it would have
been a departure from the primitive doctrine which we
cannot ascribe to Philolaus. It is more likely that he
said what Claudianus Mamertus? quotes from him,
and what may also be deduced from our previous
citations,’ that the soul is united with the body by
means of number and harmony.’ The further assertion,
however,® that Pythagoras defined the soul as a self-
1 Philop. De An. B, 15: ὥσπερ Aristoxenus and Diczarchus, ef.
οὖν ἁρμονίαν A€yortes τὴν ψυχὴν Part II. b, 717 sq. 2nd ed.
[οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι] οὐ φασὶ ταύτην ® De Statu An. ii.7 (ap. Bockh,
ἁρμονίαν τὴν ἐν ταῖς χορδαῖς, εἴο. Philol. p. 77): * Anima inditur
Cf. C, 5, where it is said that corpori pernumerum et immortalem
Xenocrates borrowed from Pytha- eandemque incorporalem convenien-
goras the idea that the soul is a tiam.’
number. Stob. Eel.i. 682: some Py- 4 Vide supra, p. 475, 1; 481.
thazoreans call the soul a number. 5 Here again we are uncertain
2 In Plato, at any rate, Sim- whether Claudian borrowed his
mias only concludes from it that statement from the true Philolaus;
the soul perishes after the destruc- ef. p. 399, 1.
tion of the body, as the harmony 6 Plut. Piac. iv. 2. Nemes:
ceases after the destruction of the Nat. hom. p. 44. Theodoret, Cur.
instrument; and it is difficult to gr. aff. v. 72, with whom Steinhart,
say how this conclusion can be Plato's Werke, iy. 551, in the main
evaded; it was also drawn by agrees.
478 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

moving number must absolutely be rejected. Aristotle,

who was the first to quote this definition,' was evidently, ,

when he did so, not referring to the Pythagoreans;?

and other writers expressly mention Xenocrates as its
author. It is likewise improbable that Archytas
defined the soul as the self-moved,* though the Pytha- =
Ee
e
8ee

goreans would certainly appear to have noticed its

continuous motion, and interrupted life;> and the.
statements that Pythagoras called it a square, and
Archytas a circle or a sphere, are both equally ques-
tionable.® Lastly, an expression quoted from Archytas
to the effect that the soul is not extended in space, is 4

no doubt taken from a spurious work.’

1 De An. i. 2, 4, 404 b, 27; to Archytas. The definition of the
i
‘a
soul as αὑτὸ κινοῦν is certainly
᾿
408 Ὁ, 32. Anal. post. 11. 4, 91
a, oi taken from Plato (Phedrus, 245 Ὁ),
2 For (De An. i. 2, 404 a, 20), There too we find the observation
he continues, after the text relative that the self-moving is also in re-
to the Pythagoreans, quoted p. 476, gard to other things πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ
2: ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ δὲ φέρονται καὶ ὅσοι κινήσεως ; in regard to which the Ὁi

λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν. Pseudo-Archytas employs the Aris-

He distinguishes therefore this totelian expression πρῶτον κινοῦν.
opinion from that of the Pytha- 5 Vide the remark of Aristotle
goreans. As to the latter, he quoted p. 476, 2, and particularly oe
mg
pe
elsewhere expresses himself in a what he says of Alemeon, infra.
manner that would have been im- 6 The statement relative to Py-
possible if he had had before him thagoras is in itself suspicious,
so exact a defimtion of the nature like all the recent information
of the soul. which we possess as to the per-
3 Cf. Part II. a, 672, 2, 2nd ed. sonal opinions of this philosopher.
4 Joh. Lyd. De Mens. 6 (8), 8, The statement relative to Archytas
21: ψυχὴ ἀνθρώπου, φησὶν ὃ Πυθα- is so, first, because it is in itself
γόρας, ἐστὶ τετράγωνον εὐθυγώνιον. eccentric, and secondly, because it
᾿Αρχύτας δὲ ψυχῆς τὸν ὅρον οὐκ ἐν has an evident connection with Pla-
τετραγώνῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν κύκλῳ ἀποδίδωσι tonic and Aristotelian ideas.
διὰ τοῦτο " “ ψυχὰ τὸ αὐτὸ []. αὑτὸ] 7 Claud. Mam. De Statu An. 11.
κινοῦν, ἀνάγκα δὲ τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν, 7 (cf. Pt. iii. Ὁ, 90, 2 Aufl.) quotes
κύκλος δὲ τοῦτο ἣ σφαῖρα. Accord- from Archytas: Anima ad exem-
ing to the remark we have just plum unius composita est, guae sic
made, Aristotle can have known illocaliter dominatur im corpore,
nothing of this definition,attributed sicut unus in numeris. But to
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 479

Concerning the parts of the soul, various theories are

ascribed to the Pythagoreans by more recent writers
which I cannot admit them to have originally held.
Accordingto some, they were acquainted with the Pla-
ὦ.
ον
υνἽ
αν
ὍΝ"
“πὰ

tonie distinction of a rational and an irrational soul,

and the analogous distinction of Reason, Courage, and
Desire;' together with the Platonic division of the
intellectual faculty into νοῦς, ἐπιστήμη. δόξα, and
αἴσθησις:3 we are told by another writer? that they
divided the soul into Reason, Mind, and Courage (νοῦς,
φρένες, θυμὸς): Reason and Courage being in men and
prove the authenticity of the writ- and irrational part, ef. Cicero,
ing from which this passage is Tuse. iv. 5,10; Plut. Plac. iv. 7,
taken, more evidence is required 4; Galen. Hist. Phil. c.28. Other
than the testimony of Claudian ; it passages taken from Pseudo-Pytha-
is not in itself probable that Ar- gorean fragments will be found in
chytas, or any other Pythagorean, Part III. b, 112, 2, 2nd edition.
should have enunciated a doctrine 2 The Pseudo-Archytasap. Srob.
of which we first hear, not even from Eel. i. 722, 784, 790, and Iambl.
Plato, but from Aristotle, viz., that. π. Kow. ual. ἐπιστ. (in Villoison,
the presence of the soul in the Anecd, ii.) p. 199; Brontinus ap.
body is not a juxtaposition in Iamb. C. C. 198; Theodoret, Cur.
snace. The statement ap. Stob. gr. aff. v. 197 Gaisf., who adds, as
Ecl. i. 790; Theodor. Cur. gr. aff. a fifth part, the Aristotelian φρό-
v. p. 128, according to which Py- vnots. Plut. Plac.i. 3, 19 sq., in
thagoras makes νοῦς θύραθεν εἰσκρί- an extract from an exposition
νεσθαι, contains no doubt an which is evidently Neo-Platonie,
inference drawn from the doctrine founded upon the celebrated Pla-
of Metempsychosis. Schlottmann tonic propositions cited by Aristo-
‘p. 24 sq. and the treatise cited p. tle, De An. i. 2, 404 b, 21. Photius
476) has wrongly made use of it gives another and more recent
to prove the improbable and un- division, p. 440 b. 27 sqq.; cf.
founded conjecture, that Aristotle Part III. b, 120, 8.
borrowed the expression θύραθεν 3 Alex. Polyhistor ap. Diog.
εἰσιέναι in respect to the union of vill. 30. It has already been
the soul with the body from the shown, pp. 393, 3; 447, 2. that this
Pythagoreans. exposition is not authentic. The
1 Cf. Posidonius ap. Galen. De whole division is confused, and con-
Hipp. e Plat. iv. 7; v.6, T. xv. tains many Stoical definitions, for
425. 478 K.; Iambl. ap. Stob. Ecl. example, that the senses are emana-
i. 878; Plut. Plae. iv. 4,1, 5, 13. tions from the soul, that the soul
On the distinction of the rational is nourished by the blood, &c.
480 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

beasts, Mind in men only; Courage having its seat in

the heart, the two other faculties in the brain. There
is more warrant for supposing that Philolaus placed the
seat of Reason in the brain; of life and sensation in
the heart; of seed and germination in the navel; of
generation in the sexual parts: in the first of these re-
gions, he said, lay the germ of men; in the second, that
of beasts; in the third, that of plants; in the fourth,
that of all creatures.! With this, our knowledge of
the philosophic anthropology of the Pythagoreans is
exhausted. What we are further told concerning their
anthropological theories belongs altogether to the sphere
of religious dogmas, the importance of which in the
Pythagorean system we have now to consider.’
1 Tambl. Theol. Ariihm. 22: an integral part of the physical
τέσσαρες ἀρχαὶ τοῦ ζῴου τοῦ λογι- system of the Pythagoreans, but
κοῦ, ὥσπερ καὶ Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ περὶ which were either incorporated by
φύσεως λέγει, ἐγκέφαλος, καρδία, later writers from other sources
ὀμφαλὺς, αἰδοῖον: κεφαλὰ μὲν νόω, into their own doctrine, or stand
καρδία δὲ ψυχᾶς καὶ αἰσθήσιος, isolated without philosophical foun-
ὀμφαλὺς δὲ ῥιζώσιος καὶ ἀναφύσιος dation, and are based merely on
τῷ πρώτω, αἰδοῖον δὲ σπέρματος observation. We should regard as
καταβολᾶς τε καὶ γεννάσιος" ἔγκέ- an addition of later writers, for
φαλυς δὲ τὰν ἀνθρώπω ἀρχὰν. καρ- example, the story given by Alex.
δία δὲ τὰν ζῴω, ὀμφαλὸς δὲ τὰν Polyhistor ap. Diog. vill. 25 sqq.
φυτῶ, αἰδοῖον δὲ τὰν ξυναπάντων, vide Part III. b, 74 sq., 2nd ed.
πάντα γὰρ καὶ θάλλουσι καὶ βλαστά- The same may be said of the Stoic
νουσιν. By the word πάντα or definition of the body (τὸ οἷόν τε
ξυνάπαντα we must understand the παθεῖν ἢ διαθεῖναι) attributed to Py-
three kinds of living beings, collec- thagoras by Sextus, Math. ix. 366.
tively, i.e., men, beasts, and plants. The Placifa ascribed to him the
On the authenticity of the frag- Stoic doctrine : τρεπτὴν καὶ ἀλλοιω-
ment (which commences with the τὴν Kal μεταβλητὴν καὶ ῥευστὴν
words κεφαλὰ μὲν νόω: what goes ὅλην δι’ ὅλου τὴν ὕλην. The same
before is a preliminary remark of treatise i. 24, 8, gives, as coming
Iamblichus), ef. p. 317. from Pythagoras, a proposition
2 We can only discuss in a sup- which he could not have expressed
plementary manner certain theories in this form, viz. that on account
which have been omitted in the of the variation and metamorphosis
preceding exposition as not forming of the elements, a Becoming and
 ETHICS. 481

V. THE RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL DOCTRINES OF

THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Or all the Pythagorean doctrines, none is better known,

and none can be traced with greater certainty to the
founder of the school, than that of the Transmigration
of souls, It is mentioned by Xenophanes,! and later by
Io of Chios ;? Philolaus speaks of it, Aristotle describes
it as a Pythagorean fable,* and Plato unmistakably
Perishing in the proper sense of the with the Pythagorean philosophy.
word is produced. Lastly, i. 23, 1 Similarly the definitions of the
(Stob. i. 394), the Placita ascribe calm of the air and of the sea,
to Pythagoras a definition of move- given by Arist. Metaph. viii. 2, ad
ment posterior to Aristotle. We fin., as those of Archytas, all of
may also instance what is said small impceritance; and the state-
about colours: Placita, i. 15, 2 (ef. ment according to which (Arist.
Stob. 1. 362; Anon. Phot. Cod. 249, Probl. xvi. 9) this philosopher
p- 439 a, cf. Porph. in Ptol. Harm. showed that the round form of
6, 3, p. 213; Arist. De Sensu, e, 3, certain organs in animals and
439, a, 30); on the five zones of plants was the result of the law of
heaven and earth, Place. 11.12, 1 ; 101. eguality which goverrs natural
14 (Galen. H. ph. c. 12, 21, ef. Theo moyement, stands entirely alone.
in Arat. ii. 359): on sight, and As to the pretended logic and
the reflections of the mirror, Plac. philosophy of language of the
iv. 14, 3 (Stob. Eel. 1. 502, and in Pythagoreans, vide infra, § vi.
the extracts of Joh. Damase. 1 In the verses quoted Diog.
Parall. p.1, 17, 15; Stob. Floril. vill. 36:
ed. Mein. iv. 174; Galen, c. 21, p.
καί ποτέ μιν στυφελιζομένου σκύλα-
296); on the voice, Plac. iv. 20, 1 kos παριόντα
(G. εἰ 26); on seed, Plac. v. 3, 2,
φαυὶν ἐποικτεῖραι καὶ τόδε φάσθαι
4, 2,5, 1 (G. 6. 31); on the five εποϑ"
senses, Stob. Ecl. i. 1104; Phot. 1. παῦσαι μηδὲ ῥάπιζ᾽ ἐπειὴ φίλου ἀνέ-
c.; on the rainbow, Elian, V. H. pos ἐστὶ
iv. 17 ; on the nutrition of animals
ψυχὴ, τὴν ἔγνων φθεγξαμένης
by smell, Arist. De Sensu, 5 (vide ἀΐων.
supra, p. 475, 4); on the origin of
maladies, Galen. c. 39. If even 2 In Diog. i. 120, where the
these notices really reproduce the words, εἴπερ Πυθαγόρης ἐτύμως 6
doctrines of the ancient Pytha- σοφὺς περὶ πάντων ἀνθρώπων γνώμας
goreans (which can only be sup- εἶδε καὶ ἐξέμαθεν, refer to the beli f
posed in regard to a portion of in immortality.
them), they have no connection 3 De An, i. 3, ad fin.: ὥσπερ
VOL. I. ΕῈ
483 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

copied his mythical descriptions of the condition of the

soul after death from the Pythagoreans. As Philolans
says,! and Plato repeats,? the soul is confined in the body —
and buried in it, as a punishment for faults. The body
is a prison in which it has been placed by God asa
penalty, and from which it consequently has no right

ἐνδεχόμενον κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορικοὺς 186 sq.); Brandis (Gr. Rom. Phil.
μύθους τὴν τυχοῦσάν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ 3.497); Susemihl (Genet. Entw. d.
τυχὺν ἐνδύεσθαι σῶμα. Piat. Phil. i. 107 sq.), and others.
1 Clemens, Strom. 111. 433 A; Brandis is less positivein the Gesch.
Theod. Cur. gr. aff. v. 14 (Boéckh, d. Entw. i. 187. The interpreta-
Philol. 181): μαρτυρέονται δὲ καὶ tion, as a whole, seems to me to
οἱ παλαιοὶ θεολόγοι τε καὶ μάντιες, have a purely Platonic character,
ὡς διά τινας τιμωρίας ἃ ψυχὰ τῷ and to be out of harmony with the
σώματι συνέζευκται καὶ καθάπερ ἐν treatise of Philolaus. Plato doés
σάματι τούτῳ τέθαπται. The veins not say that he borrowed from the
are called, ap. Diog. viii. 31, the κομψὸς ἀνὴρ the interpretation of
bonds of the soul. The rest does the myth, but the myth itself.
not seem to belong to the ancient When, connecting this myth with
Pythagoreans. a popular song, Σικελὸς κομψὸς
2 Gorg. 493 A: ὅπερ ἤδη του ἀνὴρ ποτὶ τὰν ματέρα ἔφα, Timoc-
ἔγωγε καὶ ἤκουσα τῶν σοφῶν, ὡς reon, Fr. 6 b; Bergk, Lyr. Gr. Ῥ:
νῦν ἡμεῖς τέθναμεν καὶ τὸ μὲν σῶμά 941, he makes a mythus, ΣΞικελὸς ἢ
ἐστιν ἡμῖν σῆμα, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς Ἰταλικὸς : he means to say that the
τοῦτο ἐν ᾧ ἐπιθυμίαι εἰσὶ τυγχάνει myth of the perforated vessel into
ὃν οἷον ἀναπείθεσθαι καὶ μεταπίπτειν which the unconsecrated were to
ἄνω κάτω. καὶ τοῦτο ἄρα Tis μυθολο- put water with a sieve—i.e., the
“ῶν κομψὸς avhp, ἴσως Ξικελός τις tradition which extends the
ἢ Ἰταλικὸς, παράγων τῷ ὀνὅματι διὰ punishment of the Danaids to all
τὸ πιθανόν τε καὶ TELOTLKOY ὠνόμασε the profane—belongs to the Or-
πίθον. τοὺς δὲ ἀνοήτους ἀμυήτους τῶν phico-Pythagorean cycle. In the
δ᾽ ἀμυήτων... ὡς τετρημένον“ εἴη πί- Cratylus, 400 B, Plato refers for
Bos. . . καὶ φοροῖεν εἰς τὸν τετρημένον the comparison of σῶμα with σῆμα
πίθον ὕδωρ ἐτέρῳ τοιούτῳ τετρημένῳ to the Orphics, whom Philolaus
κοσκίνῳ. It is a question whether also had in view: καὶ yap σῆμά
in this text it is merely the com- τινές φασιν αὐτὸ [τὸ σῶμα] εἶναι τῆς
parison of the σῶμα with the σῆμα, ψυχῆς, ὡς τεθαμμένης ἐν τῷ νῦν
and the mythus of the punishment παρόντι. .. δοκοῦσι μέντοι μοι μά-
of the ἀμύητοι, that comes from λιστα θέσθαι οἱ ἀμφὶ ᾿Ορφέα τοῦτο εἰ i

=
Philolaus or some Pythagorean, τὸ ὄνομα, ὡς δίκην διδούσης THs
or whetherthe moral interpretation ψυχῆς ὧν δὴ ἕνεκα δίδωσι τοῦτον δὲ
of this myth also comes from him. περίβολον ἔχειν, va σώζηται, δεσμω-
This interpretation is attributed to τηρίου εἰκόνα. ΜῈ
Philolaus by Béckh (Philol. 188, ᾿
7
᾿ ".
 TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS. 483

to free itself by a presumptuous act.' So Jong as the

soul is in the body it requires the body; for through
the body alone can it feel and perceive; separated from
the body it leads an incorporeal life in a higher world.
This, however, is of course only the case when it has
rendered itself capable and worthy of such happiness;
otherwise it can but look forward to the penance of
material life, or the torments of Tartarus.2 The Pytha~-
gorean doctrine was therefore, according to these the
most ancient authorities, essentially the same that we
afterwards find associated with other Pythagorean
notions, in Plato;* and which is maintained by Empe-
docles,” viz., that the soul on account of previous trans-
gressions is sent into the body, and that after death each
soul, according to its deserts, enters the Cosmos or Tar-
1 Plato, Crat. 1. α. ; Id. Phedo, ἔσσεαι ἀθάνατος θεὺς ἄμβροτος, οὖ-
62 B (after having remarked that κέτι θνητός. Perhaps this is the
Philolaus forbade suicide): 6 μὲν origin of the statement of Epipha-
οὖν ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις λεγόμενος περὶ nius (Exp. fid. 1807), according to ©
αὐτῶν λόγος, ὧς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ ἐσμεν which Pythagoras ealled himself a
ot ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐ δεῖ δὴ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ god.
ταύτης λύειν οὐδ᾽ ἀποδιδράσκειν, * Euxitheus, ap. Athen, J. ¢.,
which Cie. ‘Cato, 20, 73; Somn. threatens those who commit sui-
Scip. 6. 3) reproduces rather inac- cide: διείπασθαι τὸν θεὸν, ὡς ci μὴ
curately, without, however, having μενοῦσιν ἐπὶ τούτοις, ἕως ἂν ἑκὼν
any other authority than this pas- αὐτοὺς λύσῃ, πλέοσι καὶ μείζοσιν
sage. Clearchus (ap. Athen. iv. ἐμπεσοῦνται τότε λύμαις, and ac-
157 c) attributes the same doctrine cording to Arist. Anal. Post. ii. 11,
to an unknown Pythagorean named 94 b, 32, Pythagoras thought that
Euxitheus. thunder frightened sinners in Tar-
2 Philol. ap. Claudian. De tarus. For I agree with Ritter
Statu An. ii.7: diligitur corpus ab (Gesch. d. Phil. i. 425) that if the
anima, quia sine eo non potest uti parallel passage, in Plato, Rep. x.
sensibus: a quo postquam morte 615 ἢ. ἢ be duly considered, we
deducta est agit in mundo (κόσμος must suppose that the sinners, and
as distinguished from οὐρανὸς, sup. not the Titans, are here meant.
p. 471, 2) incorporalem vitam. Carm. * Cf, Part IT. a, 691, 3rd ed.
Aur. y. 70 sq.: ἢν δ᾽ ἀπολείψας 5 Vide infra, vol. ii. Emped.
σῶμα és αἰθέρ᾽ ἐλεύθερον ἔλθης,
112
484 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

tarus, or is destined to fresh wanderings through human

or animal forms.! When, therefore, we meet with such
a representation of the doctrine, among recent writers,”
we have every reason to accept it? as true, without on
that account admitting all that they combine with it.*
The souls, we are told, after departing from the body,
float about in the air;° and this no doubt is the foun-
dation of the opinion quoted above, that the solar
corpuscles are souls : an opinion which must not be
1 The Pythagoreans are said to rationally. Plut. Plac.1.4; Galen.
have denominated this return into 6. 28; Theodoret, Cur. gr. aff. v. —
the body by the word παλιγγενεσία. 123, represent only the rational
Serv. den. 111. 68: Pythagoras non part of the soul as existing after
μετεμψύχωσιν sed παλιγγενεσίαν esse death; but these, like the asser-
dicit, h. 6. redire [animam] post tions of the equality of the spirit
tempus. Vgl. p. 474, 3. in men and animals (Sext. M. ix.
2 E. g. Alexander, who seems 127; vide sup. p. 417, 3) are sub-
here to reproduce the Pythagorean sequent inferences. The myths
ideas with less admixture than about the personal transmigration
usual, ap. Diog. vill. 31: ἐκριφθεῖσαν of Pythagoras have been noticed,
δ᾽ αὐτὴν [τὴν ψυχὴν] ἐπὶ γῆς πλά- p. 340, 1.
ζεσθαι ὁμοίαν τῷ σώματι (cf. Plato, 3 Our exposition will likewise
Phedo, 81 C; Iambl. V. P. 1389, refute what Gladisch says (Noack’s
148): τὸν δ᾽ Ἑρμῆν ταμίαν εἶναι τῶν Jahrb. f. Spek. Philos. 1847, 692
ψυχῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πομπαῖον λέγεσ- sq.) to prove that Empedocles was
θαι καὶ πυλαῖον καὶ χθόνιον, ἐπειδήπερ the first philosopher who taught
οὗτυς εἰσπέμπει GTO τῶν σωμάτων the doctrine of Metempsychosis.
τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ ἐκ θαλάτ- 4 For instance, what is said
της καὶ ἄγεσθαι τὰς μὲν καθαρὰς about the prohibition to kill and
ἐπὶ τὸν ὕψιστον, τὰς δ᾽ ἀκαθάρτους eat animals (vide sup. p. 344, 3).
μήτ᾽ ἐκείνῳ πελάζειν μήτ᾽ ἀλλήλαις, Only we must not, like Gladisch,
δεῖσθαι δ᾽ ἐν ἀῤῥήκτοις δεσμοῖς ὑπ᾽ conclude that Pythagoras, there-
Ἐριννύων. Porph. V. P. 19: πρῶ- fore, could not have admitted the
τὸν μὲν ἀθάνατον εἶναί φησι τὴν transmigration of souls. Plato and
ψυχὴν, εἶτα μεταβάλλουσαν εἰς ἄλλα others admitted it, and yet ate
γένη ζῴων. Porphyry, it is true, meat. Empedocles does not forbid
adds: ὅτι πάντα τὰ γινόμενα ἔμψυχα the eating of plants, although he
ὁμογενῆ δεῖ νομίζειν. Plut. Plac. held that human souls passed into
y. 20, 4 (Galen. ὁ. 35) interprets plants.
this to mean that the souls of ani- 5 Alex. ap. Diog. J. ὁ. Vide
mals are indeed rational in them- p. 484, 1; 487, 3.
selves, but are incapable, on ac- 6 Ritte εἰ Gesch.d. Phil.i. 442 R)
count of their bodies, of acting cites in regard to this the passage
 TRANSMI GRATION OF SOULS. 485

regarded as a philosophic doctrine,! but simply as a

Pythagorean superstition.” The belief in subterranean
abodes of the departed was undoubtedly maintained by
the Pythagoreans.* What was their precise conception
of the future state, whether like Plato they supposed
that some of the souls underwent refining punishments in
Hades, and that a definite interval must elapse between
the departure from one body and the entrance into
another ; whether they conceived the union of the soul
with the body as conditioned by choice, or by natural
affinity, or only by the will of God, tradition does not
say, and it is a question whether they had any fixed or

in Apuleius De Socr.c. 20: Aris- great affinity with what Aristotle

totle says that the Pythagoreans (De An. i. 5, 410 b, 27) ealls-a
thought it strange for any one to λόγος ἐν τοῖς “Oppikois καλουμένοις
pretend he had never seen a demon; ἔπεσι: τὴν ψυχὴν ἐκ τοῦ ὅλου εἶσιέ-
but it seems to me that apparitions ναι ἀναπνεόντων, φερομένην ὑπὸ τῶν
of the dead in human form are ἀνέμων. If the soul originally
meant, which, according to Iambli- floats in the air, and enters the
chus, V. P. 139, 148, the Pytha- body of the newly-born with the
goreans regarded as perfectly na- first breath, it escapes equally from
tural. the body of the dying with the last;
1 As Krische does (Forschungen, and if it does not ascend to a supe-
&e. 1. 83 sq.). He connects the rior abode, or sink to an inferior
texts abeve quoted with the ideas place, it must float about in the
of the central fire and the world- air until it enters another body.
soul by this hypothesis: that, ac- This Orphic conception itself seems
cording to the Pythagorean doc- to be connected with an ancient
trine, the souls only of the gods popular belief; the invocation in
proceeded directly from the world- use at Athens of the Tritopatores,
soul or central fire, and the souls or gods of the wind, to make mar-
of men from the sun, heated by the riages fruitful (Suid. τριτοπ.; ef.
central fire. I cannot accept this Lobeck, Aglaoph. 754), presup-
combination, for I do not admit poses that the sonl of the child
that the world-soul was a conception was brought by the wind, cf. p.
of the ancient Pythagoreans. What 78, 2.
is further added, that the souls 3. Aecording to lian. V. H.
were precipitated from the sun iv. 17, Pythagoras derived earth-
upon the earth, is not affirmed by quakes from the assemblies (σύγο-
any of our witnesses. dor) of the dead.
2 This Pythagorean theory has
486 THE PYTHAGOREANS. ,

complete theory at all on the subject. The doctrine

that each soul returned to earthly life under the same
circumstances as previously, once in each cosmical
period, is more distinctly ascribed to them.’
Important as the belief in Transmigration un-
doubtedly was to the Pythagoreans,’ it seems to have
had little connection with their philosophy. Later
writers seek the point of union in the thought that
souls, as the effluence of the world-soul, are of a divine
and therefore imperishable nature ;* but this thought,
as before remarked, can hardly be considered as be-
longing to the ancient Pythagoreans, since in all the
accounts it is bound up with Stoical ideas and ex-
pressions, and neither Aristotle in his treatise on the
soul, nor Plato in the Phwdo, ever allude to it, though
they both had many opportunities for so doing.* Apart
from this theory it would be possible to conceive that
the soul might have been regarded as an imperishable
essence, because it was a number or harmony.’ But
as the same holds good of all things generally, if would
involve no special prerogative of the soul ahove other
essences. If, on the other hand, the soul was in a more
precise manner conceived as the harmony of the body,
all that could be inferred from this is what Simmias
1 Cf. p. 474 sq. Phedo, it is very unlikely that
3 Schleiermacher’s notion(Gesch. Plato, who delighted in referring
d. Phil. 58) that we ought not to to Orphic and Pythagorean tradi-
take this hterally, but as an ethical tions (vide p. 61 C, 62 B, 69 C, 70
allegory of our affinity with the C), would, in expressing a thought
animal kingdom, is contrary to all so similar (79 B, 80 A), have en-
historical testimony, including that tirely abstained from all allusion
of Philolaus, Plato, and Aristotle. to the Pythagoreans if his doctrine
3 Vide supra, Ὁ. 475, 417 sq. of immortality had been taken from
4 As has been already shown in them.
regard to Aristotle. As to the 5 Vide supra, Ὁ. 477.
 IMMORTALITY. DAMONS. 487

infers in the Phedo, that the soul must come to an end

with the body of which it is the harmony.' It seems
very doubtful, therefore, whether the doctrine of immor-
tality and transmigration was scientifically .connected
by the Pythagoreans with their theories of the essential
nature of the soul, or with their number-theory. The
ethical importance of this doctrine is undeniable. But
ethics, as we shall presently see, was equally neglected
by them, so far as any scientific treatment is concerned.
This dogma appears therefore to have been, not an ele-
ment of the Pythagorean philosophy, but a tradition of
the Pythagorean mysteries, originating probably from
more ancient orphic traditions,” and having no scientific
- connection with the philosophic principle of the Pytha-
- goreans. |
The belief in demons, to which the ancient Pytha-
goreans were much addicted,? must also be included

1 Cf. p.477,2. Still less can we, should honour the gods above all;
with Hermann (Gesch. d. Plato, i. aiter them the heroes and the sub-
684, 616), find proof in Ovid. (Me- terranean dzmons (καταχθόνιοι
tam. xv. 214 sq.), and in Plut. (De δαίμονες, manes). Later writers,
ei, c. p. 18), that the Pythagoreans like Plutarch, Ue Is. 25, p. 360;
based metempsychosis on the doc- Placita, i. 8, combine the Pytha-
trine of the fiux of all things, and gorean doctrine with the doctrines
especially on the change of form of Plato and Xenocrates, but on
and substance of our bodies. Cf. this very account they cannot be
Susemihl, Genet. Eniw. d. Plat. considered trustworthy as regards
Phil. i. 440 Pythagoreanism. The testimony
2 Vide p. 67 sq. of Alexander ap. Diog. xiii. 32,
3 Already Philolaus, Fr. 18 touching demons and their infiu-
(supra, p. 371, 2), seems to distin- ence on men seems to come from a
guish between demons and gods. So more primitive source: εἶναί τε
does Aristoxenus (ap. Stob. Flori. πάντα Tov ἀέρα ψυχῶν ἔμπλεων"
79, 45), when he recommends that καὶ ταύτας δαίμονάς τε καὶ ἥρω-
we should honour our parents as ας ὀνομάζεσθαι: καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων
well as gods and demons. The πέμπεσθαι ἀνθρώποις τούς τ᾽ ὃν-
Golden Poem (vy. 1 544.) says in a elpouvs καὶ τὰ σημεῖα νόσου τε καὶ
more definite manner that we ὑγιείας, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἄνθρώποις
488 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

among their mystic doctrines. As far as we know on

the subject, they thought that dsmons were bodiless
souls which dwell, some of them under the earth, and
some in the air, and which from time to time appear
to men ;! but spirits of nature as well as the souls of
the dead seem to have been called by this name.” The
Pythagoreans derived revelations and soothsaying from
the dzmons, and connected them with purifications
and expiations:* the high estimation in which they
held soothsaying is frequently attested.* To the class
of demons belonged also the heroes,’ but there appears
to have been nothing particular in the worship accorded

ἀλλὰ Kal προβάτοις Kat τοῖς ἄλλοις that this higher influence is re-
κτήνεσιν" εἴς τε τούτους γίνεσθαι ferred to by Philolaus ap. Arist.
τούς τε καθαρμοὺς καὶ ἀποτροπιασ- (Eth. Eud. 6, ad fin.), εἶναί τινας
μοὺς, μαντικήν τε πᾶσαν καὶ κλῇδο- λόγους κρείττους ἡμῶν. Alex. (J. ὁ.)
vas καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. Cf. Alian. iv. 17: attributes revelations and expia-
ὃ πολλάκις ἐμπίπτων τοῖς ὠσὶν ἦχος tions to the demons and not to the
(Πυθαγ. ἔφασκεν) φωνὴ τῶν κρειτ- δαιμόνιον ; but the exclusiveness of
τόνων. How far the famous this opinion seems to betray the
Platonic exposition, Symp. 202 E, stand-point of a later period, which
is of Pythagorean origin, cannot would not admit any direct inter-
be determined. course between gods andmen. We
1 Cf. preceding note and pas- find besides in Alex. a perceptible
sages quoted, p. 483, 6. likeness to the text in the Sympo-
2 Cf. the assertion of Porphyry sium of Plato, 202 E.
V. P. 41: τὸν δ᾽ ἐκ χαλκοῦ Kpovo- 4 Vide supra, p. 849,2. The
μένου ἦχον φωνὴν εἶναί τινος τῶν greater number add that Pytha-
δαιμόνων ἐναπειλημμένην τῷ χαλκῷ, goras refused to allow the interro-
an ancient and fantastic notion gation of victims (in Galen. H. ph.
which reminds us of the opinion 6. 80, p. 8320, we should read ac-
of Thales on the soul of the mag- cording to the text of the Plac. v.
net. 1, 3, οὐκ ἔγκρίνει instead of μόνον
8 Aristoxenus ap. Stob. Ecl. i. τὸ θυτικὸν οὐκ ἀνήρει). But this
206: περὶ δὲ τύχης τάδ᾽ EpacKkoy opinion rests entirely on the sup-
εἶναι μέντοι καὶ δαιμόνιον μέρος position that he forbade bloody
αὐτῆς, γενέσθαι yop ἐπίπνοιάν τινα sacrifices, and in general the killing
παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου τῶν ἀνθρώπων of animals, which has no founda.
ἐνίοις ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ tion in history.
χεῖρον. Brandis (i. 496), in oppo- 8 Vide supra, p. 487, ἃ.
sition to Bockh, PAilol. 184, thinks
 ETHICS. 489

to them.! The opinion that dzemons occupied an inter-

mediate place between gods and men” already existed in
the more ancient popular faith.
If we turn from the demons to the gods, we find,
as has already been observed,’ that the Pythagoreans, in
all probability, brought their theology into no scientific
connection with their philosophical principle. That
the conception of God as a religious idea was of the
highest significance to’ them, is indubitable ; neverthe-
less, apart from the untrustworthy statements of later
writers, of which we have before spoken, very little has
been handed down to us about their peculiar theological
tenets. Philolaus says that everything is enclosed in
the divinity as in a prison ; he is also said to have called
God the beginning of all things; and in a fragment
the authenticity of which is not certain, he describes him
in the manner of Xenophanes as the one, eternal, un-
changeable, unmoved, self-consistent ruler of all things.*
From this it is evident that he had advanced beyond
the ordinary polytheism to that purer conception of
Deity, which we not unfrequently meet with among
philosophers and poets before his time. The story in
the Pythagorean legend,’ that Pythagoras when he went
into Hades saw the souls of Homer and Hesiod under-
going severe torments for their sayings about the gods,
is to the same effect. We cannot, however, lay much
stress upon this, as the date of the story is unknown.

1 At any rate what Diog. (vili. tle, supra, p. 338, 3.

83) says is the general Greek 3 Vide p. 387 sq.
opinion ; vide Hermann, Gr. Ant. ii. 4 Supra, p. 402, 1.
sect. 29 k. 5 Hieronymus ap. Diog. vil,
- ὃ Vide quotation from Aristo- 21, vide supra, p. 340, 2.
 490 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Some other particulars are related of Pythagoras and »

his school,! which are still more uncertain, and the
evidence of which collectively proves nothing more —
than we have already admitted, viz., that the Pytha~
goreans indeed purified and spiritualised the popular
belief, and strongly insisted on the Unity of the Divine,
but cannot be said to have consciously attempted to
arrive at any philosophic theory of God. This purifica-
“tion, however, was not connected in their case, as in the
case of Xenophanes, with a polemic against the popular
religion; and though they may not have agreed with
everything that Homer and Hesiod said about the gods,
yet the popular religion as a whole formed the basis of
their own theory of the world and of life; in this
respect it is hardly necessary to refer particularly to
their worship of Apollo, their connection with the
Orphics, their predilection for religious symbolism,? and
their myths about the lower world. Consequently, their
theological opinions cannot, strictly speaking, be con-
sidered as part of their philosophy.
The religious belief of the Pythagoreans stood in
ὙΗΩΣ
close connection with their moral prescripts. Human
life, they were convinced, was not only, like everything
1 Such as the expression attri- tion of Pythagoras, e.g., in Plut.
buted to Pythagoras by Themist. De Aud. i. p. 87; Clem. Strom. ii.
(Or. xv. 192, b) εἰκόνα πρὸς θεὸν 390 D.
εἶναι ἀνθρώπους, with which the so- 2 Cf. the passages quoted, p.
called Eurysus in the fragment ap. 421, 444, 4; 469, 2 ; also the state-
Clem. Strom. v. 559 D, agrees ; or ment ap. Clem. Strom. v. 571 B;
what we find in Stob. (Hel. i. 66), Porph. Κ΄. P. 41 (after Aristotle), ac-
Tambl. (V. P. 187), Hierocles (/n cording to which the Pythagoreans
Carm. Aur. Pref. p. 417 b, M), on called the planets the dogs of Perse-
the destiny of man—to be as like phone, the two Bears the hands of
God as possible. The formula ἕπου Rhea, the Pleiades the lyre of the
θεῷ is often quoted, without men- Muses, the sea the tears of Cronos.
 ETHICS. 491

else, in a general manner under the Divine care and

protection; but was also in a particular sense the road
which leads to the purification of the soul, from which no
one, therefore, has any right to depart of his own choice.!
The essential problem of man’s life, consequently, is his be
ἐ

moral purification and perfection; and if during his

earthly life, he is condemned to imperfect effort; if,
instead of wisdom, virtue merely, or a struggle for
wisdom, is possible,” the only inference is that in this
struggle man cannot do without the support which the
relation to the Deity offers to him. The Pythagorean
ethical doctrine therefore has a thoroughly religious
character: to follow God and to become lke Him is
its highest principle.* But it stands in no closer rela-
tion to their philosophy than their dogmatic doctrine
does. Itis of the greatest moment in practical life,
but its scientific development is confined to the most
elementary attempts. Almost the only thing we know
about it, in this respect, is the definition, already quoted,
of justice as a square number, or as dvtitretrovOos.4 But
that is only an arbitrary application of the method,
which elsewhere prevailed in the Pythagorean school—
that of defining the essence of a thing by an analogy

1 Vide supra, Ὁ. 483,1; 402, 2. In qu. v. Porph. 5, Ὁ.

2 So Philolaus, sup. p. 471, 2. 3 Vide sup. p. 490, 1. We find
For the same reason, we are told, the same idea (actording to the
Pythagoras repudiated the name of exact explanation given, ap. Phot.
sage, and called himself instead p. 499 a, 8), in the saying ascribed
φιλόσοφος. Cic. Tusc. v. 3, 8; to Pythagoras, and quoted by Plut.
Diog. i. 12; viii. 8 (after Hera- De Superst.c. 9, Ὁ. 169; Def. Orac.
clides and Sosicrates); Iambl. 58, ce. 7, p. 413, that the best for us is
159; Clemens, Strom. i. 300 C; to get near to the gods.
ef. iv. 477 C; Valer. Max. viii. 7, 4 Vide sup. 420, 2.
2; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 14; Ammon,
492 THE PYTHAGOREANS,

of number; there is scarcely the most feeble germ of

any scientific treatment of ethics. The author of the
Magna Moralia says that Pythagoras attempted in-
deed a theory of virtue, but in so doing, did not arrive
at the proper nature of ethical activity.' We must go
farther and say that the stand-point of Pythagoreism
in general was not that of scientific ethics. Nor can
we argue much from the proposition ? that Virtue con-
sists in Harmony, for the same definition was applied
by the Pythagoreans to all possible subjects ; besides,
the date of the proposition is quite uncertain.? Whether
the moral tendency of the myths about the vessel of the
Danaids, which we find in Plato, is really derived from
Philolaus or any other Pythagorean is doubtful,* and if
it is, no conclusion can be drawn from it. From all
that tradition tells us, it is evident that ethics with the
Pythagoreans, as with the other Pre-Socratic philoso-
phers, never advanced beyond popular reflection; in
regard to any more developed ethical conceptions, they
are only to be found in the untrustworthy statements of
more recent authors,” and in the fragments of writings
1M. Mor τ 1. 1182 1:5, 11» θεόν. Similarlyin Iambl. 69, 229,
πρῶτος μὲν οὖν ἐνεχείρησε ΤΙυθαγόρας Pythagoras demands that there
περὶ ἀρετῆς εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς δέ" should be friendship between the
τὰς γὰρ ἀρετὰς εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς soul and the body, between reason
ἀνάγων οὐκ οἰκείαν τῶν ἀρετῶν τὴν and sense, ete.
θεωρίαν ἐποιεῖτο: οὐ yap ἐστιν ἣ % For the evidence, as we have
δικαιοσύνη ἀριθμὸς ἰσάκις ἴσος. The shown, is untrustworthy, and the
statement that Pythagoras was the silence of Aristotle on the subject,
first to speak of virtue seems to though it is not decisive, makes it
have arisen from the passage all the more doubtful.
quoted, p. 420, 2, from Metaph. * Sup. p. 482, 2.
Xill. 4. 5 Among these we must reckon
5. Alexander, ap. Diog. viii. 33: the assertion of Heracleides of
THY τ᾽ ἀρετὴν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ Thy Pontus (ap. Clem. Strum. 11. 417,
ὑγίειαν καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἅπαν καὶ τὸν A), that Prthigete defined hap-
 ETHICS, 495

which partly by their empty diffusiveness, and partly by

their large use of later theories and expressions, betray
their date too clearly to be worth noticing in this place.!
Of the remaining authorities on the ethics of the
Pythagoreans, the statements of Aristoxenus merit the
greatest attention. Though he may perhaps describe
the principles of the school in his own forms of expres-
‘sion, and probably not without some admixture of his
own thoughts, yet on the whole the picture which we
get from him is one which agrees with historical prob-
ability, and with the statements of others. The Pytha-
goreans, according to Aristoxenus, required before all
things adoration of the gods and of demons, and in
the second place reverence to parents and to the laws
of one’s country, which ought not to be lightly ex-
changed for foreign laws.2 They regarded lawlessness
as the greatest evil; for without authority they believed
the human race could not subsist. Rulers and the
ruled should be united together by love; every citizen
should have his special place assigned to him in the
whole; boys and youths are to be educated for the state,
adults and old men are to be active in its service.3
Loyalty, fidelity, and long-suffering in friendship,
subordination of the young to the old, gratitude to
parents and benefactors are strictly enjoined. There
piness as ἐπιστήμη τῆς τελειότητος sq.; Porph. V. P. 38; Diog. viii.
τῶν ἀρετῶν (al. ἀριθμῶν) τῆς ψυχῆς. 23; these latter, no doubt, after
Heyder ( Eth. Pyth. Vindic. p. 17) Aristoxenus.
should not, therefore, have appealed % Ap. Stob. Floril. 43, 49.
to this text. * Tambl. V. P. 101 sqq. No
1 Vide Part III. b, 123 sqq., se- doubt, after Aristotle, for these
cond edition. ; prescripts are repeatedly called
2 Ap. Stob. Floril. 79, 48. πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσει,
Similarly the Golden Poem, vy. 1
494 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

must be a moderate number of children, but excess in

sensual indulgence, and without marriage, is to he
avoided.!. He who possesses true love for the beautiful
will not devote himself to outward show, but to moral
activity and science;* conversely, science can only
succeed when it is pursued with love and desire.? In
many things man is dependent on Fortune, .but in
many he is himself the lord of his fate.* In the same
spirit are the moral prescripts of the Golden Poem.
Reverence towards the gods and to parents, loyalty to
friends, justice and gentleness to all men, temperance,
self-command, discretion, purity of life, resignation to
fate, regular self-examination, prayer, observance of
consecrating rites, abstinence from impure food,—such
are the duties for the performance of which the
Pythagorean book of precepts promises a happy lot
after death. These, and similar virtues, Pythagoras is
said to have enforced, in those parabolic maxims, of
which so many specimens are given us,” but the origin
of which is in individual instances as obscure as their
meaning. He taught, as we are elsewhere informed,®
1 Ap. Stob. Floril. 43, 49, 101, Ῥ. 12; Qu. Conv. viii. 7,1, 3, 4, 5;
4, M; οὗ the Pythagorean word and supra, p. 340, 4.
quoted, ap. Arist. (con. i, 4 sub 6 Diog. viii. 23; Porph. V. P.
init.), and the statement that Py- 38 sq. These two texts, by their
thagoras persuaded the Crotoniats agreement, point to a common
to send away their concubines. source, perhaps Aristoxenus, Diod.
Tamb. 132. Exc. p. 555 Wess. In the same
2 Stob. Floril. 5, 70. passage, Diog. 22 brings forward
8 Aristox. in the extracts from the prohibition of the oath, of
Joh. Damase. ii. 18, 119 (Stob. bloody sacrifices; but this is cer-
Floril. Ed. Mein. iv. 206). tainly a later addition. As to the
4 Stob. Eel. 11. 206 sqq. oath, Diodorus, J. ¢., seems the more
5 Vide Diog. viii. 17 sq. ; Porph. accurate. What Diog. says (viii.
V. P. 42: Jambl. 105; Athen. x. 9), following supposed writings of
452 D; Plut. De Educ. Puer. 17, Pythagoras, as to the time of con-
 ETHICS. 495

reverence to parents and the aged, respect for the laws,

faithfulness and disinterestedness in friendship, friendli-
ness to all, moderation and decorum ; commanded that
the gods should be approached in pure garments and
with a pure mind; that men should seldom swear, and
never break their oaths, keep what is entrusted to
them, avoid wanton desire, and not injure useful plants
and animals. The long moral declamations which
Iamblichus puts into his mouth, in many passages of
his work,’ for the most part carry out these thoughts:
they are exhortations to piety, to the maintenance of
right, morals and law, to moderation, to simplicity, to
love of country, to respect to parents, to faithfulness in
friendship and marriage, to a harmonious life, full of
moral earnestness. Many more details of this kind
might be added ;” in almost every instance, however, the
evidence is too uncertain to allow of any dependence
upon it. But, according to the unanimous testimony
jugal intercourse, appears scarcely and discord, which Porph. 292,
worthy of credit. The statement Tambl. 34 (cf. 171) attributes to
of Diog. 21 is more likely to have Pythagoras, and which Hieron (6.
belonged to the ancient Pythago- Ruf. ni. 39, vol. ii. 565, Vall.) at-
reans. tributes to Archippus and to Lysis;
1 In great part following an- the apophthegms of Theano on
cient writers, ef. with Iambl. 37- the duty and position of women;
57; Porph. 18; Justin. ἢ δέ. xx. ap. Stob. Florii. 74, 32, 53, 55;
4; and supra, p. 344, 4. Iambl. V. P. 55, 132; Clemens,
2 E. g. the famous κοινὰ τὰ τῶν Strom. iv. 522 D: the utterance of
φίλων (supra, p. 345, 2); the saying Clinias, ap. Plut. Qu. Conv. iii. 6,
that man should be one. ap. Clem. 3; the comparison attributed to
Strom. 1v. 535 C; ef. Proclus in Archytas of the judge and the
Aleth. iii. 72; Conv. in Parm. iv. altar, ap. Arist. Rhet. iii. 11, 1412
78, 112 (the end of life is, accord- a, 12; thesentences given by Plut.
ing to the Pythagoreans, the ἑνότης De Audiendo, 13, p. 44; De Evil.
and φιλία); the exhortation to c. 8, p. 602; De Frat. Am. 17 p.
truthfulness, ap. Stob. Flori/. 11, 488; Ps. Plut. De Vita Hom.
25, 13, 21; the saying as to the 161.
evils of ignorance, intemperance,
496 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

of our authorities, and to what has already been said

on the political character of the Pythagorean associa-
tion, we may consider it proved that the school of
Pythagoras, believing in the almighty power of the
gods, and in future retribution, enforced purity of life,
moderation and justice, minute self-examination and
discretion in all actions, and especially discouraged
self-conceit; that it also required unconditional ob-
servance of moral order in the family, in the state, in
friendship, and in general intercourse. Important,
however, as is the place it thereby occupies in the
history of Greek culture, and in that of mankind, yet
the scientific value of these doctrines is altogether
inferior to their practical significance.

VI. RETROSPECTIVE SUMMARY.

CHARACTER, ORIGIN, AND ANTIQUITY OF THE

PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY.

Wuat has been remarked at the close of the last

section, and previously at the beginning of this exposi-
tion, on the difference between the Pythagorean life
and the Pythagorean philosophy, will be confirmed if
we take a general survey of the doctrines of the school.
The Pythagorean association, with its rule of life, its
code of morals, its rites of consecration, and its political
endeavours, doubtless had its origin in ethico-religious
motives. It has been previously shown (p. 149 sq.) that,
among the gnomic poets of the sixth century, complaints
of the wretchedness of life and the vices of mankind,
on the one hand; and on the other, the demand for
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 497

order and measure in moral and civil life, were more

prominent than with their predecessors; and we recog-
nised in this a deepening of the moral consciousness,
which naturally went hand in hand with the contemporary
revolution in political conditions, and in the intellectual
life of the Greeks. The transformation and spread of
the Orphico-Bacchic mysteries point the same way; for
they at the same period undoubtedly gained much in
religious content and historical importance.! To the
same causes in all probability Pythagoreanism owed its
rise. The lively sense of the sorrows and short-comings
inseparable from human existence, in conjunction with
an earnest moral purpose, seems to have begotten in
Pythagoras the idea of an association which should lead
its members by means of religious rites, moral pre-
scripts, and certain special customs, to purity of life
and respect for all moral ordinances. It is, therefore,
quite legitimate to derive Pythagoreanism in its larger
sense—the Pythagorean association and the Pythagorean»
life—from the moral] interest. But it does not follow
that the Pythagorean philosophy had also a predomi-
nantly ethical character. The Ionic naturalistic phi-
losophy sprang, as we have seen, from the Ionic cities
with their agitated political life, and from the circle of
the so-called seven sages. In the same way the Pytha-
gorean association may have had in the beginning a
moral and religious end, and yet may have given birth
to a physical theory, since the object of scientific en-
quiry was at that time the nature of the physical world,
? Vide sup. p. 61 sq. ? As some modern writers have
thought, sup. p. 184, 1.
VOL. I. KE
498 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

and not Ethics. That such was the case must be con-
ceded even by those who regard Pythagoreanism as an
essentially ethical system;! and the passage quoted
above from the Magna Moralia, which, moreover, is far
from having the weight of a genuine testimony of
Aristotle, cannot overthrow this ‘assertion.? The object
of Pythagorean science was, according to all our pre-
vious observations, identical with that of the other
pre-Socratic systems—namely, natural phenomena and
their causes; Ethics was treated by it only in a
quite isolated and superficial manner. Against this
no argument can be drawn from the undoubtedly
1 Ritter, Gesch. d. Phil. i. 191. gorean customs tohim). This text,
‘It is true that the Pythagorean in fact, does not tell us anything
philosophy is also chiefly occupied that we have not learned from
with the reasons of the world and other sources.
the physical phenomena of the 3 This has been already shown,
universe, ete. The same author, Ῥ. 490 sqq. When, therefore, Hey-
Ῥ. 450, says : ‘Those parts of morals der (Ethic. Pythag. Vindie. p. 10
which they (the Pythagoreans) de- sq.) appeals in favour of the oppo-
veloped scientifically, seem to have site opinion to Arist. Ethie. N. 1. 4;
been of little importance.’ Bran- ii. 5 (vide supra, p. 380, 1, 2), he
dis, 1. 498 : ‘ Although the tendency attributes far too much importance
towards ethics of the Pythago- to the expression, συστοιχία τῶν
reans must be regarded as essen- ἀγαθῶν. Aristotle designates by
tially characteristic of their aims these words the first of the two
and efforts, we find only a few iso- series of ten numbers, the oppo-
lated fragments of a Pythagorean sition of which arranged in pairs
doctrine of morality ;and these are constitutes the Pythagorean table
not even of such a nature that we of contraries (the Limited, the
might suppose them to be the re- Odd, ete.). But it does not follow
mains of a more comprehensive sys- from this that the Pythagoreans
tem of doctrine now lost to us,’ ete. themselves made use of this desig-
2 Cf. p. 491, 2. What Brandis nation, or that they understood the
says in Fichte’s Zeitschrift, xiii. 132, ἀγαθόν and κακόν in the ethical
in favour of the statement in the sense, and not in the physical sense
Magna Moralia cannot outweigh as well. Still less does it follow (as
the known spuriousness of this Heyder says J. c. and p. 18), that
work, and the fact that Aristotle they invented a table of goods and
nowhere mentions the personal set up a scientific principle for
doctrine of Pythagoras (though he ethics, something like that of
may sometimes refer some Pytha- Plato.
CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 499

ethical tendency! of the Pythagorean life, nor from

the great number of Pythagorean moral maxims; for
the question is not how the Pythagoreans lived, and
what they thought right, but whether, and how far, they
sought to understand and to account for moral activities
scientifically.? The conclusion that Pythagoras, in order
to make life moral, must also have given account to
himself of the nature of morality,? is in the highest
degree uncertain; it does not at all follow from his
practical course of action that he reflected in a scientific
manner upon the general nature of morality, and did
not, like other reformers and law-givers, content himself
with the determination of special and immediate pro-
blems. For the same reason the mythical doctrine of
transmigration, and the theory of life dependent upon
it, cannot here be considered ; these are not scientific
propositions, but religious dogmas, which moreover
were not confined to the Pythagorean school. So far
as the Pythagorean philosophy is concerned, I can only
assent to the judgment of Aristotle,‘ that it was entirely
devoted to the investigation of nature. It may be
objected that this was not pursued in a physical manner ;
1 On which Schleiermacher re- λέγονται μέντοι καὶ πραγματεύονται
΄ i

lies, Gesch. der Phil. 51 sq. περὶ φύσεως πάντα: γεννῶσί τε yap
᾿ LA ,ὔ ΄-

2 Otherwise we must also τὸν οὐρανὸν kal περὶ τὰ τούτου μέρη

.% >

reckon, among the representatives καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰ ἔργα διατηροῦσι

of moral philosophy, Heracleitus τὸ συμβαῖνον, καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰ
and Democritus, because of the αἴτια εἰς ταῦτα καταναλίσκουσιν. ὡς
moral sentences which they have ὁμολογοῦντες, ete. (supra, p. 189, 3).
transmitted tous; and Parmenides Metaph. xiv. 8, 1091 a, 18: ἐπειδὴ
and Zeno, because their manner of κοσμοποιοῦσι Kal φυσικῶς βούλονται
life was like that of the Pythago- λέγειν, δίκαιον αὐτοὺς ἐξετάζειν τι
reans ; not to speak of Empedocles. περὶ Φύσεως ἐκ δὲ τῆς νῦν ἀφεῖναι
3 Brandis, Fichte’s Zettschr. f. μεθόδου. Cf. Part. Anim. i, 1;
Phil. xiii. 131 sq. supra, p. 185, 3.
* Metaph. 1. 8, 989 b, 33: δια-
KK2
500 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

that the object of the Pythagoreans was to enquire how

law and harmony, morally determined by the concepts
of good and evil, lie in the principles of the universe:
that all appeared to them in an ethical light, that the
whole harmony of the world was regulated according to
moral concepts, and that the entire order of the uni-
verse is to them a development of the first principle
into virtue and wisdom.’ In reply to this view of
Pythagoreanism, much may be said. In itself such a
relation of thought to its object is scarcely conceivable.
Where scientific enquiry proceeds so exclusively from
an ethical interest, as it is supposed to have done in
the case of the Pythagoreans, it must also, as it would
seem, have applied itself to ethical questions, and
produced an independent system of ethics, instead of
an arithmetical metaphysic, and cosmology. But this
hypothesis also contradicts historical fact. Far from
having founded their study of nature on moral con-
siderations, they rather reduced the moral element to
mathematical and metaphysical concepts, which they
originally obtained from their observation of nature—
resolving virtues into numbers, and the opposition of
good and evil? into that of the limited and unlimited.
This is not to treat physics ethically, but ethics
physically. Schleiermacher, indeed, would have us
regard their mathematics as the technical part of their
ethics. He thinks that all virtues and all ethical
relations were expressed by particular numbers; he sees
Ritter, 1. 6. 191, 454, and numbers should be understood
similarly Heyder, Ethic. Py- symbolically.
thag. Vindic. p. 7 sq.: 13, 31 5α.; 2 As Ritter substantially con-
who thinks that the Pythagorean cedes, Pyth. Phil. 182 sq.
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY, 501

