History of Greek Philosophy II PDF
History of Greek Philosophy II PDF
History of Greek Philosophy II PDF
CiREEK PHILOSOPHY
I.OXDOF : P R I F T E D R Y
SPOTTIB\TOODE A X D CO., XEW-STREET SQUARE
A S D PARLII\XEXT STREET
A HISTORY
OF
GREEK PHILOSOPHY
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE
TIJIE OF SOCRATES
DR E; ZELLER
PROFESSOR IN T E E USIVEILSITP OF BERLIN
S. F. ALLEYNE
BN I ' W O VOLUMES
VOL. 11.
C
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1881
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND V O L U M E .
PAGE
1. General standpoint and fundamental conceptions of the doc-
trine of Heracleitus . 1
2. Cosmology. . . . . . . . . . . 47
3. Man: his lrnowledge and his actions . 79
4. Historical position and importance of Heracleitus. The
Heracleiteans . . . 104
111. ANAXAQORAS.
1. Principles of his system : Matter and Mind . . . .
2. Origin and system of the universe . . . . . .
3. Organic natures : Man . . . . . .
. .
4. Anaxagoras in rela~ionto his predecessors. Character and
origin of his doctrine. The Anaxagorean school. Archelaus
THIRD SECTlON.
T H E SOPHISTS.
1. Origin of the Sophistic doctrine . . . . . . 394
2. External history of the Sophists . . . . . . 407
3. Teaching of the Sophists considered in its general character . 429
4. Sophistic theory of knowledge and Eristic disputation .. 445
5. Opiniors of the Sophists concerning Virtue and Justice,
Politics and Religion. Sophistic Rhetoric . . . . 469
6. Value and historical importance of the Sophistic doctrine.
The various tendencies included in it . . . . . 496
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . 517
ERRATA.
Page 24, 3, line 6-for infra, p. 555, 3, 3rd ed. read infra, p. 46, 1.
,, 54 (first column), line 10-for inf. p. 708, 2. 3rd ed. read inf. 234, 2.
,, 57, 2, line 7 (second column)-for heat and warmth ~ e a light d and
warmth.
,, 59, 3-for p. 621, 2 read 57, 2.
,, 69, n. line 12 (first column)-for Diog. ii. 8 jinf. p. 77) read Diog.
ix. 8 (inf. p. 77, 1).
,, 70, line 12 (second column)-for 363, 5 read 363, 2.
,, 80, note l-omit i. 614 sq.
,, 96, note 2, line 12-for p. 601 sq. 3rd ea. read inf. 113 sq.
,, 196, 1, line 12-for p. 707, 1 , 4 read 148, 4 ; 149, 3.
,, 207, 1, line 13-omit sometimes.
,, 310, 1, line 2--for 294, 2 read 294, 4.
,, 3-20, 2, line l-for Diogenes read Diagoras.
,, 412, line 6-for Leontium read Leoutini.
,, 453, l-for p. 638, 1read 630, 1.
,, 453, 4, last line-for p. 638, 2 read 632, 2.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE OREEES
IN ITS
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,
thing passes into its opposite, all comes out of all ; all
is all. The day is sometimes longer, somet'imes shorter ;
case we might conjecture that he These writers are unanimously
would not always hare employed agreed tha: he denied ally perma-
one and the same formula. Why nent state of things. Schuster says
tile expression adduced by Schuster (p. 207 sq.) that Plato was the
should be more authentic than the first to ascribe this meaning to
others t h a t have been handed r d v ~ a xwpei-that Aristotle fol-
down to u s ; why the .irdrra $€?v lowed his example, hut betrayed
which is mentioned by Arist.otle in Phys. riii. 3, that he had not
three times (De Calo, iii. 1 , Metaph. himself found a definite explanation
1, 6 , and Do An. i. 3, ride, iqfra, of the wordsin Heracleitus's work.
p. 22, 4) ; or the corresponding For my part, I ean charge neit,her
passage, o7ov P ~ h p a r a ~tvs7uOar rEc Plato nor Aristotle, nor even Plu-
r d v r a , which is quoted in Plato as tarch, nor Alexander, who were
a saying of Heracleitus, 2%[email protected] equally in possession of this n ~ u c h
U, si~ouldnot equally rcprocluce read booli, with so careless a l ~ d
his own words ; why he should superficial an account; and I do not
have said d v r a xwpe;, and not see what can justify us, even irrr-
(according to Cmt. 401 D) 2var spoctivelq- of Heracleitusls own
~h x d v ~ a~ a \ rpivcrv o262v, i t does assertions, in opposing their cnani-
not appear. Whatever expression mous declarations with a theory
Heracleitus may have employed, which cannot bring forward a
the chief q u ~ s t i o n is, what he single witness in its defence. For
meant by it. And he himself leaves eTen Phys. riii. 3 prorrs nothing.
no doubt upon this point. The Aristotle here says, 253 b, 9 : @ a d
river, which labitzrr et labetzrr i?&rlves ~ r v e i u 6 a l r r j v avrwv 06 r b
omne vclzibilis (euunb, would hare r b 6' 06, &AA& r d v r a ~ a &€l, l &AA&
been a very inappropriate iilustra- hav6dve~v r h v $ p ~ r & p a v afuOqulv.
tion of the proposition t h a t all rpbs ohs ~ a [ r t p06 Fropl[ovras rotav
things in time come to an end ; ~ i v q a r vh 8 y o v a ~ v ,$ mdrras, 06 X a h r -
but it is perfectly just in regard to nbv &ncvr?juar. He therefcre ex-
the constant change of things. pressly attributes t o Hrracleitns
This is clearly marlted by Herii- (with whom this passage is prima-
cleitus as the point of comparison, rily concerned) the assertion t h a t
when he says that we cannot go all things are involved in perpetual
down twice into the same river. cha.nge. He fails, however, to find
Whether the river flowed on eter- in Heracleitus a distinct explana-
nally, or a t same time or other tion as to the kind of change that
came to an end, is, in reference to is here meant; and he goes on to
this point, quite immaterial. But show in regard to all kinds of
even if the explanations of Hera- change,-increase and diminution,
cleitus had been less equivocal transformation and change of place
than they arc, the opinion of the (cf. P a r t rr. 290, 3rd ed.), that they
writers who were acquainted with cannot go on uninterruptedly. But
his works, not a s we know them, what follows from this? What i s
in small fragments, but in thgir there to show that Aristotle's cc-
whole connection, wouidbe decisive. count of the matter may not have
HERA CLEIT US.
th9 prerious state, because a part ther sweet nor bitter, Heracleitus
of the previous characteristics have that i t is sweet and bitter at once.
been exchanged for such as could Cf. Diog. ix. 7 sq.: r d v r a T E
not coexist in the same subject and riveu8ar ~ a 0 '~ i p a p ~ E / Kr ~~\ ~L 8lb
v
in the same relation; and such 2 v a v r r o r p o a ~ s $ppdu8ar r h S v ~ a
characteristics we call opposites. ... yiveuda; T E r d v ~ aK ~ T ' ;vav-
Every difference leads back to ~ r d r q ~ a Stob.. &l. i. 58 : ' H p d ~ h .
partial opposition, and every r b ~ ~ p 1 0 8 r K b?ripv &$810v, e&aPP6v$v
change fluctuates between two con- 6 i hdyov ;K 75s ; v a v ~ r o 8 p o p ~ a8r1 7 , ~ ~ -
ditionq, which, when conceived in oupybv T B Svrwv. ~ Philo. &U. Ter.
a perfectly definite manner, exclude div. h. 510 B (503 M), after illus-
one another. trating the proposition, &vs' 8 u a
Cf. besides what is said on p. ;v ~ d u p yu x ~ 8 b v Z v a v ~ l a~ t v a r?ri-
11 sq., the statement of Aenesi- +UKEV, by many examples: 8v
demus, ap. Sext. Pyrrh. i. 210: ybp r b ;c &p@> 7 t h ; u a v ~ i ~ v 0 8,
'The sceptics say that the opposite r p v O 6 v ~ o sy v d p i ~ aT B 2vavr;a. 06
appears in all things, the Heraclei- T O ~ T ' E)UTIY, 8 @ z u i u " E A h ~ v e s~ b v
..
r o u r ; u r ~r h b p a r h 7 5 v h o p d r w v ' . ing to which he makes the same
(c. 10) ov"rws ' H p d ~ A e r r o s F'u ?uy passage in one of the two quota-
pofpa r f B e r a i K ~ Lr i p @ r & dprpavii tions, immediately succeeding one
rois h$aviuiv . . . 2 ~ 7 y1 h p , $ q u i v , another, express the contrary of
bppovfq b$av+s @avep?r K ~ E ~ T T W Vwhat . i t is said to express in the
K ~ L . 8uwv .. . ~ p o r i p 6 w , 06 r h other. This theory seems the more
b$av? ? r p o r ~ p $ u a s . On the ground inadmissible, since Plutarch en-
of this last quotation it is conjec- tirely agrees with the first citat,ion
tured by Schuster (p. 24 ; in oppo- of Hippolytus, and with the read-
sition to him, vide Teichmiiller, N. ing of Eurr in the second. I cannot
St. i. 154 sqq.) that the words of endorse Schuster's judgment that
Heracleitus ran thus : ds rf y a p the 'obscure account ' in Plut. 2. c.
bppovlq h@av+s $avep?s K P E ~ T T W Y ; can hare no weight in opposition
'Why should an invisible harmony to the 'clear testimony ' of Hippo-
be better than a visihle ? ' But lytus. The only thing that seems
acut,e as this conjecture is, i t can- to me clear in Hippolytus is that in
not he substantiated by the text of his quotation in c. 9, he coincides .
Hippolytus, if we consider this in with Plntarch. That, which Schns-
it* whole context. As the words ter calls Hippblytus's clear testi-
& p p o u f ~ &C.,
, are quoted, c,. 9, with- mony which refutes Plntarch, is,
out Z u r i , a n d a s these wordscannot in fact, only his own conjecture,
be taken to mean that the invisible which is supported neither by the
is better than the risible, Hippo- MS. of Hippolytus, nor by the con-
lytus cannot (as I wrongly admitted n e c p of the passage. On the
to be possible in the Jenaer L. T. ofher hand, Plutarch's statement
1875, Art. 83) have had the inter- concerning what he had read in
rogative bs r f , but merely g u r i in Heracleitus (and nothing else is in
his text of Heracleitus. Nor are question here) is not in the least
we forced by the passage in c. 10 obscure ; i t is perfectly evident that
to the theory of another t e x t ; for he only found in Heracleitus the
he 'does not here conclude, as we assertion that the invisible har-
should expect from Scl~uster's mony is better than the visible ;
reading, that the visible was pre- and not the question, ' Why should
ferred by Heracleitus to the in- the invisible harmony be better
visible, but that both are made than the visible?' Plntarch fur-
equal: since at one time he calls ther says of the bppovla $avcp+,
the & p p o u b h+av?s the better, and that God has hidden in it the h a -
a t another he gives the preference $opal and i r ~ p d r q r e s; these ex-
to the 8uwv 6$[s, &c. That this pressions certainly do not belong
c on cl us ion is false is quite clear, to Heracleitus, nor does Plutarch
bnt we axe not justified in disallow- cite them as belonging to him.
ing the employment of the passage But that some Heracleitean sen-
in c. 9, because of the 'want of tence was floating in Plutarch's
understanding' that i t evinces. mind (probably some words in
However Hippolytus may hare connection with the double har-
misinterpreted the words of Hera- mony)-we see from Philo, Qu. in.
cleitus, the use which he makes of Gen. ir. 1, p. 237 Auch. : arbor est
them shows how he read the pas- secumdzim Heraclitum maturn nos-
sage, and refutes the theory accord- tra, pzte so obducere atque abseo~zdere
HARMONY. 41
VOL. 11. E
50 HERA CLEIT US,
p w ~ ~ for
s , i t is said the rest came maintain that our body can never
out of the water, which is almost be in a state of rest. b d yZlp
entirely to be explained by the PE;. There
8 n a v r a &vw T E ~ a ~i d r w
evaporation of the earth and of the is no question here of the orjgin
water. Rchuster therefore reads : and destruction of the world, but
ZK 6 i r o h o v r b T O P , r b Aolnb simply of the mutation of things
U X E ~ ~etc.V , But this alteration of in the world.
the text would only be allowable, E. g. Philo. De Btern. M.
if the received text would bear no 958 A : 7h u ~ o r x ~ i7a0 ; ~ 6 u p o v
admissible construction. It makes, .
