Early greek philosophy

Citation preview

;U ,N@

PENGUIN

|

CLASSICS

EARLY GREEK PH ILOSO PHY ADVISORY EDITOR: BETTY RADICE

Jonathan Barnes was born in 1942 and educated at the City o f London School and Balliol C ollege, O x fo rd . From 1968 to 1978 he was a Fellow o f Oriel C ollege, O x fo rd ; since then he has been a Fellow o f Balliol C ollege, O x fo rd . He has lectured in philosophy since 1968. His visiting appointm ents have taken him to the U niver­ sity o f Chicago, the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, the University o f Massachusetts at Am herst, the University o f T exas at Austin and the W issenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. He has published num erous articles in learned jou rnals and his books include The Presocralic Philosophers (1979, second edition 1982) and, in the Past Masters series, Aristotle ( 1982). Jonathan Barnes has also written the introduction to Aris­ totle’s Ethics in the Penguin Classics.

J O N A T H AN BARNES

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

P E N G U IN

BOOKS

PENGUIN BOOKS Pub lish ed b y the P en gu in G ro u p 27 W rig h ts L a n e, L o n d on w 8 5 T Z , E n glan d V ik in g P en gu in In c ., 40 W est 23rd S treet, N e w Y o r k , N e w Y o r k 10010, U S A P en gu in Books A u stra lia L td , R in g w o o d , V ic to ria , A u stralia P en gu in Books C a n a d a L td , 2801 J o h n S treet, M a rk h a m , O n ta rio , C a n a d a L.3R 1: P en gu in Books (N Z ) L td , 18 2 -19 0 W a ira u R o a d , A u c k la n d 10, N ew Z ea la n d P en gu in Books L td , R egistered O ffices: H arm on d sw orth , M id d lesex, E n glan d P ublished in Pen gu in Books 1987 7 9 10 8 6 C o p y rig h t © J o n a t h a n B arnes, 1987 A ll rights reserved P rinted b y C la y s L td , S t Ives pic F ilm set in L in otron 202 B askerville E x c e p t in the U n ite d States o f A m erica , this b ook is sold subject to the con dition th at it shall not, b y w a y o f trad e or otherw ise,

.

be lent, re-sold, hired ou t, or oth erw ise circu lated w ith o u t the p u b lish er’s p rior consent in a n y form o f b in d in g o r co v er o th er than th at in w h ich it is p ublished an d w ith o u t a sim ilar condition in clu d in g this con dition b ein g im posed on the subsequent p u rch aser

CONTENTS

M ap In troduction

7 9

Synopsis Note to the R ead er

PART 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 50

I

P recursors T h a le s A n a x im an d er A n axim en es Pythagoras A lcm aeon

55 61 71 77 81 89

7 X en o p h an es 8 H eraclitus

93 100

PART Parm enides Melissus 11 Zeno

II 129 143 150

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

P A R T III 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

E m pedocles F ifth-century P ythagoreanism H ippasus Philolaus Ion o f C hios H ipp o A n a x a go ras A rch elau s L eu cippu s D em ocritus D iogenes o f A po llo n ia

161 202 214 216 223 224 226 240 242

A p p en d ix : T h e Sources F u rth er R ead ing

295 302

Subject In dex In d ex to Q u o ted T e x t In d ex to D iels-K ranz B -T exts

3°5 309 3 *5

244 289

INTRODUCTION

I The First Philosophers A cco rd in g to tradition, G re e k p h ilosop h y b egan in 585 в с and en ded in a d 529. It began w hen T h a le s o f M iletus, th e first G reek ph ilosopher, p red icted an eclipse o f the sun. It en d ed when the C hristian E m p ero r Justinian fo rb a d e the teach in g o f pagan ph ilosoph y in the U niversity o f A th en s. T h e tradition is a sim plification: G reek s had en tertain ed philosop h ical thoughts b efo re 585 в с , and Ju stin ian ’s ed ict, w h atever its intention, did not b rin g p agan p h ilosop h y to a su d den stop. B u t the traditional dates stand as co n ven ien t and m em orable boundaries to the ca reer o f ancien t philosophy. T h e thousand years o f that ca reer d ivid e into th ree period s o f u nequal d u ratio n . First, th ere w ere the salad years, from 585 until about 400 в с , w hen a sequ en ce o f g ree n and genial individuals established th e scope and d eterm in ed the problem s o f p hilosophy, an d b egan to d evelo p its con cep tu al equ ipm ent and to fix its stru ctu re. T h e n cam e the p eriod o f the Schools — the p eriod o f Plato and A ristotle, o f the E p i­ cureans and the Stoics, and o f the Sceptics - in w hich elab orate systems o f th ou g h t w ere w orked o u t and subjected to stren u ­ ous criticism. T h is second period en d ed in about 100 в с . T h e lon g third period was m arked in the m ain by sch olarsh ip and syncretism : the later th in kers stu d ied their p red ecesso rs’ w rit­ ings with assiduity; th ey p ro d u ced com m entaries an d in­ terpretations; and they attem pted to extra ct a co h eren t and u nified system o f th o u g h t w hich w ould in clu d e all th at was best in the earlier d octrines o f th e Schools.

9

INTRODUCTION

T h e p resen t book is co n cern ed with the first o f the three period s, with early G reek ph ilosop h y. T h is period is com ­ m only called the ‘Presocratic’ phase o f G reek th ou gh t. T h e ep ith et is inaccu rate, fo r Socrates was bo rn in 470 в с and died in 399, so that m any o f the ‘P resocratic’ p hilosophers w ere in fact co n tem p o raries o f Socrates. B u t the label is well en tren ­ ch ed and it w ould be idle to attem pt to evict it. T h e P resocratic p eriod itself d ivides into th ree parts. T h e r e was first a cen tu ry o f bold and creative th ou g h t. T h e n the early ad ven tu res w ere subjected to strin gen t logical criticism : the d aw n th ey had h erald ed seem ed a false daw n, th eir discoveries ch im erical, th eir hopes illusory. Finally, th ere w ere years o f retren ch m en t and consolidation , in which thin kers o f very d if­ feren t persu asions attem pted each in his ow n way to reconcile the h opes o f the first th in kers with the rig o ro u s criticism s o f th eir successors. T h e s e schem atism s im pose a fixity on w hat was in reality fluid an d irreg u la r. T h e G reek s them selves, w hen they cam e to w rite th e history o f th eir ow n th o u g h t, w ere even m ore schem atic. T h e y liked to talk ab o u t ‘Schools’ and about ‘Succes­ sions’, in w hich each th in k er had a m aster an d a p u p il, and each p h ilosop h y a set place. T h e s e constructions, artificial th o u g h they are, su p p ly an intellectual fra m ew o rk w ithout w hich the h istory o f th ou g h t can n ot readily be co m p reh e n d ed . M oreo ver, it is at least ap p ro x im ately tru e that the Presocratics form a u nitary g ro u p , that they d iffe r in fu n d am en tal ways both fro m th eir u nph ilosop hical p red ecessors and from their g re a t successors, and that w ithin the era w hich their fortu nes span th ree m ain p eriod s can be distin gu ished. Su ch n aked abstractions req u ire a co verin g o f d ecen t histori­ cal robes. W h en w e thin k o f G reece we habitually thin k first o f A th en s, su p p o sin g that th e city o f Pericles an d the P arthenon, o f Socrates an d A ristop h an es, was the cen tre an d focus o f the G re ek w o rld , artistically, intellectually an d politically. In fact n on e o f th e earliest p h ilosoph ers was A th en ia n . Philosophy b loom ed first on the eastern shores o f th e A e g e a n , in small in d e p en d e n t city-states w hich had at that tim e no political ties with A th en s. T h e G re e k states o f Ionia, on the south-west

10

INTRODUCTION

coastal strip o f A sia M in or (m o d em T u rk e y ), w ere torn by internal strife and th reatened by ex tern a l en em ies. Y e t fo r a cen tury and a half, fro m about 650 to 500 в с , they en jo yed a rem arkable efflorescence: they b u rg eo n e d econom ically, they bloom ed politically, in art and in literatu re they flo u rish ed , p ro d u cin g m ajestic a rch itectu re, noble scu lp tu re, exqu isite poem s, elegan t vase-paintings. It was at M iletus in th e south o f Ionia that G re e k ph ilosoph y was born. T h e M ilesians w ere an u n co m m on ly vigoro u s lot. Internally, th eir politics w ere tu rb u len t - they knew faction , strife and blood y revo lu tion . E xtern ally, they w ere n e ig h ­ b ou red by two p o w erfu l em p ires, first the Lydian s, with w hom they m aintained an u neasy sym biosis, and a fter 546 th e P er­ sians, by w hom they w ere eventually d estroyed in 494. D espite these un p ro p itio u s circum stances, the M ilesians w ere co m m er­ cially in d efatigable. T h e y trad ed not o n ly with the eastern em pires bu t also with E gyp t, establishing a tra d in g em p o riu m at N aucratis on the N ile delta. In add ition th ey sent n u m erou s colonies to settle in T h r a c e , by th e B o sp h o ru s and a lo n g the coast o f the Black Sea; and they also had conn ection s with Sybaris in south Italy. It was in this g ifte d tow nship that T h a le s, A n a x im an d er and A n a xim en es, th e first th ree philosop h ers, lived and w orked. H ow soon and how w id ely th eir ow n w ork becam e know n we cannot say. B u t the intellectual activity which they p io n ­ eered soon sp read . H eraclitus cam e from the city o f E phesus, a p rosperou s state som e m iles to the north o f M iletus. X e n ­ oph an es cam e from n earby C o lo p h o n . P ythagoras was born on the island o f Sam os, w hich lies close to the m ain land h a lf­ way betw een Ephesus and C o lo p h o n . L ater, A n a x a g o ra s cam e from C lazo m en ae, M elissus fro m Sam os an d D em ocritu s fro m A b d era in th e north-east. T h e west too m ad e its contrib ution. P ythagoras em igrated from Sam os to the G reek colon y o f C ro to n in south Italy. A lcm aeon was a native o f C ro to n . P arm enid es and Z en o w ere born in Elea on the west coast o f Italy. E m ped ocles cam e fro m A cragas in Sicily. T h is geograph ical d iversity d id not m ean that the Pre-

INTRODUCTION

socratics w ere in d ep en d e n t w orkers, w ritin g in ign orance o f o n e a n o th e r’s th ou gh ts. A lth o u g h com m unications w ere slow and freq u en tly d an gero u s, m any o f the early philosophers w ere itin eran t. P ythagoras, as I said, m igrated fro m the east to the west. X en o p h an es a n d E m ped ocles both tell us that they trav­ elled. P arm enid es an d Z en o are su p p o sed by Plato to have visited A th en s. A n a x a go ras sp ent m uch o f his life in A thens b e fo re h e retired in ex ile to L am psacu s in the T r o a d . It is true that th ere is little d irect evid en ce o f fru itfu l intellectual converse a m o n g the various ph ilosoph ers, and the influences and inter­ actions which scholars com m only assum e a re speculative. B ut the sp eculation s a re plausible. F or m uch in the history o f Preso­ cratic th o u g h t is m ost intelligible on the hypothesis o f m utual contact. O n e p articu lar case is w orth m ention ing. M elissus cam e fro m Sam os in the eastern A e g e a n , P arm enid es from Elea in west Italy. M elissus was w o rk in g at m ost a d ecad e o r so a fter P arm enides. Y e t it is qu ite certain that M elissus knew P arm en­ ides’ w ork intim ately: eith er he had m et Parm enides, o r he had d isco vered a co py o f his w ork, o r h e had learn ed o f it from som e th ird p arty. T h e r e was n o Eleatic ‘S ch oo l’: Parm enides, Z en o an d M elissus d id not m eet regu larly, discuss th eir th ou gh ts togeth er, give lectures, h ave students, hold sem inars. N onetheless, they w ere not w o rk in g an d th in kin g in isolation.

T h u s fa r I h ave sp oken o f the Presocratics as ‘philosop h ers’ o r ‘th in kers’. It is tim e to be a little m ore precise. ‘Philosophy’ is a G re e k w o rd , th e etym ological m ean in g o f which is ‘love o f w isdom ’. T h e G reeks them selves ten d ed to use th e term in a b road sense, to co ver m ost o f w hat w e now thin k o f as the sciences and the liberal arts. T h e School p h ilosophers o f the secon d p eriod regu larly d ivid ed th eir subject into th ree parts: logic, ethics an d physics. L o g ic in clu d ed the study o f lan gu age a n d m ea n in g as well as the study o f th o u g h t an d argu m ent. Ethics in clu d ed m oral and political th eorizin g, bu t it also em braced topics which would now fall u nd er the head o f socio­ logy and ethnography. Physics was d efined very generously:

12

INTRODUCTION

it was the study o f n atu re and o f all the p h en o m en a o f the natural world. In term s o f this later th reefo ld distinction, the Presocratics w ere rega rd ed prim arily as ‘physicists’. T h e r e are ethical and logical parts to som e o f th eir w orks, bu t th eir c h ie f interest was physics: A ristotle calls them the phusikoi and th eir activity phusiologia; they w ere ‘students o f n a tu re’ and th eir subject was the ‘study o f n a tu re’. T o the m od ern read er that m ay sou n d m ore like science than p h ilosop h y - and in d eed o u r m od ern subject o f physics derives its content no less than its nam e from the G reek phusikoi. But the m odern disdnction between em pirical science and sp ecu lative ph ilosoph y is not readily ap plied to the earliest phase o f western th o u g h t, w hen aca­ dem ic specializations and intellectual b o u n d aries had not been th ou gh t o f. Thales, then, was the first phusikos, the first ‘student o f nat­ u re’ o r ‘natural philosopher’. T h e written works o f the early thinkers frequ en tly b o re the title On Nature (Peri Phuseos); and although the titles w ere bestow ed not by the au th o rs but by later scholars, they w ere largely ap p ro p riate. F or th e gen eral en terprise o f the early p h ilosoph ers was to tell th e w h ole truth ‘about n atu re’ : to d escribe, to o rg a n ize, an d to ex p lain the universe and all its contents. T h e en terp rise in volved , at on e end o f the scale, detailed accounts o f n u m erou s natural ph en om en a - o f eclipses and the m otions o f th e h eaven ly b o d ­ ies, o f th u n d e r and rain and hail and w ind and in g en era l o f ‘m eteorological’ events, o f m inerals and o f plants, o f anim als their procreation an d gro w th and n o u rish m en t an d d eath and, eventually, o f m an - o f the biological, psychological, social, political, cu ltu ral and intellectual aspects o f h u m an life. A ll this we m igh tju stly co u n t as ‘science’; and we sh o u ld regard the Presocratics as the first investigators o f m atters which becam e the special objects o f astron om y, physics, chem istry, zoology, botany, p sych o logy and so o n . A t the o th e r en d o f the scale, the Presocratic en terp rise involved m uch la rg e r and m ore obviously ‘p h ilosoph ical’ questions: d id th e universe have a beginn in g? A n d i f so, how d id it begin? W hat a re its basic constituents? W hy d oes it m ove and d evelo p as it does?

«3

INTRODUCTION

W h at, in the m ost g en eral term s, is th e n atu re and the unity o f the universe? A n d w hat can we h o p e to learn about it? N o t all the Presocratics asked all these questions, and not all o f them w rote in such co m p rehen sive term s ‘about n atu re’. B u t they all w rote w ithin that g en eral fram ew ork, and they all d eserve the h o n o rific title o f phusikos. W h eth er we shou ld now call them p h ilosoph ers o r scientists o r both is a m atter o f no im portan ce. T h e sequ en ce o f phusikoi w ho a re th e h eroes o f this book w ere not the only intellectual a d ven tu rers o f early G reece in d eed , they w ere not the only thin kers to e n g a g e in phusiologia. T h e didactic poets o f the a ge som etim es in d u lged in ph ilosophical reflection . T h e playw rights o f the fifth cen tury indicate a w id esp read interest in philosophical m atters: the tragedian E u ripid es show s a keen aw areness o f Presocratic speculation , and the com ic p o et A ristop h an es will p aro d y p h ilosophical and scientific notions. T h e g reat historians, H ero d otu s and T h u cy d id es, a re tou ch ed by philosophical th ou gh t. Several o f the early m edical w ritings associated with the nam e o f H ipp ocrates a re th o ro u g h ly Presocratic in their concerns. In the second h a lf o f the fifth cen tu ry the so-called ‘Sophists’ - m en such as P rotagoras, G o rgias, H ippias - who p rofessed to teach rh etoric, virtu e and practical success, w ere closely allied to the philosophical tradition. T h u s a history o f Presocratic phusiologia is not a history o f early G re e k th ou gh t in its en tirety. N onetheless, as A ristotle saw, th e Presocratics a re th e m ost im portan t an d influential represen tatives o f the ea rly p eriod : it was they w h o b egan p hilosophy, they w ho p re­ p ared the way fo r Plato an d fo r the g rea t ph ilosophical schools o f th e fo llo w in g generations. Presocratic p h ilosop h y d id not sp rin g into existen ce ex nihilo. T h e com m ercial and political relations betw een Ionia and the M id d le East b ro u g h t cu ltu ral conn ection s a lo n g with them . N o t all observers a p p ro v ed o f these ties. T h e C olophonians, according to Phylarchus, originally practised a tough m ode o f life, but when they contracted ties o f friendship and

4

INTRODUCTION

alliance with the Lydians they turned to luxury, grow ing their hair long and adorning it with gold ornam ents. X enophanes says the same: Learning useless soft habits from the Lydians when they were free from hateful despotism they went to the town square in purple robes, not less than a thousand o f them in all, haughty, with elegant hair-styles, drenched in the perfum e o f synthetic ointments. (Athenaeus, Deipnosopliists 526л)

B ut effem in acy was not th e o n ly L yd ian g ift. T h e r e a re clear lines o f contact betw een Ionian p o ttery and scu lp tu re on the o n e hand and L yd ian art on the o th er. T h e L yd ian lan gu age had som e influ en ce on Ionian poetry. A n d scholars both m o d ­ ern and ancient have su p p o sed that th ere w ere also co n n ec­ tions betw een the earliest G reek th o u g h t an d the intellectual concerns o f the eastern em pires. T h e advanced astron om y o f the B abylonians, fo r ex a m p le, m ust surely have becom e know n on the sh ores o f A sia M in or and have stim ulated th e Ionians to study astron om y fo r th em ­ selves. T h a le s’ k n o w led ge o f th e eclipse o f the sun o f 585 в с m ust have been d erived fro m B abylonian learn in g. O th e r, m ore speculative, parts o f Presocratic th o u g h t h ave parallels, o f a sort, in eastern texts. In add ition , th ere was the E gyptian connection. T h e G reeks them selves later su p p o sed th at th eir own ph ilosophy ow ed m uch to the lan d o f the Pharaohs. B u t alth o ugh som e eastern fertilization can scarcely be d en ied , the proven parallels a re su rprisin gly few and su rprisin gly im ­ precise. W hat is m ore, m any o f the m ost characteristic and significant featu res o f early G reek th o u g h t have no know n antecedents in eastern cultures. T h e G reek ph ilosophers also had G re e k predecessors. E arlier poets had w ritten ab o u t th e n atu re and the o rigin s o f the universe, telling stories o f how Zeus m arried Earth and t rod u ced the w orld o f natu re, an d o ffe r in g m ythical histories o f the hum an race. T h e r e a re sim ilarities betw een certain aspects o f these early tales and certain parts o f the ea rly p h ilo ­ sop h ers’ writings. B u t A ristotle m ad e a sh arp distinction

15

INTRODUCTION

betw een w hat he called the ‘m ythologists’ and the philo­ sop h ers; and it is tru e that the d ifferen ces are fa r m ore m arked and fa r m ore significant than the sim ilarities. J u st as the early thin kers so u gh t fo r the o rigin s o f the uni­ verse, so later scholars have so u gh t fo r the origin s o f these first th ou gh ts about the universe. It w ould be silly to claim that th e Presocratics began som ethin g en tirely novel and totally u n p rece d en te d in the history o f h u m an intellectual en d eav­ o u r. B u t it rem ains tru e that the best researches o f scholarship have p ro d u ced rem arkably little by way o f tru e antece­ dents. It is reasonable to co n clu d e that M iletus in the early sixth cen tu ry в с saw the birth o f science and philosophy. T h a t conclusion does not ascribe any su p ern atu ral talent to T h a le s and his associates. It m erely su pposes that they w ere m en o f genius.

II First Philosophy In w hat d id th eir gen iu s consist? W hat are the characteristics that d efin e the new discipline? T h r e e things in particu lar m ark o f f the phusikoi fro m th eir predecessors. First, and m ost sim ply, the Presocratics invented the very idea o f science and p h ilosophy. T h e y hit u pon that special way o f lo o k in g at the w orld w hich is the scientific o r rational way. T h e y saw the w orld as so m eth in g o rd e re d and intelligible, its history fo llo w in g an ex p licab le co u rse and its d iffe re n t parts arra n g ed in som e co m p rehen sib le system . T h e w orld was not a ran dom collection o f bits, its history was not an arbitrary series o f events. Still less was it a series o f events d eterm in ed by the will - o r the cap rice - o f the gods. T h e Presocratics w ere not, so fa r as we can tell, atheists: they allow ed the god s into their b rave new w orld , an d som e o f them attem pted to p ro d u ce an im proved, ration alized, th eolo gy in place o f the an th ro p o m o rp h ic divini­ ties o f the O lym p ian pan th eo n . B u t they rem oved som e o f the traditional fu n ctio n s fro m the gods. T h u n d e r was exp lain ed scientifically, in naturalistic term s - it was n o lo n ger a noise

16

INTRODUCTION

m ade by a m inatory Zeus. Iris was the god d ess o f th e rain bow , but X en o ph an es insisted that Iris o r the rain bow was in reality nothing but a m u lticolou red clou d . M ost im portan tly, th e Pre­ socratic god s - like the god s o f A ristotle an d even o f that arch theist Plato - d o not in terfere with the natural w orld . T h e w orld is o rd erly w ithou t bein g divinely ru n . Its o rd e r is intrinsic: the internal principles o f n a tu re a re su fficien t to explain its stru ctu re and its history. F or th e h a p p en in gs that constitute the w o rld ’s history a re not m ere b ru te events, to be record ed and adm ired. T h e y are stru ctu red events w hich fit togeth er and interconnect. A n d the patterns o f th eir in terco n ­ nections provid e the tru ly ex p lan a to ry acco u n t o f the w orld . In the first book o f his Metaphysics A ristotle w rote a sh o rt account o f th e early history o f G re e k p hilosoph y. H e discussed the subject exclusively in term s o f exp lan atio n s o r causes. H e h im self held that th ere w ere fo u r d iffe re n t types o f e x p la n ­ ation (or ‘fo u r causes’) and he th o u g h t that the fo u r had been slowly d iscovered , o n e by o n e, by his predecessors. T h e history o f ph ilosophy was thus th e history o f the con ceptu al u n d e r­ standing o f ex p lan a to ry schem es. A ristotle’s a cco u n t o f this history has been criticized fo r bias and partiality. B u t in essence A ristotle is right; at any rate, it is in the d evelo p m en t o f the notion o f explan ation that we m ay see o n e o f the p rim ary features o f Presocratic philosophy. Presocratic explan ation s a re m arked by several ch aracter­ istics. T h e y are, as I have said, internal: they exp lain the u n i­ verse from w ithin, in term s o f its ow n con stitu en t featu res, and they d o not appeal to arb itrary interven tion fro m w ithout. T h e y are systematic: they explain the w hole sum o f natural events in the sam e term s and by the sam e m ethods. T h u s the general principles in term s o f w hich they seek to accoun t fo r the origins o f the w orld are also ap p lied to the exp lan atio n s o f earthquakes o r hailstorm s o r eclipses o r diseases o r m onstrous births. Finally, Presocratic explan ation s a re economical: they use few term s, invoke few o p eration s, assum e few ‘u n kn ow n s’. A naxim enes, fo r exam p le, th o u g h t to explain ev e ry th in g in term s o f a sin gle m aterial elem en t (air) and a p a ir o f co­ ordinated o peration s (rarefaction and condensation). T h e

*7

INTRODUCTION

n atural w orld exhibits an ex tra o rd in a ry variety o f phen om en a and events. T h e variety m ust be reduced to o rder, and the order m ad e sim ple - fo r that is th e way to intelligibility. T h e Preso­ cratics attem pted the m ost ex tre m e fo rm o f sim plicity. I f their attem pts som etim es look com ic w hen they are com pared with the elab orate stru ctu res o f m od ern science, nonetheless the sam e d esire in form s both the ancien t and the m odern en d ea vo u rs - the d esire to explain as m uch as possible in term s o f as little as possible. Science today has its own ja r g o n and its own set o f specialized concepts - mass, fo rce, atom , elem ent, tissue, n erve, parallax, ecliptic and so on. T h e term in o logy and the conceptu al equ ip ­ m ent w ere not god -given : they had to be invented. T h e Preso­ cratics w ere a m o n g the first inventors. Plainly, the very attem pt to p ro v id e scientific exp lan atio n s presu p p o ses certain con­ cepts; equ ally plainly, the prosecu tion o f the attem pt will bring o th e r concepts to birth. T h e process will not - o r not o ften be a self-conscious one. T h e scientists will not o ften say to them selves: ‘ H ere is a cu rio u s p h en om en on ; we m ust elab or­ ate new concepts to u nd erstan d it and devise new nam es to exp ress it.’ B u tco n ce p t fo rm ation , and the con sequ en td evelop m ent o f a technical vocabu lary, is a constant corollary o f scien­ tific stru ggle. L et m e illustrate th e point briefly by way o f fo u r central exam p les. First, th ere is the co n cep t o f the u n iverse o r the world itself. T h e G ree k w ord is kosmos, w h en ce o u r ‘cosm os’ and ‘cosm o­ lo g y ’. T h e w ord was certainly used by H eraclitus, and it m ay p erh a p s have been used by the first M ilesian philosophers. It is rem arkable en o u g h that these th in kers should have felt the n eed fo r a w ord to d esign ate the u n iverse - everyth ing, th e w hole w orld. N orm al conversation and norm al business d o not req u ire us to talk ab o u t ev eryth in g , o r to form the co n cep t o f a totality o r universe o f all things. F ar m ore note­ w o rth y, h o w ever, is th e choice o f th e w ord kosmos to designate the u niverse. T h e n o u n kosmos d erives from a verb which m eans ‘to o rd e r ’, ‘to a rra n g e ’, ‘to m arshal’ - it is used by H om er

18

INTRODUCTION

o f the G reek generals m arshallin g th eir troops fo r battle. T h u s a kosmos is an o rd erly a rran gem en t. M oreo ver, it is a b eau tifu l arrangem ent: the w ord kosmos in o rd in a ry G re e k m eant not only an o rd e rin g but also an a d o rn m en t (hence the English w ord ‘cosm etic’), so m eth in g w hich beautifies and is pleasant to contem plate. T h e cosm os is the universe, the totality o f things. B u t it is also the ordered u niverse, and it is the elegant u niverse. T h e concept o f the cosm os has an aesthetic aspect. (T h a t, in d eed , it is som etim es said, is w hat m akes it characteristically G reek .) B ut also, and from o u r point o f view m o re im portan tly, it has an essentially scientific aspect: the cosm os is, necessarily, o rd ered - and h en ce it m ust be in p rin cip le explicab le. T h e second term is phusis o r ‘n a tu re’. T h e Presocratics, as I have said, w ere later reg a rd e d as phusikoi, and th eir w orks w ere generally given the title Peri Phuseos. T h e y them selves used the term phusis: it is p resen t in several o f th e fragm en ts o f H eraclitus, and it is plausible to su p p o se that it was also used by the Milesians. T h e w ord d erives from a verb m ean in g ‘to g ro w ’. T h e im portance o f the co n cep t o f n atu re lies partly in the fact that it introduces a clear distinction betw een the n atural and the artificial w orld, betw een things which have ‘g ro w n ’ an d things which have been m ade. T a b les an d carts and p lo u g h s (and perhaps societies and laws and justice) are artefacts: th ey have been m ade by d esigners (hum an d esigners in these cases) and they are not natural. T h e y have no natu re, fo r they d o not grow . T re e s and plants and snakes (and p erh a p s also rain and clouds and m ountains), on th e o th er hand, have not been m ade: they are not artefacts but natural objects — they grew , they have a nature. But the distinction betw een the natural and the artificial (in G reek, between phusis and techne) does not exhaust the signi­ ficance o f the notion o f nature. In one sense the w ord ‘nature’ designates the sum o f natural objects and natural events; in this sense to discourse ‘O n N ature’ is to talk about the whole o f the natural w o r ld -phu sis and kosmos com e to m uch the sam e thing. B ut in an o th er, an d m ore im portan t, sense th e w ord

»9

INTRODUCTION

serves to d en o te so m eth in g within each natural object: in the first fra gm en t o f H eraclitus, the term phusis designates not th e cosm os as a w hole but rath er a prin ciple within each nat­ ural p art o f the cosm os. W h en the Presocratics inqu ired into ‘n a tu re’, they w ere in q u irin g into ‘the n atu re o f things’. A n y natural object - an yth in g that grow s and is not m ad e has, it was assum ed , a n atu re o f its ow n. Its n atu re is an intrinsic fe a tu re o f it, an d it is an essential fea tu re — not an accidental o r ch an ce fact ab o u t it. M oreo ver, it is an ex p lan a to ry feature: the n atu re o f an object explain s why it behaves in the ways it d oes, w h y it has th e various accidental p rop erties it does. A ll scientists a re in terested , in this sense, in th e phusis o f things. A chem ist, investigating som e s tu ff - say, gold — is con­ cern ed to fin d o u t the u n d erly in g o r basic p rop erties o f gold , in term s o f w hich its o th e r p rop erties can be exp lain ed . Per­ haps the basic p ro p erties o f g o ld a re those associated with its atom ic w eight. T h e s e p rop erties will then exp lain w hy gold is, say, m alleable an d d uctile, w hy it is soft and yellow , w hy it dissolves in su lp h u ric acid, and so on. T h e chem ist is lookin g fo r th e ‘fu n d am en tal p ro p erties’ o f go ld , fo r its ‘essence’ - fo r its ‘n a tu re’ o r phusis. T h is indispensable scientific co n cep t was first established by th e Presocratics. N a tu re is a p rin cip le an d o rig in o f gro w th . T h e notions o f p rin cip le an d o rig in in tro d u ce us to a third Presocratic term : arche. T h e w o rd , w e a re told, was first used by A n a x im an d er. It is a d ifficu lt term to translate. Its co gn ate ve rb can m ean e ith e r ‘to b eg in ’, ‘to co m m en ce’, o r else ‘to ru le’, ‘to g o v e rn ’. A n arche is thus a b eg in n in g o r origin ; an d it is also a rule o r a ru lin g p rin cip le. (Arche is in fact the norm al G re e k w ord fo r an o ffice o r m agistracy.) W riters on an cien t ph ilosoph y often use th e w ord ‘p rin cip le’ o r the p hrase ‘first p rin cip le’ to ren d er arche, and I shall follow th e practice. T h e term is apt, p rovid in g that th e re a d e r keeps in m ind th e Latin etym o logy o f the E n gl­ ish w ord: a prin ciple is a principium o r a begin n in g. T h e in qu iry into th e natu res o f thin gs leads easily to a search fo r principles. N a tu re is grow th: what, th en, d oes gro w th start fro m ? W h at are the principles o f gro w th , th e origin s o f natural p h en om en a? T h e sam e qu estions w ere readily asked o f the