an evidently ethical tendency underlying the table of

opposites.! But as these assertions are devoid of all
foundation, it is unnecessary to refute them; how
arbitrary they are, must have already appeared from
our previous exposition. Ritter observes,” more correctly,
that the mathematics of the Pythagoreans were con-
nected with their ethics by the general idea of order,
which is expressed in the concept of harmony. The
only question is whether this order was apprehended in
their philosophical system as a moral or a natural order.
The answer cannot be doubtful when we reflect that,
. so far as scientific determinations are concerned, the
Pythagoreans sought this order anywhere rather than in
the actions of men. For it finds its first and most
immediate expression in tones, next in the universe;
while, on the other hand, no attempt is made to arrange
moral activities according to harmonical proportions.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the Pythagoreans
founded physics and ethics upon a common higher prin-
ciple (that of harmony),* for they do not treat this
principle as equally physical and ethical: it is the in-
terpretation of nature to which it is primarily applied,
and for the sake of which it is required; it is only
applied to moral life in an accessory manner, and to a
far more limited extent.4 Number and harmony have
here an essentially physical import, and when it is said
' Ibid. p. 51, 55, 59. utrisque superius, quod tamen non
2 Gesch. d. Phil. i. 465. appellarint nisi nomine a rebus
8 Heyder, J. 6. p. 12 saq. physicis repetito. Why should they
4 Heyder himself indirectly have chosen a merely physical de-
confesses this wben he says, p.14: signation, if they had equally in
Et physica et ethica ad principium view the moral element?
608 revocassé utrisgue commune ¢t
δ02 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

that all is number and harmony, the meaning is not

that the order of nature is grounded upon a higher
moral order, it simply expresses the nature of the
physical world itself. Although, therefore, I willingly
admit that the Pythagoreans would not perhaps have
arrived at these definitions if the ethical tendency of
the Pythagorean association had not quickened their
sense of measure and harmony,! yet I cannot on that
account regard their science itself as ethical: I must
consider it in its essential content as purely a system of
physics. |
Nor can I allow that the Pythagorean philosophy
originally sprang from the problem of the conditions of
knowledge, and not from enquiries concerning the
nature of things: that numbers were regarded by the
Pythagoreans as the principle of all Being, not because
they thought they perceived in numerical proportions
the permanent ground of phenomena, but because,
without number, nothing seemed to them cognisable:
and, because according to the celebrated principle, ‘ like
is known by like,’ the ground of cognition must also be
the ground of reality.’ Philolaus, it is true, urges in
1 We must not, however, over- Metaph. p.79sq.). This assertion
look the fact that other philosophers is connected with the theory of
who were famous for their Pytha- which we have just spoken (viz.
gorean manner of life, as Parme- that Pythagoreanism was chiefly
nides and Empedocles, as well as ethical in character), by the follow-
Heracleitus, whose ethics are very ing remark (Zeitschr. 7. Phil. 135).
similar to those of Pythagoras, Since the Pythagoreans found the
arrived at perfectly different philo- principle of things in themselves,
sophie conclusions. and not outside themselves, they
2 Brandis Rhein. Mus. 11. 215 were led to direct their attention
sqq.; Gr.-rom. Phil. i. 420 8q., 440; all the more to the purely internal
Fichte’s Zeitschr. 7. Phil. xiii. 134 side of moral activity; or con-
sqq.; Gesch. ὦ. Entw. 1. 164 sq. (cf. versely. Here, however, strictly
Reinhold, Beitrag z. Erl. d. pyth. speaking, Brandis makes the general
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 503

proof of his theory of numbers, that without number

no knowledge would be possible, that number admits
of no untruth and alone determines and makes cog-
nisable the relations of things.!. But he has also pre-
viously shown,? quite in an objective manner, that
everything must be either limited or unlimited, or
both together, and it is only to prove the necessity of
the limit that he brings forward this fact among others,
that without limit nothing would be knowable. Aris-
totle says* that the Pythagoreans regarded the elements
of numbers as the elements of all things, because they
thought they had discovered a radical similarity between
numbers and things. This observation, however, indi-
cates that their theory started from the problem of the
essence of things, rather than that of the conditions of
knowledge. But the two questions were in fact not
separated in ancient times; it is the distinctive pecu-
liarity of the Pre-Socratic dogmatism that thought
directs itself to the cognition of the real, without in-
vestigating its own relation to the object, or the subjec-
tive forms and conditions of knowledge. Consequently
no distinction is drawn between the grounds of know-
ledge and the grounds of reality ; the nature of things
is sought simply in that which is most prominent to
the philosopher in his contemplation of them; in that
which he cannot separate from them in his thought. The
Pythagoreans in this procedure resemble other schools,

idea of an internal or idealistic 1 Fr, 2, 4, 18, supra, p. 371, 2;

tendency the starting-point of 372, 1.
Pythagoreanism, and not the pre- 2 Fr. 1. supra, p. 379, 1.
cise question of the truth of our 3 Metaph. i. 5, supra, p. 369, 1.
knowledge,
δ04 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

for example, the Eleatics, whose objective starting-

point Brandis contrasts with the so-called subjective
starting-point of the Pythagoreans. Philolaus says that
all must be number to be cognisable. In the same
way, Parmenides says that only Being exists, for Being
alone is the object of speech and cognition.’ We can-
not conclude from this that the Eleatics first arrived
at their metaphysic through their theory of know-
ledge; nor is the conclusion admissible in the case of
the Pythagoreans. It could only be so, if they had
investigated the nature of the faculty of cognition as
such, apart from that of the object of cognition ; if
they had based their number-theory upon a theory of
the faculty of knowing. Of this, however, there is no
trace ;2 for the incidental remark of Philolaus, that
the sensuous perception is only possible by means of
the body, even if genuine, cannot be regarded as a
fragment of a theory of knowledge, and what later
writers have related as Pythagorean,‘ on the distinc-
tion between reason, science, opinion, and sensation,
is as untrustworthy as the statement of Sextus,’ that
1 'V. 39 :— well within themselves as without :
οὔτε γὰρ ἂν γνοίης τό γε μὴ ἐὸν (οὐ numbers were for them the essence
γὰρ ἐφικτόν), of things in general.
οὔτε φράσαις. τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἔσ- 8 Supra, p. 483, 1.
τιν τε καὶ εἶναι. 4 Supra, p. 479, 3.
2 Brandis also concedes this, 5 Math. vii. 92: of δὲ Πυθαγο-
Zeitschr. 7. Phil. xiii. 1385, when ρικεὶ τὸν λόγον μέν φασιν [κριτήριον
he says that the Pythagoreans did εἶναι], οὐ κοινῶς δὲ, τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν
not start from the definite question μαθημάτων περιγινόμενον, καθάπερ
of the conditions of knowledge. ἔλεγε καὶ Φιλόλαος, θεωρητικόν τε
Only he has no right to add that ὄντα τῆς τῶν ὅλων φύσεως ἔχειν
they found the principle of things τινὰ συγγένειαν πρὸς ταύτην. Itis
in themselves, and not outside evident that the criterion here is
themselves. They found it in added by the writer, and that
numbers which they sought as the whole is taken from the propo-
CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 505

the Pythagoreans declared mathematical reason to be

the criterion. Had the Pythagorean philosophy started
from the question—What is the unconditionally cer-
tain element in our ideas? instead of the other ques-
tion, What is the permanent and essential element
in things, the cause of their being, and of their quali-
ties?—the whole system, as Ritter observes,’ would
have had a dialectic character, or at any rate would
have been constructed on some basis involving method-
ology and a theory of knowledge. Instead of this,
Aristotle expressly assures us that the Pythagoreans
restricted their enquiry entirely to cosmological ques-
tions;? that dialectic and the art of determining the
concept were unknown to them as to all the pre-
Socratics—only some slight attempts in that direction
having been made by them in their numerical ana-
logies.2 All that we know of their doctrine can only
serve to confirm this judgment. The Neo-Pytha-
gorean school adopted and elaborated‘ after their
sitions of Philolaus (quoted above) 4, 1078 b, 17 sqq.; Socrates was
on number, as the condition of the first to define concepts : τῶν
knowledge μὲν γὰρ φυσικῶν ἐπὶ μικρὸν Δημό-
1 Pyth. Phil. 135 sq. κριτος ἥψατο μόνον... οἱ δὲ Πυθα-
2 Supra, p. 499, 2. γόρειοι πρότερον περί τινων ὀλίγων,
3 Metaph. i. 5, 987 a, 20: περὶ ὧν τοὺς λόγους εἰς τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς
τοῦ Ti ἐστὶν ἤρξαντο μὲν λέγειν Kal ἀνῆπτον, οἷον τί ἐστι καιρὸς ἢ τὸ
δρίζεσθαι, λίαν δ᾽ ἁπλῶς ἐπραγμα- δίκαιον ἢ γάμος. It is from this
τεύθησαν. ὡρίζοντό τε γὰρ ἐπιπο- passage no doubt that the state-
λαίως, καὶ ᾧ πρώτῳ ὑπάρξειεν ὃ ment of Favorin. is taken, ap. Diog.
λεχθεὶς ὅρος, τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν viii. 48. [Πυθαγόραν] ὅροις χρή-
τοῦ πράγματος ἐνόμιζον. Ibid. ec. σασθαι διὰ τῆς μαθηματικῆς ὕλης,
6, 987 Ὁ, 32. The difference be- ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ Σωκράτην. In the
tween the theory of ideas and the texts, De Part. An. i. 1 (supra, 185,
Pythagorean theory of numbers 3), and Phys. ii. 4, 194 a, 20, the
results from Plato’s occupation with Pythagoreans are not once men-
logical enquiries: of γὰρ πρότεροι tioned with Democritus.
διαλεκτικῆς ov μετεῖχον. bid. xiil. 4 Cf. Part III. b, 111, 2nd ed,
506 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

manner, among other later doctrines, the Stoico-

Peripatetic logic and the Platonic theory of know-
ledge; but no one will now believe in the authenticity
of writings which put into the mouths of Archytas
and other ancient Pythagoreans theories which are
manifestly derived from Plato, Aristotle or Chrysippus.!
What we certainly know of Philolaus and Archytas
gives us no right to suppose that the Pythagoreans
were in advance of the other pre-Socratic philosophers
in logical practice and the development of the scientific
method.? And there certainly is not any reason for
attributing the commencement of linguistic enquiries
to Pythagoras.? If, therefore, Aristotle describes the
1 Roth (ii. a, 593 sq.; 905 sq.; determines generally the qualities
b, 145 sq.), however, takes the of the First Being, and then proves
pseudo-Pythagorean fragments and that these qualities belong to the
the assertions of Iamblichus, V. P. air. Aristotle (vide sup. p. 480, 2)
158, 161, for authentic evidence. quotes from Archytas a few defini-
2 Philolaus in his discussion of tions, adding that these definitions
the Limiting and Unlimited (supra, have respect to the matter as well
Ρ. 879, 1) makes use of a disjunctive as the form of the objects in ques-
process of reasoning; but this is tion. But in this he is not bring-
no sign of a post-Platonic origin ing forward a principle of Archytas,
(as RKothenbucher, Syst. d. Pyth. but making a remark of his own,
68, believes); nor is it even re- Porph. is only reiterating this re- —
markable in a philosopher of that mark when he says (Jn Ptol. Harm.
epoch. We find Parmenides em- 196): The definitions of the con-
ploying the same mode of reason- cept characterise its object, partly
ing (v. 62 sqq.), and the demon- in form, partly in matter: of de
strations of Zeno are much more κατὰ τὸ συναμφότερον, ovs μάλιστα
artificial than those of Philolaus ὁ ᾿Αρχύτας ἄπεδεχετο. But inde-
above mentioned. In the latter, it pendently of this remark the de-
is true the disjunctive major pro- tinitions of Archytas prove very
position is first announced. Then little.
of the three cases which the author 3 Pythagoras, it is said, con-
puts «as being possible, two are sidered the wisest man to be he who
excluded. But this detail is of first gave their names to things (Cie.
little importance, and it has a Tusc. 1. 25, 62; Iambl. V;GPes,
sufficient parallel in the manner 82; Procl. im Crat. c. 16; lian,
in which Diogenes (vide supra, p. V. H. iv. 17; Exe. e ser. Theod. c.
286, 2) at this same epoch first 32, at the end of Clemens Ak p. 806,
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 507

Pythagoreans as neither dialectical nor ethical philoso-

phers, but purely and simply as Physicists,! we can but
agree in the statement, and approve of the later writers
who have followed him in this particular.’
Accordingly our conception of the origin of the
(Pythagorean system must be as follows. From the
spiritual life of the Pythagorean society arose the
endeavour for an independent pursuit of the enquiry
concerning the causes of things, which had already
been stimulated from another side: this enquiry was
primarily directed by the Pythagoreans to the expla-
nation of nature, and only secondarily to the establish-
ment of moral activity; but as it seemed to them that
law and order were the highest element in human life,
so in nature it was the order and regular course of
phenomena, especially as displayed in the heavenly
bodies, and in the relation of tones which arrested
their attention. They thought they perceived the
ground of all regularity and order in the harmonical
relations of numbers, the scientific investigation of
which was inaugurated by them, but which were
already invested with great power and significance in
the popular belief of the Greeks. Thus by a natural
D,Sylb.). But even were this state- a tradition concerning the ancient
ment true, we could not infer from Pythagoreans. It reters, no doubt,
it (as Roth does, ii. a, 592) the ex- to the categories falsely attributed
istence of specific enquiries into to Archytas.
language among the Pythagoreans. 1 Metaph, i. 8, vide supra, p.
The assertion of Simplicius (Categ. 189, 3.
Schol. in Arist. 43 b, 30) that the 2 Sext. Math. x. 248, 284;
Pythagoreans regarded names as Themist. Or. xxvi. 317 B; Hip-
arising φύσει and not θέσει, and polyt. Refut.i. 2, p. 8; Eus. Prep.
recognised for each thing but one Hv. xiv. 15, 9; Phot. Cod. 249,
name belonging to it by virtue of p- 499 a, 33; Galen, Hist. Ehil,
its nature, cannot be considered as sub init.
508 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

sequence of thought they arrived at the theory that all

things, according to their essence, are number and
harmony.’ This presupposition was then applied by
them to other adjacent spheres; they expressed the
nature of certain phenomena by numbers, and classified
whole series of phenomena according to numbers, and
so there gradually resulted the totality of doctrines,
which we call the Pythagorean system.
This system is therefore, as it stands, the work of
various men and various periods; its authors did not
consciously attempt from the beginning to gain a
whole of scientific propositions mutually supporting
and explaining one another, but as each philosopher
was led by his observation, his calculations, or his
imagination, so the fundamental conceptions of the
Pythagorean theory of the universe were developed,
sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another.
The traces of such an origin are not entirely obliterated
even in our imperfect traditions of the doctrine of the
Pythagoreans. That their principle was apprehended
1 Cf. p.376. Brandis (Gesch. into several ages before Pythagoras.
d. Entw. d. gr. Phil. i. 165) here The Pythagoreans themselves mea
makes an-objection which I cannot sured the numerical relations of
endorse. ‘The remark,’ he says, tones ;and at any rate in the num-
‘that all phenomena are regulated ber of tones and chords, a definite
according to eertain numerical re- standard must have been given to
lations, presupposes observations them. It is impossible, moreover,
quite foreign to that epoch.’ Long that they should not have had in
before Pythagoras, it wags known their possession other proofs that
that the revolutions of the sun, all order is based on measure and
moon, and planets, the succession number. Philolaus says so ex- —
of day and night, the seasons, &c., plicitly, and it is on this ob-
take place according to fixed times, servation that Aristotle founds
and that they regularly recur after the Pythagorean theory of num-
the lapse of intervals of time bers (ef. pp. 369, 1; 370, 1; 376
marked by the same number. Sq.).
Certainly human life was divided
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 509

in many different ways in the school we cannot indeed

admit ; but the development of it was certainly not
from the same type. The table of the ten oppo-
sites belonged, according to Aristotle, only to some,
who were, it would seem, later Pythagoreans. The
geometric construction of the elements, and the dis-
crimination of four ergans and of four vital functions in
man, were introduced by Philolaus; the doctrine of the
ten moving heavenly bodies seems to have been less
ancient than the poetical conception of the spheral
harmony; as to the relation of particular numbers to
concrete phenomena, little agreement is to be found.
So far therefore the question might suggest itself,
whether the Pythagorean system can rightly be spoken
of as a scientific and historical whole, and if this be
conceded on account of the unity of the leading
thoughts, and the recognised inter-connection of the
school, there would still remain the doubt whether the
system originates with the founder of the Pythagorean
association; and therefore, whether the Pythagorean
philosophy is to be classed with the ancient Ionian
physical philosophies, or with later systems.! This
doubt, however, must not carry us too far. Our his-
torical authorities indeed allow us to pronounce no de-
finite judgment as to how much of the Pythagorean doc-
trine belonged to Pythagoras himself. Aristotle always
ascribes its authorship to the Pythagoreans, never
to Pythagoras, whose name is not mentioned by him at
* It is for this reason that tem, and that Striimpell (vide sup.
Brandis, for example (i. 421), only p. 209, 1) sees in Pythagoreanism
speaks. of Pythagoreanism after an atiempt to reconcile Heracleitus
having spoken of the Eleatic sys- with the Eleaties.
δ10 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

all except in a very few places.' Later writers? are

untrustworthy in proportion as they pretend to a know-
ledge of Pythagoras; and the scanty utterances of
earlier writers are too indefinite to instruct us as to the
share taken by Pythagoras in the philosophy of his
school. Xenophanes alludes to his assertions on trans-
migration as a singularity;* but this belief, of which
Pythagoras can scarcely have been the author, furnishes
no argumentas to his philosophy. Heracleitus men-
tions him* as a man who laboured beyond all others to
amass knowledge,® and who by his evil arts, as he calls
them, gained the reputation of wisdom ; but whether
this wisdom consisted in philosophic theories, or in
empirical knowledge, or in theological doctrines, or in
practical efforts, cannot be gathered from his words.
Nor do we gain any information on this point from
1 Among the authentic writings disciples of Aristotle, as Eudoxus,
which have been preserved, the Heracleides, and others, whose as-
only passages where Pythagoras is sertions concerning Pythagoras
mentioned are Phet. 11. 23 (vide have been already quoted; also the
supra, 341, 1) and Metaph. i. 5 author of the Magna Moralia, vide
(vide infra, 510, 5). As to the supra, p. 491, 4.
works which have been lost, we * Vide supra, p. 481, 1.
should cite besides the texts of * Vide supra, p. 336, 5, and Fr.
Elian, Apollonius, and Diogenes 23 ap. Diog. ix. 11 (ef. Procl. in
(of which we have spoken, supra, Tim. 31 F; Clemens, Strom. i. 315
p. 238, 3, 4; 345, 5), the Pythago- D; Athen. xiii. 610 b): πολυμα-
rean traditions we have extracted Onin νόον οὐ διδάσκει (cf. on this
(p. 345, 1; 338, 3) from Plutarch reading, Schuster, Heraclit. p. 685,
and Iamblichus. But these texts 2). Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ
do not prove that Aristotle him- Πυθαγόρην, αὖθίς τε Ἐενοφάνεα καὶ
self knew anything of Pythagoras. Ἑκαταῖον.
There is also the statement of 5. The words ἱστορία and πολυ-
Porph. V. P. 41, which perhaps μάθεια describe the man who en-
ought to be corrected so as to mean quires from others, and seeks to
that Aristotle spoke of the symbols learn, in opposition to the man who
of the Pythagoreans, and not of forms his opinions himself by his
Pythagoras. own reflection,
2 Even the contemporaries and
 CHARACTER OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 511

Empedocles, when he celebrates the wisdom in which

Pythagoras surpassed all men, and foresaw the distant
future.' But though direct evidence fails us yet on
general grounds, it is probable that at any rate the
fundamental thoughts of the system emanated from
Pythagoras himself. In the first place this furnishes
the best explanation of the fact that the system, so far
as we know, was confined to the adherents of Pytha-
goras, and, among them, was universally disseminated ;
and moreover, that all that we are told of the Pytha-
gorean philosophy, in spite of the differences on minor
points, agrees in the main traits. Secondly, the in-
ternal relation of the Pythagorean theory to other
systems gives us reason to suppose that it originated
previously to the beginning of the fifth century.
Among all the later systems, there is none in which
the influence of the Eleatic doubt concerning the
possibility of Becoming does not manifest itself. Leu-
cippus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, however their
views may differ in other respects, are all at one in
admitting the first proposition of Parmenides, viz.,
Δ In the verses ap. Porph. 7. kai ί τε δέκ᾽ ἀνθρώπων καὶ τ᾽ εἴκοσιν
P. 30; Iambl. V. P.67. We are ἀιώνεσσι.
not, however, absolutely certain
that these verses really relate to ? This opinion is found in the
Pythagoras (cf. p. 338, 4)— same words, and founded on the
ἦν δέ τις ἐν κείνοισιν ἀνὴρ περιώσια same proofs, in the 2nd and 8rd
εἰδὼς, editions of this work. This does
ὃς δὴ μήκιστον πραπίδων ἐκτήσατο not prevent Chaignet (i. 160) from
πλοῦτον, saying: Zeller veut, que l'élément
παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφῶν ἐπιήρα- sctentifique, philosophique de la con-
νος ἔργων, ception pythagoricienne ait été pos-
ὁππότε yap πάσαισιν ὀρέξαιτο πρα- térieur a Pythagore et étranger ἃ
πίδεσσι, ses vues personnelles et a son dessein
ῥεῖά γε τῶν ὄντων πάντων λεύσσεσ- primitif, tout pratique, selon lui._
κεν ἕκαστα,
δ12 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the impossibility of Becoming, and consequently in

reducing birth and decay to mere change. The Py-
thagoreans might be supposed to be especially open
to the influence of these profound doctrines of their
Eleatic neighbours; but not a trace of this influence
is to be found. Empedocles, who alone, while ad-
hering to the Pythagorean life and theology, is as a
philosopher allied to Parmenides, on this very account
departs from the Pythagorean school, and becomes the
author of an independent theory. This tends to prove
that the Pythagorean philosophy not only did not
arise out of an attempt to reconcile the Heracleitean
and Eleatic doctrines, but that it was not even formed
under the influence of the Eleatic system. On the
other hand, the Eleatic system seems to presuppose
Pythagoreanism; for the abstraction of reducing the
multitudinous mass of phenomena to the one concept
of being, is so bold that we cannot avoid seeking for
some historical preparation for it; and no system
adapts itself better to this purpose, as has already been
shown (p. 204), than the Pythagorean, the principle of
which is exactly intermediate between the sensible
intuition of the ancient Ionians, and the pure thought
of the Eleatics. That the Pythagorean cosmology was
known to Parmenides, at any rate, is probable from its
affinity with his own, which will hereafter be noticed.
We have, therefore, every reason to believe that the
Pythagorean theory is earlier than that of Parmenides,
and that in regard to its main outlines Pythagoras is
really its author. We shall also presently find that
Heracleitus owes not a little to the Samian philosopher
 ORIGIN OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 513

of whom he speaks so harshly, if what he says about

the arising of all things from contradictories and from
harmony, is really connected with the analogous doc-
trines of the Pythagoreans. How far the philosophic
development of doctrine was carried by Pythagoras,
cannot of course be discovered; but if he is to be
regarded as the founder of the Pythagorean system, he
must at least have enunciated in some form the funda-
mental definitions that all is number, that all is
harmony ; that the opposition of the perfect and im-
perfect, the straight and the crooked, pervades all
things; and since these definitions themselves can only
have arisen in connection with the Pythagorean arith-
metic and music, we must also refer the beginning of
arithmetic and music to him. Lastly, we shall find
that Parmenides placed the seat of the divinity which
governs the world in the centre of the universe, and
made the different spheres revolve around the centre ;
we may therefore suppose that the central fire and the
theory of the spheres had also been early taught by
the Pythagoreans, though the motion of the earth, the
counter-earth, and the precise number of the ten re-
volving spheres were probably of later origin.
Whether Pythagoras himself had teachers from
whom his philosophy either wholly or partially sprang,
and where these are to be sought, is matter of contro-
versy. As is well known, the later ages of antiquity
believed him to have derived his doctrines from the
East.' In particular, either Egypt, or Chaldewa and
1 Cf. p. 326 sq.
VOL. I. LL
 δ14 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

Persia, would soonest occur to the mind; and ancient

writers especially mention these countries when they
speak of the travels of Pythagoras in the East. To me
such an origin of his doctrine seems unlikely. There is,
as has been already shown, an utter absence of all trust-
worthy evidence in its favour, and the internal points
of contact with Persian and Egyptian philosophy,
which may be found in Pythagoreanism, are not nearly
sufficient to prove its dependence upon these foreign
influences. What Herodotus says of the agreement
between Pythagoreans and Egyptians’ is confined to
the belief in transmigration, and the custom of in-
tering the dead exclusively in linen garments. But
transmigration is found not merely in Pherecydes,
with whose treatise and opinions Pythagoras may have
been acquainted, if even he were not a scholar of his
in the technical sense;? it was certainly an older
Orphic tradition,? and the same may very likely be true
of the customs in regard to burial: in no case could we
infer from the appropriation of these religious tra-
ditions the dependence of the Pythagorean philosophy
upon the alleged wisdom of the Egyptian priests. Of
the distinctive principle of this system, the number-
theory, we find no trace among the Egyptians; the
parallels, too, which might be drawn between the
Egyptian and Pythagorean cosmology are much too in-
definite to prove any close historical interconnection
between them: and the same holds good of the Pytha-
gorean symbolism, in which some have also seen traces
1-1, OL, 125: vide p. 69, 3; 327 sq.
2 On Pherecydes and his pre- 3 Vide supra, p. 67 sq.
tended relations with Pythagoras,
 ORIGIN OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 515

of Egyptian origin.! The system of caste and other

social institutions of the Egyptians were not imitated
by the Pythagoreans. We might indeed compare the
zeal of these philosophers for the’ maintenance and re-
_ storation of ancient customs and institutions, with the
fixed invariability of the Egyptian character; but
the reasons of this phenomenon lie nearer to hand in
the circumstances and traditions of the colonies of
Magna Grecia; and the difference of the Doric and
Pythagorean element from the Egyptian is, on closer
observation, so important, that there is no warrant for
deriving the one from the other. The same may be
᾿ said of the Persian doctrines. The Pythagorean oppo-
sition of the tmeven and the even, of the better and
the worse, &c., might find a parallel in the Persian
dualism; and it is apparently this similarity which
gave occasion, in ancient times, to the theory that the
Magi, or even Zoroaster, were the teachers of Pytha-
goras. But it surely did not require foreign instruc-
tion to observe that good and evil, straight and crooked,
masculine and feminine, right and left, exist in the
world; the specific manner, however, in which the
Pythagoreans designated these opposites; their reduc-
tion to the fundamental oppositions of the uneven and
the even, the limited and unlimited, the decuple classi-
fication, generally speaking, the philosophic and mathe~-
matical treatment of the subject, is as foreign to the
doctrine of Zoroaster as the theological dualism of a good
and evil Deity is foreign to Pythagoreanism. Other
similarities which might be adduced, such as the signifi-
1 As Plutarch does, Qu. Conv. viii. 8,2; De Is. 10, p. 354.
1.1. 2
δ16 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

cance of the number seven, the belief in a future exist-

ence, and many ethieal and religious apophthegms collec-
tively, prove so little, and differ from each other so greatly
as to details, that they eannot be discussed in this place.
The life and science of the Pythagoreans are only
really to be understood in connection with the specific
1
character and conditions of culture of the Greek people
in the sixth century. Pythagoreanism,as an attempt at
an ethico-religious reform,’ must be classed with other
endeavours which we meet with contemporaneously or
previously in the work of Kpimenides and Onomacritus,
in the rise of mysteries, in the wisdom of the so-called
seven wise men, and of the Gnomic poets; and it is
distinguished from all similar phenédmena by the
manysidedness and force with which it embraced all
the elements of culture of the time, religious, ethical,
political, and scientific, and at the same time created
for itself, in a close society, a fixed nucleus and aim for
its activity. Its more precise characteristics resulted
from its connection with the Dorie race and Doric
institutions.? Pythagoras himself, it is true, came from
the Ionian island of Samos, but as we have already seen,
it is probable that his parents, though of Tyrrhene race,
had emigrated thither trom Phlius in Peloponnesus,
and the principal theatre of his own activity was in
Dorie and Achzan cities. At any rate his work displays
the essential traits of the Dorie character. The worship
of the Dorian Apollo,? the aristocratic polities, the
1 Vide p. 496, 352. 54. : 392 sq.; Sehwegler, Gesch. ὅ.
2 Cf. the excellent remarks of gr. Phil. 58 sq.
O. Miller, Gesch. Hellen. Stamme 3 Vide supra, Ὁ. 838, 840,
und Statte, ii. a, 365 sq. Ὁ; 178
 ORIGIN OF PYTHAGOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 517

Syssitia, the gymnastics, the ethical music, the prover-

bial wisdom of the Pythagoreans, the participation of
women in the education and society of men, the strict
and measured moral code, which knows no higher duties
than the subordination of the individual to the whole,
respect for traditional- customs and laws, reverence for
parents, for constituted authority, and for old age—all
this plainly shows us how great a share the Dorie spirit
had in the origination and development of Pythago-
reanism. That this spirit is also unmistakeable in the
Pythagorean philosophy has already been observed:
but the union in Pythagoras of a scientific effort for
the interpretation of nature, with his moral and religious
activity, is probably due to the influence of the Lonic
physiologists, who could not have been unknown to a
man so erudite and so far beyond all his contemporaries 2
in his passion for knowledge. The statement, however,
that Anaximander was his instructor? can scarcely be
more than a conjecture, based on chronological proba-
bility and not on any actual tradition. But it is very
likely that, he may have been acquainted with his elder
contemporary, who was so prominent among the earliest
philosophers, whether we suppose the acquaintance tc
have been personal, or merely through Anaximander’s
writings. The influence of Anaximander may perhaps
be traced, not only in the general impulse towards the
study of the causes of the universe, but also in the
Pythagorean theory of the spheres (vide p. 445, 1),
whieh has an immediate connection with the theory of
1 P. 502, 507 sq. * Neanthes ap. Porph. Cf p.
2 As Herucleitus says, vide 326, note.
supra, p. 336, 5; 610, 4.
518 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

which Anaximander is supposed to be the author (vide

252, 1). And if the distinction of the limited and un-
limited originally belongs ta Pythagoras, Anaximander
may nevertheless have had a share in inspiring it ; only
from Anaximander’s conception of the unlimited in
space Pythagoras would have abstracted the general
concept of the unlimited, which is an essential element
of all things, and primarily of number. By Pythagoras
physics or philosophy (for they were identical at that
period) became first transplanted from their most
ancient home in Ionian Asia Minor into Italy, there to
be further developed in a specific manner. That in this
development, side by side with the Hellenie element,
the peculiar character of the Italian races by whom the
birthplace of Pythagoreanism was surrounded, may have
made itself felt, is certainly conceivable; but our his-
torical evidence! in favour of this conjeeture is not
sufficient even to render it probable.? If anything was
1 Cf. Schwegler, Rom. Gesch. 1. are explained by Plutarch in a very
561 sq., 616. Klausen, Aneas und arbitrary manner). As Pythagoras
die Penaten, 11. 928 sq., 961 sq.; introduced ἐχεμύθια, so Numa es-
O. Miller, Htrusker, 11. 189 A, 453, tablished the worship of the muse
345 A, 22. Tacita (who is not a muse, and
* Even the aneient tradition has no connection with the pre-_
that Numa was a disciple of Py- script of silence, vide Schwegler,
thagoras (vide Part 111. 6, 69, 2nd p. 562). Pythagoras conceived the
edition) seems to presuppose a divinity (Plutarch asserts) as a
certain likeness between the Ro- pure spirit ;Numa, from the same
man religion aud Pythagoreanism. point of view, prohibited images of
Plut. (Numa, ec. 8, 14) cites the the gods. (Pythagoras did not
following points of resemblance prohibit them; and if the ancient
between Numa and Pythagoras. Roman cultus was devoid of images,
‘ Both,’ he says, ‘represented them- the reason of this is not to be found
selves as plenipotentiaries of the in a purer conception of the Deity,
gods (which many others have also but, as with the Germani and In-
done). Both love symbolic pre- dians, and other barbarous peoples,
scripts and usages (this also is very in the absence of plastic arts, and in
common ; but the Roman symbols the special character of the Roman.
 ORT GIN OF PYTHA GOREAN PHILOSOPHY. 519

contributed fgom this side to Pythagoreanism, it can

only have consisted in some details of a quite subordi-

religion.) The sacrifices of Numa, Plut, 7. ¢., that such a custom was
were scarcely any of them bloody; unknown to them. Even were it
nor were ‘hose of the Pythagoreans. otherwise, the coincidence would
(This does not seem certain, ac- prove little. This holds good of
cording to our previous observa- other coincidences, by which Plat.
tions, and it would be of little con- Qu. Conv. vili. 7, 1, 3, seeks to
sequence if it were. For the Greeks, prove that Pythagoras was an
especially in ancient times, had Etruscan. The Roman doctrine of
many unbloody sacrifices, and the Genii and Lares may in many
Romans not only sacrificed animals respects resemble the Pythagorean
in great numbers, but had also hu- belief in demons; but the Pytha-
man sacrifices.) Lastly, not to men- goreans found this belief already in
tion other insignificant similarities, the Greek religion. This resem-
Numa placed the fire of Vesta in blance, then, simply points to the
a round temple, ‘to represent the general affinity of the Greek and
form of the world and the position Italian peoples. Still less can be
of the central fire in the midst of deduced from the circumstance that
it.’ (But the ancient Romans cer- the Pythagoreans, like the Romans
tainly were unacquainted with the (and the Greeks and most nations),
central fire, and it is impossible to regarded the interment of an un-
prove that the form of the temple buried corpse as a sacred duty;
of Vesta was intended to symbolise but what Klausen (p. 362) quotes
that of the world. At any rate, to prove traces of Metempsychosis
the apparent roundness of the ce- in the Roman legend is not conclu-
lestial vault was perceptible to every sive. We might, with more reason,
one by immediate observation, and compare the ancient Roman notion
on the other hand, if the Pytha- that Jupiter, the prince of spirits,
goreans called their central fire sends souls into the world and re-
Hestia, they would naturally be calls them (Macrob. Saz. i. 10),
thinking, not of the Roman Vesta, with the doctrine said to have been
but of the Greek Hestia.) It is taught by the Pythagoreans. of the
_ the same with certain other analo- soul proceeding from the world-
gies between Roman and Italian soul (supra, p. 447, 1). But first
customs and those of the Pythago- we may ask whether this doctrine
reans. Beans were forbidden to the was really held by the ancient Py-
flamen Dialis, as they were among thagoreans, and next we must re-
the Pythagoreans, according to a member that the belief in the
later tradition and custom. But the celestial origin of the soul and its
Pythagoreans no doubt borrowed return to ether was not unknown
this custom, as well as their asceti- to the Greeks (vide supra, p. 69,
cism generally, from the Orphic 1; 70, 4). Some of the Roman
mysteries. They are said to have institutions and opinions may also
followed the Roman and Etruscan remind us of the Pythagorean
usage of turning to the right when theory of numbers. But the like-
they prayed. But it is clear from ness is not so great that we can
 520 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

nate importance; for the Greeks of Lower Italy were

as little inclined to adopt philosophic doctrines from
the surrounding barbarians, as the barbarians were in
a condition to impart them. All the more favourable
legitimately regard this theory like the Chinese or Galatians), the
merely as the philosophic expres- population was divided according
sion of the ancient Roman and to the numbers three and ten;
Italian superstitions about num- there were 9,000 Spartans and
bers. Among the Romans, as 30,000 Perizeci. In the nine days’
among the Pythagoreans, uneven festival of the Κάρνεια, they eat in
numbers were considered lucky nine arbours, nine men in each
(vide Schwegler, ὦ. ¢. 543, 561; (Athen. iv. 141 E). Ancient Athens
Rubino, De Augur. et Pontif. ap. had four tribes, each tribe three
vet. Rom. Num. 1852, p. 6 sq.; ef. φρατρίαι (?), each φρατρία thirty
also Plin. Hist. Nat. xxviii. 2, 23), gentes, each gens thirty families.
and for this reason the Romans The smallest round number, with
and the Pythagoreans assigned to the Greeks as with the Romans, ε
nl
ζ ἢ,ae

the superior deities an uneven was three (with the Pythagoreans,

number, and to the inferior deities four had a higher value), then came
an even number, of victims (Plut. ten. then 100, then 1,000, then
Numa, 14; Porph. v. Pyth. 38; 10,000. One of the highest num-
e
a
Serv. Bucol. viii. 75; v- 66). But bers of this kind was τρισμύριοι.
this idea and that custom were not Hesiod had a good deal to say of
exclusively Pythagorean: they be- the significance of certain numbers
longed to the Greeks in general. (vide supra, 376, 3). The predi-
Plato, at any rate, says (Laws, iv. lection for numerical schematism
717 A): τοῖς χθονίοις ἄν τις θεοῖς might well exist amcng different
ἄρτια καὶ δεύτερα καὶ ἀριστερὰ νέμων peoples without being the result of
ὀρθότατα τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβείας σκοποῦ any direct historical connection ae
e

τυγχάνοι, τοῖς δὲ τούτων ἄνωθεν τὰ betweenthem, Among the Pythago-

περιττά, etc.; and it is not pro- reans, it sprang chiefly from specu-
bable that he is merely following a lative motives ;among others, 6.0.
Pythagorean tradition. It is much the Romans, it arose from the
more likely that in this, as in his practical sense of order. I cannot,
other laws, he is adhering as much therefore, agree with the theory
as possible to the customs of his own which attributes to the peoples and
country. Lastly, in the division of religions of Italy an important in-
the Roman city, we see carried out fluence on Pythagoreanism. On the
a rigorous numerical schematism, other hand, as we shall see later
of which the bases are the number on (Part III. b, 69 sq , 2 A, 2nd ed.),
three and the number ten; and the and as we have already seen in the
religious ritual has in it something quotation (p. 341, 1), the name of
analogous (Schwegler, p. 616). But Pythagoras was known to the Ro-
this is not peculiar to Rome and mans before that of any other Greek
Italy. In Sparta, for example (not philosopher, and was greatly vene-
to mention more distant nations, rated by them.
 ALCM ZEON. 521

was the soil which philosophy found in the Magna

Grecian colonies themselves, as is proved by the growth
it there attained, and by all that we know of the
culture of these cities. If further proof, -however, be
required, it lies in the fact that, contemporaneously
with the Pythagorean, another branch of Italian philo-
sophy was developed, which also owed its origin to an
Ionian. But before we proceed to examine this system,
we must direct our attention to certain men who have
a connection with Pythagoreanism, although we cannot
precisely include them in the Pythagorean school.

ὙΠ. PYTHAGOREANISM IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER

ELEMENTS. ALCMZON, HIPPASUS, ECPHANTUS,
EPICHARMUS.

Tue physician Alemzon,! of Crotona, is said to have

been a younger contemporary, by some even a disciple,
of Pythagoras.” Both statements, however, are uncer-
tain,? and the second cannot possibly in the stricter
1 Vide, in regard to Alemzon: ἐκείνων ἢ ἐκεῖνοι παρὰ τούτου παρέ-
Philippson, Ὕλη ἀνθρωπίνη, p. 183 λαβον τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ γὰρ
sqq.; Unna, De Alemeone Crotoni- ἐγένετο τὴν ἡλικίαν ᾿Αλκμαίων ἐπὶ
ata in the Phil.-Histor. Studien γέροντι Πυθαγόρᾳ, ἀπεφήνατο δὲ πα-
von Petersen, pp. 41-87, where the ραπλησίως τούτοις. Diog. viii. 83:
statements of the ancients and the Πυθαγόρου διήκουσε. Iamblichus,
fragments of Alcmzon have been V. P. 104, reckons him among the
carefully collected. Krische, For- μαθητεύσαντες τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ πρεσ-
schungen, ete., 68-78. We know βύτῃ véor; and Philop. ἐπ Arist. De
nothing of Alemzon’s life, except An. α. 8, calls him a Pythagorean.
his origin and the name of his Simplicius, in his remarks on the
father (Πειρίθοος, Πειρίθος or Πέ- same treatise, p. 8, says more cau-
ριθο5). Aristotle wrote against tiously that others call him a Pytha-
him, we are told, Diog. ν. 25. gorean, but that Aristotle does not.
2 Arist. Metaph. i. 5, 986 a, 3 Diogenes and Jamblichus both
27 (after enumerating the ten Py- no doubt derived their information,
thagorean opposites) : ὅνπερ τρό- the one directly, the other indi-
mov ἔοικε καὶ ᾿Αλκμαίων ὃ Κροτωνιά- rectly, from the passage in Aris-
τὴς ὑπολαβεῖν καὶ ἤτοι οὗτος παρ᾽ totle. Now in this passage the
522 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

sense be true; for Aristotle (loc. cit.) expressly dis-

criminates Alemzon from the Pythagoreans, and his
theories are by no means invariably in agreement with
theirs; yet it is plain, even from the little we know of
him and his writings,’ that the Pythagorean doctrine
was not without influence on him. Besides the
anatomical and physiological enquiries, in which his
chief merit seems to have consisted,” we find mention,
words ἐγένετο. . . Πυθαγόρᾳ,
and 2. According to Chaleid. (én Tim.
the δὲ after ἐπεφήνατο, which are c, 244, p. 233 Mull.), he was the
wanting in the excellent codex Ab, first to make dissections, vide
are not mentioned by the Greek Unna, p. 55 sqq. As to his physi-
commentators: they seem superflu- ological opinions we learn from
ous, and like an interpolation. tradition the following particulars.
Vide Brandis, Gr. Rom. Phil. i. He taught that the seat of the soul
507 sq.; Gruppe, Fragm. d. Arch. is in the brain (Plut. Place. iv. 17,
54 sqq.; Schwegler in h. 1. Yet 1), to which all seusations are
the first words of the writing of transmitted by means of the chan-
Alemzeon, in which he dedicates nels which lead from the organs of
his work to Brotinus, Leo, and sense (Theophrast. De Sensu, sec-
Bathyllus, prove that the date as- tion 26). How he sought to ex-
signed is approximately correct. plain the different senses we are
Vide next note, and Unna, p. 43; told by Theophrastus, /. ὁ. 25 sq.;
Krische, p. 70. Plut. Place: iv. 16,25 ΤΣ
1 This work, the beginning of vide the parallel passages in the
which is given by Diog, J. ¢. after Pseudo-Galen and Stobeus. For
Favyorinus, was entitled, according this reason the head is first formed
to Galen. (in Hipp. de Elem. t. 1. in the embryo (Flac. v. 17, 8).
487 ; in Hipp. De Nat. Hom. xv. 5 The seed comes from the brain
K), περὶ φύσεως. Diog. and Clem. . (Place. v.38, 8). Alemzeon occupied
(Strom. i. 308 C) designate it also himself greatly with the subject of
as φυσικὸς λόγος. But Clemens is the embryo, how it is formed and
wrong in asserting, as he does, how nourished (vide Censorinus,
Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Aff. 1, 19, loc. cit. e. 5, 6; Piut. Plac. v. 14,
Gaisf., that Alemzeon is the first 1, 16, 3). He compared puberty
who wrote on physics, for if even to the florescenceof plants, and the
Xenophanes is not to be regarded milk of animals to the white of an
as a Physicist, Anaximander, and egg (Arist. H. Anim. vii. 1, 581 a,
Anaximenes (perhaps also Hera- 14; Gener. Anim. 111. 2, 752 Ὁ, 238).
cleitus), certainly wrote before Alc- He explained sleep by the reple-
mzon. But, according to Clemens, tion of the blood-vessels,and waking
even Anaxagoras had been men- by the emptying of them (Plut. Pl.
tioned as the first author of a phy- y. 28, 1). He is also said to have
sical treatise. believed that goats breathe through
 ALCM ON. 523

not only of isolated astronomical’ and ethical pro-

positions? but also of general philosophical theories
which are very closely allied to those of the Pytha-
goreans. The leading point of view in these theories is,
on the one hand, the opposition between the perfect or
celestial, and the imperfect or terrestrial; and on the
other, the spiritual affinity of man with the eternal.
The heavens and the heavenly bodies are divine, because
they uninterruptedly revolve in a motion that returns
into itself;* the race of man, on the contrary, is
their ears, Arist. H. Anim. i. 11, the fastening of ideas in the soul,
sub init. It is possible that Alc- repeated by Arist. Anal. Post. il.
mzeon may be referred to by Alex. 19, 100, a 3—is perhaps an addition
(in Arist. De Sensu, 11. 12, p. 23, of this kind; ef. Crat. 4387 A;
Thur.) in the statement that certain Meno, 97 E sq.
physicians shared the Pythagorean 1 According to Plut. Plac. i.
opinion, mentioned p. 475, 3; but 16, 2; Stob. i. 516, he maintained
this conjecture is uncertain. That that the fixed stars move from
of Hirzel (Hermes, xi. 240 sq.), on east to west; the planets (among
the contrary, seems admissible; he which we must suppose the earth,
thinks that Plato was referring to which revolves around the central
Alemzon, when in the Phedo, 96 fire) from west toeast. According
B, he speaks of the opinion acecord- to Stobeeus, 1. 526, 558, he attri-
ing to which & ἐγκέφαλός ἐστιν ὃ buted, like the Ionians, to the
τὰς αἰσθήσεις παρέχων τοῦ ἀκούειν sun and moon a plane surface
καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὀσφραίνεσθαι; ἐκ τούτων shaped like a boat, and explained
δὲ γίγνοιτο μνήμη καὶ δόξα, ἐκ δὲ eclipses of the moon by the 581}
μνήμη» καὶ δόξης λαβούσης“ τὸ ἠρεμεῖν ing round of the lunar boat.
κατὰ ταῦτα γίγνέσθαι ἐπιστήμην. Simpl. says (De Celo, 121 a, Ald.)
The distinction of ἐπιστήμη and that he calculated the interval of
αἴσθησις accords, as Hirzel well ob- time between the solstices and the
serves, with the text cited p. 524, 3. equinoxes ; but this is according to
What is said at the commencement the ancient texts. ἄρ. Karsten, p.
of this note agrees with the theory 223 a, 15, and Brandis, Schol. 500
that the brain is the seat of the a, 28, we find instead of ᾿Αλκμαίωνι,
faculty of knowing; but Alemzon Εὐκτήμονι, which seems more
(cf.p.523,3; 624,2) must necessarily exact.
have regarded the soul alone as the 2 Clemens (Strom. viii. 624 B)
knowing subject. We cannot, how- cites the following from him:
ever, be sure that Plato did not add ἐχθρὺν ἄνδρα ῥᾷον φυλάξασθαι ἢ
something of his own to the opin- φίλον.
ion which he reports; the deriva- 3 Arist. De An. 1. 2, 405 a,
tion of ἐπιστήμη from jpeucty—i.e., 30: φησὶ yap αὐτὴν [τὴν ψυχὴν}
524 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

transitory, hecause we are not in a position to unite the

beginning with the end—to begin a new course ! after
the expiration of our period of life. Our soul, however,
is exempt from this transitoriness: it moves eternally,
like the stars, and is therefore immortal.? So also its
knowledge is not limited to the sense-perception—but
it has also understanding and consciousness. But
everything human is on this account imperfect. The
gods know what is hidden, we can only conjecture it: 4
they enjoy a uniform existence; our life moves between
contraries,’ and its healthfulness depends on the equi-
ἀθάνατον εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἐοικέναι τοῖς and the Greek commentators of
ἀθανάτοις, τοῦτο δ᾽ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ Aristotle, among whom Philoponus
ὡς ἀεὶ κινουμένῃ" κινεῖσθαι γὰρ καὶ (in De An. i. 2 C, 8) expressly re-
τὰ θεῖα πάντα “συνεχῶς ἀεὶ, σελήνην, marks that he is not acquainted
ἥλιον, τοὺς ἀστέρας, τὸν οὐρανὸν with the writings of Alemzon, and
ὅλον. This text is doubtless the knows nothing of him except what
sole foundation for the assertion of Aristotle says.
the Epicurean, ap. Cie. NV. D. i. 11, 8. Theophr. De Sensu, 4, 25: τῶν
27: soli et lunae reliquisque sideri- δὲ μὴ τῷ ὁμοίῳ ποιούντων Thy αἴσ-
bus animoque practerea d tuinitatem θησιν (as Empedocles did, vide
dedit, and of Diog. viii. 83: καὶ τὴν infra)’ Ἀλκμαίων μὲν πρῶτον ἀφορίζει
σελήνην καθόλου ταύτην (this pas- τὴν πρὸς τὰ ζῷα διαφοράν" ἄνθρωπον
sage seems to be mutilated ; it may γάρ φησι τῶν ἄλλων διαφέρειν re
have originally stood thus: «.7.0. μόνον (]. μόνος) ξυνίησι, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα
kal ὅλον τὸν οὐρανὸν)ἔχειν ἀΐδιον αἰσθάνεται μὲν οὐ ξυνίησι δέ.
φύσιν. Clem. Cohort. a2 ΠΑ TA. * Alem. ap. Diog. villi. 83: περὶ
θεοὺς pero τοὺς ἀστέρας εἶναι ἐμψύ- τῶν ἀφανέων [περὶ τῶν θνητῶν] σα-
Xous ὄντας. Cf. the following note. φήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ws δὲ ἀνθρώ-
* Arist. Probl. xvii. 3,916 ἃ, πους τεκμαίρεσθαι.
33: τοὺς yap “ἀνθρώπους φησὶν ᾽Αλ- 5 Arist. Metaph. i. 5 (sup. p.
κμαίων διὰ τούτο ἀπόλλυσθαι, ὅτι οὐ 521, 2) continues: φησὶ yap εἶναι
δύνανται τὴν ἀρχὴν τῷ τέλει δύο τὰ πολλὰ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, λέγων
προσάψα. The sense of these τὰς ἐναντιότητας οὐχ ὥσπερ οὗτοι
words exactly determined by Phi- διωρισμένας ἀλλὰ τὰς τυχούσας, οἷον
lippson, 185; Unna, 71, is clear λευκὸν μέλαν, γλυκὺ πικρὸν, ἀγαθὸν
from the whole connexion of the κακὸν, μικρὸν μέγα. οὗτος μὲν οὖν
passage. ἀδιορίστως ἐπέῤῥιψε περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν,
2 Arist. 1. 4. and, after him, οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ πόσαι καὶ τίνες
Boethius, ap. Eus, Pr. Ev. xi. 28, αἱ ἐναντιότητες ἀπεφήναντο, Isoc.
5; Diog. vii. 88; Stob. Eel. i. says wrongly : π. ἀντιδόσ. 268: A,
796 ; Theodoret, Cur. gr. aff. v. 17, δὲ δύο μόνα (φησὶν εἶναι τὰ bvTa),
 HIPPASUS. 525

librium of opposite forces; when, on the contrary, one

of its elements gains a preponderance over the others,
sickness and death are the result. We certainly cannot
consider Alemzeon a Pythagorean because of these pro-
positions, for we find nothing about the number-theory,
the distinctive doctrine of the Pythagorean system, in
any of our aecounts of him. Moreover, his astronomi-
cal opinions, mentioned above, only partially agree with
the Pythagorean cosmology; and we must, therefore,
hold Aristotle to be in the right when he discriminates
him from the Pythagoreans. But the observations of
Alemzon on the relation of the eternal and the mortal,
on the oppositions in the world, on the divinity of the
stars, and the immortality of the soul, coincide in
substance almost exactly with the Pythagorean doctrine.
That a contemporary of the Pythagoreans, from their
especial city Crotona, should have arrived at these
theories independently of Pythagoreanism, is incredible.
Although, therefore, Aristotle does not venture to
decide whether the doctrine of opposites came from
the Pythagoreans to Alemzon, or vice versa, the former
alternative is much the more probable ;? and we accord-
1 Plat. Plac. v. 30 (Stob. Floril. τὴν δὲ ὑγείαν σύμμετρον τῶν ποιῶν
101, 2; 100, 25): ᾽Α. τῆς μὲν ὑγείας τὴν κρᾶσιν, (Stob. has: γίνεσθαι
εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν (so Stob.) δέ ποτε καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰτιῶν,
ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων, ὕγροῦ, θερ- ὑδάτων ποιῶν ἢ χώρας ἢ κόπων ἢ
μοῦ, ξηροῦ, ψυχροῦ, πικροῦ, γλυκέος ἀνάγκης ἢ τῶν τούτοις παραπλησίων.)
καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν: τὴν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτοῖς Plato, Symp. 106 D, puts the same
μοναρχίαν νόσου ποιητικήν" φθορο- thoughts into the mouth of his
ποιὸν γὰρ ἑκατέρου μοναρχία" καὶ Eryxainachus. The mention of
νόσων αἰτία, ds μὲν bp’ ἧς, ὑπερβολὴ the four Aristotelian causes and of
θερμότητος ἢ ψυχρότητος" ὡς δ᾽ ἐξ the Stoic ποιοί clearly shows that
ἧς, διὰ πλῆθος (Stob. wrongly: here we haye not Alemzon’s own
πληθ. τροφῇ5) ἢ ἔνδειαν" ὡς δ᾽ ἐν οἷς, words.
αἷμα ἐνδέον (Stob. reads preferably : 2 There is no question here of
ἢ μυελὸν) ἢ ἐγκέφαλος (St.—or). the Pythagorean table of the ten
 526 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

ingly regard Alemzeon as a man who was considerably

influenced by the Pythagorean philosophy, without
having actually adopted it in its totality.
Respecting Hippasus and Ecphantus our informa-
tion is still more scanty. As to the former, the ancient
writers themselves seem to have known no more than is
to be found in Aristotle—namely, that, like Heracleitus,
he held fire to be the primitive matter.! The farther
statements, that he declared fire to be the Deity ;?
that he made derived things arise out of fire by rare-
faction and condensation ; ? that he thought the soul was
of a fiery nature;* that the world was limited and
eternally moved, and subject to a periodic transforma-
tion:* all these must be mere inferences from the
comparison of him with Heracleitus, since even the
scholars of the Alexandrian epoch possessed no writing
of his. It was perhaps this approximation to the
Heracleitean doctrine which made later writers call him
a spurious Pythagorean, and the head of the so-called
opposites, but only of the general Theod. iv. 5, p. 58, where, however,
principle that everything is full of instead of ἀκίνητον ἀεικίνητον
opposites. is to be read.
1 Arist. Metaph. i. 3, 984 a, 6 Diog. le. φησὶ δ᾽ αὐτὸν Δημή-
7: Ἵππασος δὲ πῦρ [ἀρχὴν τίθησιν] τριος ἐν “Ομωνύμοις μηδὲν καταλιπεῖν
6 Μεταποντῖνος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος 6 σύγγραμμα. Theo, Mus. ec. 12, p.
᾿Ἐφέσιος. The same is reproduced 91, mentions, but only as a report,
by Sext. Pyrrh, iii. 30; Clemens, the experiments of Lasos of Hermi-
Strom. i. 296 B; Theod. Cur. gr. one und Hippasus (or his school)
aff. ii. 10, p. 22; Plut. Plac. 1. 3, for determining the relations of
25. What the last writer adds in tones. IfIambl. (in Nicom. Arithm.
regard to the metamorphoses of 141, 159, 163 Tennul) attributes
fire only applies to Heracleitus. to the mathematicians, Archytas
2 Clem. Cohort. 42 Ο, and Hippasus, the distinction of
3 Simpl. Phys. 6 a. arithmetical, geometrical and har-
4 Theodoret, Cur. gr. aff. v. monic proportions, his assertion is
20; Tert. De An. Ὁ, 5. not based on any writing of Hip-
5 Diog. viii. 84; Simpl. J. c.; pasus,
 ECPHANT US. 527