. . 6 0 h L X F B o v s a (traversing
however, very good sense, though a GdArxos, that is, a path returning
not the same that Schuster ascribes into itself) be1 ~ a ~i ? a37?v v 56bv
to i t ; whereas in his reading, the bvw KU) ~ d r w~ V V E X ( ;b~pS~ f j 3 0 v r a ,as
simple thought that fire arises from Heracleitus expresses i t (vide f d -
water by the evaporation of the lowing note). Max. Tyr. 41, 4 :
water would be expressed by the p ~ r a j 3 o A ? v dp@s u w p d r w v ~ a ysv6-
l
confksed and obscure expression .rh usws, bAAay$v 66Bv bvw ~ a ~l d r w
A O L T ~ u x ~ 6 b v rrdvra, etc. What ~ a r rbb v ' H p d ~ h e r r o v .
can be meant by A o r ~ h r d v r a ? Fr. 89 ; SUP. p. 24, 2.
Fire is the only thing which. in the Loc. cit. 268 sq., 157, 165.
conflagration of the world, still Philo, loc, cit. 958 C , adduces
continues to arise from water. this passage in proof of his remark
THE ELEMENTS, 51
VOL. 11. I
114 THE HERA CLEI TEANS.
and can oniy be supported, and change to which all things are sub-
that but imperfectly, by some later ject ; i t is the natural force which
and untrustworthy indications. produces what is destructive, as
Heracleitus, on the contrary, main- well as what is beneficial to man.
tains the unity of the world, and The Persian doctrine contains no-
the power that moves the world, thing of the transmut~tionof the
as strongly as any of the philoso- elements, nor of the a.lternate for-
phers; the opposites with him mation and destruction of the
are not original and permanent, world; for what Gladisch quotes
but the original element is the (IL7el. zc. Phil. 27; Her. ZL. Zor. 38
uniform essence which, in its de- sq.) from Dio Chrysost. Or. ssxri.
relopment, puts forth the most op- p. 02 sqq. R. is evidently a later
posite forms of Being, and again interpretation, by which an in-
receives them into itself. The sipid allegorical representation of
Persian system remains fixed, even the Stoic cosmology is made out
in the opposition of good and eril, of the ancient Persian chariot of
of light and darkness, as a final Ormuzd (on which cf. Herod. vii.
an& absolute opposition; Ahriman W ) , and t,he steed of the sun.
and his kingdom :&resimply that Neither is there any mention of
which ought not to be, and which Heracleitus's theory of the sun,
(cf. Schuster, 225, 3 ) has only in which, though so ch&ract,eristicof
the process of time intermeddled him, would be ahsolutely out of
with the world : whereas with place; nor of the Reracleitean an-
Heracleitus strife is the necessary thropology, for the belief in the
condition of existence ; even evil is Frarashis, to which Gladisch refers,
a good for the Deity, and a world has hardly even a diskant analogy
of light alone, without shaJows, with it. I t has already been said,
such as forms the beginning and p. 6, that there is no reason for bring
end of the Zoroastrian cosmology, ing the Logos of Heracleitus into
is entirely unthinkable ; for this connection with the word Honover.
very reason, however, the opposi- as Lassalle does. That Heraclei-
tion is continually resolving itself tus, 'as to his political opinions, was
into the harmony of the universal a Zoroastrian monarchist' is a more
whole. There is much more re-. than hazardous assertion : his own
semblance to the Persian dualism utterances show him to haye been
in that of Empedocles and the Py- aristocratic and conservative, but
thagoreans than in the system of a t the same time thoroughly Greelr
Heracleitus. Heracleitus's chief in his temperament, and he is ex-
d~ctrineofthe flux of all things is pressly said to have declined an
entirely absent fi-om the Zoroas- invitation to the Persian court.
trian theology ; and, therefore, the Under these circumstances, i t is of
worship of fire common to both has no avail to prove that Heracleitus
in each case a different import. called strife the father of all
The Persian religion in regard to things, when we know t,hat strife
light and warmth dwells mostly on with him had quite another mean-
their happy and beneficent influ- ing from the conflict of good and
ence on man; with Heracleitus, evil in the Zoroastrian religion ;
fire is the cause and symbol of the that he made fire the primitive .
universal life of nature-of the essence, when by fire he did not
ZMPEDO CLES.
$&*p, y?, a?O+p, ijhros ; V . 215 and this matter neither increases
(209, 282 M), 197 (270, 273 M), nor diminishes, ~ a vpbsl rois o h '
xBBv, ZpPpos, alOhp, &p ; V . 96 dhho rr (so Mull., but the text is
(124, 120 M) sqq. probably iihros, corrupt, and its restoration very
aiBhp, iip8pos, ala ; v. 377 (16, 32 uncertain) yiyverai 0b6' & ~ o h $ ~ c i .
31) altJ+p, ~ b v r o s ,~Bdrv,+ ~ A L;OV
S. ' drist. Metaph. i. 4, 985 a.,
I S 7 (327, 263 M) ? ~ & K T W ~Bdrv,
~, 31, cf. c. 7, 988 a, 2 0 ; Dc Gen. et
oirpavbs, Odharrua; V. 198 (211, Corr. ii. 1, 328 b, 33 sqq. Cf.
21 1 M) xOBV, Nijurrs, "H@aiuros; Karsten, 331. The word u r o r ~ ~ i o v
V . 203 (235, 206 M) ~Ochv,"H+ar- is moreover not Ernpedoclean, a s
uros, ii,uBpos,alS$p. I cannot agree i t i s almost meclless to observe.
with Steinhart's conjecture (2. c. Plato is cited as the teacher who
93) that Ernpedocles by the vnriety first introduced i t into scientific
of names wished t o mark the clif- lacguage (Eudemus ap. Simpl.
ference between the primitive Phys. 2, s, Favorin. ap. Diog. iii.
elements and those perceptible to 24). Aristotle found it already
sense. V. 89 (116, 92 M), says in vogue; as we see from the ex-
t h a t the four primitive elements pression r b ~ a h o i ~ ~uvr oar x ~ i a
contain in themselves all matter; (cf. Part, 11. b, 336, 2nd ed.)
tion of Pherecydes and Anaximenes, only the triple
d i v i s i ~ nof Heracleitus, t h e five-fold division of Philo-
laus (probably already connected with Empedocles),
and Anaximander's two opposite categories of warm and
cold. Why Empedocles fixed the number of his
elements a t four, we cannot discover, either from his
own fragments, or from the accounts of the ancients.
At first sight i t might seem that he arrived a t his
theories i n the same manner as other philosophers
arrived a t theirs, viz., through observation and the
belief that phenomena were most easily to be explained
by this means. B u t i n that case his doctrine was
anticipated i n the previoas philosophy. The high esti-
mation i n which the number four was held by the Pytha-
goreans is well known. Yet we must not exaggerate
t h e influence this may have had on Empedocles, for in
his physics he adopted little from Pythagoreanism, and
the Pythagorean school, even in its doctrine of elemen-
tary bodies, followed other points of view. Of the
elements of Empedocles we find three in the primitive
substances of Thales, Aaaximenes, and Heracleitus, and
the fourth i n another connection, with Xenophanes and
Parmenides. Heracleitus speaks of three elementary
bodies; and the importance of this philosopher i n re-
gard to Empedocles will presently be shown. The three
ground-forms of the corporeal admitted by Heracleitus
might easily be developed into the elements of Empe-
docles; if the liquid fluid and the vaporous element,
water and air, were distinguished from each other i n
the customary manner, and if the dry vapours, which
Heracleitus had reckoned as part of t h e supreme
element, were considered as air.' The three elements
of Heracleitus seem t,o have arisen from the doctrine
propounded by Anaximander and afterwards maintained
by Parmenides, viz., the fnndamental opposition of the
warm and the cold, by t h e introduction of an inter-
mediate stage between thew. On the other hand, the
five elementary bodies of Philolaus represent a develop-
ment, based on geometrical and cosmological concep-
tions, of the four elements of Empedocles. This doctrine,
therefore, appears to have been in a state of constant
progression, from Anaximanderto Philolaas, and the num-
ber of the elements t o have been always on the increase.
But though Empedocles declared the four elements t,o
be equally original, he, in fact, as Arist,otle says, reduces
them to tmo ; for he sets fire on one side, and the three
remaining elements together on the other ; so that his
four-fold division is seen to originate in the two-fold
division of P a r m e n i d e ~ . ~When, however, later writers
assert that his starting-point was the opposition of the
1 Aristotle also mentions the and air. Ion may have borrowed
theory of t.hree elements, fire, air, his three elements from Hera-
and earth (Gen. et Cow. ii. 1, 329 cleitus ; he csn hardly have in-
a, 1). Philop. in h. l. p. 46 b, fluenced Empedocles, a s he seems
refers this statement to the poet to have been younger.
Ion: and in fact Isocrates does ? Metaph. i. 4 , 985 a, 31: &L
. YIwv B'
say of him (r.b v ~ ~ F d u268) 82 r b &S ;v Q h ~ sCYFELh ~ y d p ~ v a
06 nhsLw rprSv [EY+qu~v ~7var r b u r o r x ~ i ar 6 r r a p a r p S r o s CSTEI. 05
i;v.ra]. Similarly Hnrpocrat. % ~ v . uhv X p ; j r a I ys r i r . r a p n r v , &AA' &S
This statement may be true of Ion, Furl?, osur pdvors, xvpl ~ a 9 ahrb
'
even if (as Bonitz, I7~cl.Arist. 821 707s F' B V ~ I K C L ~&S Q ~pr6O L+&EL,
~
b, 40 and Pmntl. Arist. Weike, ii. y$ T E KU; B ~ P ~L a 58a71. l hCiPo~'B
505 remark) the passage in Aris- &U rrs a 6 r b 6swpSv ;K r S v F'rrSv.
totle may relate, not to Ion, but Be Gem. et Corr. ii. 3 , 330 b, 19:
to the Platonic L divisions ' (Part &nor 6' ~ 6 8 b sr i r r a p a h;yovurv, o7ov
11. a, 380, 4,3rd edition), in which ' E ~ T E ~ O K Auuvdyrr ~S. 8; ~ a ol h o s
an intermediary is a t first dis- eis r b Fdo 76 yhp sup1 r 8 h h a r r l v r a
tinquished from fire and earth, bvr~rL%~(rtv.
and is then divided into water
TBE POUR ELEMENTS. 129
warm and the cold, or that of the rare and the dense,
or even of the dry and the moist,' this is doubtless an
inference of their own, uncountenanced by Empedocles,
either in these expressions or elsewhere with such dis-
tinctness in his writings; and the statement that in
the formation of the universe the two lower elements
are the matter, and the two higher the efficient instru-
, ~still farther from his opinion.
m e n t ~ is
The four fundamental substances then, being ele-
ments, are necessarily primitive ; they are all underived
and imperishable. Each consists of qualitatively homo-
geneous parts, and without changing their nature they
pass through the various combinations into which they
are brought by means of the variability of things.3
Cf. the passages from Alex- to the other, as the actirc and the
ander, Themistius, Philoponus, passive principle.
Simplicius and Stobeus, ap. Kars- 3 V. 87 (114, 88 M) :-
ten, 340 sqq. raU^ra yhp &ci r e w d v r a ~ a fih;rca
l
Hippol. Refut. vii. 29, p. 384. y;vvav
Empedocles assumed four elements r ~ p ; i s 6' &*hrls SAAO pi6EL rrdpa
660 p>v b h t ~ b y4v
, ~ a 56wp,
l 660 62 6.@os ;K&rY).
Bpyava 079 r b CA[K& KoupE?ral ~ a l
V. 89, ride szpm, p. 125, 2 ; V.
p ~ r a ~ d h h ~ r awGp
r , ~ a bdpa,
l 660
101 (132, 128) :-
6; r h dpya[dp~va . .. YE?KOS~ a :
whicll is repeated after- 2~ r a v zdv@ 8ua T' $v 8aa 7' Cup,
wards. The doctrine of this philo- " lrfuuw+ Text
sopher is still more decidedly mis- uncertain.
represel~ted by the same author aiv6peri. 7' ;BA~UT?UE~ a bl 6 ~ $6; ~ s
i. 4 (repeated ap. Cedren. Synops. YU"~?KE~,
i. 15'7 B), in the statement, prob- 0 i p i s 7' oiwvof T E ~ aSBar00~6~poves
l
ably taken from a Stoic or Neo- ;x@~s,
Pythagorean source) : ,-+v 70; T E 0 ~ 0 :~ ~ A L x ~ r~~ w
p f ~j u$6~1-
E~ s
~ a v r b sBpX+v v c i ~ o s~ a @rAiav
i ;@v. u70'.