20

INTRODUCTION

cosm os as a w hole: how d id it begin? W hat a re its first p rin c­ iples? W hat are the fu n d am en tal elem ents fro m w hich it is m ade and the fu n d am en tal op eration s w hich d ete rm in e its structure and career? T h e inquiry into archai was in this way closely associated with cosm ology, and also with abstract physics o r chem istry. T h e ‘principles’ o f the u niverse will in clu d e its basic s t u ff o r stu ffs. B ut evidently ev ery th in g m ust be m ad e o u t o f the basic s tu ff o r stu ffs o f the universe. Н ел се in q u irin g into th e princip les o f the cosm os m eans in q u irin g into th e fu n d a m en ta l constitu ­ ents o f all natural objects. T h e Presocratic inquiries w ere inevit­ ably cru de. T h a le s, i f we a re to believe the later testim ony, held that everyth in g is m ad e o f w ater. T h e arche o f th e cosm os is water (or p erh ap s liquid), so that e v ery th in g in th e cosm os is, at bottom , m ad e o f w ater. (C u cu m b ers a re 100 p e r cen t water, not 99 p e r cen t as m od ern cu lin ary pu nd its say.) T h e d iffe ren t stu ffs we see an d feel are, in T h a le s’ view , m erely m odifications o f w ater - m uch as we now th in k coal an d d ia ­ m onds to be m odifications o f carbon . T h a le s’ su ggestion is false in fact; but it is not foolish in p rin cip le - o n th e co n trary, it is th oro u gh ly scientific in spirit. T h e fo u rth o f my illustrative exam p les is th e co n ce p t o f logos. T h e w ord logos is ev en h a rd er to translate than arche. It is cognate with the verb legein, w hich n orm ally m eans ‘to say’ o r ‘to state’. T h u s a logos is so m eth in g said o r stated. W h en H eraclitus begins his bo ok with a referen ce to ‘this logos’, h e probably m eans o n ly ‘this statem ent’ o r ‘this acco u n t’ : m y logos is sim ply w hat I am g o in g to say. B u t the w ord also has a rich er m eaning than that. T o g ive a logos o r an acco u n t o f so m eth in g is to exp lain it, to say why it is so; so that a logos is o ften a reason. W hen Plato says that an intelligen t m an can give a logos o f things, he m eans not that an in telligen t m an can describe things, but rath er that he can explain o r give the reason fo r things. T h en ce, by an intelligible tran sferen ce, logos com es to be used o f the faculty with w hich w e g ive reasons, i.e. o f o u r h um an reason. In this sense logos m ay be contrasted with p ercep tio n , so that Parm enides, fo r ex a m p le, can u rg e his read ers to test his argu m en t not by th eir senses bu t by logos, by reason. (T h e

INTRODUCTION

English term ‘logic’ d erives ultim ately from this sense o f the w ord logos, by way o f the later G reek term logike.) It cann ot be said that the Presocratics established a single clear sense fo r the term logos o r that they invented the concept o f reason o r o f rationality. B u t th eir use o f the term logos consti­ tutes the first step tow ards the establishm ent o f a notion which is central to science and philosophy. T h e term logos brings m e to th e third o f th e th ree great achievem ents o f the Presocratics. I m ean their em phasis on th e use o f reason, on rationality and ratiocination, on a rg u ­ m ent and evid en ce. T h e Presocratics w ere not dogm atists. T h a t is to say, they did not rest con ten t with m ere assertion. D eterm ined to exp lain as well as d escribe the w orld o f natu re, they w ere acutely aw are that exp lan atio n s req u ired the giv in g o f reasons. T h is is evi­ d e n t even in the earliest o f the Presocratic thinkers and even w hen th eir claim s seem m ost stran ge and leastju stified . T h a les is su p posed to have held that all things possess ‘souls’ o r are alive. H e d id not m erely assert this bizarre d octrine: he argu ed fo r it by a p p ea lin g to the case o f the m agnet. H ere is a piece o f stone - w hat cou ld ap p ea r m ore lifeless? Y et the m agnet possesses a p o w er to move o th er things: it attracts iron filings, which m ove tow ards it w ithout the interven tion o f any external pushes o r pulls. N ow it is a noticeable fea tu re o f living things that they a re capable o f p ro d u cin g m otion. (A ristotle later took it as o n e o f the d efin in g characteristics o f things with ‘souls’ or living things that they possess such a m otive pow er.) H ence T h a le s co n clu d ed that the m agn et, d esp ite appearances, has a soul. T h e a rg u m e n t m ay not seem very im pressive: certainly we d o not believe that m agnets a re alive, nor should we regard the attractive pow ers o f a p iece o f stone as evid en ce o f life. B ut m y p o in t is not that the Presocratics o ffe r e d good argu m ents bu t sim ply that th ey o ffe r e d arguments. In the thinkers o f the secon d Presocratic p hase this love o f a rg u m en t is m ore obvious and m ore p ro n o u n ced . In them , in d eed , a rg u m en t becom es the sole m eans to tru th , and p erception is rega rd e d as 22

INTRODUCTION

fun dam entally illusory. T h e w ritings o f P arm enid es, M elissus and Zeno w ere n oth in g m ore than chains o f argu m en ts. T h e Presocratic ach ievem en t h ere is evid en t in th eir lan­ guage. G reek is ideally suited fo r rational discourse. It is rich in particles, and it can exp ress nuances and niceties o f th o u g h t which in Latin o r English are n orm ally co n veyed by the tone o f voice o r the m an n er o f d elivery. T h e G reek p a rtic le s -w h ic h are part o f the natural lan gu age an d not devices p ecu liar to academ ic w riters - m ake ex p licit and o bvious w hat o th e r lan­ guages norm ally leave im plicit and obscure. Little w ords like ‘so’, ‘th e re fo re ’, ‘fo r ’, which English custom arily om its (or includes at the cost o f tedious pedantry), a re n orm ally expressed in a G reek text. T h e fragm en ts o f M elissus, fo r exam p le, are p ep p ered with such in feren tial particles. P reso­ cratic w riting wears its rationality on its sleeve. It is im portan t.to see exactly w hat this rationality consisted in. A s I have already indicated, the claim is not that the P reso­ cratics w ere pecu liarly g oo d at a rg u in g o r that th ey regu larly p rod u ced sou n d argu m en ts. O n th e co n trary, m ost o f th eir theories a re false, and m ost o f th eir a rg u m en ts a re unsou n d. (This is not as harsh a ju d g e m e n t as it m ay seem , fo r th e sam e could be said o f virtually every scientist an d p h ilo so p h e r w ho has ever lived.) Secon dly, the claim is not that the Presocratics studied logic o r d evelo p ed a theory o f in fere n ce an d argu m en t. Som e o f them , it is tru e, d id reflect on the p o w ers o f th e m ind and on the nature, scope and limits o f hu m an k n o w led ge. B u t the study o f logic was in ven ted by A ristotle, an d A ristotle rightly boasted that no o n e b e fo re him had attem p ted to m ake explicit and system atic the rules and p ro ced u res w hich g o v ern rational th ought. N or, thirdly, am I su ggestin g that the Presocratics w ere con ­ sistently critical thinkers. It is som etim es said th at the essence o f science is criticism , inasm uch as science lives by th e constant critical appraisal o f theories an d argu m en ts. W h eth er o r not that is so, the Presocratics w ere not avid critics. A lth o u g h w e m ay talk o f the influence o f o n e Presocratic o n an o th er, no Presocratic (as fa r as w e know) ev er in d u lg ed in the exposition and criticism o f his pred ecesso rs’ views. P arm en id es u rg e d his 23

INTRODUCTION

read ers to criticize his views, but his u rg in g s went unansw ered. C ritical reflection d id not com e into its own until the fo u rth cen tu ry в с . W hat, th en, is the substance o f the claim that the Presocratics w ere ch am pion s o f reason and rationality? It is this: they o ffe r e d reasons fo r their opinion s, th ey gave argu m en ts for th eir views. T h e y did not u tter ex cathedra pron oun cem ents. P erhaps that seem s an u n rem arkable achievem ent. It is not. O n the co n trary, it is the m ost rem arkable and the m ost praise­ w orth y o f the th ree achievem en ts I have rehearsed . T h o se w h o d o u b t the fact should reflect on the m axim o f G eo rge B erkeley, the eigh teen th -cen tu ry Irish p hilosopher: All m en have opinion s, but few think.

I l l The Evidence A few Presocratics w rote nothing, but m ost p u t th eir thoughts to p ap er. Som e w rote in verse and som e in prose. Som e wrote a sin gle w ork, o thers several - D em ocritus, w hose w orks w ere a rra n g e d and catalogu ed by a scholar in the first cen tury a d , ap p aren tly com posed som e fifty books. A ll told, the collected w orks o f the Presocratic thin kers w ould have m ad e an im press­ ive row on the library shelves. O f all those w orks not o n e has su rvived intact fo r us to read. Som e o f them en d u red fo r at least a thousand years, fo r the sch olar Sim plicius, w ho w orked in A th en s in the sixth century a d , was able to consult texts o f Parm enides, M elissus, Zeno, A n a x a go ras, D iogenes o f A p o llo n ia and others. B u t Sim plicius h im self rem arks that P arm en id es’ book was a rarity, and it is not d ifficu lt to im agin e that by his tim e m any o th e r Presocratic works had actually d isap p eared . T h e Presocratics w ere never bestsellers. B o oks w ere easily d estroyed . O u r k n o w led ge o f the Presocratics, then, unlike o u r know ­ led ge o f Plato o r A ristotle, is not gained directly from the books th ey w rote. R ather, it d ep en d s u pon ind irect inform ation o f two d iffe re n t types. First, th ere a re n u m erou s referen ces to Presocratic th ou gh t

24

INTRODUCTION

in the su rvivin g works o f later authors. Som e o f these r e fe r ­ ences are b r ie f and casual allusions, m ere em bellishm ents to a text w hose c h ie f aim was not the transm ission o f historical inform ation about early philosoph y. M any o f the referen ces are em bed d ed in later philosophical texts - fo r ex a m p le, in A ristotle’s Metaphysics and in his Physics. T h e s e accounts have a historical p u rp ose and they are written with a philosop h ical intention; but they are not, p ro p erly sp eakin g, ‘histories o f ph ilosop h y’. Finally, th ere a re g en u in e attem pts at the history o f philosophy. W e can now read such histories in b r ie f h an d ­ books (for exam p le, in the History o f Philosophy w hich goes u n d er G a len ’s nam e), in the am bitious but uncritical Lives o f the Philosophers by D iogenes L aertius, in several w orks o f C h ristian polem ic (such as the Refutation o f A ll Heresies by H ipp olytus), in scholarly w ritings o f late antiquity (most notably in the co m ­ m entary on A ristotle’s Physics by Sim plicius). T h e se histories - o r ‘d o x o g ra p h ie s’, as they a re com m only called - have been the subject o f subtle scholarly investigation. In them selves they are o f u ncertain value. T h e y w ere w ritten centuries a fter the th o u g h t they ch ron icle, and they w e re w rit­ ten by m en with d iffe re n t interests and d iffe re n t outlooks. I f Bishop H ippolytus, fo r exam p le, ascribes a certain view to H eraclitus, we shou ld not believe him b e fo re an sw erin g two im portant questions. First, from w hat sou rce d id he d raw his inform ation? For the ch ann el w hich w inds fro m H eraclitus to H ippolytus is lon g, and w e m ust w o n d er i f th e in form ation flow ing dow n it was not som etim es contam in ated with false­ hood o r poisoned by inaccuracy. Secon dly, w hat w ere H ip p o ­ lytus’ own philosophical predilections, an d w hat w ere the aim s o f his own book? F or these m ay h ave biased him — consciously o r unconsciously - in his rep o rtin g . T h e argu m en ts on these issues are intricate. T h e y rarely issue in certainty. In addition to later referen ces and reports, we still possess som e actual fragm en ts o f th e origin al w orks o f the P reso­ cratics. T h e w ord ‘fra g m en t’ p erh ap s suggests a sm all scrap o f paper, torn o u t o f a P resocratic bo ok and su rvivin g by som e fluke o f tim e. T h a t su ggestion is in a p p ro p ria te h ere , w h ere the w ord ‘fra g m en t’ is used in a m ore g en ero u s sense: it refers 25

INTRODUCTION

to passages from the Presocratics’ own w ritings - words, phrases, sentences, p a ra g ra p h s -w h ic h have been preserved as quotations in the w ritings o f later authors. T h e s e ‘fragm en ts’ constitute o u r most precious testim ony to th e views o f the Pre­ socratics. T h e ir n u m b er and th eir ex ten t vary greatly from o n e th in k er to an other. Som etim es th ey a re sh ort and sparse. In a few cases we possess en o u g h fragm en ts to form a tolerably d eterm in ate idea o f the original w ork. T h e fu ller the fra g ­ m ents, the less we need to rely on the d o x o gra p h ical m aterial B u t even in the m ost favou rable cases, the d o x o gra p h ie s are o f im portan ce: they p ro vid e indirect evid en ce w h ere direct evid en ce is m issing, and they give invaluable aid in the in terp retation o f the fragm en ts them selves. F or it sh ou ld not be th o u g h t that these fragm en ts a re readily extracted from th eir contexts o r read ily u n d erstoo d and inter­ p reted . T h e r e is a sequ ence o f d ifficu lties o f w hich every seri­ ous stu d en t o f early G reek ph ilosoph y becom es quickly aware. It is necessary to say a little about these d ifficu lties h ere - and th ey have, in any case, an intrinsic interest o f th eir own. L et us co n sid er the gen eral issues th ro u gh the m edium o f a particular exam p le. T a k e the fo llo w in g passage (which will reap p ea r in the ch a p ter on A n axagoras): In the first book o f the Physics Anaxagoras says that uniform stuffs, infinite in quantity, separate o f f from a single m ixture, all things being present in all and each being characterized by what predom in­ ates. He makes this clear in the first book o f the Physics at the begin­ ning o f which he says: T o g eth e r w ere all things, infinite both in quantity and in smallness . . . (Simplicius, Commentary on the Physics 155.23-27)

Sim plicius was born in Cilicia in the latter part o f the fifth cen tu ry a d . H e stu d ied p h ilosop h y first at A lex a n d ria and then at A th en s, w h ere he becam e o n e o f the lead in g figures o f the N eop latonist school. A fte r Ju stin ian ’s ed ict he left A th en s and w ent, with som e o f his associates, to the royal co u rt in Persia, but the eastern life p ro ved u nattractive and he retu rn ed to A th en s about 533. T h e r e he co n tin u ed his 26

INTRODUCTION

researches (though he was prob ably b a rred from teaching), w riting lon g and learn ed com m en taries on A risto tle’s works and using the resources o f the A th en ian libraries. His co m m en ­ tary on the Physics was p rob ably co m p leted in abo u t 540. It is a h u ge w ork, ru n n in g to m ore than a thousan d large pages; in it Sim plicius preserves n u m erou s Presocratic fra gm en ts and in addition presents valuable d o x o gra p h ical accounts o f early G reek thought. Sim plicius h im self w ro te m ore than a m illenn ium a fter A n axagoras. B u t that is not the full m easu re o f o u r distance from A n a x a go ras as we read Sim plicius’ texts; fo r w e d o not possess Sim plicius’ ow n a u to g ra p h co p y o f his com m entary. So m eth in g like sixty m anuscript copies o f the w o rk are extan t, the earliest o f w hich dates fro m the tw elfth cen tu ry and is th ere fo re som e six h u n d re d years later than Sim pliciu s’ text. A ll these m anuscripts d erive ultim ately fro m Sim pliciu s’ au to ­ graph ; but they a re copies o f copies o f copies. Each act o f copyin g introduces erro rs (fo r h o w ever ca refu l a scribe m ay be, he will certainly m ake m istakes), and no two m anuscripts a gree w ord fo r w ord with o n e an o th er. T h e first task, th en , is to d eterm ine, on the evid en ce o f these late and con flictin g m anuscripts, w hich w ords Sim plicius h im self actually w rote. (In o u r illustrative text som e o f the m anuscripts give the G reek fo r ‘a single m ixtu re’, and that is the G re e k I have translated; oth er m anuscripts give the G reek fo r ‘som e m ix tu re ’. H ere the variants d iffe r little in sense, and the choice betw een them is not o f great m om ent. In m any cases, how ever, the read in gs o f d iffe ren t m anuscripts g ive radically d iffe r e n t senses.) T h e discipline o f textual criticism has p ro ced u res an d tech niqu es whose aim is to p ro d u ce the best text o r th e tex t closest to w hat the au th o r origin ally w rote. O fte n it is possible to d ecid e w hich o f several variant read in gs o ffe r e d by the d iffe re n t m an u ­ scripts is the origin al read in g. O ccasionally it is clear that non e o f the m anuscript read in gs can be correct, and conjectu ral em endation m ay, with g rea ter o r less plausibility, resto re the original text. Q u ite o ften we are obliged to confess that w e d o not really know what precise w ords Sim plicius w ro te d ow n . O n ce Sim plicius’ tex t is established, w e m ay tu rn to the

27

INTRODUCTION

A n a x a g o rea n m aterial em b ed d ed in it. H ere the first question is w h eth er o r not Sim plicius p u rp o rts to be quoting A n a x a g ­ oras. T h is question is easy in the case o f Presocratics who wrote in verse, as Parm enides and E m ped ocles d id ; fo r if Sim plicius rem arks that ‘P arm enid es says this . . and then breaks into verse, we can be su re that he is p u rp o rtin g to quote Parm enides and not m erely to p arap h rase him . W ith prose auth ors the question is m uch h ard er. O ccasionally Sim plicius will say ‘X says, in these very w ords, t h a t . . .’ : and then we know that he p u rp o rts to qu ote. B ut such explicitness is rare. Far m ore often he — like any o th er sou rce - will sim ply say ‘X says that . . .’. In G reek as in English, phrases o f that sort m ay as well introd u ce a p arap h rase - even a rem ote parap h rase - as a verbatim citation. T o distinguish citations fro m parap h rase we m ust rely on various linguistic signs. F or exam p le, i f Sim plicius writes, ‘A n a x a go ras says that . . .’ and follow s it with a p aragrap h o f prose in an archaic style, it is plausible to in fe r that he is p u r­ p o rtin g to quote A n a x a go ras. So it is in o u r illustrative text. B u t i f the saying is short th ere m ay be n o th in g to distinguish quotation from paraph rase. Su p pose, then, that we have established Sim plicius’ text and have d eterm in ed that he p u rp o rts to q u o te A n axago ras. N ot all p u rp o rted quotations are actual quotations. (A n d not all actual quotations a re p u rp o rted quotations. B u t in this context the possibility o f d isguised o r u n an n ou n ced quotations need not exercise us.) W h en Sim plicius p u rp o rts to q u o te from a w ork w ritten a th ou san d years b efo re his tim e, he could be in erro r. T h e w ork he cites cou ld be a fo rgery : the co u n terfeitin g o f early texts was a p o p u la r pastim e in the ancient w orld, and am o n g the Presocratics P ythagoras an d his im m ediate fol­ low ers had n u m erou s w orks falsely fa th ere d on them . A g ain , th ere m ay have been a sim ple m istake: the bo ok from which Sim plicius quotes m ay have been w ro n gly labelled o r m isidentified. Som e scholars have th o u g h t that Sim plicius d id not have a p ro p e r text o f A n a x a go ras available to h im ; and his qu ot­ ations, th ey think, com e from a later epitom e o f A n a x a go ras’ book, not (as he thou ght) fro m the book itself. In this particular

28

INTRODUCTION

case I d o not think that scepticism is ju stified ; bu t the possibility o f such e rro r d em an ds contem plation . Suppose, now, that we have a g en u in e quotation o f A n a x a g ­ oras before us: the n ext questions concern its conten ts — and first, its contents in the m ost literal sense o f the term . W hat words did A n a x a go ras use? F or th ere is no reason to assum e that Simplicius’ w ords m ust accurately rep resen t Anaxagoras’ words. O n the contrary, th ere is every reason to th in k that they d o not. Sim plicius m ay be qu o tin g from m em ory — and m isrem em bering; o r he m ay be q u o tin g fro m a tex t he has in fro n t o f his eyes - and m iscopying. E rrors o f both sorts are easy and com m on. M ore im portan tly, even i f Sim plicius is accurately transcribing the text h e h im self has in fro n t o f him , there is no g u a ran tee that his tex t is fa ith fu l to th e o rigin al. D u rin g the m illennium separatin g Sim plicius fro m the P reso­ cratics, the w orks o f A n a x a go ras m ust have been co p ied m any times over. Ju st as we read copies o f copies o f Sim plicius’ a u to ­ g rap h , so Sim plicius will have read copies o f copies o f A n a x ­ agoras’ a u to grap h . T h e probability that Sim plicius read a p u re text o f A n a xa go ras is zero. W hat can a m od ern scholar d o about this? So m e Presocratic passages are qu o ted m ore than once. T h e first ph rase o f the quotation in o u r illustrative text becam e the ‘T o be, o r n o t to be’ o f P resocratic th ou gh t: it is cited som e sixty tim es by som e twenty a u th o r s . In such cases th ere are alw ays varian t versions o f the text, but th ere is o ften reason to p r e fe r o n e version to another. F or exam p le, an a u th o r w ho quotes a b r ie f passage was probably q u o tin g fro m m em ory, an d he is th e re fo re m ore likely to have m ad e an e rro r than an a u th o r w ho qu otes a lon g portion o f the origin al and was presu m ably tran scribin g it from his copy o f the text. O r again, we m ay b e able to constru ct a plausible story to acco u n t fo r the d iffe r e n t read in gs in the d iffe ren t citations, and h ence to establish th e g en u in e P reso­ cratic text. In o u r illustrative case we can, by these m eans, be reasonably co n fid en t that w e know w hat w ords A n a x a g o ra s h im self wrote. B u t m ost su rvivin g fra gm en ts are qu o ted o n ly o n ce. H ere there is less ch ance o f g ettin g back to the o rigin al text. V ario u s

29

INTRODUCTION

philosophical tests an d techniques can be ap p lied . Som etim es, fo r exa m p le, a linguistic anachron ism will betray itself, and we m ay suspect that an exp lan ato ry note o r gloss has insinuated itself into the text. Som etim es we m ay co n jectu re that the old tex t was retailored to fit its later co n text - and plausible guesses m ay som etim es hit u p o n the o rigin al read in gs. T h e case is rarely hopeless, but it always requ ires e x p e rt diagnosis and som etim es d em an d s subtle th erap y. M ost o ften we m ust be con ten t with so m eth in g less than certainty. O n ce w e have b efo re us the w ords o f A n a x a go ras, o r as close an a p p roxim ation to them as we can reach, we m ust n ext try to u n d erstan d them . T h is task has two distinct but closely con­ nected aspects. First, and m ost o bviously, th ere is the elem en t­ ary m atter o f g ra sp in g the sense o f the w ords and phrases w hich the text contains. Som etim es this is su rprisingly hard. A n a x a g o ra s is, it is true, on the w h ole an intelligible author; bu t the sam e cann ot be said fo r all the Presocratics - and som e o f them (H eraclitus an d E m ped ocles, fo r exam p le) are o ften h igh ly obscure. T h e ir obscurity fo r us is d u e in part to the ravages o f tim e: had m ore G reek o f the early period survived, w e sh ou ld possess m ore co m p arative m aterial and so ex p eri­ en ce less d ifficu lty in u n d erstan d in g the Presocratics. B u t in part the obscurity is intrinsic to the texts them selves: the Preso­ cratics w ere w ritin g in a new idiom on a new subject — it is only to be exp e cted that they sh o u ld som etim es h ave been less than pellucid. S econ d ly, even i f w e can grasp w hat, at a literal level, the w ords o f a fra g m en t m ean, we m ay still be fa r from u n d er­ stan d in g the passage. Sentences taken o u t o f co n text a re often h ard to in terp ret, an d isolated p h rases, w hich are som etim es all we h ave, m ay be virtually senseless. W e need, in o th er w ords, to ask w hat sense the fra g m en t had in its origin al con­ text, w hat contrib ution it m ad e to the g en era l econ om y o f the p h ilo so p h er’s w ork, how it fitted into his a rg u m e n t o r into the exposition o f his views. T h is is the point at w hich serious philosophical in terpre­ tation begins. It is a testing and an elusive business. T h e r e are som e ex tern a l aids. In particu lar, th ere is the co n text in which

30

INTRODUCTION

the fragm en t is cited. Som etim es, it is tru e, this co n tex t is o f little use: fo r the fragm en ts cited by J o h n Stobaeus, fo r ex a m ­ ple, all we have to g o on a re the section headin gs u n d er w hich he arran g ed them in his an th olo gy. Som etim es the co ntext may be actually m isleading. C lem en t o f A lex a n d ria , fo r e x a m ­ ple, cites the Presocratic pagans fo r his ow n C h ristian ends, and he does not p u rp o rt to p reserve the o rigin al settings o f the passages he add u ces (why shou ld he?). N onetheless, the context is som etim es h elp fu l - especially so, I thin k, in the case o f Sim plicius, w ho was an able sch olar o f g reat learn in g. (A good exam p le o f this is the lo n g passage from the co m m en tary on A ristotle’s Physics w hich contains all the su rvivin g fragm en ts o f Zeno.) A t the very least, the co n tex t o f citation will give us an idea o f how a fra g m en t could h ave fu n ctio n ed in its origin al hom e. A gain , com parison o f o n e fra g m en t with an o th er, an d com ­ parison o f the fragm en ts with the d o x o gra p h ical trad itio n , will yield fu rth e r evid en ce. T h e collocation o f fragm en ts is o ften a risky m atter: it is too easy to im agin e that we have en o u g h bits and pieces to recon stru ct the o rigin al pictu re w hen in fact we m ay well possess only en o u g h to give o n e sm all p art o f the original. (This is certainly tru e o f A n a x a go ras, w h ere alm ost all the su rvivin g fragm en ts a p p e a r to com e fro m the early part o f his book.) T h e d an gers n eed to be a ck n o w led ged . T h e y can som etim es be o vercom e. In sum , the task o f in terpretation is full o f d ifficu lty. (T h a t is on e reason w hy it is fu ll o f excitem ent.) Som etim es we m ay fairly claim success. F req u en tly w e shou ld be co n ten t with a Scottish verdict: non liquet, ‘It is not clea r’. B u t these questions take us beyond the scope o f the p resen t book, w hose fu n ction is not to o ffe r an exegesis o f Presocratic th o u g h t b u t to exh ibit the m aterial on w hich any exegesis m ust be based.

IV The Texts T h is book contains E n glish translations o f all th e su rvivin g philosophical fragm en ts o f th e Presocratic th in kers. In each

31

INTRODUCTION

ch a p ter the fragm en ts have been su p p lem en ted by extracts from th e d o x o gra p h ical m aterial. T h e su rvivin g d o xo gra p h y is vast (and very repetitive). A co m p rehen sive translation w ou ld fill several tedious and co n fu sin g volum es. T h e selec­ tion o f texts h ere does not p reten d to convey all we can glean fro m the d o x o g ra p h y , bu t it is in ten ded to in clu de all the most im p ortan t item s and to give a fa ir sam ple o f the u nim portant items. T h e m ain chapters o f the bo ok thus p resent a partial view o f th eir subjects relative to the evid en ce we possess. T h e y also, an d inevitably, p resen t a partial view relative to the sum total o f the origin al evid en ce; fo r it is not to be su pposed that the su rvivin g in form ation represen ts a balanced accoun t o f the origin al w orks. Som e parts o f the Presocratic writings hap pen to have been well rep o rted ; others w ere only sketchily described ; still others w ere en tirely fo rgo tten . W e can d o little to redress things. T h e in form ation w hich we d o possess is contain ed in a large n u m b er o f d iffe re n t and d isparate texts, and it cann ot readily be set o u t in a m an n er w hich reveals the gen eral d rift and tenor o f the ph ilosoph ies it describes. From the m aterial exhibited in the ch a p ter on H eraclitus, fo r exam p le, it is no easy business to fo rm a gen eral im pression o f the overall shape and intention o f his th ou g h t. T h e n ext ch a p ter is d esign ed to m itigate this d ifficulty. It contains a sequ ence o f b r ie f synopses o f the m ain view s o f each th in ker, in sofar as they can be know n. T h e synopses a re not substitutes fo r the texts in the m ain chapters, n o r d o th ey claim to convey definitive interpretation s o r incon­ testable truths. R ather, th ey a re in ten d ed to p ro vid e a m od er­ ately intelligible fra m ew o rk w ithin w hich the texts m ay first be read . I h o p e that the rea d er will fo rg e t them as soon as he has fo u n d his ow n way th ro u gh the texts. T h e y are fixed ropes on a d ifficu lt rock face, placed th ere fo r the in exp erien ced clim ber. U se them o n ce o r twice and then clim b free. T h e fragm en ts a re presen ted in the contexts in which they h ave been p reserved . T h is m od e o f presentation, w hich is not cu stom ary, has certain disadvantages: it m akes fo r occasional 32

INTRODUCTION

repetition, and it m eans that the texts a p p e a r in a d iffe re n t o rd e r from that o f the standard m od ern editions. B u t those disadvantages are, I think, decisively o u tw eigh ed by th ead van tages. A presentation o f the texts shorn o f th eir contexts gives a wholly m isleading im pression of the n atu re o f o u r evid en ce fo r Presocratic p h ilosophy. T ran slatio n in co n text avoids that erro n eou s im pression, and at th e sam e tim e it en ables the E n g­ lish read er to see how d ifficu lt it o ften is, especially in the case o f prose fragm en ts, to d istin guish g en u in e citations from paraphrases o r m ere allusions. In add ition , as I have already rem arked , the con text o f a quotation o ften helps us to u n d e r­ stand the fragm en ts better - o r at least to see how the ancien t authors u n d erstood them . A n d in any case, the con texts are, o r so I believe, in terestin g in th eir ow n right. E very translator, and in particu lar every translator o f ph ilo­ sophical texts, has two desires. H e wants to be fa ith fu l to his original: he wants to co n vey all and only w hat it conveys, and he wants to rep ro d u ce so m eth in g o f the fo rm , as well as the content, o f the o rigin al. B u t he also wants to p ro d u ce read able and tolerably elegan t sentences o f his ow n lan gu a ge . T h e s e two desires usually conflict; fo r d iffe r e n t lan gu a ges have d if­ feren t idiom s and d iffe re n t m odes o f expression . Fidelity, if pressed to the limit, will result in barbarous, o r even un in telli­ gible, English. E legan ce will disguise the sense and the a rg u ­ m entative flow o f the o rigin al. M oreo ver, the first desire is essentially unsatisfiable. It is a com m on p lace that ‘so m eth in g is lost in translation’ - a co m m o n p lace w hich applies to prose no less than to po etry. It is equally tru e that any translation will add som eth in g to the o rigin al, i f o n ly by virtu e o f the d iffe re n t resonances and overton es o f syn on ym ous e x ­ pressions in dif feren t languages. In the face o f these d ifficu lties a translator m ust a d o p t som e w orkin g principle. O n the w hole I have chosen to g ive m ore w eight to the first desire than to the second. I have p u t fidelity above elegan ce, bein g m ore co n cern ed to transm it the sense o f the G reek texts than to p ro vid e an aesthetic feast fo r the E n gl­ ish reader.

33

INTRODUCTION

M y translations are in con sequ en ce som etim es obscure o r am bigu ou s. B u t I should stress that these infelicities are not invariably faults in the translation. P resocratic G reek is som e­ tim es co n to rted , and it is o ften obscure o r am biguous. It is no d u ty o f a translator to polish his a u th o rs’ w ork. O n the con ­ trary, fidelity d em an d s that the translation be as uncouth as the origin al. T h e translated texts are lin ked tog eth er by b r ie f b rid ge pass­ ages, an d each ch a p ter is in trod u ced by a short p a ra g ra p h o r two. B u t I have tried to keep such editorial m atter to a m ini­ m um . T h e r e are n u m erou s com m entaries and interpretations in print: this b o o k is not an add ition to that large literature. T h e sou rce o f each translated passage is given. T h e A p p e n ­ d ix sup plies som e elem en tary in form ation about the dates and the c h ie f interests o f the auth ors to whom we ow e o u r surviving k n o w led ge o f the Presocratic texts. T h e fragm en ts are also e q u ip p ed with ‘D iels-K ran z’ re fe r­ ences (these are the cip h ers which a p p ea r in square brackets a fter th e texts). T h e s e referen ces key the passages to the stan­ d ard collection o f the G re e k texts, ed ited by H erm an n Diels an d W alth er K ran z, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Berlin, 1952 [10th edition]). I add these referen ces because th ey are invariably used by scholars w ho w rite about early G reek p hilo­ soph y: an yon e w ho wants to follow up o n e o f the fragm en ts in the m od ern literatu re will find his task sim plified if he notes the the p ertin en t D iels-K ran z nu m ber. R eaders o f this b o o k will, I suspect, be freq u en tly p erp lexed and som etim es an n oyed . It is as th o u g h on e is presen ted with a jig sa w p u zzle (or rath er, with a set o f jig sa w puzzles) in which m any o f the pieces are m issing and m ost o f the su rvivin g pieces are fa d ed o r torn. O r, to take a closer an alogy, it is as th ou gh o n e w ere loo kin g at a m useum case co n tain in g broken and ch ip p ed fragm en ts o f on ce eleg an t p ottery. M any o f the pieces a re sm all, som e o f them d o not seem to fit at all, and it is d ifficu lt to en visage the shape and fo rm o f the origin al pot. B u t the vexation w hich this m ay p ro d u ce will, I h op e, be accom p an ied and o u tw eig h ed by o th er, m ore pleasing, em otions. F ragm ents o f b eau tifu l p ottery m ay, a fter all, be

34

INTRODUCTION

them selves objects o f beauty; and certain ly m any o f the P reso­ cratic texts a re fascinating and stim ulatin g pieces o f th ou g h t. M oreover, fragm en ts a re ch allen gin g in a way that w holes are not: they appeal to the intellectual im agination, and they excite the read er to construct fo r him self, in his own m ind, som e picture o f the w hole from w hich they cam e. For my part, I find the Presocratic fragm en ts objects o f inexhaustible and in trig u in g d eligh t. I ho p e that the rea d er o f this book m ay com e to find a sim ilar p leasu re in co n tem p latin g the battered rem ains o f the first h eroes o f w estern science and philosophy.