Acusmatics ;! elsewhere he is spoken of purely and

simply as a Pythagorean,” and fragments of writings are
adduced which were falsely attributed to him on this
supposition. If we enquire by what means he could
have been led, as a Pythagorean, to the theory ascribed
to him, it is most obvious to think of the doctrine of
the central fire. According to the Pythagoreans, this
fire was the germ of the universe, to which everything
else had reference ; and Hippasus seems for this reason
to have regarded it as the matter of which all things
consist. There is every probability, however, that he
was also influenced by the example of Heracleitus, and
that his theory thus resulted from a combination of the
Pythagorean and Heracleitean doctrine.
Ecphantus occupies a similar position. He, too, is
included among the Pythagoreans ;4 but their number-
theory appears to have been too abstract and un-
physical for him, and he therefore sought, like Hippasus,
to complete it with the theories of later physicists;
only that instead of Heracleitus, he chose the Atomistic
philosophy and Anaxagoras, influenced perhaps by the
Pythagorean derivation of space-magnitudes. He
understood by the units, which are the original con-
stituents of numbers, and furthermore of all things,
1 Tambl. V. Pyth. 81. Simi- * Roth, ii. a, 812, with his usual
larly Villoison, Anecd.ii.216. On recklessness, calls Ecphantus and
the other hand, Iambl. (in Nicom. Hicetas ‘immediate disciples of
11 b); Stob. Eel, i. 862; and Sy- Pythagoras.’ Not only is this as-
rian, in Metaph. xiii. 6, borrow sertion entirely without proof;
even from his reputed writings but it seems most probable, from
testimonies concerning the Pytha- the texts quoted on p. 491 sq., that
gorean doctrine. both these philosophers lived after
2 E. g. by Diog and Theo, ἰ. c. Philolaus, and at the same time
3 Vide sup. p. 372, 1. as Archytas,
528 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

material atoms, differing among themselves in size,

form, and force. The proposition (which we must
understand-in the sense of the analogous sayings of
Democritus!), that the essence of things cannot be
known (that is, sensibly perceived), probably refers to
the invisibility of these atoms. To the atoms he added
the void—a conception already recognised in the
ancient Pythagorean doctrine—but this did not appear
to him sufficient as an explanation of phenomena, or
else Pythagorean piety prevented his resting in it;
he therefore assumed, with Anaxagoras, that the move-
ment of the atoms and the shaping of the universe was
produced by mind or the soul. On account of the
unity of this moving cause, he preferred the ordinary
notion of the unity and spherical shape of the world to
the atomistic theory of many worlds.” All this, how-
ever, shows that he must have belonged to the latest
generations of the Pythagoreans, with whom he is also
identified by the statement that, in agreement with
1 For further details, vide infra. γίνεσθαι. εἶναι δὲ τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν
Cf. for the present, Arist. Metaph. ὡρισμένον καὶ τοῦτο [1]. καὶ οὐκ]
iv. 5; 1009 b, 11; Anudnpitds γέ ἄπειρον. κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ σώματα
φησιν, ἤτοι οὐδὲν εἶναι ἀληθὲς ἢ μήτε ὑπὺ βάρους μήτε πληγῇ», ἀλλ᾽
quiv γ᾽ ἄδηλον. ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως, ἣν νοῦν καὶ
2 The testimonies on which the ψυχὴν προσαγορεύει. τοῦ μὲν οὖν
above assertion is founded are as τὸν κόσμον εἰδέναι ἰδεῖν (οΥ ἃ5 Roper,
follows :—Stob. Ecl. 1. 308 (sup., p. Philologus, vii. 6, 20, happily con-
415, 1); ibid. 448: Ἔκφ. ἐκ μὲν jectures: τούτου μὲν οὖν τ. κόσμ.
τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον, εἶναι ἰδέαν), δι’ ὃ σφαιροειδῆ ὑπὸ μιᾶς
διοικεῖσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ προνοίας, Lhid. δυνάμεως γεγονέναι (this after
496: “Exo. ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. Hip- Plato), τὴν δὲ γῆν μέσον (perhaps
polyt. Refut. i. 15, p. 28: Ἔκφαν- ἐν μέσῳ) κόσμου κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ
τός τις Συρακούσιος ἔφη μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς κέντρον ὡς πρὸς ἄνατολήν.
ἀληθινὴν τῶν ὕντων λαβεῖν γνῶσιν" Instead of the last three words
ὁρίζει δὲ ὡς νομίζει τὰ μὲν πρῶτα (which, however, are not impossi-
ἀδιαίρετα εἶναι σώματα καὶ παραλλα- ble) we might conjecture, the rest
yas αὐτῶν τρεῖς ὑπάρχειν, μέγεθος, of the text being very incorrect:
σχῆμα, δύναμιν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ αἰσθητὰ ἀπὸ δύσεως πρὸς ἀνατολήν.
 PYTHAGGOREANS. 529

Heracleides the Platonist (and with Hicetas), he believed

the earth to rotate upon its axis.!' He himself reminds
us of Plato in some particulars.’
The celebrated comic poet Epicharmus? is called
by many authors a Pythagorean.* It is not improbable
that the Pythagorean doctrine had something more
than a superficial influence on him, and that the incli-
nation to general reflections and apophthegms, which
may be perceived in the fragments of his works,? was
fostered by it. But we are not justified by what we
know of him, in supposing that he had any definite phi-
losophical system. According to Diogenes III., 9 sqq.,
Alcimus® attempted to show that Plato borrowed great
part of his doctrine from Epicharmus. His authorities
are not only insufficient for this purpose, but fail to
prove that Epicharmus was a philosopher at all in the
proper sense. Of the four passages which he quotes,’
1 Vide sup. p. 453, 1. to Diog. viii. 78,90. Born at Cos,
2 Another trace of Pythagorean he came while still a child to Me-
Atomistic doctrines may perhaps gara in Sicily. The last half of
be found in what has been quoted his life was passed at Syracuse.
Ρ- 468, 1, concerning Xuthus. 4 Diog. viii. 78, calls him even
8 Grysar. De Doriens Comedia, a diseiple of Pythagoras. Plut.
84 sqq.; Leop. Schmidt, Quaest. Numa, 8; Clem. Strom. ν. 597 C, at
Epicharmee, Bonn, 1846; Welcker, any rate, call him simply a Pytha-
Kleine Schrift. i. 271-356 ; Lorenz, gorean. According to lambl. Κ΄. P.
L. und Schr. d. Koers Epicharmos, 265, he belonged to the exoteric
Berl. 1864. The life of Epicharmus school. Schmidt, Op. C. p. 935,
falls, according toSchmidt, between justly censures Lorenz, pp. 44-52,
the 59th and the 79th Olympiad for giving unhesitating credence to
(556-460 B.c.). Grysar places his the statement of Diogenes.
birth in the 60th Olympiad (540 5 Cf. Diog. 1. ¢.: οὗτος trop-
B.c.), Lorenz, Ol. 60-62. All νήματα καταλέλοιπεν ἐν οἷς φυσιο-
that we know with certainty is λογεῖ, γνωμολογεῖ, ἰατρολογεῖ, and
that he died shortly after Hiero, dazu Welcker, p. 347 sq.
and therefore shortly after the year § Concerning Alcimus, vide the
467 B.c., at an advanced age. His index to this work, p. 3.
age at his death was, according to 7 On the authenticity, text and
Lucian (Macrob, 25), 97 ; according interpretation, vide the dissertation
VOL. I. MM
530 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

the first! says that the gods are eternal, since the first
being, had it become, must have arisen out of nothing;
and that men are subject to continual change, and
never remain the same.? Another passage says: As
the art is something other than the artist, and as man
only becomes an artist through learning the art, so the
Good is something in itself (τὲ πρᾶγμα καθ᾽ αὑτὸ). and
man becomes good by learning it. The third con-
cludes from the instinct of animals that all living
creatures possess reason.‘ The fourth observes that
each creature delights most in itself; as man regards
man as the most beautiful, so does the dog regard the
dog, and the ox the ox, &c. These sayings certainly
give evidence of a thinker, but they do not prove that
the thoughts of the poet had their centre in any philo-
sophic principle. Still less can we infer from them
that this principle was that of the Pythagoreans; the
remark about the eternity of the gods reminds us more
of Xenophanes, to whose verses the fourth quotation also
of Schmidt, Gott. Anz. 1865, 940 Being. but only Becoming. It is
sq.; Lorenz, 106 sq.; Bernays in in the same text that Chrysippus
Rhein. Mus. viii. 18538, 280 sq.; (ap. Plut. Comm. notit. 44, p. 1083)
Steinhart (Plato’s Leben, 13 sq., finds the λόγος αὐξανόμενος.
264 sq.) says that the two first 3. The conjecture of Schmidt
passages are certainly spurious, (Qu. Epich. 49 sq.), according to
that the third is perhaps authentic, which the verse containing this
and the fourth undoub'edly so. proposition should be rejected,
1 A dialogue in which one of seems to me unnecessary ; it is not
the interlocutors represents the connected, any more than the
Eleatie point of view, the other others, with the theory of Ideas;
that of Heracleitus. the word πρᾶγμα is employed in
2 Plato is perhaps thinking of the same sense as by Plato, Prot.
this passage; at any rate he is 330 C sq.; 349 B.
thinking of the opinion expressed 4 What Lorenz, p. 106, sees in
in it, when, in Theet. 152 E, he this passage is not to be found
places Epicharmus among those there.
who maintain that there is no
ἜΝ

EPICHARMUS. 531

bears a striking analogy. What is said about the

vicissitude to which man is subject, alludes no doubt to
the doctrine of Heracleitus,? from whom the theorem
that the character of man is his demon? may likewise
have been borrowed. The utterances of this poet con-
cerning the state after death, on the other hand, indicate
Pythagorean influence; the body, he says, returns to
the earth, and the spirit to heaven;* a pious life is
man’s best preparation for the journey : 5 the proposition
about the reason of animals in the third of the above
quotations may have a like origin. All that we can
further gather in regard to Epicharmus either has no
' Cf. infra, notes 4 and 6 on Karsten (Xenoph. Rell. 186 sq.,
Xenophanes. That Epicharmus was endorsed by Polman-Kruseman,
acquainted with Xenophanes is Epicharmi Fragm. 118): οὕτω γε
proved by the passage of Arist. ἁρμόττει μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν, ἢ ὥσπερ
Metaph. iv. &, 1010 a, 6 (after Ἐπίχαρμος ἢ Ξένοφ. εἶπον, πᾶσαν
enumeration of the philosophers, ὁρῶντες, ὅζο., it is contrary to the
who confound the sensible phe- sense and to the context (ef. 1. 10
nomenon with truth): διὸ εἰκότως sq-), and is rightly rejected by
μὲν λέγουσιν οὐκ ἀληθῆ δὲ λέγουσιν. Schwegler (ad ἢ. 1.).
οὕτω γὰρ ἁρμόττει μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν, ὁ Cf. p. 529, 5, and Bernays,
ἢ ὥσπερ ᾿ΕἘπίχαρμος εἰς Ἐενοφάνην. loc. cit.
ἔτι δὲ πᾶσαν δρῶντες ταύτην κι- * Ap. Stob. Floril. 37, 16: ὃ
νουμένην τὴν φύσιν, &e. What τρόπος ἀνθρώποισι δαίμων ἀγαθὺς,
Epicharmus wrote about Xeno- οἷς δὲ καὶ κακός. Cf. Heraclit. Fr.
phanes we cannot discover from 57 Schleierm.: ἦθος γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ
this passage. The most natural δαίμων.
conjecture is that he said of some * Fragm. ine. 23, from Clem.
opinion of this philosopher, that Strom. iv. 541 C: εὐσεβὴς τὸν νοῦν
it might indeed be true, but that it πεφυκὼς ob πάθοις γ᾽ οὐδὲν κακὸν
was not probable. We have no κατθανών: ἄνω τὸ πνεῦμα διαμένει
reason to suppose from the passage κατ᾽ οὐρανόν. Fr. 35 ap. Plat.
that he wrote against Xenophanes ; Consol. ad Apoll. 15, p. 110: καλῶς
still less to conclude, with Lorenz, οὖν 6 ᾿Ἐπίχαρμος, συνεκρίθη, φησὶ
p. 122 sq., that Xenophanes attri- καὶ διεκρίθη καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὅθεν ἦλθε
buted a certain value to the percep- πάλιν, γᾷ μὲν εἰς yay, πνεῦμα δ᾽
tions of sense, and, for that reason, ἄνω" τί τῶνδε χαλεπόν: οὐδὲ ἕν.
was attacked by Epicharmus. Our _ 5. Fr. 46 in Boissonade Anecd.
text contains nothing of the sort. 1.125: εὐσεβὴς βίος μέγιστον ἐφό-
As to the arbitrary conjecture of διον θνητοῖς ἔνι.
MM 2
552 THE PYTHAGOREANS.

definite philosophic character,' or else leaves us in

uncertainty whether it emanates at all from him,? or
was meant to express his own personal opinion? On
the whole we can clearly see that while Epicharmus
was no stranger to the philosophy of his time, he was
1 Eg. Fr. 24 in Clem. Strom. δεῖται πάνυ, etc., the rest, on the
vy. 597 C: οὐδὲν ἐκφεύγει τὸ θεῖον contrary, from the words, εἰ ἔστ᾽
τοῦτο γινώσκειν σὲ δεῖ: αὐτὸς ἔσθ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ λογισμὸς, ἔστι καὶ θεῖος
ἁμῶν ἐπόπτας: ἀδυνατεῖ δ᾽ οὐδὲν λόγος, looks very like a Jewish or
θεός. Fr. 25 (ibid. vil. 714- A): Alexandrian Christian interpola-
καθαρὸν ἂν τὸν νοῦν Exns ἅπαν τὸ tion. The statement according.
σῶμα καθαρὸς εἶ. Cf. the similar to which (Vitruv. De Archit. viii.
passage from an anonymous poet pref. 1) Epicharmus held that there
ap. Clem. Strom. iv. 631 C: ἴσθι were four elements, as Empedocles
μὴ λουτρῷ ἀλλὰ vow καθαρός ; the did, is evidently based upon an ac-
passage so often quoted, νοῦς ὁρᾷ cidental juxtaposition, such as we
Kal νοῦς ἀκούει τἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ find elsewhere (e.g. in Adschylus,
τυφλά (vide Polman-Kruseman, /.¢. Prometh. 88 sq.). This is not
82. sq.), which certainly contains enough to justify our attributing to
nothing contradictory to the οὔλος Epicharmus the idea of the ele-
ὁρᾷ, &c., of Xenophanes, as Welcker ments as conceived by Empedocles.
supposes J. 6. p. 353; the famous I know not what can have given
saying: οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν πονηρὸς (ibid. rise to Lorenz's assertion that the
Ῥ. 10 sq., ef. Arist. Eth. Ν. 111. 7, fragments of the Epicharmus of
1113) Ὁ} 14; Plate, Z2m...86. D), Ennius must be reckoned among
which, moreover (cf. p. 116, 1), the most interesting writings that
really signifies that no one is volun- remain to us of this Epicharmus.
tarily miserable; lastly, the asser- 8 For example, the doctrine of
tion that Epicharmus called the the flux of all things, professed by
stars and the elements gods (Me- Heracleitus, is humorously inter-
nander ap. Stob. Flori. 91, 29). preted by this poet to mean (as
2 This holds good especially of shown by Bernays, J. 6. 286, from
the verses cited ap. Clem. Strom. Plut. De 8. num. vind. 6. 15, p.
y. 605 A, on the human and divine 559) that a man need not pay his
Aéyos. For, according to Aristox. debts because he is not the identical
ap. Athen. xiv. 648 d, the work person who incurred them. It is
from which these verses are perhaps the same with the passage
taken, the Polity, was foisted upon in Cie. Tuse. i. 8, 15: Hmori nolo
Epicharmus by a certain Chryso- sed me essemortuum nihil estimo
gonus ; and Schmidt, Qu. Epicharm. (Sext. Math. i. 278, has incorrectly,
17, confirms this assertion on no doubt, ἀποθανεῖν ἢ τεθνάναι
metrical grounds. It is probable οὔμοι διαφέρει). This last propo-
that the commencement only of the sition, at any rate, seems to accord
work belongs to Chrysogonus, very ill with the Pythagorean be-
where we find Pythagorean ideas, lief in immortality. Welcker, J. ὁ.
ὃ βίος ἀνθρώποις λογισμοῦ κἀοιθμοῦ 304 sq., well remarks (and Grono-
Ἷ
ἢ

a
ln
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 533

yet no exclusive adherent of any school,’ but freely

appropriated from the opinions of his contemporaries
whatever seemed to him worthy of consideration.

THE ELEATICS.
I. SOURCES. THE TREATISE ON MELISSUS,
XENOPHANES, AND GORGIAS.

Tue works of the Eleatic philosophers have only been

handed down to us in isolated fragments.? Beside these,
the statements of Aristotle are our principal source of
information in regard to their doctrines. Then come
the supplementary accounts of more recent authors,
among whom Simplicius, through his personal know-
ledge of the Eleatic writings, and his careful employ-
ment of ancient authorities, ranks first. Full of lacune
as all these sources are, they yet contain too much;
and this superabundance has, at least in respect to the
founder of the school, been more prejudicial to a correct
estimate of the Eleatic doctrines than the scarcity of
original documents. We possess a treatise,? under the
vius and Lobeck agree) that the (Comment. Eleat.); those of Xeno-
stars, wind, &e., are called gods phanes and Parmenides by Kar-
by Epicharmus, net in his own sten, Philosophorum Grec. Relig.
name, but when he is expoundirg They are given with a short com-
the Persian religion. mentary by Mullach in his edi-
1 Perhaps this is the reason tion of the treatise, De Melisso,
why Iambl., V. P. 266, reckons him εἴς. ; and in the Fragm. Philos. Gr.
among the exoteric members of the i, 99 sqq.; 259 sqq.
school; but it may also be because 3 According to the usual title,
later writers found him deficient De Xenophane, Zenone et Gorgia;
in what they considered true Py- Mullaeh in his edition, repeated
thagoreanism. Fragm. i. 271 sqq., substitutes for
2 Those of Xenophanes, Parme- this, De Melisso, Xenophane et
nides, and Melissus have been col- Gorgia. On the text, authenticity,
lected and annotated by Brandis and contents of this work, cf. F.
534 THE ELEATICS.

name of Aristotle, which expounds and criticises the

doctrines of two Eleatic philosophers, and the similar
arguments of Gorgias. But who these two philoso-
phers are, and what is the historical value of the trea-
tise, there is no certain evidence toshow. The greater
number of texts give the title of the work thus: ‘ Con-
cerning Xenophanes, Zeno and Gorgias.’ Others have
only the more general title, ‘ Concerning the opinions,’
or ‘Concerning the opinions of the philosophers. Of
the particular divisions of this work, the first section
(c. 1, 2) is usually thought to relate to Xenophanes;
but in some of the manuscripts, and especially in the
Leipzig Codex, which is the best, to Zeno: while the
second section (c. 3, 4), to which the name of Zeno is
most frequently attached, is referred by the same
authorities to Xenophanes.' There can be no doubt,
however, that the first section treats neither of Xeno-
phanes nor of Zeno, but of Melissus. This is clearly
asserted? in the work itself, and the contents are of
such a nature that they can relate to no other person.
For as we learn from the express testimony of Aris-
totle,? it was Melissus who first maintained the un-
limitedvess of the One Being (c. 1. 974 a, 9), whereas
Kern : Questionum Xenophanearum init. and 974 b, 20, e. 2, 975 a,
capita duo. Naumb, 1864. Symbole 21; ὁ. 6, 979 b, 21; ef. e, 1, 974
critice ad libell. Arisiot. π. Ξενοφ. a, 11..bs8: In ὃ. 2,°976 e742
ete., Oldenb. 1867. Θεοφράστου π. clear distinction is drawn between
Μελίσσου Philologus, vol. xxvi. 271 the philosopher whose doctrine had
sqq.; Beitrag z. Darst, d. Philoso- been expounded in the chapter, and
phie d. Xenoph. Danzig, 1871. Xenophanes; and ec. 5, 979 a, 22
Ucher Xenophanes v. Kol. Stettin, presnpposes that Melissus has pre-
1874. viously been spoken of.
1 Cf. the proofs in Bekker and 8 Metaph. i. 5, 986 b, 18; ef.
Mullach. Phys. 111. ἃ, 207 a, 18.
2 C4, 977 b, 21; ef.e1, sub
 Ἢ

ΩΣ

TREATISE ΟΝ MELISSUS, ETC. 535

Xenophanes gave no opinion on this question, and the

reasons which are here, according to the ordinary theory,
placed in the mouth either of Xenophanes or Zeno,
belong, according to the undoubtedly authentic state-
ments of Aristotle, and the fragments of Melissus which
Simplicius has preserved, to Melissus.'. For the rest,
this harmony with ancient testimony serves to ratify
the contents of this chapter, if we connect it with
Melissus ; and there seems no alternative in that case
but to suppose a wrong title. Im the second section,
on the contrary, not only the person to whom it relates,
but also the credibility of the contents, is questionable.
The various texts, as we have seen, connect it some-
times with Zeno,” sometimes with Xenophanes. The

1 As has been shown by Bran- theory of God especially, with con

dis (Cumment. Eleat. 186 sqq., 200 stant reference to Anaximander’s
sq.; Gr. Rom. Phiios. τ. 398 sqq.), ‘viereinigen’ conception of God—
and previously by Spalding ( Vindi- apart from its want of any histori-
ci@é Philosoph. Megaricorum Sub- eal foundation—is inadmissible,
jecto Commentario in priorem parti since it starts from wholly arbi-
libelli deXenoph. Zenone, et Gorgia, trary and wrong notions of Anaxi-
Berlin, 1793). Our discussion on mander. We cannot, however, hope
Melissus later on will also make it for much aid in the comprehension
clear. Roth, Geschicht. d, Abendl. of the writing attributed to Aris-
Phil. ἢ. Ὁ, 28, sees not the smallest totle, from a commentary which
reason to refer c. 1 sq. to Melissus. can so deal with its text, as to find
This was to be expected, since he (p- 208) in the proposition that
(ibid. a, 186) contemptuously dis- ‘nothing is nowhere’ (that is, in
misses all doubt as to the authen- no space) the identity of infinite
ticity of the work ; but it does not space with nothing.
alter the state of the case. His 2 In the chapter on Gorgias (c.
detailed examination of Xeno- 5, 979, a, 21) we read: ὅτι οὐκ
phanes also (/. 6. a, 174-242 b, 22- ἔστιν οὔτε ἕν οὔτε πολλὰ, οὔτε
42) contains scarcely anything ἀγέννητα οὔτε γενόμενα, τὰ μὲν ὡς
which is either not already known, Μέλισσος τὰ δ᾽ ὡς Ζήνων ἐπιχειρεῖ
or whichis tenable. His chief dis- δεικνύειν μετὰ τὴν ἴδιον αὐτοῦ ἀπό-
covery (a, 188, 216, &c.) that δειξιν, ete.; 6. 6, 979 b, 25: μη-
Xenophanes developed his opinions δαμοῦ δὲ ὃν οὐδὲν εἶναι (sc. Γοργίας
in persistent opposition to those of λαμβάνει) κατὰ τὸν Ζήνωνος λόγον
Anaximander, and formed his περὶ τῆς χώρας; ibid. line 36, ac-
536 THE ELEATICS.

author himself subsequently alludes to communications

concerning Zeno, which we might suppose to be con-
tained in the third chapter: but his allusions are
much more explicable on the theory that a part of the
work which is now lost related to Zeno; and this
would agree with the fact that in the chapter before us
Zeno is brought forward in a manner that would be im-
possible! if the context directly treated of him. Ought
cording to Miullach’s continuation : support of the thesis that Being
τὸ yap ἀσώματόν, φησιν, οὐδὲν, ἔχων is not a Plurality and not become;
γνώμην παραπλησίαν τῷ τοῦ Ζήνωνος not to prove that Being is ποῦ ἃ
λόγῳ. That other demonstrations Unity and not underived. Conse-
of Zeno are here meant, which are quently if even the words of our
not spoken of in our treatise, I author assert the latter doctrine,
cannot believe. With what right he must certainly be expressing his
could the author assume in readers meaning inaccurately. (The odjec-
who had been first instructed by tion of Kern, Qu. Xen. 42 to this
himself concerning the opinions of opinion is irrelevant, and is directed
Melissus and Xenophanes—such against an interpretation of the
intimate acquaintance with the passage for which I am not respon-
doctrines of Zeno, that he might sible.) The passages from ὁ. 6
thus refer to them, as to something might be referred to ec. 3, 977 Ὁ,
they knew perfectly well? Were 18: τὸ yap μὴ ὃν οὐδαμῆ εἶναι;
there no better solution, I should these words, however, would not
preter to admit the possibility (as be sufficient to explain the allu-
in the first editions of this work) sions, even if we call to our assist-
that these allusions refer to passa- ance the fundamental proposition
ges in the second section, and, (ibid. 1. 5): οἷον τὸ μὴ ὃν οὖις ἂν εἶναι
therefore, not to Xenophanes but τὸ ὄν. It seems to me more likely
to Zeno. The passage from ec. 5 that the passages cited from ὁ. 5 sq.
would then (with c. 1, 974 a, 2,11) allude to a lost portion of this
have to be referred to 6. 3, where work, which treated of Zeno.
the unity and eternity of God are Perhaps c. 2, 976 a, 25, also refers
proved. Our author indeed says to this lust portion. In Diog. v.
that Gorgias partly follows Zeno 25,a book, πρὸς τὰ Ζήνωνος, is actu-
and purtly Melissus, in proving ally mentioned among the writings
that Being is neither one nor many, of Aristotle, together with the trza-
neither become nor unbecome. tises on Melissus, Gorgias and Xe-
But this is no obstacle ; for neither nophanes.
Zeno nor Melissus can have ad- 1 In his criticism (6, 4, 978 Ὁ,
vanced arguments against the 37) of the opinions expounded in
unity and eternity of Being, e. 8, the reply which the author
Gorgias, therefore, could only have makes to the assertion (977 b, 11
employed their demonstrations in sqq.) that the Deity cannot move,
 TREATISE ON MELISS US, ETC. 537

_ we then to infer that the author is alluding in this sec-

tion, not to Zeno, but to Xenophanes? In that case it is
somewhat strange that in an exposition of the Eleatic
doctrine the founder of the school should occupy a place
between Melissus and Gorgias. This, however, may
be explained on the hypothesis that the order in which
the writer discusses the Eleatic philosophers is regu-
lated, not according to their historical connection, but
because all motion presupposes a tion that the one would become a
plurality of things, of which one multiplicity if it changed its place
moves into the other (i.e. the place (and this assertion can alone be in
of the other), is as follows. The question here: the τοιοῦτον ἕν
ον Deity also could move into another would be the κύκλῳ φερόμενος θεὸς)
οὐδαμῶς yap λέγει ὅτι ἕν μόνον (50 is to be found in the extract from
Kern, Quest. 35, completes the Melissus, c. 1, 974 a, 18 sqq., and
text), ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι εἷς μόνος θεὸς εἰ δὲ is nowhere (not even ap. Themist.
καὶ αὐτὺς (instead of this we should Phys. 18 0, p. 122 Sp.) attributed
probably read with Bergk, De Arist. to Zeno. I conjectured, therefore,
lib. de Xen. Zen. et Gorg. Marb. that ὥσπερ ought to be rejected;
1843, p. 36 sq.) εἰ δὲ καὶ μὴ αὐτὸς, if or Μέλισσος substituted for Ζήνων ;
even he himself dors not move into or still more probably, as it seemed
another—other conjectural reading, to me, that the words ὥσπερ 6
in Kern, J. 6. τί κωλύει eis ἄλληλα Ζήνων, which certainly relate to an
κινουμένων τῶν μερῶν τοῦ... KU- earlier passage of the book, had
κλῳφε. .. θεὸν (here might be been added by the person who re-
read: τ. μ. τοῦ παντὸς [or τοῦ ferred c.1 to Zeno. If, however,
ὅλου] κύκλῳ φέρεσθαι τὸν θεόν. the work originally contained a
Kern, on δοοουπὺ of Felician’s discussicn on Zeno (vide previous
translation, guid vetat partes omnia note), the conjecture is superfluous.
ambientis Dei in sese mutuo moveri, The words would then relate to
conjectures: τ. μ. τοῦ πάντα περιέ- that discussion. The particular
χοντος θεοῦ; but this translation, meaning of the words is immaterial
if it be literal, would necessitate a in regard to the present enquiry.
great alteration in the text; if it Meantime I see no reason to aban-
be not so, ambientis may be refer- don my former explanation, ac-
red to the κύκλῳ, which is not cording to which the words od γὰρ,
otherwise translated) οὐ yap δὴ τὸ etc., assert the following: ‘for our
τοιοῦτον, the ἐν ὥσπερ ὃ Ζήνων adversary cannot object, like Zeno,
πολλὰ εἶναι φήσει. (So in Cod. that such a One revolving ina circle
Lips. and elsewhere, the Vulgata is would not be One at all (more cor-
φύσει) αὐτὸς yap σῶμα εἶναι λέγει τὸν rectly is not, for there is no ἂν be-~
θεόν, etc. In the second edition of fore εἶναι), for he himself calls the
this work I objected to the words, Deity spherical.’
ὥσπερ 6 Ζήνων, because the asser-

myee
538 THE ELEATICS.

from a dogmatic point of view. Just as in a famous

passage of the Metaphysics, Aristotle mentions Par-
menides first, then Melissus, and atter them Xeno-
phanes;! so, in this work, the author deals first with
those Eleatics who maintain that Being is limited—viz.,
Zeno, and no doubt Parmenides;? next with Melissus,
who also maintains that it is unlimited; next with
Xenophanes, who says that it is neither limited nor un-
limited; and, lastly, with Gorgias, who not only denies
that Being is cognisable, but also denies Being itself. But
if this destroys the theory that Zeno is the philosopher
indicated in the third chapter,’ still less can we discover
in the exposition any accurate account of his doctrines.*
The philosopher here mentioned is represented as having
denied Becoming and Multiplicity, ‘in reference to the
Divinity, ὃ and he is accordingly made to develope the
1 Vide infra, p. 547, 1. 4 This is presupposed by Fries
2 Philoponus, Phys. B, 9, is the and Marbach. Schieiermacher J. ¢.
only authority who says that there says more cautiously that we
existed a treatise on Parmenides have here the opinions of Zeno ex-
attributed to Aristotle: φασὶ δὲ καὶ pressed in the language of Xeno-
γεγάφθαι αὐτῷ ἰδίᾳ βιβλίον πρὸς τὴν phanes, and that the whole is
Παρμενίδου δόξαν. The statement, merely patched together. More
however, has much in its favour, recently Ueberweg, Uvcber d. histor.
as it is scarcely credible that any Werth der Schrift De Melisso, &e.
one who treated of the Eleatics (Philologus,
viii. 104 sqq.) tried to
would pass over Parmenides. If we establish the above-named theory
accept it as true, we might refer more firmly. Eventually, however,
ce. 2,976 a, 5; α. 4,978 b, 8 of our he altered his opinion on the sub-
treatise to this portion of the work. ject, and declared that the author
Only it must have been lost at a was probably treating of Xeno-
very early period, for it is not men- phanes, but gave no trustworthy
tioned in the catalogue of Diogenes. information either of him or of
* Of Prices. Gesch. ἃ. Phil.s. Zeno (Grundriss, i. section 17).
157 sq. 167; Marbach, Gesch. d. As he expressly alludes to my
Phil. i. 145 sq.; Schleiermacher, counter-remarks, I cannot. well
Gesch. d. Phil. 61 sq. ; Ueberweg, omit them in the present edition.
vide next note, and see also the first 5 τοῦτο λέγων ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ.
edition of the present work. 3, sub init,
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 539

_proof of his assertion primarily in relation to this alone,

although his reasons for the most part admit of a more
general application. No such restriction of Zeno’s doc-
trines is recognised by any of the ancient accounts:
they all agree that Zeno, like Parmenides, denied Be-
coming and Multiplicity m general. Xenophanes alone,
as we shall see, connected his whole polemic against the
ordinary point of view with the theological question;
whereas, with the exception of what we find in the
treatise we are considering, not a single theological pro-
position has been handed down to us as Zeno’s. Al-
though, therefore, it is quite conceivable that Zeno
may have called the One Being also God, yet it is not
probable that in his demonstration he lmited himself
. to proving that the Deity is eternal, sole, &c. On the
contrary, what he aimed at was to show generally that
Plurality and Becoming are nowhere possible.! Our
text consequently maintains, in respect of the Eleatic
philosopher it discusses, that which could only be said
of Xenophanes ; and the further development of his
propositions is connected with Xenophanes in a manner
which we cannot assume in the case of Zeno.” It is
1 As Plato says, Parm.127C Fr. 4 (according to Karsten’s
sqq. amendments): αἰεὶ δ᾽ ἐν ταὐτῷ τε
2 In the passage De Mel. c. 3, μένειν κινούμενον οὐδὲν οὐδὲ μετέρ-
977 a, 36, we find this statement: χεσθαί μιν ἐπιπρέπει ἄλλοτε ἄλλῃ.
eva δ᾽ ὄντα [Toy θεὸν} ὅμοιον εἶναι Further, what relates to the proof
πάντῃ, ὁρᾷν τε καὶ ἀκούειν τάς τε of the unity of God, 977 a, 23
ἄλλας αἰσθήσεις ἔχοντα πάντῃ, ἃ sqq., 15 quite in accordance with
manifest imitation of Xenophanes what Plut. (ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 1.
(Fr. 2): οὖλος δρᾷ, οὖλος δὲ νοεῖ, 8, 5) says of Xenophanes: ἄπο-
οὖλος δέ τ᾽ ἀκούει. Cf. p. 454, 2; φαίνεται δὲ καὶ περὶ θεῶν ws οὐδεμιᾶς
457, 3; 3rd ed.; also,977 Ὁ,11: The ἡγεμονίας ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης" οὐ γὰρ
Deity is not moved, κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ ὅσιον δεσπόζεσθαί τινα θεῶν, for
πλείω ὄντα ἑνὸς, ἕτερον, yap εἰς Xenophanes could only draw from
ἕτερον δεῖν κινεῖσθαι. Cf. Xenoph. it the conclusion he did, on the
δ40 THE ELEATICS.

true that Parmenides and Melissus attribute to Being

the same unity, uniformity, and immobility, that
Xenophanes does to God. But the fact that they attri-
bute these qualities not to God, but to Being, shows
most clearly how great was the advance from Xeno-
phanes to Parmenides. There is no doubt that Zeno
strictly adhered to the doctrine of Parmenides. That
he should have abandoned the metaphysical view of the
fundamental doctrine of the Eleatics, wherein the chief
merit of Parmenides consists, and should have gone back
to the more imperfect theological view, is not probable.
But the manner in which the Deity is here spoken
of is no less surprising. It is described as neither
limited nor unlimited, neither moved nor unmoved; but
although it is without limit, it is said to be spherical in
form. How is this possible? In his critique of ordinary
opinion, Zeno regards as a sufficient proof of its falsity
the fact that it attributes opposite predicates to the
same things at the same time.’ Is it likely then that
he himself would have attributed such mutually ex-
clusive predicates to the Deity ? Ueberweg thinks
that he did not intend to*attribute them, but to deny
them, in order thus to exalt the Deity above the whole
sphere of extension and temporality. But this inten-

supposition that he did not hold a phanes; it must, however, be con-

plurality of gods. That the Deity nected with Xenophanes and not
is underived, was also first declared with Zeno, who, as far as we know,
by Xenophanes. Lastly, the state- gave no opening for such a state-
ment that the Deity is neither ment.
limited nor unlimited, neither 1 Plato, loc. cit., other authori-
moved nor unmoved, must be re- ties will be cited infra.
garded as a misapprehension of 2 Similarly, on the supposition
the utterances of Aristotle, and of that we have here a true report of
Theophrastus concerning Xeno- Xenophanes, cf. Kern, Qu. Xen.
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 541

tion is so little shown by our Eleatic philosopher, that

he expressly describes the Deity as globe-shaped; the
historical Zeno, moreover, denies all reality to that
which is not extended.’ It is incredible that Zeno
should have maintained these theories of his master,
if the idea of God being uncontained in space were
admitted by him; and still more incrediblé is it that
so acute a thinker should have believed in the spherical
form, while he denied the limitation of the Deity.
Internal contradictions can be discovered in Zeno as
‘in other philosophers, but they can be recognised as
contradictions only by means of inferences which he
did not himself draw. There is no example in his
doctrines of so palpable and direct a combination of
what is contradictory, as this work imputes to him. ?
Nor is this work a trustworthy authority for the
doctrines of Xenophanes. A guarantee for the authen-
ticity of its exposition is indeed supposed? to be found
11 sqq. But Kern has since other, and being taken from
(Beitrag, 17) considerably modified another, does not make that other
this opinion. Vide infra, p. 548, 1. less, is nothing;’ ἐξ would follow
1 Cf. the following note. Fur- that the One must be a quantity,
ther details in the chapter on Zeno. and therefore not indivisible. This
5 Ueberweg says that Zeno, is undoubtedly the meaning of the
according to Themist. Phys. 18 a Aristotelian passage, as is clear
(122 sq.), and Simpl. Phys. 30 a, not only from the words themselves,
ceelared the Real to be indivisible but from what Simplicius adduces,
and extended, and yet, according l.c. p. 21. The expression quoted
to Arist. Metaph. iii. 4. 1001 b, 7, by Themistins would be irrelevant
maintained that the One could not here, for it relates to the many
be indivisible, for if it were so, it and not to the One. Cf. p. 498, 1,
would not be a quantity, and con- 3rd ed.
sequently would be nothing. But 3 This holds good of the ancient
Aristotle does not say that Zeno writers without exception; also of
actually asserted this; he only Steinhart, Pl. W. W. iii. 394, 10,
says that from the presupposition and Mullach, Pref. xiv. (Fragm.
of Zeno, ‘that which, being added Philos. Gr. i. 271 sqq., where the
to another, does not increase that Prefatio of the year 1845 is
δ42 THE ELEATICS.

in Theophrastus, from whom the similar statements

of Simplicius and Bessarion as to Xenophanes are said
to be borrowed. But this theory is very improbable.
Bessarion !was unmistakeably quoting, not from some
writing of Theophrastus now lost, but solely and entirely
from the passage in Simplicius’ Physics, in which that
commentator, appealing to Theophrastus, expounds the
doctrine of Xenophanes in harmony with the third
chapter of our treatise.” Simplicius, however, is not
indebted to Theophrastus for all that he says about
printed without alteration), though has indeed sought to prove the
he doubts the authenticity and contrary, in opposition to Krische,
entire credibility of this treatise. Forsch. 92 sq., and myself; but he
Kern, Beitr. 2; Xenoph. 8; cf. Qu. has now withdrawn this opinion
Xen, 48 sq., derives the statement (Beitr. 6 Anm.). Bessarion’s ac-
of Simplicius from the Physics of count of Xenophanes really con-
Theophrastus. and accounts for its tains nothing that might not have
similarity with our writing, by been taken from Simplicius, only
conjecturing the latter to have that Bessarion seems to have been
been a sketch of Theophrastus, careless in the use of his authority.
which he himself used for that Even what he adds immediately
particular passage in the Physics. after the words quoted above can
1 Οἱ Calumniat. Plat. τι. 11, p. only have come from Simplicius
32 b (printed in Brandis, Comm. (1. c. and p. 7 Ὁ, 15 Ὁ), though he
El. 17 sq.; Mullach, p. xi. of his reproduces his statements very in-
separate edition, 1.274 Fragmenta; accurately when he says: Nec vero
Kern. Qu. 44 sq.): [ Theophrastus] Theophrastus solus haec dixit ; sed
Xenophanem, quem Parmenides au- Nicolaus quoque Damascenus et
divit atque secutus est, nequaquam Alexander Aphrodisiensis eadem de
inter physicos numerandum sed alio Xenophane referunt (for the real
loco constituendum censet. Nomine, state of the case, cf. p. 549, 1),
inquit, unius et universi Deum opusque Melissi de ente et natura
Xenophanes appellavit, quod unum inscriptum dicunt (this is said only
ingenitum immobile aeternum dixit; by Simplicius, 15 Ὁ). Parmenidis
ad haec, aliquo quidem modo, neque de veritate et opinatione (this is said
infinitum neque finitum, alio vero neither by Simplicius, nor the
modo etiam finitum, tum etiam con- others; but Simplicius does say,
globatum, diversa scilicet notitia e 7, 6: μετελθὼν... 6 Παρμενίδης
ratione, mentem etiam universum . . . ἀπὸ ἀληθείας, ὡς αὐτός φησιν,
hoc idem esse affirmavit ἐπὶ δόξαν). In the same way as
2 Kern, Qu. Xen. 44 sqq. (in Kern has already shown, Qu. 47,
agreement with Brandis, J. ¢., Kar- the foregoing is merely a repro-
sten, Xenoph. Rell. 107, and others), duction of Simpl. Phys. 7.
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 543

Xenophanes, but only for an introductory remark, which

tells us nothing more than we find in Aristotle’s Meta-
physics.' The rest he brings forward in his own name,
1 His words are, Phys. 5 Ὁ: thus : ‘ He considers the ὃν καὶ πᾶν
μίαν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἤτοι ἐν τὸ ὃν καὶ as neither limited nor unlimited,’ I
πᾶν, καὶ οὔτε πεπερασμένον οὔτε confess I do not understand. In
ἄπειρον. οὔτε κινούμενον οὔτε ἦρε- the sentence, οὔτε πεπερασμένον
μοῦν, Ξενοφάνην τὸν Κολοφώνιον τὸν οὔτε ἄπειρον ὑποτίθεται, the nega-
Παρμενίδου διδάσκαλον ὑποτίθεσθαί tion may as well refer to the ὕπο-
φησιν 6 Θεόφραστος. ὁμολογῶν ἕτέ- τίθεται as to the πεπερασμ. and the
ρας εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς περὶ φύσεως ἄπειρον ;it may either mean, ‘ He
ἱστορίας τὴν μνήμην τῆς τοῦτου conceives it neither as limited nor
᾿ δόξης. These words may easily be unlimited;* or, ‘he conceives it as
taken to mean nothing more than neither limited nor unlimited.” It
what Aristotle says, Metaph. i. 5, must mean the former. unless Theo-
986 b, 21: Xenophanes never an- phrastus is to contradict the state-
nounced whether he conceived the ment of Aristotle (vide p. 547, 1).
One primitive essence as limited or This is highly improbable, for
unlimited ; Theophrastus adds that Theophrastus, in the very chapter
he also never explained whether he on Physics from which our frag-
conceived it as at rest or in motion. ment is taken, is in close agree-
Nothing obliges us to conclude ment with the first book of
from these statements that Xeno- Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Vide his
phanes expressly taught that the observations on Parmenides and
One was neither limited nor un- Anaxagoras (infra, ὃ Parm., and
limited, neither at rest nor in supra, p. 233, 1), compared with
motion. This is certainly asserted Arist. Metaph. i. 5, 986 b, 18 sqq-;
by the treatise, De Melisso. Sim- e. 8, 989 a, 30 sqq., and his Fr. 48
plicius, in putting the statement (ap. Simp!. Phys. 6 b); ef. Arist.
of Theophrastus into the third Metaph. i. 6 sub init. It cannot
person, may have condensed it be urged that, because Xenophanes
or altered it: this is not at all un- (in Fr. 4, quoted p. 539, 2), de-
likely. But even supposing Theo- elared God to be unmoved, he
phrastus really to have written, never could have been said to have
μίαν δὲ τὴν apxhv .. . ἠρεμοῦν =. withheld his opinion as to the
ὁ Κολοφώνιος ὃ Παρμενίδου διδάτκα- movement of the ὃν καὶ πᾶν. Xeno-
Aos ὑποτίθεται. 1 do not see what phanes, in Fr. 4, is combating the
hinders us from translating it mythical notions about the wander-
thus: ‘Xenophanes regards the ings of the gods, such as those of
principle as One, i.e. he regards Zeus and Poseidon to Mthiopia,
the totality of Being as One; and and maintains as his opinion that
neither as something limited nor the Deity remains unmoved, ἐν
unlimited, neither as something ταὐτῷ; whether the world, the ὃν
moved nor unmoved.’ The objec- kal πᾶν is also unmoved, he does
tion of Kern, Qu. x.50; Beitr. 4.6: not say. It appears from other
that because the verbal conception accounts, however, that he was far
is not denied it must be explained from denying movement to the
544 THE ELEATICS.

without saying whence he derives it;' but his mode of

expression shows? that it was not from the same source
(namely, the Physics of Theophrastus) as the more
general quotation. The source, it is evident from
world, and consequently we have of the philosophy of Xenophanes in
no right to apply to the world his Physics in his having given a
what he says of God (/.c.). If short exposition of it to his readers.
it be so applied, however, Kern’s But such a procedure seems to me
explanation of the passage in improbable, and the analogies
Theophrastus is excluded as well which Kern (J. 6.) adduces from
as mine. For, if Xenophanes had Aristotle, irrelevant. It may be
said that the πᾶν remained un- thought (Brandis, Comm. El. 17;
moved, and for ever in the same Kern, Quest. 60; Beitr, 2) that
place, or in other words, that it Simplicius would have said the
was not moved, but at rest; in same, even if his further state-
that case no one could have said ments had not been founded upon
that Xenophanes declared it to be Theophrastus. But it might rather
neither unmoved nor at rest. be expected that he would some-
1 Simplicius proceeds immedi- where have indicated it, if he had
ately after δόξης with the direct found the same in Theophrastus.
narration, τὸ yap ἕν τοῦτο Kal πᾶν, He only says, however, that Theo-
&e.p. 475. Although it does not phrastus in his Physics declined
follow that that which comes next the discussion of Xenophanes’
cannot have been borrowed from philosophy. Kern thinks that the
Theophrastus, it is the more cer- agreement of the account of Xeno-
tain, that the exposition of Simpl. phanes (τὸ γὰρ ἕν, ete.), with the
does not justify us in asserting that words previously quoted from Theo-
it was borrowed from him. phrastus, 1s incomprehensible if
2 It clearly results from the ad- this account be not taken from
dition, ὁμολογῶν, &e. (p. 541, 3), Theophrastus. But the question
that the previous citation is taken is whether the words are to be
from Theophrastus, φυσικὴ ἱστορία, understood in the same sense as
which, we know from other sources, this account, Kern lastly remarks:
contained mention of Xenophanes Simplicius not only names Theo-
and Parmenides, and of most of the phrastus before the discussion con-
ancient philosophers, vide cerning
Diog. Xenophanes; but he
ix. 22; Stob._ cl. 1. 522; names Nicolaus and Alexander
Alex. Ἷ
Aphr. in Metaph. i. 3, 984 Ὁ, 1, p. after it. I know not what this re-
24 Bon; Simpl. Phys. 25 a, etc.; mark is intended to show. He
in this treatise, however, ac- names his sources where he intends
cording to his own declaration, to support his opinion upon their
Theophrastus cannot have spoken evidence. But it does not follow
very fully of Xenophanes. Kern that he supports his opinion on
(Beitr. 3) says that Theophrastus their evidence when he does not
may have had a reason for his mention them,
criticism, and subsequent omission
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 545

the similarity both of the ideas and the language! in

the two expositions, can be no other than the work on
‘ Cf. the two tests, Simpl. : τὸ οὐδέτερον" οὔτε γὰρ ὅμοιον bd ὁμοίου
γὰρ ἕν τοῦτο καὶ πᾶν τὸν θεὸν ἔλεγεν προσήκειν τεκνωθῆναι μᾶλλον ἢ τε-
ὁ Ἐ νοφάνης, ὃν ἕνα μὲν δείκνυσιν κνῶσαι: ταῦτα γὰρ ἅπαντα τοῖς γε
ἐκ τοῦ πάντων κράτιστον εἶναι πλειό- ἴσοις καὶ ὁμοίοις οὐχ ὑπάρχειν πρὸς
rev γάρ, φησιν. ὄντων, ὁμοίως ἀνάγ- ἄλληλα: οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐξ ἀνομοίου τὰνό-
kn ὑπάρχειν πᾶσι τὸ κρατεῖν" τὸ δὲ μοιον γενέσθαι. εἰ γὰρ γίγνοιτο ἐξ
πάντων κράτιστον καὶ ἄριστον 6 θεός. ἀσθενεστέρου τὸ ἰσχυρότερον, ete.
ἀγένητον δὲ ἐδείκνυεν ἐκ τοῦ δεῖν τὸ . . τὸ ὃν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντος ἂν γενέσθαι,
γιγνόμενον ἢ ἐξ >
ὁμοίου
: 4
ἢ ἐξ
2p
ἀνομοίου
>
ὅπερ ἀδύνατον" ἀΐδιον μὲν οὖν διὰ
, > pS \ “
γίγνεσθαι: GAAG Td μὲν ὅμοιον ἄπα-
>
ταῦτα εἶναι τὸν θεόν. .. . ἀΐδιον
θές φησιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁμοίου" οὐδὲν γὰρ. δ᾽ ὄντα καὶ ἕνα καὶ σφαιροειδῇ οὔτ᾽
μᾶλλον γεννᾷν ἢ γεννᾶσθαι προσήκει ἄπειρον εἶναι οὔτε πεπεράνθαι. ἄπει-
τὸ ὅμοιον ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίον᾽ εἰ δ᾽ ἐξ ἂνο- pov μὲν τὸ μὴ ὃν εἶναι τοῦτϑ yap
μοίου γίγνοιτο, ἔσται τὸ ὃν ἐκ τοῦ οὔτε ἀρχὴν οὔτε μέσον οὔτε TéAOS
μὴ ὄντος. καὶ οὕτως ἀγένητον καὶ οὔτε ἄλλο μέρος οὐδὲν ἔχειν. ..
ἀΐδιον ἐδείκνυ. καὶ οὔτε δὲ ἄπειρον οἷον δὲ τὸ μὴ ὃν οὐκ ἂν εἶναι τὸ ὄν"
οὔτε πεπερασμένον εἶναι" διότι ἄπειρον περαίνειν δὲ πρὸς ἄλληλα εἰ πλείω
μὲν τὸ μὴ ὃν. ὡς οὔτε (μήτε) ἀρχὴν ὁ εἴη. . τὸ δὴ τοιοῦτον ὃν ἕν. ..
ἔχον μήτε μέσον μήτε τέλος, περαί- οὔτε κινεῖσθαι οὔτε ἀκίνητον εἶναι.
νειν δὲ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ πλείω. Anda ἀκίνητον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ μὴ oy
little further on; ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν οὔτε οὔτε γὰρ εἰς αὐτὸ ἕτερον, οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸ
ἄπειρον οὔτε πεπερασμένον αὐτὸ δεί- εἰς ἄλλο ἐλθεῖν" κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ πλείω
κνυσιν, ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων δῆλον. ὄντα ἑνός" ἕτερον γὰρ εἰς ἕτερον δεῖν
πεπερασμένον δὲ καὶ σφαιροειδὲς αὐτὸ κινεῖσθαι, ete. This resemblance
διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ὅμοιον λέγει. ) in the two accounts cannot be ex-
παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ κίνησιν ἀφαιρεῖ plained by a common use of the
καὶ ἠρεμίαν" ἀκίνητον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι work of Xenophanes (as Bergk
τὸ μὴ bv οὔτε γὰρ εἰς αὐτὸ ἕτερον, well observes, Comment. de Arist.
οὔτε αὐτὸ πρὸς ἄλλο ἐλθεῖν" κινεῖσθαι lib. de Xen. 6), for this work,
δὲ τὰ πλείω τοῦ ἑνός" ἕτερον γὰρ εἰς being a poem, had quite another
ἕτερον μεταβάλλ:ιν. De Xenoph.c. form. Our comparison will also
3: ἀδύνατόν φησιν εἶναι, εἴ τι ἔστι, show that there is absolutely
γενέσθαι, τοῦτο λέγων ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ. nothing in the account of Simpli-
εν εἰ δ᾽ ἔστιν 6 θεὸς ὅπάντων κρά- cius which might not be regarded
τιστον ἕνα φησὶν αὐτὸν προσήκειν as an extract from the so-called
εἶναι" εἰ γὰρ δύο ἢ πλείους εἶεν, οὐκ Aristotelian writing. The order
ἂν ἔτι κράτιστον καὶ βέλτιστον of the arguments is sometimes dif-
αὐτὺν εἶναι πάντων" ἕκαστος “γὰρ ὧν ferent, and the expressions are
τῶν πολλῶν ὁμοίως ἂν τοιοῦτος εἴη. once or twice altered-—but that is
τυῦτο γὰρ θεὸν καὶ θεοῦ δύναωιν of little consequence; and what
εἶναι, κρατεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ κρατεῖσθαι, Simplicius adds: ὥστε καὶ ὅταν ἐν
καὶ πάντων κράτιστον εἶναι, εἴας. ταὐτῷ μένειν λέγῃ καὶ μὴ κινεῖσθαι
ἀδύνατον-θεοῦ" (vide sup.) ἀνάγκη (αἰεὶ δ᾽ ἐν ταὐτῷ τε μένειν, etc.)
γὰρ ἤτοι ἐξ ὁμοίου ἢ ἐξ ἀνομοίου οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἠρεμίαν τὴν ἀντικειμέ-
γενέσθαι τὸ γιγνόμενον. δυνατὸν δὲ νὴν τῇ κινήσει μένειν αὐτόν φησιν,
VOL. I. NWN
 546 THE ELEATICS.