Ka; r b r?jS pOvd60S Y o ~ P b v r b v a t 7 8 ybp C u r ~ v~ a G r a61' d h h j l h ~ v
~ mpbs r b
0 ~ b v~ a u) u v ~ u r d v a ;K 62 96077a
xdvra Kai E;S TsP & v a ~ u 0 ? j u ~ r 0 a [~. i y v ~ r&aA A~OLW~F ~ L~ ~. ~ T U E Ly Sh p
On the other hand Karsten, p. ~PE[BE[.
343, is incorrect in saying that Cf. p. 122, 2. Also V. 96 sqq.,
Empedocles, according to Hippo- 69 sqq. (supm, p. 122, 2 ; 123, 2 ) ;
lytus, opposed fire and water one Arist. Metaph. i. 3 (supra,p. 123, Ij, *
VOL. 11. K
They are also equal as to mass,' though they are
mingled in particular things in the most various pro-
portions, and are not all contained in each particular
thing.2 The peculiar traits, however, by which they
are distinguished from one another, and their place in
the structure of the universe, Empedocles does not seem
to have precisely determined. He describes fire as warm
and glittering; air as fluid and transparent ; water as
dark and cold ; earth as heavy and hard.3 He some-
times attributes to earth a natural motion downwards,
and to fire a similar motion upwards ; but his utterances
on the subject are not always c~nsistent.~I n this, how-
iii. 4, 1000 b, 17 ; Gelz. et Corr. ii. in a picture: hpuovly p [ E a ~ rr~8
l ; ii. 6, ibid. i. 1, 314 a, 24 (cf. pkv nhiw dhha 6' F'Aduuw. Bran-
De Calo, iii. 3, 302 a, 28, and dis, p. 227, has been led, by an
Simpl. De Calo, 269 b, 38 ; Sehol. error in the punctuation in V. 129,
513 b) ; De Ccelo, iii. 7 (su-pra, p. corrected by later editors, to dis-
125, 1 ) ; De Melisso, c. 2, 975 a, cover in these verses a meaning
and other passages ap. Sturz, 152 alien alike to the works and the
sqq., 176 sqq., 186 sqq., and Kar- standpoint of Empedocles, viz., that
sten, 336, 403, 406 sq. all the perishable has its cause in
1 This a t any rate seems to be the Deity, as the work of a r t has
asserted by the L a ndvra in the in the mind of the artist.
verses just quoted, which gram- V. 96 (1'24, 120 M) sqq.,
matically may with i h f ~ aalso which, however, are very corrupt
relate to yivvuv (of like origin). in the traditional texts. V. 99,
Arist. Gen et Corp.. ii. 6 sub init. which has been restored, though
enquires whether this equality is not satisfactorily, perhaps began
an equality of magnitude or of thus: aiO;pa 0' Bs @-at. From
power ? Empedocles doubtless this pitssage the statement of Aris-
made no distinction between them. totle is taken, Ge%.et Cow. i. 315
H e connects the word as little b, 20 ; Plnt. Prinz. Fhg. 9, 1, p.
with yivvav as Simplicius does, 948 ; but, on the other hand, Aris-
Phys. 34 a. totle seems to refer in another
Cf. (besides what will pre- place, De Respir. c. 14, 477 b, 4
sently he said as to the proportions (@ep,ubvy8p bar 7 b jypbv 5 7 7 0 ~706
of the primitive elements in this bipos), to some subsequent passage
admixture) V. 119 (154, 134 M) now lost from the poem.
sqq., where the mixture of matter CL p. 144, 1.
in various things is compared with We shall find later examples
the mixing of colours by which of this. Cf. Plut. Plnc. ii. 7. 6 ;
the painter reproduces these things and Ach. Tat. in Arat. c. 4, end;
MIXTURE OF TITE F 0 ZTR ELEMENTS. 131
the one case from the air, in the other from the moisture
with which they are mingled.' I n the sense of hearing
he thought the sounds were formed by the entrance and
agitation of the air in the passage of the ear as in a
t r ~ m p e t . ~I n the sense of sight, on the contrary, the
seeing body was supposed to issue forth from the eye
in order to come in contact with the emanations of the
object. Empedocles thus conceived the eye as a kind
of lantern: in the apple of the eye fire and water are
enclosed in skins, the pores of which, arranged in alter-
nate rows for each substance, allow passage t o the emana-
tions of each : fire causes the perception of that which
is bright, and water of that which is dark. When,
therefore, emanations of visible things reach the eye,
the emanations of the internal fire and water pass out
of the eye through the pores, and from the meeting of
these two arises vision.3
l Plnc. iv. 17 ; Arist. De Se?zszc, 1. c. ; Arist. Probl. xiv. 14 ; Gen.
c. 4, 441 a, 4 ; Alex. De Senszc, Anim. v. 1. 779 b, 15, Empedocles
105 b ; cf. Empedocles, v. 313 (300, thought that light eyes were fiery
465) f. and dark eyes moist; that light
Theoph. De Sensu, 9 ; Plut. eyes see more clearly by night,
Plnc. is. 16, where, however, the and dark eyes by day (the reason
ed8wv with which Empedocles (also of this is charactelistically ex-
aacording to Theophrastus) had plained in Theophrastusj ; but the
compared the interior of the ears best eyes are those in which fire and
is improperly taken to mean a bell water are mingled in equal parts.
instead of a trumpet. HGfer, 1. C., opposes the notion that
B V. 316 (302,220 M) sqq. ; cf. Empedocles supposed the inner fire
240 (227,218 M) sq. ; Theoph. l. c. toissue forth from the eyes ; but he
8 8 sq. ; Arist. De Sensu, c. 2, 437 has not considered Emprdocles's
b, I0 sqq., 23 sqq. ; Alex. B h. l. p. own declarations concerning the
43, 48 ; Thurot. Philop. Gcn. 2'tw 8raOpQu~ov,nor Aristot.le'd
Awim. 105 b (ap. Sturz, 419 ; repeated expression, ~ [ L ~ V T705 OS
Iiarsten, 485); Plut. Plac. iv. 13, q w r b s , in reference to this; nor
2 ; Joh. Damasc. Parall. p. i. l;, Alexander's comments on t,heverse
d l (Stob. Ftoril. ?d. Mein, iv. 173). of Empedocles, which are entirely
According to Theophr. and Philop. on the Fame side. Plato gi1.e~the
THE SEL+~SESAN11 THOUGHT. 167
B. THE ATOMISTS.
Thus the Atoms must have weight, and the same speci-
fic weight; but a t the same time they must dieer in
weight quite as mucll as in magnitude.' This doctrine
is of great importance for the Atomistic system : text,s
which maintain the contrary are to be considered
i v 8 i x e r a r hiyerv r b pei{ov e7var text, by Schneider and Wimmer in
Bap6rspov. airrirv (Democritus does their editions ; Burchard, Democr.
not say this, vide following note) : Phil. de Sens. 15 ; Philippson,"Thv
rirv 8 i u~.uO6rwv,~ R E I ~ ~ T 06 E P qai- bvOpwnlq, 135 ; Papencordt, Atom.
veTar r o ~ r o v ZXEIV Z ~ a u r o v r b v Doet?. 53 ; and Preller, l. c. The
rpdnov, h h h b R O A A ~fiap6repa dpir- text itself stands thus: ei y h p
~ E iVh d r r w ~ b 8v y ~ dvra, ~ v ~ a O d n ~ p8~la~prO?j hOev Z ~ a u r o v ,E ; ~ a Karh
l
Zpiov x a h ~ b v , &EPOV r b aTrrov ux?+a 8ra@hpor, ~ L U ~ ~ uraOpbv,
P E L
oYovral r e ~ a A6youurv l Zvror (Ato- etc. Cf. also Simpl. Be Cdo, 302
mists, no doubt Democritus) r b b, 35 (Schol. 516 b, 1 ) ; Alex. ap.
yhp K E V ~ VEI,u~~prhap~avdpevov KOU- Simpl. ibid. 306 b, 28 sq. (Schol.
@l{erv 7 b uA,uard @a#[ ~ a lR O L E ~ V 517 a, 3).
Zurrv 8 r r~b peL{w K O U C ~ ~ T E P U~ ,h s i u v Vide previous note and Arist.
y b P Z X E I YK E V ~ V . 8[&roCro ?bp ~ a l Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 526 a, 9 : ~ a i r o i
7blJ & ) " ) %€&a1 V p d ( w U V Y K E ; ~ E Bal,fiTEpdv
V~ YE K U T ~ T ~ VJ T E P O X ~ V
~ o h h d ~ c rd[ s ruwv u r ~ p ~ r jfiv ~ a l @vurv e%ar AvpdKp170~ % ~ a u r oriz v
d ~ a r r d v w v . 8hws Gk ~ a ?rav.rbs l &6rarpdrwv. Simpl. De Calo, 254
a'frrov dvar 70; K O U @ O T ~ ~ O U r b b. 27 ; Schol. in Arist. 610 b. 30 ;
.
r r h ~ i o v; V V T ~ ~ X E L VK E V ~ V . . Brh vide infw~.Further details, p. 241.
ybp roOro rcai r b ?rCp ~?vaL@act ' So Plut. Plnc. i. 3, 29. Epi-
, n h e i u r o v Z X E~~e v d v . curus ascribed form, magnitude,
~ o u m d r a r o v 8rr
Theophr. De Sensu, 61 : fiapir p& and weight to the atoms : A v u d -
o6v ~ a l~ o C @ o vr$i P E ~ ~ O E 8L1 a ~ p e i K P L T O S pkv ?bp h e y e 860, p6y~Ods
A v p d ~ p ( r o s ,E; ybp GraicprOeLv ;v r e ~ a ul x j j u a . 6 8' ' E R ~ K O U P O S 706-
bcaurov (the individual atoms), ei Tors ~ a rPirov, l r b Bdpos, 2 ~ 6 8 9 -
xal KaTd u x i j p a Gra@ipor (so that KEV. Stoh. i. 348 (cf. p. 225, 3 ) :
they cannot therefore be measured A v p d ~ p . 7 b ?rpGrd q v u r uQpara,
by one another), uraOpbv Bv dnl r a G ~ a8' q v r b vaurb, fidpos p21 O ~ K
~ E Y ~ O Er Lh v K ~ L U L V [SO 1 read with ~ x ~ r v , ~ r v ~ i u81 O KU;
ar h h h ~ X o ~ ~ ~ ~ a v
Preller, H. Phil. G+.-rom. S S4 for dv ry^ bnslpy. Cic. De Fato, 20,
@:ULV] Zxeru. 06 p+v &h\' CV Y E 70:s 46. Epicurus represented the
, ~ L K T OK? O S U @ ~ T E BYP UeSvar
V r b ~ h i o v atoms s s moved by their weight,
Zx3v K E V ~ V ,P a P L ~ ~ P 8; o v r b ZAar- Demowitus by impact. Alex. on
70V. ~ v [ O ~ S$V O ~ T W S E Y P ~ K E V&f~tfiph.
. i. 4, 085 b, 4: 036; y b p
dv dhhors 8; KOG@OY ~ S v a i @vurv R ~ O E Y 5 BapGrqs i v r a i s h-dpors
&TAGS r b A E R T ~ V . The words eI hiyouur. r b ybp &pep< r a Znrvoob-
ybp 81a~prt?.-ura~pbv are partly peva r a i s hrdpors ~ a lp6pq iivra
based on my own conjecture, and airrdv bfiapt Cpaurv ~ V U L . Alexan-
partly on Mullach, p. 214, 346 sq. der here appeals to the thirc! book
Various conjectural readings have of Aristotle. R. olpavoG ; but seems
been suggested to complete the to refer what i s said in the first
Q 2
228 THE ATOXISTIC PHILOSOPHY.
chapter against the Platonic con- the distance between the ends of
struction of the elements, wrongly, what surrounds a body ( r b F i d u r q p a
to Leacippus and Democritus, who r b p r r a 5 3 r G v ; u x d r m v 70; r ~ p ~ d -
admitted no parts in the atoms. x o v r o s ) , a distance which is some-
1 The differences of place and times filled with a body and
form, which Aristotle enumerates sometimes empty. But i t is quite
(Phys. i. 5), he gives not in the possible that Democritus, whose
name of Democritus, but i n his definitions are coupled by Sim-
own. plicins with those of Epicurus, did
Arist. De Coelo, iii. 2, 300 b, not formulate his theory so exactly,
8 : A ~ v ~ l ? r ? r w ~ a Al ~ ~ O K ~ L70%
T ~ Phys. 124 a. Simplicius says: r b
h & y o v u ~ v i d ~ r v ~ 7 u O a r h ?rp$ra y h p K E W ~ V7 6 7 ~ 0ESXEY
~ 6~ q p d ~ p r r o s .
u d p a ~ aBv ~q KEV@ ~ a r l@ B r e L p y , Similarly 8 9 b.