35

SYNOPSI S

I

G re ek ph ilosophy began with the th ree m en fro m M iletus. was a practical statesm an, and perh aps also a geom eter. W hat he d id in p h ilosop h y is uncertain : he is said to have a rg u ed that m agnets ‘have souls’ (that they are alive), and that e v ery th in g is full o f gods. H e su ggested that the earth floated on a vast w ater-bed. M ost fam ously, he conjectured that ev ery th in g was m ade from w ater — o r even that every­ th in g is m ade o f w ater, that w ater is the ‘m aterial p rin cip le’ or arche o f everyth in g. W h eth er o r not he inqu ired fu rth e r ‘into n a tu re’ we d o not know.

t h a l e s

was certainly a fu ll-blood ed phusikos, and he certain ly sp oke o f the prin ciple o r arche o f all natural things. B u t he d id not id en tify this basic prin ciple with any fam iliar sort o f stu ff: the arche was described sim ply as ‘the infinite’ infinite in exten t and also ind efin ite in its characteristics. From this ‘infin ite’ the fam iliar stu ffs o f the w orld - earth, air, w ater, and so on - w ere gen erated by a process in w hich the twin notions o f h eat and cold played som e part. T h e gen erated stu ffs en croach on o n e an o th e r and have in the course o f time to p ay com pensation fo r th eir ‘injustice’. (W e m ay think o f the altern atin g en croachm en ts o f su m m er and w inter, o f the hot an d d ry and the cold and wet.) T h u s the w orld is law -governed. A n a x im a n d er also g ave a detailed accotm t o f natural p h en o ­ m ena. T h e two m ost rem arkable featu res o f his accoun t lie in biology (w h ere he sp ecu lated on the origin s o f m ankind) a n a x i m a n d e r

and in astron om y (w h ere he d evelo p ed an ingenious account Зб

SYNOPSIS

o f the celestial system and o ffe r e d the su ggestion that the earth rem ains u n su p p orted in m id-universe because it is equ id istan t from every part o f the o u ter heaven). a n a x i m e n e s is a pallid reflection o f A n a x im a n d er. H e too provided a d etailed accoun t o f nature, in w hich he ven tu red to correct A n a x im a n d er on certain points; and he also p ro ­ posed a cosm ogony. His arche was infinite, like A n a x im a n d e r’s, but it was not indeterm in ate: rather, it was infinite air. A n d A naxim enes m aintained that a pair o f op eration s - rarefaction and condensation - was su fficient to g en era te all the fam iliar things o f the w orld from the origin al and u n d erly in g air. A d iffe ren t tradition was initiated by p y t h a g o r a s . H e had indeed a reputation fo r vast learn in g, but he seem s not to have concern ed him self particu larly with natu re. His interest was the soul: he held that the soul was im m ortal, and that it u n d er­ goes a sequence o f incarnations in various types o f creatu res (this was later known as the th eory o f ‘m etem psychosis’). M ore­ over, this process - and the w hole history o f the w orld - is endless and u n ch an gin g, the sam e things rep ea tin g them selves in cycles o f eternal recu rren ce. T h e th eory o f m etem psychosis suggested that all creatu res w ere fu n d am en tally the sam e in kind, inasm uch as they a re hosts to the sam e souls: P ythagoras probably m ade this the g ro u n d fo r certain d ietary reco m ­ m endations. P ythagoras was also a political fig u re o f som e im portan ce, and he attracted a band o f disciples w h o fo llo w ed a ‘P yth ago ­ rean way o f life’ and w ho fo rm ed a sort o f secret society. W hat else he did we d o not know . Scholars are now g en era lly scepti­ cal o f the ancien t tradition w hich associates him with various m athem atical and m usical discoveries. a l c m a e o n had P ythagorean connections. H e h eld that the soul was im m ortal, and he advan ced a new a rg u m e n t fo r this belief. H e was a d o cto r with an interest in n atu re, and especially in h um an n atu re - h e sp ecu lated , fo r exa m p le, on the structure and fu n ctio n in g o f the sense-organs. H e seem s to have held that all things - o r at least all things in hum an life - are to be exp lain ed in term s o f pairs o f opposites: hot and cold, light and d ark , w et and d ry , etc.

37

SYNOPSIS

T h e p o et X e n o p h a n e s knew so m eth in g about Pythagoras and his o th er Presocratic predecessors. H e h im self en ga ge d in inquiries into nature, even if he d id not speculate ‘O n N a tu re’ in th e th o ro u g h -g o in g M ilesian way. H e m ay possibly have h eld that the m aterial arche o f things is earth . B u t his most o rigin al ideas co n cern o th er m atters. R eflectin g on the p reten ­ sions o f the new science o f the phusikoi, he was led to p o n d er the possible limits on hum an kn ow led ge. L ater tradition held him to have been a sceptic, and o n e fra gm en t does a p p ea r to en tertain a h ighly sceptical position; but o th er texts suggest that he was a gradualist: k n o w led ge is doubtless d ifficu lt to com e by, bu t it is not beyon d all en d eavo u r. X en o p h a n es’ second claim to o rigin ality lies in the field o f natural th eology. H e criticized the im m oral god s o f H om er a n d the poets; m ore g en erally, he rega rd e d custom ary religiou s beliefs as gro u n d less and foolish. In the place o f this folly h e o ffe r e d a rational th eology. T h e later tradition ascribes to him a h igh ly articulated system : the tradition m ay ex a g g e r­ ate, bu t the fragm en ts show that X en o p h an es believed in a sin gle g o d , w ho was m oral and m otionless, all-know ing and all-pow erfu l. N o r was the god an th ro p o m o rp h ic: rather, he was an abstract and im personal fo rce; not a god from the O lym p ian pan th eo n , but a g o d accom m odated to the new w orld o f the Ionian philosophers. T h e m ajo r fig u re in the first phase o f Presocratic philosophy is h e r a c l i t u s . H e is in som e respects a b a fflin g thinker, w hose w ritings won him an ea rly repu tation fo r obscurity. N ot all his w ork was n ew fa n g led o r rid d lin g. H e stood in the Ionian tradition, m akin g fire the arche o f th e u n iverse, and o ffe rin g an acco u n t o f n atu re an d th e n atu ral w orld. T h e account in clu ded a novel astron om y, an d it m ad e m uch use o f ‘ex h a l­ ations’; but it follow ed the M ilesian m o d e l- a n d , like A n a x im ­ a n d er, H eraclitus stressed that the u niverse o f n atu re was law -governed . H e also had w hat m igh t be called a P ythagorean side: the fragm en ts betray an interest in the soul and in hum an p sych o logy, an d som e o f the.m hint at an existen ce fo r the soul a fte r d eath . H e advan ced som e m oral and political notions w hich are p erh a p s co n n ected with this. A g a in , H eraclitus, like

38

SYNOPSIS

X enophanes, criticized received religious practices and o ffe re d the world a new and m ore scientific g o d , now iden ­ tified with the cosm ic fire. A n d , again like X en o p h an es, H era­ clitus reflected on the possibility o f know led ge: he th o u g h t that know ledge about the n atu re o f things was not easy to com e by, that m ost o f his con tem poraries w ere ign oran t and stupid, that most o f his predecessors had been a rro g a n t and m isguid ed . But he believed that he him self had attained to tru th , and he supposed that the book o f nature could be read by m en p rovided that they m ade p ro p e r use o f th eir senses and th eir understanding. T h e novelty o f H eraclitus lies in w hat we m ay call his m eta­ physical views. H ere th ree fea tu res are w orth em ph asizin g. First o f all, he rejected cosm ogony: the M ilesians had told stor­ ies about the origin s o f the w orld; H eraclitus held that the world had always existed, and that th ere was no cosm ogonical story to tell. Secondly (his m ost celebrated notion), he h eld that ‘everyth in g flows’: the w orld and its fu rn itu re are in a state o f perpetual flux. W h at is m ore, things d ep en d on this flu x fo r their continuity and identity; fo r if the riv er ceases to flow it ceases to be a river. Finally — and m ost stran gely — H eraclitus believed in the unity o f o pposites. T h e path u p is th e sam e as the path dow n, and in gen eral, existin g things a re ch aracter­ ized by pairs o f co n trary p rop erties, w hose bellicose coexist­ ence is essential to th eir co ntinu ed being. T h e fu n dam en tal truth about n atu re is this: the w orld is an eternal and ever-ch a n g in g m odification o f fire, its various contents each unified and held togeth er by a d yn am ic tension o f contrarieties. T h is truth is the accoun t in acco rd an ce with which everyth in g h appens, and it u n d erlies and explain s the whole o f nature.

II T h e early philosophers had taken the first totterin g steps d ow n the road to science. T h e sceptical suggestion s o f X en o p h a n es perh aps cast a sm all shadow o v e r th eir inquiries, b u t the sun o f H eraclitus soon b u rn ed it away. In the secon d p h ase o f

39

SYNOPSIS

p h ilosoph y, a th icker an d d a rk e r cloud loom ed: it threatened to cu t o f f all ligh t fro m em pirical science, and it m ust have seem ed alm ost im penetrab le. T h e clou d blew in from Elea fro m P arm enid es, M elissus, Zeno. P a r m e n i d e s h im self actually w rote at som e length on n atu re. H e d evelo p ed a novel system in vokin g two principles o r archai, an d he sp oke in detail on biology and on astronom y. (H e was the first G reek to say that the earth was spherical, and p erh a p s also the first to iden tify the ev en in g and the m ornin g star.) B u t the discou rse on nature occu pied the second h a lf o f his g rea t poem , which described the W ay o f O p in ion and w hich was self-confessed ly false and ‘d eceitfu l’. T h e first part o f the poem was a g u id e to th e W ay o f T r u th , and that W ay led th ro u g h stran ge and arid territory. P arm enid es began by co n sid erin g the possible subjects o f inquiry: you can in qu ire into w hat exists, o r you can inquire into w hat does not exist. B u t in fact the latter is not a genuine possibility — fo r you can n ot thin k o f, and hen ce cann ot inquire into, the non -existen t. So every subject o f inquiry m ust exist. B u t e v ery th in g that exists m ust, as P arm enides proceed s to a rg u e, possess a certain set o f p rop erties: it m ust be u n g en e r­ ated and in d estru ctib le (otherw ise it w ould, at som e tim e, not exist — bu t that is im possible); it m ust be continu ous — w ithout spatial o r tem poral gaps; it m ust be en tirely changeless - it can n ot m ove o r alter o r gro w o r dim inish; and it m ust be b o u n d ed o r finite, like a sp h ere. Reason - the logical p ow er o f ineluctable d ed u ctio n — shows that reality, w hat exists, must be so: i f sense-perception suggests a w orld o f a d iffe re n t sort, th en so m uch the w orse fo r sense-perception. m e l i s s u s rew rote the P arm en id ean system in plain prose. B u t he was not w ith ou t origin ality. First, he p ro d u ced som e new argu m en ts fo r P arm en id es’ old positions - m ost notably, he a rg u e d that the existen ce o f a vacuum was not logically possible, that the w orld was th e re fo re full o r a plenum, and that m otion th ro u gh a plenum was m anifestly im possible. Secondly, he d iffe r e d on tw o im p ortan t points fro m his m aster. F or w h ereas P arm en id es’ w orld was finite, M elissus held that what­ ev e r exists m ust be infinitely ex ten d ed in all directions.

40

SYNOPSIS

M oreover, he in ferred that th ere can be at m ost one th in g in existence. M elissus also p resented an ex p licit argu m en t to show that sense-perception is illusory, an d that th e w o rld is u tterly d iffe re n t from the way it a p p ears to o u r senses. z e n o p ro d u ced no system atic p h ilosophy. H e co n trived a series o f argu m en ts (fo rty in all, w e a re told), each o f w hich con clu d ed that plu rality is parad oxical: i f m ore th in gs than on e w ere to exist, then contradictions w o u ld follow . T w o o f the forty argu m en ts survive: in them Z en o arg u es th at i f m ore things than o n e exist, then th ey m ust be both la rg e an d sm all, and that if m ore things than o n e exist, th en they m ust be both finitely and infinitely m any. Z en o also d evised fo u r celebrated argu m ents p ro v in g th e im possibility o f m otion: it is not clear w h eth er these a re to b e n u m bered a m o n g th e fo rty a rg u m en ts against plurality. Z en o ’s puzzles a re both en tertain in g an d serious. H is a rg u ­ m ents m ay seem at first sight m erely jo c u la r; b u t th ey all involve concepts - notably the co n cep t o f infinity - w hich con ­ tinue to p erp lex an d ex ercise ph ilosoph ers. Z en o ’s o w n aim in d evisin g his pu zzles is u ncertain . Plato re g a rd e d him as a su p p o rter o f Eleatic m onism : M elissus had a rg u e d th at th ere existed only o n e th in g, Z en o d en ied that th ere existed m ore than o n e - tw o sides o f th e sam e coin. O th e rs h ave suspected that Z en o was an intellectual nihilist.

Ill T h e third phase o f P resocratic p h ilosop h y is best u n d erstoo d as a reaction against the P arm en id ean position. I f th e Eleatics w ere right, then science was im possible. T h e post-Eleatics tried in their d iffe re n t ways to d o ju stic e to the fo rce o f P arm en id es’ argu m ents w hile retain in g th e rig h t to fo llo w th e pathw ays o f science. T h e p eriod p ro d u ced th ree m ajo r figu res (E m p ed o ­ cles, A n a x a go ras, D em ocritus) an d som e in terestin g m in o r characters. e m p e d o c l e s prom ised his read ers kn o w led ge, a n d w ith it som e stran ge pow ers. H e insisted, against th e Eleatics, th at th e senses, i f p ro p erly u sed , w e re rou tes to k n o w led ge. H e a g re e d

41

SYNOPSIS

with P arm enid es that n o th in g cou ld really com e into existence o r perish , an d he a greed with M elissus that vacuum s could not exist. T h e u n iverse was fu ll o f etern al stu ff. B u t nonetheless, E m p ed ocles a rg u ed , m otion was possible, and hen ce ch an ge too was possible; fo r the eternal stu ffs cou ld m ove and inter­ m in gle w ith o n e an o th er, th ereby e ffe c tin g the ch anges we observe. T h e basic stu ffs o f the u niverse, a cco rd in g to Em pedocles, w ere fo u r: ea rth , air, fire, w ater. E veryth in g in the w orld is m ad e u p fro m these fo u r ‘roots’ o r elem ents. In add ition there w ere tw o o p p o sin g pow ers, love and strife, o r attraction and rep u lsion , w hose o peration s w ere aid ed by, o r m anifested in, the n atural pow ers o f the stu ffs them selves an d govern ed , w ith ou t inten tion o r p ro v id en ce, by th e forces o f chance and necessity. T h e pow ers d eterm in ed the d evelo p m en t o f the uni­ verse, w hich d evelo p m en t was cyclical and eternal. In the battle betw een love and strife each w arrio r period ically d om in ­ ated: u n d er the d om inion o f love, all th e elem ents cam e to g eth er into a unity, a h o m o g en eo u s sp here. A s strife regain ed po w er, th e sp h ere b ro k e u p, the elem ents separated, and (after a co m p lex series o f stages) o u r fam iliar w orld cam e to be articu lated . T h e n the process reversed itself: fro m the articu lated w o rld , th ro u g h the several stages, back to the h o m o gen eo u s sp h ere again. T h e infinite alternations betw een sp h ere an d w orld , w o rld and sp h ere, m ark th e eternal and n e ve r ch a n g in g history o f the universe. M uch o f E m p ed ocles’ p oem On Nature gave detailed d escrip ­ tion o f th e articu lated w orld w e live in. B u t a notoriou s featu re was his accoun t o f the various m onstrosities w hich, he believed, com e into existen ce in an ea rly stage o f cosm ic history, b e fo re the w orld attains its p resen t state. T h e d escription o f the p re­ sent w orld was rich - it co vered ev ery subject fro m astronom y to zo o lo gy. L o n g accounts o f the stru ctu re o f th e eye an d o f the m echanism o f b rea th in g survive. E m ped ocles’ m ajor o rig in ­ ality h ere lies less in m atters o f detail than in o n e general a n d u n ify in g notion. H e believed that all thin gs always give o f f ‘efflu en ces’, and that they a re all p erfo ra ted by chann els o r p o res o f variou s sh apes an d sizes. T h e s e efflu en ces and pores

42

SYNOPSIS

are E m ped ocles’ fu n d am en tal ex p lan a to ry concepts: that efflu en ces fit, o r fail to fit, pores o f a p a rticu lar typ e accounts fo r physical and chem ical reactions, fo r biological a n d psych o­ logical p h en om en a - fo r p ercep tio n , fo r m agnetism , fo r the sterility o f m ules. In addition to his poem on natu re, E m ped ocles w rote a w ork which was later called Purifications. T h e story o f th e p o em was the story o f the Fall: o rigin ally the spirits en jo yed a life o f bliss; then they e rre d (the e r ro r is un specified , but it is usually su pposed to have been bloodshed); and th eir p u n ish m en t is a sequence o f m ortal incarnations. W e a re all such fallen spirits, clothed tem porarily and pu nitively in hu m an flesh. A nim als and som e plants a re also fallen spirits. (E m pedocles h im self, he says, has alread y been a bush, a bird, an d a fish. B u t he has now reached th e highest point in the cycle o f incarnations — he is not only a hu m an , but a seer and a god .) F or E m ped ocles, as fo r Pythagoras, m etem psychosis had m oral im plications: the anim als (and certain plants) a re o u r kin; ea tin g them is th ere fo re cannibalism , and m ust be assiduously a vo id ed . T h e Fall was tragic, an d o u r life h ere is p a in fu l; bu t the fu tu re shines: i f we follow E m p ed ocles’ advice w e too m ay h o p e to becom e fellow feasters at the table o f the gods. It is m uch d ispu ted w h eth er Purifications is consistent with On Nature, and th e question is co m plicated by the fact that m any fragm en ts can n ot be secu rely assigned to e ith e r poem . T h e two poem s w ere p rob ably very d iffe r e n t in spirit an d in content. B u t they certain ly em p lo yed th e sam e g en era l ideas. W h eth er o r not they w ere strictly consistent with o n e an o th er, it seem s clear that the an cien t com m entators — and prob ab le that E m pedocles h im self - th o u g h t o f th em as twin parts o f a single scientifico-m ystical system . E m pedocles is som etim es called a P yth ago rean , an d his views have P yth ago rean connections. P yth ago ras’ follow ers soon d ivided into two g ro u p s, th e A p h o rists an d the Scientists. T h e A ph orists have little claim on o u r attention: they a p p e a r to have believed that w isdom - an d by that th ey m ean t the wisdom o f P ythagoras — cou ld be ca p tu red in gn o m ic u tter­ ances, and they had no d esire to in qu ire o r to reason. T h e ir

43

SYNOPSIS

aph orism s w ere fo r the m ost p art religiou s o r ritualistic in conten t — th ey co n cern ed diet, o r sacrifice, o r burial: m ost o f them a re e ith er bizarre o r silly. T h e Scientists fell into d iffe re n t factions; bu t they w ere united by a b e lie f in the scientific and p h ilosophical im p ortan ce o f m athem atics. T h e y w ere not them selves technical m athem aticians, bu t they hypothesized th at the w orld was, in som e sense, fu n d am en tally com posed o f num bers: nu m bers, o r rath er the prin ciples o f num bers, w ere th e principles o f all things. Su ch a view can d ege n erate into nonsense; it can also rep resen t th e insight that science is essentially ap p lied m athem atics. In th e case o f the P yth agor­ eans sense and nonsense w ere p resen t in equal m easure. T h e only P yth agorean o f this p eriod w ho has a face is p h i l o l> a u s (fo r н I p p a s u s is little m ore t h a n a n a m e ) .lf the survivin g fragm en ts a re g en u in e (and th eir authen ticity has o ften been d ou bted ), then it seem s that P hilolaus was attem ptin g to p ro ­ d u ce a P yth agorean version o f n atural science, a version which w ould be in vu ln erable to the Eleatic objections. Philolaus holds that we can know little ab o u t the w orld. B ut w e can see th at it m ust have been m ad e u p o u t o f two types o f th in g - unlim ited things and lim iters. (R o u gh ly, these are stu ffs and shapes: a p o n d , fo r exa m p le, consists o f unlim ited stu ff, w ater, d eterm in ed by a lim iter, its shape.) S o m eth in g we can n ot tell exactly w hat - was req u ired to harm onize lim it­ ers an d u nlim ited s in o rd e r to g en era te the w orld. So fa r the schem e is essentially M ilesian in fo rm . P yth agorean elem ents e n te r w hen Philolaus introd u ces num bers: the w orld w hen g en era te d is d eterm in ed by n u m bers, in the sense that it is describable in qu antitative term s — oth erw ise it cou ld not be know n by us. O n these fo u n d atio n s Philolaus h o p ed to erect th e stru ctu re o f natural science. Few details o f his views are rep o rted : we know , h o w ever, that h e had theories in biology (in clu d in g an acco u n t o f th e n a tu re o f diseases), and that he em b raced th e th eory o f th e ‘co u n ter-ea rth ’ (an oth er planet, b alan cin g the earth , a n d b rin g in g th e heaven ly bodies u p to the p e rfe c t n u m ber, ten). In add ition , h e exp ressed an opinion ab o u t th e n atu re and fu tu re o f the soul. L ike E m ped ocles, a n a x a g o r a s accepted th e Eleatic a rg u ­

44

SYNOPSIS

m ents to the e ffe ct that gen eratio n and d estru ctio n w ere im possible, but m aintained that m otion was non eth eless poss­ ible, and hence that ch an ge cou ld take place in the w orld. A g ain like Em pedocles, he believed that o u r faculties, if p ro p erly used, w ould yield reliable in form ation about the natural w orld . B u t in his conception o f the natu re o f things he d iffe r e d fu n d a m e n t­ ally from Em pedocles. A n axago ras believed that every substance o r s t u ff was e te r­ nal : he had no th eory o f basic stu ffs, n o ‘elem en ts’. A s P arm en ­ ides had show n, n o th in g can com e from n oth in g. H ence everyth in g always existed. In the b eg in n in g ‘ev ery th in g was to g eth er’ in an infinite gaseous toh u -boh u , w h erein e v e ry th in g was present and n o th in g was clear. (By ‘e v e ry th in g ’ A n a x a g ­ oras probably m eant ‘all stu ffs and all qualities’ - stu ffs such as earth, gold, flesh, cheese; qualities, them selves con ceived o f as stu ffs, such as the hot and the cold , the sw eet and th e bitter.) T h e cosm os form ed w hen stu ffsa n d th in gs g ra d u a lly separated out from this u n d ifferen tia ted mass. A n d h ere com e A n a x a g o ­ ras’ two m ost o rigin al and influential doctrines. First, he held that the origin al cosm ogonical fo rce was m ind. M ind, he said, a lth o u g h d iffe re n t fro m all o th er things and not m ixed with them , nonetheless p erva d ed ev ery th in g and was responsible fo r everyth in g. L ater th in kers saw this as a great leap forw ard : A n a x a go ras, they believed, had seen that the universe was plan n ed by an intelligent d esign er. B u t they then fo u n d fault with A n a x a g o ra s and co m p lain ed that h e had not invoked m ind at the level o f p articu lar scientific e x p la n ­ ations - th ere he had rem ained con ten t with the stand ard Ionian explan ations in term s o f m aterial forces. It is in any case uncertain to w hat ex ten t A n a x a g o ra s’ m ind was th o u g h t o f as a personal, p lan n in g faculty w hich d eterm in ed th e his­ tory o f the w orld in a ben evolent, o r at least an inten tional, fashion: p erhaps it was an im personal fo rce, co m p arab le to the love and strife o f E m pedocles. A n a x a go ras’ second innovation concern s his co n cep tio n o f stuffs. A s stu ffs separate out, n on e is e v e r entirely se gre g ated , no pure s tu ff ever com es into bein g. In d ee d , ev ery p iece o f s tu ff always contains a portion o f every o th er stu ff. W hat

45

SYNOPSIS

we call ‘g o ld ’ is not w holly g old en : rath er, ’g o ld ’ is the nam e we g ive to lum ps o f s t u ff w hich a re predominantly gold. A n a x ­ a go ras’ g ro u n d s fo r h o ld in g this d octrin e are d ispu ted; two o f its consequ ences a re clear. A n a x a g o ra s h im self d rew the first consequence: th ere is no sm allest p iece o f s tu ff o f any sort h o w ever sm all a p iece o f g o ld you m ay take, th ere is always a sm aller; fo r w ithin y o u r p iece o f gold th ere is a portion o f, say, blood - an d th at blood will itself contain a sm aller portion o f go ld . T h e secon d con sequ en ce is not explicitly p resen t in the fragm en ts: stu ffs cann ot consist o f particles o r be ‘in’ o n e a n o th e r in the way in w hich d iffe r e n t sorts o f seeds m ay be m ixed in a packet; rath er, A n a x a g o ra s’ view d em an ds that stu ffs b e m ixed th ro u g h and th ro u g h — that they be associated in so m eth in g m o re like chem ical com bination than physical ju x ta p o sitio n . A n a x a g o ra s’ views w ere largely ad o p ted by a r c h e l a u s , w ho stood to him as A n axim en es to A n a xim an d er. B ut A rc h e ­ laus has the repu tation o f bein g th e first p h ilosop h er to reflect on ethics: he m ain tain ed —we no lo n g er know on what g ro u n d s— that m oral qualities w ere con ven tion al and not natural. In th e lo n g run , the physics o f A n a x a g o ra s p roved infertile. F ar m ore influen tial w ere the views o f L e u c i p p u s and D e m o ­ c r i t u s , th e two Atom ists. T h e y tackled Parm enides head on. F or th ey d en ied that w hat d oes not exist cann ot be th ou gh t o f - in d eed , th ey m aintained, parad oxically en o u g h , that what d oes not exist is no less real than w hat does exist. W hat does n ot exist is void, em pty space. W h at exists a re bodies, the things w hich o ccu p y space an d m ove th ro u g h its em ptinesses. T h e void is infinite in ex ten t, the bodies a re infinite in num ber. B odies, in the p ro p e r sense, a re atom ic o r indivisible. T h e A tom ists a rg u ed that th ere must be indivisible bodies, fo r they th o u g h t that the supposition that bodies can be d ivided ad infinitum led to p a ra d o x . T h e s e indivisibles w ere very sm all, solid, and w ithou t any ‘qualities’: th ey have size and shape and h ard ness o r solidity, the so-called ‘p rim a ry’ qualities, bu t they lack the ‘secon d ary’ qualities — co lo u r, sm ell, taste, etc. T h e atom s exist fo r ev er and are un ch an geable. T o this e xten t each

46

SYNOPSIS

atom is a Parm enidean entity. B u t atom s m ove - in d eed , they m ove constantly and have been m ovin g fo r all eternity. A tom ic m ovem ents create the w orld . F or atom s som etim es collide, and a fter som e collisions th ey stick to g eth er, w h en the hooks on o n e atom m ay h ap p en to lock with the eyes on another. In this way co m p o u n d bodies a re even tu ally fo rm ed . E veryth in g happens by m echanical chance; b u t given infinite space and infinite tim e, it is o n ly to be ex p ected that the com ­ plex stru ctu re o f the w orld ab o u t us will so m ew h ere and som ewhen be fo rm ed . D em ocritus was an enthusiastic and p rolific scientist. H e w rote on a w ide variety o f topics, and in som e cases at least he attem pted to apply his atom ism to d etailed scientific e x p la n ­ ations. T h e best exam p les o f this com e in his acco u n t o f p e r ­ ception and the objects o f p ercep tio n . O f his rem ain in g scientific w ritin g little rem ains. P erhaps th e m ost in terestin g portion o f his w ork was that w hich d ealt with a n th ro p o lo g y the history and d escription o f th e h u m an race as a social and cultural object. D em ocritus discussed, a m o n g o th er things, th e origins o f religion an d the n atu re o f lan gu age. H is rem arks here are alm ost en tirely speculative (and they have little co n ­ nection with atom ism ), but his speculation s b egan a lo n g tra­ dition o f arm chair an th ro p o lo g y. M ore interesting fro m a ph ilosophical p o in t o f view a re D em ocritus’ opinion s on the possibility o f h u m an kn o w led ge. D espite his scientific am bitions, h e a p p ears to h ave en tertain ed an extrem e fo rm o f scepticism . H is reasons fo r this a re m ostly missing, but som e o f them at least w ere closely co n n ected with his atom ism . T h e only real things a re atom s an d vo id , and neither void nor atom s can be co lo u red . H en ce co lo u rs - an d all o th er secon d ary p rop erties - a re illusory. H en ce the w orld is very d iffe re n t fro m the way o u r senses take it to be, an d o u r senses a re fu n d am en tally m isleading. B u t i f we distrust o u r senses, how can w e say an y th in g about the stru ctu re o f reality? T h e atom ist th eory itself, th o u g h largely an a priori co n stru c­ tion, seem ed to p resu p p o se the validity o f sense-perception and to gain its su p p o rt from its capacity to ex p lain the

47

SYNOPSIS

p h en o m en a o f p ercep tio n . I f atom ism is righ t, perception is illusory; bu t i f perception is illusory, w hy em brace atom ism ? D em ocritus was aw are o f this p u zzle. H ow h e attem p ted to solve it we d o not know . Finally, D em ocritus w rote at len gth on m atters o f m oral and political philosophy. Som e scholars have attem pted to find conn ection s betw een his ethics an d his atom ism , bu t th ere is p rob ably n on e. Som e scholars have attem pted to d iscern a m oral system behin d th e fragm en ts. It is clear that D em ocritus was a h ed on ist o f sorts: the goal o f life is conten tm en t, o r im p ertu rbability, and this is som ehow equated with jo y o r p leasu re. D em ocritean pleasures, h o w ever, a re on the whole som ew hat d ry an d severe, m ental rath er than physical in their objects: D em ocritus was no advocate o f a life o f Riley. It is p erh ap s a m istake to look fo r an y th in g m ore system atic than that in the fragm en ts. T h e y a re p resented as m axim s o r a p h o r­ isms, an d aphorism s d o not typically com m u n icate system atic th ou gh t. O f the m axim s, som e a re sane, som e are am usin g, som e a re banal, som e are o u trag eo u s — they are, in fact, a typical collection o f m oralistic aphorism s. T h e last o f the Presocratics was d i o g e n e s o f A p o llo n ia. His was not an origin al gen iu s, and he is o ften , with som e ju stice, described as an eclectic. His treatm en t o f n atu re was in m any respects close to that o f th e ea rly M ilesians: h e took a single arche, in his case air, and g en era ted the w orld from it by rarefaction an d cond en sation. H e ex p lain ed the various nat­ ural p h en om en a by referen ce to this origin al s tu ffa n d its m ani­ fold m odifications. A n d he ad o p ted A n a x a g o ra s’ cosm ogonic m ind. B u tin D iogen es’ system , m ind was identified with eternal, all-know ing air, and it was th e co n tro llin g and g o v ern in g force o f the u niverse. D iogen es certain ly held that the w orld was well d esign ed . I f h e can claim o rigin ality in his physics it m ust lie in his attem pt to ju s tify the positing o f a single u n d erly in g s tu ff o r arche: unless all things w ere fu n d am en tally the sam e, he argu ed , th e ch an ges w hich we observe in th e w orld co u ld not com e about. T h e m ost rem arkab le fra g m en t o f D iogen es’ w ork is a d etailed description o f the blood vessels o f the hum an body.

48

SYNOPSIS

H ere we can read at first hand w hat in the case o f th e o th er Presocratics we know o f only indirectly: an attem pt to d escribe in scientific detail the stru ctu re an d o rgan ization o f the p hysi­ cal w orld. T h e Presocratics w ere ph ilosoph ers, an d th ey co n ­ cerned them selves with the m ost g en eral questions ab o u t the n atu re and o rigin s o f th e universe. B u t th ey w ere also scien­ tists. T h e abstractions o f their cosm ogonical th o u g h t a re co m ­ plem ented and co m pleted by the con crete detail o f th eir p articular descriptions and explan ations. In this way they w ere the fo reru n n ers o f A ristotle — and th ro u g h him o f m od ern science an d philosophy.