Melissus, &e., which we are considering. We need not

therefore resort to the theory that Simplicius attributed
this work to Theophrastus,' or that the work actually
originated with this Peripatetic philosopher,? in order
to explain his evidence.* His statements merely prove
ete., is not an extract, but his own the treatise π. MeAfooov—even if
reflection. But even if it be ad- Theophrastus had not expressly
mitted that Simplicius has been declared that such an exposition
dependent upon the work concern- did not belong to the Physics.
ing Melissus, there is not the least And the same holds good against
ground for making this direct de- Teichmiller's theory (Stud. z.
pendence (Kern, vide sap. p. 541, Gesch. d. Begr. 593 sq.), that Sim-
1) indirect by conjecturing, that plicius had before him, besides the
Simplicius first made use of Theo- treatise 7. MeA. the same exposi-
phrastus’ Physics, and that Theo- tion as the writer of that treatise—
phrastus in his Physics made use viz., an exposition of Xenophanes’
of the treatise περὶ MeA. For, on doctrine, which was composed by
the one hand, there is no proof of some later Eleatic. His account
Simplicius having used the Physics contains nothing whatever that
of Theophrastus; indeed, the con- cannot be explained by his haying
trary may be proved from his own used the Pseudo-Aristotelian book,
words; and on the other hand, the and the verse of Xenophanes,
agreement between his exposition though not word for word. We
and the treatise περὶ Med. is so have, therefore, no right to seek
complete, that it can only be fully out other sources, traces of which,
explained on the supposition that had they existed, must somewhere
Simplicius made direct use of have been evident in the work.
that treatise, and we have no ’ As is done by the Vatican
right to ignore this most obvious MS.
and simple theory in favour of ? As Brandis (Gr. Rom. Phil.
some other that is more recondite i. 158; ili.a, 291); Cousin (Fragm. σ
e
δο
νυ
τὰν
eψτ
and artificial. The contents of the Philos. 1. 25, 7); and more deci-
treatise on Melissus we know ; that dedly Kern (sup. p. 544, 2) conjec-
Simplicius was acquainted with ture. In the Comment. El. 18,
this treatise is beyond question; Brandis refuses to admit Aristotle’s
that it is adequate for the expla- authorship of the work, yet he refers
nation of his account is obvious. it only indirectly to Theophrastus.
When such a simple result is ob- In the Gesch. d. Entw. d. Gr. Phil.
tained by reckoning with known i. 83, he allows the possibility of
qvantities, there can be no possi- its having been written by some
ble inducement or justification for later Peripatetic.
introducing such unknown and un- 3 The objection of Brandis
certain elements as the supposed (Comment. El. 18) that Simplicius
exposition of Xenophanes in the would not have mentioned Theo-
Physics of Theophrastus, and the phrastus as his source and omitted
dependence of that exposition on the name of Aristotle, had he at-
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 547

that he was acquainted not only with the remark οἵ

Theophrastus in his Physics which he mentions, but
also with the work on Melissus, &c., no matter under
whose name it passed ; that he regarded this work as a
genuine source of history, and that in his copy the
third and fourth chapters referred to Xenophanes.
This precedent, however, cannot, it is plain, furnish
any criterion for us. The contents of the chapter do
not agree with what we know on ancient authority re-
specting Xenophanes. While Xenophanes himself de-
clares the divinity to be unmoved,’ this work says it is
neither moved nor unmoved;? and while Aristotle
tributed the work he was using to rities in regard to Xenophanes
Aristotle, is hardly well founded. mention any alteration in his point
Simplicius tells us much ‘about the of view, nor does the work we are
ancient philosophers, which he only considering. All, except this work
knew from Aristotle, without and the passage in Simplicius,
naming his authority. which depends upon it, assert that
1 In Fr. 4, quoted p. 539, 2. he denied motion, and not rest, to
2 What Simplicius says (sup. the Deity (cf. p. 455, 6, third edi-
p- 546), and Kern (Quest. 11) tion). We have, therefore, no right
adopted, but has since, Beitr., p. to suppose that our authorities
17, abandoned, in solution of this were In possession of utterances to
contradiction, explains nothing, and the contrary. This theory is a
eredits Xenophanes with distinc- conjecture intended to reconcile
tions of ideas, which are unknown the statements of our treatise with
before the time of Aristotle. Kern, other evidence; but the conjecture
therefore, has another theory ready, would only be justifiable, if we
to which he comes back in Beir. 4 were sure of the accuracy of those
—viz., that Xenophanes at first statements. Lastly, Teichmiller,
denied motion of the Deity, and Stud. z. Gesch. d. Begr. 619 sq.,
subsequently, rest. Now we cannot attempts to avoid the contradiction
but allow the possibility that this by remarking that Xenoph. indeed
philosopher may have changed his denied the movement of the uni-
opinion. But to establish the verse, but not movement within
fact of such a change, we must have the universe. But this way of
distinct signs and evidences of it; escape is closed by the fact that
and these are to be found neither the writing on Melissus does not
in the verse of Timon, discussed deny movement and rest to different
p- 464, 1, third edition, nor in the subjects—(movement to the uni-
fragment of Xenophanes (on which verse; rest to its various parts—
ef. p.inf.p.559). None of our autho- but to one and the same subject—
NN 2
δ18 THE ELEATICS.

assures us that Xenophanes gave no opinion as to

the Limitedness or Unlimitedness of the One,! both
predicates are here expressly and categorically denied
in respect to it. This last statement is all the more
strange since it manifestly contradicts itself, and also
the assertion immediately preceding it,? namely, that
the ἕν, ὃν τὸν θεὸν εἶναι λέγει. This are not brought forward. The
is clear from ο. 3, 977 b, 8; 6, 4, words οὐθὲν διεσαφήνισεν, he says,
978 b, 15, 37. cannot relate to the question of the
1 Metaph. i. 5, 986 Ὁ, 18 : Παρ- Limitedness or the Unlimitedness
μενίδης μὲν yap ἔοικε τοῦ κατὰ τὸν of the ἕν, for in that case περὶ
λόγον ἑνὸς ἅπτεσθαι, Μέλισσος δὲ τούτων, or something similar, would -
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην" διὸ καὶ 6 μὲν have been added; but the doctrine
πεπερασμένον, 6 δ᾽ ἄπειρόν φησιν of Xenophanes ‘is described as
αὐτό. Ἐενοφάνης δὲ πρῶτος τούτων generally obscure.’ But the addi-
ἑνίσας οὐθὲν διεσαφήνισεν, οὐδὲ τῆς tion which he misses is found in
φύσεως τούτων οὐδετέρας ἔοικε θιγεῖν, the words: οὐδὲ τῆς φύσεως τούτων
ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἀποβλέψας᾽ οὐδετέρας ἔοικε θιγεῖν, the meaning
τὸ ἕν εἶναί φησι τὸν θεόν. This of which can only be that Xeno-
does not assert merely that Xeno- phanes did not discuss those ques-
phanes left it uncertain whether tions on which Parmenides and
he conceived the One as a formal or Melissus disagree with one another.
a material principle; but that he Kern further tries to show that
refused to define it as limited or Xenophanes really expressed him-
unlimited. Even Parmenides and self contradictorily on the Limited-
Melissus had not said the former; ness and Unlimitedness of the One,
but Aristotle concludes from what because he calls God, ap. Timon
they said regarding the second (inf. p. 561, 1), ἶσον ἁπάντη, which
point, that the οὐθὲν διεσαφήνισε Sext. Pyrr. 1. 224, explains by
can only refer to this. Nor can σφαιροειδῆ; and, on the other
we (with Kern, Qu. 49) explain hand, he holds that the roots of
these words by alleging that Xeno- the earth extend to infinity (vide
phanes was self-contradictory in inf. p.565,5). But the σφαιροειδῆ of
his utterances about the deity. Sextus no doubt comes directly or
Aristotle might doubtless have indirectly from this treatise itself
charged him with this contradic- (ce. 3, 977 Ὁ, 1: πάντῃ δ᾽ ὅμοιον ὄντα
toriness, but he could not have σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι) ;in Timon’s ἶσον
said that, in regard to the question ἁπάντη there is no allusion to the
whether the Deity is limited or un- shape. it seems rather to relate to
limited, he was wanting in clear- the οὖλος ὁρᾷ. &e. As regards the
ness. How is it possible to express unlimited extension of the earth,
oneself more clearly than Xeno- it will presently be shown that we
phanes, according to our treatise, have no right to apply this defini-
has done? In Kern’s moro recent tion to the Deity.
reply (Beitr. 6) these considerations 2 Ritter (Gesch. der Phil. i.
a
oee
 TREATISE ΟΝ MELISSUS, ETC. 549

the Deity is spherical. Moreover, it is highly impro-

bable that Aristotle should have passed over such a
singular opinion in passages like Metaph. i. 5, Phys.
i. 3. We know that as late as the third century of our
era the most learned commentators of Aristotle were not
agreed whether Xenophanes held the Deity to be limited
or unlimited ;! and this phenomenon would be incom-
prehensible if they had possessed, in addition to the
work of Aristotle, such definite and detailed explana-
476 sq.) indeed thinks that Xeno- something else, and is to be re-
phanes, in the spherical form which stricted to this. Our text, how-
he attributed to God, meant to ever, does not say of Being; it is
imply the unity of the Limited not limited by another, but also-
and Unlimited ; for the sphere is lutely (977 Ὁ, 3) οὔτ᾽ ἄπειρον εἶναι
self-limited; and when he denied οὔτε πεπεράνθαι. Thus, according
that God was unmoved he was to the universal meaning of the
merely asserting that God has no word, it is this absolute limiting,
permanent relation to another. The and not the limiting through
possibility of such a meaning in another, which is denied of it ; and
these definitions, however, could when in proof of this proposition it
not easily be proved ; it is besides is said: As the Many are limited
far too subtle for so ancient a each by each, but the One is not
thinker. Kern’s interpretation like the Many, so the One must be
(Beitr. 17 ; ef. Xenoph. 10 sqq.) is unlimited, it does not necessarily
equally untenable: ‘ Xenophanes follow that the οὔτε πεπαράνθαι it-
denied Limitedness only within self signifies not limited byanother,
Being and in opposition to a some- and consequently that it is also
thing cast out from Being and ex- denied of the spherical One. Not
ternal to it, and Unlimitedness one passage has been quoted in
only in relation to the One which which πεπαράνθαι or πεπερασμένον
is the All.” He, therefore, con- εἶναι (c. 3) means, without further
ceived his One or God as uninter- addition, ‘to be limited by some-
rupted (never finding in itself a thing else.’ But the refuting of the
limit), globe-shaped, and filling all proposition attributed to Xeno-
space. In order to distinguish his phanes c. 4, 278 a, 16 sqq. abun-
Being from Non-Being and from dantly shows that the author never
the Many, and probably in oppo- contemplated such a limitation.
sition to the Pythagorean doctrine, * Simpl. Phys. 6 a: Νικόλαος
he declined to place it in the cate- δὲ 6 Δαμασκηνὸς ὧς ἄπειρον Kal ἀκί-
gories of πέρας and ἄπειρον. This vntov λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐν
means that the limitedness which τῇ περὶ θεῶν ἀπομνημονεύει" ᾿Αλέξαν-
Xenophanes denied of Being is to Spos δὲ ὡς πεπερασμένον αὐτὸ καὶ
be explained as limitedness through σφαιροειδές.
550 THE ELEATICS.

tions from Xenophanes himself as this treatise pre-

supposes. Even had there existed a work of this kind
by Xenophanes, it must have been greatly retouched
and altered in the treatise,! otherwise all traces of the
poetical expression and epic form of Xenophanes’ work
could never have been so entirely obliterated.? But,
apart from the contents of this exposition, it is unlikely
that there ever was such a work. A dialectical discus-
sion so methodically conducted, and proceeding in so
regular a manner from beginning to end in the scholas-
tic form of a refutation, by means of dilemmas and
deductio ad absurdum, could not, except in defiance of
all laws of historical analogy,’ be ascribed to the prede-
cessor of Parmenides, to the philosopher whom Aristotle
censures ὁ for his want of practice in thought.
.1 That this may be the case. ἀτρεμεῖν is of any importance. An
even Brandis admits (Gesch.d. Entw. isolated word like this, however,
i. 83), when he says that the author can scarcely be taken into consider-
may have brought together all that ation, and even the words which
was isolated or loosely connected Kern adds, οὐδὲ yap οὐδὲ πάντα
in the poem. Cf. Kern, Qu. p. 52, δύνασθαι ἂν ἃ βούλοιτο (977 a, 35),
who says that the words and many do not, for my part, remind me
parts of the argument may belong that ‘the author is giving an ac-
to the author. Where is our count of a poetical work,’
guarantee that the author has, in 8 Metaph. i. 5, 986 b, 26: The
other respects, truly reproduced Eleatics are ἀφετέοι πρὸς τὴν viv
the doctrine of Xenophanes? We παροῦσαν ζήτησιν, of μὲν δύο Kal
shall find no such guarantee in the πάμπαν, ὡς ὄντες μικρὸν ἀγροικό-
author’s name, for it is question- τεροι. Ξενοφάνης καὶ Μέλισσος.
able whether the treatise has any 4 It was principally this diffi-
right to it; nor (vide following culty which determined Wendt
note) in the poetical expressions (p. 163 of his edition of the first
on which Brandis bases his view. volume of Tennemann’s Gesch. d.
2 Brandis, J. ὁ. 82, believed he Phil. 18 sq.) in his judgment that
could point out in this work a the author of this work was proba-
number of forms manifestly poeti- bly a later philosopher, who in
eal and corresponding with some common with Simplicius was draw-
in the fragments of Xenophanes. ing from some indirect source,
But Kern, Qu. 52, remarks that of and gave the form of conclusion
those he quotes only the word to the opinions here quoted; that
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. δ01

For ell these reasons it seems most improbable that

the work we are considering was written by Aristotle or
he was not acquainted with the strictly metaphysical character and
poem of Xenophanes itself. Rein- the dialectical method of the Eleatic
hold (Gesch. d. Phil. i. 63, 3rd school was first established. That
edition, and in the Programm v. J. we cannot, indeed, expect at the
1847, De genuina Xenophanis commencement of this interval
disciplina) and Vermehren (Autor- what we find at the end of it,—
schaft derdem Arist. zugeschriebenen that no dialectical method can have
Schrift. x. Zevop. Jena, 1861, p. 43) been laid down in the poems of
among the reasons they adduce (in Xenophanes, surpassing even that
agreement with Bergk, Comment. of Parmenides in its torm, but of
de Arist. lib. de Xen. ὅο., Marb. which there is no trace in the frag-
1843 ; Rose, Arist. Libr. Ord. 72 ments of Xenophanes’ writings,—
544.) for discarding this work, all this seems to me self-evident.
dwell especially on its dialectical I am quite ready ‘ to admit the in-
and unpoetical form. Kern, Qu. ternal possibility of such profound
53, says, with some plausibility, philosophising at so early a period,
that Melissus was included im if only its existence be sufficiently
Aristotle's judgment on Xeno- proved’ (Kern, Beitr. 16), but 1
phanes, and yet we find in his cannot admit it when, as in the
fragments a purely dialectical ex- present case, there is not sufficient
position. I cannot admit thatthe proof. Not only all historical
discussions of Melissus displaythe analogy, as it seems to me, but the
same amount of logical ability as judgment of all antiquity, is on
those ascribed in this writing to my side. Kern is quite logical in
Xenophanes (cf. Kern, Beitr. 16). placing Xenophanes as a philoso-
But even supposing they did, there pher above Parmenides, on the
would still pe a great difference ground of the treatise 7. Μελίσσου.
between Melissus and Xenophanes, If. however, Xenophanes had really
and it would be impossible to say said all that this treatise ascribes
with Kern: ‘ Cur paullo ante Par- so him, and in the sense that Kern
menidem idem fiert potuisse negan- supposes. he would not only have
dum sit, quod etate Parmenidea surpassed his successor in dialecti-
jactum esse certissimis testimoniis eal ability, but he would have
constet, non video.” Between the taught, in respect to the Deity and
literary activity of Melissus (who the world, essentially the same
was not contemporary with Par- doctrine that Parmenides taught
menides, but about thirty years concerning Being, thus greatly
younger) and that of Xenophanes, diminishing the personal merit of
there apparently lies an interval of Parmenides, though he might not
at least fifty years; and in this altogether have destroyed it. In
interval we find not only Hera- this case it would be difficult to
cleitus and the beginning of the explain why not only Aristotle
Atomistic philosophy, but also the (whom Kern censures for his low
energetic activity of Parmenides estimate of Xenophanes as com~
and Zeno, through whom the pared with Parmenides), but also
552 THE ELEATICS.

Theophrastus.! Moreover, it contains much that it

would be impossible to connect with either of these
philosophers. The assertion that Anaximander supposed
water to be the substance of all things contradicts all
their statements about Anaximander ;? what is said of
Empedocles sounds very unlike Aristotle ;* Anaxagoras
Plato (vide infra, § Parm. note 1), the theory of Karsten, p. 97, would
should place Parmenides so far be much more probable, viz., that
above all the other Eleatics. it was a sketch made by Aristotle
1 Mullach, indeed, thinks dif- for his own use.
ferently. ‘ Aristotle,’ he remarks, 2 Cf. p. 251,.1; 232, στ
p. 12 sq. (Fragm. Philos. i. 274) in 3 C. 2, 976, b 22: “6aelas Ge
opposition to Bergk, ‘in expound- kal ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς κινεῖσθαι μὲν ἀεί
ing the opinions of others, is often φησι συγκρινόμενα (so Cod. Lips.
guilty of contradiction, and says reads instead of συγκινούμ.) τὸν
much that we should hesitate to ἅπαντα ἐνδελεχῶς χρόνον. . . ὅταν
ascribe to him,’ Similarly Kern, δὲ εἰς μίαν μορφὴν συγκριθῇ ὡς ἕν
@u. 49. That Aristotle ever so εἶναι, οὐδέν φησι τό γε κενεὸν πέλει
misrepresented either of his prede- οὐδε περισσόν. Τῇ this means that
cessors, or fell into such contradic- Empedocles really held the doe-
tions in speaking of him, as the trine of endless motion, it contra-
author of this book has done in re- dicts the express statements of
gard to Xenophanes, I must dis- Aristotle, who elsewhere attributes
pute. The objections brought by to him an alternation of motion and
Muilach against his exposition of rest (infra, vol. ii. §Zmp.). On the
Parmenides are groundless, as will other hand, if (with Kern, Sym.
hereafter be shown. Kern urges Crit. 25) we take it to mean that
that he often arbitrarily reduces during the coming together of mat-
the definitions of his predecessors ter, motion went on uninterrupt-
to categories of his own system, edly; the words τὸν ἅπαντα ἐνδελε-
and is not always just in his criti- x@s χρόνον contain a pleonasm very
cism of them. This, however, is unlike Aristotle. And it is diffi-
not the same as denying that cult to see how the author (in the
Xenophanes expressed his opinion ὅταν δὲ, etc.), in order to prove
on a point on which, according to that motion is possible without the
our treatise, he expressed it fully void, can argue that in the σφαίρος
and clearly—or, ascribing to him of Empedocles, there was also no
in thattreatise a Dialectic entirely void, for in the Sphairos motion
beyond his point of view. If, how- has come to Rest. As to the de-
ever, we even grant that Aristotle sign of ‘proving that the doc-
might really have written what we trine of Empedocles can only, to a
find in the treatise on Melissus, certain extent, be employed against
there is no reason to suppose that Melissus’ (Kern, Beitr. 13), I can-
this treatise was merely an extract not discover any trace either in
from larger Aristotelian works; words or context.
 TREATISE ΟΝ MELISSUS, ETC. 553

is spoken of as if the author only knew of him by hear-

say ;' and among the doctrines discussed and criticised,
side by side with much that is important, we find not a
little that is trivial and unworthy of Aristotle or Theo-
phrastus.? Thus the judgment which we formed of the
1 C. 2,975 b, 17: ὡς καὶ τὸν words quoted corresponded to
᾿Αναξαγόραν φασί tives λέγειν ἐξ those ot Heracleitus, Aristotle
ἀεὶ ὄντων καὶ ἀπείρυν τὰ γινόμενα would merely have said: καθάπερ
γίνεσθαι. No one can believe that ‘Hp. λέγει; as he says instead:
Aristotle or Theophrastus would τινὲς οἴονται λέγειν, the reason
either of them use such expressions must be that he does not profess
about a philosupher with whom to be reproducing his own opinion.
they were so accurately acquainted, On the other hand, there was no
and to whom (as we shall see) they necessity at all for the author of
elsewhere distinctly ascribed this our treatise, in his remarks on
doctrine. Kern, Beitr. 13, appeals Anaxagoras, to disclaim his respon-
to Arist. Metaph. iv. 3, 1005 b, sibility in regard to them by such
23: ἀδύνατον yap éytwovv ταὐτὸν a mode of expression.
ὑπολαμβάνειν εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι, * How trivial, for instance, is
καθάπερ τινὲς οἴονται λέγειν the discussion of the question,
Ἡράκλειτον. This analogy disap- whether anything can arise out of
pears as soon as we examine the non-Being (6. 1, 975 a, 3 sqq.),
passage more closely. Aristotle and how little indication there is
frequently ascribes to Heracleitus here of Aristotle’s reply—yviz., that
the proposition that the same nothing comes from absolute non-
thing at the same time is and is Being, but all things come from
not; or is at the same time its own relative non-Being, the δυνάμει ὄν !
opposite (vide infra, p. 550, third How strange is the question in ec.
edition). But he does not believe 4 sub init. τί κωλύει μήτ᾽ ἐξ ὁμοίου
that Heracleitus held this in ear- μήτ᾽ ἐξ ἀνομοίου τὸ γιγνόμενον γίγνε-
nest; he reckons it among the θέ- σθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ μὴ ὄντος; and the
σεις Adyou ἕνεκα λεγόμεναι (Phys. objection raised in ὁ. i. 975 a, 7,
1. 2, 185 ἃ, 5); he supposes that that Becoming is frequently sup-
Heracleitus has not made his posed to have proceeded from
meaning clear, even to himself nothing. Elsewhere neither Aris-
(Mezaph. xi. 5, 1062 a, 31), and in totle nor Theophrastus ever men-
order to indicate this he chooses tions, even as a hypothesis, or a
the expression (Metaph. iv. 3) τινὲς possibility, such an origin from the
οἴονται λέγειν. λέγειν here signi- μὴ ὄν without any further definition.
fies: to express something as his How superfluous and disturbing is
opinion, to maintain something, the remark, 6. 2, 976 a, 33 sqq.,
as is clear from the way in which that there might be several Infi-
Aristotle, J. ¢., proceeds: οὐκ ἔστι nites, as Xenophanes presupposed
yap ἀναγκαῖον, ἅ τις λέγει ταῦτα when he spoke of the Infinity of
καὶ ὑπολαμβάνειν. If the ques- the earth beneath and of the air
tion were simply whether the above, followed by a citation of
δῦ. THE ELEATICS.

genuineness of this work from its main contents is con-

firmed by these secondary traits; and if neither of
them separately is decisive, yet together they constitute
an amount of circumstantial evidence which cannot be
outweighed by the testimony of manuscripts and later
authors, so often found on the side of aa
spurious writings.
When and by whom the three treatises were com-
posed is uncertain. That they emanated from the
Peripatetic school is probable, both from their nature
and also from the mention of them in the catalogue of
Diogenes.' They appear to have included two frag-
ments, which have been lost, on Parmenides and Zeno ;?
so that the author must have aimed at a complete
representation and criticism of the Eleatic doctrines.
The order adopted in their discussion seems to have
been that indicated in the passage from Aristotle
quoted above,’ except that Zeno and Gorgias are added
to the philosophers there mentioned. The author has
taken their opinions chiefly from their own writings,
and has given the essential content of these cor-
rectly when it presented itself to him in the form of
an argument logically developed, as was the case with
Melissus and Gorgias. In regard to Xenophanes, on
the contrary, he appears to have misapprehended the
statements of Aristotle and Theophrastus,‘ and to have
started from the presupposition that this philosopher

the verses in which Empedocles α΄, πρὸς τὰ Ξενοφάνους a’, πρὸς τὰ

censures this utterance. Ζήνωνος α΄.
1 Diogenes mentions among the 2 Cf. p. 535 sqq.
writings οἱ Aristotle (v. 26): πρὸς 3 ΟἹ, p. 6375 ΟΕ. 1:
“δ Μελίσσου a. . . πρὸς τὰ Γοργίου 4 Supra, p. 641, 1; 542, 1.
 TREATISE ON MELISSUS, ETC. 555

expressly denied, in respect to the Deity, limitedness as

well as unlimitedness, and movement as well as rest ;
and then to have developed the proofs of this statement
from the indications which he found, or thought he
found, in the poems of Xenophanes. But it is also
possible that some other author may have anticipated
him in so doing, and that this exposition, and not
Xenophanes himself, may have been his immediate
source. What is really derived from Xenophanes we
can only discover from a comparison of this treatise
with other accounts. Its testimony as to supposed
propositions of his is not sufficient to establish their
authenticity in cases where it stands alone.
The development of the Eleatic philosophy was
completed in three generations of philosophers, whose
activity extended over about a century. Xenophanes,
the founder of the school, first expresses their generai
principle in a theological form. In opposition to Poly-
theism, he declares the Deity to be the One, underived,
all-embracing Being; and in connection with this, the
universe to be uniform and eternal. At the same time,
however, he recognises the Many and the Mutable as a
reality. Parmenides gives to this principle its meta-
physical basis and purely philosophic expression; he
reduces the opposites of the One and the Many, the
Eternal and the Become, to the fundamental opposite
of the Existent and non-Existent ; derives the qualities
of both from their concept, and proves the impossibility
of Becoming, Change and Plurality in a strictly uni-
versal sense. Lastly, Zeno and Melissus maintain the
propositions of Parmenides as against the ordinary
556 XENOPHANES.

opinion; but carry the opposition between them so far

that the inadequacy of the Eleatice principle for the
explanation of phenomena becomes clearly apparent.

Il. YENOPHANES.'

Our knowledge of the doctrine of Xenophanes is de-

rived from two sources, viz., such fragments as have
1 Colophonis universally named must previously have crept into the
as the native city of Xenophanes; text used by Sextus and Clemens.
his father is called by Apollodorus The date of the ἀκμὴ, according to
Orthomenes ; by others, Dexius, or which Apoll. probably calculated
Dexinus (Diog. ix. 18; Lucian, the year of birth, was determined
Macrob. 20 ;Hippolyt. Refut. 1.14; by the founding of Elea, sung by
Theodoret, Cur. gr. aff. iv. 5, p. 56). Xenophanes (cf. Diels, ἰ. ¢.). ‘This
As to his date, Apollodorus says, we infer from Diog. l.c. Eusebius
ap. Clem. Strom. i. 801 C: κατὰ mentions Xenophanes in Ol. 60 and
Thy τεσσαρακοστὴν ᾿Ολυμπιάδα γενό- also in Ol. 56; but that is unim-
μενον παρατετακέναι ἄχρι τῶν Δα- portant. He is also mentioned
ρείου τε καὶ Κύρου χρόνων. We more indefinitely by Sotion, ap.
cannot suppose that Ξέρξους is here Diog. ix. 18, as a contemporary cf
intended for Κύρου, or that Δαρείου Anaximander. us. Pr. Hv. x.
is to be erased; for Hippolyt. J. ὁ. 14; xiv. 17, 10, says that he was
also mentions Cyrus.. It cannot, contemporary with Pythagoras and
however, be regarded as any proof Anaxagoras (who 15 elsewhere
of the great age of Xenophanes placed too early by Eus.). Iambl.
(παρατετακέναι sc. τὸν βίον), that Theol. Arith. p. 41, names Pytha-
haying been born in the 40th goras only. Hermippus, ap. Diog.
Olympiad, he should have been vill. 56; ef. ibd. ix. 20, makes him
living in the time of Cyrus. The the teacher of Empedocles, Timeus,
peculiarity of placing Darius before ap. Clem. J. c.; and Plut. Reg.
Cyrus is sufficiently explained on Apophth. Hiero, 4, p. 175, the con-
metrical grounds (Apoll. wrote in temporary of Hiero and Epichar-
trimeter), cf. Diels, Rhein. Mus. mus, Ps. Lucian, even the disciple
xxxi. 23. On the other hand, the of Archelaus ;and the Scholiast in
50th (N) Olymp. must certainly Aristophanes (Peace, v. 696) as-
be substituted for the 40th (M), as cribes to him a saying concerning
the time of his birth; for (Diels, p. Simonides, on which little stress is
23) the statement that he flourished to be laid, ef. Karsten, Phil. Gree.
in Ol. 60 (Diog. ix. 20) also origi- Rell. i. 81sq. He himself seems to
nates with Apollodorus ; and the speak of Pythagoras as deceased,
ἀκμὴ is usually placed in the 40th whereas he (Xenophanes) is named
year of a man’s life. But asSext. by Heracleitus as one of his pre-
Math. i. 257 also names Ol. 40 as decessors (vide supra, p. 481, 1;
the time of his birth, the error 510, 4). He also mentions Epi-
 IIFE AND WRITINGS. 557

been preserved of his works, and the accounts of ancient

writers. These two sources are not always in agree-

menides after Epimenides’ death Reg. Apophth. 4, p. 175). The

(Diog. i. 111; ix. 18). He as- statement of his having been the
serts that the beginning of the disciple of Telauges, the Pythago-
conflict between the Ionian colonies rean (Diog. i. 15), of Boton, an
and the Persians took place in his unknown Athenian, or even of Ar-
early life (Fr. 17, ap. Athen. ii. chelaus (Diog. ix. 18; Ps. Lucian,
A4, 6). for when he is asked πηλίκος ἰ. 6.) deserves no attention. When
ἦσθ᾽, ὅθ᾽ ὁ Μῆδος ἀφίκετο. this can- Plato (Soph. 242 D) says of the
not of course refer to a recent oc- Eleatie school, ἀπὸ Ξενοφάνους re
currence, but to something long καὶ ἔτι πρόσθεν ἀρξάμενον, he can
past (cf. Cousin, Fragm. i. 3 sqq.; scarcely be alluding to any par-
Karsten, p. 9). This agrees with ticular predecessor of Xenophanes.
the statement in Diog. ix. 20, that Cousin (p. 7) thinks he means the
he celebrated the founding of Flea Pythagoreans, but Plato could not
(Ol. 61)in 2000 hexameters, and have called them the founders of
with the anecdote, ap. Plut. De Vit. the Eleatic doctrine of the Unity of
Pud. ec. 5, p. 530, according to Being. He is probably speaking in
which he was acquainted with La- accordance with the general pre-
sus of Hermione (about 520—4509). supposition that doctrines like his
All things considered, the greater had been held before his time; it
part of his lengthened activity may was then customary to seek the
most probably be placed in the se- doctrines of the philosophers in the
cond half of the sixth century; his ancient poets. Lobeck conjectures
birth may have occurred in the (Aglaoph. i. 613) that he is speci-
third or fourth decad of this cen- ally referring in this passage to the
tury; his death must have hap- Orphie Theogony, but with this I
pened in the following century ; for cannot agree. A story of Plu-
it is certain that he died very old. tarch’s, which involves an Egyptian
In the verses, ap. Diog. ix. 18, he journey (Amator. 18, 12, p. 763;
says he has been roaming about De Is. 70, p. 379, and the same,
in Greek lands for 67 years—since without the name of Xenophanes,
he was 25. Lucian, therefore, loc. ap. Clem. Cohort. 15 B), arbi-
cit., errs in giving the length of his trarily transfers to Egypt, what,
life as 91 years. According to according to Arist. 7. ¢., happened
Censorin. Di. Nat. 15, 3, he was in Elea. On the other hand, it is
more than a-hundred. As to his quite possible that even in his own
personal history, we are informed country he may have been led to
that he was driven out from his the beginnings ofthe Ionic natural
’ native city to different places, and philosophy by his passion for en-
resided at various times in Zancle, quiry. Theophrast, following Dioz.
Catana and Elea (Diog. ix. 18; ix. 21, calls him a disciple of
Aristot. Phet. ii. 23, 1400 b, 5; Anaximander, and we hare no rea-
Karsten, p. 12, 87); that he be- son to doubt theassertion ; andthe
came very poor (Diog. ix. 20, after statement of his having contra-
Demetrius and Panetius; Plut. dicted Thales and Pythagoras
558 XENOPHANES.

ment with each other; for while in the fragments of

his didactic poem theological opinions are predominant,
und only a few physical theories are introduced, the
ancient writers ascribe to him general metaphysical
statements which closely connect him with his successor
Parmenides. Our view of the relation of these two
representations must chiefly determine our conception
of Xenophanes. :
Let us first examine the sayings of Xenophanes
himself which have been handed down by tradition.
In these, his main position seems to be that conflict
with the popular polytheistic belief by which he was
known even in antiquity.! He opposes his doctrine of ©
(Diog. ix.. 18) may be founded on Wachsmuth, De Timone Philasio,
the fact that he censures, not only 29 sq. His philosophie opinions
Pythagoras (p. 481, 1), but Thales. were contained ina didactie poem
(Farther details later on.) That in Epic metre, of which we possess
he possessed more than ordinary fragments ; that it bore the title
knowledge may be inferred from περὶ φύσεως is only asserted by the
the remark of Heracleitus (p. 510, more recent writers (Stob. Eel. 1.
4). To his contemporaries he was 294; Poll. Onomast. vi. 46), and
chiefly known through his poems, their evidence is the more suspi-
which, according to ancient usage, cious, as the work itself seems to
he recited (Diog. ix. 18) on his have been earlylost. Cf. Brandis,
journeys. All kinds of poems Comm. El. 10 sqq.; Karsten, 26
have been ascribed to him by sqq. (Simplicius, e.g., mentions that
later writers—Epics, Elegies, and he had not seen it; De Calo, 233
Iambies (Diog. ὦ. ¢.; ef. Kern, b, 22; Schol. in Arist. 506 a, 40).
Xenoph. 18); Tragedies (Kus. In Diog. i. 16, where, according to
Chron. Ol. 60, 2); Parodies the former reading, Xenophanes
(Athen. ii. 54 6); σίλλοι (Strabo, was enumerated among the most
xiv. 1, 28, p. 643; Schol. in Aris- fruitful of the philosophic writers,
toph. Knights, v. 406; Prokl. τη Xenocrates is to be substituted;
Hes. Opp. et Di. v. 284; Eustath. ef. Nietzsche, Rh. Mus. xxv. 220
on Jl. ii. 212 ; Tzetz. in Bernhardy’s sq. The judgment of Athen. xiv.
edition of the Geograph. Min. p. 632 D,on the verses of Xenophanes,
1010); or, as Apul. Floril. iv. 20, is more favourable than that of
says (the manuscripts, however, Cicero, Acad. ii. 23, 74.
read here Xenocrates), satires. Cou- 1 Cf. among other texts, Arist.
sin (p. 9) and Karsten, 19 sqq., will Poet.25, 1460 b,35. The utterances
not admit the σίλλοι; but ef. of the poets are defended on the
 POLEMIC AGAINST POLYTHEISM. 559

the unity of God to the supposed plurality of gods;

to their origin in time, the eternity of God; to their
variability, his unchangeableness; to their anthropo-
morphic nature, his sublimity ; to their physical, intel-
lectual, and moral limitations, his infinite spirituality.
One God rules over gods and men, for the Deity is the
highest, and the highest can be but one.! This God is
ground that they represent things τιστον, ἕνα φησὶν αὐτὸν προσήκειν
as they are, or as they ought to εἶναι, εἰ γὰρ δύο ἢ πλείους εἶεν, οὐκ
be, εἰ δὲ μηδετέρως, ὕτι οὕτω φασὶν, ἂν ἔτι κράτιστον καὶ βέλτιστον αὐτὸν
οἷον τὰ περὶ θεῶν. ἴσως γὰρ οὔτε εἶναι πάντων, &e. Plut. ap. Eus. Pr.
βέλτιον οὕτω λέγειν, οὔτ᾽ ἀληθῆ, Ev. 1.8, sup.p.539, 2; cf. 554, where
GAA’ ἔτυχεν ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνης (se. it is also shown why and in what
λέγει; the most recent editors, sense we can accept the Pseudo-
however, on account of the Zevo- Aristotelian writing as evidence
paver, or ἡ. of most of the MSS. concerning Xenophanes. That Xe-
read with Ritter: ὡς παρὰ Zevopa- nophanes spoke in his writings of
vet) ἀλλ᾽ οὔ φασι. These words the Unity of God is clear from
have been unnecessarily altered by Aristotle's words, quoted p. 539, 2.
modern authors, and have received The conjecture, however, that he
many false interpretations (cf. only became a strict Monotheist
Karsten, p. 188). They are trans- in later life, having previously
lated quite simply as follows: believed, not in one God, but in a
‘For it may well be that the usual supreme God far above the other
notions about the gods are neither deities (Kern, Beitr. 4), finds no
good nor true, but that it is with support in this fragment. The
the gods as Xenophanes believes, many gods, of whom one is the
but the many are of another highest, need not necessarily be
opinion.’ Ritter thinks that the conceived as real gods. If, accord-
whole chapter is a later addition, ing to the theory of Xenophanes,
but even in this case it must have they only existed in human imagi-
been based on something authentic, nation, the true God might still,
and the words we have quoted have especially in poetical language,
an Aristotelian ring in them. be compared with them, and said
1 Fr. 1 ap. Clem. Strom. v. to be greater than they. ‘The
601 C:— greatest among gods and men’
must mean the greatest absolutely.
εἷς θεὸς ἔν τε θεοῖσι καὶ ἀνθρώποισι When Heracleitus, for instance
μέγιστος, (vide infra, vol. ii.), says none
οὔτε δέμας θνητοῖσιν ὅμο᾽ἴος οὔτε of the gods nor of human kind
νόημα. made the world, he only means to
express that it was not made at
Arist. De Melisso, c. 8, 977 a, 23 all: and even in a Christian hymn
sqq.: εἰ δ᾽ ἔστιν 6 θεὸς πάντων κρά- God is called the God of gods.
560 AENOPHANES.

uncreated, for what is created is also perishable, and

the Deity can only be conceived as imperishable.’ Nor
is he subject to change: what beseems him is to remain
unmoved in one place, and not to wander hither and
thither.2, Moreover, what right have we to attribute
to him a human form? LEach man represents his gods
as he himself is: the negro as black and flat-nosed, the
Thracian as blue-eyed and red-haired; and if horses
and oxen could paint, no doubt they would make gods
like horses and oxen.? Just so it is with the other
imperfections of human nature, which we transfer to
the gods. Not only the immoral conduct related by
1 Fr. 5 ap. Clem. ἡ. ¢., and, Sirom. v. 601 D, Theod. J. ¢.;
with some variations, ap. Theod. Eus. Pr. Ev. xii. 18, 36 :—
Cur. Gr. Aff. iii. 72, p. 49: ἀλλὰ
βροτοὶ δοκέουσι θεοὺς γεννᾶσθαι ἀλλ᾽ εἴτοι χεῖράς γ᾽ εἶχον βόες TE
: ὃ τὴν σφετέρην δ᾽ ἐσθῆτα λέοντες,
(ΤΙheod. preferably αἴσθησινῚἔχειν ἣ γράψαι χείρεσσι καὶ ἔργα τελεῖν
φωνήν τε δέμας τε. Arist. het. il. ἅπερ ἄνδρες (sc. εἶχον),
93, 1399 b, 6: Ξ. ἔλεγεν. ὅτι ὁμοίως ἵπποι μέν θ᾽ ἵπποισι βόες δέ τε βουσὶν
ἀσεβοῦσιν οἱ γενέσθαι φάσκοντες ὁμοίας (so Theod., the others
τοὺς θεοὺς τοῖς ἀποθανεῖν λέγουσιν" ὁμοῖοι).
ἀμφοτέρως γὰρ συμβαίνει μὴ εἶναι καὶ κε θεῶν ἰδέας ἔγραφον καὶ σώματ᾽
τοὺς θεούς tote. Ibid. 1400 b, ὃ: ἐποίουν,
Ἐλεάταις ἐρωτῶσιν εἰ θύωσι τῇ τοιαῦθ᾽ οἷόν περ KavTol δέμας εἶχον
Λευκοθέᾳ καὶ θρηνῶσιν, ἢ μὴ, συνε- ὅμοιον.
βούλευεν, εἰ μὲν θεὸν ὑπολαμβάνουσι,
μὴ θρηνεῖνεἰ δ᾽ ἄνθρωπον, μὴ θύειν. For the rest, cf. Theod. 1. 6. and
(For the version in Plutarch of Clem. Strom. vii. 711 B. Also
this story, vide infra, p. 557, note, what is said in Diog. ix. 19: οὐσίαν
De Mel. c. 3, ef. p. 544, 1), where, θεοῦ σφαιροειδῆ μηδὲν ὅμοιον ἔχουσαν
however. the demonstration is not ἀνθρώπῳ: ὅλον δ᾽ ὅρᾷν καὶ ὅλον
that of Xenophanes. Diog. ix. 19: ἀκούειν͵ μὴ μέντοι ἀναπνεῖν, if
πρωτός τ᾽ ἀπεφήνατο, ὕτι πᾶν τὸ the last definition is really founded
γινόμενον φθαρτόν ἐστι. on some expression of Xenophanes.
2 Fr. 4 ap. ai Phys. 6 a That it is aimed against the Py-
(vide sup. p. 539, Cf. Arist. thagorean doctrine of the respira-
Metaph. 1. 5, 986 b, 17, where it is tion of the world (sup. p. 467, 1),
stated of the Eleatics generally: I do not believe (vide Kern, Beier.
ἀκίνητον εἶναί φασι (τὸ Ev). 17; Xenoph. 25).
3 Κγ.1, 5, and Fr. 6 ap. Clem.
 UNITY OF ALE BEING. 561

Homer and Hesiod,’ but all limitation is unworthy

of them. God is as unlike to mortals in mind as
in form. The Deity is all eye, all ear, all thought,
and through his intellect he rules everything without
exertion.?. Thus a pure monotheism is here confronted
with the religion of nature and its many gods, while,
at the same time, we should not be justified in ascribing
to this monotheism a strictly philosophic character on
the strength of the assertions we have quoted, taken
alone.®
Other testimonies, indeed, carry us beyond. this
point, and apply the utterances of Xenophanes on the
unity and eternity of God in a general manner to the
1 Fr. 7 ap. Sext. Math. ix. 193, Fr. 2 ap. Sext. ix. 144 (ef. Diog.
i. 289 :-— ix. 19; Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Hv. i. 8,
πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν “Ὅμηρός θ᾽ 4): ovAos ὁρᾷ, οὖλος δὲ νοεῖ, οὗλος
‘Holodds τε δέ τ’ ἀκούει... Fr. 3 ap. Simpl,
boca παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ Phys. 6 a: GAN ἀπάνευθε πόνο
ψόγος ἐστὶν, νόου φρενὶ πάντα Kpadaiver. Cf.
Diog. 1. c.: σύμπαντά τ’ εἶναι
οἵ (this is the reading of Steph., [τὸν θεὸν] νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ
the MSS. have ὃς, Karst. and ἀΐδιον. Timon. ap. Sext. Pyrrh. i.
Wachsm. p. 74, καὶ), 224: ἐκτὸς am’ ἀνθρώπων (accord-
πλεῖστ᾽ ἐφθέγξαντο θεῶν ἀθεμίστια ing to the emendation of Fabricius;
Wachsmuth, De Tim. 64, reads.with
ἔργα,
κλέπτειν, μοιχεύειν τε καὶ ἀλλήλους Roper: ὃς τὸν ἀπάνθρωπον) θεὸν
ἀπατεύειν. ἐπλάσατ᾽ ἶσον ἁπάντη ἀσκηθῆ..
νοερώτερομ. ἢὲ νόημα (οἴ, Weal
On account of this hostility to the muth, for some attempts. to com-
poets of the national religion, plete the last verse, none of which
Xenophanes is called by Timon ap. commend themselvestome). Fur-
Sext. Pyrrh.i. 224; Diog. ix. 18: ther details, p. 562, 5. Perhaps
‘Ounpanarns ἐπισκώπτην (prefer- the assertion ap. Diog. has this
ably ἐπικόπτην) and Diog. 7. c. says same meaning ἔφη δὲ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ
of him: γέγραφε δὲ. καθ᾽ ἥσσω νοῦ εἶναι.
Ἡσιόδου καὶ “Ομήρου ἐπικόπτων 5. Among these may also be
αὐτῶν τὰ περὶ θεῶν εἱρημένα. The reckoned the attack’ on sooth-
observation of Aristotle, discussed saying which Cic. Divin. 1. 3, 5;
sup. p. 558, 1, refers to these and Plut. Plac. vy. 1, 2, attribute to
similar passages. Xenophanes,
2 Fr. 1, vide sup, p. 559, 1;
VOL. I. 00
562 XENOPHANES.

totality of things. Plato includes his theory with that

of his successors in the expression that all is One.! So
also Aristotle calls him the first founder of the doctrine
of the unity of all things, and observes that he brought
forward his propositions concerning the unity of God
with reference to the universe.? In agreement with this,
Theophrastus* alleges that in and with the unity of
the primitive principle he maintained the unity of all
existence, and Timon represents him as saying of him-
self that wheresoever he turned his gaze all things
resolved themselves into one and the same eternal,
homogeneous essence.* We have no right to mis-
trust these unanimous statements of our most trust-
worthy authorities (with whom, moreover, all the later
writers agree),> merely because a pantheism of this
1 Soph. 242 D: τὸ δὲ" παρ᾽ 5 Cie. Acad. 11. 37, 118: Xeno-
ἡμῖν Ἐλεατικὸν ἔθνος, ἀπὸ Ξενοφά- phanes.. unum esse omnia neque
νους τε καὶ ἔτι πρόσθεν ἀρξάμενον, id esse mutabile et id esse Deum,
ὡς ἑνὸς ὄντος τῶν πάντων καλουμέ- neque natum unquam et sempiter-
νων οὕτω διεξέρχεται τοῖς μύθοις. num, conglobata figura. N. D.i.11,
2 Metaph. i. 5, 986 Ὁ, 10: εἰσὶ28: tum Xenophanes, qui mente ad-
δέ τινες οἱ περὶ τοῦ παντὸς ὡς ἂν juncta omne praeterea, quod esset in-
μιᾶς οὔσης φύσεως ἀπεφήναντο. In jinitum, Deum voluit esse. That the
regard to these persons it is then former passage also is quoted from
said that their uniform primitive the Greek, is proved by Krische,
essence is not, like the primitive Forsch. 1. 90. There is a Greek
matter of the Physicists, a cause exposition (naturally from a more
of Becoming, but ἀκίνητον εἶναί ancient source) which pretty nearly
φασιν . Ξενοφάνης δὲ πρῶτος coincides with it, ap. Theod. Cur.
τούτων ἑνίσας, ὅτο., vide supra, gr. aff. iv. 5, p. 57 ΒΥ =)ees
Ῥ. 548, 1. ev εἶναι τὸ πᾶν ἔφησε, σφαιροειδὲς
3 Ap. Simpl. supra, Ὁ. 543, 1. καὶ πεπερασμένον, οὐ γεννητὸν, ἄλλ᾽
4 Ap. Sext. Pyrrh. 1. 224, at- ἀΐδιον καὶ πάμπαν ἀκίνητον. Plu-
tributes to him these words :— tarch ap. Eus. Pr. Hv. i. 8, 4: Bev.
δὲς, οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν
— barn γὰρ ἐμὸν νόον εἰρύσαιμι ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ πᾶν
εἰς ἐν ταὐτό τε πᾶν ἀνελύετο' πᾶν ἀεὶ ὅμοιον. εἰ γὰρ γίγνοιτο τοῦτο,
᾿ ἐὸν αἰεὶ φησὶν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸ τούτου μὴ
πάντη ἀνελκόμενον μίαν εἰς φύσιν εἶναι: τὸ μὴ ὃν δὲ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο,
ἵσταθ᾽ ὁμοίαν. οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸ μὴ ὃν ποιήσαι τι, οὔτε ὑπὸ
 GOD AND THE WORLD. 563

kind is incompatible with the pure theism of Xeno-

phanes.! How do we know that his assertions of the
unity, eternity, unlimitedness, and spirituality of God
were intended to be understood in a theistic, and not
in a panthei:tic sense? His own expressions leave this
quite undecided ; but the probabilities, even apart from
the testimony of the ancients, are in favour of the
pantheistic view. For the Greek gods are merely
personified powers of nature and of human life; and,
therefore, it was much more obvious for a philosopher
who objected to their plurality to unite them in
the conception of universal physical force, than in the
idea of a God external to the world. Thus we have
every reason to suppose that Xenophanes, in his pro-
positions concerning the unity of God, intended to
τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γένοιτ᾽ ἄν tt. Sext. τὸ πᾶν ἀπεφήναντο. Ibid. 32, 17
Pyrrh. i. 225 (cf iil. 218): ἐδο- (986 b, 8): τῶν ἕν τὸ ὃν εἶναι
γμάτιζε δὲ ὁ Ξ. ἕν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν θεμένων... ὡς τοῦ παντὸς μιᾶς
καὶ τὸν θεὸν ae τοῖς Tact" ¢écews οὔσης" ὧν ἦν Ξενοφάνης τε καὶ
εἶναι δὲ σφαιροειδὴ Kal ἀπαθῆ καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ Παρμενίδης. Ibid. 33,
ἀμετάβλητον καὶ λογικόν. Hi ΡΡο yt. 10 (986 b, 17, vide sup. p. 548, 1)
Refut. i. 14: λέγει δὲ ὅτι οὐδὲν τὸ δὲ ‘évicas’ ἵσον ἐστὶ τῷ πρῶτος
γίνεται οὐδὲ φθείρεται οὐδὲ κινεῖται, ἐν εἶναι τὸ ὃν εἰπών.
καὶ ὅτι ἕν τὸ πᾶν ἐστιν ἔξω μετα- 1 Cousin, Fragm. Phil. i. 37
βολῆς. φησὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι sqq.; Karsten, 134 sqq. Similarly
ἀΐδιον καὶ ἕνα καὶ ὅμοιον πάντη καὶ Brandis doubts (Gr. Hom. Phil. i.
πεπερασμένον καὶ σφαιροειδῆ τάντη 365) that Xenophanes taught the
καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς μορίοις αἰσθητικόν. Ga- unity of Being, since he could not
len, H. Phil. c. 3, p. 234: Ξενοφάνην have identified the Divided, which
μὲν περὶ πάντων ἠπορηκότα, δογμα- manifests itself in the Becoming,
τίσαντα δὲ μόνον τὸ εἶναι πάντα EV with the One simple Being; and
καὶ τοῦτο ὑπάρχειν θεὸν, πεπερασ- Krische, Forsch. 94, will not allow
μένον, λογικὸν, ἀμετάβλητον. ΑἸ] him to have been a Pantheist be-
these accounts seem to emanate cause he would only admit Being, as
from the same source. The unity separated from Becoming, to be the
of all Being is likewise ascribed Deity. But it is a question whether
to Xenophanes by Alexander Me- Xenophanes distinguished between
taph. 23, 18 Bon. (934 a, 29): Being and Becoming so definitely
λέγει μὲν περὶ Ἐενοφάνους καὶ Me- as this would imply.
λίσσου καὶ Tlaouevidouv' οὗτοι γὰρ ἕν
oo 2
δ04 XENOPHANES.

assert at the same time the unity of the world; and

from his point of view it is easy to see how the second
of tliese assertions would appear to be directly involved.
in the first. In his speculations on the cause of all
things, he sought that cause, herein agreeing with the
popular faith, primarily in the rule of the gods. But
he could not reconcile their plurality, restriction, and an-
thropomorphic nature with his concept of Deity. At
the same time, the unity of the world, which even to the
sensible intuition asserts itself in the apparent limita-
tion of the world by the vault of heaven, and which
deeper reflection discerns in the likeness and inter-
connection of phenomena, seemed to him to necessitate
the unity of the force that formed the world,'—which
force he did not conceive as separate from the world.
God and the world are here related to one another as
essence and phenomenon. If God is One, things ac-
cording to their essential nature must be One; and —
conversely the polytheistic religion of nature becomes
a philosophic pantheism.
In connection with his doctrine of the unity of
God, Xenophanes is said to have described the Deity —
as homogeneous; in other words, he maintained the
qualitative simpleness (Hinfachheit) of -the divine
essence simultaneously with its unity. Although, how-
1 This is indicated not only by nation of these aspects on the
Timon in the verses quoted above, world as a whole; the words, how-
but also by Aristotle, /. ¢., in the ever, also imply that he arrived at
words: εἰς τὸν ὅλον ovpaydy ἀπο- the Unity of God through the ¢on-
βλέψας, which primarily only assert sideration of the world. ‘This is
that Xenophanes exclusively re- confirmed by his doctrine of the
carded neither the form nor the eternity of the world, which we
matter of things, but fixed his shall shortly discuss.
attention without further discrimi-
 UNITY OF ALL BEING. 565

ever, this statement is supported by proportionately

ancient testimony,’ it is questionable whether it is not
in this form merely an inference from the words used
by Xenophanes in describing the divine knowledge.?
On the other hand, the statement that he called the
Deity spherical and limited, or contrariwise, as others
contend, unlimited and infinite,* contradicts the ex-
press declaration of Aristotle and Theophrastus. It is
hardly possible, however, that both these statements can
be wholly without foundation. On the one hand, Xeno-
phanes attributes to the world infinite extension—for
he says that the air above, and the roots of the earth
beneath, extend into infinity:° on the other hand, we
hear that he, at the same time, describes the universe as a
1 Cf, the quotations on p. 539, 4 Supra, p. 548, 1; 543, 1.
2; 561, 2; 6562,4; 562,5; from 5 He himself, it is true, says
the treatise on Melissus, Timon, this of the earth; ef. Act. Tat.
and Hippolytus. Isag. p. 127 E, Pet.:
2 This conjecture is favoured γαίης μὲν τόδε πεῖρας ἄνω πὰο ποσ-
by the treatise on Melissus, which σὶν ὁρᾶται
both in its exposition and criticism αἰθέρι προσπλάζον, τὰ κάτω δ᾽ ἐς
of Xenophanes’ doctrine couples ἄπειρον ἱκάνει.
the proposition concerning the
homogeneous nature of God with But Arist. De Ce’o, ii. 12, 294 ἃ,
the οὐλος ὁρᾷν, &e. Cf. α. 8, 977 21, applies to him, when speaking
a, 36 (supra, p. 539, 2); c. 4, 978 of those who ἄπειρον τὸ κάτω τῆς
a, 3 (after Mull.): ἕνα δὲ ὄντα γῆς εἶναί φασιν, ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον αὐτὴν
πάντη ὁρᾷν καὶ ἀκούειν οὐδὲν προσή- ἐῤῥιζῶσθαι λέγοντες, ὥσπερ Ξενοφ.,
Ket. . . ἄλλ᾽ ἴσως τοῦτυ βούλεται the censure οἵ Empedocles against
τὸ πάντη αἰσθάνεσθαι, ὅτι οὕτως ἂν the cpinion that ἀπείρονα γῆς τε
βέλτιστα ἔχοι, ὅμοιος ὧν πάντη. βάθη καὶ δαψιλὸς αἰθήρ. Similarly,
Similarly Timon, in the verses De Mel. c. 2, 976 a, 32: ὡς καὶ
quoted p. 560, 1, connects the ἶσον Ξενοφάνης ἄπειρον τό τε βάθος τῆς
ἅπάντη. with the νυερώτερον ἢὲ γῆς καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος φησὶν εἶναι, &e.
νόημα. Tke same is repeated by Plut. ap,
3 Vide supra, p. 549.1; 660,2 ; Eus. Pr. Ev. i, 8,4; Plac. iii. 9, 4
562, 1. The limitedness of the (Galen, c. 21); Hippolyt. i. 14;
primitive essence is ascribed by Kosmas Indicopl. p. 149; Georg.
Philop. Phys. A. 5 (ap. Karsten, Pachym. p. 118; vide Brandis,
p- 126), both to Xenophanes and Comm. El. 48; Karsten, 154;
Parmenides. Cousin, 24 sq.
566 AENOPHANES.

sphere. But the very contradiction between these two

sayings proves that they are not scientific propositions,
but incidental utterances which occurred in different
portions of the poems of Xenophanes. He may at one
time have spoken of the spherical form of the heavens,
and at another, of the immeasureable extent of the
world beneath, and of the space of the air above,
without troubling himself about the mutual compati-
bility of these two conceptions. Nor is it probable —
that he meant to express by either of them any fixed
conviction in regard to the shape and extension of the
world—still less that they had reference to the Deity.
The statement that he declared the world to be un-
derived, eternal, and imperishable,? may, with more
reason, remind us of the similar definitions of the
Deity. The eternity of the world might seem to him
to be implied in that of God, because God was to him
the immanent cause of the world. But he appears to
have attributed eternity to the world, only in a general
manner, in regard to its substance; and not to have
taught, as a consequence of this, that the wniverse
in its present condition was underived.? Also the pro-
position that the All remained like to itself* may have
been enunciated by him in regard to the regularity of
the course of the world and the invariableness of the
universe. But that he absolutely denied all genera-
tion and destruction, all change and movement in the
1 Vide p. 549, 1; 560, 2. Παρμενίδης MéA.) ἀγέννητον καὶ
2 Supra, p. 562, 1, and Plut. ἀΐδιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον. CF.,
Plac. ii. 4. 3 (Stob. i. 416), Zevo- however, p. 570, 1.
edyns (Stob. has instead Μέλισσος; 2 Ct. p. 570,45
in one MS., however, there is writ- 4 Plut., Cic., Hippol.,and others,
ten in the margin, Ξενοφάνης, vide p. 562, ὅ.
 PHYSICS. — 567

’ world, as more recent authors assert,! we cannot think

possible. There is no mention of such a denial in
ancient authorities or in the fragments of Xenophanes’
writings ;? and, moreover, a number of statements of
a physical nature respecting the origin of individual
things, and the changes of the material earth are
attributed to this philosopher, while no~-remark is
ever made? in connection with these that, like Parme-
nides in his physics, Xenophanes was speaking of illu-
sory phenomena, and not of the reality. None of
our authorities maintain that he opposed Being to non-
Being in the manner of his ΒΑΘΡΈΜΗΘΕΙ: or taught that
Being alone was reality.
These physical theories of Xenophanes have scarcely
any connection with the fundamental ideas of his philo-
sophy. They are isolated observations and conjectures,
sometimes pregnant and suggestive, but sometimes of
a rudimentary and child-like kind, such as we might
expect in the commencement of natural science. We
will now, however, shortly state what has been preserved
of them.
According to some, Xenophanes said that earth was
the primitive substance of all things; according to
others, earth and water. But the verses on which
1 The references, J. c¢., vide Refut. x. 6 sq., p. 498, who each
Ε. 539, 2. quotes the verse of Xenophanes
2 Aristotle indeed says of the from which they are severally
Eleaties generally, ἀκίνητον εἶναί taken, the one from Fr. 8: ἐκ
φασιν, but the subject of ἀκίνητον γαίης yap πάντα Kal εἰς γῆν πάντα
is not τὸ πᾶν, bnt τὸ Ev, τελευτᾷ, the other from Fr. 9:
* As Braniss says (Gesch. d. πάντες γὰρ γαίης te καὶ ὕδατος
Phil. Kant, i. 115), and Ritter i. ἐκγενόμεσθα. Cf. Fr. 10: γῆ καὶ
477, fancies he sees in Fr. 15, 18. ὕδωρ πάνθ᾽ ὅσσα γίνονται ἠδὲ φύον-
4 Both opinions are mentioned ται. For the first (cf. Brandis,
by Sextus Math. x. 313 f; Hippol. Comm. 44 sq.; Karsten, 45 sqq.;
5U8 XENOPHANES.

these statements are founded appear to deal only with

terrestrial things,' and, therefore, to assert nothing
but what we find very commonly elsewhere.? Ari-
stotle, in enumerating the elementary primitive sub-
stances of the ancient philosophers, not merely dues
not mention Xenophanes, but says* that none of those
philosophers who admitted only one primitive sub-
stance, adopted the earth as such. Thus he expressly
excludes the first of the above statements; and we
cannot suppose him to be confirming the second‘ when
he names the dry and the moist among the primitive
substances ;> for he repeatedly designates Parmenides
as the only philosopher of the Eleatics who, side by
side with the One substance, admitted two opposite
elements. On the other hand, later writers had some
reason for interpreting the verse of Xenophanes in this |
sense, since Xenophanes supposed the stars (vide infra)
to originate from the vapours of the earth and water.
The theory that he regarded the earth itself as a com-
bination of air and fire’ is certainly incorrect,’ and it
146 sqq.) we have Plut. ap. Eus., 150, states), he is right, and
l.c.; Stob. Hel. i, 294; Hippol. i. Galen’s severe censure is, as Bran-
14; Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. ii. 10, p. dis acknowledges, undeserved.
22; iv. 5, p. 56; for the second, 2 We need only remember the
Sext. Math. τχ. 361 ; Pyrrh. iii. 30; words in 1 Mos. 3, 19, or Jl. vii. 99:
Porph. ap. Simpl. Phys. 41 a; ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα γένοισθε.
Philop. Phys. D, 2 (Schol. in 8 Metaph. i. 8, 989 a.
Arist. 338 Ὁ, 30; 389 a, 5, ef. sup. 4 As Porphyry maintains, J. 6.
Ῥ. 272, 2); -Ps.-Piut. (possibly 5 Phys. 1. 5, 188 Ὁ, 33: οἱ μὲν
Porphyry) V. Hom. 93; Eustath. γὰρ θερμὺν καὶ ψυχρὸν of δ᾽ ὑγρὸν
in Il. vii. 99; Galen, H. Phil. α. 5, καὶ ξηρὺν (ἀρχὰς λαμβάνουσι).
p. 243; Epiph. 1}. fid. p. 1087 B. § Metaph. 1. 4,5,984b,1; 986
1 When, therefore, Sabinus ap. b, 27 sqq.
Galen in Hipp. De Nat. Hom. i. p. 7 Plut. Place. iii. 9 (Galen, e.
25 K, says that Xenophanes de- 21): ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς συμπαγῆ-
clared earth to be the substance of ναι. :
men (not of all things, as Karsten, 8 Brandis, Gr. Rom. Phil. i.
-
 PHYSICS. 569

may, perhaps, be in consequence of a similar misappre-

hension that the doctrine of the four elements came to
be ascribed to him.' It was, no doubt, easy for later
writers to find their four primitive elements in every
cosmology; but this doctrine is distinctly asserted by
Aristotle 5 to have originated with Empedocles, and its
connection with the metaphysics of Parmenides is too
obvious for us to suppose that a predecessor of Parme-
nides should: not merely have mentioned in an inci-
dental manner fire, water, etc., but should have ex-
pressly designated the four elements as the basis of all
compound bodies. 7
There is, doubtless, more foundation for the theory
that Xenophanes supposed the earth to have passed
from a fluid condition into its present solid state, and
that in time it would again by means of water be
changed into mud. He had observed petrified marine
creatures on land, and even on mountains, and knew
not how to account for this phenomenon except on the
supposition that the world, or at any.rate the surface
of the world, was subject to a periodical transition
from the fluid state to the solid, and back to the fluid
state again; in which transition the human race, to-
gether with its dwelling place, must sink into the water
372, conjectures that Xenophanes, however, seems to me that of
as often elsewhere, is here con- Ritter, i. 479: ef. Brandis, Comm
fused with Xenocrates; but Plut. El. 47. According to this, the
Fac. lun. 29, 4, p. 944, does not words in their original connection
countenance this opinion. Karsten, only signify that the earth passed
p- 147, explains the remark by from a fluid condition to a solid by
saying that Xenophanes thought the action of air and of fire.
air and fire, i.e., steam and heat, ‘Dieg. ix.’ 19.
were developed out of the earth. 2 Metaph. i. 4, 985 a, 31.
The most probable explanation,
570 AENOPHANES.

and begin afresh at each restoration of the dry land.!