I 5 ~ a r h
h e f c r ~ o v~ L W U - K [ V ~ U [ VK ~ 71s Vide previous note, and p.
@&urv a h r S v ~ [ v r p r r s . Cic. F i % . i. 6 215, 1.
( i q f . ) ; Simpl. Phys. 144 b ; De 4 Arist. De Caelo, i. 7, 275.b,
Caelo, 91 b, 36, 300 b, 1 (Schol. 2 9 : €1 6 i ph a v v e x ; s r b TEV, ihh'
480 a, 38, 516 a, 3 7 ) ; Stob. Eel. i. & c r a p h&yEr A q p d ~ p r r o sKU: A E ~ K L T -
3 8 0 ; Plut. Plao. I . 3, 28. Ac- r o s , F r o p l n p ; v a r ~K E V ~ . Phys. iv.
cording to Simpl. Phys. 133 a, De- 6 (cf. p. 216, 4) where there is also
mocritus distinyuished from the an allusion to the similar doctrine
Void, Space ( r d r o s ) , by which, like of the Pvtha~oreans.
Epicurus after him (Part III. a, ~ r c s t ,getaph.
. iv. 5; sup. p.
373, second edition), he understood 217, 4, &c.
THE VOID. 229
'
each other; it was only the actual uniting of the
atoms which they denied.2
According to these presuppositions, all qualities of
things must be reduced to the amount, magnitude, form
and relations in space, of the atoms of which they
consist, and all change in things must be reduced to
an altered combination of atoms.3 A thing arises when
a complex of atoms is formed; it passes away, when
such a complex is dissolved ; it changes when the place
and position of the atoms is changed, or a portion of
them is displaced by others; i t augments when new
atoms are added to the complex; i t decreases when
some atoms are separated from it.4 Similarly all in-
' Cf. Arist. Phys. iii. 4, 203 a, h$# ; but it is still without internal
1 9 : Buor 6' d r e r p a r o r o l u r r h o r o r - connection, and, therefore, not in
x e i a , ~ a 0 d r e p' ~ v a [ a y d p a sKai A~\??pd- the strict sense u u v e x ~ s . Vide Phys.
Kp1TOS ... 79 &@$ U V V E X ~ S 7 b viii. 4, 255 a, 13 ; Simpl. Phys.
drerpov e b a i qaurv. Gen. et Corr. 105 b, where this expression is thus
i. 8 (sup. p. 215, l ) : r o r c i v 82 K U ~ amended :r e B$$ u v v e x r ~ d p ~ v&AA' a
8
? r d a x ~ r v r v y ~ d v o v u r v b ~ r d p e v a , o t x i r1j Qvduei, cf. inj'. p. 245, 1.
ibid. 325 b, 29. Plato, as well as We have, therefore, no right t o
Leucippus, supposed the atoms to understand contact in the Aristo-
have a definite form : E'K 8;1 r o b r w v telian passages as referring merely
to close proximity, as is done by
ai Yeviu€rs Kal a i 8 l a ~ p f U e l s .A E U K ~ T -
x q pLv 6Co r p d r o r Bv ESEV [SC. r t s Philop. Gen. et Corr. 36 a.
yevducws Ka: 8raKpfu€ws], 6rd .re 7 0 3 Cf.previousnote, andp. 216,3.
~ e v 0 3~ a 61h
l 7:s B$:S ( r a b r p y b p Cf. Simpl. De Calo, 252 b, 40
8rarperbv z ~ a u r o v ) ,ITAIhoirwvr 82 ~ a r h (Schol. 510 a, 41) : A ' q p d ~ p r r o s62,
&@+v pdvov. Ibid. 326 a, 31, &S @ed$pauros ;v 707s @ U U L K Oi ~ u rSo -
is directed against the Atomisus : pei, 6 s r ' 8 1 w ~ ~ ~ hL ~j s0 6 ~ B d v r wrvG v
EIpkv y b p p i a @bars d u r l v B ~ d v r w v ~ a r rhb Beppbv ~ ~ 1 $uxpbv
7 8 ~ a r lh
r i r b x w p l u a v ; 9 61h rf 06 y f y v ~ r a r r o r a i r a ar'rroAoyobvrwv, 2x1 r h s
B+dpeva $v, % u r e p SGwp 66aros 8 r a v &rdFovs bvdpq.
BLyp ; Simpl. De Lfa!20, 133 a, 1 8 ; Arist. Gen. et Corr. i. 2, 315
Schol. 488 a, 26. There i s no con- b, G : A q p d ~ p r r o s82 ~ a Ai e b ~ r x r o s
tradictlon here with the passage r o r f i u a v ~ e sr b uX?',para r h v &hhofw-
quoted above, note 2, which asserts urv nal T ; ~ ~V; V E U L P ZK r o b r w v r o r o i u ~
t h a t the world is not u v v r X i s ; for G t a ~ p l u e rphv ~ a ul v y ~ p f u c ydveurv
i
that which merely touches can form ~ a +Oophv, i r d [ e r 62 ~ a O;UEL
l &A-
indeed a connected mass in space, Aoiwurv, &c. ; zbid. c. 8 (p. 215, 1 ) .
and so far may be called u u v e x l s 75Ibzd. c. D, 327, 16: dpLjpev 82 ~b
2S0 TWE ATOMISTIC PHILOSOPHY.
...
~ o i i @ o v8 r a v $roPi(y 707s p ~ y ; e ~ u r v , r d s o v K L V E ~ U ~ ~ L ~ a oh l @dvov
h v d,v ~. nr h &TAB s c i v r a r k v a h r h.v a o. d r n.v ;AA$ ~ a ,udvnv l . r a 6 r n v osrol
EXELV 6ppqv 7 4 s (PoPBs. K ~ V ~ ) U ITOTS
V U ~ O L X I ~ O L SBao8r8daur.
Cf. i n f . p. 241. Cic. vide following note.
Simpl. De Calo, 254 b, 27, S Cic. X. D. i. 25, 69 : Epicnrus
Schol. in Arist. 510 b, 30: o i y h p cum videret, si atomi ferrentur in
rep1 A l l p d ~ p ~ r~oa~l 8 u r e p o v' E ~ K O I J - locum imferiormc, suoite pondere,
pos r h s &rdpovs ~ d u a s ~ ~ O @ V E mihil.fore
~ S in wstra potestate, quod
ou"uas edpos Exerv @aul. 74 82 eival esset earum motus certus et neces-
r r v a b a p i r e p a ~ w 6 0 6 p e v a;h ~ o u @ d - sarizrs, invenit y?~on?o&o necessitatem
r e p a 5s' a h i j v i r @ r + 5 v r w v ;nl r b effu,qeret,puod videlicet Democritunz
$VW ~ 6 P ~ ~ K6U ~~ 0 l 8 ' 7 ~A ~ ~ O U U ~fugerat V : ait atnmzmn, cum posdere
oCror 8 0 ~ ~h ~ 5 KO~@U E ~ V U L76 et gravitate clirecta deorsum,feratz~r,
8; flapka. (What follows i s not declimare paululzim. I t is evident
concerned with the exposition of the the presupposition here is, that
theories of Democritus.) Similarly, Democritus came to his conclusions
ibid. 314 b. 3 7 ; 121 b,42; Schnl. 517 through admitting that the atoms
b,21 ; 486 a , 21; Ibid. Phys. 310 a : exclusively foliowed the law of
o i r e p > ~ ? ) p d ~ ~ r .r o. v. ~ A E Y O V~, a r h gravitation.
r j l v ;v a h ~ o i sb a p 6 r q r a , K I V O ~ ~ E V ~ Epicurus ap. Diog. X. 43.61 ;
r a G r a [ r d $ r o p a ] 8rd r o G KEVO; Lucr. ii. 225 sqq.
E ~ K O V T O S K U ~p b B v ~ r r v s o i i v r o~~ a r h
,W0WEMENT OF THE ATOMS. 241
' Aristotle doubtless has the solum similes, sed unclipzde pe~fecte
Atomistic philosophy in view when et absolute ita pares, ut inter eos
(Plzys. v i ~ i 1,. 250 b, 18) he says : aihil prorsus intersit, et eos qzridem
6aor bnelpour T E ~ d a p o u ssSval innumernbiles : iternque honzines.
q a u r KU). r o b s p2v y f y v ~ ~ ~ Or oabrs 6B Diog. ix. 31 of Leucippus: ~ a l
qOsipeuBar r G v ~ d u p w v ,BE[ q a u r v U ~ O L X Eq ?q u~r , K ~ U ~ O Ur'S :K r o L r w v
~ l v a r y i v ~ u r v; for the words r o b s brsfpous bar ~ a 6raAd~uOarl sis raG-
phv y r v . can only be understood of r a . Ibid. 44 of Democritus : bne;pous
CO-existentworlds like those of the 7' K ~ U ~ O UKC S21 Y ~ ~ ~ l Kj U~ ~ O b ~
Atomists, and not of successire @Oap70hs. Ibid. 33, supra 236, 3 ;
worlds, as heldbyAnaximander and Hippol. Refut. i. 13 : b ~ s l p o u s6;
Heracleitus. The refutation of the ~ S v a r~ d u p o u s(Zheysv 6 A l j p d ~ p . )KU;
opinion that there may be several p ~ y 6 O e6ra@ipovras, ~ i; r l u r 62 p+
worlds (De Cmlo, i. 8) must also bar ?$Arovp762 a e h h v v v , b r r a r 6 &
refer to CO-existentworlds. Later p ~ i c w [-OUS] r G v rap' G p i v ~ a Ev l
writers are more explicit: o i +;v r r u r T A E ~ W [-OUS]. ~ T v a r 8; r G v
y b p breipous 7 6 rh4Osr r o b s ~ d a p o u s ~ d a p w vd v r u a r h F r a a r 4 p a r a , ~ a l r 5
i r r o B 6 p ~ v o r ,& S o i r e p i ' A v a ~ i p a v 6 p o v p k v ~ A E ~ O U Sr$ 62 B h d r r o u s , ~ a l
(that this is a misunderstanding r o b s p k v a3&uBar r o b s 6 ; b ~ p d c ~ r v
has already been shown, Vol. I. r o b s 82 ~ O L v e r v ,~ a r?j l $v yivsuOar
257 sq.) K d A E h K l r r o v Ka1 ~ l j p d - r r j 62 h t - i n e ~ v ,~ O e l p ~ u O a62 6 ahrobs
~ p r r o v , . . . ~ L ~ O ~ ~ V aOL rUo bSs ~ a i IT' b h h $ h w v r p o u r l r r o v r a s . €bar
~ O ~ r p o p i v o u~s~ T & ~ E v Th' o & ? F € L ~ U V6b, Zvious ~ d a p o u shp4pous c 4 w v K U ~
l i h h w v &v &l yrvop&vwv, d h h w v q u r G v ~ a r la v r b s 6 y p o i ... &K-
6; @Os1pop6vwv. Id. De Ca?lo, p d r ~ r v 6h ~ d a p o v i'ws &v. pvK6rl
91 b, 36, 139 b, 5 ; Schol. in 6dvqrar EtwObv rr r p o u h a p ~ d v srv.
Arist. 480 a, 38, 4139 b, 1 3 ; Cic. Stob. Ecl. i. 418 : A q p d ~ p ~ r o@eel- s
Acad. ii. 17, 65 : ais Demomitum peu8ar .ibv ~ d a p o v r o i ) ~ C ~ < O Y O S
dicere, inaumerabzles esse mundos, v r ~ G v r o s .
et puzdem sic puosdam inter se non, Cf. p. 248, 3.
FORMATION OF THE WORLD. 247
If, however, death has really taken place, and the atoms
of which the soul is composed are completely separated
from the body, it is impossible that they can ever
return to it, or that they can maintain themselves in
combination outside the body.'