49

N O T E T O T HE READER T h e m ain ch apters o f this bo ok em p loy a variety o f typo­ grap h ical devices. Italics, in add ition to m ark in g stress an d id en tifyin g booktitles, p erfo rm two special fun ctions: (1) all p u rp o rted citations from the Presocratics and (2) all editorial com m ents are set in italics. C itations a re typ o grap h ically distin gu ished from com ­ m ents inasm uch as they are invariably indented. Roman typ e m arks all quotations from ancien t authors except p u rp o rte d citations from the Presocratics. T h u s th e contexts o f citations will be set in rom an, an d so too will allusions to and p arap h rases o f Presocratic views. Brackets o f th ree d iffe re n t styles a p p ea r in the quoted m aterial. (1) O rd in a ry parentheses, ‘(. . .)’, are used in the nor­ mal way as punctu ation signs. (2) S q uare brackets, ‘[. . .]’, en close trivial ed itorial alterations to the qu o ted texts. (For ex a m p le, an u nspecific p ro n o u n , ‘h e’, in the origin al is som e­ tim es replaced by the a p p ro p riate p ro p e r nam e.) T h e y also en close ed itorial comments. (For exam p le, they enclose the m od­ ern equ ivalen t o f the ancien t system o f d atin g by O lym p ic years.) (3) P ointed brackets, ‘< . . . > ’, m ark lacun ae in the G re e k tex t - i.e. places w h ere th e ancien t scribes have accidentally om itted som ethin g. W h ere the pointed brackets en close w ords, these rep resen t w hat we m ay guess to have been om itted. Asterisks, su rro u n d passages w h ere eith er the trans­ lation o r the tex t itself is w holly uncertain. W ords betw een the asterisks a re at best an optim istic guess. References follow each q u o ted passage. T h e y a re o f two sorts. 50

NOTE TO

THE

READER

(1) T o each text qu o ted th ere is a p p en d ed the a u th o r’s nam e, the title o f the w ork, an d su fficien t auxiliary in form ation to enable the passage to be located in any stan d ard edition. Square brackets abo u t an a u th o r’s nam e are a sign o f sp u rio u s­ ness. (E.g. ‘[Aristotle], Problems’ refers to the book called Problems which the m an u script tradition falsely ascribes to A ristotle.) (2) T o each Presocratic fra gm en t qu o ted th ere is ap p en d ed a ‘D iels-K ran z’ referen ce, enclosed in sq uare b rack­ ets. T h is n orm ally consists o f the letter ‘в’ follow ed by a n u m ­ ber. T h e n u m b er is th e n u m b er o f the fra g m en t in H . Diels and W . K ran z, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (B erlin , 1952 [ lo th edition]). T h e first D iels-K ran z referen ce in any ch a p ter p refixes a n u m b er to the letter ‘в’. T h is is the n u m b er o f the relevant ch a p ter in D iels-K ranz. T h u s ‘[59 в 1]’ refers to fr a g ­ m ent 1 in ch a p ter 59, the ch ap ter on A n a x a g o ras, o f DielsK ranz. A su bsequ en t ‘[в 2 1a]’ refers to fra g m en t 2 1a in the sam e ch apter. In principle, th e ‘в’ passages in D iels-K ran z are g en u in e fragm en ts (in contrast to parap h rases and allusions which ap p ea r in separate sections labelled ‘ a ’ ). In fact DielsK ran z o ften in clu d e passages a m o n g their ‘в’ texts w hich are certainly not fragm en ts. W hen the read er finds a D iels-K ran z referen ce fo r a passage w hich is not set in italic typ e, he sh ou ld in fer that D iels-K ran z falsely p resen t the passage as a fr a g ­ m ent.

5‘

PART I

1 PRECURSORS Thales, the first o f the canonical line o f Presocratic philosophers, no doubt had his predecessors, and scholars have speculated on the sources and influences behind him. Two varieties o f influence have been dis­ cerned. First, there are native Greek antecedents. Homer’s poems, the earliest surviving works o f Greek literature, contain occasional references to what were later to become scientific and philosophical topics. The poems presuppose a certain vague conception o f the nature and origins o f the universe (how could they not?), and that conception finds echoes, both verbal and substantial, in Presocratic thought. More influential, became more explicit, was the view o f the universe expressed by the seventh-century poet Hesiod. A short passage from his T h e o g o n y — 'The Birth o f the Gods’ — merits quotation. H ail, ch ildren o f Zeus, g ra n t a sw eet so n g and celebrate the holy race o f the im m ortals w h o exist fo rever, those w ho w ere born o f Earth an d o f starry H eaven and o f d ark N igh t, and those the salt Sea reared . T ell how first god s and earth cam e into bein g, and rivers and the bou nd less sea with its seethin g sw ell, and shining stars and th e b road sky above, and tell how th ey d ivid ed th eir wealth and shared o u t th eir honours and how first th ey gained O ly m p u s with its m an y glades. T ell m e this, you M uses w ho have y o u r h o m e on O ly m p u s, from the begin n in g, and tell which o f them first cam e into being. First o f all cam e the C hasm ; and then

55

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

w ide-bosom ed E arth, the eternal safe seat o f all the im m ortals w ho hold the h eights o f snow y O lym pus, and m u rky T a rta ru s in the recesses o f the w ide-pathed land, and L ove, w ho is fairest a m o n g th e im m ortal gods, loosen er o f lim bs, by w hom all god s and all m en find th eir thou ghts and wise cou nsels overco m e in their breasts. From the C hasm cam e black D arkness and N igh t; and from N igh t cam e E th er and Day w hom she conceived and b o re a fte r m in glin g in love with Darkness. E arth b o re first, equal to h erself, starry H eaven, to veil h er all about that th ere m igh t be an etern al safe seat fo r the blessed gods. A n d she gave birth to tall M ountains, the g ra cefu l haunts o f the god desses o f the N ym p h s w ho dw ell on the w ooded m ountains. A n d she also bore the restless d eep with its seethin g swell, Sea, w ithout d esirable love; and then she lay with H eaven an d bore d eep -ed d y in g O cean and C o iu s and C reiu s and H yperion and Iapetus and T h e ia an d R heia and R ight and M em ory and gold e n -crow n ed P h oebe an d lovely T eth ys. A n d a fter them , the you n gest, wily C ro n u s, was born , m ost terrible o f h er ch ild ren ; and he hated his stron g father. (H esiod, Theogony 10 4 -13 8 ) A ll this is myth, not science; but it is, as it were, scientific myth: many ofHesiod’s gods are personifications o f naturalfeatures or phenomena, and in telling the birth o f ‘the gods’ Hesiod is telling, in picturesque form, the origins o f the universe. The Greeks themselves were well aware o f this. The Sicilian comic poet Epicharmus, who wrote at the beginning o f the fifth century, presents a mock philosophical criticism o f Hesiod’s story in a little dialogue preserved by Diogenes Laertius: - T h e god s w ere alw ays th ere: they w ere never yet m issing; and th ese things a re alw ays th ere, the sam e and in the sam e way always. 56

PRECURSORS

- B u t the C hasm is said to h ave been th e first g o d to be b orn . - H ow could that be? H e had n o th in g to co m e fro m and n ow h ere to go to i f h e was the first. - T h e n d id n ’t anything com e first? — N o, n o r a n y th in g secon d, by Zeus, o f the things w e’re now talkin g about: they existed always. (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers III 10) A story from a later century is also worth retelling: T h e poet w ho writes First o f all cam e the C h asm ; and then w ide-bosom ed E arth, seat o f all . . . refu tes him self. F or i f som eone asks him w hat th e C h asm cam e from, he will not be able to answ er. Som e p eo p le say that this is the reason why E picu rus tu rn ed to ph ilosop h y. W h en he was still very y o u n g he asked a schoolm aster w h o was read in g out First o f all cam e the C hasm . . . what the C hasm cam e from i f it cam e first. T h e schoolm aster replied that it wasn’t his jo b , but the jo b o f the so-called p hilo­ sophers, to teach that sort o f thing. ‘W ell, th en ,’ said E picurus, ‘I m ust g o a lo n g to them , i f they a re th e on es w ho know the truth about the th in gs that exist’. (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians x 18—19)

In the final book o f his M etaphysics Aristotle discusses the place o f 'the good and the beautiful’ in the world. Some thinkers, he says, hold that goodness and beauty only make their appearance as the world progresses, and the early poets say so m eth in g sim ilar in so far as th ey hold that it is not the first co m e rs— N ig h t an d H eaven , o r th e C h asm o r O cean - w ho ru le an d hold sw ay, but Zeus. B u t they in fact say this because th eir w o rld -ru lers ch an g e: th e hybrids a m o n g

57

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

th em , w h o d o not say e v ery th in g in a m ythical vein - I m ean P h erecyd es an d som e o th ers - d o m ake the first g en eratin g prin ciple th e best thin g. (A ristotle, Metaphysics 1091 b.4-10) Pherecydes o f Syrus, whom Aristotle here distinguishes from Hesiod and his fellows, is probably to be dated to the early sixth century вс. He was therefore a contemporary o f thefirst Presocratic philosophers. Aristotle’sjudgement that he was a hybrid, part mythologist and part natural philosopher, is scarcely borne out by the surviving remnants his writings. Here are the two most ‘philosophical’ pieces: T h e bo ok w hich P h erecyd es w ro te has been preserved ; it begins like this: Zas and Time always existed, and so did Chthonie; and Chthonie acquired the name Earth when Zas gave her the earth as a bridal gift- [7 в 1] (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers I 119) P h erecyd es o f Syrus says that Zas and T im e and C h th on ie existed alw ays as th e th ree first principles (the on e b e fo re the two, I say, an d th e two a fter th e one). T im e from his ow n seed created fire an d air and w ater (I take this to be the th ree fo ld natu re o f the intelligible): they w ere d ivid ed into five nooks and fro m them w ere constituted th e rest o f the n u m erou s race o f the god s w hich is called the race o f th e five nooks (m eaning, p erh ap s, o f the five worlds). (Dam ascius, On First Principles 124) The other reports o f Pherecydes’ work contain nothing but fanciful mythology. Many o f the Greeks themselves believed that philosophy began among ‘the barbarians’ - in Egypt, in Persia, in Babylonia. They credited the early Presocratics with journeys to Egypt and the Near East, and supposed that they returned with philosophy among their souvenirs. It is plausible to suppose that there was some intellectual contact between the Greeks and their eastern neighbours. But in philosophy, or the theoretical approach to science, it is difficult tofin d a single clear 58

PRECURSORS

case o f influence. (It should be said that where some scholars see striking parallels between a Greek and an eastern text, others see no more than superficial coincidence.) Here, fo r what they are worth, are two brief passages from eastern creation stories, one from Babylonia and the other from Egypt. The E num a Elishu, the Babylonian creation epic, was probably composed early in the second millennium не. It begins as follows: W hen on high the heaven had not been nam ed , firm gro u n d below had not been called by nam e, n au gh t but prim o rdial A p su , th eir b egetter, and M um m u -T iam at, she w h o b o re them all, their waters co m m in glin g as in a sin gle body: no reed hut had b een m atted, no m arsh land had a p p ea re d , when no god s w hatever had been b ro u g h t into bein g, uncalled by nam es, th eir destinies u n d eterm in ed then it was that the god s w ere fo rm ed within them . L ahm u and L aham u w ere b ro u g h t fo rth , by nam e w ere they called. B e fo re they had grow n in a ge an d stature, A n sh ar and K ishar w ere fo rm ed , su rpassin g the others. T h e y p rolo n g ed the days, a d d ed on the years. A n u was their heir, o f his fathers the rival; yea, A n sh a r’s first-born, A n u , was his equal. A n u bego t in his im age N u d im m u d . (James B. P ritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, third ed ition , P rinceton, 1969, p. 61) (The text is written in Akkadian, and the translation o f the lines is in many places uncertain - at all events, different scholars have produced remarkably different versions.) A nu and Nudimmud are the sky and the earth; Apsu and Mummu-Tiamat are primordial waters, the fresh waters and the sea. The identities o f the other divinities are uncertain. The Egyptian creation myth is known in a number o f variant forms. The following text probably dates from about 2,000 вс: I am he w ho cam e into b ein g as K h ep ri. W h en I had com e into being, bein g cam e into bein g, and all bein gs cam e into

59

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

b e in g a fte r I cam e into bein g. M an y w ere th e bein gs w hich cam e fo rth fro m m y m ou th , b e fo re heaven cam e into being, b e fo re ea rth cam e into bein g, b e fo re th e g ro u n d an d creep in g th in gs h ad b een created in this place. I p u t to g eth er som e o f them in N u n as w eary ones, b e fo re I co u ld find a place in w hich I m igh t stand. It seem ed ad van tageo u s to m e in my heart; I p lan n ed with m y face; an d I m ad e every fo rm when I was alo n e, b e fo re I h ad sp at o u t w hat was Sh u , b e fo re I had sp u ttered o u t w h at was T e fn u t, and b e fo re any o th e r had co m e in to b ein g w ho co u ld act with me. I p lan n ed in m y ow n h eart, and th ere cam e into bein g a m u ltitu d e o f fo rm s an d bein gs, th e fo rm s o f ch ildren and the fo rm s o f th eir ch ild ren . I was the o n e w ho copu lated with m y fist, I m asturbated with m y h and . T h e n I sp ew ed with m y own m ou th : I spat o u t w h at was S h u , I sp u ttered o u t w hat was T e fn u t. It was m y fa th er N u n w ho b ro u g h t them u p . . . T h e n S h u and T e fn u t b ro u g h t fo rth G eb and N ut. T h e n G eb a n d N u t b ro u g h t fo rth O siris, H oru s Khenti-en-irti, Seth, Isis, an d N ep h th ys fro m the bo d y, o n e o f these a fter another; a n d th ey b ro u g h t fo rth th eir m ultitudes in this land. (Pritchard , Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 6) Khepri, the speaker, is the morning sun-god; N un is the primordial water; Shu and Tefnut are the air-god and the moisture-goddess; Geb and N ut are earth and sky. Both the Babylonian and the Egyptian stories bear comparison with Hesiod as examples o f mythical cosmogony. Many scholars compare the stories more directly with Greek philosophy, suggesting (for example) that Thales' ideas about the importance o f water may derive from the primordial significance o f Mummu-Tiamat and Nun. They may be right; but to me Thales seems to live in a different and a more luminous world.

60

2 THALES According to Aristotle, Thales o f Miletus was' t h e fo u n d e r o f natural p h ilosop h y’. He is dated by the eclipse o f the sun which he allegedly predicted and which modem astronomers place on 28 May 585 вс. The other known facts about his life suggest that he was bom in about 625 and died in about 545. Simplicius reports that T h a le s is said to h ave been the first to in tro d u ce th e stu d y o f nature to the G reeks: a lth o u g h m an y oth ers p reced ed him , as T h eo p h rastu s h im self adm its, yet he so fa r ex celled th em as to eclipse all his predecessors. B u t he is said to h ave le ft n o th in g behind in w ritin g ex cep t the so-called Nautical Astronomy. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 23 .29-3 3 ) Other sources ascribe other writings to him, and there were certainly books circulating under his name in antiquity. But it seems most prob­ able that he wrote nothing — or at least nothing which survived even to the time o f Aristotle. For our knowledge o f his views, then, we depend entirely on later reports; and those reports must themselves have been based on oral tradition. Thales was not simply, or even primarily, a philosopher. H e was a man o f practical wisdom, one o f the so-called Seven Sages o f early Greek history, and he was regarded by posterity not only as an original contributor to science and philosophy, but also as an astute statesman. Herodotus, the fifth-century historian, tells several stories which illus­ trate his political sagacity. U seful advice had b een given , even b e fo re th e d estru ctio n o f Ionia, by T h a le s, a M ilesian w hose fam ily o rigin ally cam e fro m •

61

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

Phoenicia: h e u rg ed the Ionians to establish a single councilch am ber, saying that it should be located in T e o s, w hich was the cen tre o f Ionia, and that the o th er cities should continue to be inhabited but shou ld be treated as th o u g h they w ere parishes. (H ero do tus, Histories I 170.3) W h en C roesu s cam e to the R iver H alys, then - acco rd in g to m y acco u n t — he crossed his arm y by way o f the existing b ridges; bu t a cco rd in g to m ost o f the G reeks, T h a le s o f M iletus crossed the arm y fo r him . F or it is said that C roesu s was at a loss how his arm y sh o u ld cross th e river, since these bridges d id not yet exist at that tim e, and that T h a le s, w ho was in the cam p, m ade th e river w hich flow ed o n th e left o f the arm y flow on the rig h t too, and that h e d id so in the fo llo w in g way. B e g in n in g upstream o f the cam p, he d u g a d e e p channel w hich he d rew in the shape o f a crescent so that it ran rou n d the back o f w h ere the cam p was sited, b ein g d iverted from its o rigin al cou rse d ow n the ch ann el, and th en , havin g passed the cam p, d eb o u ch ed again into its origin al course. T h u s as soon as the river was d ivided it becam e fo rd a b le in both its parts. (1ibid I 7 5 .4 -5 ) Herodotus also reports the famous eclipse: T h e w ar [betw een the L yd ian s and the Persians] was equally b alan ced, until in the sixth yea r an en ga ge m e n t took place in w hich, a fte r battle had been jo in e d , th e d ay su d d en ly turn ed to night. T h is ch a n g e in the d ay had been fo reto ld to the Ion­ ians by T h a le s o f M iletus, w ho had fixed as its term the very y ea r in w hich it actually o ccu rred . (ibid I 74.2) (Modem scholars conjecture that Thales had learned something o f Babylonian astronomy; even so, it is generally doubted that he could actually have p red icted the eclipse.) O f Thales’philosophico-scientific doctrines, the most celebrated concern

62

THALES

water. First, he held that the earth rests upon water (a notion which has some Egyptian antecedents). Here is Aristotle’s critical report: Som e say that [the earth] rests on w ater. T h is in fact is the oldest view that has been transm itted to us, an d they say that it was advanced by T h a le s o f M iletus w ho th o u g h t th at the earth rests because it can float like a lo g o r so m eth in g else o f that sort (fo r n on e o f these things can rest on air, b u t th ey can rest on water) - as th ou gh the sam e m ust n o t hold o f th e w ater su p p o rtin g the earth as h old s o f th e earth itself. (A ristotle, On the Heavens 294828—34) (Note Aristotle’s non-committal 'some say’ and 'they say’: this cautious approach to Thales is yet more pronounced in the next few passages.) In addition, and more strikingly, Thales held that everything was made from water, or that water, in Aristotle’s later jargon, was the 'material principle’ o f the world. Aristotle again is our best source: M ost o f the first p h ilosoph ers th o u g h t that prin ciples in the form o f m atter w ere the o n ly principles o f all things. F or th ey say that the elem en t and first p rin cip le o f the thin gs that exist is that from w hich they all are and from w hich they first com e into bein g and into w hich th ey a re finally d estroyed , its su b­ stance rem ain in g and its p rop erties ch a n g in g . . . T h e r e m ust be som e nature - eith er o n e o r m ore than o n e - fro m w hich the o th er things com e into bein g, it b ein g p reserved . B u t as to the n u m ber and form o f this sort o f p rin cip le, they d o not all agree. T h ales, the fo u n d e r o f this kind o f ph ilosop h y, says that it is w ater (that is w hy he declares that th e earth rests on water). H e p erh ap s cam e to acqu ire this b e lie f fro m se e in g that the nou rishm ent o f e v ery th in g is m oist an d that heat itself com es from this and lives by this (fo r that fro m w hich an y th in g com es into bein g is its first principle) - h e cam e to his b e lie f both fo r this reason and because the seeds o f ev ery th in g have a m oist nature, an d w ater is the n atu ral p rin cip le o f m oist things. (A ristotle, Metaphysics д 8 з Ь в - 1 1* 1 7 -2 7 )

63

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

Aristotle elsewhere reports something about Thales’ views on the nature o f the soul: S o m e say that < s o u l> is m ixed in the w hole u niverse. Perhaps th at is w hy T h a le s th o u g h t that e v ery th in g was full o f gods. (A ristotle, O n the Soul 4 1 ia7~8) T h a le s, ju d g in g b y w hat they rep o rt, seem s to have believed that the soul was som ethin g w hich prod u ces m otion, inasm uch as he said that the m agn et has a soul because it m oves iron. (ibid 405a 19 -2 1) There is also some evidence that Thales made geometrical discover­ ies. The source, Proclus, wrote in the fifth century, but he is relying on the work o f Eudemus, a pupil o f Aristotle. Nonetheless, scholars have been reluctant to credit Eudemus’ reports. Here, for what they are worth, are the fou r passages in question. T h e y say that T h a le s was the first to d em on strate that a circle is bisected by its diam eter. (Proclus, Commentary on Euclid 1 5 7 .1 0 - 1 1 ) W e a re ind ebted to old T h a le s fo r m any discoveries and fo r this th eorem in particu lar; fo r he is said to have been the first to have reco gn ized and stated that in every isosceles triangle the an gles at the base a re equ al, and to have called the equal angles ‘sim ilar’ in the archaic style. (ibid 250 .20 -251.2) T h is th eorem p roves that w h en two straigh t lines intersect with o n e a n o th e r the angles at the ve rtex a re equal - acco rd in g to E u d em u s, it was first d isco vered by T h ales. (ibid 29 9 .1-4 ) E u d em u s in his History o f Geometry ascribes this th eorem [that a pair o f triangles with one equal side and two equal angles are equal] to T h a le s; fo r he says that he m ust h ave m ade use o f it in the 64

THALES

p roced u re by w hich he is said to have d eterm in ed th e distance o f ships at sea. {ibid, 3 5 2 .1 4 -1 8 ) I append part o f the discussion o f Thales in Diogenes Laertius’ Lives o f the P hilosophers. Some o f the statements in this discussion certainly false, and many are at best dubious: it should be read not as a reliable guide to the views o f Thales but rather as a specimen o f the sort o f material which we now depend on fo r our knowledge o f the philosophy o f the Presocratics. The passage is a good illustration o f the complex and controversial nature o f much o f our evidence fo r the Presocratics—and it does also contain som e important and trustworthy pieces o f information. T h a le s’ fa th er (accord in g to H ero d otu s, D uris an d D em o ­ critus) was Exam yes and his m oth er was C leo b u lin a, fro m th e fam ily o f T h e le u s (they a re Phoenicians, the m ost n oble o f the descendants o f C a d m u s an d A g en o r). < H e was o n e o f the Seven Sages,> acco rd in g to Plato, an d he was the first to be called a Sage - d u rin g the archo n sh ip o f Dam asias a t A th en s [582-580 в с], at which tim e, acco rd in g to D em etrius o f Phaleron in his List o f Archons, the Seven Sages w ere in fact nam ed. H e was en ro lled as a citizen at M iletus w hen he cam e th ere with N eileus w ho had been ex p elled from P h oen icia but m ost authorities say that he was a native M ilesian o f a fam ous fam ily. A fte r his political activities he tu rn ed to scientific sp ecu ­ lation. A cco rd in g to som e he left n o w ritin g beh in d; fo r the Nautical Astronomy ascribed to him is said to be by P h ocu s o f Samos. B u t C allim achu s know s him as th e d isco verer o f the Little B ea r and writes as follow s in his Iambi-. A n d he is said to have m easu red o u t the little stars o f the W ain by w hich the Phoenicians sail. A cco rd in g to others, h e w ro te ju s t two w orks, On the Solstice and On the Equinox, "“ju d g in g that e v ery th in g else was u n k n o w ­ able*. H e is th ou gh t by som e to have been the first to study

65

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

astron om y an d to have p red icted eclipses o f the sun and sol­ stices, as E u dem u s says in his History o f Astronomy — that is why X en o p h a n es and H ero d otu s a d m ire him. H eraclitus and D em ocritus also give a g oo d rep o rt o f him. Som e (am ong them the p o et C hoerilu s) say that he was also the first to say that souls a re im m ortal. H e was the first to d iscover the period from o n e solstice to the next, and the first, acco rd in g to som e, to state that the size o f the sun is a seven h u n d red and twentieth part < o f the solar orbit, ju s t as th e size o f the m oon is a seven h u n d re d and tw en tieth > o f th e lu n a r orbit. H e was the first to call the last d ay o f the m onth th e thirtieth. A n d he was the first, a cco rd in g to som e, to discou rse about nature. A ristotle an d H ipp ias say that he ascribed souls to lifeless things too, takin g the m agn et and am b er as his evid en ce. Pam phila says that he learn ed g eom etry from the Egyptians and was th e first to inscribe a righ t-an gled triangle inside a circle, fo r which he sacrificed an o x. (O thers, inclu din g A p o llo d o ru s the calculator, ascribe this to Pythagoras, who d evelo p ed to their greatest exten t the discoveries which C alli­ m achus in his Iambi attributes to E u p h o rbu s the P hrygian - fo r ex a m p le, ‘scalenes and triangles’ and w hat b elongs to the study o f geom etry.) H e is also th ou g h t to have given excellen t advice in political affairs. F or exam p le, w hen C roesu s sent en voys to the M ilesians to m ake an alliance he p reven ted it - and that saved the city w hen C y ru s cam e to pow er. B u t he h im self actually says, as H eraclides recoun ts, that he lived a solitary life as a p rivate citizen. Som e say that he m arried and had a son, Cybisthus, o th ers that he rem ain ed a b ach elor but adop ted his sister’s son - so that w hen he was asked w hy he had no children he rep lied , ‘B ecau se I love ch ild ren ’. A n d they say that when his m oth er pressed him to m arry he said, ‘It’s too ea rly’, and that then, w hen he had passed his p rim e and she insisted again, he said ‘It’s too late’. H ieronym us o f R hodes, in the second book o f his Miscellanies, says that, w anting to show how easy it is to be rich, he foresaw that th ere was about to be a g oo d crop o f olives, hired the olive presses, and m ade a h u g e sum o f m oney. 66

THALES

H e supposed that w ater was th e first p rin cip le o f all things, and that the w orld has a soul and is fu ll o f spirits. T h e y say he d iscovered the seasons o f the yea r and d iv id ed it into th ree h u n d red and sixty-five days. N o-one tau g h t him , a lth o u g h he w ent to E gyp t an d spent tim e with the priests th ere. H iero n ym u s says th at he actually m easured the pyram ids from th eir shadow s, h a vin g observed the tim e w hen < o u r sh ad ow s> are the sam e size as we are. H e lived with T h rasy b u lu s, the ru le r o f M iletus, a cco rd in g to M inyes. T h e r e is a celebrated story about the tripod w hich was dis­ covered by the fisherm en and sent ro u n d to the Sages by the p eo p le o f M iletus. T h e y say that som e y o u n g m en fro m Ionia bo u gh t a net from som e M ilesian fisherm en . W h en the tripod was fished u p th ere was a d isp u te until th e M ilesians sent to D elphi. T h e g o d gave this oracle: O ffs p rin g o f M iletus, d o you ask A p o llo ab o u t a tripod ? I d eclare that the tripod belongs to him w h o is first in wisdom . So they gave it to T h a le s. B u t h e g ave it to o n e o f the o th er Sages, and so it was passed on until it reach ed Solon , w h o said that the god was first in w isdom and sent it to D elph i. [T h e re follow a n u m ber o f d iffe r e n t versions o f the trip o d story.] H erm ippu s in his Lives ascribes to T h a le s w hat o th ers say o f Socrates. H e used to say, they rep o rt, that he th an ked F ortu n e fo r three things: first, that I am a h u m an and n o t a beast; secondly, that I am a m an and not a w om an; th ird ly, th at I am a G reek and not a fo reign er. H e is said to h ave been taken fro m his h o u se by an old wom an to look at the stars, an d to have fallen into a ditch: when he cried out, the old w om an said: ‘D o you thin k, T h a le s, that you will learn w hat is in th e heavens w h en yo u can n ot see w hat is in fro n t o f y o u r feet?’ T im o n too know s him as an astron om er and praises him in his Silli in the fo llo w in g words: Such was T h a le s o f the Seven Sages, a sage astron om er. Lobon o f A rg o s says that his w ritings stretched to tw o h u n d re d

67

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

lines and that th e fo llo w in g ep ig ra m was inscribed on his statue: T h is is T h a le s w hom Ionian M iletus bred and show ed an astron om er, the highest o f all in wisdom . H e adds that his poem s in clu d e these verses: It is not m any w ords w hich show an intelligent opinion: search o u t o n e wise th in g, choose o n e g oo d thing; fo r thus you will stop the ceaseless ton gu es o f babbling m en. T h e fo llo w in g aphorism s are ascribed to him . O f existing things, god is the oldest — fo r he is u n g en e ra ted . T h e w orld is the m ost b eau tifu l - fo r it is g o d ’s creation. Space is the g reat­ e s t - fo r it includes everyth in g. M ind is the s w ifte s t- fo r it runs th ro u g h ev eryth in g . N ecessity is the stron gest - fo r it controls everyth in g . T im e is the wisest - fo r it discovers everyth in g. H e said that d eath is no d iffe re n t fro m life. ‘T h e n why d o n ’t you d ie?’ som eone asked him . ‘ Because it m akes no d iffe re n c e ,’ he replied. W h en so m eo n e asked him w hich cam e first, d ay o r n igh t, he an sw ered , ‘N ig h t cam e first - by a d a y .’ W hen som e­ o n e asked him w h eth er a m an can escape the notice o f the god s i f he d oes w ro n g, he replied: ‘N o t even i f he thinks o f d o in g w ro n g .’ A n a d u lte rer asked him i f he sh ou ld sw ear that he had not com m itted adu ltery: h e rep lied , ‘ P erju ry is no w orse than a d u lte ry .’ W hen asked w hat is d ifficu lt, he said, ‘T o know y o u r s e lf; w h at is easy, ‘T o g ive advice to som eone else’; w hat m ost pleasant, ‘Success’; w hat d ivin e, ‘W hat has neith er b eg in n in g n o r e n d ’. W h en asked w hat was the strangest thing he had seen, he said: ‘A n old tyran t’. H ow can we bear mis­ fo rtu n e m ost e a s i l y ? - I f we see o u r en em ies fa rin g worse. H ow can we live best and m ost ju stly ? - I f we d o not ourselves d o th e things we blam e o th ers fo r d oin g. W h o is happy? - O n e w ho has a healthy b o d y, a w ell-stocked soul, and an educable natu re. H e says that we sh o u ld rem em b er o u r frien d s both p resen t and absent, and that we shou ld not beau tify o u r faces bu t be b eau tifu l in o u r practices. ‘Do not be rich by evil m eans,’ 68

THALES

he says, ‘and let not w ords estrange you from those w ho have shared you r trust.’ ‘E xpect from y o u r ch ildren the sam e benefits that you gave to y o u r p arents.’ H e said that the N ile floods w hen its stream s are ch ecked by the contrary etesian winds. A p o llo d o ru s in his Chronicles says that he was born in the first year o f the thirty-ninth O lym p iad [624 в с ]. H e d ied at the age o f seven ty-eight (or, as Sosicrates says, at ninety); fo r he died in the fifty-eighth O lym p iad [5 4 8 -54 5 в с ] , h avin g lived d u rin g the tim e o f C roesu s, w hom he u n d erto o k to trans­ port across the H alys w ithou t a b rid g e by d iv ertin g its cou rse. T h e r e w ere o th er m en called T h a le s - five, a cco rd in g to D em etrius o f M agnesia in his Homonyms', an o ra to r fro m Callatis, who had a p o o r style; a pain ter from Sicyon, o f g reat talent; the third is very early, a co n tem p o ra ry o f H esiod, H om er, and L ycu rgu s; the fo u rth is m ention ed by D uris in his w ork On Painting-, the fifth, m ore recen t and o bscu re, is m entioned by D ionysius in his Critical Essays. T h e Sage d ied o f heat and thirst and weakness w hile w atch­ in g a gym nastic contest. H e was by then an old m an. O n his tom b is inscribed: His tom b is sm all, his fam e is heaven -high: behold the g ra ve o f the wise and ingeniou s T h a le s. In the first book o f m y Epigrams o r Poems in A ll Metres th ere is an epigram on him: W hen on ce he was w atching a gym nastic contest, О Zeus o f the Sun, you stole T h a le s the Sage fro m th e stadium . I praise you fo r takin g him n ear to you ; fo r th e old man could no lo n ger see the stars fro m the earth. T h e m otto ‘K now T h y s e lf is his, th o u g h AntistH enes in his 69

EARLY CREE K P H IL O SOP H Y

Successions says that it was P h em on oe’s and that C h ilo n ap p ro ­ priated it. (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers I 22-28 , 33-40)

70

3 ANAXIMANDER Anaximander, like Thales, came from Miletus. ‘A p o llo d o ru s o f A th en s says in his Chronicles that h e was sixty-fo u r in the secon d year o f the fifty-eigh th O lym p ia d [547/546 вс] and that he died shortly afterw ard s’ (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philo­ sophers II 2). I f Apollodorus is right, Anaximander was bom in 610 and died in about 540 вс. Unlike Thales, he wrote a book, which was later in circulation under the title O n N atu re. He also produced a star-map and a map o f the world: A n a x im an d er o f M iletus, a pu pil o f T h a le s, was th e first m an bold en o u g h to d raw the inhabited w orld on a tablet; a fter him , H ecataeus o f M iletus, a g re a t traveller, m ad e it m ore accurate so that it was greatly ad m ired . (A gath em eru s, Geography I i) The leading ideas o f Anaximander’s work O n N atu re are summa­ rized by a late doxographer as follows: A n a x im an d er was a pu pil o f T h a le s - A n a x im a n d er, son o f Praxiades, a M ilesian. H e said that a certain infin ite n a tu re is first principle o f the things that exist. From it com e th e h eavens and the w orlds in them . It is etern al and ageless, and it contains all the w orlds. H e speaks o f tim e, since gen eratio n an d exist­ en ce and destruction a re determ inate. A n a x im an d er said that th e infinite is prin ciple an d elem en t o f the things that exist, b e in g the first to call it by th e n am e o f principle. In add ition, th ere is an eternal m otion in w hich the heavens com e into being.