He might have brought this theory into connection
1 Hippolyt. i. 14: 6 δὲ Ξ. μῖξιν periodical submerging of the earth,
τῆς VHS πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν γενέσθαι and to have begun anew at each
δοκεῖ καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ renovation. But even the eternity
λύεσθαι, φάσκων τοιαύτας ἔχειν - of the world is not proved to have
ἀποδείξεις. ὅτι ἐν μέσῃ γῇ καὶ ὄρεσιν been a doctrine of Xenophanes,
εὑρίσκονται κόγχαι, καὶ ἐν Συρακού- either by the testimony of the
σαις δὲ ἐν ταῖς λατομίοις λέγει Placita, quoted p. 566, 2, or by
εὑρῆσθαι τύπον ἰχθύος καὶ φωκῶν, the statements of more recent
ἐν δὲ Πάρῳ τύπον ἀφύης ἐν τῷ βάθει authors, quoted p. 562, 5, who
τοῦ λίθου, ἐν δὲ Μελίτῃ πλάκας συμ- make no distinction between what
πάντων θαλασσίων. (These facts of the philosopher asserts about God
palzontology seem first to have been and what he says of the universe.
observed by Xenophanes; that At any rate, we cannot, on the
they gave matter of reflection to strength of such evidence, charge
later writers may be seen from Aristotle, who denies that any of
Herod. ii. 12; Theoph. Fr. 30, 3; his predecessors held the eternity
Strabo, i. 3, 4, p. 49 sq.) ταῦτα of the world (De Celo, 1, 10,
δέ φησι γενέσθαι ὅτε πάντα ἐπηλώ- 279 b, 12) with an error, or, as
θησαν πάλαι, τὸν δὲ τύπον ἐν τῷ Teichmiiller does, with a malicious
πηλῷ ξηρανθῆναι, ἀναιρεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς and wilful misunderstanding (vide
ἀνθρώπους πάντας ὅταν ἣ γῆ κατε- Teichmiller, Newe Stud. ete. 1.
νεχθεῖσα εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν πηλὸς 218, cf. p. 239 and 229 sqq., dis-
γένηται, εἶτα πάλιν ἄρχεσθαι τῆς cussions which, however, contaia
γενέσεως καὶ τοῦτο πᾶσι τοῖς κόσ- nothing new, and pay no regard to
pots γίνεσθαι καταβάλλειν (Dunck.: my explanation in Hermes, x. 186
καταβολὴν, perhaps it should be sq., nor to that of my present
καταλλήλως). Cf. Pjut. ap. Eus. work, p. 352, 3rd edition). In
Pr. Ev. i. 8,4: ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ reality there is no irreconcilable
τῷ χρόνῳ καταφερομένην συνεχῶς contradiction between Aristotle’s
καὶ kat’ ὀλίγον τὴν γῆν εἰς τὴν assertion and the opinion attri-
θάλασσαν χωρεῖν. These statements buted to Xenophanes. When Aris-
seem too explicit to leave room for totle speaks of the eternity of the
Teichmiller’s theory that Xeno- world, he means not merely eternity
erates believed in man’s having in regard to its matter, but in re-
eternally existed on the earth gard to its form; the eternity of
(Stud. z. Gesch. d. Begr. 604; this our universe; and he therefore
Neue Stud. ete. i. 219). There is reckons Heracleitus, in spite of his
no evidence of such a theory, and famous declaration, among those
it does not follow from the eternity who believe the world to have had
of the world, even if Xenophanes a beginning (ef. inf. vol. ii.). It is
held that doctrine. For Hippolytus impossible that a philosopher like
says (and there is no ground for Xencphanes, who held that the
contradicting him) that Xeno- eirth from time to time sank into
phanes supposed the human race the sea, and was periodically
to have been destroyed at each formed anew, and that the sun
 PHYSICS. — 571
with his philosophic opinions through the doctrine that
the one divine essence is alone unchangeable, while
everything earthly is subject to perpetual change.'
Later writers see in the innumerable formations of the
world an innumerable succession of worlds,? which is
certainly incorrect; yet this statement may have been
due to the theories of Xenophanes about the constella-
tions. He regarded the sun, moon and stars (as well
as the rainbow? and other celestial phenomena),* as
and stars arose afresh each day evolved out of some unimportant
and night, and again disappeared, expression by a later writer who,
could have conceived this world as when he heard of Xenophanes’ in-
having had no beginning. He numerable worlds, immediately
might say that the All, ze., the wished to know how he regarded
collective mass of matter, had no the vexed question of their likeness
beginning; but the form assumed or unlikeness. Cousin, p. 24,
by this matter he must have sup- translates ἀπαραλλάκτους as ‘im-
posed to change. Aristotle. there- mobile,’ and understands by the
fore, could not have ascribed to ἄπειροι κόσμοι ἀπαράλλακτοι the
him the doctrine of the eternity of immeasurabie substructure of the
the world in his( Aristotle's) sense. earth, which naturally has no con-
any more than to Heracleitus and cern with either view. Stob. Ec.
Empedocles. Diog. (vide infra, i. 496 (supra, p. 262, 3), and after
note 2) and Hippolytus (1.6. the the same authority, Theod. Cur.
authors whom they fllow) find in Gr. Aff. iv. 15, p. 58, class Xeno-
him the theory of many (succes- phanes, Anaximander, Anaximenes,
sive) worlds. etc., and Democritus and Epicurus
1 We have seen the same in together (without farther distinc-
Epicharmus, p. 431, 1. tion) as adherents of the doctrine
2 Diog. ix. 19: κόσμου“ δ᾽ ἀπεί- of innumerable worlds.
ρους ἀπαραλλάκτους δέ. Instead of 3 Fr. 13 ap. Eustath. ἐπ 11. xi.
ἀπαραλλ. Karsten reads οὐκ azap., 27, and other Scholiasts:
Cobet παραλλάκτους. If we read ἥν T Ἶριν καλέουσι, νέφος καὶ τοῦτο
ἀπαραλλάκτους, we make Xeno- πέφυκε
phanes to have held that each suc- πορφύρεον καὶ φοινίκεον καὶ χλωρὸν
cessive world was exactly like its ἰδέσθαι.
predecessor, as the Stoics thought
(cf. Pt. 1.1. a, 141, 2 A); according 4 Stob. i. 580; Ρίαο. iii. 2, 12
to the reading of Karsten and (under the title: περὶ κομητῶν καὶ
Cobet, he must have denied this. διαττόντων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων): Ξ.
Probably both readings are incor- πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα νεφῶν πεπυρω-
rect, and ἀπαραλλάκτους or οὐκ μένων συστήματα ἢ κινήματα (πιλήα.
ἀπαραλλάκτους may have been Cf. Plac, ii. 25, 2; Stob. 1. 510).
572 XENOPHANES.

agoregations of burning and luminous vapours, in a

word as fiery clouds,' which at their setting were extin-
guished like embers, and at their rising were kindled,?
or rather formed, anew;? this occurred likewise, he
thought, in solar and lunar eclipses. These masses
of vapour (this is, at any rate, expressly said in regard
to the sun) were not supposed to move in a circle
around the earth, but in an endless straight line above
it; and if the course appears to us circular, this is
only an optical delusion, as in the case of the other
clouds which, when they approach the zenith, seem to
our eyes to ascend,and when they go under the horizon,
to sink. It follows from this that new stars must be
continually appearing above our horizon, and that parts
of the earth widely separated from each other must be
enlightened by different suns° and moons.
Concerning lightning and _ the σβέννυνται δύσεως. Somewhat to -
Dioscuri, cf. Stob. p. 514, 592; the same effect, Stob. i. 512 ; Plut.
Prat. ‘Plae.'ii..183 dGalen,cy 13: Plac. ii. 18, 7; Galen, το eee
1 Stob. Hel. 1. 5622: Ἐ. ἐκ νεφῶν 271; Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 19,
πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. .. p. 59; Hippol. 7. ¢.: τὸν δὲ ἥλιον
Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς γέγρα- ἐκ μικρῶν πυριδίων ἀθροιζομένων
φεν (τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι, after Xeno- γίνεσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν.
phanes) ἐκ πυριδίων μὲν τῶν συνα- 4. Vide p. 572, ὅ.
θροιζουμένων ex τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιά- 4 Stob. i. 522, 560 ; Plut. Place.
σεως συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. ii. 24, 4; Galen, c..14; ps 2762
Similarly as to the moon, p. 550. Schol. ad Plato Rep. 498 A (p.
The same is asserted in Hippol. 409 Bekk.).
foc f lot. ap. Kus. ¢. ¢.; Places, 5 Such is the inference from ©
20, 2, 25, 2; Galen, H. phil. c. 14, Stob. i. 584 (Place. ii. 24,7 ; Galen,
15. Instead of ὑγρὰ ἀναθυμίασις, c. 14); Ξ. πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ
Galen has ξηροὶ ἄτμοί. Cf.on this σελήιας κατὰ τὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆ5
point, Karsten, p. 161 sq. καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας, κατὰ δέ
2 Achill. Tat. Jsag. in Arat. 6. τινα καιρὺν ἐκπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς
11, p. 138 : Ξ. δὲ λέγει τοὺς ἀστέρας τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἴκου-
ἐκ νεφῶν συνεστάναι ἐμπύρων καὶ μένην Of ἡμῶν, καὶ οὕτως ὡσπερεὶ
σβέννυσθαι καὶ ἀνάπτεσθαι ὡσεὶ κενεμβατούντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνε ν'
ἄνθρακας" καὶ ὅτε μὲν ἅπτονται φαν- ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὺς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν
τασίαν ἡμᾶς ἔχειν ἀνατολῆς, ὅτε δὲ προϊέναι δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν
 PHYSICS. 573

As to the rest of the physical propositions attributed

to Xenophanes, some, it is certain, do not belong to
him,' and others contain too little that is characteristic
of his doctrine, to require particular mention.? The
ἀπόστασιν. Cf. Hippol. J. 6. : ἀπεί- the horizon, sometimes sinking
ρους ἡλίους εἶναι καὶ σελήνας. That below it, turn around the earth
Xenophanes really entertained laterally, provided only that the
these notions would not be ade- inclination of these orbits in re-
quately proved by such recent and gard to the horizon were not
untrustworthy evidence, if the such as to cause the stars to go
agreement of all these cosmological under the earth itself. That the
indications and their peculiar cha- revolution of the heavens is lateral
racter belonging to the first child- was the opinion also of Anaxi-
hood of astronomy did not vouch menes, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, and
for their truth. Even the obvious Democritus.
suspicion of seme confusion with 1-For instance, the statement
Herazleitus must vanish on closer of the Pseudo-Galen (H. Phil. ec.
examination, for the ideas of the 13), that Xenophanes believed all
two philosophers, though in many the orbits of the stars to lie in the
respects similar, have much that is same plane; in regard to a pas-
essentially distinct. The remark sage where Stob. 1. 514, and Pliut.
of Karsten, p. 167, that Xeno- Place. ii. 15, haye more correctly
phanes could not have believed Xenocrates instead of Xenophanes,
there were several suns and moons and the assertion of Cicero, Acad.
in the heavens at the same time, 11, 39, 123, repeated by Lactantius,
and that consequently this state- Instit. 111. 23, and defended by
ment must have arisen from a con- Cousin, 22, that the moon was said
fusion between successive suns and by Xenophanes to be inhabited.
moons, and suns and moons side Brandis, Comm. 54, 56, and Kar-
by side with one another,—is re- sten, p. 171, remark that both
futed by what has been said in the these authors confuse Xenophanes
text. Teichmiiller (Siud. z. Gesch. with other philosophers (e.g.
d. Begr. 61, 621) observes that Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Philo-
since the earth, according to Xeno- laus).
phanes, was unlimited in a down- , ? We are told that he attri-
ward direction, the heavens could buted the salt taste of sea water
not revolve around it, and conse- to its mixture with terrestrial
quently Xenophanes must have elements (Hippol. J. ¢.); clouds,
denied the rotation of the heavens, rain, and wind, he thought. arose
but this is not to the point. The from vapours, which the sun’s heat
infinite extent of the earth (con- caused to escape from the sea
ceived as shaped like a cylinder) (Stob. extracts from Joh. Damase.
downward, did not interfere with Parall, i. 3; Floril. vol. iv. 161,
the notion of the stars revolving Mein.; Diog. ix. 19); the moon
around it in orbits which. some- shines by her own light (Stob. i.
times rising above the plane of 556), and has no influence on the
574 XENOPHANES.

ethical portions of his fragments cannot, strictly speak-

ing, be included in his philosophy, because admirable
and philosophical as is the spirit revealed in them, he
never brought his ethics into scientific connection with
the universal bases of his cosmical theory. The poet
censures the former luxury of his compatriots;! he
deplores on the other hand that bodily strength and
agility bring more honour to a man than wisdom, which
is far more valuable to the state ;? he disapproves oaths
as a means of proof, because he sees in them a reward
for godlessness.? He advocates cheerful feasts, seasoned.
with pious and instructive talk, but he condemns empty
conversation, together with the mythical creations of
the poets. Although this betrays the friend of science
and the enemy of myths, yet on the whole these say-
ings do not transcend the point of view of the popular
enomic wisdom. It would be more important, were
the assertion correct, that Xenophanes either wholly
denied the possibility of knowledge, or restricted it to
the doctrine of the Deity; or, as others say, that he
recognised the truth of the perception of reason only,
and not of the perception of sense.” The expressions,
earth (ibid. 564). The soul, ac- Vit. Pud. 5, p. 580.
cording to the ancient notion, he 2 Fr. 19; ap. Athen. x. 418.
considered to be air (Diog. ix. 19; 8 Arist. Rhet. i. 15, 1877 a, 19,
ef. Tert. De An. c. 43). Brandis of which Karsten most arbitrarily
Comm. El. 37, 57, deduces from makes a verse.
this passage, and Xen. Fr. 3, that 4 Fr, 17, 21; ap. Athen. ii, 54
Xenophanes placed νοῦς above the e; xl. 462 ὁ. 782 a (1036 Dind.).
ψυχὴ, and the φρένες above νοῦς; 5. Diog. ix. 20: φησὶ δὲ Σωτίων
but 1 can find it neither in Dio- πρῶτον αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν ἀκατάληπτ᾽ εἶναι
genes nor Xenophanes, nor can I τὰ πάντα, πλανώμενος. [ῤῖά. ix.
consider it to be the real doctrine 72 of the Pyrrhonists: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ
of this philosopher. καὶ Ἐενοφάνης, εἴο., κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς σκε-
1 Fr, 20, ap. Athen. xii. 324 πτικοὶ τυχάνουσιν. Didymus, ap.
b; cf. the anecdotes, ap. Plut. De Stob. Hcl. ii. 14: Xenophanes first
 SCEPTICISM. 575

however, from which the statement is derived have by

no means this scope and compass. Xenophanes ob-
serves that truth is only discovered by degrees.! He
thinks that perfect certainty of knowledge-is not pos-
sible; if even a man should hit upon the truth in a
matter, he is never absolutely certain that he has done
so; and, therefore, Xenophanes designates his own
views, even on the weightiest questions, merely as pro-
babilities.? But this modesty of the philosopher ought
not to be mistaken for a sceptical theory, though it
taught that ὡς ἄρα θεὸς μὲν οἶδε Eleatics and Megarics in the pro-
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, δόκος δ᾽ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέ- position: δεῖν τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις καὶ
τυκται. Sext. Mazh. νι]. 48, f: καὶ τὰς φαντασίας καταβάλλειν, αὐτῷ δὲ
δὴ ἀνεῖλον μὲν αὐτὸ [τὸ κριτήριον μόνον τῷ λόγῳ πιστεύειν. In the
Ξενοφάνηςτε, ete. Similarly Pyrrh. utterance of Aristotle with which
li. 18: ὧν Ξενοφ. μὲν κατά τινας this passage is connected (infra,
εἰπὼν πάντα ἀκατάληπτα, ete. Lhid. § Melissus) Melissus alone is in
110: Ξενυφ. δὲ κατὰ τοὺς ὡς ἑτέρως question. It hasalready been shown
αὐτὸν ἐξηγουμένου: ... φαίνεται (p. 531, 1; 558, 1) that Arist. Me-
μὴ πᾶσαν κατάληψιν ἀναιρεῖν, ἀλλὰ taph. iv. 5, Poet. 25 has no connec-
τὴν ἐπιστημονικήν τε καὶ ἀδιάπτωτον, tion with it.
ἀπολείπει τὴν δοξαστήν. According 1 Fr. 16 b; Stob. Eel. i. 224:
to this, adds Sextus, he would have Fleril. 39, 41 :—
made λόγος δοξαστὸς the criterion. οὔ τοι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς
The former theory is adopted by ὑπέδειξαν.
Hippol. 1. ¢.: οὗτος ἔφη πρῶτος
ἀκαταληψίαν εἶναι πάντων, Epiph. ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητοῦντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν
ἄμεινον.
Erp. Fid. 1087 B: εἶναι δὲ...
οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς, etc., and Plut. ap. > Fe. ΤΑ ΡΞ κεν δ᾽ δ. ---
Eus. 1. ¢.: ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ τὰς
καὶ τὸ μὲν οὖν σαφὲς οὔτις ἀνὴρ
αἰσθήσεις ψευδεῖς καὶ καθόλου σὺν
γένετ᾽ οὐδέ τις ἔσται
αὐταῖς καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν λόγον διαβάλ-
εἰδὼς, ἀμφὶ θεῶν τε καὶ ἅσσα λέγω
λει; the second by Proclus in Tim. περὶ πάντων᾽
78 B. Disagreeing with both, εἰ γὰρ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τύχοι τετελε-
Timon censures Xenophanes (vide
σμένον εἰπὼν,
infra, p. 576, 1) for admitting on αὐτὸς ὁμῶς οὐκ οἶδε. δόκος δ᾽ ἐπὶ
the one hand the incognisability of πᾶσι τέτυκται
things, and on the other the unity
of Being; and the Hist. Phil. of (to have an opinion is free to all),
Galen, c. 3, p. 234, says the same of ap. Fr. 15; Plut. Qu Conv. ix. 14,
him. Aristocles lastly (Eus. Pr. 7: ταῦτα δεδόξασται μὲν ἐοικότα
Fv. xiv. 17, 1) includes his point τοῖς ἐτύμοισι.
of view with that of the other
576 XENOPHANES.

arose, no doubt, from a sceptical temperament. For

the uncertainty of knowledge is not here based on a
general enquiry into the intellectual faculty of man, it
is simply maintained as the result of personal experi-
ence; consequently, the philosopher is not hindered, by
the consideration of it, from advancing his theological
and physical propositions with full conviction. Even
the later division of the cognition of reason from the
deceptive perception of sense has not been made as yet
—-philosophic theories are placed on an equality with
all other theories; for this division is founded by the
Eleatics on the denial of Becoming and Plurality which
the senses show us; and to this denial, as we have
already seen, Xenophanes did not proceed.’
1 This is otherwise explained πρεσβυγενὴς does not imply that he
by Cousin, p. 48 sq., and by Kern, Jirst arrived at the theory of the
Beitr. 4; Xenoph. 13. Cousin unity of Being in his old age,
thinks that the verses of Xeno- having previously been a sceptie,
phanes refer to the polytheistic but that in spite of his age (or also
notions of his contemporaries, and from the weakness of age) he had
that Xenophanes was only scepti- maintained the standpoint of scep-
eal in regard to these. But his ticism. This could not have been
words seem to have a more general said if he had brought forward his
meaning, and his criticism of poly- doctrine of the Unity of Being at
theism cannot be called sceptical, the same time and in the same
as his attitude is not uncertain to- poem, as the utterances (quoted
wards it, but hostile. Kern is of above) which have a sceptical in-
opinion that Xenophanes distinctly terpretation. He himself, Fr. 14
enunciated his doctrine of the One (vide previous note), in the words
only in his later life, after having which sound most sceptical, refers
long contented himself with doubt- to what he had taught respecting
ing the views of others. In sup- the gods and the world (for even if
port of this, he appeals to Timon’s ἀμφὶ θεῶν is primarily to be con-
verses, ap. Sext. Pyrrh.i. 224, which nected with εἰδὼς, the words ‘con-
represents him as complaining: ὧς cerning the gods, and concerning all
καὶ ἐγὼν ὄφελον πυκινοῦ νόου ἂντι- of which I speak,’ imply that he had
βολῆσαι ἀμφοτερόβλεπτους" δολίῃ δ᾽ also spoken of the gods); we can-
ὁδῷ ἐξαπατήθην πρεσβυγενὴς ἐτέων not, therefore, suppose that his
καὶ ἀμενθήριστος (unmindful, proba- sceptical utterances belong to an
bly) ἁπάσης σκεπτοσυνὴξΞ. ὕὅππη γὰρ, earlier epoch than his dogmatical.
ete. (vide sup. p. ὅδ2, 4). But
 CHARACTER OF HIS DOCTRINE. 577

There is all the less reason for ascribing to him, as

some of the ancient writers do, logical enquiries as well
as physical,' or for classing him with the later Eristics.?
His doctrine is rather Physics in the ancient and more
comprehensive sense, and though it is far removed
from other purely physical theories, yet its physical
character comes out so clearly, when we compare it with
the more abstract propositions of Parmenides, that it
has been not inaptly described as the link of transition
from the Ionian enquiry to the completed Eleatic doc-
trine of pure Being.*? Xenophanes, according to Theo-
phrastus, was himself a disciple of Anaximander,‘ and
there is nothing against the theory that he was first in-
duced by that philosopher to study the nature and causes
of the world. It is true that he followed his predeces-
sor only in regard to a few comparatively subordinate
points, whereas the main tendency of his thought pur-
sued another course, and led to other results. Like
Anaximander, he supposed the earth and its inhabi-
tants to have originated from the drying up of the
primitive slime;° Anaximander held that the universe
alternately sprang from the primitive matter, and
1 Sext. Math. vii. 14: τῶν δὲ the system of Xenophanes a union
διμερὴ τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ὑποστησαμέ- of Ionian and Pythagorean ele-
νων Ξ. μὲν 6 Κολοφώνιος τὸ φυσικὸν ments, but the theological doctrines
ἅμα καὶ λογικὸν, ὡς φασί τινες, of Xenophanes are more likely to
μετήρχετο. have come from him to the Pytha-
2. Aristocles, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. goreans than vice versa. The
xi. 3, 1: Ξ. δὲ καὶ of am ἐκείνου chronology also is against this
τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς κινήσαντες λόγους theory, especially if Cousin is right
πολὺν μὲν ἐνέβαλον ἴλιγγον τοῖς in placing Xenophanes’ birth in
φιλοσόφοις, ov μὴν ἐπόρισάν γέ τινα the year 617 B.c.
βοήθειαν. * Cf. Diog. ix. 21, quoted infra,
3 Brandis, Gr. Rom. Phil. i. Parm., note 1.
359. The view of Cousin is less 5 Cf. p. 569, with p. 255, 251, 1.
correct (/.c. p. 40,46). He sees in
VOL. I. ΒΡ
578 XENOPHANES.

returned to it again, and Xenophanes taught the same

in regard to the earth, which for him is the most im-
portant part of the universe. His opinion that the
heavenly bodies are merely masses of vapour’ reminds
us of the earlier doctrine that their fires are nourished
by the exhalations of the earth;? and the infinite
extension of the earth beneath, and the air above,’
recalls the unlimitedness of Anaximander’s primitive
matter. But the theories of Xenophanes about the
universe generally are widely different from the system
of Andximander. Anaximander makes, at any rate, an
attempt to explain the formation and constitution of
the universe in a physical manner. Of Xenophanes we
are told nothing of the kind, and his conception of the
stars shows clearly how little the naturalistic treatment
of phenomena suited his mental tendency. He enquires,
indeed, concerning the principle of things, but the
enquiry immediately takes a theological turn, leading
him to test the current opinions concerning the beings
in whom the ultimate cause is usually sought,—to the
criticism of the belief in gods—and thus to the thought
of the One eternal unchangeable Being who is not to
be compared with any finite thing. His philosophy is
only naturalistic in regard to its point of departure;
in its development it becomes a theological metaphy-
1 Cf. p. 252. to me of little consequence; for we
2 According to the Place. ii. 25, do not know whether Xenophanes
2, Xenophanes thought the moon himself used the expression; and
was a νέφος πεπιλημένον, and that if he did, his meaning could not
the comets and similar phenomena have been the same as Anaximan-
were πιλήματα νεφῶν, in the same der’s. He meant a firm combina-
way that Anaximander, according tion, and Anaximander merely a
to Stob. Eel. i. 510, regarded the loose aggregation.
stars as πιλήματα ἀέρος. This seems 3 Sup. p. 565, 5.
 CHARACTER OF HIS DOCTRINE. 579

sic.! But since the primitive essence is not apprehended

in a purely metaphysical manner as Being without
further specific determination, but theologically as the
Deity, or as the divine spirit ruling in the universe,
Xenophanes is not obliged to dispute the reality of the
Many and the changeable, or to declare the pheno-
menon to be a deceptive appearance. He says, it is
true, that every thing in its deepest principle is eternal
and One, but he does not deny that, side by side with
the One, there exists a plurality of derived and transitory
things ; and he passes over, apparently without observing
it, the difficulty which, from his own point of view, is
involved in this theory and the problem which it pro-
poses for enquiry. Parmenides was the first who recog-
1 Teichmiiller (Stud, z. Gesch. the very few physical propositions
d. Begr. 612) is so far quite right that have come down tous. Even
in his remark that ‘metaphysics Anaximander’s ἄπειρον is in no way
with Xenophanes sprang, not from connected with them. Teichmiller
the consideration of nature, but (p. 620 sq.) indeed thinks that
from the conflicts of Reason with Xenophanes denied the movement
the existing theology.’ Only it is of the universe, because thecircular
rather inconsistent with this that motion ascribed to it by Anaxi-
we should be told also, in relation mander would only be possible if
to Xenophanes (ibid. 620, 598), the earth hung in the midst of the
‘If we would understand the meta- air, and this seemed to him much
physics of the ancient philosophers, tooimprobable. The idea appears
we must first study their theories to me far-fetched, and it has two
of nature.’ Even in itself, as it considerations against it—1, that
seems to me, this proposition is Xenophanes (as observed on p.
not universally true of the pre- 570, 1), though he denied the crea-
Socratics (it is only in a certain tion and destruction of the world,
sense that we can ascribe to them yet express!y maintained a periodi-
any distinction between metaphy- cal change in its conditions; and 2,
sics and natural enquiries at all) ; that Anaximander (ef. p. 252, 1) did
and among those to whom it is in- not believe in a circular movement
applicable, I should name Parme- of the universe, and the rotation of
nides, Heracleitus, and Xenophanes. the heavens, which, he taught, would
I cannot discover from Teichmil- be quite compatible with the un-
ler’s exposition in what manner his limitedness of the subterranean
theories of the Deity and the unity region of the earth (cf. p. 572, δ).
of the world can have arisen out of
PP2
580 PARMENIDES.

nised this, and who carried out the Eleatic doctrine in

opposition to the popular notions with logical consis-
tency, and regardless of results.

PARMENIDES.)

THE great advance made by the Eleatic philosophy in

Parmenides ultimately consists in this, that the unity
1 Parmenides of Elea was the is spoken of as synonymous with
son of Pyres or Pyrrhes, Theo- the Pythagorean (Cebes, Tab. c.
phrast. ap. Alex. a Metaph. i. 3, 2: Πυθαγόρειόν τινα καὶ Παρμενίδειον
984 b, 1; Diog.ix. 21; Suid. sud voc.; ἐζηλωκὼς βίον). In his philosophic
Theod. Cur. Gr. aff. iv. 7, p. 57; opinions, however, he mostly re-
also ap. Diog. ix. 25, where (ac- sembled Xenophanes, whose scholar
cording to the usual reading) he and acquaintance he is asserted to
is called the son of Teleutagoras ; have been, though less decidedly
whether, with Cobet, who may or by Aristotle (Metaph. i. 5, 986 b,
may not be following the evidence 22: 6 yap Π. τούτου λέγεται μαθη-
of MSS., we omit the words Πύρη- Ts) than by others: Plut. ap. Eus.
tos τὸν δὲ Παρμενίδην, or with Pr. Ev. i. 8, 5; Eus. ibid. xiv. 17,
Karsten, Phil. Grec. Rell. i. Ὁ, 3, 10, cf. x. 14,15; Clem. Strom. 1.
alter their position thus: Ζήνων 301 D; Diog. 7. ¢.; Simpl. Phys. 2
Ἐλεάτης TovTov’AmoAAdbwpds φησιν a; Sext. Math. vii. 111; Suid.
εἶναι ἐν χρονικοῖς φύσει μὲν Τελευ- Tlapu.; on the other hand, Theo-
ταγόρου, θέσει δὲ Παρμενίδου" τὸν δὲ phrast. ap. Alex. I. ὁ. says only:
Παρμενίδην Πύρητος. He came of τούτῳ [Revopaver] ἐπιγενόμενος
a wealthy and _ distinguished Παρμ. He could not, however,
family, and we are told first have remained altogether unac-
joined the Pythagoreans. At the quainted with him, as both lived to- ~
instance of Ameinias, the Pytha- gether for some timein Elea. The
gorean, he embraced the philoso- two assertions are compatible, if we
phic life, and conceived such a suppese Parmenides to have been
veneration for Diochaites, likewise closely and personally connected
a Pythagorean, that he erected a with the Pythagoreans, and to
ἡρῷον to him at his death (Sotion have learned much from them in
ap. Diog. /. ¢.). By more recent regard to his moral life; but in
authors he is himself called a Py- regard to his philcsophie convic-
thagorean (Strabo, 27, 1,1, p. 252: tion, to have been chiefly in-
"Ereay . . ἐξ ἧς Παρμενίδης καὶ fluenced by Xenophanes, and, like
Ζήνων ἐγένοντο ἄνδρες Πυθαγόρειοι. Empedocles, to have approved of
Callimachus ap. Procl. in Parm. the Pythagorean life. but not to
t; iv..6 Ceus,; Jambi. V: P. 267, have been an adherent of the Py-
ef. 166; Anon. Phot. Cod. 249, p. thagorean system. (This is pro-
439 a, 35), and a Parmenidean life bably the meaning of Diogenes,
 HIS LIFE. 581

of all Being, the fundamental idea of the Eleatics, was

apprehended by him in a much more definite manner
l.c., when he says: ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν Diels thinks (Rh. . Mus. xxxi. 34
ἀκούσας καὶ Ξενοφάνους οὐκ ἢκολού- sq.), on the general synchronism
θησεν αὐτῷ, ἀκολουθεῖν designating with Heracleitus, is uncertain. On
here, as also in what follows, inti- the other hand, Plato (Parm, 127
mate and personal relation.) On A sq.; Theet. 183 E: Soph. 217
the other hand, it is inconsistent C) represents Socrates in very
with all that we know as to the early youth (σφόδρα véos) as meet-
date of the two philosophers, that ing Parmenides and Zeno in
Parmenides should have been Athens; Parmenides being then
taught by Anaximander. When, about 65, and Zeno about 40: and
therefore, Diog. /. 6. says: Παρμε- on this occasion the dialectic dis-
νίδης διήκουσε Eerodavovs, τοῦτον cussions in the dialogue bearing
Θεόφραστος ἐν τῇ ἐπιτοιμῇ ᾿Αναξι- his name are placed in the mouth
μάνδρου φησὶν ἀκοῦσαι, τοῦτον must of Parmenides. Supposing So-
not be applied to Parmenides, but crates at that date to have been
to Xenophanes ; and when Suidas only 15, we should have the year
says of Parmenides that, according of Parmenides’ birth in 519 or 520
to Theophrastus, he was a disciple B.c. If, with Grote (Hist. of Gr.
of Anaximander, he has evidently vill. 145 sq., ed. of 1872), we
misunderstood the passage of Diog. assign as the date of the dialogue
which he quotes. There is a sur- 448 B.c., we should get 513 Bc. If
prising statement (cf. Marc. Ca- with Hermann (De Theoria Del. 7;
pella, De Nupt. M.et V.i.4) by some De Philos. Ion. ZEtatt. 11), we ac-
scholasties that Parmenides learned cept the remark of Synesius (Ca/v.
logic and astronomy in Egypt, on Encom. ο. 17) that Socrates was 25
which cf. Brandis, Comm. 172; years old, as historical evidence,
Karsten, p. 11 sq., Notices et Ex- we should get 510 B.c. But there
traits des Manuscrits, t. xx. b, 12 1s nothing to justify our accepting
(from Remigius of Auxerre); cf. this Platonic exposition as histori-
Schol. in Arist. 5383 a, 18 sqq. The eal evidence. Even Athen. ix.
time at which Parmenides lived 505 sq. and Macrobius, Sat. i. 1,
is, indeed, known in general, ‘but question its chronological accuracy.
to fix it precisely is difficult. For if the contents of the conver-
Diog. ix. 23, places his prime sations said to have been held be-
(doubtless after Apollodorus) in tween Socrates and Parmenides
the 69th Olympiad (504-500 B.c.), are not historical,—if the gist of
and, therefore, to assign the 79th the Platonic story, viz., the definite
(in accordance with Scaliger ap. scientific induence of Parmenides
Karsten, p. 6 ; Filleborn, Beitr. vi. upon Socrates, must certainly be
9 sq.; Stallbaum Plat. Parm. 24 an invention, why should not its
A sq.; Theet. 183 E. Soph. 217 setting, the meeting of the two men,
Οὐ appears to me exceedingly and the more specific circumstances
hazardous. Whether Apollodorus, of this meeting, to which their
however, founds his calculation on particular ages at that time be-
definite data, and not merely (as long, be also an invention? This
582 PARMENIDES.

than by Xenophanes, and that it was based upon the

concept of Being. Xenophanes, together with the
would not make Plato guilty of a disciples the relation of the Eleatic
‘deliberate falsehood’ (Brandis, i. system to his own, it was necessary
376) in the one case more than in that Socrates should be confronted
the other; otherwise we must with the teachers of the Eleatic
also condemn the apparent cir- doctrine, and, preferably, with the
cumstantiality of the openings head of the school; and if once
of the Protagoras, Theetetus, Sym- this were done, the rest inevitably
posium, and other dialogues as follows. (Cf. Steinhart, Plato's
falsehood. The poetical license is Werke, iii. 24 sqq.; and Zeller,
equally great in both instances. Abhand’ung, p. 92 sqq.) The histo-
Alberti (Socrates, p. 16 sq.) is of rical accuracy of the Platonic ex-
opinion that Plato did not so position was at first defended by
entirely renounce the laws of pro- Steinhart, Allg. Ene. v. Ersch. und
bability as to make his fietions Gruber, sect. 111. B, xii. 233 sq.,
contain historical impossibiiities. and by myself, Plat. Sted. 191. In
In reply to this, we need only ask, its favour, vide Schleiermacher,
What, then, are all the numerous Plato's W. W.1i. 2,99; Karsten,
and striking anachronisms in Parm. 4 sq.; Brandis, l. ¢.; Mul-
Plato's dialogues (cf. Zeller, Adh. d. lach, Fragm. Philos. Gr. i. 109;
Berl. Acad. 1873; Hist. Pail. Kl. Schuster, Heraklit. 368, &c.
79 sqq.) but historical impossi- Cousin, Fragm. Philos. i. 51 54.»
bilities? What can be conceived would, at any rate, hold to the
more improbable than that So- presence of the two Eleatics in
crates and the Eleatic philosophers Athens, though he fixes their date ᾿
held all the conversations which in Ol. 79, and gives up their con-
Plato puts into their mouths? versation with Socrates. Schaar-
How do we know that Plato and schmidt does the same, while
his disciples were sufficiently ac- contesting the genuineness of the
quainted with the precise chrono- Parmenides. Perhaps the state-
lozy of Parmenides to make these ments of Eusebius, Chron. Ol.
statements, though they may have 80, 4, and Syncellus, 254 C, are
been invented, appear impossible to traceable to Plato: these place
them? Why, lastly, should Plato Parmenides, together with Empe-
have hesitated to represent Par- docles, Zeno, and Heracleitus, in
menides as younger than he really the period mentioned. On the
was, while he makes Solon, ina other hand, Eus. Ol. 86, Syric. 257
similar ease, and with the same C, make him even 25 years later,
appearance of historical exactitude contemporary with Democritus,
(Tim. 20 E sqq.), at least twenty Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias.
years too young? There would be We know nothing more of the
amply sufficient motive for Plato’s life of Parmenides, except that
exposition even if, in fact, Par- he gave laws to the LEleans
menides never met Socrates, or (Speusippus ap. Diog. ix. 23; ef.
came to Athens (a point we can- Strabo, J. ¢.), which they swore
not decide), To explain to his afresh every year to obey (Plut.,
 BEING. 583

unity of the world-forming force or deity, had also

maintained the unity of the world; but he had not
therefore denied either the plurality or the variability
of particular existences. Parmenides shows that the
All in itself can only be conceived as One, because all
that exists is in its essence the same. But for this
reason he will admit nothing besides this One to be a
Adv. Col. 32, 3, p. 1126). It does Diogenes ix. 32, doubted its
not follow, however, from this that genuineness; but that is uncertain
he only applied himself to philo- and unimportant for us. The title
sophy in his later life (Steinhart, περὶ φύσεως, which cannot with
A. Ene. l. ce. 234), which is not certainty be deduced from Theoph.
asserted by any of our authorities. ap. Diog. viii. 55, is ascribed to
The opinion of Deutinger (Gesch. the work by Sext. Math. vii. 111;
d. Philos, i. a, 358 sqq.), that he Simpl. De Celo, 249 b, 23; Schol.
was originally a Physicist, and was in Arist. 509 a, 38, and others.
first led to his doctrine of the One Porph. Antr. Nymph. ec. 22, calls it
by Anaxagoras, is as contrary to φυσικὸν; Suidas φυσιολογία ; the
chronological possibility as to the Platonic designation περὶ τῶν ὄντως
internal relation of the two sys- ὄντων (Procl. in Tim. ὃ A, ef.
tems. All antiquity is unanimous Simpl. Phys. 9 a) refers only to the
in paying homage to the personal first part; the κοσμολογία (Plut.
and philosophical character of Par- Amator. 13, 11, p. 756) to the
menides. The Eleatic in Plato, second. These two parts we shall
Soph. 237 A, calls him Παρμενίδης discuss further on. The statement
6 μέγας: Socrates says of him in that Parmenides also wrote in
Theet. 183 E: Π. δὲ μοι φαίνεται, prose (Suidas, sz) voc.) is no doubt
τὸ τοῦ “Ὁμήρου, αἰδοῖός τε ἅμα δεινός based upon a misunderstanding of
τε... καί μοι ἐφάνη βάθος τι ἔχειν what Plato says in Soph, 237 A.
παντάπασι γενναῖον : in Parm. 127 The supposed prose fragment in
B, he is described as an old man Simpl. Phys. 76, is certainly spu-
of noble appearance; and Aristotle, rious. The ancients recognised only
Metaph. i. 5, 986 Ὁ, 25, gives him one work of this philosopher, vide
decidedly the preference scientific- Diog. Proem. 16; Plato, Parm.
ally to Xenophanes and Melissus; 128 A, C; Theophr. ap. Diog. viii.
not to mentivun more recent authors. 55; Clemens, Strom. v. 552 C;
Parmenides expounded his philo- Simpl. Phys. 81 ἃ. Opinions as to
sophic opinions in a didactic poem, the artistie character of the work
fragments of which have been col- are to be found in Cic. dead. 11.
lected and explained by writers 23, 74; Plut. De Aud. po. c. 2; De
mentioned sup. p, 534, 3, and also Audiendo, c. 13 (p. 16, 45); Proel.
by Theod. Vatke, Parm. Vel. Doc- in Parm. iv.62 Cous, Further de-
trina (Berl. 1864), and by H. tails respecting the work and its
Stein, Sym. Philol. Bonnens. 763 history are given, ap. Karsten, /. 6.
sqqg. Callimachus, according to 15 sqq. .
584 PARMENIDES.

reality. Only Being is: non-Being can as little exist

as it can be expressed or conceived; and it is the
greatest mistake, the most incomprehensible error, to
treat Being and non-Being, in spite of their undeniable
difference, as the same.’ This once recognised, every-
1 Parm. ν. 33 :— αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς, ἢν δὴ βροτοὶ
εἰδότες οὐδὲν
εἰ δ᾽ ἄγ᾽ ἐγὼν ἐρέω, κόμισαι δὲ σὺ
πλάζονται δίκρανοι" ἀμηχανίη γὰρ ἐν
μῦθον ἀκούσας,
αὐτῶν
αἵπερ 650) μοῦναι διζήσιός εἰσι νοῆσαι.
35. ἡ μὲν, ὅπως ἔστιν τε καὶ ὡς οὐκ
στήθεσιν ἰθύνει πλαγκτὸν νόον, οἱ δὲ
φορεῦνται
ἔστι μὴ εἶναι,
πειθοῦς ἐστι κέλευθος, ἀληθείη γὰρ
κωφοὶ ὅμως tutAol τε τεθηπότες,
ἄκριτα φῦλα,
ὀπηδεῖ:
ἡ δ᾽ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν τε καὶ ὡς χρεών
οἷς τὸ πέλειν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶναι ταὐτὸν
νενόμισται
ἐστι μὴ εἶναι,
κ᾽ οὐ ταὐτὸν, πάντων δὲ παλίντροπός
τὴν δέ τοι φράζω παναπειθέα ἔμμεν
ἐστι κέλευθος.
ἀταρπόν"
οὔτε γὰρ ἂν γνοίης τό γε μὴ ἐὸν, οὐ Υ. δ2 :--
γὰρ ἐφικτὸν (al. ἀνυστὸν),
40. οὔτε φράσαις" τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν οὐ γὰρ μήποτε τοῦτο Sars, εἶναι μὴ
ἐστίν τε καὶ εἶναι. ἐόντα
That does not mean, however, (This verse I agree with Mullach
‘Thinking and Being are the same ;’ in placing here. His enumeration
the context shows that ἔστιν is to differs from that of Karsten by one.
be read, and the translation should In regard to the reading, τοῦτο δαῇς
stand thus: ‘ For the same thing εἶναι seems to me the most proba-
ean be thought and can be,’ only ble, according to Bergk’s observa-
that which can be, can be thought. tions, Zeitschr. fiir Alterthumsw.
V. 43: χρὴ τὸ λέγειν τὸ νοεῖν τὸ ὃν 1854, p. 433. Stein, /. ὁ. 485, pre-
ἔμμεναι. (So Simpl. Phys. 19 a; fers δαμῆ.)
Mullach prefers λέγειν τε νοεῖν τ᾽ ἀλλὰ σὺ τῆσδ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ὁδοῦ διζήσιος
ἐον ἔμμ. Stein’s reading is still εἶργε νόημα,
simpler: χρὴ τὸ λέγειν τὸ νοεῖν τ᾽ μηδέ σ᾽ ἔθος πολύπειρον ὁδὸν κατὰ
ἐὸν ἔμμεναι. Grauert, ap. Brandis, τήνδε βιάσθω,
1, 879, reads: χρή σε λέγειν Te νοεῖν 55. νωμᾷν ἄσκοπον ὄμμα καὶ ἢχήεσ-
τ᾽, ἐὺν ἔμμεναι, or, χρή τε λέγειν. σαν ἀκουὴν
It is impossible to decide with cer- kal γλῶσσαν" κρῖναι δὲ λόγῳ πολύ-
tainty, as we do not know the con- δηριν ἔλεγχον
nection in which these verses ἐξ ἐμέθεν ῥηθέντα, μόνος δ᾽ ἔτι μῦθος
originally stood). ὁδοῖο
ἔστι γὰρ εἶναι λείπεται, ὡς ἔστιν.
μηδὲν δ᾽ οὐκ εἶναι"τάτέ σε φράζεσθαι
ἄνωγα᾽ The fundamental idea in this de-
45. πρῶτον τῆσδ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ὁδοῦ διζήσιος monstration is expressed by Aris
εἶργε νόημα, totle, Phys. i, 8, 187 8,1; of. 186.
 BEING, 585

thing else follows by simple inference.! Being cannot

begin, or cease to exist. It was not, it will not be, but
it is, in a full undivided Present.? Whence could it
have been derived? Out of non-Being?~ But non-
Being does not exist, and cannot produce anything.
Out of Being? This could not produce anything ex-
cept itself. And the same holds good of destruction.’
Speaking generally, however, what has been or will be
is not; but it cannot be said of Being that it is not.‘
a, 22 sqq. in the proposition, ὅτι οὐδέ ποτ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἐόντος ἐφήσει
πάντα ἕν, εἰ τὸ ὃν ἐν σημαίνει. πίστιος ἰσχὺς
Similarly Theophrastus and Eude- γίγνεσθαί τι παρ᾽ αὐτό. τοῦ εἵνεκεν
mus, p. 474, 1, third edition. (Preller has this instead of
1 Verse 58 :— τοὔνεκεν. Hist. Phil. p. 93)
ταύτῃ δ᾽ ἐπὶ σήματ᾽ ἔασι οὔτε γενέσθαι
πολλὰ war’, ὡς ἀγένητον ἐὸν καὶ οὔτ᾽ ὄὕλλυσθαι ἀνῆκε δίκη. In Υ͂.
ἀνώλεθρόν ἐστιν, 66, τοῦ μηδ. apt. means ‘ beginning
οὖλον, μουνογενές τε καὶ ἀτρεμὲς ἢ δ᾽ from nothing. dv I take to bea
ἀτέλεστον. contraction of φῦναι, governed by
2 V. 61 :— ὦρσεν. Vatke, J. c. 49, and appa-
οὔ ποτ᾽ ἔην οὐδ᾽ ἔσται, ἐπεὶ νῦν ἔστιν rently Preller, Phil. Gr. Rom. No.
ὁμοῦ πᾶν 145, make it a participle, which
ἐν ξυνεχές; causes difficulty in the construc-
tion.
ξυνεχές denotes, as is clear from V. £271 =<
78 sqq., the undivided ; and in this
place, not the undivided in space, but ἢ δὲ κρίσις περὶ τούτων ἐν τῷδ᾽ ἐσ-
in time. Being is undivided ; there- τιν"
fore no part of its existence can lie ἔστιν ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν. κέκριται δ᾽ οὖν,
in the future or in the past. ὥσπερ ἀνάγκη,
$V. 62:— THY μὲν ἐᾷν ἀνόητον, ἀνώνυμον, οὐ
γὰρ ἀληθὴς
τίνα yap γέννην διζήσεαι αὐτοῦ ; ἐστὶν ὁδὸς. τὴν δ᾽ ὥστε πέλειν καὶ
πῆ πόθεν αὐξηθέν ; οὔτ᾽ ἐκ μὴ ἐόντος ἐτήτυμον εἶναι,
ἐάσω 75. πῶς δ᾽ ἂν ἔπειτα πέλοι τὺ ἐόν
φάσθαι σ᾽ οὐδὲ νοεῖν" οὐ γὰρ φατὸν πῶς δ᾽ ἄν κε γένοιτο:
οὐδὲ νοητόν εἴ γε γένοιτ᾽ οὐκ ἔστ᾽, οὐδ᾽ εἴ ποτε
65. ἔστιν ὅπως οὐκ ἔστι" τί δ᾽ ἄν μιν μέλλει ἔσεσθαι.
καὶ χρέος ὦρσεν τὼς γένεσις μὲν ἀπέσβεσται καὶ ἄπι-
ὕστερον ἢ πρόσθεν τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀρζά- στος ὄλεθρος.
μενον iv’ ;
οὕτως ἢ πάμπαν πέλεμεν χρεών ἐστιν On account of this denial of Be~
ἢ οὐκί, coming, Plato (Thegt, 181 A) calls
586 PARMENIDES.

Being is moreover indivisible; for there is nowhere

anything distinct from it by which its parts might be
divided: all space is filled by Being alone.’ It is im-
movable, in one place, for itself and identical with
itself ;2 and since it eannot be incomplete or defective,
it must be limited. Nor is Thought separate from
Being; for there is nothing outside Being, and all
the Eleatics of τοῦ ὅλου στασιῶται ;
ac
αὐτὰρ ἀκίνητον μεγάλων ἐν πείρασι
and Aristotle, according to Sext. δεσμῶν
Math. x. 46, designates them as ἐστὶν, ἄναρχον, ἄπαυστον, ἐπεὶ γένε-
στασιώτας τῆς φύσεως καὶ ἀφυσίκους. σις καὶ ὄλεθρος
Ct. what is cited from Aristotle, τῆλε μάλ᾽ ἐπλάγχθησαν, ἄπωσε δὲ
p. 587, 3, and from Theophrastus, πίστις ἀληθῆ» ;
p. 542, 1. τωυτὸν δ᾽ ἐν τωυτῷ τε μένον καθ᾽
ἘΝ. 78:— ἑαυτό τε κεῖται.
οὐδὲ διαιρετόν ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ πᾶν ἐστὶν How Parmenides proved the im-
ὅμοιον, mobility of Being, we are not told.
οὐδέ τι τῇ μᾶλλον τό κεν εἴργοι μιν The passage in Theet. 180 E,
ξυνέχεσθαι leaves it undecided whether the
οὐδέ τι χειρότερον' πᾶν δὲ πλέον reason there given belongs to him,
ἐστὶν edvTos. or primarily to Melissus. Fayori-
τῷ ξυνεχὲς πᾶν ἐστιν, ἐὸν γὰρ ἐόντι
~ \ ”~ 5» > ‘ > nus, ap. Diog. ix. 29, ascribes one
πελάζει. of Zeno’s arguments to Parme-
nides, vide infra, Zeno.
(Cf. Karsten, J. c., as to the reading 3 Ὑ 86 sqq. :—
of V. 79, which is not improved οὕτως ἔμπεδον αὖθι μένει: κρατερὴ
by substituting πη for 777, according γὰρ ἀνάγκη
to the suggestion of Mullach.) πείρατος ἐν δεσμοῖσιν ἔχει, τό μιν
This verse I agree with Ritter, i. ἀμφὶς ἐέργει.
493, isto be connected with V. 90:—
(According to Simplieius, 9 a,
λεῦσσε δ᾽ ὅμως ἀπεόντα νόῳ whereas Ὁ. 7 a, 31 b, τε is sub-
παρεόντα βεβαίως" (considered the stituted for7d. Other changes are
distant as something present) unnecessary. τὸ refers as a rela-
ov yap ἀποτμήξει τὸ ἐὸν τοῦ ἐόντος tive to melpatos) :—
ἔχεσθαι, οὕνεκεν οὐκ ἀτελεύτητον τὸ ἐὸν θέμις
οὔτε σκιδνάμενον πάντη πάντως κατὰ εἶναι"
κόσμον ἐστὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐπιδευές, ἐὸν δέ (se.
οὔτε συνιστάμενον. ἀτελεύτητον) κε παντὸς ἐδεῖτο.
(ἀποτμήξει isto be taken intransi- Further details later on. When
tively, or else we should, with Kar- Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1087 C, says of
sten, substitute for ‘amotu. Td’ Parmenides τὸ ἄπειρον ἔλενεν ἀρχὴν
ἀποτμηξεῖται) ; cf. V. 104 sqq. τῶν πάντων, he is confusing him
2 V. 82 f:— with Anaximander.

fj
 BEING. 587

thought is thought of Being.’ Being is in-a word,

therefore, all that really exists as Unity without be-
coming or passing away, without change of place or of
form: a whole, throughout undivided, homogeneous, on
all sides equally balanced, and in all points’ equally
perfect. Parmenides therefore compares it to a well-
rounded sphere.” Consequently the unanimous testimony,
therefore, of later writers that according to Parmenides
Being exists and nothing besides, and that the All was
regarded by him as one eternal immovable essence,?