Democritus, therefore, does not deny that there is a
difference between soul arid body, nor that the soul is
superior to the body. The soul with him is the essen-
tial in man, the body is only the vessel of the soul,2and
he admonishes us for this reason to bestow more care on
the latter than on the former ; he declares corporeal
beauty apart from understanding to be something
animal; * he says the glory of animals consists in
bodily excellences,5 that of man in moral; he seeks
the abode of happiness in the soul, the highest good in
a right disposition ;G he makes the son1 answerable for
whom he follows, in his inference Floril. 120, 20 : iwror O v q r i j s @duros
that Democritus was an adherent 8 t b h u u ~ w oh^ ~ 1 8 6 ~~ Y~~ s~ W TEUYFI-
OI,
of the Persian doctrine of the 8 6 u r 6; 7 2 s dW r @ fliy KaKOfpa'ypO-
resurrection. udvqs, 7bw 7 i j s P ~ o r i j s X p d w ~ v 2w
This lies so entirely in the na- r a p a x f j u r ~ a @dporar
l rahar~wpd-
ture of the subject that we scarcely ouur, ~ E L G ~E e~ p 7l 0 6 p e r & r h w T E -
require the testimony of Iambli- A e u r h w p u 0 o ~ h a a r ~ o w r x~ psd v o v .
chus ap. Stob. Eel. i. 924 ; Lactan- The obscure statement in the
tius, Inst. vii. 7 ; Theodoretus, Placitn, v. 25, 4, that Leucippus
Cur. Gr. A$. v. 24, p. 7 3 ; and the referred death to the body only,
Plncita, iv. 7, 3, to disprove the cannot be taken into account.
belief of Democritus in immor- ~ K ~ ~ WisO aS common designa-
tality; more especially as i t is tion for the body with Democritus,
nowhere stated that Epicurus dif- FT.i i r . 6, 22, 127. 128. 210.
fered from him in this respect; V r . Mor. 128 : bwOpdaorur Bp-
and, considering the great import- pd8row q u x i j s p l h h o v +) a d p a r o s
ance ascribed by Epicurus to the ?rorieuOai h d y o w . p;w y b p
denial of immortality, the venera- T E A F W T ~ ~ VU K ~ W E O Sp 0 ~ 0 ~ p L qdp%oi,
w
tion with which he and his school u ~ f i v e o s 6; i u x b s dvsu A o y r u p o 6
regarded Democritns seems to ex- + u x + ~038dw r r b p ~ L w w~ L 0 q u r .
clude any disagreement between Ibzd. 129.
them on this subject. Democr~tus Ibzd. 127.
thus expresses himself, ap. Stob. "7.1, &c. Further details iirf.
262 T N E ATOMISTI C PHIZOSOPIIY.
111. ANAXAGORAS.2
Fr. S (6; : T A p2v dhha nav- Mullach, instead of 8rw ap. Simpl.
sbs poipav Z X E L , vdos 66 E'UTI ~ T E I P O Y Phys. 33 b) vhc;ura &L, r a S ~ ai v -
K U ; a b r o ~ p a r 2 s~ a 1pi,ucrc~ai oS6eul 8qhdrara i v ~ K U U T O V E'UT~ wa) 3v.
Xpj,uarr, ahhh posvos alrbs 29' The same is repeltted by later
hwu~oc~ U T L V . E; p? ybp 29' Q W U T O ~ writers i n their own mode of ex-
$v, bhhd T F W E'p6pr~rod h h y , PETET- presslon; cf, Plato, Crat. 413 C :
X E V &v h n d v ~ w vXpq,udrw~,~l E'$- i r b BL!KUIOV 8 A ~ ~'Ava[ayd-
~ & a 6; E L
p r ~ r d T E Y (;v T U V T ~ yhp ravrbs pas, VOCV ETVUL T O ~ T O . adToKpdropa
poipa i v c u ~ r vS, u r t p E'v ~ o i npda0ev
s ybp a h b v 6vTa K U ~od0€vk pcplypk-
poi h&hearar)K U ~ E'~8hvev&v ah1-b~ vov n d v ~ aqqalv a b ~ b vK D U ~ E T YT &
r b u ~ ~ p ~ p ~ y p F I&UTE v a , pq6~vbs npdypara 6rI n d v ~ w vidvra. Arist.
Xp;lparos aparE'erv 6poLws, 6 s ~ a l 1Mctuph. i. S (sz~p. p. 340, 3) ; Phys.
poiivov E'dvra 29' twvrol. FUTI rybp viii. 5, 258 b, 2 1 : there must be
h t n r d r a ~ d v T E vdvrwv x p q p d ~ w v something that moves, and i s itself
...
KEL ~ a @ a p C ~ a ~ o v ravrdraur unmored. 6rb ~ a 'Ava.aEaydpas i hp.
6; 0661-v ~ n o ~ p l v ~ kr eapro v bnb 706 0;s A ~ Y E I~, b VOGV v braeij $ d u ~ w v
& r & Pnh+v ~ ~ Y ~ O U . 1'60s Bi &S ua; &pry$ ~ i v a r E'ner6fincp
, KKI~UEWS
6poids E'UTI ~ a 6l pdcwv K D ;4 ihdu- bpx+v abrbv rorei ~Zvar.OSTWybp
uwv. &'TEPOV 8; 0 6 6 ; ~~ U T L V8porov 8v pdvos ~rvolq~ K ~ V ~ T&v spa-
O S~ a k
o 6 6 ~ v ithhy,
i bhk' ~ T E O V(SOPreller, roiq bpiyhs &v. De An. i. 2, 405
Hiet. Phil. Gr.-Roqiz. $ 53, and a, 1 3 : 'Avactaydpas 6' .. . &?X+
344 ANAXA G OBAS.
'
fragment of his treatise that Anaxagoras believed in
many universes similar to our own;2 but this conjec-
ture I must also discard. For even it' we attach no
weight to the testimony of St~baeus,~ that Anaxagoras
taught the unity of the world; jet, as he himself
describes the world as one, he must certainly have re-
garded i t as an interdependent whole, and this whole
can only form one universal system, sinee the move-
ment of the original mass proceeds from one centre,
and in the separation of matkel; like parts are brought
into one and the same place-the heavy going down-
wards, the light up.cvards. This fragment must there-
fore refer, not to a distinct universe, but to a part of our
own, most probably to the moon.5 Beyond the world
maintained t h a t the mountains eithw to a different part of the
around Lampsacus would some earth from our own, ox to the earth
time in the distant future be in a former state, or to another
covered with the sea. Perhaps he world. The first is aot probable,
was led to this conjecture by obser- as i t could not be asserted of a
rations like those of Xenophanes different part of the wosld, that i t
(Vol. I. p. 569). likewise had a sun and moon., for
Fr. 4 (10) : hv8pLnovsre uv,u?ra- Anaxagoras, entertaining the no-
yijvai ~ a riihha
l [Ga 8ua +vx$v EYxer, tions he did of the form of the
K R ) roTur ye hv8phnorurv ebar Kai earth and of the Abore and Below
~ d h r a suuvy~'7&vas K R ~i p y a Kare- (vide p. 360, 3), caniiot have be-
~ ~ e u a u p E ' v aBunep
, ?rap' $/&TVK R ~ lieved in antipodes, in regard to
fiiAr6u T E a h 7 0 ~ u ~€?var v K R ~U E A ~ Y whom ~Y the observation might hare
K R T ~ ~ A A RB , UTE~ ?rap $piu, K R 742,~ been in place. The second ex-
y$u alroiur ( P ~ E I V noAAd r e ~ a l planation is exclucled by the present
T R Y ~ O ?GV R ; K E ~ V O L7 h ~ V ? $ ? UUTURUE- forms ~Tvar,+hcrv, x p 6 0 v ~ a r . There
Y E I K ~ , ~ $SE YC$V O I O ~ K ~ ~ TXI PV i 0 ~ 7 ~ remains,
l. therefore, only the third,
Simpl. P7zy.s. G b, speaking of this, and we can but suppose that the
makes use of the plural, 703s K&- moon is intended; moreover, we
upovs; but this is of no im- know that Anaxagoras elsewhere
portance. says i t is inhabited, and calls i t an
Schaubach, 119 sq. earth. If a moon is also assigned
Eel. i. 496. to it, this would then signify that.
FT.11, sup. p. 338, 2. another star is rtlated to the moon
The words (the context of as the moon i s to the earth.
which we do not knov) may refer
360 ANAXAGORAS.
remained faithful to
of whom we know any partic~lars,~
jecture, shown to be improbable no fixed theory of philosophy, but
not merely by the silencr of Xeno- occupied himself merely with par-
phon, Plato, and Aristotle, but also ticular investigations. Arist. Me-
by the mutual relation of the doc- teor. ii 9,370 a, 10, says he eupposed
trines of the two men, and by the >ightning to be *onlya phenomenon -
philosophic character of Socrates. of light, like the glittering of water
(Cf. P a r t 11. a, 47 .sq., 3rd ea.) in motion. 'Theophrastus, H. Ph.
The accounts concerning 'the doe- l. C., says that, according to him,
trine of Archelaus would lead us to plants consist of the same sub-
conjecture that i t was expounded stances a s animals, ouly that they
in writings. A book of Theophras- are less pure and warm ; and
tus about him, which is mentioned (Cnfis. Plant. i. 10, 3) that t,he
by Ciog:v. 42, was perhaps on1.y a colder plants flower in winter, the
section of 'a larger work. Simpl. warmer in summer. The sitme
1. caseemsto refer toTheophrastns's author (1. c. iii. 23, 1, sq.) mentions
B ~ J S ~and G S not t o this exposi- his opinion on the best time for
tion. sowing ; and (V. 9, 10) his view
The dnaxagorean school ('Ava- concerning a disease of the vine ;
taydperor, Plato, Cmt. 409 B ; lastly he tells u s ( D e S ~ s s z38) ~ , that
Syncell. Ch~on. 149 C ; oi An' Clidemus expressed some opinions
'Ava&rydpou, Flut. .Plac. iv. 3, 2-of on ahe perceptions of the senses :
?repi ' A V . in the texts which Schau- alaOdveaOar yclp @qur rois d@OaApois
bach, p. 32, quotes .is merely a piv(soWimmerreadsinsteadof~d-
paraphrase)is s~metimesmentioned vov) 871 Gra@avsis. r a i s 8' b ~ o n i s87r
withont any further account of it. F ' p ~ i n r w vd d+,p KLVC?r a i s 82 $ulv
A trace of its ipflnence has already i @ r h ~ o p d v o I Ji ~b v hElpa, ro;rov yhp
come before us (p. 7 0 sq.) in the d v a ~ i y v u a O a r ~7 5 88 y h d u u p robs
treatise of the pseudo-Hippocrates, ~ u p o b s~ a ~bi Ocpphv 7 b auxpbv,
v . 8 r a f r ~ s . A stholiast on Plato's 8rb .ib rrop@;/v d v a r 7 4 8' ~ A A V
Gorgias (p. 345, E~kk.)calls the a d p a r r ?rap& p i v raCr' o;O>v, abrtjv
sophist Polus an Anaxagoreau; but 6: ~oi57wv~ a rb i Orpubv ~ a rib bypb
this is evidently an inference un- ~ a rl b 6 v a v r i a pdvov 8 i rbs b ~ o ; l s
justifiably drawn from 4 6 5 3 . I n aSrhs p2v ob8kv ~plverv, cls 68 rbv
regard to Clidemus,also,it seems to voCv Fra?rdp?rrcv. oirx % c r a p 'Avata-
me doubtful whether.Philippon i s ydpas BpX;/v TOLE??rdvrwu (of all-
right in assigning him to the school sense.perceptions) rbv voCv. This
of Anaxagoras ('TAT hvOp. 197), alone shows t h a t Clidemus did not
though I cannot agree.with 'Ideler share the philosophic opinions of
(Arist. Meteorol. i. 617 sq.), who Anaxagoras; and, indeed, nothing
makes him an adherent of g a p e d * is anywhere said of him in a philo-
cles. It would rather appe& that sophicpdint.of view. That he is a
this natmalist, who is me~tioned ilifferent person from Clidemus, or
by Theophrastus (H. Plant. iii. Clitodemus the historian (Xiiller,
1, 4) after Anaxagoras and Dio- Hist. Gr. i. 359 sqq.), with whom
genes, and again (Dc Se?zsu, 38) he is identified by Meyer, Gesch. d.
between them, and whom we may Botanik, i. 23 sqq. and others, is
probably regard as a contemporary pror~ed by Xirchner, Jahrb. f.
of Diogenes and Democritus, hsd Philol. Suppl. N. F. vii. 501 sq.