7i

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

T h e earth is alo ft, not su p p o rted by an yth in g but resting w h ere it is because o f its equal distance from everyth ing. Its sh ap e is ro u n d ed , circular, like a stone pillar. O f its surfaces, we stand on o n e w hile the o th er is opposite. T h e heavenly bodies com e into bein g as a circle o f fire, separated o f f from the fire in the w orld and en closed by air. T h e r e are certain tub ular chann els o r breathin g-holes th ro u gh which the heav­ en ly bodies a p p ear; hen ce eclipses o ccu r w hen the breathingholes a re blocked , and the m oon ap pears som etim es w axing and som etim es w anin g a cco rd in g to w h eth er the channels are blocked o r o p en . T h e circle o f th e sun is tw enty-seven times g rea ter C th a n the earth and th e circle > o f the m oon e i g h t ­ een tim es g re a te r > . T h e sun is highest, the circles o f th e fixed stars lowest. A n im als com e into bein g < fr o m m o istu re> evap o rated by the sun. H um ans origin ally resem bled an o th e r type o f anim al, nam ely fish. W inds com e into b ein g w hen the finest vapou rs o f air are separated o ff, collect tog eth er and m ove. Rain com es from va p o u r sent u p by the things beneath the sun. L ig h tn in g occurs w hen w ind breaks o u t and parts the clouds. H e was bo rn in th e third year o f the forty-second O lym piad [610/609 в с]. (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies I vi 1—7) A second doxographical report contains some supplementary material: A n a x im an d er, an associate o f T h a le s, says that the infinite is the universal cause o f the g en eratio n and destruction o f the u niverse. From it, h e says, the heavens w ere separated o f f and in g en era l all the w orlds, infinite in n u m ber. H e asserted that destruction and, m uch earlier, g en eratio n o ccu r fro m tim e im m em orial, all the sam e things bein g renew ed . H e says that the earth is cylindrical in shape and is a third as d e e p as it is broad. H e says that at th e gen eration o f this w orld that which is p ro d u ctiv e fro m th e eternal o f hot and cold separated o f f and

72

ANAXIMANDER

from it a ball o f flam e grew rou n d the air ab o u t th e earth , like bark on a tree. W hen th e ball burst and was enclosed in certain circles, the sun and the m oon and the stars cam e into bein g. Furth er, he says that origin ally hum ans w ere b o rn fro m an i­ mals o f a d iffe re n t kind, because the o th er anim als can soon look a fter them selves w hile hum an s alon e requ ire a lo n g p eri­ od o f nursing; that is w hy if they had been like this origin ally they w ould not have su rvived. ([Plutarch], Miscellanies fra g m en t 179 .2, in Eusebius, Preparation fo r the Gospel I vii 16) Anaximander's most striking thoughts concern biology, astronomy and the conception o f ‘the infinite’. In biology, the remarks o f Hippo­ lytus and pseudo-Plutarch can be eked out by three further texts: A n a x im an d er says that the first anim als w ere born in m oist­ ure, su rrou n d ed by prickly barks. A s th ey grew o ld e r they em erged on to d rie r parts, the b ark burst, and fo r a sh o rt tim e they lived a d iffe re n t kind o f life. ([Plutarch], On the Scientific Beliefs o f the Philosophers 908D) A n a x im an d er o f M iletus says he thinks that fro m h o t w ater and earth th ere arose fish, o r anim als very like fish, that hum ans grew in them , an d that the em bryos w ere retained inside u p to p u b erty w h ereu p o n th e fish-like anim als burst and m en and w om en e m erg e d a lread y able to look a fte r th em ­ selves. (C en sorin us, On Birthdays IV 7) T h e descendants o f old H ellen actually sacrifice to Poseidon the A ncestor, believin g that m en g rew fro m th e m oist su b­ stance - as do the Syrians. T h a t is w hy th ey revere fish, as bein g o f the sam e species and the sam e n u rtu re as them selves. H ere their p h ilosoph y is b etter than that o f A n a x im a n d er. F or he says, not that fish and m en w ere bo rn in th e sam e su rro u n d ­ ings, bu t that at first m en cam e into b ein g inside fish an d w ere nourished th ere - like sharks - o n ly e m e rg in g an d tak in g to the land w hen th ey w ere able to look a fte r them selves. So ju s t

73

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

as fire consum es the m atter fro m w hich it was kindled (its own m oth er and fath er, as the p o et w h o inserted the m arriage o f C e y x into H esiod ’s poem s said), so A n a x im a n d er, having d eclared that fish a re at o n ce fath ers and m others o f m en, u rges us not to eat them . (Plutarch, Table Talk 730DF) The astronomical theory described by Hippolytus can be given a little more colour: A n a x im a n d er holds that th ere is a circle tw enty-eight tim es as g rea t as the earth . It is like the w heel o f a cart, with a hollow rim full o f fire, w hich at a certain p o in t reveals the fire th ro u gh a m ou th p iece, as th ro u g h the tube o f a bellows. T h is is the sun. ([Plutarch], On the Scientific Beliefs o f the Philosophers 889F) The heavenly bodies are concentric hollow wheel-rims, filled with fire and perforated. They circle a stationary earth. Aristotle adds to Hippo­ lytus’ account o f the stability o f the earth: Som e say that [the earth] rests w h ere it is because o f the simi­ larity (so, a m o n g the ancients, A n a x im an d er). F or th ere is no reason w hy w hat is situated in the m idd le and is sim ilarly related to the ed ges shou ld m ove upw ards rath er than d ow n ­ w ards o r sideways. B u t it can n ot m ove in o pposite directions at the sam e tim e. So it necessarily rests w h ere it is. (A ristotle, On the Heavens 295b! 1-16 ) As for the infinite principle or element o f all things, we have a few words from Anaximander's book preserved in a passage o f Simplicius. These are the earliest surviving words o f western philosophy. Un­ fortunately, it is uncertain - and a matter o f vigorous scholarly contro­ versy - exactly how extensive Simplicius’ citation is. O f those w h o hold that the first p rin cip le is o n e, m oving, and infinite, A n a x im a n d er, son o f P raxiades, a M ilesian, w ho was a successor and pupil o f Thales, said that the infinite is princ­ iple and elem ent o f the things that exist. H e was the first to

74

ANAXIMANDER

introduce this word ‘principle'. H e says that it is neither water nor any other o f the so-called elem ents but som e d ifferen t infinite nature, from which all the heavens and the worlds in them com e into being. A nd the things from which existing things com e into being are also the things into which they are destroyed, in accord­ ance with what must be. For they give justice and reparation to one anotherfor their injustice in accordance with the arrangement o f time [ 12 в l ] (he speaks o f them in this way in som ewhat poetical words). It is clear that he observed the change o f the fo u r elem ents into one another and was unwilling to m ake any on e o f them the underly­ ing stu ff but rather chose som ething else apart from them . H e accounts fo r com ing into being not by the alteration o f the elem ent but by the separating o f f o f the opposites by the eternal motion. (Simplicius, Commentary on the Physics 24.13—25) Simplicius explains why Anaximander’s ‘element’ was different from the four traditional elemental stuffs (earth, air, fire, water). H e does not explain why it was unlimited or infinite. A passage in Aristotle's Physics alludes to Anaximander and lists some reasons fo r belief in infinitude: it is possible that one or more o f those reasons originally came from Anaximander. It is with reason that they all m ake [the infinite] a principle; fo r it can neith er exist to no p u rp o se n o r h ave any p o w er excep t that o f a prin ciple. F or e v ery th in g is e ith er a prin cip le o r d erived from a principle. B u t th e infinite has no p rin cip le fo r then it w ould h ave a limit. A g ain , it is u n g en e ra ted and indestructible and so is a principle. F or w hat com es into b ein g m ust have an en d , an d th ere is an en d to every d estruction. H ence, as I say, it has no prin ciple but itself is th o u g h t to be a principle fo r ev ery th in g else an d to g o v ern ev e ry th in g . . . A n d it is also the divine; fo r it is deathless an d u n p e rish in g, as A n a x im an d er and m ost o f th e n atural scientists say. B e lie f in th e existen ce o f so m eth in g infin ite com es m ainly from five considerations: fro m tim e (since this is infinite), fro m the division o f m agn itu d es (m athem aticians actually use the infinite); again, because gen eratio n an d d estruction will give ou t unless th ere is so m eth in g infin ite fro m w hich w hat com es

75

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

into bein g is subtracted; again, because w hat is finite is always lim ited by som ethin g, so that th ere cann ot be an [ultimate] limit i f one th in g m ust always be lim ited by an oth er; last and most im portan tly, th ere is so m eth in g w hich raises a pu zzle fo r every­ one alike: because they d o not give o u t in thought, num bers seem to be infinite, and so d o m athem atical m agnitudes and the region outside the heavens. B u t if the region outside is infinite, then body and w orlds also seem to be infinite - fo r why sh ou ld they be h ere rath er than th ere in the void? H ence i f body is an yw h ere, it is everyw h ere. A g ain , i f void and space are infinite, body too m ust be infinite - fo r with eternal things th ere is n o d iffe re n c e betw een b ein g possible and b ein g actual. (Aristotle, Physics 20‘} Ь 6 - 1 1, 13-30)

76

4 A N A XI MENE S Anaximenes was a younger contemporary o f Anaximander, and like him a Milesian. Our sources offer some precise dates, but their interpretation is controversial: we may be satisfied with the thought that Anaximenes was active in the middle o f the sixth century вс. H e is said to have been a pupil o f Anaximander. Whether or not that is literally true, his work certainly followed the same general pattern as that o f Anaximander. According to Diogenes Laertius, he wrote in ‘a sim ple and econom ical Ionian style’ - in contrast, perhaps, to Anaximander’s ‘som ew hat poetical w o rd s’. O f the various doxographical accounts o f his views, the fullest is the one given by Hippolytus: A naxim enes, son o f Eurystratus, was also a M ilesian. H e said that the first principle is infinite air, from w hich w h at is co m in g into bein g and w hat has com e into b ein g an d w hat will exist and god s and divinities com e into bein g, w hile ev ery th in g else com es into bein g from its o ffsp rin g . T h e form o f the air is this: w hen it is m ost u n ifo rm it is invisible, but it is m ad e a p p a ren t by the hot and th e cold and the m oist and th e m ovin g. It is always in m otion; fo r the things that ch a n g e w ould not ch an ge i f it w ere not in m otion. F or as it is co n d en sed an d rarefied it ap pears d ifferen t: w hen it dissolves into a m o re rarefied condition it becom es fire; and w inds, again, a re co n d en sed air, and clou d is p ro d u ced from air by com pression. A g a in , w hen it is m ore con d en sed it is w ater, w hen still fu rth e r con d en sed it is earth, and w hen it is as d en se as possible it is stones. T h u s the m ost im portan t factors in co m in g into b ein g are opposites hot and cold.

77

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

T h e earth is flat and rides on air; in the sam e way the sun an d th e m oon and the o th er h eaven ly bodies, which are all fiery, rid e th e air because o f th eir flatness. T h e h eaven ly bodies h ave com e into bein g from ea rth , because mist rose from the earth an d was rarefied an d p ro d u ced fire, and the heavenly bodies are com posed o f this fire w hen it is aloft. T h e r e are also som e earth y substances in the region o f the heavenly bodies which orbit with them . H e says that the heaven ly bodies m ove not u n d er the earth , as others have su pposed, but rou n d the earth - ju s t as a felt cap turn s on the head. A n d the sun is h idd en not because it goes u n d e r the earth but because it is screen ed by the h ig h er parts o f the earth and because o f its grea ter distance fro m us. T h e heaven ly bodies d o not heat us because o f th eir g rea t distance. W inds a re g en era ted w h en the air is con d en sed and driven along. A s it collects to g eth er and is fu rth e r thickened , clouds a re g en era ted and in this way it ch an ges into w ater. H ail com es ab o u t w h en the w ater fallin g from the clouds solidifies, and snow w hen these sam e things solidify in a m ore w atery form . L ig h tn in g o ccu rs w hen the clou d s a re parted by the force o f winds; fo r w hen they part a b righ t and fiery flash occurs. Rain­ bows are gen erated w hen the su n ’s rays fall on com pacted air; earth q u akes w h en the earth is considerably altered by heating an d cooling. T h e s e a re the views o f A n axim en es. H e flo urish ed in the first year o f the fifty-eigh th O lym p iad [548/547 в с ]. (H ippolytu s, Refutation o f A ll Heresies I vii 1-9) The curious reference to felt caps may go back to Anaximenes himself, as may the notion o f the stars ‘riding’ on air. Anaximenes seems to have liked such similes: he also held that the sun is ‘flat like a l e a f and (perhaps) that the stars are ‘fixed into the crystalline like nails’ ([Plutarch], On the Scientific Beliefs o f the Philosophers 890D,

889л). Hippolytus’ account o f the earth’s flatness can be supplemented by a passage from Aristotle: A n a x im e n es and A n a x a g o ra s and D em ocritus say that the

78

ANAXIMENES

flatness [o f the earth] causes it to rest w h ere it is. F or it does not cut the air beneath bu t covers it like a lid. Flat bodies are observed to d o this - fo r they are not easily m oved even by the winds because o f th eir resistance. T h e y say that becau se o f its flatness the earth does the sam e th in g in relation to the air und erneath it (which, not havin g en o u g h room to m ove away, stays m otionless in a mass below), like the w ater in a clepsydra. (A ristotle, On the Heavens 294b 1 3 -2 1 ) Three texts have been supposed to contain a few ofAnaximenes’ own words. O r should we, as old A n a x im en es th o u g h t, treat the hot and the cold not as substances bu t rath er as com m on p ro p erties o f m atter which su p e rv en e u p o n changes? F or he says that m atter which is concentrated and con d en sed is cold , while that w hich is rare and slack (that is the w ord he uses) is hot. [ 13 в 1] H en ce it is not unreasonably said that m en release both hot and cold from their m ouths; fo r the breath is cooled w hen it is com ­ pressed and cond en sed by the lips, bu t w hen the m ou th is relaxed and it is ex h a led it becom es hot by reason o f its rare­ ness. (Plutarch, The Primary Cold 947F) A naxim enes, son o f E urystratus, a M ilesian, asserted that air is the first prin ciple o f the things that exist; fo r ev ery th in g com es into b ein g fro m air an d is resolved again into it. F or exam p le, our souls, h e says, being air, hold us together, and breath and air contain the whole world (‘air’ and ‘b reath ’ are used syn on y­ m ously). [в 2] ([Plutarch], On the Scientific Beliefs o f the Philosophers 876 а в) A n axim en es believes that th ere is a single, m oving, infinite first principle o f all existing things, nam ely air. F or he says this: Air is close to the incorporeal; and because we come into being by an outflowing o f air, it is necessary fo r it to be both infinite and rich because it never gives out. [в 3] ([O lym piodorus], On the Divine and Sacred Art o f the Philosopher’s Stone 25)

79

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

In the Plutarch passage the only word that can be ascribed to Anaxi­ menes is ‘slack’, but the content o f the text may be Anaximenean. The parenthetical comment at the end o f pseudo-Plutarch shows that he purports to quote Anaximenes; but the citation can hardly be literal (and its sense is obscure). The fragment’ quoted by pseudo-Olympiodorus is regarded as spurious by most scholars.

80

5 PYTHAGORAS We are told more about Pythagoras—his life, his character, his beliefs— than about any other Presocratic philosopher. For the school o f thought to which he gave his name lasted fo r more than a millennium, and several works by later Pythagoreans have survived. Yet in many ways Pythagoras is the most obscure and perplexing o f all the early thinkers. Pythagoras himself did not set down his notions in writing, nor did his early followers. (This is the orthodox modem view; but, as we shall see, there was disagreement among the ancients on the point.) In the fifth century there occurred a division among the Pythagoreans, each group claiming to be the genuine heirs o f the Master. Later, in the fourth century, the histories o f Pythagoreanism and o f Platonism became closely connected, and as a result accounts o f Pythagorean philosophy became contaminated with Platonic material. Later still, various Pythagorean documents were produced and circulated, pro­ jecting back on to Pythagoras himself philosophical ideas o f a more recent age. It is difficult to cut through this jungle and discover the original Pythagoras. Legends rapidly collected about his name. I f we attempt to disen­ tangle the few threads o f historical truth, we shall conclude that Pythagoras was bom on the island o f Samos, in about 5 70 вс. Some thirty years later he left the island, which was then ruled by the culti­ vated autocrat Polycrates, and emigrated to Croton in south Italy. H e appears to have become a figure o f consequence in the political life o f Croton, and to have aroused some hostility among the citizens. A t all events, he was eventually obliged to leave town: he settled in the nearby city o f Metapontum, where he died. This chapter sets out the most important o f the early texts which refer

81

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

to Pythagoras, and reports the few doctrines which can be ascribed to him with any confidence. Later chapters will deal with fifth-century Pythagoreanism, and with Hippasus and Philolaus, the only Preso­ cratic Pythagoreans about whom we have any substantial evidence. Pythagoras is mentioned by Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Ion and (per­ haps) Empedocles: A s to [P ythagoras’] h avin g becom e d iffe re n t p eo p le at d iffe r ­ en t tim es, X en o p h a n es bears witness in a n eleg y w hich begins with th e line: Now I will attempt another theme and show the path . . . W h at he says ab o u t him goes like this: A nd once when he passed a puppy that was being whipped they say he took pity on it and made this remark: ‘Stop, do not beat it; fo r it is the soul o f a dear friend I recognized it when I heard the voice’. [21 в 7] (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V I I I 36) [H eraclitus] was u n com m on ly a rro g a n t and contem ptuou s, as in d eed is clear fro m his treatise itself, in w hich he says: M uch learning does not teach sense — otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and, Hecataeus. [22 в 40] {ibid IX 1) Som e say that P ythagoras d id not leave a single w ritten w ork beh in d him . T h e y a re in erro r; at any rate, H eraclitus the natural scientist pretty well shouts it o u t w hen he says: Pythagoras, son o f Mnesarchus, practised inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he manufactured a wisdom fo r himself— much learning, artful knavery. [22 в 126] ' {ibid V III 6) Ion o f C h io s in his Triads says that P ythagoras w rote som e things an d attrib uted them to O rp h eu s. {ibid VIII 8)

82

PYTHAGORAS

Ion o f Chios says ab o u t [Pherecydes]: Thus he, excelling in courage and also in honour, even after death possesses in his soul a pleasant life i f indeed Pythagoras is truly wise, who above all men learned and gained knowledge. [36 в 4] (ibid I 120) E m pedocles bears witness to this w hen he says o f [Pythagoras]: Among them was a man o f immense knowledge who had obtained the greatest wealth o f mind, an exceptional master o f every kind o f wise work. For when he stretched out with all his mind he easily saw each and every thing in ten or twenty human generations. [31 в 129] (P o rp h yry, Life o f Pythagoras 30) Pythagoras is referred to by the fifth-century historian Herodotus: A s I learn fro m th e G reek s w h o live on the H ellesp on t a n d the Black Sea, this Salm oxis was hu m an a n d lived as a slave in Sam os - he was a slave to P yth agoras, th e son o f M nesarchus. T h e n h e gained his freed o m and accu m ulated a la rg e sum o f m oney, and h avin g d o n e so retu rn e d to his ow n co u n try . B u t since the T h racia n s led m iserable lives and w ere ra th e r stu p id , Salm oxis, w ho was acqu ain ted with th e Ion ian w ay o f life an d with m anners m ore civilized than those o f th e T h ra c ia n s (he had, a fte r all, associated with G reek s - an d w ith P yth agoras w ho was b y n o m eans th e feeblest o f th e G re e k sages), p re ­ p ared a banqueting-hall w h ere h e en tertain ed an d feasted the lead in g citizens. A n d h e tau g h t th em that n e ith er h e n o r his fellow -drin kers n o r any o f th eir d escend an ts w ou ld d ie but w ould com e to a co u n try w h ere th ey w o u ld live fo r e v e r in possession o f all g o o d things. In th e place w h ere h e h ad d o n e and said w hat I have rep o rted h e bu ilt an u n d e rg ro u n d cham ber. W h en the ch a m b er was co m p leted h e van ish ed from am o n g the T h racia n s, d esce n d in g into th e u n d e rg ro u n d cham ber and stayin g th ere fo r th ree years. T h e y m issed him and m ou rn ed fo r him as th o u g h h e w e re d ea d . B u t in th e

83

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

fo u rth y e a r he a p p ea red to th e T h ra cia n s - and in this way w hat Salm oxis had said a p p ea re d plausible to them . T h a t is w hat th ey say he d id . A s fo r th e m an an d his u n d erg ro u n d ch am ber, I n eith er disbelieve the story n o r place too m uch cred it in it - and I thin k that Salm oxis lived m any years earlier than Pythagoras. (H ero d o tu s, Histories IV 9 5 -д б ) Plato mentions Pythagoras once: W ell, th en, i f H om er did no public service, is he said to have becom e d u rin g his lifetim e an ed u cational lead er in private, with p u p ils w ho loved him fo r his co m p an y and w ho handed d ow n a H om eric way o f life to their successors - like Pythag­ oras, w h o was h im self particu larly loved on this accoun t and w hose successors even now talk o f a P yth agorean m ode o f life and are th o u g h t to stand o u t fro m o th er m en? (Plato, Republic 600 а в) Isocrates the orator, who was a contemporary o f Plato, has the follow­ ing account: I am not the only m an o r the first to have observed [the piety o f th e Egyptians]: m any, both now and in the past, have d on e so, in clu d in g P ythagoras o f Sam os, w h o w ent to E gyp t and studied with the Egyptians. H e was the first to brin g philo­ sop h y to G reece, and in p articu lar he was co n cern ed , m ore conspicu ou sly than a n yon e else, with m atters to d o with sacri­ fices and tem ple purification s, th in k in g that even if this w ould gain him n o advan tage fro m the god s it w ould at least bring him h igh rep u te a m o n g m en. A n d that is w hat h ap p en e d . For he so e x cee d ed o th ers in rep u tation that all th e y o u n g m en d esired to be his pupils, w hile the o ld e r m en w ere m ore pleased to see th eir ch ild ren associating with him than looking a fte r th eir ow n a ffairs. N o r can w e distrust th eir ju d g e m e n t; fo r even now those w ho claim to be his pupils receive fo r their silence m ore adm iration than those w h o have th e greatest repu tation fo r speaking. (Isocrates, Busiris 28-29)

84

PYTHAGORAS

Some o f the legends about Pythagoras were collected by Aristotle in his lost work O n the P ythagorean s. Here is a representative sample: Pythagoras, the son o f M nesarchus, first stu d ied m athem atics and num bers bu t later also in d u lg ed in the m iracle-m o n g erin g o f Pherecydes. W hen at M etapontu m a ca rgo ship was e n te r­ ing h arbo u r and the o n loo kers w ere p ra y in g that it w ould d ock safely because o f its cargo , he stood u p and said: ‘Y o u will see that this ship is ca rry in g a co rp se.’ A g ain , in C a u lo n ia , as A ristotle says, < h e fo reto ld the ap p ea ra n ce o f th e w hite shebear; and A risto tle> in his w ritings abo u t him tells m any stor­ ies in clu din g the o n e ab o u t the poisonous sn ake in T u sca n y which bit him and w hich he bit back and killed. A n d he fo r e ­ told to the P ythagorean s the co m in g strife - which is w hy he left M etapontum w ithou t b ein g observed by an ybody. A n d while he was crossin g th e river Casas in co m p an y with o th ers he heard a su p erh u m an voice sayin g ‘H ail, P yth ago ras’ — and those w ho w ere th ere w ere terrified . A n d o n ce he a p p ea re d both in C ro to n an d in M etapon tu m o n th e sam e d ay a n d at the sam e h o u r. O n ce, w h en he was sitting in th e th eatre, h e stood u p , so A ristotle says, an d revealed to th e au d ien ce his own thigh, which was m ad e o f g old . Several o th er p arad oxical stories are told o f him ; but since I d o not w ant to be a m ere transcriber, en o u g h o f P ythagoras. (A p o llon iu s, Marvellous Stones 6) A large body o f teachings came to be ascribed to Pythagoras. They divide roughly into two categories, the mathematico-metaphysical and the moral - as the poet Callimachus put it, Pythagoras was the first to draw triangles and p o lygon s and *to bisect* the circle - and to teach m en to abstain from livin g things. {Iambi fra g m en t 19 1.6 0 -6 2 P feiffer) Most modem scholars are properly sceptical o f these ascriptions, and their scepticism is nothing new. The best ancient commentary on Pythagoras’ doctrines is to be found in a passage o f Porphyry:

85

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

P ythagoras acqu ired a g reat repu tation : he w on m any fol­ low ers in the city o f C ro to n itself (both m en and w om en, one o f w hom , T h e a n o , ach ieved som e fam e), and m any from the nearby fo reign territory, both kings and n o b 'em en . W hat he said to his associates no-on e can say with any certainty; fo r they p reserved n o o rd in a ry silence. B u t it becam e very well known to everyo n e that he said, first, that the soul is im m ortal; then, that it ch an ges into o th e r kinds o f anim als; and fu rth e r, that at certain p eriod s w h atever has h a p p en e d h appen s again, th ere b ein g n o th in g absolutely new; an d that all living things should be co n sidered as b elo n g in g to the sam e kind. P ythagoras seem s to have been th e first to in trod u ce these d octrines into G reece. (P o rp h yry, Life o f Pythagoras 19) The theory o f metempsychosis, or the transmigration o f the soul, is implicitly ascribed to Pythagoras by Xenophanes in the text quoted above. Herodotus also mentions it: T h e E gyptians w ere the first to ad van ce the idea that the soul is im m ortal an d that w hen the body dies it en ters into an oth er anim al w hich is then bein g born ; w hen it has g o n e rou n d all the creatu res o f th e land, th e sea and th e air, it again enters into th e b o d y o f a m an which is then b ein g born ; an d this cycle takes it th ree thou san d years. So m e o f the G reek s - som e earlier, som e later — p u t fo rw a rd this idea as th ou gh it w ere th eir ow n: I know their nam es bu t I d o not transcribe them . (H ero d o tu s, Histories II 123) The names Herodotus coyly refrains from transcribing will have included that o f Pythagoras. Two later passages are worth quoting even though they belong to the legendary material. H eraclides o f Pontus reports that [Pythagoras] tells th e follow ­ in g story o f him self: h e was o n ce born as A eth alid es and was co n sid ered to be the son o f H erm es. H erm es invited him to ch oose w h atever h e w anted, e x cep t im m ortality; so he asked that, alive and d ead , he shou ld rem em b er w hat h a p p en ed to him . T h u s in his life he rem em b ered ev eryth in g , and w h en he 86

PYTHAGORAS

died he retained the sam e m em ories. Som e tim e later he becam e E u p h o rb u s an d was w o u n d ed by M enelaus. E u p h orbu s used to say that he had o n ce been A eth a lid es an d had acquired the g ift from H erm es and learn ed o f th e circu l­ ation o f his soul - how it had circu lated, into w hat plants and anim als it h ad passed, w hat his soul had su ffe re d in H ades a n d what o th e r souls e x p erien ced . W h en E u p h o rb u s d ie d , his soul passed into H erm otim us, w ho h im self w anted to g ive a p r o o f and so w ent to B ran ch id ae, en tered the tem p le o f A p o llo and pointed to the shield w hich M enelaus had d ed ica ted (he said that he had d edicated the shield to A p o llo w hen h e sailed back from T ro y ); it had by then d ecayed an d all that was le ft was the ivory boss. W h en H erm otim u s d ied , h e becam e P yrrh u s, the Delian fisherm an; an d again h e rem em b ered e v e ry th in g how he had been first A eth a lid es, th en E u p h o rb u s, then H erm otim us, then Pyrrhus. W h en P yrrh u s d ie d , h e becam e Pythagoras and rem em b ered e v ery th in g I h ave related . (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V I I I 4 -5 ) Pythagoras believed in m etem psychosis an d th o u g h t th at eat­ ing m eat was an abom in able th in g, saying that the souls o f all anim als en ter d iffe r e n t anim als a fter d eath . H e h im se lf used to say that he rem em b ered bein g, in T ro ja n tim es, E u p h o rb u s, Panthus’ son, w ho was killed by M enelaus. T h e y say th at on ce when h e was staying at A rg o s he saw a shield fro m th e spoils o f T r o y nailed u p, and bu rst into tears. W h en th e A rg iv e s asked him the reason fo r his em otion , h e said th at h e h im self had bo rn e that shield at T r o y w h en h e was E u p h o rb u s. T h e y did not believe him an d ju d g e d him to be m ad , b u t h e said he w ould p rovid e a tru e sign that it was in d eed th e case: on the inside o f the shield th ere had been inscribed in archaic letter­ ing e u p h o r b u s . B ecau se o f the ex tra o rd in a ry n a tu re o f his claim they all u rg e d that the shield be taken d ow n — an d it turn ed ou t that on the inside the inscription was fo u n d . (D iodoru s, Universal History X vi 1 -3 ) The theory o f transmigration was later adopted by Empedocles: further texts will be found in the chapter under his name.

87

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

The idea o f eternal recurrence had a wide currency in later Greek thought. It is ascribed to ‘the P yth ago rean s’ in a passage from Sim­ plicius: T h e P yth agorean s too used to say that numerically the sam e things o ccu r again and again. It is w o rth setting dow n a passage fro m the third bo ok o f E u d em u s’ Physics in w hich he p ara­ phrases th eir views: O n e m igh t w o n d er w h eth er o r not the sam e dm e recurs as som e say it does. N ow we call th in gs ‘the sam e’ in d ifferen t ways: things the sam e in kind plainly r e c u r — e.g. sum m er a n d w in ter and the o th e r seasons and periods; again, m otions recu r th e sam e in kind — fo r the sun com pletes the solstices and th e eq u in o x es and the o th er m ovem ents. B u t i f we a re to believe the P yth agorean s and hold that things the sam e in n u m b er recu r - that you will be sitting h ere and I shall talk to you , h o ld in g this stick, and so on fo r ev ery th in g else - then it is plausible that the sam e tim e too recurs. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 73 2.2 3 -3 3 ) Eternal recurrence, like metempsychosis, will be found again in con­ nection with Empedocles.

88

6 ALCMAEON Alcmaeon came from Croton. The township was famous fo r its doctors and Alcmaeon himself was a medical man, the first o f a distinguished line o f Greek philosopher-physicians. No dates are recordedfo r his life; but he is said to have been a younger contemporary o f Pythagoras, and he was probably active in the early part o f the fifth century вс. The short notice on Alcmaeon by Diogenes Laertius is worth quoting in full: A lcm aeon o f C ro to n : he too h ea rd P ythagoras. M ost o f w hat he says concern s m edicin e; nevertheless h e som etim es en gages in natural science too - w hen he says: Most human things come in pairs. H e is th ou g h t to have been the first to co m pose a treatise on natural science (as F avorinus says in his Universal History), and to have h eld that the m oon and ev ery th in g a bove it possess an eternal nature. H e was the son o f P eirithous, as he h im self says at th e b e g in ­ nin g o f his treatise: Alcmaeon o f Croton, son ofPeirithous, said this to Brontinus and Leo and В athyllus: A bout matters invisible the gods possess clarity, but as fa r as humans may judge etc. [24 в i] H e said that the soul is im m ortal an d that it m oves con tin u ously like the sun. (D iogenes L aerd u s, Lives o f the Philosophers V I I I 83) Brontinus, Leo, and В athyllus are elsewhere said to have been Pythagoreans - Brontinus being a relation by marriage o f Pythagoras himself.