1 V. 94 sqq.:— τῇ μᾶλλον τῇ δ᾽ ἧσσον, ἐπεὶ πᾶν

τωυτὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ νοεῖν τε καὶ οὕνεκέν ἐστιν ἄσυλον.
ἐστι νόημα. ἦ γὰρ παντόθεν ἶσον ὁμῶς ἐν πείρασι
οὐ γὰρ ἄνευ τοῦ ἐόντος ἐν ᾧ πεφατισ- κυρεῖ.
μένον ἐστὶν
εὑρήσεις τὸ νοεῖν" οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔστιν ἢ 3 Plato, Parm. 128 A: σὺ μὲν
ἔσται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασιν ἕν φὴς εἶναι
ἄλλο πάρεξ τοῦ ἐόντος, Cf. V. 43 τὸ πᾶν καὶ τούτων τεκμήρια παρέ-
(sup. p. 584, 1). χει. Theaet. 180. E: Μέλισσοί τε
καὶ Παρμενίδαι. . . διϊσχυρίζονται,
2 ¥.87-— ὡς ἕν τε πάντα ἐστί: καὶ ἕστηκεν
ἐπεὶ TO γε μοῖρ᾽ ἐπέδησεν αὐτὸ ἐν αὑτῷ, οὐκ ἔχον χώραν ἐν ἢ
> \ 4 a> 3 /

οἷον (Simpl. οὖλον) ἀκίνητόν τ

= . 3 ΠΕΡ 2
κινεῖται. Soph. 242 D (sup. p.
ἔμεναι, ᾧ πάντ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ ἐστὶν, 523, 2); Arist. Metaph. i. 5, 986 Ὁ,
ὅσσα βροτοὶ κατέθεντο, πεποιθότες 10 (aid. note 2); thid.1. 28: παρὰ
εἶναι ἀληθῆ. yap τὸ ὃν τὸ μὴ ὃν οὐθὲν ἀξιῶν εἶναι
100. γίγνεσθαί τε καὶ ὄλλυσθαι, Παρμ., ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕν οἴεται, εἶναι τὸ
εἶναί τε καὶ οὐκὶ, ὃν καὶ ἄλλο οὐθέν. ili. 4, 1001 a,
καὶ τόπον ἀλλάσσειν διά τε χρόα 31. If Being as such is absolute
φανὸν ἀμείβειν. substance, how are we to conceive
αὐτὰρ ἐπὶ (Karsten for ἐπεὶ) πεῖρας the Many? τὸ yap ἕτερον τοῦ ὄντος
πύματον τετελεσμένον ἐστὶ, οὐκ ἔστιν, ὥστε κατὰ τὸν Παρμενίδου
πάντοθεν εὐκύκλου σφαίρης ἐναλίγ- λόγον συμβαίνειν ἀνάγ kn ἕν ἅπαντα
κιον ὄγκῳ, εἶναι τὰ ὄντα καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ὄν.
3 " , ᾿-
μεσσόθεν ἰσοπαλὲς πάντη" τὸι yap
\
Phys. i. 2, sub init. : ἀνάγκη δ᾽ ἤτοι
οὔτε τι μεῖζον μίαν εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἢ πλείους, καὶ
108. οὔτε τι βαιότερον πελέναι
cA ΄ Ld
εἰ μίαν, ἤτοι ἀκίνητον, ὥς φησι Παρ-
χρεών ἐστι τῇ ἢ τῇ. μενίδης καὶ Μέλισσος, ete. The
οὔτε
Ψ΄
yap
x
οὐκ> ἐὸν
>
ἔστι τό κεν παύῃ/
yy
criticism of this opinion, however,
μιν ἱκεῖσθαι does not properly belong to Phy-
εἰς ὁμὸν, οὔτ᾽ ἐὸν ἔστιν ὅπως εἴη κεν sics, nor yet to the investigation of
ἐόντος (Mull. for: κενὸν ἐόντ.) first principles: οὐ yap ἔτι ἀρχή
 588 PARMENIDES.

is, in fact, correct; but the proposition that the world

is eternal and imperishable cannot, strictly speaking,
be attributed to this philosopher; for if all plurality or
change are denied there can be no question of a world
at all. For the same reason it appears that Parmenides
did not designate Being as the Deity :! we give the name
of the Deity? to the primitive essence to distinguish
this from the world; a philosopher who wholly denies
ἐστιν, εἰ ἕν μόνον καὶ οὕτως ἕν ἐστιν Brandis, Comm. El. 136 sqq., and
(similarly Metaph i. 5). Ibid. 185 Karsten, Parm. 158, 168. Concern-
b, 17; and Metaph. l. 6. 986 b, 18, ing a proof of the unity of Being,
on the Limitedness of Being, with wrongly attributed to Parmenides
Parmenides; cf. Simpl. Phys. 25 by Porphyry, we shall speak fur-
a, and 29 a: ὡς 6 ᾿Αλέξανδρος ἱσ- ther on.
Topet, ὃ μὲν Θεόφραστος οὕτως ἐκ- 1 Stob. Eel. 1. 416; Plut. Place.
τίθεται (sc. τὸν Παρμενίδου λόγον) 11. 4, 3 (sup. p. 565, 3). It is more
ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς φυσικῆς ἱστορίας" correct to call the A//, one, eternal,
τὸ παρὰ τὸ ὃν οὐκ ὃν, τὸ οὐκ ὃν οὐδὲν, unbecome, unmoved, etc., as we find
ἐν ἄρα τὸ bv" Εὔδημος δὲ οὕτως" τὸ in Plato. Theet. 181 A (οἱ τοῦ ὅλον -
παρὰ τὸ ὃν οὐκ bY. ἀλλὰ καὶ μοναχῶς στασιῶται); Arist. Metaph. i. 3,
λέγεται τὸ ὄν. ἕν ἄρα τὸ ὄν. Sim- 984 a, 28 sqq. (ἕν φάσκοντες εἶναι
plicius adds ‘that he did not find τὸ wav); Theophr. ap. Alex. im
‘this in the Physics of Eudemus; Metaph. i. 8, 984 b, 1; Alex. ibid.
but he quotes a passage from that Plut. Plac. i. 24; Hippol. Refut. i.
work which censures Parmenides 11; Kus. Pr. Hv; xiv. 3, See
for not having distinguished the Parmenides attributes the predi-
different senses in which the con- cates, ὅλον and πᾶν, to Being also.
cept of Being is employed, and as- The expression (Arist. J. 9.) τὴν
serts that even had it only one φύσιν ὕλην ἀκίνητον εἶναι, is less
sense, the unity of all Being could exact.
not be demonstrated. This is also 2 In the fragments of Parme-
objected by Aristotle, Phys. i. 8, nides, this designation is never
186 a, 22 sqq.,ande, 2. The words found, and whether or not more
ἀλλὰ Kal μοναχῶς λέγεται Td ὃν are recent writers make use of it, is
in any case only an emendation of of little consequence, Stob. Eel. i.
Eudemus ; of Parmenides he says 60. Ammon. 7. ἕρμην. 58 (ef.
himself, 7. ¢., and Aristotle says, Brandis, Comm. 141; Gr. Rom.
Piys, l. c., that he did not think Phil. i. 382; Karsten, 208; ‘ef.
of the various senses of Being, from Parm. v. 61, 75 sq.), Boéth. Consol.
which it naturally follows that he iil. sub fin. The passage in De
did not expressly discriminate Melisso, Zeno et Gorgia, ec. 4, 978
them. It is unnecessary to quote b, 7 would prove nothing, even
the statements of more recent were the genuineness of that work
authors; they are to be found in more certain than it 15.
 BEING. 589

that the Finite exists side by side with the Eternal

does not require such a term.! It might more reason-
ably be asked whether Parmenides really excluded from
his concept of Being all that from our point of view
seems to involve a plurality, and to transfer sensible
determinations to the immaterial essence. This question
we must answer in the negative. Even if the compa-
rison of Being with a globe considered in itself, simply
as a comparison, proves nothing, all that Parmenides
says of the limitedness, homogeneousness, and indivisi-
bility of Being,’ shows that he conceived it as extended
in space, and never formed the idea of a Being un-
contained in space. For far from avoiding space-
determinations as inadmissible, he expressly describes
Being as a fixed and homogeneous mass, symmetrically
extended from its centre on all sides—which within its
limits always occupies one and the same place, nowhere
interrupted by non-Being, and at no point contain-
ing more Being than at another. We should be justi-
fied in rejecting this description as metaphorical only
if we could find any indication that Parmenides con-
ceived Being as incorporeal, and if in other parts of his
philosophic discussion he made use of a figurative mode
of expression ;but neither is anywhere the case. More-
over, as we shall presently see, Zeno and Melissus
1 Tt is not necessary to assume his philosophy gave no opportunity
that Parmenides was hindered by for the statement of theological
religious feelings or considerations definitions.
of prudence from declaring himself 2 Sup. p. 584.sq. What right
as to the relation of Being to the Strumpell (Gesch. d. Theor. Phil.
Deity (Brandis, Comm. El. 178). d. Gr. p. 44) has to deduce from
The answer is more obvious. He these passages that Being is not
did not do so because he was a extended in space, I do not see.
universal, plastic philosopher, and
590 PARMENIDES.

also attribute to Being magnitude in space, and the

Atomists, clearly referring to the doctrine of Par-
menides, identify Being with the body, and non-Being
with empty space; we can therefore scarcely hesitate
to ascribe to this philosopher the opinion which his
own words seem intended to convey. His Being is not
a metaphysical concept, devoid of all sensuous admix-
ture, but a concept that has been developed from an
intuition, and still bears clear traces of this origin.
The Real is to Parmenides the Full (πλέον). that which
fills space. The distinction of the corporeal and incor-
poreal is not only unknown to him, but incompatible
with his whole point of view; for the unity of Being and
Thought, which he maintained as a direct consequence
of his doctrine of Unity, is too realistic to be possible,
except on the presupposition that the corporeal and the
incorporeal had not as yet been discriminated. Ac-
cording to the excellent remark of Aristotle,’ it is the
substance cf the corporeal itself, not a substance dis-
tinct from the corporeal, with which he is concerned;
and when he says ‘Only Being is,’ this signifies that
we attain to the true view of things when we abstract
from the separation and variableness of the sensible
phenomenon, in order to maintain its simple, undivided
and unchangeable substratum as the only Reality. This
abstraction is no doubt a bold step; but in making it,
Parmenides does not so entirely depart from the whole
previous tendency of philosophic enquiries as if he had
started with a purely metaphysical concept, without
any regard to the data of the senses.
1 Vide sup. i, 190, 1, 2, and in regard to the above generally, 187 sq.
 SENSE AND REASON. 591

So far, then, as the knowledge of the Real is only

possible by means of this abstraction, the abstract intel-
lectual study of things can alone lay claim to truth:
judgment belongs solely to rational speech (Aoyos )—
the senses, on the contrary, which reflect the show or
appearance of plurality and mutability, of generation
and destruction, are the cause of all error. Parmenides
earnestly warns us therefore to trust, not the senses,
but reason alone ;! and thus, like Heracleitus, he gives
occasion to a discrimination which in the sequel was
of the highest importance, both for the theory of know-
ledge and for metaphysics generally. In his own sys-
tem, however, it has not this great importance; it is
there merely a consequence of the material and meta-
physical results, not the foundation of the whole; the
cognition of sense, and that of reason, are not opposed
in respect of their formal characteristics, but solely in
respect of their content ; and the psychological investi-
gation of the faculty of knowing is so greatly neglected,
as we shall presently see, that the philosopher ascribes
to Thought the same origin as to Perception, and
derives both from the mixture of material substances.
Although Parmenides so abruptly opposes reality
to the phenomenon, intellectual thought to the decep-
tions of the senses, he cannot forbear pointing out, in
the second part of his didactic poem, what theory of
1 Parm. v. 33 sqq., 52 564. iv. 234, ef. Arist. Gen. et corr. i.
(supra, p. 584, 1), to which little is 8, 325 Ὁ, 13). Many sceptics
added by later writers (e.g. Diog. counted Parmenides as well as his
ix. 22; Sext. Math. vii. 111; Plut. teacher Xenophanes in their ranks
ap. Eus. Pr, Ev.i. 8,5. Aristocles, (Cie. Acad. ii. 28, 74; Plut. Adv.
ibid. xiv. 17,1; Joh. Dam. parall. Col. 26,2); but this is not of much
i. 25, 23, in Stob. Floril. ed. Mein. importance.
592 PARMENIDES.

the world would result from the standpoint of ordinary

opinion, and how individual phenomena would in that
case have to be explained.!
The right view allows us to recognise in all things
but One, Being; ordinary opinion adds to this, non-
Being.’ It therefore regards things as compounded of
opposite constituents, to only one of which, in truth,
Reality belongs ;* and consequently, to ordinary opinion
(vide supra), the One appears as a plurality, the in-
variable as becoming and changeable. If we place
ourselves therefore at this point of view, we shall have
to admit two elements, of which one corresponds with
Being, and the other with non-Being. Parmenides
calls the former light or fire, and the latter night ;
and in the fragments of his writings which we possess
he describes the former as the rare, and the latter as
the dense and the heavy.* They are also named, by
other authorities, the warm and the cold, or fire and
earth;> and it would seem that Parmenides likewise
1 We find this same opinion, ὟΣ 71|61:5
though it is clumsily expressed, in τῇ μὲν φλογὸς αἰθέριον πῦρ
Plut. ap. Eus. Pr. Hv. 1. 8,6: Mapp. ἤπιον ἐὸν, μέγ᾽ ἀραιὸν, ἑωυτῷ πάν-
. 6 ἑταῖρος Ξενοφάνους ἅμα μὲν καὶ τοσε τωυτὸν, ᾿
τῶν τούτου δοξῶν ἀντεποιήσατο, ἅμα τῷ δ᾽ ἑτέρῳ μὴ τωυτόν' ἀτὰρ κἀκεῖνο
δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐναντίαν ἐνεχείρησε κατ᾽ αὐτὸ
στάσιν, as appears from the clearer ἀντία νύκτ᾽ adan πυκινὸν δέμας
but imperfect parallel passage ap. ἐμβριθές τε.
Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 7, p. 57.
2 V. 33 sqq., 45 sqq. (supra, 5 V. 122 :---
Ῥ. 584, 1). αὐτὰρ ἐπειδὴ πάντα φάος καὶ νὺξ
8. 113:— ὀνόμασται
μορφὰς yap κατέθεντο δύο γνώμῃς καὶ τὰ κατὰ σφετέρας δυνάμεις ἐπὶ
ὀνομάζειν, τοῖσί τε καὶ Tots,
(τῶν μίαν οὐ χρεών ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ πᾶν πλέον ἐστὶν duod φάεος καὶ
πεπλανημένοι εἰσίν) νυκτὸς ἀφάντου,
ἀντία δ᾽ ἐκρίναντο δέμας καὶ σήματ᾽ ἴσων ἀμφοτέρων, ἐπεὶ οὐδετέρῳ μέτα
ἔθεντο μηδέν. ,
χωρὶς am ἀλλήλων. Karsten is no doubt right in
 PHYSICS. 593

made use of these latter names.’ Aristotle, however, tells

us that the more abstract expressions, ‘ warm and cold,’ ?
which correspond to his own derivation of the elements,
were first adopted by him in place of the more concrete
explaining the latter, according to An. Procr. 27, 2, p. 1026, where
vy. 117 sq. thus: Both are homo- they are called φῶς and σκότος,
geneous and unmixed. The same This is the foundation of the mis-
is asserted in the gloss which take of Clemens, Cohort. 42 C:
Simpl. (Phys. 7, b) found in his Tl. . . . θεοὺς εἰσηγήσατο πῦρ καὶ
MS. between the verses: ἐπὶ τῷδέ ν.
ἐστι τὸ ἀραιὸν καὶ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ Td 2 Brandis, Comment. 167 ; Kar-
φάος καὶ τὸ μαλθακὸν καὶ τὸ κοῦφον, sten, p. 222, and other writers
ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ πυκνῷ ὠνόμασται τὸ doubt this. partly on account of
ψυχρὸν καὶ τὸ ζόφος καὶ τὸ σκληρὸν the word οἷον ap. Arist. Metaph.
καὶ τὸ βαρύ. ταῦτα γὰρ ἀπεκρίθη ἰ, c. and partly because Simpl.
ἑκατέρως ἑκάτερα. Phys. 6 Ὁ, says: Π. ἐν τοῖς πρὸς
᾿ Arist. Phys. i. 5, sub init.: δόξαν πῦρ καὶ γῆν, μᾶλλον δὲ φῶς
kal γὰρ Π. θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν ἀρχὰς
ἀ καὶ σκότος (ἀρχὰς τίθησιν); cf.
ποιεῖ͵, ταῦτα δὲ προσαγορεύει πῦρ καὶ Alex. inf. p. 594,1. But the words
γῆν. Metaph. 1. 5, 986, b, 31, of Simplicius and Alexander may
after the quotation, p. 543, 1: np be also interpreted as we have
καζόμενος δ᾽ ἀκολουθεῖν τοῖς φαινο- indicated in the text ; andin regard
μένοις καὶ τὸ ἕν μὲν κατὰ τὸν λόγον to οἷον, Bonitz has shown (Bonitz
πλείω δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὕὑπολαμ- on the Metaphysics, p. 76) that
βάνων εἶναι, δύο τὰς αἰτίας καὶ δύο Aristotle not unfrequently uses it
τὰς ἀρχὰς πάλιν τίθησι, θερμὸν καὶ when he neither intends to express
Ψυχροὺν, οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων. a@ comparison nor a doubt. The
Cf. also, Metaph. i. ὃ, 984 Ὁ, 1 sqq., words οἷον, etc., therefore assert
iv. 2, 1004 b, 32. -Theophrast ap. only: ‘he calls the one fire, the
Alex. vide infra, p. 594, 4. Simpl. other earth,’ and are in no way in-
Phys. 7 Ὁ: τῶν μὲν γεννητῶν consistent with the plain expres-
ἀρχὰς καὶ αὐτὸς στοιχειώδεις μὲν sions in the Physics and in the
τὴν πρώτην ἀντίθεσιν ἔθετο, ἣν φῶς treatise on generation and decay.
καλεῖ καὶ σκότος, πῦρ καὶ γῆν, ἢ On the other hand, it is quite pos-
πυκνὸν καὶ ἀραιὸν, ἢ ταὐτὸν καὶ sible, judging from Aristotle’s usual
ἕτερον (the last is evidently a mis- procedure in regazd to the opinions
conception of y. 117 sq.). Simi- of other philosophers, that Parme-
larly Simpl. Phys. S, 6 b, 38 Ὁ; nides may have first called the
Alex. in Metaph. i. 5, 986 b, 17; dark element earth, in the place
iv. 2, 1004 Ὁ; 29; xii. 1, 1069 a, where he was speaking of the for-
26 (33, 21, 217, 34, 648, 19 Bon.). mation of the earth; inasmuch as
Ibid. ap. Philop. Gen. et Corr. 64 he asserted that the earth arose out
a; Philop. Phys. A; 9, C, 11; of darkness. This is borne out by
Plut. Adv. Col. 13, 6, p. 1114; Plutarch, ap. Eus. i. 8, 7: λέγει
where the two elements are called : δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταῤῥυέντος
τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ σκοτεινὸν, and De ἀέρος γεγονέναι. -
VOL. I. QQ
594 PARMENIDES.

designation. He associated light, we are informed by

Aristotle,! with Being, and Night with non-Being, and
this statement is confirmed by the fragments. In these
he declares that truth and reality belong only to one
of the two elements from which things are commonly
derived, and that the existence of the other element,
on the contrary, has been falsely assumed.? Conse-
quently, he regards the one element as existing, the
other as not existing; and for this reason he ascribes to
the fiery element the: same characteristics as to Being
in describing it throughout as homogeneous.’ He is
further said to have regarded the fiery element as the
active principle, and darkness as the passive or material
principle.* This, however, can scarcely be quite correct.

1 Arist. Metaph. l. c. continues: pretation of Simplicius, Krische

τούτων δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὸ ὃν TO θερμὸν (Forsch. 102), Karsten, Mullach,
τάττει, θάτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν. Steinhart (Allg. Ene. 240) and
Ibid. Gen. et Corr. i. 3, 318 b, 6: others, which is this: ‘to admit
ὥσπερ Mapp. λέγει δύο, τὸ ὃν καὶ τὸ only one of which is wrong.’ For
μὴ ὃν εἶναι φάσκων, πῦρ καὶ γῆν. it is here brought forward as the
Alexander in Metaph. 986 b, 17, common error of mankind that two
cannot be received as a separate kinds of Reality are assumed by
testimony, since it is manifestly them ; as in v. 37, it was said to
taken from Aristotle. So, doubt- be the path of deception, to admit
less, Philop. Gen. et Corr. p. 13 a. non-Being side by side with Being.
The statement of Aristotle is con- The words rather mean: of which
tested by Karsten, p. 223, and still the one cannot be admitted, be-
more decidedly by Mullach on vy. cause the theory of it is based on
113 (also by Steinhart, Allg. Ene. deception.
sect. 111. vol. xii. 288 sq.; Plato's $V.117. Cf. v. 85, 109 (sup.
Werke, vi. 226), on the ground that p. 592, 3; 586, 2; 587, 2).
neither of the two elements of the 4 Aristotle remarks, Metaph. i.
perishable can be identified with 8, 984 b, 1: τῶν μὲν οὖν ἕν φασ-
the existent. There is no sufficient κόντων εἶναι τὸ πᾶν οὐθενὶ συνέβη
foundation for this, as we have τὴν τοιαύτην [τὴν κινητικὴν συνι-
shown above. δεῖν αἰτίαν πλὴν εἰ ἄρα Παρμενίδῃ
2 V.114. The word καταθέσθαι καὶ τούτῳ κατὰ τοσοῦτον ὅσον οὐ
must be supplied after the words μόνον ἕν ἀλλὰ καὶ δύο πως τίθησιν
τῶν μίαν οὐ χρεών ἐστι. These words αἰτίας εἶναι. τοῖς δὲ δὴ πλείω ποιοῦσι
however will not bear the inter- μᾶλλον ἐνδέχεται λέγειν, οἷον τοῖς
uf

’
J

το
os
 THE LIGHT AND THE DARK. 595

He may perhaps have attributed a vivifying and forma-

tive influence generally to warmth in the origination of
organic beings, and in the formation of the universe;
but it is self-evident that he can neither have used
these Aristotelian expressions, nor intended to explain
movement universally, as Heracleitus did, from the
warm element as such. For in that case it would have’
been unnecessary to assume a particular mythical figure,
by which all combination of substances is brought
about'—the goddess who is enthroned in the centre of
the universe and rules its whole course.? The mixture
θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν ἢ πῦρ καὶ γῆν" δόξαν, πῦρ λέγων καὶ γῆν τὰς τοῦ
χρῶνται γὰρ ὡς κινητικὴν ἔχοντι παντὸς ἄρχάς" τὴν μὲν γῆν ὡς ὕλην,
τῷ πυρὶ τὴν φύσιν. ὕδατι δὲ καὶ τὸ δὲ πῦρ ὡς αἴτιον καὶ ποιοῦν. Alex.
γῇ καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις τοὐναντίον. ap. Simpl. Phys. 9 a; κατὰ δὲ
Theophrastus, ap. Alex., comment- τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν καὶ τὰ φαινό-
ing on this passage, p. 24, 5 Bon. μενα φυσιολογῶν. .. ἀρχὰς τῶν
says more definitely: Παρμενίδης γινομένων ὑπέθετο πῦρ καὶ γῆν, τὴν
. ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρας ἦλθε τὰς ὅδούς. μὲν γῆν ὡς ὕλην ὑποτιθεὶς, τὸ δὲ
καὶ γὰρ ὡς ἀΐδιόν ἐστι τὸ πᾶν ἀπο- πῦρ ὡς ποιητικὸν αἴτιον, καὶ ὄνο-
φαίνεται καὶ γένεσιν ἀποδιδόναι μάζει, φησὶ, τὸ μὲν πῦρ φῶς τὴν δὲ
πειρᾶται τῶν ὄντων, οὐχ ὁμοίως γῆν σκότος. Philop. Gen. et Corr.
περὶ ἀμφοτέρων δοξάζων, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ 12 4,0: τὴν μὲν γῆν μὴ ὃν ὠνόμα-
ἀλήθειαν μὲν ἐν τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἀγέννη- σεν, ὡς ὕλης λόγον ἐπέχουσαν, τὸ
Tov καὶ σφαιροειδὲς ὑπολαμβάνων, δὲ πῦρ ὃν, ὡς ποιοῦν καὶ εἰδικώ-
κατὰ δόξαν δὲ τῶν πολλῶν εἰς τὸ τερον. Arist. Gen. et Cor. ii. 9,
γένεσιν ἀποδοῦναι τῶν φαινομένων 336 ἃ. 3 sqq., does not seem to be
δύο ποιῶν τὰς ἀρχὰς πῦρ καὶ γῆν, τὸ alluding specially to Parmenides,
μὲν ὡς ὕλην, τὸ δὲ ὡς αἴτιον καὶ but rather to Anaximenes (sup. p.
ποιοῦν. This is repeated by the 272, 2) and Diogenes (p. 291).
more recent writers, Cic. Acad. ii. ’ As Simpl. Phys. 9 a, remarks
37, 118: P. tgnem qui moveat, against Alexander.
terram quae ab co formetur. Diog.
ix. 21: δύο τε εἶναι στοιχεῖα, πῦρ =- Ve iae- -
καὶ γῆν, καὶ τὸ μὲν δημιουργοῦ ἐν δὲ μέσω τούτων (on this point,
τάξιν ἔχειν, τὴν δὲ ὕλης. Hippol. ef. p. 600, 3) Δαίμων ἢ πάντα
Refut.i. 11. indirectly, no doubt, κυβερνᾷ'
from Theophrastus, who is also πάντῃ γὰρ στυγεροῖο τόκου καὶ
mentioned by Diogenes: Π. ἕν μὲν μίξιος ἀρχὴ,
τὸ πᾶν ὑποτίθεται ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ πέμπουσ᾽ ἄῤῥενι θῆλυ μιγῆναι, ἐναν-
ἀγέννητον καὶ σφαιροειδές, οὐδὲ τία δ᾽ αὖθις
αὐτὸς ἐκφεύγων τὴν τῶν πολλῶν ἄρσεν θηλυτέρῳ.
ᾳᾳ 2
596 PARMENIDES.

of the light and the dark he represents in a symbolic

manner as a sexual union; describing Eros as the first
creation of the world-ruling goddess,! and these elements
themselves as the masculine and feminine.” He seems
to have introduced other symbolic beings as gods,* be-
sides Eros; but we are not told what part they played
in the formation of the world.
That Parmenides borrowed his doctrine of the two
elements from an older physical theory is not probable;
for in the first place we know of no theory which would
have adapted itself to this purpose ;* and, secondly, he
himself says that the ordinary opinion of mankind gene-
rally, is the object of his exposition in the second part
of the poem. Accordingly, this exposition is founded
on a fact which could not well escape observation, viz.,
that the sense perception and common opinion see in
According to Stob. Eel. i. 482 sq., tion of v. 130 sq. seems to be re-
parall. cf. p. 158 ; Theod. Cur. Gr. quired by the connection of this
Aff. vi. 18, sect. 87, this goddess of verse, and the universal cosmical
Parmenides was called κυβερνῆτις, significance which manifestly be-
KAnpovxos (for which Karsten, p. longs to Eros.
241, would substitute KAndovxos), 3 The evidence of Cicero, or
δίκη, and ἀνάγκη ;but other things, rather that of Philodemus (Cie.
especially the introduction to the N. D. i. 11, 28), quippe qui bellum,
poem, would seem to be brought qui discordiam, qui cupiditatem
in here. Cf. Krische, Forsch. p. 107. ceteraque generis eyusdem ad Deum
1 V. 132 (Plato, Symp. 178 B; revocat, would not of itself be con-
Arist. Metaph.i.4, 984 b, 25 ; πρώτισ- elusive ; it is a question whether
τον μὲν ἔρωτα θεῶν μητίσατο πάν- Parmenides is not here confused
των). The subject of μητίσατο is, with Empedocles; but the words
according to the express statement πρώτιστον θεῶν πάντων in Parm. Vv.
of Simplicius, J. c., the δαίμων, v. 132 show that other gods followed
128; Plut. Amator. 13, 11, p. 756, Eros. Vide Krische, /. ὁ. 111 sq.
says instead ᾿Αφροδίτη, but this is 4 The texts in Aristotle which
sufficiently explained by the des- were supposed to refer to such
cription of the goddess, and espe- theories, otherwise unknown to us
cially by the circumstance that she (supra, p.594, 1), may be explained
is the parent of Eros. in another way. Further details,
2 This more general interpreta- p. 599, 3rd ed.
 COSMOLOGY. 597

all things opposite substances and forces united. The

explanation of this fact—the reduetion of these oppo-
sites to the fundamental opposite of Being and non-
Being, of light and dark, and the introduction of the
creating divinities—all this is to be regarded as his
own addition. Yet, in the ancient cosmogonies,! in the
early Ionian theories of the creation, and in the Pytha-
gorean doctrine of the primitive opposites,? there are
points of similarity which may have had some influence
on his exposition.
In the further development of physical notions,
Parmenides extended his investigation to everything
which occupied the enquiry of that period.? This por-
1 Such as the statements in 140 :--
Hesiod, Acusilaos, and Ibycus on πῶς γαῖα Ka) ἥλιος HIE σελήνη
Eros; the utterances of Acusilaos αἰθήρ τε ξυνὺς γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον καὶ
on Eros and Night, and the like. ὄλυμπος-
Vide supra, pp. 87, 97. ἔσχατος ἠδ᾽ ἄστρων θερμὸν μένος
2? Among which, as is well
known, we find that of light and SpuhOncay
γίγνεσθαι.
darkness.
3 He himself promises in vy. Plut. Adv. Col. 13, 6, says of him:
120 sq. :— ὅς γε Kal διάκοσμον πεποίηται, καὶ
τῶν σοι ἐγὼ διάκοσμον ἐοικότα πάντα στοιχεῖα μιγνὺς, τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ
φατίσω, σκοτεινὸν, ἐκ τούτων τὰ φαινόμενα
ὡς οὗ μήποτέ τίς σε βροτῶν γνώμη πάντα καὶ διὰ τούτων ἀποτελεῖ. καὶ.
παρελάσσῃ. γὰρ περὶ γῆς εἴρηκε πολλὰ καὶ περὶ
οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ
133 sq. :— ἄστρων, καὶ γένεσιν ἀνθρώπων ἀφή-
elon δ᾽ aidepinv te φύσιν τά τ᾽ ἐν γηται καὶ οὐδὲν ἄῤῥητον. .. τῶν
αἰθέρι πάντα κυρίων παρῆκεν. In vy. 141, the Py-
σήματα καὶ καθαρᾶς εὐαγέος ἠελίοιο thagorean distinction of οὐρανὸς.
λαμπάδος ἔργ᾽ ἀΐδηλα καὶ ὅππόθεν and éAvumos is seen, as has been
ἐξεγένοντο, already observed, p. 471, 2. In
ἔργα τε κύκλωπος πεύσῃ περίφοιτα Stobzeus (vide following note), that
σελήνης part of the sky which lies nearest
καὶ φύσιν" εἰδήσεις δὲ καὶ οὐρανὸν to the earth is called οὐρανὸς,
ἀμφὶς ἔχοντα whereas in v. 137, οὐρανὸς is the
ἔνθεν ἔφυ καὶ ὥς μιν ἄγουσ᾽ ἐπέδησεν extreme limit of the universe.
ἀνάγκη Stein, p. 798 sq., unnecessarily
πείρατ᾽ ἔχειν ἄστρων, refers y. 133-139 to Empedocles.
598 PARMENIDES.

tion of his doctrine, however, has been transmitted to

us in a very imperfect state. In his description of
the universe, he allies himself with the Pythagorean
system, though he does not invariably follow it. He
conceives the universe as compounded of several globes
or circles! placed around each other. The innermost
and outermost of these consist of the dense and dark
element, and form the fixed kernel and external wall of
the universe. Around the innermost circles, and be-
neath the outermost circle, lie circles of pure fire; in
the intermediate region between them, are circles com-
posed of the dark and the fiery element mixed.? By

1 It is not clear from the au- τον πασῶν [sc. στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν],
thorities (vide following note), περὶ ὃν (1.6) πάλιν πυρώδης. τῶν
which of the two is intended. The δὲ συμμιγῶν τὴν μεσαιτάτην ἁπάσαις
expression στεφάνη which Parme- τουκέα (Davis commenting on
nides uses would point to the idea Cie. NV. D. i. 11, substitutes this
of circular bands. But as the for τε καὶ ; Krische proposes αἰτίαν,
outermost of these circles, the con- in accordance with Parm. v. 129—
cave vault of heaven, in accordance, vide sup. p. 595, 2—we might con-
not only with our perceptions, but jecture instead of ἅπάσαις τε καὶ:
with Parmenides’ doctrine of Being ἀρχὴν τόκου τε καὶ) πάσης κινήσεως
(supra, p. 587, 589), must be con- καὶ γενέσεως ὑπάρχειν, ἥντινα καὶ
ceived as spherical (for which rea- δαίμονα καὶ κυβερνῆτιν καὶ κληροῦχον
son it is called in v. 137, οὐρανὸς ἐπονομάζει, δίκην τε καὶ ἀνάγκην.
ἀμφὶς ἔχων), and as the earth (Cf. 595, 2.) καὶ τῆς μὲν γῆς τὴν
(according to 598, 2) must also be ἀπόκρισιν εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, διὰ τὴν
a sphere, it is difficult to say what βιαιοτέραν αὐτῆς ἐξατμισθέντα πί-
the intermediate layers can be λησιν, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τὸν
except hollow globes. (Cf., how- ἥλιον καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον"
ever, the observations on p. 445, 1.) συμμιγῆῇ δ᾽ ἐὲξ ἀμφοῖν εἶναι τὴν
2 Stob. Hel. 1. 482 (the com- σελήνην τοῦ τ᾽ ἀέρος καὶ τοῦ πυρός.
mencement is also ap. Plut. Place. περιστάντος δὲ ἀνωτάτω πάντων
ii, 7, 1 aanlen;c. 11, p. 267): τοῦ αἰθέρος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ πυρῶδες
στεφάνας εἶναι περιπεπλεγμένας ὑποταγῆναι, τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ κεκλήκαμεν
ἐπαλλήλους, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ οὐρανὸν, bp’ οὗ ἤδη τὰ περίγεια.
τὴν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ" μικτὰς δὲ This account (in the interpretation
ἄλλας ἐκ φωτὸς καὶ σκότους μεταξὺ of which Krische, Forsch. 101 sqq.,
τούτων' καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ πάσας seems to me to have best suc-
τείχους δίκην στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὑφ᾽ ceeded, and to have essentially
ᾧ πυρώδης στεφάνη, καὶ τὸ μεσαίτα- improved on. that of Brandis,
 COSMOLOGY, 599°

the outermost of these circles we must understand the

vault of heaven conceived as fixed;! by the circle of
fire under this, the circumambient fire of the Pytha-
goreans; the fixed circle in the centre can only be the
earth, which we are elsewhere told Parmenides consi-
dered to be a globe at rest in the midst of the universe.’
According to this, the circle of fire surrounding it must
be the air which, as contrasted with the earth, might
well be described as the rare and the luminous.’ Be-
tween these two extreme points is the heaven of fixed
stars.* How the particular spheres were placed in these,
and whether Parmenides departed from the opinion
usually held as to their succession, cannot be determined
Comment. 160 sqq., and Karsten, an equilibrium, and does not move,
241 sqq.) is partially confirmed because it is equidistant from all
by fhe confused statement of parts of the universe. When
Cicero, NV. D.i. 11, 28, nam Par- Schafer (Astron. Geogr. d. Griechen,
menides quidem commenticium quid- Flensb. 1873, p. 12 sq.) says, fol-
dam coronae similitudine efficit : lowing the precedent of Schaubach
Stephanen aadpellat, continente and Forbiger, that Parmenides as-
ardore lucis orbem, qui cingit, cribed to the earth the form of a
coeum, quem adpellat Deum (this disc, and not of a sphere, he for-
is either wholly false, or an entire gets that the statement of Dioge-
misapprehension of some genuine nes originates with Theophrastus.
passage) but especially by v. 126 Theophrastus, according to Diog.
of Parmenides :— vill. 48, asserted of Parmenides:
ai yap στεινότεραι [sc. στεφάναι πρῶτον ὄνομάσι Thy γῆν στρογγύλην;
πεποίηντο πυρὸς ἀκρίτοιο, στρογγύλην must here mean, as it
αἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταῖς νυκτὸς, μετὰ δὲ φλογὸς does with Plato, Phedo, 97 D (πό-
ἴεται αἶσα. τερον ἢ γῆ πλατεῖά ἐστιν h στρογ-
ἐν δὲ μέσῳ, &e. γυλη), the spherical form, as Par-
menides was by no means the first
(Supra, p. 595, 2). Cf. ν. 118 sqq., philosopher who thought the earth
supra 592, 3. was a round dise.
! ἔσχατος Ὄλυμπος, as it is 3 This especially, and not heat,
called in v. 141. appears also in v. 116 sq. (vide
2 Diog. ix. 21: πρῶτος δ᾽ οὗτος sup. Ὁ. 592, 4), as the distinguishing
τὴν γῆν ἀπέφηνε σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν characteristic of the fire of Parme-
μέσῳ κεῖσθαι. Plut. Ρίαο. iii. 15, nides ; he even calls it ἤπιον.
7. Parmenides and Democritus 4 Called ap. Stobeeus, J. ¢., πυ-
maintain that the earth is kept in pa@des and οὐρανός.
 500 PARMENIDES.

with certainty.! This is also the case with other astro-

nomical and cosmological theories attributed to him.?
In the midst of the universe * the goddess that rules it
? Stob. i. 518, says : Π. πρῶτον δὲ τῷ ἡλιῷ, καὶ γὰρ am’ αὐτοῦ φωτί-
μὲν τάττει Tov ‘E@ov, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ ζεσθαι (this also ap. Parm. y. 144
νυμιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ “Ἕσπερον, 8q.), where, however, we must either
ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι: μεθ᾽ ὃν τὸν ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ omit yap, which is wanting in the
τοὺς ἐν τῷ πυρώδει ἀστέρας, ὕπερ other texts, or we must suppose
οὐρανὸν καλεῖ (cf. p. 570). If this that ἴσην with Parmenides did not
representation is correct, we might refer to the magnitude, but to the
suppose that Parmenides had placed orbit of the moon. (Karsten, p.
the milky way highest, after the 284.) The opinion of Parme-
steadfast are of heaven, and the nides on the nature of the stars
other fixed stars lowest; the pla- is thus expressed by Stob. i.
nets, sun and moon, between the 510; he regarded them (like He-
two. Itis questionable, however, racleitus, Xenophanes, Anaximan-
whether the informant of Stobzeus der and others) as πιλήματα πυρὸς,
derived his statements from ac- that is, fiery masses of vapour,
curate knowledge of Parmenides’ which are nourished by the evapo-
poem, or constructed for himself, ration from the earth (if this is
from the verses quoted p. 598, 2, and truly reported of him). The iden-
from other passages, an astronomi- tity of the morning and evening
cal system, far transcending Par- star, on which he certainly must
menides’ own doctrine. Cf. Krische, have given some opinion, was, ac-
p- 110. cording to some authors, discovered
2 According to Stob. i. 484 by him (Diog. ix. 23; ef. vili. 14 ;
(sup. p. 598, 2), 524, he ascribed to Suidas, “Eomepos); others ascribe
the milky way and to the sun a this discovery to Pythagoras (vide
a
fiery nature, and to the moon a sup. p. 458, 1). Also the division of
mixed nature; but as all three be- the earth into five zones, the author
long to the mixed spheres, there of which is sometimes said to be
could only be question of more or Parmenides (Posidon. ap. Strabo,
less of the fiery or of the dark ele- 11. 2, 2, p. 94; Ach. Tat. ad. Arat.
ment. In p. 574 (Plac. 111. 1, 6; c..3]1, p. 157 Ο; Plut. fig
Galen. c. 17, p. 285), Stobeeus says 11, 4), is by others attributed to
that the colour of the milky way the Pythagoreans (sup. p. 480, 2),
arises from the mixture of the who might indeed have arrived at
dense and the rare, and he makes it through Parmenides.
Parmenides (s. 564) account for the 3 Stob. (sup. p. 598, 2) says, in
face in the moon from this cause. the centre of the mixed spheres.
According to p. 532, Parmenides This statement is rightly explained
thought the sun and moon were by Krische, Forsch. 105 sq., asa
produced from the milky way—the misunderstanding of τούτων in v.
sun from the rarer, the moon from 128, quoted sup. p. 595, 2. Also
the denser part of its admixture, Simpl. Phys. 8 a, says of Parme-
In p. 550 (Plac. ii. 26, parall.) we nides : ποιητικὸν αἴτιον... ἕν κοινὸν,
find ; Tl. πυρίνην [τὴν σελήνην] ἴσην τὴν ἐν μέσῳ πάντων ἱδρυμένην καὶ
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 601

—the parent of the gods and of all things (vide supra)

—has her dwelling place. She undoubtedly corresponds
to the central fire of the Pythagoreans, the mother of
the gods and former of the world.
Besides these cosmological notions, we have some
anthropological theories handed down to us as those of
Parmenides. He seems to have conceived the begin-
ning of the human race as a development from primitive
slime, brought about by the heat of the sun;! and his
opinion on this subject has therefore been identified
with that of Empedocles.2 What he says on the differ-
ence of the sexes? and the origin of this difference in
generation is unimportant.* It is of more consequence
πάσης γενέσεως αἰτίαν δαίμονα τίθη- ap. Simpl. Phys., 9 a, mentioned p.
ow, and similarly lambl. Theol. 448, 2, 3rd ed., can justify us in
Arithm.p. 8, after a mention of the attributing to Parmenides. We
central fire: ἐοίκασι δὲ κατά γε must rather understand with Kar-
ταῦτα κατηκολυθηκέναι τοῖς Πυθαγο- sten, p. 257,
a production by means
ρείοις οἵ τε περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέα καὶ of the sun'sheat. Plutarch (vide
Παρμενίδην... . φάμενοι τὴν μονα- sup. p. 597,3) also says that Par-
δικὴν φύσιν Ἑστίας τρόπον ἐν μέσῳ menides spoke of the origin of men.
ἱδρύσθα. The opposite view οὗ 2 Cens. Di, Nat. 4, 8, after
Apelt. Parm. et Emp. doctrina de having quoted the famous opinion
mundi structura (Jena, 1857), p. of Empedocles: haec eadem opinio
5 sqq-, I cannot agree with. etiam in Parmenide Veliensi fuit,
' Diog. ix.22 says, probably after pauculis exceptis ab Empedocle dis-
Theophrastus : γένεσιν ἀνθρώπων ἐξ sensis (dissentientibus? cf. on this
ἡλίου πρῶτον γενέσθαι; but instead subject pp. 256, 296, 569). |
of ἡλίου we should probably read 3 Although he regarded the
ἰλύος, with the Basle edition and fiery element as the nobler, he yet
many modern writers; or, accord- held that women were of warmer
ing to Steinhart’s conjecture (Allg. nature than men: hence their more
Ene. l, e. 242), ἡλίου τε Kal ἰλύος. sanguine temperament, etc. (Arist.
But even if we accept ἡλίου, we Part. Anim. ii. 2, 648 a, 28; ef.
need not adopt with Krische, Forsch. Gener. Anim. iv. 1, 765 b, 19).
105, the idea of the production of For this reason, at the first form-
souls out of the sun—a conception ing of mankind, he represents men
which can hardly he in the words, as originating in the north, and
and which neither the supposed women in the south, Plut. Plac. v.
precedent of the Pythagoreans 7, 2; Galen, c. 32, p. 324.
(sup. p. 476, 2), nor the utterance, * According to vy. 150, boys
602 PARMENIDES.

to us to learn that he derived the phenomena of the.

life of the soul, perception and reflection, from the
mixture of substances in the body. He supposed that
each of the two primitive substances is sensible of that
which is akin to it, and that therefore the notions and
thoughts of men are of this or that nature, recollec-
tions remain or are lost, according as the warm or cold
element predominates in the body: he sought the cause
of life and of intelligence in the warm element ;! but
even where this is entirely absent, as in the corpse,
there must still be sensation; only that sensation is
then to be referred, not to light and heat, but’ to the
cold, dark element.’ We see from this that even Par-
proceed from the right side, and also explained sleep and age as re-
girls from their left of the organs sulting from the deeline of warmth.
in both sexes; the statement, ap. Tert. De An. ὁ. 48; Stob. Floril.
Plut. Place. vy. 11, 2, and Cens. Di. 115, 29.
Nat. 6, 8, that children derived from 2 Parm.v. 146 sqq.:—
the right side resemble their fa- ὡς γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ἔχει κρᾶσις μελέων
ther, and those from the left their πολυκάμπτων,
mother, is a mere misunderstand- τὼς νόος ἀνθρώποισι παρέστηκεν" τὸ
ing. What Censorinus says, 6. 6, γὰρ αὐτὸ
5; ef. 5, 4, is more likely to be ἐστὶν ὅπερ φρονέει μελέων φύσις
true, viz., that the seed of both ἀνθρώποισι
parents struggles for the mastery, καὶ πᾶσιν καὶ παντί: τὸ γὰρ πλέον
and the child resembles whichever ἐστὶ νόημα.
part is victorious. The verses (a
Latin version, ap. Coel. Aurelian, De The best elucidation of this frag-
Morb. Chron. iv. 9, p. 545, v. 150 ment is given by Theophrastus, De
sqq. Karst.) are also to be con- Sensu, 3 sq.: Παρμ. μὲν γὰρ ὅλως
sidered genuine, which attribute a οὐδὲν ἀφώρικεν (he did not treat of
right constitution of body to the each of the senses separately) ἀλλὰ
harmonious blending of male and μόνον, ὅτι δυοῖν ὄντοιν στοιχείοιν
female seed, and malformations and κατὰτὸ ὑπερβάλλον ἐστὶν ἢ γνῶσι"
blemishes to their strife. The ἐὰν γὰρ ὑπεραίρῃ τὸ θερμὸν ἢ τὸ
statement in the Plac. v. 7, 4, on ψυχρὸν, ἄλλην γίνεσθαι τὴν διάνοιαν"
the origin of the difference of the βελτίω δὲ καὶ καθαρωτέραν τὴν διὰ
sexes, is certainly incorrect. τὸ θερμόν: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ταύτην
' Stob. Hel. i. 796, therefore δεῖσθαί τινος συμμετρίας" @s γὰρ ἑκά-
says, adopting later terminology, στῳ, φησίν ete. τὸ γὰρ αἰσθάνε-
Παρμενίδης πυρώδη (τὴν ψυχήν). He σθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ λέγει
 ANTHROPOLOGY. 603
menides is still far from discriminating between the
spiritual and the corporeal, and that he does not attempt
to distinguish perception and thought in regard to their
origin and formal character, though he entirely recog-
nises the superiority of the rational assertion to the
sensuous intuition; for that such a view is only enun-
ciated in the second part of his poem is unimportant for
this point. If he had been aware of the distinction, he
would not have passed it over in this place, but would
have sought to explain it from the standpoint of ordi-
nary opinion.! But he has instituted no further enquiries
into the nature of opinion, and of the activity of the soul.”

διὸ καὶ τὴν μνήμην Kal τὴν λήθην position asserts that of the two
ἀπὸ τούτων γίνεσθαι διὰ τῆς κράσεως. elements, the one that prepon-
ἂν δ᾽ ἰσάζωσι τῇ μίξει πότερυν ἔσται derates and overcomes is thought,
φρονεῖν ἢ od, καὶ τίς 7 διάθεσις, which engenders and determines
οὐδὲν ἔτι διώρικεν: ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῷ opinions. On account of this
ἐναντίῳ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν, theory, Theophrastus reckons
φανερὸν ἐν οἷς φησι τὸν νεκρὸν φω- Parmenides among those philo-
τὸς μὲν καὶ θερμοῦ καὶ φωνῆς οὐκ sophers who regard perception as
αἰσθάνεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἔκλειψιν τοῦ πυ- produced by that which is of like
ρὸς, ψυχροῦ δὲ καὶ σιωπῆς καὶ τῶν kind.
ἐναντίων αἰσθάνεσθαι: καὶ ὅλως δὲ 1 Theophrastus says: τὸ αἰσθά-
πᾶν τὸ ὃν ἔχειν τινὰ γνῶσιν. Cf. νεσθαι καὶ τὸ φρονεῖν ὡς ταὐτὸ
Alex. ἐπ Metaph. 1009 b, 21, who λέγει; Arist. Metaph. iv. 5, 1009
concludes his commentary on the b, 12, 21, reckons Parmenides
verse with the words (p. 263, 22 among those who considered φρό-
Bon.): τὸ yap πλέον λέγεται νόημα; νησις to be the same as αἴσθησις ;
ὡς γὰρ (2) τοῦ φρονεῖν ἤρτημένου and Diog. ix. 22, following Theo-
τῆς σωματικῆς κράσεως καὶ ἀεὶ phrastus, and agreeing with Stob.
κατὰ τὸ πλεογάζον καὶ ἐπικρατοῦν 1. 790, tells us τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸν
ἐν τῇ σωματικῇ διαθέσει αὐτοῦ γε- νοῦν ταὐτὸν εἶναι (Il. ἀπέφηνε).
γνομένουι Ritter, i. 495, translates This is, as ἃ matter of fact, quite
πλέον as the full; Hegel, Gesch. d. correct; but we must remember
Phil. i. 277, the most ;Brandis, Gr. that he did not observe the dis-
Rom. Phil. i. 392, the mightier; tinction between perception and
Steinhart, ὦ. c. 243, the prepon- thought, and consequently did not
derant fiery. It rather signifies, expressly deny it; and that inv.
however, as Theophrastus rightly 148, perception is included under
explains, τὸ ὑπερβάλλον, the pre- the word φρονέει.
ponderating, and the whole pro- 2 Cf. p. 602, 2. According to
 604 PARMENIDES.

Whether in his physics he inculcated the doctrine

of metempsychosis or of pre-existence is uncertain.?
The statement that he believed in a destruction of the
universe ? seems to be founded on a misunderstanding.®
What significance Parmenides ascribed to his phy-.
Joh. Damase. Parall. ii. 25, 28 Hades. The words of Simplicius,
(Stob. Floril. Ed. Mein. iv. 235), therefore, assert that God sends-
Parmenides, like Empedocles, ac- souls now out of this life, and now
counted for sensation by the theory into it. And though these words,
of pores in the organs of sense. strictly speaking, certainly imply
The name of Parmenides, how- pre-existence, it is still doubtful
ever, is no doubt wrongly placed whether we ought so to interpret
in this connection ; it is absent ap. them, and not as a poetical mode-
Plut. Place. iv. 9, 3, and Galen, 6. of expression. At the same time;
14, p. 303. Ib. No. 80, we find it is quite possible that Parmenides-
Tlapu. ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς ἐλλείψει τροφῆς may have adopted in his exposition
τὴν ὄρεξιν, a notice on which, even of the ordinary theories the doc-
if it is true, nothing could be based : trine of transmigration. Also the
for Karsten’s explanation (p. 269) expression στυγερὸς τόκος (Parm.
that desire arises when one of the v. 129, sup. p. 595, 2) does not
elements is present in too small necessarily, as Ritter thinks, ex-
measure, is very uncertain. Lastly, press that it would be better for
Plut. Plac. iv. 5, 5, says: TI. ἐν men not to be born: it may simply
ὅλῳ τῷ θώρακι (τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν) καὶ refer to birth pangs. πάντη al-
Ἐπίκουρος, but this is evidently a ready carries us beyond our human
mere inference from some saying world.
of Parmenides, and not the saying 2 Hippol. Refut. i. 11: τὸν
itself. κόσμον ἔφη φθείρεσθαι, ᾧ δὲ τρόπῳ,
‘Simpl. Phys. 9 a. says of οὐκ εἶπεν.
- Parmenides’ Deity: «al τὰς ψυχὰς 3. As the Philosophumenathem-
πέμπειν ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ TOD ἐμφανοῦς selves say that Parmenides did not
εἰς τὸ ἀειδὲς, ποτὲ δὲ ἀνάπαλίν give his opinion particularly on
φησι. Ritter, i. 510, and Karsten, the destruction of the world, it is
p- 272 sqq., understand this to probable that the statement has
mean that ἐμφανὲς was the light no other foundation than the clos-
or wether, and ἀειδὲς the dark or ing verse of Parmenides’ poem :-—
the terrestrial world; and that, οὕτω τοι κατὰ δόξαν ἔφυ τάδε νῦν
accordingly, Parmenides regarded τε ἔασι,
birth as a sinking from the higher καὶ μετέπειτ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦδε τελευτήσουσι
world, and death as a return to it. τραφέντα"
But the expressions ἐμφανὲς and τοῖς δ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ ἄνθρωποι κατέθεντ᾽
ἄειδὲς do not signify the light and ἐπίσημον ἑκάστῳ.
the dark, but that which is manifest
to us, and that which is hidden; These verses, however, seem to
the one consequently the upper refer to the destruction of indi-
world, and the other the lower, viduals and not of the universe.
 PHYSICS. 605

sics is a point on which opinions have been divided

from the earliest times.’ Some suppose that in them
we have throughout only the standpoint of delusive
opinion, and not the personal convictions of. the philo-
sopher. Others think that he did not intend to deny
all truth to the world of phenomena as such, but only
to discriminate its divided and variable Being from the
One and undivided Being of true existence. This second
theory has had many advocates in modern times,? but I
cannot support it. Parmenides himself declares too ex-
plicitly that he acknowledges only the one unchangeable
essence as a reality ; that he does not concede a particle
of truth to the ordinary notion which shows us plurality
and change ; and that, consequently, in the second part
of his poem he is stating the opinions of others, and not
his own convictions.? Aristotle apprehended his doctrine
1 The opinions of the ancients spheres, but it never occurred to
are given most fully by Brandis, him to regard the Phenomenon as
Comm. El. 149 sqq.; ef. Gr. Rom. deceptive appearance. Cf. Ritter,
Phil, i. 394 sqq.; and also by Kar- i. 499 sqq. According to the
sten, p. 143 sqq. I have not Eleatics we can never grasp divine
thought it necessary to discuss truth except in a few general pro-
them, as the judgment of Aristo- positions ;when, according to man’s
tle, which we shall presently usual method of thinking, we as-
examine, must, after all, be con- sume plurality and change, this is
clusive for us. only falsehood and deception of the
2 Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. senses. On the other hand, we
Phil. 63. ‘But the truth is that must acknowledge that even in
all this holds good only of abso- what appears as Many and Change
lute Being; and, therefore, the the Divine exists, although veiled
Plurality is not a plurality of ab- and misapprehended.
solute Being,’ ete.; Karsten, 145: * Cf. on this point the Te
ille nec unam amplexus est verita- tions sup. pp. 584, 1; 587,2;
2 604,
tem, née sprevit omnino opiniones; 3; especially the verses with which
neutrum exclusit, utrigue suum the first part of his poem, the doc-
tribuit locum. Parmenides (ef. p. trine of Being, concludes, v. 110
149) distinguished the eternal re ᾿ΕΤΕ,
from the mutable, without exactly ἐν τῷ σοι παύω πιστὸν λόγον ἠδὲ
defining the relation of the two »
606 PARMENIDES.

in this same way;! Plato tells us? that in contradict-

ing the ordinary view, Zeno was entirely at one with
his master; and it is entirely beyond question that
Zeno absolutely denied plurality and change. It may
seem strange, on this view of the matter, that Parme-
nides should not only give a detailed account of
opinions which he considers altogether worthless, but
should construct a specific theory from their point of
view ; it may also seem unlikely that he should entirely
deny the truth of the sense perception, and that’ in his
few propositions concerning the One, which are rather
negative than positive, he should believe himself to
have exhausted the whole of the truth. But what else
could be said, and how could he express himself dif-
ferently on the subject of reality, having once started
from the proposition that only Being is, and that non-
Being is absolutely, and in all respects, non-existent,
when he had not attained to those more precise
dialectical distinctions with which Plato and Aristotle
afterwards opposed his doctrine? His reason for never-
theless entering at length upon the consideration of the
world of phenomena is sufficiently explained by himself:
ἀμφὶς ἀληθείης᾽ δόξας δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦδε Similarly, Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 325
βροτείας a, 2. He then proceeds to mention
μάνθανε, κόσμον ἐμῶν ἐπέων ararn- the determinations of the world of
λὸν ἀκούων. phenomena, and praises Parme-
nides for having extended his ob-
1 Cf. the passages quoted, sup. servations to that world also
p. 561, 3; 587, 3; and De Celo, (Metaph. i. 5, sup. p. 592, 1), but
jii. i. 298 b, 14: of μὲν γὰρ this is not to the purpose, for
αὐτῶν ὅλως ἄνεῖλον γένεσιν καὶ nothing is said by him of the re-
φθοράν: οὐθὲν γὰρ οὔτε γίγνεσθαί lation in which Parmenides placed
φασιν οὔτε φθείρεσθαι τῶν ὄντων. the Phenomenon and Reality.
ἀλλὰ μόνον δοκεῖν ἡμῖν. οἷον of 2 Parm. 128 A.
περὶ Μέλισσόν τε καὶ Παρμενίδην. 8 Ritter, l. 6.
 PHYSICS. 607

he purposes not to overlook even hostile opinions.! The

reader is to have both theories set before him, the true
and the false, in order that he may the more surely de-
cide for the true. The false theory of the universe is not
indeed not represented as it is actually found with any
of the previous philosophers, but as, according to the
opinion of Parmenides, it ought to be expressed. This,
however, we find in other ancient authors. Plato often
corrects the opinions that he combats, both as to their
content and the manner of apprehending them. Thu-
cydides does not put into the mouth of his characters
what they really said, but what he would have said in
their place. Parmenides adopts the same dramatic
procedure; he represents the ordinary view of the world
as he himself would regard it if he placed himself on
that standpoint, but his design is not to expound his
own opinions, but those of others; his whole physical
theory has a merely hypothetical import. It is designed
to show us how the world of phenomena would present
itself to us if we could regard it as a reality. But it
is clear from the exposition that the world of phe-
nomena can only be explained on the theory of two
primitive elements, one corresponding to Being, and
the other to non-Being ; and consequently, that it pre-
supposes at all points the Being of non-Being. And
therefore it is the more evident that the world of phe-
nomena itself, as distinct from the One and eternal
Being, has no claim to Reality. Parmenides, however,
did not attempt that thorough dialectical refutation of
the ordinary mode of presentation, which, we are told
1 V. 121 (sup. p. 597, 3).
008 ZENO.

by the most trustworthy testimonies, was the special

achievement of Zeno.! When a dialectical procedure
of this kind, therefore, is ascribed to Parmenides by
later writers,? they are confusing him with Zeno: only
the beginnings of such a method can be recognised in
his argument against the Being of non-Being.

ZENO.

ParMENIDES had developed the Eleatic doctrine to a

point beyond which it could not be materially carried.
It only remained for his successors to defend his views as
opposed to the ordinary presentation, and to establish
them more precisely in their particular details. The
more minutely, however, the relation of the two stand-
points was considered, the more distinctly must their
entire incompatibility, and the inability of the Eleatic
doctrine to explain phenomena, have appeared. On
the other hand, where an understanding with ordinary
opinion was attempted, the purity of the definitions
concerning Being must have immediately suffered. To
have seen this constitutes the merit of Zeno and
Melissus. For the rest, these two philosophers are
agreed both with each other and with Parmenides.
The only difference between them’is that Zeno, who
far excelled Melissus in dialectic ability, maintained
1 Authorities will be cited be- Favorin. ap. Diog. ix. 23, ascribes
low; for the present it is sufficient to him the Achilles puzzle, and
to recall Plato, Parm. 128 A sqq. Porph. ap. Simpl. Phys. 30 a (vide
2 According to Sext. Math. vii. p. 548), the argument from bi-
5 sq., some wished to reckon him section. We shall find, however,
not only among the Physicists, but that both belong to Zeno. Cf. p.
also among the ODialecticians. 690, 1.
 HIS WRITINGS. 609

the standpoint of his master uncompromisingly, and in

sharp opposition to the ordinary view; while Melissus,
with less acuteness of intellect, approached somewhat
more nearly to the ordinary view, and diverged in some
not unimportant respects from the doctrine of Parme-
nides.
Zeno,' the intimate friend and disciple of Par-
1 Zeno of Elea, the son of Te- need not be taken in ἃ bad sense.
leutagoras (Diog. ix. 25, vide p. According to Apollodor. ap. Diag.
580, i), according to Plato (Parm. l. c. Zeno had been the adopted son
127 B) was twenty-five years of Parmenides. Though this is
younger than Parmenides, and at quite possible in itself, yet Platc’s
an epoch which must have been silence on the matter makes us
about 455-450 B.c., forty years old. suspect that ‘adopted son’ may
This would imply that he was born have been substituted for favour-
about 495-490 B.c., and in Ol. 70 ite, in order to obviate miscon-
or 71. This indication, however, struction of this relationship: and
as already observed (loc. cit.), is the misapprehended expression.
hardly to be regarded as histori- Soph. 241 D, may also have related
callyaccurate. Suidas places Zeno’s to this. Zeno shares with Parme-
prime in the 78th ΟἹ. ; Diog. ix. nides the honourable designation
29, in the 79th; Eusebius, in his of an ἀνὴρ Πυθαγόρειος (Strabo, vi.
Chron., inthe 80th Olympiad. But 1, i. p. 252) and the glory of hay-
these statements are not always ing promoted law and order in
very definite, and it is sometimes Elea. He is praised in Diog. ix.
questionable whether they are 28 for having, from attachment to
based upon actual tradition, or are his home, spent his whole life in
merely inferences drawn from Hlea without once visiting Athens
Plato, or derived from a calcula- (οὐκ ἐπιδημήσας τὸ παράπαν πρὸ“
tion (Diel’s Rhein. Mus. xxxi. 35) αὐτούς). But this statement can
which makes Zeno forty years hardly be true. For if the First
younger than his master, whose Alcibiades be too doubtful a source
ἀκμὴ was placed in O1.69. It can to guarantee the fact (119 A) that
only be stated with certainty. that Pythodorus and Callias each paid
Zeno was born about the beginning 100 mine to Zeno for his instruc-
of the fifth century, and appeared tions, which Callias must certainly
as a teacher and author consider- have received in Athens, Plutarch,
ably before the middle of that Per. c. 4, ce. 5, tells us of a residence
century. His relation to Parme- of Zeno in Athens, durirg which
nides is described as very intimate; Pericles associated with him; and
Plato, 7. c., says he was reported to this fact may have given occasion
have been his favourite (παιδικά). to Plato’s story of the visit of Par-
Athen. xi, 505 sq. takes great of- menides to that city. Zeno is said
fence at this statement; but it to have displayed great firmness
VOL. I. RR
610 ZENO.

menides, seems to have agreed with him on all points.