the physical tendency of his master, and while he
sought to soften Qwn his dualism, approximated some-
what to the ancient materialistic physics. But even
in his case our information is very scanty. We are
told that in respect to ultimate causes he agreed with
Anaxagoras; that, like him, he assumed an infinite
number of small bodies of equal parts, from which all
things arise by means of me~hanicalcombination and
separation, and conceived these substances as originally
mingled together ; but that he distinguished Spirit from
the corporeal as the power which rules over it.' The
original mixture of all substances he (approximating
herein to Anaximeues and the ancient Ionic school) sup-
posed to be like air; which, indeed, Anaxagoras had re-
Simpl. Phys. 7 a (after Theo- of opinion that dpotopepij . . . rrva
phrastus): ?v pbv r$ yevCu~r roii helps ebar a d p a r a , 85 &v 5 rLjv
edupov ~ a 707s ; iehhors rebpCraf 7 r aIu8qr3v y6veurs awpdrwv, y r v o p l v ~
(p~pcrv'i6rov. r h s b p x h s 68 r h s airrhs ~ a r uh 6 y ~ p r u r vKU; ff6v8rurv, where-
8L6wu[v Zanep 'A,va[aydpas. oihor fore they are both counted among
pkv 0% &refpous r @ rh?j8rr ~ a l those who regard all ~ n i v t u r eas a
&vop.oyrvsis r b s b p x h s h ~ y u v u rr h s mass of substantially separ:tte mat-
dporopcpcfas ~ L O ~ Y T E SBpxas. (The ters. Philop. De Aa. B 16,: Arclie-
latter also in Dc Ccelo, 269 b, l ; laus helongs, to those 8aor r i p ? j ~ a u r
Schol. i?b Ar. 513 a;.) Clem. Cohort. r b r C v finb roi, 1,o3 ~ c ~ r v ~ u f f a a
43 D : oi pkv a2rrjv r b dnrrpov T h r o u g h this theory, which
~ a 6 4 p v v u a r t, v . . . 'Ava[aydpas . . is confirmed by m l ~ a timmediately
its; . . 'Ap~E'Aaos. ~ O ~ T pkv W Y E follows, the statement that Arche-
B p p w r b v voiiv 2 z e a r q t ~ d r ~ r?j
v laus held air to be the primitive
hrerpiq. Hippol. R g t ~ t i.. 9 : 08ros matter may easily be combined, as
f(pq r h v pT[rv 7 %~ ~A ? ] Shpufws 'Avo- i t appears to me, with the othel:
[aydpa r a s r e h p ~ h s iL(ua6rws. accounts. Cf. Sext. Mnth. ix. 360 :
Aug. Cia. D. viii. 2 : etianz @se de ' d p x . . . bkpa [ Z A E ~ E z d v r w v eivar
pafiiculis imter se dissinzilihus, b p X h v ~ a ul ~ o r x r i o v ] . Plut. Plac.
gtazbws singzlla ptcacyue Jiere?&t,ita i. 3, 12 (word for word the same:
omnia constare pzilauit, zct i?~esse Justin, Cohort. c. 3 end) : ' A p x .
etiain nze?~te?n diceret, qtue corpora . . bipa ieneipov [ b p x h v bne(p?jvaro]
dissinzilia, i. e. illas particzalns, ~ a rl h v rep; a2rbv r u ~ v d r ~ ~a ai
eo??junge~&do et dissi.pa?zdo agerret pdvwurv. T O ~ T W V6h r b phv ebar riip
omnia. Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 141 r b 6k 3 6 ~ ~ .
b: Anaxagoras and Archelnue were
390 ANAXA G OXAS.
P. 365, 3. B ~ p p b v ~ a bypdv.
l Herm. Iwis. c.
? Hippol. l. c,: oBros 8; r i v4 5 : ' A p x brrocpa~vdpcvos 7811 8Arcv
d v u a d p ~ c r vr r r38dws p i y p a . &p.p~hsBcppbv K U ~+vxpdv. Hippol.
Stoh. Ecl. i. 56, may so far be l. c . : ~ S v a r 6' dpX+v r l r KLV;IUEWS
correct: ' A p x . &ipz ~ a vl o f v r b v r b Brro~plveoOar (so Duncker, after
Bsdv, i.e., he may have characterised Roper and Ritter) ha' hhhQhwv r b
air and Spirit as the eternal and Beppbv ~ a .rb l +uxpXv, ~ a ~b l phv
divine. Bcppbv ~ ~ u r ; u B a r , r b 61: +uxpbv
Plut. Plac. ; vide 389, 2. 4 p s p r j . Cf. Plato, Sopi'L. 242 D :
V i d e Vol. I. p. 250, and Vol. 6 6 0 62 k'rspos d?rBv, hypbv Ka; t ~ p b v
11.p. 365. ?) Beppbv ~ a Ji~ixpbv,
l suvorri~cr r e
Plnt. Plac. l. C.,Diog. ii. 1 6 : a b ~ KU;h d ~ 6 l B ~ u rThe
. reference t o
EArye 6; 6 6 0 a i r l a s &at yevturws, Archelaus is not, however, certain.
AR CHELA US. 391
y
5 111.-THE SOPHISTS.'
2. The Elr.te~lznZ
Ilistory of the Sop7~ists.
The first person who is mentioned ss having come '
forward under the name and with the pretensions of a,
The fullest acconnt of Prota- Crit. Sol~h.p. 68-120, is unimpor-
goras is giren by Frei in his tant ; the nionograph of Herl~stin
Qz~esti,,~aesP~otagoree (Bonn, Petersen's Philo1.-Histor. Sttcdien
1845); this is merely confirmed and (1832), pp. 88-164, contains much
supplemented as to details, hy matter, hut treats it rather super-
0. Weber, Qn~estio?zesP~otagoree ficially ; Geist, De Protngme Vztn,
(Marb. 1850), and T'itringa, De Giessen, 1827, confines h~mselft o
P ~ o t .Tita et I'hilos. (Gron. 1853). a short discussion of the biography
Of the earlier ~ r i t e r s Geel,
, Hist. of Protagoras.
406 THE S0PHI;STS.
u r h s h T o ~ a h o ~ ~ l8671s
v' 8; 8v &v pe8dpia +ihoud@ov T E b ~ 8 ~ ~b sa TO-
l
y v @ eh+vI 6 v r a 8 1 8 d u ~ w v8 r i *av g x y AITLKOC), are intended t o describe
hyaObv +lhov a o i e i r a i , T O ~ T O Y vopi- the position ascribed t o himself by
~ o p e v& 74 Kah@ ~ h y a O + T0hf71) that Sophist.
T ~ O U ~ K E rLa G r a T O L E ~ Vof.
; p. 409, S Plato, Meno, 95 C ; cf. Phileb.
l S q h . 221 C, 226 A ; cf. Rep. oduqs. Ibid. c. 11, 171 b, 27; cf.
ri. 493 A : ~ ~ a u r rodsv p r u B a p v ~ d v - 33, 183 b, 36 : oi ~ 6 p irobs i p r u r t -
i 8 r w ~ i j v 06s
, 6 j ) oCror uo@rurhs K O ~ S Adyous pruBapvoGvr~s. Still
~ a h o l u r etc.
, stronger langi~ageis used by the
2 Soph. 7.26 B-231 C. pseudo-Xenophon, De Venat. c.
8 Ibid. 232 A-236 E, 264 C 13 : oi uo+rura> 6' ;T> 70: .d[a?rar@v
sqq. ; cf. Mepzo, 96 A. r ypd+ouurv d?rl 74 i a u r d v
~ k y o u u KU:
4 Goy. 463 A-465 C ; Rep. xip6er, ~ a o66kva 1 o66.b A@eAoGurv.
l. c. ; cf. Part 11. a, 509 sq., 3rd ed. 066; y h p uo+bs a 6 7 3 v d y l v e ~ oobse>s
5 Afetnph. vi. 2, 1026 b, 14 ; xi. 066' FYarrv . . . oi pQv y h p uo+rural
3 , 8, p. 1061 b, 7 ; 1064 b, 26. ?rhouuiovs ~ a ' r vkous O q p d v r a ~ , or'
G Metaph. ir. 2, 1004 h, 17 ; 6 6 grhduo+or ?r&r ~ o r v o :K U ~+fAor.
Soph. El. e. 1, 165 a. 21 : Eu7t y b p r d x a s (happy circumstances) 6 i
5 U O @ I U T ~ K+arvopQvq
~) u o @ i a o?k7a bvBpdv 0i;'rE r l p ~ u 1 v 0 6 7 ~ b r r p a -
6' oG, ~ a dl uo+rarj)s ~ p q p a r t u r j ) ~COUUI.
&nb +arvopkvps uo@ias &AA' O ~ K
VOL. 11. F F
434 THE SOPNISTS.
significance.
The previous method of education and instruction
among the Greeks provided indeed distinct teachers for
particular arts and accomplishments, such as tvriting,
arithmetic, music, gymnastic, but left everyone to re-
ceive his general training and education simply through
intercourse with his family and acquaintance. It some-
times happened, no doubt, that individual youths allied
themselves with some man of special repi~tation,in
order to be introduced by him to p~iblicaffairs ;l or
1 Thus Plutarch in his life of Mnesiphilus, who, as Flutareh ob-
Themistocles representstllat states- serves, belonged neither to the
man, in the beginning of his public orators, nor to t h e pvar~o'r prA6-
career, as seeking intercourse with uopoi, but aimed at distinguishing
AS PR OFESSIOATAL TE,I CHERS. 4.35
instruction. Cf. also p. 431,5, and biades did not seek intercourse
Plato, Symp. 217 A sqq., where with S o c r ~ t e sin order to become
Alcibiades treats Socrates as a like him in character, but vopl-
Sophist when he would give him o a v r e , E; b p ~ h ~ u a h qI v~ e [ v y y, e v i -
all he possesses in order r d v r ' u8ar Bv i ~ a v w r d r w ~ i y e r v T E ~ a l
brcoihat 8aa?rrp oi7ros $ 8 ~ 1 , while a p d r r r r v . The fact thht the So-
Socrates, by his purely moral con- phists announced themselres a s
ception of their relation, makes teachers of rirtue and improvers
him feel the difference of his in- of men does not altcr the case, for
struction from t h a t cf the Sophists. i t may well be asked wherein
The Sophists, i t is true, are nct virtue (or more properly, ability,
named here, but the way in which fitness, b p ~ ~ is4 jto be found : the
Alcibiades a t first treated his rela- b p a ~ h for
, instance, which Entl~y-
tion with Socrates shows what demus and Dionysodorus promise
pupils of his class were accustomed t o gire to their scholars more
t o seek and to expect from their quickly than all other teachers
instructors. The same holds good (Plato, Ezcthyc7em. 278 D), is en-
of the remark of Xenophon, Mem. tirely different from v h a t we call
i. 2, 1 4 sq., that Critias and Alci- virtue.
THElR FEES FOR IAT8TRUCTION. 443
Examples may easily be found Cicero, &c , the ' Illamination ' of
in the history of philosophy: i t is the last century, the conneetior,
sufficient for our present purpose between Xant's ' Critique of the
t o recall the practical tendency of Reason, and his Morality,' and
Socrates, and the later eclectics, similar instances.
Th-EORY OF K2C'OJVLEBGE: PROTAGBRAS. 445
' On which, cf. p. 426, 4. ride sup. Vol. I. 253, 295 sqq.) by
2 This attempt is mentioned by the vapours of the atmosphere;
Aristotle, Phys. i. 1, 185 a , 17 ; and its diornal course is the result
Soph. El. c. 11, 172 a, 2 sqq., but of its constantly seeking fresh
is expressly described as that of a nourishment instead of that which
dilettante. According to Simpl. has been consumed. According to
iDhys. 12 a , which Endemus here the same authority, i. 558, he ex-
seems to follow (Alexander i?z h. l. plained lunar ecllpses (in agree-
confuses the solution of Antiphon ment with Heracleitns, vide szp.
with another; in the text in t h e 1). 58, 2 ) as the inversion of the
Physics he seems to hare appre- boat in which the fire of the mooa
hended it rigktly), i t simply con- is kept. According to the Placita,
sisted in drawiug a polygon in the iii. 16, 4 (Galen, H. W. c. 22, p.
circle and measuring che superticial 299 ,, he said the sea rvas f m n e d
content of the polygon ; for ha 13y the exudation of the earth
thought that if only sides enough .caused by 11ell.t (according to the
were given t o the polygon, i t would opinion of Anaxagoras, vide sup.
coincide with the circle. p. 357, 1). Galen, in Hippocr.