89

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

Diogenes’ first ‘quotation’, about things coming in pairs, is in fact taken from a report in Aristotle: A lcm aeo n held sim ilar views to [the P ythagoreans]. F or he says that m ost hu m an things com e in pairs, sp eakin g not, like them , o f a d eterm in ate set o f opposition s bu t rath er o f a haphazard collection - such as black an d w hite, sw eet an d b itter, g oo d and bad, g rea t and sm all. (A ristotle, Metaphysics 986330-34) These oppositions had a medical application: A lcm aeo n says that health is co n served by egalitarianism a m o n g th e p o w e rs—w et and d ry , cold and hot, bitter an d sweet and the re st—an d that autocracy am o n g them prod u ces illness; fo r the au to cracy o f e ith er p a rtn er is d estructive. A n d illness com es about by an excess o f heat o r cold , from a su rfeit o r d eficien cy o f n ou rish m en t, and in the blood o r the m arrow o r the brain. It som etim es o ccu rs in them fro m extern a l causes too - w ater o f a particu lar kind, o r locale, o r fatigu e, o r con­ straint, o r so m eth in g else o f that sort. H ealth is the p ro p o rtio n ­ ate b len d in g o f the qualities. ([Plutarch], On the Scientific Beliefs o f the Philosophers 9 1 1 a )

Alcmaeon’s ideas about the immortality o f the soul, mentioned in Diogenes, are reported at slightly greater length by Aristotle: A lcm aeo n seem s to have held a sim ilar view ab o u t the soul. F or he says th at it is im m ortal because it is like the im m ortals a n d that it is like them in sofar as it is alw ays in m otion. F or the divinities too a re always in co n tin u o u s m otion — the m oon, the sun , the stars an d the w hole heaven. (A ristotle, On the Soul 4 0 5 3 2 9 ^ 1) A t the same time, he held that men, unlike their souls, perish: A lcm aeo n says that m en d ie because they can n ot attach the 90

ALCMAEON

b egin n in g to th e en d — a cleve r sayin g i f you take it to have been m eant loosely an d d o n o t try to m ake it precise. ([Aristotle], Problems 9 16 3 3 3 -3 7 )

Theophrastus’ essay on the senses contains a summary o f Alcmaeon's views on perception: O f those w h o d o not exp lain p ercep tio n by sim ilarity, A lc­ m aeon first d efines the d ifferen ces a m o n g anim als. F or he says that hum ans d iffe r fro m the o th e r anim als because they a lo n e u n d erstan d , w h ereas th e o thers p erceive bu t d o not u n d e r­ stand. (H e su pposes that th in kin g and p erceiv in g a re distinct, not - as E m ped ocles hold s - the sam e thing.) T h e n he discusses each o f th e senses. H e says that we h ea r with o u r ears because th ere is an em p ty space inside them w hich echoes: the cavity sou nd s and the air ech oes in retu rn . W e sm ell with o u r noses at the sam e tim e as we b rea th e in, d raw in g th e b reath tow ards th e brain . W e d iscrim in ate fla­ vours with o u r ton gu es; fo r, b ein g so ft and w arm , th ey dissolve things with th eir heat, an d th ey accept and transm it them because they are loose-textured an d delicate. T h e eyes see th ro u gh the w ater su rro u n d in g them . It is clear that th ey co n ­ tain fire; fo r w hen th ey a re struck it flashes out. T h e y see by the gleam in g and tran sp aren t part, w hen it reflects — an d the p u re r it is, th e b etter th ey see. A ll the senses a re som ehow co n n ected to th e brain . T h a t is w hy they a re incapacitated i f it is m oved o r d isplaced; fo r it obstructs the passages th ro u g h w hich the senses w ork. A s fo r tou ch, h e said n eith er how n o r by w hat m eans it works. So m uch fo r A lcm aeo n ’s views. (T h eo p h ra stu s, On the Senses 2 5 -2 6 ) In this connection the following report deserves mention (although scholars have doubted its veracity): W e m ust now g ive an acco u n t o f the n atu re o f th e eye. O n this

9l

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

subject m an y scientists, in clu d in g A lcm aeo n o f C ro to n (who busied h im self with natural science and w h o was the first to u n d erta ke d isse ctio n s). . . pu blished m uch o f value. (Calcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus ccxlvi 279) Finally, there is an isolated moral maxim: A lcm aeo n o f C ro to n says that it is easier to be on y o u r gu ard against an en em y than against a frien d . (C lem ent, Miscellanies V I ii 16.1)

92

7 XE N OP HA NE S Xenophanes, who came from Colophon in Ionia, was a man o f many parts. H e was a peripatetic poet, who travelled about Greece reciting his own and other men’s verses. H e wrote on traditional poetical subjects drink, love, war, games - and also on historical themes. A number o f his verses are philosophical in content. The later tradition regarded him as a serious philosopher, the teacher o f Parmenides and the founder o f the Eleatic school o f thought. Many modem scholars have doubted whether he was a systematic thinker, and some have denied that he ever wrote a properly philosophical poem. However that may be, there are enough surviving fragments to warrant our calling him a philo­ sopher — and indeed to justify our regarding him as one o f the early philosophical geniuses o f Greece. According to Diogenes Laertius,

he w rote in verse, both elegiac an d iam bic, against H esiod and H om er, cen su rin g th em fo r th eir rem arks ab o u t th e gods. H e also recited his ow n poem s. H e is said to h ave d isa greed with T h a le s and with P yth agoras, and to have attacked E pim enides. H e lived to an ad van ced age, as he h im self says: By now have seven and sixty years been tossing my thought about the land o f Greece; and from my birth there were twenty five to add to them i f I know how to speak truly about these things. [21 в 8] (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 18)

Xenophanes, by his own reckoning, was ninety-three when he wrote these lines. H e is said to have lived to be over a hundred, and the rest

93

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

o f our evidence suggests that his life spanned the century from 580 to 480 вс. Not all his surviving verses deserve a place here, but I shall translate all the extant fragments which have philosophical content. (The frag­ ment on Pythagoras has already been cited in Chapter Five.) They divide roughly into three groups: on knowledge, on the gods, on nature. In the later tradition, Xenophanes acquired a reputation fo r sceptic­ ism. It rested primarily on the first o f the following three fragments. A c c o rd in g to som e, X en o p h a n es takes this sceptical position, sayin g that e v ery th in g is in ap p reh en sible w hen he writes: A nd the clear truth no man has seen nor will anyone know concerning the gods and about all the things o f which I speak; fo r even i f he should actually manage to say what was indeed the case, nevertheless he himselfdoes not know it; but beliefisfound over all. [в 34] (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians V 11 49) A m m on iu s p refa ced his rem arks, as h e usually does, with the line o f X en oph an es: Let these things be believed as similar to the truth, [в 35] a n d invited us to state and say w hat we believed. (Plutarch, Table Talk 746B) N o com p aratives e n d in g in -on h ave a p en u ltim ate upsilon; h en ce X en o p h a n es’ glusson [‘sw eeter’] is rem arkable: I f god had not made yellow honey, they would say that the fig was fa r sweeter, [в 38] (H ero d ian , On Singularities o f Language 946.22-24) But Xenophanes also spoke in a modestly optimistic way about the pro­ gress o f human knowledge: X en o p h an es: Not from the start did the gods reveal all things to mortals, but in time, by inquiring, they make better discoveries, [в 18] (Stobaeus, Anthology I viii 2)

94

XENOPHANES

In verbs en d in g in -si the p en u ltim ate syllable is n aturally lon g . . . B u t the poets o ften m ake it short, as in X en o p h an es: Since all at first have learned, from Homer . . . [в ю ] and again: As many things as are clear for mortals to see . . . [в 36] (H ero d ian , On Double Quantities 16. 17 -2 2 ) Among the theological fragments there are several which are sharply critical o f traditional religious notions: [T h e m yths o f the th eologians and poets] a re full o f im piety; h ence X en o p h an es in his criticism o f H om er and H esiod says: Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all the things which among men are shameful and blameworthy theft and adultery and mutual deception, [в 11 ] (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians IX 193) H om er and H esiod, a cco rd in g to X en o p h a n es o f C o lo p h o n , told many lawless deeds o f the gods — theft and adultery and mutual deception, [в 12] (ibid I 289) X enoph anes o f C o lo p h o n , claim in g that g o d is o n e and in co r­ poreal, says: There is one god, greatest among gods and men, similar to mortals neither in shape nor in thought, [в 23] A n d again: But mortals think that the gods are bom, and have clothes and speech and shape like their own. [в 14] A n d again: But i f cows and horses or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and make the things men can make, then horses would draw the forms o f gods like horses, cows like cows, and they would make their bodies similar in shape to those which each had themselves, [в 15] (Clem ent, Miscellanies V xiv 10 9 .1-3 )

95

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

T h e G reeks su ppose that the god s have not only hum an shapes but also h um an feelings: ju s t as each race depicts th eir shapes as sim ilar to their ow n, as X en o p h a n es o f C o lo p h o n says (the E thiopians m akin g them d ark and snub-nosed, the T h racian s red-h aired and blue-eyed), so too they invent souls fo r them sim ilar to th eir own. (Clem ent, Miscellanies V I I iv 22.1: c f в 16) Further fragments reveal a positive side to Xenophanes' thought about the gods, and the doxography suggests (perhaps anachron­ istically) that his views were elaborated with some sophistication and detail. I f the d ivine exists, it is a living th in g; if it is a living thin g, it sees — fo r he sees as a whole, he thinks as a whole, he hears as a whole. [в 24] I f it sees, it sees both w hite things and black. (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians IX 144) T h eo p h ra stu s says that X en o p h a n es o f C o lo p h o n , the teach er o f P arm enides, su pposed that the first prin ciple, o r the existin g u niverse, was on e and neith er finite n o r infinite, n eith er ch a n g in g n o r changeless. T h eo p h ra stu s allows that the accoun t o f his view s belongs to a d iffe r e n t inquiry from the study o f n atu re; fo r X en o p h an es said that this o n e universe was go d . H e shows that g o d is o n e fro m the fact that he is most p o w erfu l o f all things; fo r i f th ere w ere m ore than one, he says, they w ould all have to possess equ al pow er, bu t w hat is m ost p o w erfu l and best o f all things is go d . H e show ed that it was u n g en e ra ted fro m the fact that w hat com es into bein g m ust d o so eith er from w hat is sim ilar o r fro m w hat is dissim i­ lar; but sim ilar things, he says, can n ot be a ffected by one an o th e r (fo r it is no m ore fitting that w hat is sim ilar should g en era te than that it sh o u ld be g en era ted by what is sim ilar to it), and i f it com es into bein g from w hat is dissim ilar, then what is will com e fro m w hat is not. In this way he show ed it to be u n g en e ra ted and eternal. It is n eith er infinite n o r finite

96

XENOPHANES

because it is w hat does not exist w hich is infin ite (h avin g no beginn in g, no m idd le and no en d ), w hile it is several th in gs which are finite, bein g lim ited by o n e an o th er. H e d oes aw ay with ch an ge and changelessness in a sim ilar fashion: it is w hat d oes not exist w hich is ch angeless (fo r n o th in g else passes into itan d it does not pass into a n yth in gelse), w hile it is several things which ch an ge (fo r o n e th in g ch an ges into an oth er). H en ce when he says that it rem ains in the sam e state an d d oes not ch an ge Always he remains in the same slate, changing not at all, nor is it fitting fo r him to move now here now there [в 26] - he m eans not that it rests in virtu e o f the stationariness w hich is o p p o sed to ch a n g e bu t in virtu e o f the rest w hich is distinct from ch an ge and from stationariness. A cco rd in g to N icolaus o f Dam ascus in his w ork On Gods, h e says that the first prin ciple is infinite and changeless, and a cco rd in g to A le x a n d e r he says that it is finite and spherical. B u t it is clear fro m w hat I have said that he shows it to be neith er infinite n o r finite. ([A lex ­ a n d er supposes that] it is finite and spherical because [X enophanes] says th at it is sim ilar from all directions.) A n d he says that it thinks o f all things, w hen he writes: But fa r from toil he governs everything with his mind, [в 25] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 22.26-23.20) The fragments dealing with natural science are sparse, and require no comment. P orp h yry says that X en o p h a n es held the d ry an d th e m oist i.e. earth and w ater — to be first principles, and h e quotes an exam p le which indicates this: . Earth and water are all things which grow and come into being. [в 29] (Philoponus, Commentary on the Physics 125.27—30) X en op h an es, a cco rd in g to som e, hold s that ev ery th in g has com e into bein g from earth: For all things are from earth and in earth all things end. [в 27] . . . the poet H o m er holds that ev ery th in g has com e into bein g

97

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

from tw o thin gs, earth and w ater, . . . and a cco rd in g to som e X en o p h a n es o f C o lo p h o n agrees with him . F or he says: For we all come into being from earth and water, [в 33] (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians x 3 1 3 -3 1 4 ) X en o p h a n es in On Nature: Sea is source o f water and source o f wind; fo r neither in the clouds from inside, without the great ocean, nor would the streams o f the rivers nor the rain-water o f the air; but the great ocean is generator o f clouds and winds and rivers, [в 30] (G en eva scholium on H om er, Iliad X X I 196) X en o p h an es thinks that the earth is not alo ft but reaches d ow n w ards ad infinitum; fo r he says: O f the earth this, the upper limit, is seen at our feet next to the air; but below, it proceeds to infinity, [в 28] (A chilles, Introduction to Aratus 4) O n e sh o u ld u n d erstan d the sun to be ‘g o in g abo ve’ inasm uch as it always passes above the earth - as I thin k X en o p h an es o f C o lo p h o n also says: And the sun, passing above and warming the earth, . . . [в 31 ] (H eraclitus, Homeric Questions 44.5) X en o p h a n es says: A nd in certain caves [speatessi] the water drips down . . .

[в 37] B u t the fo rm speas does not occur. (H ero d ian , On Singularities o f Language 936.18 -2 0 ) R em em ber that X en o p h a n es describes the rainbow in his h exam eters thus: What men call Rainbow, that too is a cloud, purple and scarlet and yellow to see. [в 32] (Eustathius, Commentary on the Iliad X I 24)

98

XENOPHANES

It is worth appending the brief doxographical account which Hippo­ lytus transmits: H e says that n o th in g com es into b ein g o r is d estroyed o r changes, and that the u n iverse is o n e and changeless. H e also says that god is eternal and unique and h o m o g en eo u s in every way and lim ited and spherical and capable o f p ercep tio n in all his parts. T h e sun com es into existen ce each d ay fro m sm all sparks which co n gregate. T h e earth is infinite and su rro u n d e d neith er by air n o r by the heavens. T h e r e a re infin itely m an y suns and m oons. E veryth in g is m ad e fro m earth. H e said that th e sea is salty because m any m ixtu res flow togeth er in it. (M etrodoru s holds that it is salty because it is filtered in th e earth , but X en o p h a n es thinks that the earth m ixes with the sea.) H e holds that the earth in tim e is dissolved by the m oisture, u rg in g as p r o o f the fact that shells a re fo u n d in the m iddle o f the land and on m ountains; and he says that in the qu arries in Syracuse th ere w ere fo u n d im pressions o f fish and o f seaw eed, on Paros the im pression o f a b a y -lea f d e ep in the rock, and on M alta shapes o f all sea-creatures. H e says that these w ere fo rm ed lon g a go w hen ev ery th in g was co vered in m ud - the im pressions d ried in th e m u d. A ll m en are destroyed w hen the earth is carried d ow n into th e sea and becom es m ud; then they begin to be born again — and this is the fo u n d atio n o f all the worlds. (H ippolytu s, Refutation o f A ll Heresies I xiv 2-6)

99

8 HERACLITUS Heraclitus came from Ephesus in Asia Minor; he belonged lo an emi­ nent family; he flourished about 500 вс. His thought and his writings were notorious fo r their difficulty: he was nicknamed 'The Obscure’ and 'The Riddler’. One anecdote, no doubt apocryphal, is worth repeating: T h e y say that E u ripid es g ave [Socrates] a co py o f H eraclitus’ bo ok an d asked him w hat he th o u g h t o f it. H e rep lied : ‘W hat I u n d erstan d is sp len did ; and 1 thin k that w hat I d o n ’t u n d er­ stand is so too - bu t it w ou ld take a Delian d iver to get to the bottom o f it’. (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers II 22) Socrates’ attitude o f puzzled admiration has been shared by many later students o f Heraclitus. It is hard to know how best to present the surviving fragments o f Heraclitus' work. The Greek texts are uncertain in more cases than usual; and since Heraclitus wrote in prose it is frequently difficult to tell which words — i f any — in a given passage purport to be his. But the chief problem concerns the arrangement o f the texts; fo r any arrangement will insinuate some general interpretation o f Heraclitus’ thought, and every such interpretation is controversial. (A random ordering is no solution; for that will suggest that Heraclitus was not a systematic thinker at all, a suggestion which has itself had several scholarly advocates.) It will be uncontroversial to begin with the opening words o f Hera­ clitus’ book. After that, it may prove most helpful to quote two long and complementary doxographical texts, which incidentally have a number

100

HERACLITUS

o f important fragments embedded in them. Then the remaining frag­ ments will be collected under various thematic headings. First, then, the opening passage o f Heraclitus’ book. It is referred to by Aristotle: It is d ifficu lt to pu n ctu ate H eraclitus’ w ritings becau se it is unclear w h eth er a w ord goes with w hat follow s o r with w hat preced es it. E.g. at the very b eg in n in g o f his treatise, w h ere he says: O f this account which holdsforever men prove uncomprehending, [cf 22 в l] it is u n clear w hich ‘fo re v e r’ goes with. (A ristotle, Rhetoric 1 4 0 7 ^ 4 - 1 8 ) A longer quotation is preserved by Hippolytus (see below) and by Sextus Empiricus. I cite the passagefrom Sextus because it isfu ller (but I have tacitly altered his text once or twice in the light o f Hippolytus’ readings). A t the b egin n in g o f his w ritings o n n atu re, an d p o in tin g in som e way at the en viro n m en t, [H eraclitus] says: O f this account which holds forever men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it. For although all things come about in accordance with this account, they are like tiros as they try the words and the deeds which I expound as I divide up each thing according to its nature and say how it is. Other men fa il to notice what they do when they are awake, just as they forget what they do when asleep, [в 1] H avin g thus explicitly established that e v ery th in g w e d o o r think d ep en d s u pon participation in th e d iv in e accoun t, he continues and a little later on adds: For that reason you must follow what is common (i.e. w h at is universal - fo r ‘co m m o n ’ m eans ‘u n iversal’). But although the account is common, most men live as though they had an understanding o f their own. [в 2] (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians V I I 13 2 -1 3 3 ) The first doxographical passage comes from the R efu tatio n o f A ll

101

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

H eresies. In it Hippolylus presents what is supposed to be a rounded summary o f Heraclitus’ main ideas.

H eraclitus says that the universe is divisible and indivisible, g en era te d and u n g en e ra ted , m ortal and im m ortal, W ord and E ternity, F ath er an d Son, G o d an d Justice. Listening not to me but to the account, it is wise to agree that all things are one, [в 50] says H eraclitus. T h a t ev ery o n e is ign oran t o f this and does not a g re e h e states as follows: They do not comprehend how, in differing, it agrees with itself a backward-turning connection, like that o f a bow and a lyre. [в 5 *] T h a t an accoun t exists always, bein g the u niverse and eternal, h e says in this way: O fthis account which holdsforever men prove uncomprehending, both before hearing it and when first they have heard it. For although all things come about in accordance with this account, they are like tiros as they try the words and the deeds which I expound as I divide up each thing according to its nature and say how it is. [в 1] T h a t th e u niverse is a child and an eternal kin g o f all things fo r all etern ity he states as follows: Eternity is a child at play, playing draughts: the kingdom is a child’s, [в 52] T h a t the fa th er o f ev ery th in g that has com e a bout is g enerated and u n g en era ted , crea tu re and creato r, we h ear him saying: War is father o f all, king o f all: some it shows as gods, some as men; some it makes slaves, some free, [в 53] That connection, like that o f a bow and a lyre, [c f в 51 ] T h a t G o d is u n a p p a ren t, u nseen, u n kn ow n to m en, he says in these words: Unapparent connection is better than apparent [в 54] - h e praises and adm ires the u nkn ow n and unseen part o f his p o w er abo ve the know n part. T h a t h e is visible to m en and not u nd iscoverable he says in th e fo llo w in g w ords:

102

HERACLITUS

I honour more those things which are learned, by sight and hear­

ing’ tB 55l he says - i.e. the visible m o re than the invisible. < T h e sa m e> is easily learn ed from such w ords o f his as these: Men have been deceived, he says, as to their knowledge o f what is apparent in the same way that Homer was - and he was the wisest o f all the Greeks. For some children who were killing lice deceived him by saying: 'What we saw and caught we leave behind, what we neither saw nor caught we take with us’, [в 56] T h u s H eraclitus gives equ al ran k and h o n o u r to th e a p p a ren t and u n ap p aren t, as th ou gh th e a p p a ren t an d th e u n a p p a re n t w ere confessedly o n e. For, he says, unapparent connection is better than apparent; [в 54] and: I honour more those things which are learned by sight and hearing

[в 55] (i.e. the organs) - an d he d oes not h o n o u r the u n a p p a re n t m ore. H ence H eraclitus says that d ark an d light, bad an d g o o d , are not d iffe re n t but o n e and the sam e. F or ex a m p le, h e re­ proaches H esiod fo r not kn o w in g d ay an d n ig h t - fo r d a y and night, he says, a re o n e, ex p ressin g it thus: A teacher o f most is Hesiod: they are sure he knows most who did not recognize day and night - f o r they are one. [в 57] A n d so are g oo d and bad. F or ex a m p le, d octo rs, H eraclitus says,*w ho cut and cau terize an d w retch ed ly torm en t the sick in every way are praised - they d eserve no fee fro m the sick, fo r they have th e sam e effects as the diseases* [в 58]. A n d straight and twisted, he says, a re the sam e: The path o f the carding-combs, he says, is straight and crooked [в 59] (the m ovem ent o f th e in stru m en t called the screw -press in a fu lle r’s sh op is straigh t an d cro o k ed , fo r it travels u pw ard s and in a circle at the sam e tim e) — he says it is o n e an d the sam e. A n d u p and d ow n a re o n e and th e sam e: The path up and down is one and the same, [в 6o] A n d he says that th e p o llu ted an d th e p u re a re o n e a n d the

103

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

sam e, a n d that the d rin kab le an d the u n d rin kab le a re o ne and the sam e: The sea, he says, is most pure and most polluted water: for fish, drinkable and life-preserving; fo r men, undrinkable and deathdealing. [в 6 1 ] A n d he explicitly says that the im m ortal is m ortal and the m or­ tal im m ortal in th e fo llo w in g w ords: Immortals are mortals, mortals immortals: living their death, dying their life, [в 62] H e also speaks o f a resu rrection o f this visible flesh in which we a re b orn , and he is aw are that g o d is the cause o f this resu rrection - he says: There they are said to rise up and to become wakeful guardians o f the living and the dead, [в 63] A n d he says that a ju d g e m e n t o f the w orld and o f everyth in g in it com es about th ro u gh fire; fo r fire, he says, will come and judge and convict all things, [в 66] H e says that this fire is intelligent an d th e cause o f the m an age­ m en t o f th e universe, ex p ressin g it thus: The thunderbolt steers all things [в 64] (i.e. d irects everythin g) - by ‘the th u n d erb o lt’ he m eans the eternal fire, and he calls it need and satiety [в 65] (the establish­ m ent o f the w orld acco rd in g to him bein g need and the con ­ flagration satiety). In the fo llo w in g passage he has set d ow n all o f his own th ou g h t - an d at the sam e tim e that o f the sect o f N oetus, w hom I have briefly show n to be a disciple not o f C h rist but o f H eraclitus. F or he says that the created u niverse is itself the m aker and crea to r o f itself: God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and famine (all the opposites - that is his m eaning); but he changes like olive oil which, when it is mixed with perfumes, gets its name from the scent o f each, [в 67] It is clear to ev ery o n e that th e m indless follow ers o f N oetus and th e ch am pion s o f his sect, even if they d en y they are dis­ ciples o f H eraclitus, yet in subscribing to th e opinion s o f N oetu s evid en tly confess the sam e beliefs. (H ippolytu s, Refutation o f A ll Heresies IX ix i - x 9)

104

HERACLITUS

Diogenes Laertius’ L ife also offers a summary account, with sup­ porting quotations and paraphrases, o f Heraclitus’ thought: H eraclitus, son o f Bioson (or, as som e say, o f H eracon ), from Ephesus. H e flourished in th e sixty-ninth O lym p ia d [504/501 в с]. H e was u n co m m on ly a rro ga n t and co n tem p tu o u s, as ind eed is clear from his treatise itself, in which he says: Much learning does not teach sense — otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus. [в 40] For he says that the wise is o n e, g ra sp in g the k n o w led ge how all things are steered th ro u gh all [в 41]. A n d he said that H om er d eserved to be throw n o u t o f the gam es an d flo g g ed - and A rch ilo ch u s too. [в 42] H e also said: You should quench violence more quickly than arson, [в 43] And: The people should fight fo r the law as fo r the city wall, [в 44] H e also assails the Ephesians fo r e x p ellin g his frien d H erm odorus. H e says: The Ephesians deserve to be hanged to the last man, every one o f them: they should leave the city to the young. For they expelled Hermodorus, the best man among them, saying: ‘Let no one o f us be best: i f there is such a man, let him be elsewhere and with others.’ [в 1 2 1] W hen they asked him to w rite laws fo r them , h e refu se d on the gro u n d s that the city had a lread y been m astered by a w icked constitution. H e retired into the tem ple o f A rtem is a n d played d ice with th e ch ild ren . W hen th e Ephesians stood ro u n d him , he said: ‘W h y a re you staring? Isn’t it better to d o this than to play politics with you ?’ In the en d he becam e a m isan th rope, leavin g th e city and living in the m ountains w h ere h e fed o n plants and herbs. Because o f this he contracted d ro p sy an d retu rn ed to the tow n. H e asked the d octors in his rid d lin g fashion i f th ey cou ld ch an ge a rainstorm into a d ro u g h t. W h en th ey failed to u n d e r­ stand him , he b u ried h im self in a byre, h o p in g that the d ro p sy w ould be vaporized by th e heat o f th e d u n g . B u t h e m et with no success even by this m eans an d d ied at th e a ge o f sixty . . .

105

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

H e was rem arkable fro m an ea rly age: as a y o u n g m an, he used to say that he knew n othin g, and w hen he had becom e adu lt that he had learn ed everyth in g . H e was no-on e’s pupil, bu t said that he had inqu ired into h im self [cf в 101] and learn ed e v ery th in g from him self. Sotion reports that som e say that he was a pu pil o f X en o p h an es, an d that A risto, in his book On Heraclitus, says that h e was actually cu red o f the d ro p sy and d ied o f an o th e r disease. H ipp obo tu s too says this. T h e bo ok o f his which is in circulation is, as fa r as its general ten o r goes, on nature; but it is d ivid ed into th ree accounts o n e on the u niverse, o n e political, o n e theological. H e d ep osited it in the tem ple o f A rtem is (having, as som e say, written som ew hat unclearly) in o rd e r that the p o w erfu l should have access to it and it shou ld not easily be despised by the people. T im o n gives a sketch o f him as follows: A m o n g them H eraclitus the m ocker, the reviler o f the m ob, . the rid d ler, rose up. T h e o p h ra stu s says that because o f his im pulsive tem peram en t he w rote som e things in a half-fin ished style and others in d iffe re n t ways at d iffe re n t tim es. A s a sign o f his a rro gan ce A ntisth en es says in his Successions that he resigned from the kingship in fa vo u r o f his b roth er. H is treatise gained such a high rep u tation that it actually p ro d u ced disciples, the socalled H eracliteans. His views, in gen eral, w ere the follow ing. A ll things are con­ stituted fro m fire and resolve into fire. A ll thin gs com e about in acco rd an ce with fate, and th e things that exist a re fitted to g eth er by the transform ation o f opposites. A ll things are full o f souls and spirits. H e sp o k e also ab o u t all the events that o ccu r in the w orld, a n d h e said that the sun is the size it app ears [cf в 3]. H e also said: I f you travel every path you will not fin d the limits o f the soul, so deep is its account, [в 45] H e said th at conceit is a sort o f epilepsy, an d that sight is fal­ lacious [в 46]. Som etim es in his treatise he expresses h im self brilliantly an d clearly, so that even th e m ost stupid easily 106

HERACLITUS

understand him and gain an en la rgem en t o f soul; an d the brevity and w eight o f his style a re incom parable. In detail, his d octrines a re these. Fire is an elem en t, and all things are an ex ch a n g e fo r fire [cf в go], co m in g ab o u t by rarefaction and cond en sation. (B u t he expresses n o th in g clearly.) A ll things co m e about th ro u g h opposition, and the universe flows like a river [cf в i 2]. T h e u n iverse is finite, and there is on e w orld [cf в 30]. It is gen erated from fire and it is consum ed in fire again, altern atin g in fixed p eriod s th ro u g h ­ ou t the w hole o f tim e. A n d this hap p en s by fate. O f the opposites, that w hich leads to gen eratio n is called w ar and strife [cf в 80], and that w hich leads to co n flagratio n is called agreem en t and peace. T h e ch a n g e is a path u p and dow n [cf в 60], and the w orld is gen erated in acco rd an ce with it. F or fire as it is co n d en sed becom es m oist, and as it co h eres becom es w ater; w ater as it solidifies turns into earth — this is the path d ow nw ards. T h e n again the earth dissolves, and w ater com es into bein g fro m it, and ev ery th in g else fro m w ater (he refers pretty well e v ery th in g to the exh alation given o f f by the sea) - this is the path upw ards. Exhalations a re given o f f by the earth an d by th e sea, som e o f them brigh t an d p u re, o thers d ark . Fire is increased by the brigh t exhalations, m oisture by the others. H e d oes not indicate w hat the su rro u n d in g heaven is like. B u t th ere are bowls in it, their hollow side tu rn ed tow ards us. T h e brigh t exhalations gath er in them and p ro d u ce flam es, an d these are the heavenly bodies. T h e flam e o f the sun is the b rightest and hottest. F or the o th er heaven ly bodies a re fu rth e r aw ay fro m the earth and fo r that reason give less light an d heat, w hile the m oon, th ou gh it is n earer the earth , does not travel th ro u g h a p u re region. T h e sun , h o w ever, lies in a tran slu cen t and uncontam inated region , and it preserves a p ro p o rtio n a te d i­ stance from us; that is why it gives m ore heat and light. T h e sun and the m oon a re eclipsed w hen the bowls tu rn u p w ards. T h e m oon’s m onthly chan ges o f sh ape com e ab o u t as its bowl grad ually turns. D ay an d n igh t, the m onths and seasons and years, rains and w inds an d the like, com e abo u t in virtu e o f the d iffe re n t exhalations. F or the b righ t exh alatio n , w hen it bursts

107

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

into flam e in th e circle o f th e sun, m akes d ay, and the o pposite exh alatio n , w hen it has g ain ed p o w er, prod u ces night. A s the heat fro m th e brightness increases it m akes su m m er, and as the m oisture from the d arkn ess m ounts u p it effects winter. H e gives exp lan atio n s o f the o th e r p h en om en a in the sam e way, bu t he does not say an yth in g about w hat the earth is like, n o r even ab o u t the bowls. T h o s e w ere his views. T h e story ab o u t Socrates and w hat he said w hen he looked at th e treatise (having g o t it from E u ripid es, a cco rd in g to A risto), I h ave reco u n ted in the Life o f Socrates. Seleucus the g ram m arian , h ow ever, says that C ro to n relates in his Diver that a certain C rates first b ro u g h t the book to G reece and that it was he w ho said that it w ould take a D elian d iv er not to get d ro w n ed in it. So m e en title it Muses, o th ers On Nature; D iodotus calls it A certain steera ge to the goal o f life; oth ers Judgement, Manners, Turnings, One World fo r A l l . . . D em etrius in his Homonyms says that he despised even the A th en ian s, th ou gh he had th e highest rep u tation < a m o n g th e m > , and that th ou gh he was scorned by the Ephesians he p re fe rre d w h at was fam iliar to him . D em etrius o f Phaleron m entions him too in his Apology o f Socrates. V e ry m any p eo p le have o ffe r e d interpretation s o f his treatise: A ntisth en es, H eraclides o f Pontus, C lean th es, Sp h a eru s the Stoic, Pausanias (w ho was called th e H eraclitean), N icom ed es, D ionysius - and o f the gram m arian s, D iodotus, w h o says that the treatise is not ab o u t n atu re bu t ab o u t politics and th at the rem arks on nature a re th ere by way o f illustrations. H iero n ym u s says that Scythinus the iam bic p o et attem pted to p u t his acco u n t into verse. (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 1 - 3 ,5 - 1 2 ,1 5 ) The rest o f the chapter assembles the remaining fragments, together with some paraphrastic texts. Let me stress again that the distinction between quotation and paraphrase is often hard to make out, and that the reliability o f purported paraphrases and quotations is often uncertain. After two short passages from Stobaeus, the texts are grouped roughly by subject matter, the main themes o f which have been 108