Plato, at any rate, expressly says that he sought in his
under tortures, inflicted on him in in regard to it. Whether the
consequence of a rebellion against allusion ap. Arist. Rhet. i. 12, 312
a tyrant in which he had been b, 3, refers to this event, and what
implicated. The occurrence itself is the true explanation of it, we do
is abundantly attested: by Herac- not know. Plato mentions a work
lides, Demetrius, Antisthenes, Her- which Zeno composed in his early
mippus and others, ap. Diog. ix. life (Parm. 127 C sqq.) as if it
26 sq.; Diodor. Exe. Ὁ. 557; Wess. were his only known work (it is
Plut. Garrulit. c. 8, p. 505; Sto. called simply τὰ Ζήνωνος γράμματα,
Rep. 37, 3, p. 1051; Adv. Col. 32, τὸ σύγγραμμα). Simpl. (Phys. 80
10, p. 1126; Philo, Qu. Omn. Pr. a) also mentions a work (το σύγ-
Lib. 881 Ο f. Hosch.; Clemens, γραμμαὶ) apparently the same spoken
Strom. iv. 496 C; Cie. Tuse. ii. of by Plato. It was devoted to
9.9. 52%! ONS =Dy i. 38; 822 Val: a polemic against the ordinary
Max. iii. 3, 2 sq.; Tert. <Apo- view, refuting by inference the
loget. c. 50; Amm. Mare. xiv. 9; presuppositions of that stand-point.
Philostr. V. Apoll. vii. 2; Suidas, It was divided into several parts
*EAéa, ete. The more precise (called λόγοι by Plato), and each
details, however, are variously part into different sections (called
given. Most of our. authorities by Plato ὑποθέσεις, and by Simpl.
make Elea the scene of the event; ἐπιχειρήματα), in each of which one
Valerius says Agrigentum, Philo- of the hypotheses of the ordinary
stratus, Mysia; Ammianus, con- point of view was designed to be
founding Zeno with Anaxarchus, reduced ad absurdum (Proclus in
Cyprus. The tyrant is called some- Parm. iv. 100 Cous., who by
times Diomedon, sometimes Demy- λόγοι understands the several ar-
lus, sometimes Nearchus ; Valerius guments, and by ὑποθέσεις the
names Phalaris; Tertullian, Diony- premisses of the several conclu-
sius. Some assert that Zeno gave sions; he speaks of 40 λόγοι, and
up his friends to the tyrant; can hardly have seen Zeno’s work.
others that, in order to betray no David, Schol. in Arist. 22 ὦ, 34
one, he bit out his own tongue; sqq., no doubt copies from him).
others that he bit off the tyrant’s That the work was in prose,.we
ear. As to the manner of his know from Plato, and from the
death also, there is much division extracts in Simplicius. It is no
of opinion. According to Diogenes, doubt identical with the book al-
the tyrant was killed; according luded to in Arist. Soph. Fl. ¢. 10,
to Diodorus, Zeno was set free. Va- 170 Ὁ, 22, in the words, καὶ 6
lerius represents the occurrence as ἀποκρινόμενος καὶ ὃ ἐρωτῶν Ζήνων;
happening twice, first to this Zeno, for even though there might be
and afterwards to a namesake of questions and answers in this book,
his (cf. Bayle, Dict. Zenon d Eleée, yet it need not have been on that
Rem. C). Although therefore the account an actual dialogue, and
occurrence seems to be historical. Zeno need not have been the first
nothing further can be determined author of the dialogue, as Diog.
 PHYSICS. 611

writings to refute the plurality of things, and by this

means to prove indirectly the unity of all Being main-
tained by Parmenides.! Thus his conception of Being
must have been, in general, the same as that of his
master. What we are told of his physical propositions,
also, in part coincides with the hypothetical physics of
Parmenides. As some of these statements, however,
are manifestly untrue, and as our most trustworthy
authorities never quote a single physical theory of
Zeno’s, it is most probable that he did not pursue
further this portion of the doctrine of Parmenides.?
111. 48, asserts with the prefix of been acquainted with it. Simplicius
φάσι. Aristotle himself, if we may himself, howeyer, had probably
judge from this passage of Diog. something more than extracts from
and Athen. xi. 503 c, did not it, although (vide p. 21 b) he
designate him as such. That may not have been quite certain
Zeno wrote many books does not that his text was complete. At
follow from the use of the plural p- 181 a, he is quoting only from
βιβλία ap. Diog. ix. 26, for this Eudemus.
may refer to the several parts of 1 Parm. 127 ἘΠ: ἄρα τοῦτό
his one known work. On the ἐστιν ὃ βούλονταί σου οἱ λόγοι, οὐκ
other hand, Suidas names four ἄλλο τι ἢ διαμάχεσθαι παρὰ πάντα
writings ἔριδες, ἐξήγησις “Eumedox- τὰ λεγόμενα, ὧς οὐ πολλά ἐστι; καὶ
λέους, πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους, π. τούτου αὐτοῦ οἴει σοι τεκμήριον εἶναι
φύσεως. Of the ἐξήγησις Ἔμπεδοκ- ἕκαστον τῶν λόγων, ὥστε καὶ ἥγεῖϊ
λέους, which, however, is certainly τοσαῦτα τεκμήρια παρέχεσθαι ὅσους
spurious, we find traces elsewhere, περ λόγους γέγραφας, ὡς οὐκ ἔστι
vide p. 612. The three others, πολλά: Οὐκ. ἀλλὰ, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα,
mentioned only by Eudocia, may καλῶς συνῆκας ὅλον τὸ γράμμα ὃ
be merely different names for the βούλεται. Socrates on this remarks
book we have already spoken of. that Parmenides and Zeno say the
Stallbaum’s proposal however(Plut. same, the former directly, the
Parm. p. 30) to read ἔγραψεν ἔριδας latter indirectly. σὺ μὲν γὰρ
πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους περὶ φύσεως, (Parm.) ἐν τοῖς ποιήμασιν ἕν φὴς
in Suidas, not only contradicts tbe εἶναι τὸ πᾶν... ὅδε δὲ αὖ οὐ πολλά
received text, but disagrees entirely φησιν εἶναι, and Zeno practically
with the manner in which Suidas concedes it when he explains more
and similar authors generally cite particularly how he came to com-
the titles of books. According to pose his work (vide p. 613, 1).
Simpl. l.c., Alexanderand Porphyry 2 Our information on this point
cannot have seen Zeno’s work; nor is confined to afew passages. Diog.
does Proclus even seem to have ix. 29, says: ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτῷ rade
RR2
612 ZENO.
*

We can only with certainty ascribe to him those de-

monstrations which are intended to defend Parmenides’
doctrine as opposed to the ordinary presentation.!
κόσμους εἶναι, κενόν τε μὴ εἶναι" written ἃ commentary on the work
γεγενῆσθαι δὲ τὴν τῶν πάντων φύσιν of a contemporary of his own age ;
ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ and next. it is very strange that,
ὑγροῦ, λαμβανόντων εἰς ἄλληλα τὴν if he did so, he should have selected
μεταβολήν: γένεσίν 7 ἀνθρώπων ἐκ not the work of his master, but
γῆς εἶναι καὶ ψυχὴν κρᾶμα ὑπάρχειν one that was so little in harmony
ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων κατὰ μηδενὺς with his own views. Further, it
τούτων ἐπικράτησιν. Stob. Hel. 1. appears from what has been already
60: Μέλισσος καὶ Ζήνων τὸ ev καὶ quoted, p. 610, that Zeno wrote
πᾶν καὶ μόνον ἀΐδιον καὶ ἄπειρον τὸ only one book; and the utter silence
ἕν" καὶ τὸ μὲν ev τὴν ἀνάγκην, ὕλην of Aristotle and his commentators
δὲ αὐτῆς τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, εἴδη as to any physical utterances of
δὲ τὸ νεῖκος καὶ τὴν φιλίαν. λέγει Zeno shows that none were known
δὲ καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα θεοὺς, καὶ τὸ to them. Lastly, it is clear that,
μίγμα τούτων τὸν κόσμον, καὶ πρὸς in Stobzeus, propositions are as-
ταῦτα ἀναλυθήσεται (perhaps Aveo- eribed to Zeno which are entirely
θαι) τὸ μονοειδές" (all that is appa- unknown to him. The same holds
rently of the same kind, as wood, good in part of the statements of
meat, flesh, &c., that which Aris- Diogenes, but the greater number
totle calls ὁμοιομερὲς resolves itself of these are, so far, less improbable,
finally into the four elements) καὶ as they agree with the doctrine of
θείας μὲν οἴεται τὰς ψυχὰς, θείους δὲ Parmenides. Parmenides likewise
καὶ τοὺς μετέχοντας αὐτῶν καθαροὺς denied empty space, held the warm
καθαρῶς. This last exposition re- and cold to be elements, and taught
minds us so much of Empedocles, that mankind arose in the first |
that Heeren (in h. 1.) thought of instance from the earth, and that
substituting the name Empedocles souls were compounded from the
for the singular words ὕλην δὲ elements. The proposition: κόσ-
αὐτῆς. It seems to me the name μους εἶναι, however, cannot have
of Empedocles may have dropped belonged to an Eleatic philosopher,
out, either in that place, as Sturz whether we understand by κόσμοι
(Emped. p. 168) supposes, or more a number of synchronous worlds,
probably (Krische, Forsch. i. 123) or successive worlds; Zeno the
before the words τὸ μὲν ἕν, ete. Or Eleatic seems to be here confounded
perhaps the whole passage may have with Zeno the Stoic; and what is
been taken from the ἐξήγησις Ἔμ- said of the elements bears evidence
πεδοκλέους (p. 609, 1, end), aseribed of the Stoic-Aristotelian doctrine.
to Zeno. But this work cannot have There seems also to have been a
been genuine; it must originally confusion between the two Zenos
have borne the name of Zeno the in Epiph. Exp. Fid. 1087 C: Ζήνων
Stoic. In the first place, itis very 6 ᾿Ἐλεάτης 6 ἐριστικὸς toa τῷ ἑτέρῳ
improbable and wholly without Ζήνωνι καὶ τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον λέγει
precedent in ancient times, that a καὶ μηδένα τόπον κενὸν εἶναι.
philosopher like Zeno should have 1 Stallbaum, Plat. Parm. 25
 DIALECTIC. 619

Zeno adopted for this purpose an indirect method.

Parmenides had derived his determinations of Being
directly from the concept of Being. Zeno proves the
same doctrine indirectly by showing that the opposite
theories involve us in difficulties and contradictions,
and that Being does not admit of our regarding it
as a Plurality, as something divisible and changeable.
He seeks to prove the Eleatic doctrine by reducing the
prevalent mode of presentation to absurdity.’ Because
of this method, which he employed with masterly skill,
Zeno was called by Aristotle the inventor of Dialectic,’
and Plato says that he could make one and the same
appear to his hearers as like and unlike, as one and
many, as in motion and at rest.? Though this Dialectic
afterwards furnished many weapons to the Eristic of
sqq. thinks it was chiefly directed Ζήνωνος πάντων ἐπιλήπτορος, ἠδὲ
against Anaxagoras and Leucippus; Μελίσσου,
but in the demonstrations of Zeno πολλῶν φαντασμῶν ἐπάνω, παύρων
there is nothing that specially γε μὲν εἴσω.
points to either of these men.
1 In the Parm. 25 sqq., Xeno 3 Phedr. 261 D: τὸν οὖν
thus continues: ἔστι δὲ τό γε ᾿Ἐλεατικὸν Παλαμήδην λέγοντα οὐκ
ἀληθὲς βοήθειά τις ταῦτα τὰ γράμ- ἴσμεν τέχνῃ ὥστε φαίνεσθαι τοῖς
ματα τῷ Παρμενίδου λόγῳ πρὸς τοὺς ἀκούουσι τὰ αὐτὰ ὅμοια καὶ ἀνόμοια,
ἐπιχειροῦντας αὐτὸν κωμῳδεῖν, ws εἰ καὶ ἕν καὶ πολλὰ, μένοντά τε αὖ καὶ
ἕν ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ γελοῖα συμβαίνει φερόμενα. That Zeno ishere meant,
πάσχειν τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἐναντία αὑτῷ. and not Alcidamas (as Quintil. 111.
ἀντιλέγει δὴ υὖν τοῦτο τὸ γράμμα 1, 2, thinks), is evident. More-
πρὸς τοὺς τὰ πολλὰ λέγοντας καὶ. over, Plato himself says in Parm.
ἀνταποδίδωσι ταῦτα καὶ πλείω, τοῦτο 127 E: πῶς, φάναι ὦ Ζήνων, τοῦτο
βουλόμενον δηλοῦν, ὡς ἔτι γελοιότερα λέγεις: εἰ πολλά ἐστι τὰ ὄντα, ὡς
πάσχοι ἂν αὐτῶν ἣ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ ἄρα δεῖ αὐτὰ ὅμοιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἂνό-
πολλὰ ἐστιν, ἢ ἢ τοῦ ἕν εἶναι, εἴ τις μοια, τοῦτο δὲ δὴ ἀδύνατον ;. . ..
ἱκανῶς ἐπεξίοι. οὕτω, φάναι τὸν Ζήνωνα. Similarly,
2 Dior. viii. 57; ix. 25; Sext. Isoer. Enc. Hel. sub init.: Ζήνωνα,
Math. vii. 7, cf. Timon ap. Diog. τὸν ταὐτὰ δυνατὰ καὶ πάλιν ἀδύνατα
l. c. (Plut. Pericl. α. 4; Simpl. Phys. πειρώμενον ἀποφαίνειν, for these
236 b):— words no doubt refer, not to any
ἀμφοτερογλώσσου τε μέγα σθένος particular argument, but to Zeno's
οὐκ ἀλαπαδνὸν antinomistic procedure generally.
614 ZENO.
the Sophists, it is itself distinguished from that Eristic!
by its positive object ;and still less, for the same reason,
can it be identified with Scepticism.? The dialectic
argument with Zeno, though it does not altogether dis-
dain Sophistic applications, is never anything but a
means to establish a metaphysic conviction, the doc-
trine of the unity and invariability of Being.
In particular, the arguments of Zeno, so far as we
are acquainted with them, are concerned with multi-
plicity and motion. The arguments against the multi-
plicity of things which have been transmitted to us
have respect to their magnitude, number, Being in
space, and co-operation. The arguments against motion
are likewise four, which Zeno did not arrange in the
best order, nor according to any fixed principle.
I now proceed to examine these arguments collec-
tively :—
A. The Arguments against Multiplicity.
1. If Being were many, it must be at the same
time infinitely small and infinitely great. Infinitely —
small ; for as every plurality is a number of unities, but
a true unity alone is indivisible—so each of the Many
must either itself be an indivisible unity, or be made
up of such unities., That which is indivisible, however,
can have no magnitude; for all that has magnitude is
infinitely divisible. The particular parts of which the
1 With which it is too closely crdinary statement, perhaps, arose
identified by Plut. Per. 4, and ap. from a misunderstanding of some
Eus. Pr. Hv. i. 8, 7; and with passage like that quoted from
which Seneca confuses it, Ep. 88, Aristotie, p. 615, 1.
44 sq., when he attributes to Zeno 2 Which, according to Diog. ix.
the assertion of Gorgias: Nihil 72, laid claim to it. whereas Timon,
esse ne unuin quidem. This extra- l. c., does not.
 AGAINST MULTIPLICITY. 615

many consists have consequently no magnitude. If

they are added to anything it will not become greater,
nor if they are taken away will it become less. But
that which, being added to another, does not make it
greater, and being taken away from another does not
make it less, is nothing. The Many is therefore infinitely
small; for each of its constituent parts is so small that
it is nothing.! On the other hand, however, these parts
1 Simpl. Phys. 30 a: ἐν μέντοι voy ποιεῖ μεῖζον μηδὲ ἔλαττον, οὔ
τῷ συγγράμματι αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἔχοντι φησιν εἶναι τοῦτο τῶν Ὄντων, ὡς
ἐπιχειρήματα καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δείκνυσιν, δῆλον ὅτι ὄντος μεγέθους τοῦ byTos.)
ὅτι τῷ πολλὰ εἶναι λέγοντι συμβαίνει καὶ ταῦτα οὐχὶ τὸ ἐν ἀναιρῶν 6 Ζή-
τὰ ἐναντία λέγειν. ὧν ἕν ἐστιν ἐπι- νων λέγει, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι, εἰ μέγεθος ἔχει
χείρημα, ἐν ᾧ δείκνυσιν, ὅτι εἰ πολλά ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν καὶ ἀπείρων,
ἐστι καὶ μεγάλα ἐστὶ καὶ μικρὰ, οὐδὲν ἔσται ἀκριβῶς ἕν διὰ τὴν ἐπ’
μεγάλα μὲν ὥστε ἄπειρα τὸ μέγεθος ἄπειρον τομήν. δεῖ δὲ ἐν εἶναι. ὃ
εἶναι, μικρὰ δὲ οὕτως, ὥστε μηδὲν δείκνυσι, προδείξας ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔχει
ἔχειν μέγεθος. ἐν δὴ τούτῳ (in the μέγεθος, ἐκ τοῦ ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν
section which proves that it is in- ἑαυτῷ ταὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ ἕν. καὶ 6
finitely small) δείκνυσιν, ὅτι οὗ μήτε Θεμίστιος δὲ τὸν Ζήνωνος λόγον ἕν
μέγεθος μήτε πάχος μήτε ὄγκος μη- εἶναι τὸ ὃν κατασκευάζειν φησὶν ἐκ
θείς ἐστιν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἴη τοῦτο" οὐ γὰρ τοῦ συνεχὲς τὸ (1. τε) αὐτὸ εἶναι
εἰ ἄλλῳ ὄντι, φησὶ, προσγένοιτο, καὶ ἀδιαίρετον. εἰ γὰρ διαιροῖτό,
οὐδὲν ἂν μεῖζον ποιήσειε, μεγέθους φησιν, οὐδὲν ἔσται ἀκριβῶς ἕν διὰ
γὰρ μηδενὺς ὄντος, προσγενομένου τὴν ex’ ἄπειρον τομὴν τῶν σωμάτων.
δὲ (this δὲ should no doubt be ἔοικε δὲ μᾶλλον 6 Ζήνων λέγειν, ὡς
omitted ; it seems to have arisen οὐδὲ πολλὰ ἔσται, The passage in
from the οὐδὲν which follows) οὐδὲν Themist. Phys. 18 ἃ, p. 122 Sp..
οἷόν τε eis μέγεθος ἐπιδοῦναι, καὶ runs thus: Ζήνωνος, ὃς ἐκ τοῦ
οὕτως ἂν ἤδη τὸ προσγινόμενον συνεχές τε εἶναι καὶ ἀδιαίρετον ἕν
οὐδὲν εἴη. (Zeno must have added εἶναι τὸ ὃν κατεσκεύαζε, λέγων, ὡς
here: ‘nor could anything become εἰ διαιρεῖται οὐδὲ ἔσται ἀκριβῶς ἕν
smaller, by its being taken away διὰ τὴν ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον τομὴν τῶν σωμά-
from it.) εἰ δὲ ἀπογινομένου τὸ των. From the connection in
ἕτερον μηδὲν ἔλαττόν ἐστι, μηδὲ αὖ which this assertion of Zeno’s
προσγινομένου αὐξήσεται, δηλονότι stood (according to Simplicius), it
τὸ προσγενόμενον οὐδὲν ἦν, οὐδὲ τὸ appears that Simplicius’ criticism
ἀπουγενόμενον. (This part of the of Themist. is correct. Zeno is
exposition is confirmed by Eude- not speaking primarily of the One
mus, vide infra, and by Arist. Being; but starting from the pre-
Metaph. iii. 4, 1001 Ὁ, 7: ἔτι εἰ supposition of Multiplicity, he is
ἀδιαίρετον αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν, κατὰ μὲν τὸ telling us how each of the many
Ζήνωνος ἀξίωμα οὐθὲν ἂν εἴη. ὃ γὰρ things must then be conceived. So
μήτε προστιθέμενον μήτε ἀφαιρούμε- far as he at the same time shows
616 ZENO.

are also infinitely great. For since that which has no

magnitude is not, the Many, in order to be, must have
a magnitude : its parts must consequently be sepa-
rated from one another—that is, other parts must lie
between them. But the same thing holds good of
that each thing, in order to be one, [μηδὲ] ἐν τῷ Ζήνωνος βιβλίῳ τοιοῦ-
must also be indivisible, his asser- τον ἐπιχείρημα φέρεσθαι, οἷον ὃ
tion might likewise be applied to ᾿Αλέξανδρός φησι. It is clear, how-
the One Being; this, too, in order ever, from this passage that Alex-
to be one, must be indivisible (ἕν ander correctly apprehended the
cuvexés). Enudemus seems to have meaning of Zeno’s proposition, and
had this argument in view when no doubt that of Eudemus, and
he says, ap. Simpl. Phys. 21 a (ef. that Simplicius here makes the
80 a, 31 a): Ζήνωνά φασι λέγειν, εἴ same mistake which he afterwards
τις αὐτῷ τὸ Ev ἀποδοίη τί ποτέ ἐστι himself corrects in Themistius.
λέξειν [ἐστιν, ἕξειν] τὰ ὄντα Zeno says: In order to know what
λέγειν" ἠπόρει δὲ ὡς ἔοικε (Bran- things are, we must know what the
dis, 1. 416, has this from MSS. smallest parts are out of which
In the printed text these words are they are compounded; but this
wanting, but they occur p. 30 a) does not imply that since they are
διὰ τὸ τῶν μὲν αἰσθητῶν ἕκαστον the smallest parts, they are indivi-
κατηγορικῶς τε πολλὰ λένεσθαι καὶ sible points, and, as _ invisible
μερισμῷ, τὴν δὲ στιγμὴν μηδὲ ἐν points, are without magnitude, and
τιθέναι. ὃ γὰρ μήτε προστιθέμενον consequently nothing. He wants
αὔξει μῆτε ἀφαιρούμενον μειοῖ οὐκ to prove (as Philop. Phys. B,i ο, 16,
ᾧετο τῶν ὄντων εἶναι. Simpl. 21 b, observes, not without some interpo-
observes on this: 6 μὲν τοῦ Ζήνωνος lation of his own comments) that
λόγος ἄλλος Tis ἔοικεν οὗτος εἶναι there can be no multiplicity, for
παρ᾽ ἑκεῖνον τὸν ἐν βιβλίῳ φερόμενον every multiplicity consists of uni-
οὗ καὶ ὃ Πλάτων ἐν τῷ Παρμενίδῃ ties; but among all the things which
μέμνηται. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι present themselves to us as amulti-
πολλὰ δείκνυσι. . . ἐνταῦθα δὲ, ws plicity, among all συνεχῆ, nothing
Εὔδημός φησι, καὶ ἀνήρει τὸ ἕν. τὴν is really One. Brandis, i. 416,
γὰρ στιγμὴν ὡς τὸ ἕν εἶναι λέγει, τὰ wrongly constructs an independent -
δὲ πολλὰ εἶναι συγχωρεῖ. οὃ μέντοι demonstration out of what Eude-
᾿Αλέξανδρος καὶ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ Ζήνωνος mus and Aristotle, J. ¢., say; and
ὡς τὰ πολλὰ avaipovyTos μεμνῆσθαι Ritter, i. 522, deduces from the
τὸν Εὔδημον οἴεται. ‘ws γὰρ ἱστορεῖ, statement of Eudemus the bold
φησιν, Εὔδημος, Ζήνων ὁ Παρμενίδου theory that Zeno, like Parmenides,
γνώριμος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι ὅτι μὴ acknowledged that the full and
οἷόν τε τὰ ὄντα πολλὰ εἶναι, τῷ μη- true knowledge of the One was not
δὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἕν, τὰ δὲ contained in his definitions of it.
πολλὰ πλῆθος εἶναι ἑνάδων." καὶ My reasons for disagreeing with
ὅτι μὲν οὐχ ὧς τὰ πολλὰ ἀναιροῦντος both these opinions will appear in
Ζήνωνος Εὔδημος μέμνηται, νῦν δῆλον the course of the present exposi-
ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ λέξεως. οἶμαι δὲ μήτε tion.
 AGAINST MULTIPLICITY. 617

these parts: they also must have a magnitude, and be

separated from one another, and so on to infinity.
Thus we get an infinite number of magnitudes, or an
infinite magnitude.'
2. By the same process, Zeno shows also that the
Many in respect of number must be as much limited
as unlimited. Limited, for it is just so much as it is;
not more and not less. Unlimited, for two things are
two, only where they are separated ; and in order that
they may be separate, something must be between
them; similarly between this and each of the two,
and so on ad wfinitum.* As in the first argument,
the determination of infinite magnitude, so here the
determination of infinite number is attained by ap-
prehending plurality as a multiplicity of separate
magnitudes, and by introducing between each two
of these separate magnitudes a third separating mag-
nitude. The ancients usually designate this portion
1 Simplicius, 1. c. 30 b, after ἔχειν μέγεθος, μεγάλα δὲ ὥστε ἄπειρα
» /

having discussed the argument from εἶναι." By προέχον I understand

division, which will be quoted im- that which lies before another, and
mediately—proceeds thus : καὶ οὕτω thereby keeps that other at a dis-
μὲν τὸ κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος ἄπειρον ἐκ tance from a third.
THs διχοτομίας ἔδειξε. τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὸ 2 Simpl. /. 6. 30 Ὁ: δεικνὺς yap,
μέγεθος πρότερον κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὅτι εἰ πολλά ἐστι τὰ αὐτὰ πεπερα-
a 5 , 9 Ἁ > Ν

ἐπιχείρησιν. προδείξας γὰρ, ὅτι εἰ μὴ σμένα ἐστὶ καὶ ἄπειρα, γράφει ταῦτα
ἔχει τὸ ὃν μέγεθος οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἴη, ἐπάγει. κατὰ λέξιν 6 Ζήνων" “ εἰ πολλά ἐστιν,
“ εἰ δὲ ἔστιν, ἀνάγκη, ἕκαστον μέγεθός ἀνάγκη τοσαῦτα εἶναι ὅσα ἐστὶ καὶ
τι ἔχειν καὶ πάχος καὶ ἀπέχειν αὐτοῦ οὔτε πλείονα
»~ ’ὔ
αὑτῶν
> ~
οὔτε
2
ἐλάττονα.
> Ll

τὸ ἕτερον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου, καὶ περὶ εἰ δὲ τοσαῦτά ἐστιν ὅσα ἐστὶ, πεπερα-
τοῦ προὔχοντος 6 αὐτὸς λόγος" καὶ σμενα
΄, ~
ἂν
y
εἴη. καὶ
\ ΄
πάλιν,
>
εἰ TOAAG
igh

γὰρ ἐκεῖνο ἕξει μέγεθος καὶ προέξει ἐστιν, ἄπειρα τὰ ὄντα ἐστίν. ἀεὶ
αὐτοῦ τι, ὅμοιον δὴ τοῦτο ἅπαξ τε γὰρ ἕτερα μεταξὺ τῶν ὄντων ἐστὲ,
εἰπεῖν καὶ Gel λέγειν. οὐδὲν yap αὐτοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐκείνων ἕτερα μεταξὺ, καὶ
τοιοῦτον ἔσχατον ἔσται οὔτε ἕτερον οὕτως ἄπειρα τὰ byTa ἐστί."
“
καὶ aE 2 > {9 \

πρὸς ἕτερον οὐκ ἔσται. οὕτως, εἰ οὕτω μὲν, ete. (vide preceding
πολλά ἐστιν, ἀνάγκη αὐτὰ μικρά τε note).
εἶναι καὶ μεγάλα. μικρὰ μὲν ὥστε μὴ
618 ZENO.

of Zeno’s two arguments as the argument from bi-

section.!
3. Since all that exists, exists in space, space must
itself be in a space, and so ad infinitum. As this is
inconceivable, the existent generally cannot be in space.?
Amst. Phys. 1.3, 187 a, 1, ἐπειδὴ πάντη ὅμοιόν ἐστιν, εἴπερ διαι-
after Parmenides and Melissus’ ρετὸν ὑπάρχει πάντη ὁμοίως ἔσται
doctrine of the unity of the one has διαιρετὸν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ μὲν τῇ δ᾽ οὔ.
been discussed in detail: ἔνιρι δ᾽ διῃρήσθω πάντη. δῆλον οὖν πάλιν, ὡς
(the Atomists) ἐνέδοσαν τοῖς λόγοις οὐδὲν ὑπομενεῖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἔσται φροῦδον,
ἀμφοτέροις, τῷ μὲν ὅτι πάντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ εἴπερ συστήσεται πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ
τὸ ὃν ἕν σημαίνει, ὅτι ἐστὶ τὸ μὴ ὃν, μηδενὸς συστήσεται" εἰ γὰρ ὑπομενεῖ
τῷ δὲ ἐκ τῆ" διχοτομίας ἄτομα ποιή- τι, οὐδέπω γενήσεται πάντη διηρη-
σαντες μεγέθη. Simpl. p. 30 a, μένον ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τούτων φανερόν,
observes on this passage: τὸν δὲ φησιν, ὡς ἀδιαίρετόν τε καὶ ἀμερὲς καὶ
δεύτερον λόγον τὸν ἐκ τῆς διχοτομίας ἐν ἔσται τὸ ὄν"... (the remainder of
τοῦ Ζήνωνος εἶναί φησιν ὃ ᾿Αλέξανδρος the quotation does ποῦ belong to
λέγοντος, ὡς εἰ μέγεθος ἔχοι τὸ ὃν this subject) ἐφιστάνειν δὲ ἄξιον, εἰ
καὶ διαιροῖτο, πολλὰ τὸ ὃν καὶ οὐκέτι Παρμενίδου καὶ μὴ Ζήνωνός ἐστιν ὃ
ἐν ἔσεσθαι καὶ διὰ τούτου δεικνύντος, λόγος, as καὶ τῷ ᾿Αλεξάνδρν δοκεῖ.
ὅτι μηδὲν τῶν ὄντων ἐστὶ τὸ ἕν. οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Παρμενιδείοις ἔπεσι
This last is rightly questioned by λέγεταί τι τοιοῦτον, καὶ n πλείστη
Simpl. and the source of the error ἱστορία τὴν ἐκ τῆς διχοτομίας ἀπορίαν
is traced to the passage of Eude- εἰς τὸν Ζήνωνα ἀναπέμπει, καὶ δὴ καὶ
mus, quoted p. 616. Then follow ἐν τοῖς περὶ κινήσεως λόγοις ὡς Ζή-
the statements quoted p. 615, as νωνος ἀπομνημονεύεται (cf. infra,
to the argument of Zeno, and then, the first and second arguments
p. 30 a, this observation: 6 μέντοι against motion) καὶ τί δεῖ πολλὰ
Πορφύριος καὶ τὸν ἐκ τῆς διχοτομίας λέγειν, ὅτε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ φέρεται τῷ
λόγον Παρμενίδου φησὶν εἶναι, ἕν τὸ τοῦ Ζήνωνος συγράμματι. δεικνὺς
ὃν ἐκ ταύτης πειρωμένου δεικνύναι. γὰρ, ete. These reasons of Sim-
γράφει δὲ οὕτως" “ἕτερος δὲ ἦν λόγος plicius are quite convincing. Por-
τῷ Πὸρμενίδῃ 6 διὰ τῆς διχοτομίας, phyry thinks that the argument
οἰόμενος δεικνύναι τὸ ὃν ἕν εἶναι μόνον from dichotomy must belong to
καὶ τοῦτο ἀμερὲς καὶ ἀδιαίρετον. εἰ Parmenides, simply because Aris-
γὰρ εἴη, φησὶ, διαιρετὸν, τετμήσθω totle, 7. 6., mentions it in his erit-
δίχα, κἄπειτα τῶν μερῶν ἑκάτερον ique on the doctrine of Parmenides,
δίχα: καὶ τούτου Gel γινομένου δῆλόν, without mentioning Zeno. He
φησιν, ὡς ἤτοι ὑπομενεῖ τινὰ ἔσχατα himself is unacquainted with Zeno’s
μεγέθη ἐλάχιστα καὶ ἄτομα πλήθει work; what he says about this
δὲ ἄπειρα καὶ τὸ ὅλον ἐξ ἐλαχίστων argument he derives from other
πλήθει δὲ ἀπείρων συστήσεται, ἢ sources, and he does not give it in
φροῦδον ἔσται καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν ἔτι διαλυ- the original acceptation of Zeno.
θήσεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ μηδενὸς συστήσε- 5. Arist. Phys. iv. 3, 210 b, 22:
ται, ἅπερ ἄτοπα. οὐκ ἄρα διαιρεθήσε- ὃ δὲ Ζήνων ἠπόρει, ὃ τι εἰ ἔστι τι ὃ
ται, ἀλλὰ μενεῖ ἕν. καὶ γὰρ δὴ τόπο", ἐν τίνι ἔσται, λύειν οὐ χαλε-
 AGAINST MOTION. 619

4, A fourth argument is indicated in the statement

that if the shaking out of a bushel of corn produces a
sound, each individual grain and each sub-division of a
grain must likewise produce sound, which seems to
contradict our perceptions.’ The general question here
is—How is it possible that many things together can
produce an effect which each of them taken separately
does not produce?

B. The Arguments against Motion.

As the arguments just quoted were directed against
multiplicity in order to prove the unity of Being, the
first main principle of the Eleatic doctrine, so the
next four are directed against motion, in order to
mov. α.1, 209 ἃ, 23 : 7 γὰρ Ζήνωνος Tov σοφιστήν" εἰπὲ γάρ μοι, ἔφη,ὦ
ἀπορία ζητεῖ τινα λόγον" εἰ γὰρ πᾶν Πρωταγόρα, ἄρα 6 εἷς κέγχροΞ κατα-
τὸ ὃν ἐν τόπῳ, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τοῦ πεσὼν ψόφον ποιεῖ, ἢ τὸ μυριοστὸν
τόπου τόπος ἔσται καὶ τοῦτο εἰς τοῦ κέχρου; τοῦ δὲ εἰπόντος, μὴ.
ἄπειρον πρόεισιν. Eudemus, ap. ποιεῖν 6 δὲ μέδιμνος τῶν κέγχρων
Simpl. Phys. 131 ἃ : ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν δὲ καταπεσὼν ποιεῖ ψόφον ἢ οὔ; τοῦ
καὶ ἢ Ζήνωνος ἀπορία φαίνεται ἄγειν" δὲ ψοφεῖν εἰπόντος τὸν μέδιμνον, τί
ἄξιον [ἀξιοῖ cf. in what follows: εἰ οὖν, ἔφη 6 Ζήνων, οὐκ ἔστι λόγος
μὲν οὖν ἐν τόπῳ ἡἠξίωκεν εἶναι τὰ τοῦ μεδίμνου τῶν κέγχρων πρὸς τὸν
ὄντα] γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ὃν ποῦ εἶναι, εἰ δὲ ἕνα καὶ τὸ μυριοστὸν τοῦ Evds; τοῦ
6 τόπος τῶν ὕντων, ποῦ ἂν εἴη οὐκοῦν δὲ φήσαντος εἶναι: τί οὖν, ἔφη ὁ
ἐν ἄλλῳ τόπῳ. κἀκεῖνος δὴ ἐν ἄλλῳ Ζήνων, οὐ καὶ τῶν ψόφων ἔσονται
καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὸ πρόσω. Simpl. λόγοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ α"τοί;: ὡς
130 b: ὁ Ζήνωνος λόγος ἄναιρεῖν γὰρ τὰ ψοφοῦντα καὶ of ψόφοι. τούτου
ἐδόκει τὸν τύπον ἐρωτῶν οὕτως" εἰ δὲ οὕτως ἔχοντος, εἰ 6 μέδιμνος τοῦ
ἔστιν ὃ τόπος ἐν τίνι ἔσται; πᾶν γὰρ κέγχρου ψοφεῖ ψοφήσει καὶ ὁ εἷς κέγ-
ὃν ἔν τινι" τὸ δὲ ἔν τινι καὶ ἐν τόπῳ᾽ Xpos καὶ τὸ μυριοστὸν τοῦ κέγχρου.
ἔσται ἄρα καὶ ὃ τόπος ἐν τόπφ' καὶ (The latter also, p. 256 Ὁ.) Ac-
τοῦτο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον" οὐκ ἄρα ἔστιν 6 cording to this representation we
τόπος. Similarly zhid. 124 Ὁ. cannot suppose that this argument
Arist. Phys. vil. 5, 250a, 19: was to be found in Zeno’s book;
διὰ τοῦτο ὃ Ζήνωνος λόγος οὐκ ἀλη- and its more complete development
Ons, ὡς ψοφεῖ τῆς κέγχρου ὁτιοῦν in Simplicius may have belonged
μέροξ. Simpl. in ἢ. 1. 255 a, says: to some later philosopher. But its
διὰ τοῦτο λύει Kal τὸν Ζήνωνος τοῦ essential thought is certified by
᾿Ἐλεάτου λόγον ὃν ἤρετο Πρωταγόραν Aristotle.
620 ZENO.

prove the second fundamental basis of the system, the

unchangeableness of Being.’
1. The first argument is this:—Before the body
that is moved can arrive at the goal, it must first have
arrived at the middle of the course; before it reaches
this point it must have arrived at the middle of the
first half, and previously to that at the middle of the
first quarter, and so ad infinitum. Every body, there-
fore, in erder to attain to one point from another, must
pass through infinitely many spaces. But the infinite
cannot be passed through in a given time. It 15 con-
sequently impossible to arrive at one point from another,
and motion is impossible.?
2. The so-called Achilles argument is only another
application of this. The slowest creature, the tortoise,
1 Cf. in regard to these, Ger- ἐστὶ κίνησις. ἐδείκνυ δὲ τὸ συνημμέ-
ling, De Zen. paralogismis motum γον (the hypothetical major pre-
spectant. Marb. 1825; Wellmann’s miss) ἐκ Tod τὸ κινούμενον διάστη-
Zeno’s Beweise gegen die Bewegung μᾶτι κινεῖσθαι, παντὸς δὲ διαστήματος
und ihre Widerlequngen. Frankf. ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον ὄντος διαιρετοῦ τὸ κινού-
1870. μενον ἀνάγκη τὸ ἥμισυ πρῶτον διελ-
2 Arist. Phys. vi. 9, 239 Ὁ. 9: θεῖν οὗ κινεῖται διαστήματος καὶ
τέτταρες δ᾽ εἰσὶ λόγοι περὶ κινήσεως τότε τὸ ὅλον. ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ ἡμί-
Ζήνωνος οἱ παρέχοντες τὰς δυσκολίας σεως τοῦ ὕλου τὺ ἐκείνου ἥμισυ, καὶ
τοῖς λύουσιν. πρῶτος μὲν ὃ περὶ τοῦ τούτου πάλιν τὸ ἥμισυ. εἰ οὖν ἄπειρα
μὴ κινεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ πρότερον εἰς τὸ τὰ ἡμίση διὰ τὸ παντὸς τοῦ Andber-
ἥμισυ δεῖν ἀφικέσθαι τὺ φερόμενον ἢ τος δυνατὸν εἶναι τὸ ἥμισυ λαβεῖν, τὰ
πρὺς τὸ τέλος, περὶ οὗ διείλομεν ἐν δὲ ἄπειρα ἀδύνατον ἐν πεπερασμένῳ
τοῖς πρότερον λόγοις, especially ὁ. χρόνῳ διελθεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ὡς ἐναργὲς
2, 288 a, 21, where we read: διὸ ἐλάμβανεν 6 Ζήνων, ἀδύνατον ἄρα
καὶ 6 Ζήνωνος λόγος ψεῦδος λαμβάνει κίνησιν εἶναι. Arist. Zop. vill. 8,
τὸ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ ἄπειρα διελθεῖν 156 b, 7, and Sext. Math. x. 47
ἢ ἅψασθαι τῶν ἀπείρων καθ᾽ ἕκαστον refer to this proof.
ἐν πεπερασμένῳ χρόνῳ. Simpl. 236 3 Favorinus, ap. Diog. ix. 29,
b (ef. 221 a, 302 a). Themistius says that Parmenides had already
gives a shorter and more obscure employed this argument; but the
comment (Phys. 55 Ὁ, 392 sq.): εἰ statement is certainly false. All
ἔστι κίνησις, ἀνάγκη τὸ κινούμενον other evidence ascribes it to Zeno.
ἐν πεπερασμένῳ χρόνῳ ἄπειρα διε- Diog. J. ¢. says expressly that it
ξιέναι" τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον οὐκ: ἄρα was discovered by him; and all
 AGAINST MOTION. 621

could never be overtaken by the swiftest, Achilles,

if it had once made a step in advance of him. For
in order to overtake the tortoise, Achilles must first
reach the point where the tortoise was when he started;
next the point to which it had progressed in the
interval, then the point which it attained while he
made this second advance, and so on ad infinitum.
But if it be impossible that the slower should be over-
taken by the swifter, it is, generally speaking, impos-
sible to reach a given end, and motion is impossible.!
The whole argument turns, as in the other case, upon
the assertion that a given space cannot be traversed
unless all its parts are traversed; which is not possible,
beeause there is an infinite number of these parts.2. The
only difference is that this assertion is applied in the
first case to a space with fixed boundaries, and in the
second, to a space with movable boundaries.
3. So long as anything remains in one and the
same space, it is at rest. But the flying arrow is at
every moment in the same space. It rests, therefore,
at every moment of its flight: therefore its motion
that we know of Parmenides (cf. the sense given in our text.
the often quoted passage, Parm. As Aristotle rightly observes
128 A) proves that he did not ap- in the words: ἔστι δὲ καὶ οὗτος 6
ply himself in this manner to the αὐτὸς λόγος τῷ διχοτομεῖν (the
dialectical refutation of the ordi- same as the first argument based
nary standpoint. upon bi-partition) διαφέρει δ᾽ ἐν τῷ
1 Arist. 1. c. 239 b, 14: δευτέρος διαιρεῖν μὴ δίχα τὸ προσλαμβανόμε-
δ᾽ ὅ καλούμενος ᾿Αχιλλεύς᾽ ἔστι δ᾽ νον μέγεθος... ἐν ἀμφοτέροις γὰρ
οὗτος, ὅτι τὸ βραδύτερον οὐδέποτε συμβαίνει μὴ ἀφικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ
καταληφθήσεται θέον ὑπὸ τοῦ ταχί- πέρας διαιρουμένου πως τοῦ μεγέ-
στου ἔμπροσθεν γὰρ ἄναγταῖον θους" ἀλλὰ πρόσκειται ἐν τούτῳ, ὅτι
ἐλθεῖν τὸ διῶκον, ὅθεν ὥρμησε τὸ οὐδὲ τὸ τάχιστον τετραγῳδημέν-
φεῦγον, ὥστ᾽ ἂεί τι προέχειν avay- ον ἐν τῷ διώκειν τὸ βραδύτατον.
καῖον τὸ βραδύτερον. Simpl. 237 a, Similarly, the commentators.
and Themist. 56 a, explain this in
622 ZENO.

during the whole course is only apparent.' This

argument, too, is based on the same process as the two
previous arguments. In them, the space to be tra-
versed, and here the time of the movement, is resolved
into its minutest parts; and it is shown upon this pre-
supposition, that no motion is thinkable. The latter
argument is, as Aristotle acknowledges, quite correct.
1 Arist. 289 b, 30: τρίτος δ᾽ ὁ moments (ἐκ τῶν νῦν τῶν ἀδιαιρέ-
νῦν ῥηθεὶς ὅτι ἢ ὀϊστὸς φερομένη των) is quite in harmony with this.
ἕστηκεν. ΟἿ 1. 5: Ζήνων δὲ παρα- On the other hand, Simplicius says,
λογίζεται: εἰ γὰρ ἀεί, φησιν, ἢρεμεῖ 236 b, agreeing with the text of
πᾶν ἣ κινεῖται, ὅταν ἦ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, our MSS. : ὃ δὲ Zihvwvos λόγος τρο-
ἔστι δ᾽ ἀεὶ τὸ φερόμενον ἐν τῷ νῦν, λαβὼν, ὅτι πᾶν ὅταν ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον
ἀκίνητον τὴν φερομένην εἶναι ὀϊστόν. ἑαυτῷ ἢ κινεῖται ἢ ἠρεμεῖ, καὶ ὅτι
For ἐν τῷ νῦν ἀκίν. others read: ἐν οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ νῦν κινεῖται, καὶ ὅτι τὸ
τῷ νῦν τῷ κατὰ ἴσον ἀκίνητον. φερόμενον ἀεὶ ἐν Ta ἴσῳ avT@ ἐστι
Gerling, J. 6. p. 16, would substi- καθ᾽ ἕκαστον νῦν, ἐῴκει συλλογίζε-
tute 7) κινεῖται for ἢ κινεῖται. Lam σθαι οὕτως" τὸ φερόμενον βέλος ἐν
inclined to think that the text, παντὶ νῦν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑαυτῷ ἐστιν,
which in its present form presents ὥστε καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ χρόνῳ. τὸ δὲ
many difficulties, and has not ἐν τῷ νῦν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑαντῷ ὃν οὐ
been, to my mind, satisfactorily κινεῖται, ἢρεμεῖ ἄρα, ἐπειδὴ μηδὲν ἐν
explained even by Prantl., origi- τῷ νῦν κινεῖται, τὸ δὲ μὴ κινούμενον
nally ran thus: εἰ γάρ, φησιν, ἠρεμεῖ, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν ἢ κινεῖται ἢ ἢρε-
ἠρεμεῖ πᾶν, ὅταν ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, μεῖ. τὸ ἄρα φερόμενον βέλος ἕως
ἔστι δ᾽ ἀεὶ τὸ φερόμενον ἐν τῷ νῦν φέρεται ἢρεμεῖ κατὰ πάντα τὸν τῆς
κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, ἀκίνητον, &c., from φορᾶς χρόνον. This deduction has
which would result the meaning none of the seeming conclusiveness
given above. Themistius (p. 55 b, which we always find in Zeno’s
p. 392 Sp.) likewise seems to pre- demonstrations. Simplicius, it is
suppose this form of the words, true, deserves attention because he
when he paraphrases them thus: was acquainted with Zeno’s work;
εἰ γὰρ ἠρεμεῖ, φησιν, ἅπαντα ὅταν ἢ but, on the other hand, we must
κατὰ τὸ ἴσον αὑτῷ διάστημα, ἔστι δὲ not forget the excellent remark of
ἀεὶ τὸ φερόμενον κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἑαυτῷ Schleiermacher (Ueber Anaximan-
διάστημα, ἀκίνητον ἀνάγκη τὴν dic- dros, Werke z. Phil. τι. 180) that
τὸν εἶναι τὴν φερομένην. Similarly, Simplicius in the later books of his
p. 56 ἃ, 394 Sp.: ἀεὶ μὲν γὰρ ἕκα- work took no account of the source
στον τῶν κινουμένων ἐν τῷ νῦν τὸ he had used in the earlier books.
ἔσον ἑαυτῷ κατέχει διάστημα. Aris- I agree with Themistius and Sim-
totle’s observation against Zeno, plicius in understanding εἶναι κατὰ
l. c., that his whole argument is τὸ ἴσον to mean, ‘ to be in the same
based upon the false theory of time space’ as previously, not to alter
being compounded of particular its place.
 AGAINST MOTION. 622

In the moment as such, no movement, no change

generally speaking, is possible; if I ask where the
flying arrow is at this moment, the answer cannot be
in the transition from the space A to the space B, or in
other words, in A and 5B; the answer can only be in
the space A. Consequently, if time is conceived as an
infinite series of successive moments, instead of a fixed
quantity, we necessarily get, instead of the transition
from one space to another, merely a successive Being
in separate spaces: and motion is just as impossible as
if (similarly to the first and second of Zeno’s argu-
ments) we suppose, instead of the line to be traversed,
an infnite number of successive and separate points.!
The argument before us is therefore not so sophistical
as it appears to be; at any rate it is not more sophisti-
eal than the others. It starts, like them, from the per-
ception of a philosophic problem in which more recent
thinkers have also found considerable difficulties ; and it
stands in the same connection§ with Zeno’s general point
οὗ view. If Unity and Multiplicity be once regarded
in the manner of the Eleatics as absolute contradictories
positively excluding one another, separation in time
and space may easily be looked upon as a plurality
devoid of unity; space and time as an aggregation of
separate points of space and time, and a transition from
one of these points to another,—a motion,—becomes
impossible.”
1 That this is really the force ment in what is quoted as from
of the argument is also implied by Zeno in Diog. ix. 72 (as Kern,
Aristotle, in his short counter- Xenoph. 26, 74, reminds us): τὸ
observation (vide previous note). κινούμενον οὔτ᾽ ἐν ᾧ ἔστι τόπῳ κι-
2 "There is a reference to the νεῖται οὔτ᾽ ἐν ᾧ μὴ ἔστι: for that
fundamental thought of this argu- it cannot move in the space in
034 ZENO.

4. The fallacy in the fourth demonstration is more

apparent. This refers to the relation of the time of
movement to the space which has to be traversed.
According to the laws of motion, spaces of equal size
must be traversed in equal time if the speed be equal.
But two bodies of equal size move past one another
twice as fast if they are both moving at equal speed, as
if one of them is still, and the other with the same
motion passes by it. Hence Zeno ventures to conclude
that in order to traverse the same space,—the space
taken up by each of these two bodies,—-at the same
speed, ouly half the time is necessary in the one case
that isnecessary in the other. Consequently, he thinks,
facts here contradict the laws of motion.!
which it is, is proved by the obser- best text and the truest explana-
vation that it is in the same space tion of it (p. 237 Ὁ sq.), and even
in every mement. Prantl’s view of the passage, in
1 Arist. 239 Ὁ, 33: τέταρτος δ᾽ ὃ other respects satisfactory, may
περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ σταδίῳ κινουμένον ἐξ find its completion here. Accord-
ἐναντίας ἴσων ὕγκων᾽ παρ᾽ ἴσους, τῶν ing to Simplicius, Zeno’s argument
μὲν ἀπὸ τέλους τοῦ σταδίου τῶν δ᾽ runs thus: Let there be in the
ἀπὸ μέσου (on the meaning of this
expression vide Prantl. in h. ἰ. p. 1D. 2s eee
516) ἴσῳ τάχει, ἐν ᾧ συμβαίνειν Al A2 A8 A4
οἴεται. ἴσον εἶναι χρόνον τῷ διπλασίῳ B4 B3 B2 Bl
τὸν ἥμισυν. ἔστι δ᾽ 6 παραλογισμὸς Cl C2 Cate
ἐν τῷ τὸ μὲν παρὰ κινούμενον τὸ δὲ
rap’ ἠρεμοῦν τὺ ἴσον μέγεθος ἀξιοῦν
τῷ ἴσῳ τάχει τὸν ἴσον φέρεσθαι 2 Al A2 A3 A4
xpbvov: τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ ψεῦδος. That B4 B3 B2 Bl
σι Ὁ ΒΟΟΣ
the argument referred to in these
words has the meaning we have
assigned to it is beyond question; space, or in the course, Ὁ... E,
but the manner in which Zeno three equal rows of equal bodies,
more precisely explained it is Al...᾿ς, Bis 3°
doubtful, partly on account of the shown in figure 1. Let the first
uncertainty of the reading, and row Al, remain still; while the
partly because of the extreme two others, with equal velocity,
brevity of Aristotle’s elucidation. move past it in a parallel and
Simplicius seems to me to give the opposite direction to it and to one
 IMPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. 25

The falsity of this conclusion strikes us at once; but

we must nut therefore suppose that Zeno was not per-
fectly in earnest regarding it. For the whole fallacy
is based upon this: that the space traversed by one
body is measured according to the size of the bodies
which it passes, whether these be in motion or at rest.
That this is not allowable might well, however, escape
the notice of the first philosopher who studied the laws
of motion generally; especially if, like Zeno, he were
convinced, to start with, that his enquiry would result
in contradictions. Similar paralogisms have been over-
looked even by modern philosophers in their polemic
against empirical conceptions.
This is not the place to criticise the scientific value
of Zeno’s demonstrations, the censures of Aristotle in
regard to them, or the judgments passed by the
moderns' on both. Whatever the absolute worth of
these arguments may be, their historical importance
is, in any case, not to be underrated. On the one hand,
another. Cl will arrive at Al that in which Bl, with equal ve-
and Bi at the same moment that locity, has passed through the half
B1 has arrived at A4 and C4 (vide of this space, and vice versd. But
figure 2). B1 has, therefore, passed since the velocities being equal, the
all the Cs, and Cl all the Bs in times of movement are to one
the same time that each of them another as the spaces traversed,
passed the half of the As. Or, as the latter time can be only half as
Zeno seems to have expressed it, great as the former; the whole
Cl has passed all the Bs in the time, therefore, is equal to the half.
same time, in which B1 has passed 1 E.g. Bayle, Dict. Zenon d Elée
half of the As; and B1 has passed Rem. F.; Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil. i.
all the Cs in the same time in which 290 sq.; Herbart, Metaphysik,
ΟἹ has passed half of the As. But 11. ὃ 284 sq.; Lehrd. z. Hinl. in d.
the row A takes up the same space Phil. § 189 ; Striimpell, Gesch. ἃ.
as each of the other two rows. theoret. Phil. ὃ. d. Gr. 53 sq.;
The time in which Cl has passed Cousin, Zenon dEléee Fragm. Phil.
through the whole space of the 1. 65 sqq.; Gerling, l. ¢.; and
row A, is consequently the same as Wellmann, /. ὁ. 12 sq., and 20 sq.
VOL. I. ss
626 ZENO.

the opposition of the Eleatic doctrine to the ordinary

point of view attains in them its climax; multiplicity
and change are not opposed by Zeno as by Parmenides
with general arguments which might be met by other
general propositions; their impossibility is proved by
these notions themselves; and thus any impression
which might still be left by the exposition of Parme-
nides that side by side with the One Being the many
and the variable may still somehow find place, is en-
tirely done away.! On the other hand, however, pro-
! Cousin, indeed, says exactly Eleatic standpoint, that he did not,
the contrary (J. 6., ef. especially p. and cannot, do this. Unity and
65, 70 sqq.) when he maintains plurality, persistence of Being and
that Zeno meant to dispute not motion, stand, with the Eleaties,
multiplicity in general, but only wholly in opposition. Plato first
multiplicity devoid of all unity. recognised that these apparently
But of such a limitation there is opposite determinations could be
no trace either in Zeno’s arguments. united, and must be united, in one
or in the introduction to Plato’s and the same subject; and in the
Parmenides. His arguments are Sophist and Parmenides he argues
directed quite universally against this expressly as against the
the notion of plurality, of motion, Eleatie doctrine. Zeno is so far
&e., and if, for the purpose of from a similar conviction that his
confuting these notions, pure arguments are all directed pre-
separation without continuity, pure cisely to the opposite end, to do
multiplicity without unity, is pre- away with the confused uncertainty
supposed, this pre-supposition is of the ordinary notion which re-
not the point which is attacked, but presents the One as many, and
the point from which the attack Being as becoming and variable.
starts. If plurality generally be Plurality devoid of unity was
assumed, Zeno thinks the theory maintained in his time by Leucip-
must necessarily lead to the can- pus (only, however, in a limited
celling of unity, and to contradic- sense) —but Zeno never alludes to
tions of all kinds; he does not Leucippus. Heracleitus, whom
mean, as Cousin asserts, if a Cousin regards as the chief object
plurality devoid of all unity be of Zeno’s attacks, but to whom I
assumed, no motion, &c., would be ean find no reference in his writ-
possible. If such had been Zeno’s ings, is so far from maintaining
opinion, he must before all things plurality without unity that he
have discriminated the plurality emphatically asserts the unity of
devoid of unity from the plurality all Being. Cousin is, therefore,
limited by unity. But it is the wrong in his censure of Aristotle,
unavoidable consequence of the l. ο., p. 80:—Aristote accuse Zenon
 MELISSUS. 627

blems were thus proposed to philosophy in regard to the

explanation of phenomena, the consideration of which
it has never since been able to evade. The apparent
insolubility of these problems afforded welcome support
to the Sophists in their denial of knowledge; but they
afterwards gave a lasting impulse to the most search-
ing enquiries of Plato and Aristotle, and even modern
metaphysics has constantly been forced to return again
and again to the questions first brought under discussion
‘by Zeno. However unsatisfactory for us may be the
immediate result of his Dialectic, it has therefore been
of the highest importance to science.