S The Placita, ii. 28, 2 (Stob. Epickin. T. xvii. a, 681, quotes a
Eel. i. 556; Galen, H. Ph. c. l 5 , p . passage from the treatise named
281 ; Joh. Lyd. De Meno, iii. S , above, in which a meteorological
p. 39), ascribe to him the opinion phenomenon (it is not quite clear
(which was also held by Anax- what phenomenon it is) is ex-
agoras, ride sup. p. 361) that the plained.
moon shines with her own light, 4 Vide szcpra, p. 431,5. ' When
and that when we do not see this, therefore Tertullian (De Am. 15,
or see i t imperfectly, i t is because towards the end) ascribes t o Pro-
the light of the sun orerpowers tagoras the opinion .that the seat
that of the moon. Accor2ing to of the soul is in the breast, this
Stob. Ecl. i. 524, he thought the must refer to some incidental re-
sun was a fire, nourished (as Anaxi- mark, and not to an anthropological
mander and Diogenes also held, theory.
his sceptical standpoint, he found fault with astronomy
becanse the actuai positions and courses of t h e stars do
not coincide with the figures of the astronomers ; l if,
therefore, he wrote upon mathematic^,^ he must have
taken the line of denying its scientific certainty and
confining its practical application within narrow l i r n i h 3
Gorgias may have employed certain physical theories
occasionally for his own purposes," but his scepticism
likewise must have deterred hi.m from independent en-
quiry i n this sphere, and such enquiry is never ascribed
to him. Nor do we hear anything of natural science
in connection with Prodicus, Thrasymachus, or other
famous sophist^.^ Instead of an objective interest in
-
,
.l d4etaph. iii. a, 2, whicb is is conlbined with this, is given by
repeated by Alexander, acl R.. l., Socratcs in his own name.
and amplified probably on his own A treatise of Prodicus is
authority bp Aselepius (Schol. i7b named indeed by Galen, De EZe?iz.
AT. 619 b, 3). This statement is i. 9 ; T. i. 417 K ; De Phys.
referred to by Syrian, Jfetuph. 21, ii. 9 ; T. ii. 1 3 0 , under the title :
l . C., Bagol. rep1 9 h u ~ w sor T . $hurwr bv8ph-
=pi pa8qPd~wv,Diog. ix. 5 5 ; r o v ; and Cicero says, De Orat. iii.
cf. Frei, 189 sq. 32, 128 : Quid de Prodico Chio?
H e may easily hal-e ad-mitted quid de Thrnsymacho Chalcedonio,
such a n application, and even have de Protagorn Abderitu loquar?
given positive instruction in regard qzLorzcm zsnusqrcispue pluri.nzzanz tern-
to it. According to Diog. 1. c. ancl poribz~sillis etinm de natzcrcr rerum
Plato, Soph. 2&2D (inj'i-a,. 461, l), et dissertiit et scripsit. But that
he also wrote about the a r t of this trratise of Prodicns really
wrestling; according to Aristotle contained physical enquiries is not
(vide szhpra, 411, 2) he invented a proved by the title. Cicero in the
pad for porters. passage quoted only wants to show
4 Sopater, Arafp. [?T. Rhet. G?. eeteres doctores auctoresque cliceudi
riii. 23: ropy. ph6pov ebar h6ywv azcllth?iz geuz~s dis2~~ctutioibisCL se
rbv fihtbv (where there is perhaps, aliel~zrn~ pzctosse scnqerqzbe esse im
however, a confusion with Anam- omizi oratiouis rutiose cersatos, and
goras). Plato, Meno, 76 C: Bohhrr for this purpose he instances, be-
oZlv COL KUT&ropylav & T O K ~ : ~ W ~sidesR L ; tliose just mentioned, not
. . . OI'IKOGVh6yrre b n o ~ ~ o drrvas
s o i ~ l ythe example of t h e universal
.
7 6 , Zvrwv KRT' ' E p r e 6 0 ~ ~ 6. a. artist, Hippias, but the offer of
~ a ndpovs,
; etc. The definition of Gorgias to give lectures on any
colours, on the other hancl, which giren theme. Here, therefore, we
ERIS T I C DI8P UTATION. 461
Vahlen proves (p. 504 sq. of the the Politics, the declaration that this
treatise quoted supra, p. 425, S), social arrangement, which through-
from Arist. Rhet. i. 13, 1373 b, 18, out Hellas constituted a lawful
where Aristotle appeals in support right, was a wrong-such an attack
of the theory of a universal natural could only damage the effect of
law to his M F G G I ~ V L ~and
K ~ S the
; the discourse. Aristotle, however,
Scholion ( O m t . Attici, ii. 154) speaks in Polit. i. 6, 1255 a, 7, of
quotes from that work these words, r o h h o l r 6 v dv rois vdPors, who
which originally appear to have accuse slavery of injustice ; and in
stood in the Aristotelean text : c. 3, either he or the adversary
iheuO&pous &@?K€ r d v r a s eebs, 0?16&va whom he has primarily in view,
6oi;hov 4 +hors r e r o ( 7 ~ ~ v .Yet sums up these accusations (as the
Aristotle does not seem to be trimeter: v 6 p y yhp bs p i v Fo3Aas
thinking specially of him in the Ss 6' 8AehOepos shows, which also
passage quoted above from the betrays itself, c. 6, 1255 b, 5) in
Politics. For the M E U U ~ V ~ U K(as
~S the words of a tragic poet, possibly
Vahlen has conc!usively shown, p. Euripides (from whom Oncken,
504 sqq.) had a definite practical Btaatsl. d. Arist. ii. 3 3 sq., has col-
purpose-that of effecting the re- lected similar statements), or Aga-
cognition of the restored Mes- thou, the pupil of Gorgias. But
senians after the battle of Man- even if the passage in the Politics
tinea ; and as in this i t ran has no special reference to Alci-
counter to the feelings of the damas, i t is probably concerned
Spartans, who strongly disliked with a theory which, by the appli-
having their Helots (intermingled cation of the Sophistic distinction
with the Messenians) for indepeu- between vdpos and @ ~ G Llaid S , bare
dent neighbours (as Isocrates says, the most rulnerable p u t of ancient
Archid. 28, cf. 8, 87, 96)-it was society. Among the adherents of
quite fitting to remind them that this theory may have been the
the opposition of slaves and free- Cynics, who were connected with
men was not absolute, that all men Gorgias through their founder,
are by nature free-born. On the and who made great, use of this
other hand, an attack on the prin- distinction, if they were not (as I
ciples and the whole institution of conjectured, Part 11. a, 276,3rd ed.)
slavery, such as is presupposed in its first assertors.
NATURAL; AND POSITIVE RIGHT. 479
law and order, like the animals, that penal laws were
given for protection against tyranny ; bnt as these could
only prevent open crimes, it occurred to some clever
and imaginative man to provide a protection against
secret wrong-doing, by relating that there are gods who
are mighty and immortal, and see all hidden things;
and, to increase the fear of them, he placed their abode
in heaven. I n proof of this theory, the Sophists no
doubt appealed to the variety of religions : if the belief
in gods were based upon nature, they said, men would
all adore the same god ; the variety of gods shows most
clearly that the worship of them merely originates from
human invention and consent.' That which holds good
of positive institutions in general, must also hold good
of positive religions ; because religions are different
in different nations, they can only be regarded as arbi-
trary inventions. Prodicus explained the rise of reli-
gious belief i n a more naturalistic manner. The men
of old time, he says: held the sun and moon, floods
and streams, and all things that are of use to us, to be
gods, just as the Egyptians do the Nile ; and therefore
bread is revered as Demeter, wine as Dionysus, water
as Poseidon, fire as H e p h ~ s t u s . ~The popular gods,
the verses belonged to him or to of religion.
Emripides ; moreover, a drama is ' Plato, Laws,X. 889 E : O E O ~ S ,
mentioned by Athen. xi. 496 b, a pa~dpce,e&ar n p r j ~ d v@aurv 08706
the authorship of which lay in [the uo@ol] T ~ X Y ?06
I , @ ~ G EBhhd
[,
doubt between Critias and Euri- TLGL vdpols, ~ a lT O ~ T O U S dhhous
pides ; cf. Fabricius ad 8 ~ ~M~dh.
1. &AA?, anq Ztcar~oriau~oiuruvvwpo-
l. c. ; Bayle, Dict. Critias, Rem. hdyquav V O ~ O ~ E ~ OCf. ~ ~pp.
E Y ~ L .
A. Whoever may have written 476, 2, 5 ; 477, 1.
the verses, and in the mouth of Sext. Math. ix. IS, 51 sq.;
whomsoever they may have been Cic. N. D. i. 42, 118; cf. Epiph.
placed, they are at any rate a Ezp. Fid. 1088 C.
monument of the Sophistic view S We may bring into connection
RELIGION -4ND THE GODS. 483
That the Sophists were not differs from its own opinions and
indeed the only, or the chief inclinations ; the Sophists are
cause, of the moral disorganisation merely persons who know how to
which prevailed during the Pelo- manage the public adroitly, to
ponnesian war; that the aberrations flatter its prejudices and wishes,
of their Ethics were rather an evi- and to teach others the same art.
dence than a reason of this dis- Bnt there is no occasion therefore
orgauisation, is evident and has to deny, as Grote does (viii. 508
already been shown, p. 401 sq. sqq.), in opposition to the most
Grote (rii. 5 1 sq.; viii. 544 sq.) express statements of Thucydides
appeals, with justice, to Plato's (iii. 82 sq. ; iii. 52), and the un-
assertion ( R q . ri. 492 A sq.) : we equivoc~ltestimony of history, that
ought not to think that i t is the in this period generally a disor-
Sophists who corrupt youth, the ganisation of moral ideas, and a
public itself is the greatest of all decline of political virtue and of
Sophists, tolerating nothing that the pegard for law, took place.
SOPHISTIC SCHOOLS. 507
AEA AN&
-
Pythagoras, i. 338,339;,349, 2 ;
c,
092 ; to Empedocles, 11. 119,
226 ; of Ansximander, 227 SW. ;
of Anaximenes, 266 sqq. ; of
120 ; prophecy and, how re- Diogenes, 286 ; of Hippo, 282 :
~ t r d e dby Democritus, 289-292; Idzus, 284 ; of the Pythago-
Democritus called fitther of, reans, 370, 374, 390, 393 scjq. ;
210, n. how apprehended by the Eiau-.
~TIagmzMo~alia.i. 492, 408 tics, 568, 639 sq. ; by Heraclei-
iWa.qtset, a soul attributed to the, tus, ii. 20 sqq., 64, l05 sq., 112
by Thales, i, 222 ; attraction of sq.; by Empedocles, l26 sq., 129,
the, how explained by Diogenrs 138 sq., 193, 205 ; by the Ato-
of Apollonia, 298; by Empe- mists, 218, 220, 222, 310 sq.;
docles, ii. 134, l ; by Demo- by Anaxagoras, 330, 333 sqy.,
critus, 230, 1 342, 383, 384; voas the moves
iVam, how regarded by Greek re- of,'i. 220 ; ii. 364, 384; vosc it
ligion, i. 53 ; see Anthropology, subtle kind of, 346
Soul, Body ; ' man is tile mea- ~Meehanicalexplanation of n;ttolr,
sure of all things,' asserted by founded by Empedocles and
Protagoras, ii. 400, 405, 449 Lsucippus, ii. 205 ; logically
~Mar~ia~qe, supposed, of Pythagoras, ca.rried out by the -4tomists,
i. 341, 4 ; 347 ; precepts con- 311
cerning, of the Pythagoreans, Mcdici~ze,art of, practised by the
344, 347, 494, 495 ; identified Pythagoreans, I. 328, 2 ; 348,
with number five by Pythago- 353, 354
rvtns; i. 411, 420; opinions of iVelcsagoras, snpposed adherent of
Democritus on, ii. 284, 285 Anilximnncs, i. 284, 3
iUaterialism of the pre-Socratic MeIissus, lifeand writings of, i. 6 7 ,
philosophy, i. 152, 199 sq. ; ii. l ; doctrine of Being, 534, 535,
399, 400 sqq. ; of the Atomists, 629 sqq. ; denial of motion and
299, 309; of Anaxagoras, 346, change, 634 sq. ; physical and
381, 383, 382 theological theories ascribed :e
.iTfatAematics,not included in Greek him, 637 sq. ; connection with
education, i. 78; how regarded Leucippus, ii. 307
by Plato, 204; prominence of, Meielisszls, treatise on, Xenophanes
with the Pythagoreans, 34 7, and Gorgias, i. 533 sq. ; first
376, 446,500 ; ii. 104, 106 ; pro- section, 534 ; second section
ficiency in, of Thales, i. 213, 3 ; cancel-ns Xenoph;tnes and nor;
Pythagoras, 3 2 8 , ;~ Archytas, Zeno, 536 sq. ; but does not
366, 7 ; of Democritus, ii. 21 2, 'truly represent the doctrines of
gz.. 214, n. ; of Anaxagoras, 326 ; Xenophanes, 541 ; this treatise
327, 1 ; of Hippias, 458 ; not authentic, 551 ; its origin,
teachers of, called Sophists, 554
430, 1 iWetds, a kind of respiration a t
.iWatter, according to Aristotle, the tributed to, i. 298
possibility of Being, i. 175 ; ac- Metempsychosis, first introduction
cording to Plato, is unreal, 175 ; of, into Greece, i. 42, 67,69, 70 ;
primitive, how regarded by taught in the mysteries, 74 ; by
the earlier and later Physicists, Pherecydes, 69 ; 96, 4 ; 327, 3 ;
202-209 ; primitive, of Thales, belief of t h e Gaule in, 73, 1.;
VOL. 11. 31 >1
530 INDEX.
MET 3fOO
eastern or Egyptian origin of. religion, 1 3 6 ; of the Pythago-
7 2 ; development of, 1 2 6 ; men- reans, 404, 489, 490; of Xeno-
tion of, by Herodotus, 333, phanes, 559, 1 ; ,561, 562 sqq. ;
l ; personal transmigrations suppnszd, of Empedocles, ii.