HERACLITUS

indicated in the passages already cited. But assignment to these groups is fairly arbitrary; in addition, when two texts are quoted together in an ancient source I have kept them together even i f they deal with different issues. First, there are two short sequences o f quotations, or purported quot­ ations, in the A n th o lo g y o f John Stobaeus. H eraclitus: O f those whose accounts I have heard, no-one has come so fa r as to recognize that the wise is set apart from all things, [в io8] It is better to hide folly than to make it public, [в 109] It is not good fo r men to get all they want, [в n o ] Sickness makes health sweet and good, hunger plenty, weariness rest, [в 1 1 1 ] To be temperate is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature. [B 1 1 2 ]

Thinking is common to all. [в 113] Speaking with sense one should rely on what is common to all, as a city on its law - and with yet greater reliance. For all human laws are nourished by the one divine; fo r it is as powerful as it wishes, and it suffices fo r all, and it prevails, [в 114] Socrates: Soul has a self-increasing account, [в 115 ] (Stobaeus, Anthology III i 17 4 -18 0 ) H eraclitus: A ll men can know themselves and be temperate, [в 1 16] A man when he is drunk is led by a boy, stumbling, not knowing where he goes, his soul moist, [в 117 ] A dry soul is wisest and best, [в 1 18] (ibid III v 6-8 ) [Despite Stobaeus’ heading, в 1 1 5 is universally ascribed by scholars to Heraclitus rather than to Socrates. On the other hand, the authen­ ticity o f в 1 09, в 1 12, в i 13 and в 1 1 6 has frequently been doubted.] The first group o f texts documents Heraclitus’ attitude to ordinary mortals and to other thinkers. 109

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

‘L et th y fo u n tain s be d ispersed abroad , and rivers o f waters in th e streets’ [Proverbs 5:16]. For most people do not understand the things they meet ivith, nor do they know when they have learned; but they seem to themselves to do so, [в 17] a cco rd in g to the g o o d H eraclitus. So you see that he too finds fau lt with unbelievers. (Clem ent, Miscellanies II ii 8.1) T h e Ionian M uses [i.e. H eraclitus] say explicitly that m ost m en w h o th in k them selves wise follow the p o p u la r singers and *obey the laws*, not kn o w in g that m ost m en a re bad and few goo d [cf в 104], but that the best p u rsu e repu tation . For the best, he says, choose one thing in return fo r all: everflowing fame from mortals; but most men satisfy themselves like beasts, [в 29] m easu rin g happiness by the belly and the genitals and the m ost sh am efu l parts in us. (ibid V ix 5 9.4 -5) H eraclitus caustically rem arks that som e p eo p le are w ithout faith, not knowing how to hear or even to speak [в 19] - he was a id ed h ere, no d ou bt, by Solom on: ‘ I f thou desire to hear, thou shalt receive; an d i f thou incline thine ear, thou shalt be wise’ [Ecclesiasticus 6:33]. (ibid II v 24.5) T h e excellen t H eraclitus rightly exco riates the m ob as un­ intelligent and irrational. For what sense or thought, he says, do they have? They follow the popular singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad and few good, [в 104] T h u s H eraclitus - which is w hy T im o n called him ‘the reviler o f the m ob ’. (Proclus, Commentary on the First Alcibiades 2 5 6 .1-6 ) T h e co n tem p tu o u s and the brash get little ben efit from what

110

HERACLITUS

they hear, while those w h o a re cred u lo u s and guileless are harm ed - they confirm H eraclitu s’ saying: A foolish man is put in a flutter by every word, [в 87] (Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures 40F) Iam blichus, On the Soul: H ow m uch better, then, is H era­ clitus, who regard s h u m an opinion s as ch ild ren ’s toys, [в 70] (Stobaeus, Anthology l l i 16) Som e say that P ythagoras d id not leave a sin gle w ritten w ork behind him. T h e y a re in erro r; at any rate, H eraclitu s the natural scientist pretty well shouts it o u t w hen he says: Pythagoras, son o f Mnesarchus, practised inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he manufact­ ured a wisdom fo r himself — much learning, artful knavery. [в 129] (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V I II 6) Bias is also m ention ed b y H ip p o n ax , as I said b e fo re , and the fastidious H eraclitus g ave particu lar praise to him w hen he wrote: In Priene lived Bias, son o f Teutames, who is o f more account than the others, [в 39] (ibid I 88) H eraclitus says that H om er is an a stro n om er on the basis o f this line [nam ely / fta d X V III 25> ]and [Iliad V I 488]. [в 105] (Scholiasts A and T to H om er, Iliad X V I I I 251) T h e orators’ Introduction ben ds all its th eorem s to this en d [sc. deception] and is, a cco rd in g to H eraclitus, the lead er o f cheats, [в 81] (Philodem us, Rhetoric I 3 5 1S) The second group o f passages, closely connected with the first, indicates Heraclitus’ attitude to the scope and nature o f human knowledge. N evertheless, [Celsus] w anted to show that this too was a

111

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

fiction w e [Christians] had taken fro m the G reek philo­ sop h ers w h o said that h u m an w isdom is o n e th in g, d ivine wis­ d om an o th er. A n d he quotes rem arks o f H eraclitus, in on e o f w hich h e says: For human nature has no insights, divine nature has; [в 78] and in another: A man is called foolish by a god as a child is by a man. [в 79] (O rigen , Against Celsus V I xii) In all respects su p e rio r to us, [god] is especially u nlike and d iffe re n t from us in his acts; but o f d ivin e acts, the m ajority, a cco rd in g to H eraclitus, escape our knowledge through lack o f faith, [в 86] (Plutarch, Coriolanus 232D) Those who search fo r gold, says H eraclitus, dig over much earth and fin d little, [в 22] (C lem ent, Miscellanies IV ii 4.2) P erh ap s g o d is not w illing that such h arm o n y should ever be fo u n d a m o n g m en. For nature, acco rd in g to H eraclitus, likes to hide itself [r 123] - and still m ore so the crea to r o f n atu re, w hom we especially revere and a d m ire because k n o w led ge o f him is not readily gained. (T hem istius, Speeches V 69B) A cco rd in g to th e P yrrh on ian sceptics, X en o p h an es and Zeno o f E lea an d D em ocritu s w ere sceptics . . . A lso H eraclitus, w h o said: Let us not make aimless conjectures about the most important things, [в 47] (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 73) T h u s th e p ro p h e t’s rem ark, ‘ I f ye will not believe, su rely ye shall n o t be established’ [Isaiah 7:9], is p ro ved abundan tly true. A n d H eraclitus o f Ephesus was parap h rasin g it w hen h e observed: 112

HERACLITUS

I f you do not expect the unexpected you will not discover it; for it cannot be tracked down and offers no passage, [в 18] (Clem ent, Miscellanies II iv 17.8) H eraclitus says, as th ou gh he had achieved so m eth in g g re a t and noble, I inquired into myself, [в 101] and o f the proverbs at D elph i ‘ K now th y s e lf is th o u g h t the m ost divine. (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 118 c ) K n o w led ge and ign oran ce are the bou n d aries o f hap piness and unhappiness. For philosophical men must be versed in very many things, [в 35] accord ing to H eraclitus, and it is in d eed necessary to m ake m any jo u rn e y s in the search to be goo d . (Clem ent, Miscellanies V xiv 14 0 .5-6 ) H eraclitus rejects p ercep tio n w hen he says, in these very words: Bad witnesses fo r men are the eyes and ears o f those who have foreign souls [в 107] - i.e. it is the m ark o f a fo reign soul to trust in non-rational perceptions. (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians V I I 126) W e have two n atural instrum ents, as it w ere, by w hich we learn ev ery th in g and co n d u ct o u r business, nam ely h ea rin g and sight; and sight, a cco rd in g to H eraclitus, is not a little tru er - fo r eyes are more accurate witnesses than ears, [в 101a] (Polybius, Histories X II x x vii 1) H ence the apostle ex h o rts us that ‘y o u r faith sh o u ld not stand in the wisdom o f m en ’ w ho prom ise to p ersu a d e you , ‘but in the p o w er o f C o d ’ [I C o rin th ian s 2:5] w hich in itself and w ithout p ro o fs has the p o w er to save by faith alone.

1*3

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

For the most esteemed o f men knows and guards what he believes, [в 28a] and m o reo ver justice will convict the fashioners and witnesses o f falsehoods, [в 28b] as ih e Ephesian says. For he too learn ed from fo reign p hilo­ sop h y about the purification th ro u gh fire o f those w ho have lived evil lives. (C lem ent, Miscellanies V i 9.2 -3) The third group o f texts can be given the vague label 'metaphysics': these fragments begin with some general reflections on the nature o f things and then illustrate three more specific aspects o f Heraclitus’ thought - his notion o f the unity o f opposites, his concept o f relativity, his ideas about instability or flux. [Celsus] says that the ancients re fe r rid d lin gly to a w ar am ong the god s, as w hen H eraclitus says: One should know that war is common, that justice is strife, that all things come about in accordance with strife and with what must be. [в 80] (O rigen , Against Celsus V I xlii) Su rely n a tu re lon gs fo r the opposites and effects h e r h ar­ m ony fro m them . , . T h a t was also said by H eraclitus the O bscu re: Combinations — wholes and not wholes, concurring differing, concordant discordant, from all things one and from one all things, [в 10] In this w ay th e stru ctu re o f the u n iverse - I m ean, o f the h eavens and the earth an d the w hole w orld - was arran g ed b y o n e h a rm o n y th ro u g h the b len d in g o f the m ost opposite principles. ([Aristotle], On the World 3 9 6 b 7 -8 , 20-25) O n this top ic [i.e. frien d sh ip] som e seek a d e e p e r and m ore scientific accoun t. E u rip id es says that th e earth w hen d ried u p lon gs fo r rain, an d th e m ajestic heaven w hen filled with 11 4

HERACLITUS

rain longs to fall to the earth . H eraclitus says that opposition concurs and the fairest conn ection com es fro m th in gs that d iffe r [в 8] and e v ery th in g com es about in acco rd an ce with strife [cf. в 8о]. (A ristotle, Nicomachean Ethics H 5 5 b 2 -6 ) O ld H eraclitus o f Ephesus was called clever because o f the obscurity o f his rem arks: Cold things grow hot, the hot cools, the wet dries, the parched moistens, [в 126] (T zetzes, Notes on the Iliad p. 1 гб н ) It seem s that the ancients used the w ord bios am b igu ou sly to m ean ‘bow ’ and ‘life*. F or exa m p le, H eraclitus the O bscu re: The name o f the bow is bios, its function death, [в 48] (Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. bios) B ut the circu m feren ce o f a circle as a w hole no lo n g e r has a direction; fo r w hatever point on it you thin k o f is both a begin n in g and an en d - fo r beginning and end are common on the circum ference o f a circle [в 103], according to H era­ clitus. (P o rp h yry, Notes on Homer, on Iliad X I V 200) T h e y say it is in d ecen t i f th e sight o f w a rfa re pleases the gods. B u t it is not indecen t; fo r the noble d eed s please the gods. A g ain , w ars and battles seem terrible to us, bu t to god not even they a re terrible. F or g o d m akes all thin gs co n trib ­ ute to the harm ony o f th e universe, m an a gin g it co m m o d i­ ously - so H eraclitus says that to god all things a re fa ir and ju st but m en have su p p o sed som e thin gs u nju st o th ers ju s t [в 102]. (P o rp h yry, Notes on Homer, on Iliad IV 4) D on’t you realize the tru th o f H eraclitus’ rem ark that the most beau tiful ape is u gly w hen co m p ared with a n o th e r species . . .? [в 82] D oesn’t H eraclitus say th e sam e th in g,

“ 5

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

that the wisest o f m en, w h en co m p ared to a go d , will seem an ap e in wisdom and beauty and ev ery th in g else? [в 83] (Plato, Hippias Major 289АВ) It seem s that each anim al has its own p leasu re . . . T h e pleasures o f horses, dogs, and men are d ifferent - so H era­ clitus says that d on keys w ould p r e fe r rubbish to gold [в 9] (for food is m ore pleasing to d on keys than gold). (A ristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 117633, 5-8) D ry dust and ash . . . shou ld be pu t in the p ou ltry-ru n so that the birds can sp rin kle them selves with it; fo r this is how they wash th eir feath ers and w ings, i f w e a re to believe H eraclitus o f Ephesus w ho says that pigs wash in m ud and farm yard birds in dust o r ashes [в 37]. (C olum ella, On Agriculture V III iv 4) [Vetch] is the cow ’s favo u rite pasture, and the cow eats it with pleasure. H en ce H eraclitus said that i f happiness resided in bodily pleasures, w e shou ld call cows hap p y w hen they dis­ co ver som e vetch to eat [в 4]. (A lb ert the G reat, On Vegetables V I ii 14) O n the subject o f the soul, C lean th es sets o u t the doctrines o f Zen o [the Stoic] in o rd e r to co m p are them to those o f the o th er natural scientists. H e says that Zen o, like H eraclitus, holds the soul to be a p ercip ien t exhalation . For, w anting to show that souls as they are ex h a led alw ays becom e new, he likened them to rivers, saying: On those who enter the same rivers, ever different waters flow and souls are exhaled from the moist things, [в 12] N ow Zeno, like H eraclitus, says that the soul is an exhalation; but he holds th at it is percipien t, fo r the follow in g reasons. (A riu s D idym us, fra gm en t 39 Diels, qu o ted by Eusebius, Preparation fo r the Gospel X V x x 2) H eraclitus the O b scu re th eologizes the natural w orld as

116

HERACLITUS

som ething u nclear and to be co n jectu red about th ro u gh symbols. H e says: Gods are mortal, humans immortal, living their death, dying their life, [cf в 62] A n d again: We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not. [в 49a] E verything he says about n atu re is en igm atic an d allegorized . (H eraclitus, Homeric Questions 2 4 .3 -5)

For it is not possible to step twice into the sam e river, acco rd in g to H eraclitus, n o r to touch m ortal substance twice in any condition: by the sw iftness and speed o f its ch an ge, it scatters and collects itself again - o r rath er, it is not again and later but sim ultaneously that it com es to g eth er and departs, approach es and retires [ 8 9 1 ] . (Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 392B)

T h in g s which have a natural circu lar m otion are preserved and stay to g eth er because o f it - i f in d eed , as H eraclitus says, the barley-drink separates if it is not m o vin g [в 125]. (T h eo p h rastu s, On Vertigo 9)

H eraclitus, w ho u rges us to inqu ire into [how the soul com es to be within the body], posits necessary exch an ges from the opposites and talks o f a path u p and d ow n [cf в 60], and changing, it rests, [в 84a] and it is weariness fo r the same to labour and be ruled [в 84b] - he leaves us to con jectu re and om its to m ake his a rg u m e n t clear to us, no d o u b t because we sh o u ld in qu ire fo r ourselves as he h im self in qu ired an d fo u n d [cf в 101]. (Plotinus, Enneads IV viii 1)

The fourth group collects further fragments o f a religious or theological significance. 117

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

H eraclitus o f E phesus, fin d in g fau lt with those who sacrifice to the spirits, says: They vainly purify themselves with blood when they are defiled: as though one were to step in the mud and try to wash it off with mud. Any man who saw him doing that would think he was mad. And they pray to these statues as though one were to gossip to the houses, not knowing who the gods and who the heroes are. [в 5] T h e sam e m an said to the Egyptians: I f they are gods, why do you grieve? I f you grieve, no longer think them gods, [в 127] (anonym ous Theosophia 68-69) A s a m ystical rem in d e r o f that a ffa ir, phalluses a re set up th ro u g h o u t the cities to D ionysus. F or i f they did not make a procession fo r Dionysus and sing a paean to the penis, they would act most shamelessly, H eraclitus says, and Hades is the same as Dionysus fo r whom they rave and celebrate their rites [в 15] - not, I thin k, from d ru n k en n ess o f the bo d y so m uch as from th eir d isgra cefu l d octrin es o f licentiousness. (C lem ent, Protreptic И 34 5) H en ce H eraclitus reasonably called [phallic cerem onies] rem ­ edies, since they will cu re o u r troubles and d rain o u r souls o f the m isfortu n es o f m ortal life [в 68]. (lam blich us, On the Mysteries I 119) The Sibyl's raving mouth, a cco rd in g to H eraclitus, speaks without mirth [в 92] o r a d o rn m en t o r p erfu m e: with th e h elp o f the g o d h er voice con tin u es fo r a thou san d years. (Plutarch, Why the Pythia No Longer Prophesies in Verse 397 а в) I thin k that you too know H eraclitus’ rem ark that the king w hose is th e o racle at D elphi n eith er speaks n o r conceals but indicates [в 93] - atten d to these wise w ords an d suppose 118

HERACLITUS

that the god h ere uses the priestess with reg a rd to h ea rin g in the sam e way as the sun uses the m oon with reg a rd to sight. (ibid 404 de) All anim als are born , flourish, and d ie in o b ed ien ce to the ordinances o f g o d ; fo r every beast is pastured by blows, [в 11] as H eraclitus says. ([Aristotle], On the World 4 o i a 8 - i 1) A m an m ay perh aps escape the attention o f the visible fire, but the invisible he can n ot - fo r, as H eraclitus says, how could anyone escape the attention o f that which never sets? [в 16] ' T h e n let us not w rap ourselves in darkness; fo r th e ligh t is within us. (Clem ent, Pedagogue II x 99.5) I know that Plato, too, su p p o rts H eraclitus w h en he writes: One alone is the arise, unwilling and willing to be called by the name o f Zeus, [в 32] A n d again: It is law also to follow the counsel o f one. [в 33] A n d if you want to b rin g in th e saying ‘ H e that hath ears to hear, let him h ea r’ [L u ke 14 :3 5 ], you will find it exp ressed som ew hat as follow s by the Ephesian: The uncomprehending, when they hear, are like the deaf: the saying applies to them — though present they are absent, [в 34] (Clem ent, Miscellanies V xiv 1 1 5 .1 - 3 ) In the fifth group come passages bearing upon psychology: most o f them deal with the linked topics o f sleep and death. Does not H eraclitus, like P yth agoras and Socrates in the Gorgias, call birth d eath w hen h e says: Death is what we see awake, sleep what we see abed? [в 21] (ibidV xiv 1 1 5 .1 - 3 )

1*9

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

H eraclitus says that aw ake we have a com m on w orld , asleep each en ters a p rivate w orld [в 89] - but th e superstitious have no com m on an d n o private w orld. (Plutarch, On Superstition 166c) W e a re all fellow -w orkers to o n e en d , som e know in gly and consciously, o th ers u n kn ow in gly - ju s t as H eraclitus, I think, says that even those asleep a re w orkers an d fellow -w orkers in w hat h ap p en s in the w orld [в 75]. (M arcus A u re liu s, Meditations V I 42) A n d when is death not present in o u r very selves? A s H era­ clitus says, the same thing is present living and dead, awake and asleep, young and old; fo r the latter change and are the former, and again the former change and are the latter, [в 88] ([Plutarch], Consolation to Apollonius i o 6 e ) W h at is said o f sleep shou ld be u n d erstoo d also o f death. F or each o f them - o n e m ore, the o th er less - shows the absence o f the soul, as we can also learn fro m H eraclitus: A man in the night kindles a light fo r himself, his sight being quenched: living, he kindles the dead; awake, he kindles the sleeping, [в 26] (C lem ent, Miscellanies IV x xii 1 4 1 .1 —2) H eraclitus seem s to a g ree with [Socrates in the Phaedo] w hen, sp eak in g o f m en, he says: There await men when they die things they neither expect nor even think of. [в 27] (ibid IV xxii 144.3) For w hom d oes H eraclitus prop hesy? F or night-prow lers, m agicians, bacchants, revellers, initiates. F or them he th reat­ ens ju d g e m e n t a fte r d eath , fo r them he prop hesies fire. F or the m ystery rites practised a m o n g m en have im pious initiations [в 14]. (C lem ent, Protreptic II xxii 1-2 ) 120

HERACLITUS

H eraclitus is clearly b era tin g birth w hen h e says: Being bom, they wish to live and to meet their fates (or rath er, to rest) and they leave behind children, bom fo r their fates. [в 20] (C lem ent, Miscellanies III iii 14 .1) [Food w ithout salt] is heavy an d nauseous to th e taste; fo r corpses should be thrown out more readily than dung, [в 96] a cco rd in g to H eraclitus, and m eat is co rp se o r p a rt o f a corpse. (Plutarch, Table Talk 669A) O rp h e u s w rote: W ater is d eath fo r souls, . . . B u t from w ater com es ea rth , from earth again w ater, and thence soul, ru sh in g to all th e eth er. H eraclitus p u t to g eth er th e w ords fro m th ese lines and w rote som ew hat as follows: For souls it is death to become water, fo r water death to become earth; but from earth water comes into being, from water soul. [в 36]

' (C lem ent, Miscellanies V I ii 1 7 .1 - 2 )

H eraclitus says that fo r souls it is p leasu re o r d eath to b ecom e moist, and that fo r them th e fall into m ortal life is p leasu re [в 77]; and elsew h ere that w e live th eir d eath an d th ey live o u r death [cf в 62]. (N u m eniu s, fra g m en t 30 des Places, in P o rp h y ry , The Cave o f the Nymphs 10) [Souls on the m oon] a re n o u rish ed by variou s exhalations, and H eraclitus was rig h t in saying th at souls sm ell th in gs in H ades [в 98]. (Plutarch, O n the Face in the M oon 943E) H eraclitus well com pares the soul to a sp id er a n d th e b o d y to a sp id er’s web. Ju st as a sp id er, h e says, stan d in g in the 121

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

m idd le o f its w eb, is aw are as soon as a fly has broken one o f its th read s and run s th ere qu ickly as th ou gh griev in g over th e cu ttin g o f the th read , so a m an’s soul, when som e part o f his b o d y is h u rt, hu rries quickly th ere as i f unable to bear the h u rt to the body to w hich it is firm ly and prop ortionately jo in e d [в 67a].

(H isdosus, O n Plato's World-Soul 1 7 v)

The sixth group o f fragments and reports consists o f a few texts which bear upon the issues o f natural science - issues which are sketched more fully in the doxographical report in Diogenes Laertius’ Life.

H eraclitus o f E phesus is m ost clearly o f this opinion [i.e. that ev ery th in g will ch a n g e into fire]. H e holds that th ere is a w orld w hich is etern al and a w orld w hich is perishing, and h e is aw are that th e created w orld is the fo rm e r in a certain state. N ow that he reco gn ized that the w orld which is u n iqu ely ch aracterized by the totality o f substance is eternal, is evid en t w hen he says: The world, the same fo r all, neither any god nor any man made; but it was always and is and will be, fire ever-living, kindling in measures and being extinguished in measures, [в 30] A n d that he believed it to be gen erated and destructible is indi­ cated by the fo llo w in g words: Tumings o f fire:first, sea; ofsea, h a lf is earth, h a lf lightning-flash. [в 31a] - H e says in e ffe ct that, by reason and god which rule everyth in g, fire is tu rn ed by way o f air into m oisture, the seed, as it w ere, o f creation, w hich he calls sea; and from this, again, com e earth and h eaven an d w hat they contain. H e shows clearly in the fo llo w in g w ords that they are restored again and becom e fire: Sea is dissolved and measured into the same proportion that existed at first, [в 31b] A n d the sam e holds fo r the o th er elem ents. (Clem ent, Miscellanies V xiv 10 4 .1-5 ) 122

HERACLITUS

T h e first prin ciple altern ately creates th e w o rld fro m itself and again itself from the w o rld , and all things, H eraclitus says, are an exchange fo r fire and fire for all things, as goods are fo r gold and gold fo r goods, [в go] (Plutarch, On the E a t Delphi 388DE) T h e y w ould thin k it u nreasonable if, w hile the w h ole h eaven and each o f its parts all h ave o rd e r an d reason in th eir shapes and pow ers and p eriod s, th ere is n o such th in g in the first principles bu t th e m ost b eau tifu l w o rld , as H eraclitus says, is like a h eap o f rubbish aim lessly piled up. [в 1 24] (T h eo p h ra stu s, Metaphysics 7 3 1 0 -1 5 ) Each o f the planets revolves in a sin gle sp h ere , as th o u g h on an island, and p reserves its station. F or the sun will not overstep its measures, H eraclitus says, otherwise the Furies, ministers o f justice, will fin d it out. [в 94] (Plutarch, On Exile 604л) T h e sun is o verseer an d g u ard ian o f these p erio d s, d e fin in g and arb itrating and revealin g an d illu m in stin g the ch a n g es and the seasons w hich b rin g all things, a cco rd in g to H era ­ clitus. [в 100] (Plutarch, Platonic Questions 1007D) If, as they say, [the sun] w ere n ou rish ed in th e sam e w ay [as flam es are], then it is clear that the sun is not o n ly, as H eraclitus says, new each d ay [в 6], bu t alw ays an d co n tin u ­ ously new. (A ristotle, Meteorology 3 5 53 13 —15) H eraclitus . . . [says that th e sun] ss to its size has th e b rea d th o f a h um an foot, [в 3] (Stobaeus, Anthology I x x v lg ) W ater m akes fo r collaboration an d frien d sh ip . H eraclitu s indeed says th at i f the sun d id not ex ist it w o u ld b e nigh t 123

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

[в 99]; but we m ay say that i f the sea d id not exist man w ould be the m ost wild and destitute o f anim als. ([Plutarch], Is Fire or Water the More Useful? 957л) I have discussed elsew h ere w h eth er o n e shou ld suppose that certain days are u nlu cky, o r w h eth er H eraclitus rightly rebu ked H esiod, w h o m akes som e g oo d and o thers bad, fo r not reco gn izin g that the n atu re o f every d ay is the sam e [в 106]. (Plutarch, Camillus 138л) H eraclitus is better an d m ore H om eric (and like H om er he calls the arctic circle th e bear): Limits o f morning and evening are the bear and, opposite the bear, the boundary o f bright Zeus [в 1 20] - fo r the arctic circle, not the bear, is the b o u n d ary o f the su n ’s rising an d setting. (Strabo, Geography I i 6) Som e thin k that the sm oky exhalation is sm ell, since it is com p osed o f earth and air. T h a t is w hy H eraclitus said that i f all the things that exist w ere to becom e sm oke the nose w ould distinguish them [в 7]. (A ristotle, On the Senses and their Objects 443822-25) Finally, there are some items which could be reckoned as belonging to moral and political philosophy: F or ‘T h e law is not m ad e fo r a righ teou s m an ’, say the Scriptu res [I T im o th y 1:9]. T h u s H eraclitus rightly says: They would not know the name o f justice i f these things did not exist, [в 23] an d Socrates says that law w ould not have com e into being fo r the sake o f the good. (Clem ent, Miscellanies IV iii 10.1) H eraclitus said that a m an’s ch aracter is his fate, [в 1 19] (Stobaeus, Anthology IV xl 23) 124

HERACLITUS

W orse m en have co n q u ered better, bu t to set u p in y o u r soul a victory m on u m en t o v e r a n g e r - with w hich H eraclitus says it is hard to fight, fo r whatever it wants, it buys with soul [в 85] - that is a m ark o f g reat and victorious pow er. (Plutarch, The Control o f Anger 457D) N ext, H eraclitus says: Gods and men honour those slain in battle, [в 24] (C lem ent, Miscellanies IV iv 16.1) For greater fates win greater shares, [в 25] acco rd in g to H eraclitus. (ibid IV vii 49.3) Envy, the greatest o f political ills, scarcely attacks old age; fo r dogs bark at those they do not know, [в 97] accord ing to H eraclitus, and en vy attacks the b eg in n er at the d o o r o f office. (Plutarch, Should Old M en Take Part in Politics? 78 7c) I f we h ear that o n e sw allow does not m ake a su m m er, yet you d o so — fo r you excel all the o th e r swallows. F or if, as H eraclitus says, o n e m an is w orth ten thousan d i f he is the best [в 49], then surely o n e swallow should be recko n ed as w orth ten thousan d if it is well chosen. (T h eo d o ru s P ro d ro m us, Letters 1 [Patrologia Graeca X X X I II 1240A]) A lw ays rem em b er H eraclitus’ view that the d eath o f earth is to becom e w ater, and the d eath o f w ater to becom e air, and o f air fire, and th e reverse. R em em ber too the m an who forgets w h ere the road leads [в 71]; and that m ost a re at odds with that with w hich they m ost constantly associate the account which govern s the u niverse — and that w hat they m eet with every d ay seem s fo reig n to them [в 72]; an d that

*25

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

we sh ou ld not act an d speak like those asleep [в 73] - fo r th en too we thin k w e act and speak; and that we should not behave like ch ild ren o f o u r parents [в 74] - i.e., in plain prose, in the way in w hich w e h ave been b ro u g h t up. (M arcus A u reliu s, Meditations IV 46)

126

PART II

9 PARMENIDES Parmenides, son o f Pyres, came from Elea, a Greek foundation in southern Italy. H e was o f a noble family, and it is reported that ‘he organ ized his ow n co u n try by the best laws, so that each year the citizens still g et the officials to sw ear that they will abid e by Parm enides’ laws’ (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 12 6 a b ). His dates are uncertain: the Greek chroniclers put his birth in 540 вс, but a passage in Plato (which will be quoted in the chapter on Zeno) suggests that he was bom in about 5 /5. According to Diogenes Laertius,

H e was a pu pil o f X en o p h an es but d id n o t follow him . H e was also associated (as Sotion said) with A m ein ias, son o f Diochaitas, the P yth agorean , a p o o r m an but o f g o o d ch arac­ ter. It was rath er A m ein ias that he follo w ed , an d w hen he d ied he set u p a shrin e fo r him , since h e cam e fro m a fam ou s and wealthy fam ily, an d h e was led to calm by A m ein ias an d not by X enophanes. (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 21)

The story about Ameinias has led some scholars to look (in vain) for Pythagorean elements in Parmenides’ thought. Parmenides produced one short work written in ungainly hexameter verse. A substantial proportion o f the poem survives. It opened ivith a fanciful prologue, after which the main body o f the work divided into two parts: the first part, the Way o f Truth, gives Parmenides’ own views about the true nature o f reality, the second part, the Way o f Opinion, followed the traditional Ionian pattern o f works O n N atu re. 129

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

The prologue and most o f the Way o f Truth survive; there are frag­ ments o f the Way o f Opinion. 11 should be said at the outset that Parmenides ’ poem is in many ways a bizarre and puzzling production. He presents an account the second h a lf o f which, the Way o f Opinion, is confessedly 'deceitful' or false, and he does not clearly explain why he has written these lies. The Way o f Truth is not intended to be deceitful, but the views it advocates are paradoxical in the extreme. Moreover, Parmenides is never an easy writer. His meaning is rarely plain to the first glance, and some lines o f the poem are obscure to the point o f unintelligibility. There are also textual uncertainties. Nonetheless, Parmenides had, through the medium o f Plato, an unrivalled influence on the course o f western philosophy. The prologue is preserved by Sextus Empiricus, who also offers an allegorical interpretation o f Parmenides' verses which I shall not tran­ scribe. X en o p h a n es’ frien d P arm enid es co n d em n ed the reason associated with belief, which has w eak opinion s, an d , since he also g ave u p trust in the senses, su p p o sed that the reason associated with kn ow led ge, o r infallible reason, was the crit­ erion o f truth. T h u s at the b eg in n in g o f his OnNature he writes in this way: The mares that carry me as fa r as my heart may aspire were my escorts: they had guided me and set me on the celebrated road o f the god which carries the man o f knowledge*. . .* There was I being carried; fo r there the wise mares were carrying me, straining at the chariot, and maidens were leading the way. The axle in the axle-box roared from its socket as it blazed —fo r it was driven on by two whirling wheels on either side - while the maidens, daughters o f the sun, hastened to escort it, having left the house o f Night fo r the light and pushed back with their hands the veils from their heads. Here are the gates o f the paths o f Night and Day, and a lintel and a stone threshold enclose them. 130