V. MELISSUS.

ME issus resembles Zeno in his attempt to defend

the doctrine of Parmenides against ordinary opinion.
While, however, Zeno had sought to effect this in-
directly by the refutation of the usual theories, and had
thus strained to the utmost the opposition of the two
points of view, Melissus! seeks to show in a direct
de mal raisonner, et lui-méme ne adversaries’ standpoint. This is
raisonne guéres mieux et n'est pas In a certain sense true. He desires
exempt de paralogisme; car ses to refute his adversaries by draw-
réponses impliguent toujours Tidée
5
ing contradictory inferences from
de Punité, quand Targumentation their presuppositions. But the
de Zenon repose sur Vhypothese ex- middle terms, which he employs
clusive de la pluralite. It is pre- for this purpose, belong not to
cisely the exclusiveness of this pre- them, but to himself. Their con-
supposition which Aristotle, with tention is merely: there is a
perfect justice, assails. Like Cousin, plurality—a motion; ke seeks to
Grote, Plato, i. 103 (who more- prove that the Many, the Many
over has misunderstood the pre- being assumed, must consist of
ceding remarks), believes that Zeno infinitely many parts, and that in
admitted the pre-supposition of motion, an infinite number of
plurality without unity, not in his spaces must be traversed, &c.
own name, but merely from his ' Of the life of Melissus we.
ss 2
628 MELISSUS.

manner that Being can be conceived only as Parme-

nides defined its concept; and as this direct proof in
order to convince an adversary must be deduced from
pre-suppositions common to both sides, he tries to find
in the representatives of the ordinary mode of thought
points of union with the Eleatic doctrine.’ But for
this reason he cannot entirely avoid admitting into the
Eleatice doctrine definitions which imperil its purity.

know little. His father was called lutely impossible; but he adds that
Ithagenes, his native place was the Ephesians had their attention
Samos (Diog. ix. 24). Diogenes, first drawn to their fellow citizen
l.c. (cf. ASlian, v. 4, vil. 14) de- through his means, which is most
scribes him as a statesman of note, improbable. A treatise of Me-
who had especially distinguished lissus, doubtless his only work, is
himself as a navarch. This mentioned by Simpl. Phys. 22 b,
elucidates Plutarch’s distinct and simply as τὸ σύγγραμμα. Suidas
reiterated assertion (Pericl. c. 26; sub voce Μέλητος calls it περὶ
Themist. c. 2, here with an appeal τοῦ bvros, Galen, Ad. Hippocr. De
to Aristotle; Adv. Col. 32, 6, p. Nat. Hom. 1. p. 5; De Elem. see.
1126; ef. Suid, Μέλητος Adpov), Hipp. i. 9, p. 487, Kiihn; Simpl.
which there is not the slightest De Celo, 219 b, 23; Schol. in Arist.
reason to disbelieve, that Melissus 509 a, 38: περὶ φύσεως ; Simpl. De
commanded the Samian fleet in the Celo. 249 Ὁ, 42; Phys. 15 Ὁ: π.
victory over the Athenians, 442 8 c. φύσεως ἢ π. τοῦ ὄντος ; from the
(Thuc.i.117). Onthis circumstance last passage, Bessarion. Adv. cal.
is probably founded Apollodorus's Plat. ii. 11, seems to have invented
calculation, ap. Diog. l. 6., which this statement, cf. p. 542, 2. The
places the prime of Melissus in Οὐ. somewhat important fragments
84 (444-440 B.c.). He was, con- contained in Simplicius have been
sequently, a contemporary, most collected and commented on by
likely a younger contemporary, of Brandis, Comm. El. 185 sqq.; Mul-
Zeno. His doctrine of the unity lich. Arist. De Mel. &c. p. 80 sqq.;
and invariability of Being is al- Fragm. Phil. i. 259 sqq.
luded to by the Pseudo-Hippo- 1 Simpl. 1. ¢.: τοῖς yap τῶν
erates (Polybus) De Nat. Hom. c. φυσικῶν ἀξιώμασι χρησάμενος 6 Μέ-
1; end vi. 34; Littré. Parme- λισσος περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς
nides was possibly the teacher of ἄρχεται τοῦ συγγράμματως οὕτως.
Melissus, as well as of Zeno ; but Cf. in Fr. 1, the words συγχωρέεται
thisis not established by Diog. J. ¢. ; γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν, The
Theod. Cur. Gr. Aff. iv. 8, p. 57. καὶ τοῦτο shows that Melissus had
The other statements of Diogenes already appealed in the context to
that Melissus was acquainted with the assent of the physicists.
Heracleitus does not seem abso-
 BEING. 629

All that has been transmitted to us of Melissus’

doctrine of Being may be reduced to the four deter-
minations of its eternity, its infinity, its unity, and its
invariability.
That which is, is underived and imperishable. For,
were it derived, it must have come either from Being
or from non-Being. Now that which arises from Being
is not derived, but bas existed previously; and from
non-Being nothing can be derived; least of all Being
in the absolute sense.' Similarly, if it passed away,
it must be resolved either into something existent or
something non-existent ;but Being cannot become non-
_existent, as all admit; and if it passed over into a
Being, it could not be said to perish.’
If Being is eternal, it must also, Melissus thinks,
1 “ obre ἐκ μὴ ἐόντος οἷόν τε γι- ably, as Brandis thinks, to be
νεσθαί τι, οὔτε ἄλλο μὲν οὐδὲν ἐὸν inserted: vide Mullach in &. 1.)
(this is of course intended by Me- ἁπάντων τε γὰρ γιγνομένων οὐδὲν
lissus in a purely hypothetical man- προῦπάρχειν. εἰ δ᾽ ὄντων τινῶν ἀεὶ
ner, in the sense of ordinary opin- ἕτερα προσγίγνοιτο, πλέον ἂν καὶ
ion), πολλῷ δὲ μᾶλλον τὸ ἁπλῶς ἐόν." μεῖζον τὸ ἕν γεγονέναι" ᾧ δὴ πλέον
2 Mel. Fr. 1, ap. Simpl. ἐ. ὁ. καὶ μεῖζον, τοῦτο γενέσθαι ἂν ἐξ
The conclusion of the Fragment is οὐδενός" οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἐλάττονι τὸ
as follows: οὔτε φθαρήσεται Td ἐόν. πλέον, οὐδ᾽ ἐν τῷ μικροτέρῳ τὸ
οὔτε γὰρ és τὸ μὴ ἐὸν οἷόν τε τὸ ἐὸν μεῖζον ὑπάρχειν. This addition
μεταβάλλειν: συγχωρέεται γὰρ καὶ probably is taken from a later
τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν. οὔτε ἐς portion of the work, which, accord-
ἐόν: μένοι γὰρ ἂν πάλιν οὕτω γε καὶ ing to the excellent remark of
οὐ φθείροιτο. οὔτε ἄρα γέγονε τὸ Brandis (Comm. 186), seems to
ἐὸν οὔτε φθαρήσεται. αἰεὶ ἄρα ἦν have presented the main ideas and
τε καὶ ἔσται. The first part of the course of the argument, and then
above argument is given in the to have developed particular parts
Treatise, De Melisso, α 1, sub init., more accurately. The small Frag-
in a somewhat more extended ment 6, agreeing with a portion
form: ἀΐδιον εἶναί φησιν εἴ τι ἐστὶν, of Fr. 1, belonged probably to the
εἴπερ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι γενέσθαι μηδὲν same later section. It is clear from
ἐκ μηδενός" εἴτε γὰρ ἅπαντα γέγονεν p- 585, 3, that in the above doc-
εἴτε μὴ πάντα, δεῖν ἀμφυτέρως ἐξ trines, Melissus was closely allied
οὐδενὸς γενέσθαι ἂν αὐτῶν γιγνόμενα to Parmenides.
(before γιγνόμενα, τὰ ought prob-
690 MELISSUS.

be infinite, for what has not been derived and does not
pass away, has neither beginning nor end; and what has
neither beginning nor end, is infinite.’ This definition,
in which Melissus diverges from Parmenides, has drawn
down upon him the severe censure of Aristotle,’ and it
1 Fr, 2: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τὸ γενό- [-εἰν7}]Ί,ϑ τὸ πᾶν, ὥστ᾽ ἄπειρον. οὐκ
μενον ἀρχὴν ἔχει, τὸ μὴ γενόμενον ἀνάγκη δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν" οὐ γὰρ
ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχει, τὸ δ᾽ ἐὸν οὐ γέγονε, (for it does not follow that) εἰ τὸ
οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι ἀρχήν. ἔτι δὲ τὸ φθειρό- γενόμενον ἅπαν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, καὶ εἴ τι
μενον τελευτὴν ἔχει, εἰ δέ τί ἐστι ἀρχὴν ἔχει γέγονεν. So 6. 28, 181
ἄφθαρτον, τελευτὴν οὐκ ἔχει, τὸ ἐὸν a, 37: Phys. 1. 3, 186 a, 10: Ἔστι
ἄρα ἄφθαρτον ἐὸν τελευτὴν οὐκ ἔχει" μὲν οὖν παραλογίζεται Μέλισσος
τὸ δὲ μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχον μήτε τελευ- δῆλον" οἴεται γὰρ εἰληφέναι, εἰ τὸ
τὴν ἄπειρον τυγχάνει ἐόν" ἄπειρον γενόμενον ἔχει ἀρχὴν ἅπαν, ὅτι καὶ
ἄρα τὸ ἐόν. Similarly in Fr. 7, the τὸ μὴ γενόμενον οὐκ ἔχει. So Eu-
conclusion of which, ov yap αἰεὶ demus, ap. Simpl. Phys. 23 ἃ: ov
εἶναι ἀνυστὸν ὅ τι μὴ πᾶν ἐστι, only yuo, εἰ τὸ γενόμενον ἀρχὴν ἔχει,τὸμὴ
asserts this: if Being were limited γενόμενον ἀρχὴν otk ἔχει, μᾶλλον δὲ
in point of magnitude, it could not τὸ μὴ ἔχον ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἐγένετο.
be eternal: but to explain why it There can be no doubt, and the
could not, Melissus seems to have parallelism of the next proposition
given no other reason than that (ἔτι δὲ τὸ φθειρ ete.) proves it—
already quoted, viz. that the eternal that the words τὸ μὴ yy. ete., be-
must be unlimited, because it could long to the protasis: ‘ As the Be-
not otherwise be without beginning come has ἃ beginning and the
orend, Fr. 8 and 9 are apparently Unbecome none,’ ete. Aristotle,
small portions of the same more therefore, has either been guilty of
complete discussion, to which Fr. a wrong construction, or he has
7 belonged. Fr. 8 seems to me to presupposed that Melissus con-
contain the opening words of the cluded that the Unbecome had no
discussion; this Fragment ought beginning, from the fact that
properly therefore to be placed everything Become hasabeginning.
before Fr. 7. Aristotle who fre- On the other hand, what is said in
quently refers to this demonstra- Arist. Soph. El. ¢. 6, 168 Ὁ, 35:
tion of Melissus expresses himself ὡς ἐν τῷ Μελίσσου λόγῳ τὸ αὐτὸ
in regard to it as if he considered λαμβάνει τὸ γεγονέναι καὶ ἄρχὴν
the words ἐπειδὴ ---ἔχει as the pro- ἔχειν, and also in the treatise, De
tasis, and the following words: Melisso, l. ¢., agrees with the phi-
τὸ μὴ---οὐκ ἔχει as the apodosis. losopher’s own utterances. The
Cf. Soph. El. c. 5,167 b, 13: οἷον passages in recent authors in re-
6 Μελίσσου λόγος ὅτι ἄπειρον Td gard to this theory of Melissus
πᾶν, λαβὼν τὸ μὲν ἅπαν ἀγένητον are to be found in Brandis, Comm.
(ἐκ γὰρ μὴ ὄντος οὐδὲν ἂν γενέσθαι), El. 200 sq.
τὸ δὲ γενόμενον ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενέσθαι: 2 Metaph. i. δ, 986 Ὁ, 25: οὗτοι
εἰ μὴ οὖν γέγονεν, ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχει μὲν ody... ἀφετέοι πρὸς τὴν νῦν
 BEING. 631

is evident that it approved itself to Aristotle neither

in itself nor in regard to the arguments on which it is
based. In these, the confusion between infinity in time,
and infinity in space, is apparent. Melissus has proved
that Being must be according to time without begin-
ning or end; and he concludes from thence, that it can
have no limits in space. That this is the sense he gives
to the infinity of Being there can be no doubt.! He
supports his statement, however, by the further observa-
tion that Being can only be limited by the void, and
as there is no void, it must be unlimited.2 But if
the limited extension which Parmenides attributes to
Being was hard to reconcile with its indivisibility, this
unlimited extension is much harder. Although, there-
fore, Melissus expressly guards himself against the
corporeality of Being,* yet the observation of Aristotle 4
that he seems to conceive it as material, is not alto-
gether unjust. We may rather suppose that the Ionian
physics, in spite of his hostility to them, had had some
influence on Melissus, and had given rise to this theory
παροῦσαν ζήτησιν, of μὲν δύο καὶ θος ἄπειρον αἰεὶ χρὴ εἶναι, and from
πάμπαν ὡς ὄντες μικρὸν ἀγροικότεροι, the express and repeated assertions
Ξενοφάνης καὶ Μέλισσος. Ρλη5.1. of Aristotle (vide inf. p. 632, 2, and
3,subinit.: ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἐριστικῶς Metaph. i. 5, 986 Ὁ, 18; Phys. i.
συλλογίζονται, καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ 2, 185 a, 32 b, 16 sqq.).
Παρμενίδης" καὶ γὰρ ψευδῆ λαμβά- 2 Vide inf. p. 632, 2.
νουσι καὶ ἀσυλλόγιστοί εἰσιν αὐτῶν οἱ 3 Fr. 16: εἰ μὲν ἐόν ἐστι, δεῖ
λόγοι. μᾶλλον δ᾽ ὃ Μελίσσου φορτι- αὐτὸ ἕν εἶναι" ἐν δὲ ἐὸν δεῖ αὐτὸ
Kos καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ἀπορίαν (he con- σῶμα μὴ exew εἰ δὲ ἔχοι πάχος,
tains nothing difficult, he bases ἔχοϊ ἂν μόρια καὶ οὐκέτι ἂν εἴη ἕν.
his doctrines on nothing that really * Metaph. l. 6. vide sup. p. 548,
requires consideration, and he is, 1. In criticising this passage, it
therefore, easy to refute), ἀλλ᾽ ἑνὸς should be remembered that the
atémov δοθέντος TaAAa συμβαίνει" concept ὕλη 15 with Aristotle wider
τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐθὲν χαλεπόν. than that of σῶμα, cf. Part ii. b 3
1 This is clearfrom Fr. 8: ἀλλ᾽ 243 sq., second edition.
ὥσπερ ἐστὶ αἰεὶ, οὕτω καὶ τὸ μέγα-
632 MELISSUS.

of his, which did not accord with the Eleatie doctrine

of the unity of Being.
It is true that our philosopher directly infers the
unity of Being from its unlimitedness. If there were
several Beings, he says, they would necessarily all be
limited in regard to each other; if Being is unlimited,
it is also οὔθ In his opinion multiplicity also is in
itself inconceivable. For in order to be many, things ᾿
must be separated by the void; but there cannot be a ]
void, for the void would be nothing else than non- .
Being. Even if we suppose that the parts of matter
directly touch one another, without having anything
between them, the argument gains nothing. For if
matter were divided at all pots and there were con-
sequently no unity, there could also be no multiplicity,
all would be empty space ; if, on the other hand, matter
were only divided at certain points, there is no reason
why it should not everywhere be so. It cannot, there-
fore, be divided at all.? Finally, Melissus also attains

1 Fr. 3: εἰ δὲ ἄπειρον, ὃἕν" εἰ γὰρ διαιρετὸν, οὐθὲν εἶναι Ev, ὥστε οὐδὲ
δύο εἴη, οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο ἄπειρα εἶναι πολλὰ (similarly Zeno, sup. Ὁ. 615,1)
ἀλλ᾽ ἔχοι ἂν πέρατα πρὸς ἄλληλα: ἀλλὰ κενὸν τὸ ὅλον" εἰ δὲ τῇ μὲν τῇ
ἄπειρον δὲ τὸ ἐὸν, οὐκ ἄρα πλέω τὰ δὲ μὴ, πεπλασμένῳ τινὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐοι-
ἐόντα: ἕν ἄρα τὸ ἐόν. Fr. 10: εἰ κέναι" μέχρι πόσου γὰρ καὶ διὰ τί τὸ
μὴὲν εἴη, περανέει πρὸς ἄλλο. Arist. μὲν οὕτως ἔχει τοῦ ὅλου καὶ πλῆρές
De Melisso, i. 974 a, 9. ἐστι, τὸ δὲ διῃρημένον; ἔτι ὁμοίως
2 Arist. Gen. et Corr. 1. 8, φάναι ἀναγκαῖον μὴ εἶναι κίνησιν. ἐκ
325 a, 2: ἐνίοις γὰρ τῶν ἀρχαίων μὲν οὖν τούτων τῶν λόγων, ὑπερβά»-
ἔδοξε τὸ ὃν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕν εἶναι καὶ τες τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ παριδόντες
ἀκίνητον' τὸ μὲν γὰρ κενὸν οὐκ ὃν, αὐτὴν ὡς τῷ λόγῳ δέον ἀκολουθεῖν,
κινηθῆναι δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν δύνασθαι μὴ ὄντος ἕν καὶ ἀκίνητον τὸ πᾶν εἶναί φασι
κενοῦ κεχωρισμένου, οὐδ᾽ αὖ πολλὰ καὶ ἄπειρον ἔνιοι: τὸ γὰρ πέρας πε-
εἶναι μὴ ὄντος τοῦ διείργοντος. τοῦτο ραίνειν ἂν πρὸς τὸ κενόν. That
δ᾽ οὐδὲν διαφέρειν, εἴ τις οἴεται μὴ Aristotle in this exposition is
συνεχὲς εἶναι τὸ πᾶν ἀλλ᾽ ἅπτεσθαι thinking chiefly of Melissus, and
διῃρημένον, τοῦ φάναι πολλὰ καὶ μὴ not (as Philop. iz ἃ. 1. p. 36 a,
ἐν εἶναι καὶ κενόν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ πάντῃ supposes, -probably from his own
 BEING. 633

the same result in the following manner. If the so-

called many things really were what they seem to us,
they could never cease to be so. Since our perception
shows us change and decease, it refutes itself, and con-
sequently deserves no faith in regard to what it says
about the multiplicity of things.’ This remark, how-
conjecture) of Parmenides, seems épéouev καὶ ἀκούομεν, εἶναι χρὴ ἕκα-
most likely for the following rea- στον τοιοῦτον, οἷόν περ τὸ πρῶτον
sons: 1, The last proposition un- ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν, καὶ μὴ μεταπίπτειν μηδὲ
mistakeably refers to the doctrine γίνεσθαι ἑτεροῖον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ εἶναι
of Melissus on the unlimitedness ἕκαστον οἷόν περ ἔστιν. νῦν δέ φαμεν
of Being. 2. What is here said ὀρθῶς ὁρῇν καὶ ἀκούειν καὶ συνιέναι"
about motion agrees with what will δοκέει δὲ ἡμῖν τό τε θερμὸν ψυχρὸν
presently be quoted (p. 635, 1) from γίνεσθαι καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν θερμὸν καὶ τὸ
Melissus’ writings. 3. This whole σκληρὸν μαλθακὸν καὶ τὸ μαλθακὸν
argument turns upon the theory of σκληρὸν, καὶ τὸ ζωὸν ἀποθνήσκειν
empty space, which Parmenides in- καὶ ἐκ μὴ ζῶντος γίνεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα
deed rejected, but to which neither πάντα ἑτεροιοῦσθαι. καὶ ὅ τι ἦν τε
he nor Zeno, as far as we know, καὶ ὃ νῦν ἔστι οὐδὲν ὁμοῖον εἶναι,
attributed so much importance for ἀλλ᾽ ὅ τε σίδηρος σκληρὸς ἐὼν τῷ
the criticism of the ordinary point δακτύλῳ κατατρίβεσθαι ὁμοῦ ῥέων
of view. How little ground there (so the editions read, Mullach con-
is for the assertion of Philoponus jectures ὁμοῦ ἐὼν, or preferably
we see from the fact that, though ἐπαρηρώς; Bergk, De Xen. 30,
he recognises the relation of the ὁμουρέων ; but none of these amend-
foregoing demonstration te the ments satisfy me; perhaps there
Atomistic philosophy, this does not may be an ἰοῦ jn the duov): καὶ
prevent his ascribing it to Parme- χρυσὸς καὶ ἄλλο 6 τι ἰσχυρὸν δοκέει
nides : τοῦτο δὲ ἀναιρῶν ὁ Παρμενίδης εἶναι πᾶν, ἐξ ἥδατός τε γῆ καὶ λίθοι
φησὶν, ὅτι τὸ οὕτως ὑποτίθεσθαι οὐδὲν γίνεσθαι, ὥστε συμβαίνει μήτε δρῇν
διαφέρει τοῦ ἄτομα καὶ κενὸν εἰσφέρειν. μήτε τά ἐόντα γινώσκειν. οὐ τοίνυν
+ Fr. 17 (ap. Simpl. De Celo, ταῦτα ἀλλήλοις ὁμολογέει" φαμένοις
250 a, f: Sehol. in Arist. 509 Ὁ, 18, γὰρ εἶναι πολλὰ ἀΐδια (2 perhaps we
partly also Aristocles ap. Eus. Pr. should read aiel) kal εἴδεά τε καὶ ἰσχὺν
Ev, xiv. 17. I here follow Mul- ἔχονταπάντα ἑτεροιοῦσθαι ἡμῖν δοκέει
lach) : μέγιστον μὲν ὧν σημεῖον οὗτος καὶ μεταπίπτειν ἐκ τοῦ ἑκάστοτε
ὁ λόγος, ὅτι ἐν μόνον ἔστι. ἀτὰρ δρεομένου. δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθῶς
καὶ τάδε σημεῖα εἰ γὰρ ἦν πολλὰ, δρέομεν, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνα πολλὰ ὀρθῶς-
τοιαῦτα χρῆν αὐτὰ εἶναι, οἷόν περ ἐγώ δοκέει εἶναι. οὐ γὰρ ἂν μετέπιπτε εἰ
φημι Td ἕν εἶναι. εἰ γὰρ ἔστι γῆ καὶ ἀληθέα ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν, οἷόν περ ἐδόκεε
ὕδωρ καὶ σίδηρος καὶ χρυσὸς καὶ πῦρ ἕκαστον, τοιοῦτον᾽ τοῦ γὰρ ἐόντος
καὶ τὸ μὲν ζωὸν τὸ δὲ τεθνηκὸς καὶ ἀληθινοῦ κρέσσον οὐδέν. ἢν δὲ μετα-
μέλαν καὶ λευκὸν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα πέσῃ, τὸ μὲν ἐὸν ἀπώλετο, τὸ δὲ οὐκ
ἅσσα οἱ ἄνθρωποί φασι εἶναι ἀληθέα. ἐὸν γέγονε. οὕτως ὧν εἰ πολλὰ ἦν
εἰ δὴ ταῦτα ἔστι καὶ ἡμέες ὀρθῶς τοιαῦτα χρῆν εἶναι οἷόν περ τὸ ἕν.
654 MELISSUS.,

ever, which he himself designates merely as a secondary

proof, encroaches on the ground which Melissus had
already occupied in his polemic against the possibility
of motion and variability in general.
Being cannot move, it cam experience no increase,
no change of its condition, no pain; for every move-
ment is a transition to another, a cessation of the old and
the arising of something new. But Being is One, and
there is none besides; it is eternal, so that it neither
ceases nor arises; it is necessarily, therefore, changeless,
and always like itself; for all change, even the slowest,
must in time lead to an entire cessation of that which
changes.! In regard to motion in the narrower sense—
motion in space,—this, Melissus thinks, cannot be con-
ceived without the theory of an empty space. For if a
thing has to move to another place, this place must be
1 Fr, 4: ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ ἕν, καὶ condition of a thing; the words
ἀκίνητον" τὸ γὰρ ἕν ἐὸν ὁμοῖον αἰεὶ are: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μετακοσμηθῆναι ἀνυ-
ἑωῦτῷ" τὸ δὲ ὁμοῖον οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἀπόλοιτο, στόν" ὁ γὰρ κόσμος (the whole, which
οὔτ᾽ ἂν μέζον γίνοιτο, οὔτε μετακοσ- is founded upon a definite arrange-
μέοιτο, οὔτε ἀλγέοι, οὔτε ἀνιῷτο. εἰ ment of its parts, the complex) 6
γάρ τι τούτων πάσχοι οὐκ ἂν Ev εἴη. πρόσθεν ἐὼν οὐκ ἀπόλλυται, οὔτε 6
τὸ γὰρ ἡντιναοῦν κίνησιν κινεόμενον μὴ ἐὼν γίνεται, etc. Fr. 18 adds to
Z« τινος καὶ ἐς ἕτερόν τι μεταβάλλει. this what seems to us the very su-
οὐδὲν δὲ ἦν ἕτερον παρὰ Td ἐὸν, οὐκ perfluous argument that Being can-
ἄρα τοῦτο κινήσεται. ὅο ΕἾ. 11 (ap. not experience pain or grief, for
Simpl. Phys. 24 ἃ, ; cf. De Celo, what is subject to pain cannot be
52 b, 20; Schol. 475 a, 7), with eternal, or equal in power to the
the corresponding proof: εἰ γὰρ“ healthy, and must necessarily
τι τούτων πάσχοι, οὐκ ἂν ἔτι ἕν εἴη. change, since pain is partly the con-
εἰ γὰρ ἑτεροιοῦται, ἀνάγκη τὸ ἐὸν μὴ sequence of some change, and partly
ὁμοῖον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπόλλυσθαι τὸ the cessation of health and the
πρόσθεν ἐὸν, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐὸν γίνεσθαι. arising of sickness. Evidence at
εἰ τοίνυν τρισμυρίοισι ἔτεσι ἑτεροῖον third hand for the immobility of
γίνοιτο τὸ πᾶν, ὕλοιτο ἂν ἐν τῷ matter as held by Melissus (ef.
παντὶ χρόνῳ. Fr. 12 then shows Arist. Phys. i. 2, sub init. ; Me-
the same in regard to the μετακό- taph. i. 5, 986 b, 10 sqq.) it is
σμησις, by which we are to under- needless to quote.
stand each previous change in the
 BEING. 635

empty in order to receive it. If, on the other hand, it

withdraws into itself,it must become denser than it was
previously, that is to say, it must become less empty,
for rarer means that which contains more empty space,
denser that which contains less. Every movement
presupposes a void; that which can receive another
into itself is void; that which cannot receive another
is full; that which moves can only do so in the void.
But the void would be the non-existent, and the non-
existent does not exist. Consequently there is no void,
and therefore no motion. Or, in other words, Being
can move itself neither in Being (that which is full),
for there is no Being besides itself; nor in non-Being
(that which is empty), for non-Being does not exist.'
Melissus also expressly shows, as a result of the denial
of multiplicity and motion, that no division of Being
or mixture of substances is possible.” He was, no doubt,

1 Fr. 5: καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλον δὲ τρό- κινέεσθαι, οὐ yap ἔστι τι παρ᾽ αὐτὸ,
mov οὐδὲν κενεόν ἐστι τοῦ ἐόντος" τὸ
> 4 , > a 594
οὔτε ἐς τὸ μὴ ἐὸν, οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τὸ μὴ
γὰρ κενεὸν οὐθέν ἐστι οὐκ ἂν ὧν εἴη ἐόν. So Fr. 14, in part word for
τό γε μηδέν. οὐ κινέεται ὧν τὸ ἐόν; word. Fromthis and the foregoing
4 > ΄ μὴ ἱ

ὑποχωρῆσαι γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδαμῆ passages is taken the extract, De

Melisso, ce. 1, 974 a, 12 sqq., where
»“" ἘΚ 3 ᾽ 2ei 59 ε
κενεοῦ μὴ ἐόντος. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐς ἑωυτὸ
συσταλῆναι δυνατόν" εἴη γὰρ ἂν οὕτως the doctrine is specially insisted
ἀραιότερον ἑωυτοῦ καὶ πυκνότερον" on, which Melissus himself advances
τυῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον. τὸ γὰρ ἀραιὸν in Fr. 4,11, and which, as it would
ἀδύνατον ὁμοίως εἶναι πλῆρες τῷ πυ- appear, he has expressly demon-
κνῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη τὸ ἄραιόνγε κενεώτερον stratedin a previous passage : that
γίνεται τοῦ πυκνοῦ" τὸ δὲ κενεὸν οὐκ Being as One is ὅμοιον πάντη.
ἔστι. εἰ δὲ πλῆρές ἐστι τὸ ἐὸν ἢ μὴ, Aristotle refers to these same expo-
κρίνειν χρὴ TE ἐσδέχεσθαί τι αὐτὸ sitions, Phys. iv. 6, 213 0, 12: Μέ
ἄλλο ἢμή: εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐσδέχεται, πλῆ- λισσος μὲν οὖν καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτι τὸ
PEs, εἰ δὲ ἐσδέχοιτό τι, ov πλῆρες. πᾶν ἀκίνητον ἐκ τούτων (from the
εἰ ὧν ἐστι
ἐ μὴ κενεὺν, ἀνάγκη πλῆρες impossibility οὗ motion without
εἶναι" εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, μὴ κινέεσθαι' οὐχ empty space) εἰ γὰρ κινήσεται, avary-
ὅτι μὴ δυνατὸν διὰ πλήρεος κινέεσθαι, Kn εἶναι (φησὶ) κενὺν, τὸ δὲ κενὸν
ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων λέγομεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῶν ὄντων.
ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐὸν οὔτε ἐς ἐὸν δύναται
oe = > PA 5 > /
2 Vide, in regard to the mixture,
636 MELISSUS.

led to this by the doctrine of Empedocles, for Empe-

docles thought he could escape the Eleatic objections
to the possibility of Becoming, by reducing genera-
tion and destruction to mixture and separation. He
may, however, have been referring likewise to Anaxa-
goras if he were acquainted with the writing of that
philosopher. In his arguments against motion, the
proposition that all motion presupposes a void, and
that the void would be non-Being, clearly betrays a
knowledge of the Atomistic doctrine. For it is not
likely that the Atomists borrowed this, their funda-
mental theory, from Melissus (vide imfra). On the
other hand, the remark about rarefaction and conden-
sation points to the school of Anaximenes. From this
it is clear that Melissus occupied himself to a consider-
able extent with the doctrines of the physicists.
On the whole, with the exception of the statement
that the One is unlimited, we find that our philosopher
adhered strictly to the doctrine of Parmenides. This
doctrine, however, was not developed further by him,
and though he undertook to defend it against the
physicists, his arguments are unmistakeably inferior to
those of Zeno in acuteness. But they are not wholly
valueless; his observations especially concerning motion
and change give evidence of thought, and bring out
real difficulties. Besides Parmenides and Zeno, he
appears only asa philosopher of the second rank, but
still, considering his date, as a meritorious thinker.
It is obvious that he also agreed with the above-

the extract, De Melisso, 1. c. 8, 24 διήρηται τὸ ἐὸν, κινέεται, κινεόμενον

6qq.; on the division, Fr. 15: εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἅμα.
 BEING. 637

mentioned philosophers in rejecting the testimony of the

senses, inasmuch as they delude us with the appearance
of multiplicity and change ;' he probably attempted no
thorough investigation of the faculty of cognition, and
nothing of this kind has been attributed to him.
Some of the ancients ascribe to Melissus physical
propositions. According to Philoponus, he first, like
Parmenides, treated of the right view, or the unity
of all Being; then of the notions of mankind, and in
his third section he named fire and water as the primi-
tive substances.” Stobzus ascribes to him, in common
with Zeno, the Empedoclean doctrine of the four ele-
ments and of the two moving forces; and that in a
sense which at once suggests a later origin.? Stobzeus
also says that he maintained the All to be unlimited,
and the world to be limited.* Epiphanius represents
him as having taught that nothing is of a permanent
nature, but all is transient.* These statements, how-
ever, are exceedingly suspicious; first because Aristotle
expressly mentions as characteristic, of Parmenides, in
contradistinction from Xenophanes and Melissus, that
side by side with Being he enquired into the causes of
phenomena;® and secondly, because they are indivi-

1 Fr. 17 (sup. p. 633, 1); Arist. * Ecl. i. 440: Διογένης καὶ Mé-
Gen. et Corr.i. 8; sup. p. 632, 2; λισσος τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρον, τὸν δὲ
De Melisso, c. 1, 974 b, 2; Aristocl. κόσμον πεπερασμένον.
ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 17, 1; ef. 5 Exp. Fid. 1087 Ὁ.
p. oo, τ, § Metaph. i. 5, according to the
2 Phys. B, 6: ὁ Μέλ. ἐν τοῖς quotation on p. 626, 1: Παρμενίδης
mpos ἀλήθειαν ἕν εἶναι λέγων Td ὃν δὲ μᾶλλον βλέπων ἔοικέ που λέγειν"
ἐν τοῖς πρὸς δόξαν δύο φησὶν εἶναι παρὰ γὰρ τὸ ὃν, ete. (Vide sup. p.
τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν ὄντων, πῦρ καὶ ae 593, 1: cf. also c. 4, 984
ὕδωρ. “ἥν
5 Sup. p. 611, 2.
638 THE ELEATIC PHILOSOPHY.

dually so untrustworthy;! we may, therefore, unhesi-

tatingly set them aside. Another statement, that
Melissus avoided all mention of the gods, because we
can know nothing about them,—-sounds more probable ; ”
but here again the evidence is inadequate. 18 Melissus
really expressed himself thus, he no doubt intended,
not to assert his philosophical conviction of the un-
knowableness of the Divine—which he must have be-
lieved himself to have known in his doctrine of Being,
—hbut like Plato, in the Timeus (40 D), to avoid any
dangerous expression concerning the relation of his own
theory to the popular faith.

VI. HISTORICAL POSITION AND CHARACTER OF THE

ELEATIC SCHOOL.

Zeno and Melissus are the last of the Eleatie philo-

sophers of whom we know any particulars. Soon after
them, the school as such appears to have died out ;*

1 This has already been shown, instance the titles themselves, τὰ

Ῥ. 612, in regard to the statement πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, τὰ πρὸς δόξαν, prove
of Stobeeus, i.60. The second pas- that there is a confusion with Par-
sage in Stobzeus attributes to Me- menides. The statement of Epi-
lissus a definition, for which there phanius is perhaps founded on a
is no foundation whatever in his misapprehension of the discussion
system, and which was first intro- quoted p. 632, 2, or perhaps on
duced by the Stoies (Part iii. a, 174, some confusion with another philo-
1). As Melissus is here named with sopher.
Diogenes, we might conjecture that 2 Diog. ix. 24.
the statement perhaps arose from 3 Plato indeed in the introduc-
Diogenes the Stoic, in some passage tion to the Parmenides names a
where he brought forward this doc- certain Pythodorus as the disciple
trine, having mentioned the defini- and friend of Zeno; and in the
tion of Melissus and explained it in Soph. 216 A, 242 D (sup. p. 562, 1
thespirit of hisschool. As regards he speaks of the Eleatic school as
Philoponus, he is very untrust- if it were still in existence at the
worthy in respect to the most an- supposed date of this dialogue, the
cient philosophers. In the present latest years of Socrates. Little,
 ITS CHARACTER AND POSITION. 639

and what remained of it was lost in Sophistic,! for

which Zeno had already prepared the way, and sub-
sequently through the instrumentality of Sophistic, in
the Socratico-Megarian philosophy. Partly in this
indirect manner, and partly directly, through the
writings of Parmenides and Zeno, the Eleatic School
furnished its quota to the Platonic philosophy of the
concept, and afterwards to the Aristotelian physics and
metaphysics. But previously to this, it had considerably
influenced the development of the pre-Socratic philo-
sophy of nature. Heracleitus seems to have received
impulses, not merely from the Ionians, but also from
Xenophanes; in Empedocles, the Atomists, and Anaxa-
goras, the connection with Parmenides asserts itself
more definitely. All these philosophers pre-suppose the
concept of Being which Parmenides had introduced;
they all admit that the Real is, in the last resort,
eternal and imperishable ; they all deny, for this reason,
its qualitative change, and they are thus forced into
the theory of a multiplicity of unchangeable primitive
substances, and into that mechanical direction which
thenceforward for a long period was predominant in
physics. The conception of the element and the atom,
however, can be inferred from this, the opening of the Parmenides, for
as Plato may have been led to after the Eleatic stranger has been
represent the matter thus from the described as ἑταῖρος τῶν ἀμφὶ Παρ-
form of dialogue which he is using. μενίδην καὶ Ζήνωνα, Socrates en-
Another philosopher, Xeniades of quires ironically whether he is not
Corinth, who perhaps came forth perhaps a θεὸς ἐλεγκτικός ; and
from the Eleatic school, and, like Theodorus replies that he is μετριώ-
Gorgias, blended the Eleatic doc- τερος τῶν περὶ Tas ἔριδας ἐσπουδακό-
trine with Scepticism, will be spo- των, which it seems from this that
ken of later on in the chapter on the Eleatics, as a rule, must then
Sophistic. have been.
1 As Plato himself indicates in
640 THE ELEATIC PHILOSOPHY.

the reduction of change to combination and separation in

space, originated with the Eleatics. The Eleatic doctrine
forms therefore the main turning point in the history of
ancient speculation, and after its completion by Par-
menides, no philosophic system arose which was not
essentially determined by its relation to that doctrine.
This circumstance would alone prevent our separat-
ing the Eleatic doctrine as to its general aim from the
contemporary natural philosophy, and attributing to
it, instead of a physical, a dialectical or metaphysical
character; and a more particular examination will at
once show how far removed its founders were from a
pure philosophy of the concept, or ontology. We have
seen that Xenophanes proposed to himself essentially the
same problem as the physicists,—to determine the cause
of natural phenomena, the essence of things; we have
found that even Parmenides and his disciples conceive
Being as extended in space; we have learned the ver-
dict of Aristotle! on the Eleatics generally, that their
Being is merely the substance of sensible things. From
all this it is clear that these philosophers, too, were
originally concerned with the knowledge of nature ; that
they also start from the given and actual, and from thence
alone, in their search for its universal cause, attained
their more abstract definitions. We must therefore
regard the Eleatic doctrine in its general tendency, not
as a dialectical system, but a system of natural philo-
sophy.2 Zeno, it is true, made use of the dialectic
method in its defence, and was therefore called by
Aristotle the discoverer of dialectics;* but the Eleatic
1 Vide sup. p. 190, 1, 2. 3 Sup. p. 613, 2.
2 Cf. with what follows, p. 185 sq.
 ITS CHARACTER AND POSITION. 641

philosophy as a whole is still far from being a system

of dialectics. In order to be so, it should be dominated
by a more definite view of the problem and method
of scientific knowledge; its physical and metaphysical
enquiry should be preceded by a theory of knowledge,
and its view of the world should be regulated by the
definition and discrimination of concepts. But all this
is wholly absent. The Eleatics after the time of
Parmenides distinguish the sensible and the rational
contemplation of things, but this distinction has with
them only the same import as with Heracleitus, Em-
pedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus; it is not the
basis, but the consequence, of their metaphysical pro-
positions, and is developed as little into a real theory
of knowledge, as by the other physicists. Of the
principle by which Socrates struck out a new way for
philosophy—viz., that the investigation of concepts
must precede all knowledge of objects—we find no
trace, neither in the explicit declarations of the
Eleaties, nor in their scientific procedure. All that
we know of them tends to confirm the view of Aris-
totle, who regards Socrates as absolutely the first founder
of the philosophy of the concept ; and seeks the imper-
fect germ of that philosophy which can be detected in the
earlier science, not in the Eleatics, but in Democritus,
and to some extent also in the Pythagoreans.! In the
1 Part. Anim.i.1(sup.p. 185, 3); μὸν καὶ τὸ Wuxpdvof δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι
Metaph. xiii. 4, 1078 b, 17: Σωκρά- πρότερον περί τινων ὀλίγων... .)
τους δὲ περὶ Tas ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς πραγ- ἐκεῖνος εὐλόγως ἐζήτει τὸ τί ἐστιν
ματευομένου καὶ περὶ τούτων δρίζεσθαι . . . δύο γάρ ἐστιν ἅ τις ἂν ἀποδοίη
καθόλου ζητοῦντος πρώτου (τῶν μὲν Σωκράτει δικαίως, τούς τ᾽ ἐπακτικοὺς
γὰρ φυσικῶν ἐπὶ μικρὸν Δημόκριτος λόγους καὶ τὸ ὅδρίζεσθαι καθόλου.
ἥψατο μόνον καὶ ὡρίσατό mws τὸ θερ- Similarly ibid. i. 6, 987 Ὁ, 1; ef.
VOL. I. ΕΗ
642 THE ELEATIC PHILOSOPHY.

Eleatice system it is not the idea of knowing, but the

concept of Being, that dominates the whole; and this
system forms no exception to the dogmatism of the
pre-Socratic philosophy of nature. We must therefore
speaking generally, class the Eleatics among the
Physicists, as was sometimes done even in ancient
times ;' although in their material results they stand
widely apart from the rest of the physical philosophers.
In other respects, the historical position of this school,
and its importance in the development of Greek thought,
have been already considered in the introduction.
xil. 9,1086 b, 2; Phys. ii. 2, 194, 1 Plut. Pericl. α. 4; Sext. Math.
i, 20, and what is quoted on p. vii. 5, in regard to Parmenides.
090, 3.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON: PRINTED BY
AND (O., NEW-STREET SQUARE
SPOTTISWOODE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
wal
 1881
273"
242

Β
Zeller,
(Alleyne tr. )
,ἃ
:
Pre-

PONTIFICAL INS ae ituic

τωι
rite
γε
OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
59 ΟἱSpam
1i1f CAT!
sh

ΤΟΒΌΝΤΟ--5, CA Ν
ADA

4676
 SEP “AP
O bymmr devel Freee Aw 4 DLS RP Ree Heb beh Δ 4 Vth eee
ἐξ hee we mvs Tw ins dow mie at) Tene! ἿSven ΝΥ
Wh ΔΎΣΙΣ Δ PUB
δὴ νεινADEA
: διμεμεν φϑω μερεὰ να Dati he MALE ime SytheμὴAtt ry ἮΝ bie Wem ΜΝ T γεν.
ee νυβύμενν
ΠΥ
” he mbt
A hud Beph μινtic
ce Ἂ
rye ima LARA, OA rpee Sod at | Piet! salt Ve CM Lftae te POM πὰDp Mae wie ΜΝ ΟῚ aa ΝΎ,
ΡΣ
δι γεν ἐξπον; ‘eaμὺλὲρεν ; Heeb pelt
δ᾽δον ΡΝ} ᾿ ἦν ἂν ows bre Pe wephisbeb, τῇ
mir ASΝΙΝ ΚΝ * ny τῆι ΝΥΝῚ AMD
συν ral sn tiogt CUS AT BD brhdber a ΜΑΙ eee ΣΤ
Sy eee EY ΒΙῤιν ἐν ¢ Ly BLN Pea PAD ΨΥ,
ΤῊΝ
ts aie
ΠΩΣ vist}Pree hp ee nd, Hal. Bremen PPR Ob bbl eel Here
hf ΓΝ δὴrgἐν ΓΕ AU
ὝΝ' Ἢ μῷ FLOR
ἌΡ ae » wv
b [ν MPM ΡΥΕΔ ΜῊΝ
ΦᾺΣ ΡΙΝ ΤΡ ΝΎ ἱ t bybso Ue ae a BED Re ee
eeΜΙΝ ὯΝ ΚΥΝ, πα au MULL th Se
Ryara Die αὶ arate
ee
Ar ΤΡ CN
ἡ! "PUA
RL
ἐν! γ᾽ νην. RIDA bLDHietl we
ash με
Ye ibe pe et " ὟΝ,
tel Mad ᾿ oe ‘ Picts T Ma RC MA bab Ψ εν ΔῊ
te Διδεμ ἐκ τ me PD LA dsp Hoh τ
μὲν
Bele ΠΥ oa ἣ A i ΙΝ Ἵ
Κρ ‘arty! wa APNG
ἢ πὰ μεν Hi pe: bk oy a aένeeepet es Wee ie. Υ inftyb p>: OR Wb hee mee
ΜΈ whee wis
bed HFRimtonbs μέῤιλεν ὁ ΝῊ ἢ ᾿
A Set eran . ι] PORE
Deel ake nwΣου oie ite oie} ey My he REMY Wy
> ΜΝ bye We) rw ae a ke Tae Bhp phe are [ἢ tt mad > be
τῇ we then δ ¢ ΤῸΝ ΣΝ RA bebevil4’s Poh ea
» βὼν ἵ ἈΝ ᾿ “ιν ode Ν Ἷ 4 ΑΚ + Reb & ee Chena’
ἈΚ) Δ τὰ ΓΗ4 δῆ όσα PE DP P᾽ν δι ν ἐκ
Mesh ype SR Ατῇ han gp Dh we ἥν ΠΥ ΜΝ ΗΝ Ἢ pe
Hb 43 B-bad AlbeT ΔΎ [hy ene
μὰ ἀν tἡγε; a ‘yy Ua tl Leh bd pee aby
yt bs Perel PARAL ΥΩ ΝΑ ἈΚ
ν
ΧΎΥΎΥ
‘ POUR Widen ule ab ΤΗΝ ’ t PVE he th PPh ον» OTL ae are
ΡΝ h tee ert vietei meet FAG
here ys ΠΝ ΔῊΝ ἦν ὁ
nerteub sien
Ὁ
sk
ὙΦ
ΕΣ
iris Be Le eacA MLL We1 ta ΤΠ ὑρὸν fs dob ἐν
se Renin ὑμένι ΑῚ Τὴ LD aryheh Adi matiae Ἐν μὴν Ὁ. aad δε Let ad| ay Ve betes "
Meare abel ΟΣ te edt aah ὯΝ " ΔΩ͂Ι ΧΡῊ [hey ἣ 4\
ψὺν το
PRIORI MEM aes AOS eve 5 Τα δι» 4 τὰ ,
ΠΝ " K
JERR ABSENT 5 eat Ny An i 44-84 ede
sees *
MG an =)peor HAW eo ΜΉΝ,
BLE arieee ben '
TREC UR AAG
DIN ΚΡ eteΡΥ ΑΝ PH
herat
hrekeA
he n | RENDwally ἐὸν ἊΨAb he‘ ΡΝ
SY
᾿ }
MCAia Tenth: ΠΧ minbith)
Hy pee Papier
ven h te
γεν ΤΩΝ δὼ ΡΝ pen
gy)ect
d Pobih) pipes Oe yaaa Seἢ ᾿
ΙἾ δ
Veh PUERTO EE ME eT A es
rur Shes PIV eh hae iges Mi My rete sea t wit fe > fy
ἀν! ΓΕ ΤΩΝ Briaemhon wee ἈΝ, siting ᾿ ri
Π ee ΠΝ bee Nem |
fhDapp srt tira ΓΛ Siesta ΜῊ Mb hohe VR ihre Rh. bay rpg
Nibibeh»
HS ἡ ΤΩΣ een
pbb ry pegs PEN ong ἐμβον *
OHA ΤΩΝ oy +
Rs Nested ΓΥ Sy iba ie nih a hy Fi Wee ΜΆ Tlie thee eas We er
ΜΗ ohh Helgaea!PEMA By᾿ oy Mi SVMVDLLR ber) Hiatt A a's
Neos
Tait DAS
Ω eotalrycs' tata’ tree
~~
ἷ y Teak Das Dob ge bo 4 | a ds ees pes
erate URE Mt ke wih hen
ty Ἵ ᾿ ente
nder tn
Ss
ΚΓ ΣῪ ΝΑ
ee RS td,
ote.Ὺ"
me Moe 1}
bi Pitishsh My) ewe Never eee a ἢ ἣ / > Ny ἐ
rh
‘ Lae l Ay
neheny ah SPRheheweber
Ntesbs i hoiἐν 7 ebs ἀρ Sty Biba arnt A ΡΟ
ΠΕ
δον
6] rbearit bert! ᾿μ ν ΝΜ ΝΙΝ γ᾽beh ονfh if
Whey PAY eM
tis t
ΒΜ AO ἌΡΑ a
MUSEO CE Ts upt HOR me ORY ΜΝ Pp Ls ἡ τὶ hide
} ἐν ὧν te
ponte beets ΤΥ i na aoe
Rel kay ἘᾺΝ
{ ἘΝ Rg ban
tahbtm τὴΤΌΝRy ᾿
ΤῊ
ΠΡ
ΘΗ ἈΝ ΜΗ ts he
ΗΝ
ts t ΥΩ
‘ ᾿

eR ROEΠΝ
£ i
ΗΝ
gC phat i POPE OLDE
ἘΝ bb ὦ»
Nh
wise
ΤΩΝ og
δ
ἈΚ
aie hh
a
ΜΚΎΝΝ
ie hee y
Piper:ἽΝAl ΔΝ Healyhe
Tih
He hee Wins
Wee ah μι ᾽
᾿ ae ita an roeNeat
we \ ΜΝ teat ῃ }
«
Ty et) i Ap penis Bsr ule ΤῊΝ ΣΡ ἣν γεν
ΧΗ wat Δ} ΓΝ ΓΝ wien ΟἿΆ ᾿
f WASH aabiteRr δ. 1 Ἷ
da dy
nea Phe
nh cate A it iy wee WPrhiarbene hey! Pain | "ἮΝ tis
Sith p18)»
pyre AER
ratty PRENUGHUnUS ΣΝ
tateΣῊΝ mae 3) ny.
43 ἜΗΝ: ἢ
ΧΕΡῚ ΩΝ Rt tye ΑΘ PLSDCYL ΔΑ BIR ROW
ΚΝ
ΣῊΝ, ΠΝ ΜᾺ» TEIN Epo oe
ΓΟΔΥΜΝῪ τὰ MS el Tati ya ek tient aD | sthea)
ΚΝ, eee ὝΦΟΣ.
. MenἝΩΣ
eth
ἮΝ ἮΝ
pet ΠΝ ΗΝ, Ἃ ἈΝ .
hope hye ΡΝ Ὗ ὁ ΟΝ, bey » >
Ge ‘
aA
ἘΝ BaeΝΥ ie CaS
Ἧ ἃ lone an an, “
j ΚΝ
» ee
ὙΠ Μὴν
ΡΤ ἈΝ ΝΠ
&
ΕΝ
ΝῊ PE tS ΤΗΝ,
et ΔΑΝ tae eh HT ἀρ μὰ
wes Hu
\}

δ,
SEVERE BRI ARD ΠΝ"
Δ ΑΝ ΟΝ τς y
oe

A
Ἶ i
ΩΝ
‘ oHany URE REAR NY
e ΝΗ
rae tah
yaay
iveNy Wa

ἀνὰ
: ἀ ΡΎΝΝ ἡ
Samat Wi) ἜΘΝΗ
byeihe oy) eae
My ae
, ;

Ἢ ᾿

δύ ibis

vis
it
ΤΣ ΤΩὯΝἘΝ Wear om a Steel
te sites
ite
ΗΝ, (a neh ayBS Mtae ityΤΥ
feebἘΝ iyὌΝ ; +7
ἘΣ UEP WEY ehhh italhe ULE) MAU { sre SPL ars
}
a ᾿a ων
ate pit str, > Pitse A ihe bay) oat |
He
ὑπ Ἢ einen 5 ,
Tb
i
‘
hr
aa
ν᾽
i epbe
"4ov
ἮΝ μὴ ρα ἢ
to Ue Cee
ye ἌΝ,

{ud
ey ia ft (i. Lal
mich +Hib p> Soba
ty tthe ἀντι nr
ΧΟ Baye 4 Piehs ie ae
eee th et nent ry f
ΕΝ Sh ; Σ oh δ:
b> Ἷ ‘
i ἕ ΤῸ ΚἊΝ
berks κὰν ὡς 1 the } Or pers) fe. a
ΡΨ { hE Ἦν γεν a8.) δ: νυν Goloh
δ,» pein > ih) "heh
pA Bi ine Pel) Pe eas ro Sale ΝΥΝ “= y K
un ay ΜΝ Sted RET) ΠΥ
fi BER: Pibck ard
bce be ni,
ἐντν
why
apa

ΜΗ othe ” he μ
Sm Ng ωρι ἡ
Pewee.
" μον πῇ ΉΤΟ ee
hala shay, meh TR ME hag
peracid’
Tee
noord ohἼΩΝ " δ hl Ree > © bri,
eal Beat oats fal)~ ἜΗΝ, Δ ΔῊ
ae ry! we Teabe neh, treet Aber thr wa hy rh F
; tlhe f
Sat
μ᾿ ta ἧς ᾽ we ΠΡ hope δ ti) PS bee
ΣΝ Thebes ἊΣ hy Lie ΕΟ Ἧἡ ΟΣ
SIDS ATS Sa ey Ue eee
i Ῥεδν
asΙΔ, Re
th ᾿ La pies ὁ ἐν Whar te
ἈΠ
ἧς
aH
ti ke
Ἵ be
Habe ies ohmi ἐδὴ τ» δ
PP poe ΤῊ ᾿
bee bse DACA TY
minh εἴ
ΩΣ i
Pek aaa AUR ASD μεν» eh
a ἐλθὲ φeta TY oe δ
004 a + chats ee Pe a Ἢ er Pie
i > CG aORCade
Phere Us ver ἢ ’ Γ
”
fe ἈΑΚΥ PUDτ κῆρεν Are A ap aie deadRe ΡΝal care ea
ϊ r
i v baht »
a she bentity Walt hg “ΜΠ aftbe ἜΡΟΝ PPR
stsiea AS a ails pr bedi
Witege meter Ψ otd ak bbe.
RSA apd ton bs he wo Asie δὲ ΡΥ
Pythdye : a Souk ΠΝ ΝΥ Ἷ, ΓΝ ΡΥ bs
ΠΝ ΓΗ
ΣΝ
ἊΣ ts nanan , ay ΟΝ i ΜΗ" ΜΉΝ.phytk Sy
. (ea ure
- ~
‘ a Ware ‘ ee OT RSRenee δ f Oh yok tele np ee Ped,ἢhele
reeeana nday
ΝΣ Sara ariners a J ahaa) ty a eee ae
iin ᾿ Loaitinr/ sen ase tetan ἘΝῚ ὃ - ae bieben this oer Nhhts + Tue
ν
es: sears δῆμον: Ἢ, preps ig tn,* breast Lai ibe ᾿
beabe Lhe ν᾿ ΠῚ
ϑυ νου ger an ΤῊΝ ᾿ ΜΟΙ ἢ eR He ar ἈΠ whshenth ἢ ΑΓΕ ι bese ne emai
a τὸν d rh
ν" . pad Heir hs hea ?
Wh
ΤΉ Sah Mei ew
ga: LAAN
| > op mance oe ees ΚΘ TVG hon gf
ἢ ΑΔ’
hissoA |
ΕΣ ἀν βεφνου
oe, ἐδ is ἢ ῇ 4
Ἷ ΚΝ Mat
tLe eh
Sencar a Ngee chp ἮΝ ΜΗ
th btbsbyt δ
i
vibe FN Fra
aarp ecbehy
rita ἡ Ld? ΜΗΝΝ
eh ae
Vai Oe “Dekel γε} dr Rael by Fue Dehs WIRD Sept WeeWEN oH ΔῊΝ μοι
ἀν
a) ae PES whey ote.
onbee) Ut aa BTW ΠΧ Sob BOAR ν Way
rt od thts
bene OAEt she wh N OPO Rp Behe ἢ ΝῚ ἢ i
ue ee Ue as bbe ba ae
’
debe Ne oti ii bib eiehvin nbn Lb
beat
Men) Davee a ere ee i
τὴ εἶν, hybebebn Ἢ bie: ῬΑ
ἥδ οτε ἘΠῚ ὑπῆν» Fs ἢ 7) es “
oe δ΄. ἰ