of Pythagoras, 340, 1 ; 483, 6 ; 181-184 ; not connected with
prominence of, in Pythagorean Anaxagoras's doctrine of vois,
philosophy, 355, 481 sqq. ; held 349, 352. Cf. Vol. I. 37
by Empedocles, ii. 177 ; i. 484, 1
Bomr, theories respecting the, of
3. 4
iTfetmoio~qicaItheories of Anaxi-
m:mder, i. 256 ; Anaximenes,'
1Thales : receives her light from
t,he sun, i 225; phases of the,
214, m., 252 ; of Anaximander :
2 7 8 ; Diogenes of Apollonia, shines by her own light, 253 ;
295, 5 ; Xenophanes, 571, 572 ; size and place of. 253, n. ; 254,
Heracleitus, ii. 48, 57, 62 ; Em- 2 ; how first formed, 274 ; ii.
pedocles, 158 ; Democritus, 252, 361, 6 ; is an aperture in a fiery
253 ; Anaxagoras, 362 ring, 252, a. ; of Anaximenrs,
ilirfrodaras of Chios, an Atomi~t, who is said to hare first dis-
ii. 313 ; sceptical view of know- corered that she gets her light
ledge? 319, 320 from the sun, 274 ; of the Py-
Jfctroclorus of Lampsacus, disciple thagorean~: place of, in the
of Anaxagoras, ii. 314, l ; 372 ; universe, 444 ; said to be the
his allegorical interpretation of counter-earth, 452, l ;conceived
the Homeric myths, 387 as a sphere, 454, 3 ; 455 ;
,4fiZky Way, connected with the 456, 1 ; noticed in eclipse a t
central fire, i. 466 her setting and after wlnrise
Jfimmmnus, ethical contents of by Pliny, 456, a.; light of, de-
his poems, i. 114 rived from sun and central fire,
-3fixttwe of matter, primitire, 456, 2 ; plants and living crea-
wrongly ascribed to Anaximan- tures in the, fairer and larger
der, i. 232 ~qq..241 ; with Em- than on our earth, 457; length
pedocles, ii. 130 sqq. ; with of a day in the moon, 457, l :
Anaxagoras, 338 sq. abode of departed souls and of
M9zesarchus, father of Pythago- dsmons, 457 ; place of the, in
ras, i. 324 the spheral harmony, 462, n . ;
Jfochzcs or Moschw, a Phcenician circles above and beneath the,
Atomist, i. 34, 41, 48 ; 328, 1 ; 471 ; of Alcmzeon : plane sur-
Democritus said to have de- face shaped like a boat, ascribed
rived doctrine of atoms from, to the, 523, 1 ; called divlne,
ii. 212, B. 523, 3 ; of X~nophanes: a
-.lozad,alleged Pythagorean dis- fiery cloud lighted and extin-
tinct,ion of the, from the One, guiched a t rising and setting,
i. 391 ; called Zavbs d p y o s , and moving in a st,raight line,
446, 1 572 ; inhabit~d,573, 1 ; no in-
iMo~~ofheism, not imported into fluence on the earth, 573, 2 ; of
philosophy from the mysteries, Parmenides : placed midway
i. 6 3 ; indications of, in the between Nllky Way and fixed
poets, 121, 1 2 2 ; of the Xo- stars, 600, 1 ; produced from
r,\il, how opposed to Greek the denser portion of the Milky
INDEX. 531
XOT XAT
Way, 600, 2 ; mixed nature of against, i. 614, 626; Gorgias
the, 600, 2 ; face in the, 600,2 ; on, ii. 453-455 ; according to
of Heracleitus: heat and light Heracleitus, 107 ; Empedocles,
of the, why less than the sun, 202; Democritus, 300, 306 ;
and greater than the stars, ii. Anaxagoras, 375 sq.
57, 2 ; ship of the, 58, ?a. ; of Mzlsic, place in Greek education,
Empedocles : made of crystal- i. 78; theory and practice of,
line air, l56 ; a disc, 156 ; gets with the Pythagoreans, 348,
light from the sun, 156; dis- 353, 384, 385, 431 sq. ; of
tame from t,he earth, 157; the spheres, 460 sq. ; taught by .
spacebeneath the, theatre of evil, Hippias, ii. 422, 2
157; of Democritus: consists Mysocl, one of the seven sages,
of smooth and round atoms, i. 1 1 9 , l ; declared by Apollo to
249 ; terrestrial nature of, be the most blameless of men,
monntains in, 249 : origin of, 120, 3
249, 250 ; placed between earth My.steries, Greek, i. 59, 60 sq. ;
and stars, 250 ; motion and re- Orphic, G4 sqq. ; Pythagorean,
locity of, 251 ; placed next 351, 352, 356 sq., 376, 490
highest to the sun, 316 ; of iW~ths,of Hesiod, i. 84 ; of Phere-
Anaxagoras: origin of, 356; cydes, 8 9 ; of Epimenides, 96;
referred to in an obscure pas- of the Orphic poems, 98 sqq.;
rage :IS ano-cher universe, 359 ; polemic of Xenophanes against,
invisible bodies between, and i. 561, 574; of Heraeleitus,. ii.
the earth, 360 ; shows her own 404 ; of Democritus, 287 sq. ;
light in eclipses, 361 ; her or- the Anaxagorean interpretia-
dinary light rrflected from the tions of, 372, 6 ; 387; Pro-
sun, has mountains, ralleys, and dicus on, 482 ; of the Golden
living inhabitants, 361 ; called Age, 177 ; how regarded in the
inother of plants, 565, 3 ; Se- Sophistic period, 402 ; myrhsaf
mean lion conjectured tu have Protagoras quoted L ~ P l a t o471
,
come from, 361, 3 ; Antiphon's
opinions on, 459, 3
Motion, explanation of, by Dioge- 2\;AME&, opinion of Democri-
nes, i. 290, 292 ; by Empedo- tus on, ii. 276 ; diutinct.ion
clcs,ii. 130sq. ; by the Atomists, of, taught by Prodicus, 419, 1 ;
i. 208 ; ii. 241 ; by Anaxagoras, 490, 491 ; ambiguity of, subject
342-346 ; denial of. by Parme- of Sophistic quibbling, 466-468
nides, ii. 117, 118; by Zeno, i. Sotzar?, unity of Spirit with;
619 sqq. ; by Melissus, 634 sq. ; characteristic of the Greeks,
all things i n conshnt, asserted 138 sq., 149; in the systems
by Heracleitus, ii. 11; i. 207 ; of Plato and Aristotle, 158 ;
how regarded by Empedocles, . Greek religion a worship of,
118 sqq., 130,137, 145 sq., 200, 157 ; all pre-Socratic philoso-
201, 205, 206 ; by Leucippus phy a philosophy of, 152, 186,
and Democritus, 21-1, 215 sq., , 197 ; how regarded by poqt-
239 sqq., 307, 308; Anaxago- Aristotelian schools, 157 sqq.;
ras, 325, 330, 354, 364. 376 natural truths, 157 ; physic~l
JlzrEtipZicity, Zeno's arguments explanation of, when abandoned,
? 2l
hf '
t
INDEX. 53.3
OI9 PAB
Old,subordination of the young t o 171 ; of Democritus, 270-274
the, enjoined by the Pytha- sq., 2 9 8 ; of Metrodorus, 316,
gxeans, i. 493, 495 317 ; of Anaxagoras, 360, 370 ;
i;hupsos, ~dupos,ohpauds, division knowledge is merely, asserted
of the universe into, i. 471, 472 by Protagoras, 449-451, 458 ;
One and Xany in Pythagorean Gorgias, 454 ; morality, justice,
table of opposites, i. 381 ; the, and religion, matters of, 475sqq.
and duality, 386 sqq.; the, and Opposites, Pythagorean table ot,
Deity, 391-394, 401 sqq., 405 ; i. 381, 509 ; all things consist
the, and matter, 410, 412 ; the, of, maintained by Pythagoreans,
designated as the soul, and the i. 383 ; and Heracleitus, ii. 30
point, 413 ; the first number, sqq., 106,309; present universe
429 ; central fire called the, 442 ; a s compared with the Sphairos
Xenophanes declares Deity to called by Empedocles, world af,
be the, 555,559 sq., 564; Being 175, 201, 202
of Parmenides, 583 ; (cf. Vol. 11. Oracles, i. 56
195, 199;) of Melissus, 634 ; Oriental philosophy, i. 43 sq., 133
Eleatic doctrine of the, ii. 112 ; sq. ; supposed derivation of
comes from all, and all from, Greek from, 26 sq.
Heracleitus, ii. 35 ; 39 ; and Oqnhtxls, considered by Neo-Plato-
Many, Zeno, i. 613-615 ; Pdr- uibts the first of philosophers,
menicles, 589 sqq. ; with Xeno- i. 4 ; reckoned among the seven
phanes, 555, 579 ; with Hera- wise men, i. 119, 1
cleitus as compared with O ~ h i cpoems, i. 62; theogonies,
Eleatics, ii. 107 ; with Empe- i. 98 bql. ; fragments of Jewish
docles, 201 ; with the Atomists, origin, 64, 2 ; ~ard&rurs,340, 2
216 ; pre-Socratics generally,
398, 406 ; Gorgias asserts
Being to be neither, nor Many, PAMPHILUS, reckoned among
452, 453, 455; disputations of the seven wise men, i. 119, 1
Athenian youths about the, and Pan, supposed derivation of the
Many, 456, l ; Aristotle calls name, i. 40, 3 ; appears a s Zeuv
the Spheiros of Empedocles the in the Orphic theogony, i. 101
One, 149 Pu?btht.ism of the Orphic poems, i.
Onomcritas, collector of Orphic 64, 65; germ of, in Greek re-
and Homeric poems, i. 62, 1, ligion, 101; of Xenophanes,
65, 353 562-564 ; of Heracleitus, ii. 106
Ophioneus, i. 91, 2 ; 93 sq., 106 Yarmenides, life and doctrines, i.
O-ykion,number two assigned by 580 sq.; relation toxenophanes,
Pythagoreans to, i. 411, 420 ; 582 sq. ; doctrine of Being, 584
the region of the earth, 421, 1 ; sq. ; corporeality of Being, 587
knowledge and, view of Xeno- sq., 590 ; reason and sense, 591 ;
phanes respecting, i. 575 ; of sphere of opinion, physics, 592 ;
Parmenides, 591, 603; (his ex- Being and non-Being, the light
plsnntion of the world accord- and the dark, 594; cosmology,
ing to ordinary, 592 sqq., 605 597 sq. ; anthropology, 601 ;
sq. ;) of Herncleitus, ii. 7-10, meaning of the Parmenidean
88-96 ; of Empedocles, 167, Physics, 605 sq.
:g34 INDEEY.
PER 'PHI
Perceptiolt ; see Sense, Senses 128; derivation of, from Oriental ,