PARMENIDES

They themselves, high in the air, are filled by great doors, and all-avenging Justice holds their alternate keys. Her the maidens appeased with soft words, skilfully persuading her to push back fo r them the bolted bar swiftly from the gates. They flew back and made a yawning gap between the doors, swinging in turn in their sockets the bronze pivots, fitted with pegs and pins. And through them the maidens held the chariot and mares straight on the highway. And the goddess graciously received me, taking my right hand in hers; and she spoke thus and addressed me: 'Young man, companion to the immortal charioteers with the mares who carry you as you come to my house, I greet you. For no evil fate was sending you to travel this road (for indeed it is fa r from the tread o f men) but Right and Justice. You must learn all things, both the unwavering heart o f persuasive truth and the opinions o f mortals in which there is no true trust.’ [28 в 1.1-3 0 ] (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians V I I 1 1 1 ) Simplicius adds two further lines: Parm enides says: You must learn all things, both the unwavering heart o f well-rounded truth and the opinions o f mortals in which there is no true trust. But nevertheless you will learn these things too - how what seems had reliably to be, forever traversing everything, [в 1.2 8 -3 2 ] (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 5 7.2 4 -5 5 8 .2 ) A couplet from the prologue is quoted by Proclus, who then cites a further eight lines: Plato explicitly d istin guishes d iffe r e n t types o f reason and know ledge, co rresp o n d in g to the d iffe re n t objects o f kn ow ­ ledge. Parm enides too, th o u g h his po etry m akes him obscure, nevertheless points in this d irection h im self w hen he says:

«3 »

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

Both the unwavering heart o f well-lit truth and the opinions o f mortals in which there is no true trust; [в 1.29-30 ] an d again: But come, I will tell you — preserve the account when you hear ti­ the only roads o f enquiry there are to be thought of: one, that it is and cannot not be, is the path o f persuasion (for truth accompanies it); another, that it is not and must not be — this I say to you is a trail devoid o f all knowledge, [в 2 .1—6] And: For you could not recognize that which is not (for it is not to be done), nor could you mention it. [в 2.7—8] (P ro d u s, Commentary on the Timaeus I 3 4 5 .1 1 -2 7 ) [Note that in в i . 29 Sextus, Simplicius and Proclus attach different adjectives to the noun ‘truth’.] The half-line at the end o f fragment в 2 can be completed, both metr­ ically and philosophically, by a half-line preserved elsewhere: A t an earlier d ate, P arm enides too tou ch ed on this doctrine inasm uch as he identified bein g and th o u g h t and d id not locate bein g in sensible objects. H e said: For the same things can be thought o f and can be. [в 3] (Plotinus, Enneads V i 8) The next surviving lines o f the poem can be patched together from two separate passages in Simplicius. One o f them, which assembles a few short quotations from Parmenides, includes these sentences: T h a t th ere is o n e an d th e sam e acco u n t o f ev eryth in g , the acco u n t o f w hat is, P arm enid es states in th e fo llo w in g words: What is for being and fo r thinking must be; fo r it can be, and nothing can not. [в 6 .1—2] N ow i f w h atever ?n yo n e says o r thinks is b ein g, then th ere will b e o n e a cco u n t o f ev eryth in g , th e accoun t o f w h at is. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 86.25-30) 132

PARMENIDES

The second passage begins by quoting в 2 (except fo r the first line) and continues thus: T h a t contrad ictories a re n o t tru e to g eth er he show s in the verses in w hich he finds fa u lt with those w ho iden tify opposites. F or havin g said: fo r it can be, and nothing can not. This I bid you say. For from this first road o f inquiry < / restrain> you, [в 6 .1 —3] C h e a d d s:> and then from the road along which mortals who know nothing wander, two-headed; for impotence in their breasts guides their erring mind. And they are borne along alike deaf and blind, amazed, undisceming crowds, fo r whom to be and not to be are deemed the same and not the same; and the path o f all turns back on itself. [в 6.4 -9 ] (ibid 117 .2 —13) A continuous passage o f some sixty-six verses, which includes per­ haps the whole o f the Way o f Truth, can be put together from three sources. The first two lines are quoted by Simplicius, and also, much earlier, by Plato: W hen we w ere boys, m y boy, the g rea t Parm enides w ould tes­ tify against this [nam ely the view that w hat is not is] from b eg in ­ ning to en d, constantly saying both in prose and in verse that: Never will this prevail, that what is not is: restrain your thought from this road o f inquiry, [в 7 .1 —2] (Plato, Sophist 237л) Plato's quotation is continued by Sextus (though Sextus himself quotes the lines as though they were continuous with в 1): Restrain your thought from this road o f inquiry, and do not let custom, based on much experience, force you along this road, directing unobservant eye and echoing ear

>33

EARLY

CREEK PHILOSOPHY

and tongue; but judge by reason the battle-hardened proof which I have spoken. Only one story, one road, now is left, [в 7.2 -6 ] (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians V II 1 1 1 ) Sextus' quotation in turn is continued by Simplicius: A t the risk o f seem in g p rolix, I w ould like to transcribe in this com m entary P arm enid es’ verses on th e o n e bein g (they are not m any), both to ju s tify w hat I have said about the m atter and because o f the rarity o f P arm en id es’ treatise. A fte r he has d o n e aw ay with w hat is not, he writes: Only one story, one road, now is left: that it is. And on this there are signs in plenty that, being, it is ungenerated and indestructible, whole, o f one kind and unwavering, and complete. Nor was it, nor will it be, since now it is, all together, one, continuous. For what generation will you seek fo r it? How, whence, did it grow ? That it came from what is not I shall not allow you to say or think —fo r it is not sayable or thinkable that it is not. A nd what need would have impelled it, later or earlier, to grow — i f it began from nothing? Thus it must either altogether be or not be. Nor from what is will the strength o f trust permit it to come to be anything apart from itself. For that reason Justice has not relaxed her fetters and let it come into being or perish, but she holds it. Decision in these matters lies in this: it is or it is not. But it has been decided, as is necessary, to leave the one road unthought and unnamed (for it is not a true road), and to take the other as being and being genuine. How might what is then perish? How might it come into being? For i f it came into being it is not, nor is it i f it is ever going to be. Thus generation is quenched and perishing unheard of. Nor is it divided, since it all alike is — neither more here (which would prevent it from cohering) nor less; but it is all fu ll o f what is.

134

PARMENIDES

Hence it is all continuous; fo r what is approaches what is. And unmoving in the limits o f great chains it is beginningless and ceaseless, since generation and destruction have wandered fa r away, and true trust has thrust them o ff The same and remaining in the same state, it lies by itself, and thus remains fixed there. For powerful necessity holds it enchained in a limit which hems it around, because it is right that what is should be not incomplete. For it is not lacking - i f it were it would lack everything. The same thing are thinking and a thought that it is. For without what is, in which it has been expressed, you will not fin d thinking. For nothing either is or will be other than what is, since fate has fettered it to be whole and unmoving. Hence all things are a name which mortals lay down and trust to be true coming into being and perishing, being and not being, and changing place and altering bright colour. And since there is a last limit, it is completed on all sides, like the bulk o f a well-rounded ball, equal in every way from the middle. For it must not be at all greater or smaller here or there. For neither is there anything which is not, which might stop it from reaching its like, nor anything which is in such a way that it might be more here or less there than what is, since it all is, inviolate. Therefore, equal to itself on all sides, it lies uniformly in its limits. Here I cease fo r you my trustworthy argument and thought about the truth. Henceforward learn mortal opinions, listening to the deceitful arrangement o f my words, [в 8 .1—52] T h ese, then, a re P arm enid es’ verses abo u t th e o n e. A fte r them he next discusses the objects o f o p in ion , layin g d ow n fo r them d iffe ren t first principles. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 14 4 .2 5 -14 6 .2 7 )

Two other short fragments have been thought to come from the Way o f Truth, though it is hard to see where they should be inserted.

>35

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

P arm enides too in his poem rid d les about H o p e in these w ords: Look at things which, though absent, are yet present firmly to the mind; fo r you will not cut o ff fo r yourself what is from holding to what is, neither scattering everywhere in every way about the world nor coming together, [в 4] For o n e w ho hopes, like o n e with faith, sees with his m ind the objects o f th o u g h t and the things to com e. (C lem en t, Miscellanies V iii 15.5) P arm enides, as I have said b e fo re , saw bein g itself in that which is sep arated from all and the high est o f all beings, in which bein g was prim arily m an ifested; bu t he was not u naw are o f the plu rality o f intelligible objects. F or it is he w ho says: For what is approaches what is, [в 8.25] an d again: it is indifferent to me whence I begin, fo r there again shall I return, [в 5] and elsew here: equal from the middle [в 8.43] - in all these passages he shows that he actually supposes there to be many intelligible objects. (Proclus, Commentary on the Parmenides 708.7—22) The first lines o f the Way o f Opinion are preserved by Simplicius: H avin g co m pleted his accoun t o f the intelligible realm , Par­ m enides con tin u es thus: Here I cease fo r you my trustworthy argument and thought about the truth. Henceforward learn mortal opinions, listening to the deceitful arrangement o f my words. For they determined in their minds to name two forms, o f which one they should not — and that is where they have erred. And they distinguished them as opposite in form and set up signs fo r them separately from one another, here the ethereal flame o f fire, gentle, very light, in every direction the same as itself 136

PARMENIDES

and not the same as the other; and that other in itself is opposite - unknowing night, dense inform and heavy. This whole fitting arrangement I tell you so that a mortal mind may never outstrip you. [в 8 .5 0 -6 1] Now he calls this acco u n t a m atter o f opin ion an d d eceitfu l not because it is sim ply false but because he has m oved from the intelligible w orld o f truth into the p ercep tib le realm o f ap pearan ce and seem in g. A little later, h avin g discussed the two elem ents, he continues by m en tion in g the active cause: The narrower [bands] are fu ll o f unmixed fire, the next with night (but a portion o f flame is emitted), and in the middle o f them, a goddess who governs all things. [в 12 .1-3 ] H e says that she is actually the cause o f th e god s First o f all the gods she devised Love [в 13] etc. H e says that she sends souls som etim es from ligh t to d a rk ­ ness and som etim es in the o th er d irection . I am com pelled to w rite at length on this po in t because people now are gen erally ign oran t o f the ancien t w ritings. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 8 .2 9 -3 9 .2 1) Some idea o f the contents o f the Way o f Opinion can be gained from a passage in Plutarch: But Parm enides did not abolish fire o r w ater o r precipices o r - pace C o lotes - the cities o f E u ro p e and Asia. A fte r all, he com posed a cosm ology, and by m ixin g the b righ t an d th e d ark as elem ents he prod u ces from them and by them all the phen om en a. H e has m uch to say ab o u t the earth an d th e sky and the m oon and the stars, and he has an acco u n t o f the origins o f men: like an old natural p h ilosop h er, w ho is co m p os­ ing a book o f his ow n and not criticizin g a bo ok o f som eone else, he has left n o th in g o f any im portan ce unsaid. (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 1 1 4 в c) Simplicius had earlier quoted a slightly longer version o f fragment в 12: The next with night (but a portion o f flame is emitted),

137

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

and in the middle o f them, a goddess who gdvems all things. For she rules the hateful birth and copulation o f all things, sending female to mingle with male and again conversely male to female, [в 1 2] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 1 .1 3 - 1 7 ) The 'bands’ o f в 12 are described in more detail in a doxographical passage: Parm enid es says that th ere is a sequ en ce o f bands em bracin g o n e an o th er, o n e fro m the rare, o n e from the d en se, and oth ers betw een them m ixed from ligh t an d darkness. W hat su rro u n d s them all, like a wall, is solid, and beneath it is a fiery band. So too w hat is in th e m idd le o f them all, a ro u n d which is a fiery band. O f the m ixed bands th e m idd lem ost is cause o f all m otion an d co m in g into bein g fo r all o f them : this he calls the g o v e rn in g god dess and the key h o ld er, Justice and N eces­ sity. T h e air is a secretion o f the ea rth , vaporized by its m ore violent com pression. T h e sun and th e circle o f the M ilky W ay are exh alation s o f fire. T h e m oon is a m ixtu re o f both - air and fire. T h e eth e r su rro u n d s th em , above everyth in g; u n d er it is a rra n g ed the fiery p a rt w e call the sky, and u n d e r that the regions a ro u n d the earth. (Stobaeus, Anthology I xxii 1a) There are a few further fragments from the Way o f Opinion. Sim­ plicius reports a curiosity: In the m idd le o f th e verses a sh o rt passage in prose is inserted w hich p u rp o rts to com e fro m P arm enid es him self. It goes like this: Next to this are the rare and the hot and brightness and the soft and the light; next to the dense are named the cold and darkness and hard and heavy; fo r these have been separated off, each group in its own way. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 1 .3 -7 ) No doubt Simplicius is right to be sceptical about the authenticity o f this prose fragment. 138

PARMENIDES

Simplicius quotes the beginning o f the Way in another passage; there he adds: A n d again a little later: And since all things have been named light and night and things corresponding to their powers [have been named] for each, everything is fu ll alike o f light and invisible night, both equal since nothing has a share in neither. [ в 9] (ibid 18 0 .8 -12 ) B u t they both [sc. P arm enides and Melissus] clearly r e fe r to the generation o f p ercep tible objects - M elissus w hen he says that the cold becom es hot etc . . .; and Parm enides, b e g in n in g his rem arks about p ercep tible objects, says he will tell how earth and sun and moon and the common ether and the Milky Way and outermost Olympus and the hot force o f the stars were impelled to come into being, [в 11] A n d they have described the gen eratio n o f things that a re born and die, right dow n to the parts o f anim als. (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 5 9 .18 —27) O n ce he has attained to the tru e teach in g [sc. o f Christ] let w h o will listen to th e prom ises o f P arm enides o f Elea: You will know the nature o f the ether and all the signs in the ether and the bright sun’s pure torch and its destructive works and whence they came into being, and you will learn the circling works o f the round-faced moon and its nature, and you will know too the sky which encloses it — whence it grew and how necessity led and fettered it to hold the limits o f the stars, [в ю ] (Clem ent, Miscellanies V x iv 138.1) S om eone w ho d enies that red-h ot iron is fire o r that the m oon is a sun - th in kin g it rather, with Parm enides, another's light, night-shining, wandering about the earth [в 14] -

‘39

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

d oes not abolish th e use o f iron o r the reality o f the m oon. (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 1 i6 a ) O f the things in the h eavens, n u m erou s th ou gh they are, only [the m oon] goes a b o u t in need o f a n o th e r’s light, as P arm en­ ides says, always gazing at the rays o f the sun. [в 15] (Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 929 а в) Two short passages from the doxography are worth quoting here. [Parm enides] was the first to say that the earth is spherical and lies in the m idd le [ o f the universe]. (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 21) P arm enid es places th e M o rn in g Star first in o rd e r in the eth er (he thinks that it is the sam e as the E ven in g Star). A fte r it com es the sun, ben eath w hich are the stars in the fiery p art w hich he calls the sky. (Stobaeus, Anthology 1 xxiv 2e) Next, two fragments on biology, the second o f which survives only in a Latin translation. O th ers o f th e oldest g en eratio n h ave also said that the m ale is co n ceived in the rig h t p art o f the w om b. P arm enides p u t it like this: In the right boys, in the left girls, [в 17] (G alen, Commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics X V I I A 1002K) In th e books he w rote On Nature P arm enid es says that as the result o f co n ceptio n m en a re som etim es born soft o r sm ooth. Since his G re e k is in verse, I too shall p u t the point in verses fo r I h ave co m posed som e Latin verses, as close to his as I co u ld , so as to avoid a m ixtu re o f lan gu ages: When a man and a woman together mix the seeds o f Love, a power which forms in the veins from the different bloods produces well-built bodies by preserving the blending. For if, when the seed is mixed, the powers fight 140

PARMENIDES

and do not combine into one power in the mixed body, then cruelly will they trouble .he sex that is being bom from a twin seed, [в 18] (Caelius A u relia n u s, Chronic Diseases IV 9)

Theophrastus gives an account o f Parmenides’ ideas about thought.

Parm enides really said n o th in g at all ab o u t [the senses] — only that th ere are two elem ents and that kn o w led ge d e p en d s on which is excessive. For as th e h ot o r th e cold exceeds, so th ou gh t becom es d iffe re n t - better and p u re r w h en it d ep en d s on the hot, th ou gh this too requ ires a certain p ro p o rtio n ­ ality: For as on each occasion, he says, is the blending o f the wandering limbs, so stands the mind fo r men; fo r it is the same thing which thinks — the nature o f the limbs — for each and every man; for what exceeds is thought, [в 16] For he speaks o f p erceiv in g and th in kin g as the sam e th in g that is why he thinks that m em ory an d fo rgetfu ln ess d e riv e from these things th ro u gh th eir blen d in g. (B u t he said n o th in g fu rth e r about what h app ens i f th ey a re equal in the m ixtu re — w h eth er o r not it will be possible to thin k, an d w hat the d isp o ­ sition will be.) T h a t he m akes p ercep tio n too o ccu r by opposites in their ow n rig h t is clear from th e passage w h ere he says that corpses d o not p erceive light, heat and sound because o f the d eficien cy o f fire, bu t that th ey do perceive th eir opposites - cold and silence and so on. A n d in gen eral, ev e ry ­ th in g which exists has som e kn ow led ge. (T h eo p h rastu s, On the Senses 3 -4 )

Finally, Simplicius preserves three lines from the end o f Parmenides’ poem:

H avin g described the w orld o f p ercep tio n , he adds: Thus, according to opinion, these things grew and now are, 141

.

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

and then, after this, having matured they will cease to be: and fo r each o f them men laid down a distinctive name, [в 19] (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 5 8 .8 -11)

142

10

MELISSUS Melissus came from the island o f Samos. In 441 в с Athens made war upon Samos and despatched a fleet to the island. At some point during the protracted operations, Pericles, the Athenian commander, led some o f his ships away on an expedition. W hen he had sailed o ff, M elissus, son o f Ithagen es, a ph ilo­ sop h er who was then in com m and at Sam os, despisin g the small n u m ber o f their ships o r the in exp erien ce o f th eir co m ­ m anders, persu ad ed his fellow -citizens to attack th e A th e n ­ ians. In the battle that follow ed the Sam ians w ere victorious. T h e y cap tured m any m en an d d estroyed m an y ships, th ereby gainin g control o f the sea and a cq u irin g m any su pplies fo r the prosecution o f the w ar w hich they had not previou sly pos­ sessed. A ristotle says that Pericles h im self had ea rlier been d efeated by M elissus in a sea-battle. (Plutarch, Pericles i 6 6 c d ) The Samians were eventually defeated. But Melissus had made a mark on history unusual in a philosopher. The year o f the battle gives us the only known date in Melissus’ life: we may suppose that he flourished in the third quarter o f the fifth century. In philosophy, he was a follower o f Parmenides. His book indeed is in effect a modified version, in clear prose, o f Parmenides’ poem. Substantial fragments o f Melissus’ work have survived, all o f them preserved by Simplicius. In addition, there are two paraphrases o f his whole argument, one in the essay O n M elissus, X en o p h a n es and G orgias, falsely ascribed to Aristotle, the other in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. It is worth transcribing the latter as a convenient introduction to the fragments.

43

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

M elissus uses the axiom s o f the natural philosophers and begins his treatise on g en eratio n and destruction as follows: I f it is n oth in g, w hat could be said about it as th ou gh it w ere som ethin g? I f it is som eth in g, eith er it cam e into bein g o r it has always existed. B ut i f it cam e into being, it d id so eith er fro m the existen t o r from the non-existent. B u t it is not possible fo r an yth in g to com e into bein g either from the non-existent (not even so m eth in g else which is n oth in g, let alone som eth in g actually existent) o r from the existen t (fo r in that case it w ould have existed all along and w ould not have co m e into being). W hat exists, th ere­ fo re , has not com e into being. T h e r e fo r e it has always existed. N o r will w hat exists be d estroyed . F or w hat exists can ch a n g e n eith er into th e non-existent (the natural scientists a g ree on this) n o r into th e existen t (for in that case it w ould still rem ain and not be destroyed ). T h e r e fo r e it always has existed and will exist. Since w hat com es into existen ce has a begin n in g, what does not com e into existen ce has not g o t a begin n in g. B ut w hat exists has not com e into bein g. T h e r e fo r e it has not g o t a b egin n in g. A g ain , w hat is d estroyed has an end, and i f so m eth in g is indestructible it has not got an end. T h e r e fo r e w hat exists, b ein g indestructible, has not got an en d. B u t w hat has n eith er b eg in n in g n o r en d is in fact infinite. T h e r e fo r e w hat exists is infinite. I f so m eth in g is infinite, it is u niqu e. F or i f th ere w ere two things they co u ld not be infinite bu t w ould have limits against o n e an o th er. B u t w hat exists is infinite. T h e r e fo r e th ere is n o t a plu rality o f existents. T h e r e fo r e w hat exists is unique. I f it is u niqu e, it is also changeless. F or w hat is unique is alw ays h o m o gen eo u s with itself, and w hat is hom o­ g en eo u s can n eith er perish n o r gro w n o r ch an ge its a rra n g em en t n o r s u ffe r pain n o r su ffe r anguish. F or i f it u n d e rw en t an y o f th ese th in gs it w ould not be h om o­ gen eou s. F or an yth in g that u n d erg o es any ch an ge o f w h atever sort m oves fro m o n e state into a d iffe re n t one. B u t n o th in g is d iffe r e n t fro m w hat exists. T h e r e fo r e it

44

MELISSUS

will not ch ange. A g ain , n o th in g that exists is em p ty; fo r what is em pty is n othin g, and w hat is n o th in g can n ot exist. So what exists does not m ove - fo r it has n o w h ere to m ove to if n oth in g is em pty. N o r can it contract into itself. For in that case it w ould be both ra rer and d en ser than itself, and that is im possible. R ather, w hat is rare is th ereb y em p tier than w hat is dense - bu t w hat is em p ty does not exist. O n e sh ou ld ju d g e w h eth er w hat exists is fu ll o r not by seeing w h eth er o r not it accom m odates an y th in g else: if it does not, it is fu ll; i f it does, it is not fu ll. N ow i f it is not em pty it is necessarily full; and i f so it can n ot m ove not because it is not possible to m ove th ro u g h w h at is fu ll, as we say in the case o f bodies, bu t because the w h ole o f what exists can m ove neith er into the existen t (fo r th ere exists n o th in g a p art from it) n o r into the non -existen t (fo r the non-existent does not exist). (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 1 0 3 .13 -10 4 .15 ) A ll the surviving fragments o f Melissus’ deduction are preserved by Simplicius. Melissus show ed the u n gen erability o f w hat exists, u sin g this com m on axiom [i.e. the axiom that n o th in g com es into bein g from nothing]. H e writes as follows: Whatever existed always existed and always will exist. For i f it had come into being, then necessarily before coming into being it would have been nothing. Now i f it had been nothing it would in no way have come to be anything from being nothing. [30 в i ] (ibid 162 .2 3 -2 6 ) Melissus puts the point as follows: Now since it did not come into being but exists, it always existed and always will exist, and it has no beginning and no end but is infinite. For i f it came into being it would have a beginning (for it would at some time have begun coming into being) and an end (for it would at some time have ceased coming into being). A nd i f i f neither began nor ended and always existed and always will

45

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

exist, it lias no beginning and no end. For what does not exist wholly cannot exist always, [в 2] . . . Ju st as he asserts that w hat has com e into b ein g is finite in its bein g, so h e says that w hat always exists is infinite in its being. H e has m ad e this clear w hen he writes: But just as it exists always, so in magnitude too it must always be infinite, [в 3] By m agn itu d e he does not m ean extension ; fo r he him self shows that what exists is indivisible: I f what exists has been divided, he says, it is moving; but i f it is moving it does not exist, [ b i o ] R ather, by m agn itu de he m eans the em inen ce o f its reality. For he has indicated that he m eans w hat exists to be incorporeal in saying: Now i f it exists, it must be one; but being one it must fa il to possess a body, [cf в 9] A n d he co-ordinates infinity in bein g with eternity when he says: Nothing which has a beginning and an end is either eternal or infinite, [в 4] so that w hat does not have them is infinite. From infinity he in ferred uniqueness, by way o f the notion that i f it w ere not on e it w ould be lim ited against som ethin g else, [в 5] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 10 9 .19 -110 .6 ) Elsewhere, Simplicius reports the inference to uniqueness in Melissus’ own words: A n d i f M elissus entitled his w ork On Nature or on What Exists, it is clear that he th o u g h t n atu re to be w hat exists and natural objects, i.e. percep tible objects, to be the things that exist. Per­ haps that is w hy A ristotle said that, in d eclarin g w hat exists to be one, h e su p p o sed that th ere was n o th in g else ap art from p ercep tible substances. F or given that w hat is perceptible plainly seem s to exist, then i f w hat exists is u n iqu e th ere will not exist an yth in g else ap art fro m w hat is p erceptible. Melissus says: 146

MELISSUS

For i f it is infinite it will be one. For i f it is two, they cannot be infi­ nite, but they will have limits against one another, [в 6] (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 5 7 .1 0 - 1 7 ) B u t since M elissus w rote in an archaic style b u t n o t unclearly, let us set d ow n those archaic sentences them selves so that those w ho read them m ay m ore accu rately ju d g e a m o n g the m ore ap p rop riate interpretation s. N ow , co n clu d in g his earlier rem arks and in tro d u cin g his treatm ent o f ch an ge, M elissus says: In this way, then, it is eternal and infinite and one and wholly homogeneous. And it will neither perish nor grow larger nor change its arrangement nor suffer pain nor suffer anguish. For i f it underwent any o f these things it would no longer be one. For i f it alters, necessarily what exists will not be homogeneous but what previously existed will perish and what did not exist will come into being. Now i f it were to become altered by a single hair in ten thousand years, it would perish wholly in the whole o f time. Nor can it change in arrangement. For the arrangement which previously existed is not destroyed nor does that which did not exist come into being. And since nothing is added or perishes or alters, how could anything which exists change its arrangement? For i f it altered in any way it would thereby also change its arrangement. Nor does it suffer pain. For i f it were in pain it would not exist wholly; for a thing that is in pain cannot exist always, nor does it have equal power with what is healthy. Nor would it be homo­ geneous were it to suffer pain; for it would suffer pain by the loss or the addition o f something, and it would no longer be homo­ geneous. Nor could what is healthy suffer pain; fo r the health that existed would perish and that which did not exist would come into being. A s for suffering anguish, the same argument holds as fo r being in pain. Nor is it empty in any respect. For what is empty is nothing; and so, being nothing, it would not exist. Nor does it move. For it has no way to retreat but is fu ll. For i f it were empty it would retreat into the empty part, but since it is not empty it has nowhere to retreat. And it will not be dense and

47

EARLY

CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

rare. For what is rare cannot be as fu ll as what is dense, but what is rare thereby becomes emptier than what is dense. You should distinguish between what is fu ll and what is not fu ll in this way: i f it yields at all or receives, it is not fu ll; i f it neither yields nor receives, it is fu ll. Now necessarily it is fu ll i f it is not empty. So i f it is fu ll it does not move, [в 7] T h a t is w hat M elissus says. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 1 1 1 .1 5 - 1 1 2 .1 5 ) T h e ir u niqu e existen t, b ein g indivisible, will not be finite o r infinite in the way bodies are. For Parm enides places bodies a m o n g th e objects o f op in ion , and M elissus says: Being one, it must fail to possess a body. But i f it had bulk it would have parts and would no longer be one. [cf в g] (ibid 8 7 .4 -7 ) The fin al fragment shows that Melissus’ book contained a critical as well as a constructive section. M elissus, inasm uch as he w rote in prose, gave a clea rer account [than Parm enides] o f his ow n view s on [perceptible objects], both im plicitly th ro u g h o u t his a rg u m e n t an d explicitly in the fo llo w in g passage. H avin g said abo u t w hat exists that it is one an d u n g en era ted and m otionless an d in terru p ted by no em pti­ ness but is w holly fu ll o f itself, he continues: Now this argument is the greatest sign that there existsjust one thing; but there are also the following signs. I f there existed many things, they would have to be such as 1 say the one thing is. For i f there exist earth and water and air and fire and iron and gold and living things and dead and black and white and the other things that men say are true - i f these things exist and we see and hear correctly, then each o f them must be such as it seemed to us at first, and they cannot change or come to be different, but each must always beju st what it is. But now we are saying that we see and hear and understand correctly. But what is hot seems to us to become cold, and what is cold hot, and what is hard soft, and what is soft hardr and living things seem to die and to come into being from what is not alive, and all these things seem to change, and 148

MELISSUS

whatever was and is now seems to be in no way homogeneous, but iron, which is hard, is rubbed away by contact with the fingers, and so are gold and stones and anything else that seems to be strong; and earth and stones seem to come into being from water. [[So that it results that we neither see nor know the things that exist.]]* Now these things do not agree with one another. For we said that there are many eternal things with forms and strength o f their own, but they all seem to us to alter and to change from what they were each time they were seen. So it is clear that we do not see correctly, and that those many things do not correctly seem to exist. For they would not change i f they were true, but each would be as it seemed to be; fo r nothing is stronger than what is true. A nd i f they changed, what exists would have perished and what does not exist would have come into being. In this way, then, i f there exist many things, they must be such as the one thing is. [в 8] Melissus thus clearly explain s why they [i.e. Parm enides and Melissus] say that perceptible objects d o not exist bu t seem to exist. (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 5 8 .17 —5 5 9 .13 )

* T he sentence enclosed in double square brackets appears here in our manuscripts o f Simplicius; but it is clearly out o f place and should probably be deleted.

49

11

ZENO Zeno came from Elea. He was a friend, and in some sense a disciple, o f Parmenides. We know nothing about his life and a precise chronology escapes us. Plato tells a story o f an encounter between Zeno and Socrates: although the reliability o f the narrative is a matter o f dispute, the passage is worth quoting at length.

A cco rd in g to A n tip h o n , P yth o do rus said that Z en o and Par­ m enides o n ce cam e [to A th ens] fo r the festival o f the G reat P an athen aea. P arm enid es was a lread y a very old m an, w hite­ h aired bu t o f d istin gu ish ed ap p ea ra n ce - he was about sixtyfive years old . Z en o was then nearly fo rty, tall and pleasing to look at — he was said to have been P arm en id es’ lover. T h e y w ere stayin g with P yth odorus, o utsid e the city wall in the C eram icus. T h e r e Socrates a n d a few o th ers visited them , eager to h ear Z en o ’s w ritings - fo r this was the first tim e they had been b ro u g h t by them to A th en s. Socrates was then very youn g. Z en o h im self read to them , w hile Parm enides h ap p en ed to be o ut. T h e r e was o n ly ve ry little o f th e a rg u m e n t still left to be read , P yth o d o ru s said, w hen he h im self cam e back and with him P arm enid es an d A risto d e (who becam e o n e o f the thirty tyrants); so they h ea rd ju s t a little o f th e w ritings - alth ough P yth o do rus h im self had actually h eard Z en o b efore. W h en Socrates had h eard him o u t, h e asked Z en o to read again th e first hypothesis o f the first argu m en t. W h en it had b een read he said: ‘Z en o , w hat d o you m ean? A r e you saying th at i f m ore things than o n e exist, th en they m ust be both

150

ZENO

sim ilar and dissim ilar, bu t that is im possible - fo r dissim ilar things cann ot be sim ilar o r sim ilar thin gs dissim ilar?’ ‘Y es,’ said Zeno. ‘So that if it is im possible fo r dissim ilar th in gs to be sim ilar and sim ilar things dissim ilar, it can n ot be th at m ore things than on e exist. F or i f several things d id exist, th ey w ou ld have im possible p rop erties. Is this w hat y o u r a rg u m en ts a re aim in g a t - a t contesting, against ev ery th in g that p eo p le say, that th ere d o not exist m ore thin gs than one? A n d d o you take each o f you r argu m en ts to be evid en ce fo r that very conclu sion, so that you suppose y o u rse lf to p ro v id e as m any pieces o f evid en ce as you have com posed argu m en ts to show that th ere d o not exist several things? Is th at w hat you m ean, o r have I m isu nd erstood you?’ ‘N o ,’ said Zen o, ‘you h ave g rasp ed p erfectly th e o verall aim o f the b ook.’ ‘ I see, P arm enid es,’ said Socrates, ‘that Z en o h ere wants to be associated with you not only by his love fo r you b u t also by his treatise. F or he has in a way w ritten the sam e th in g as you , alth o ugh by ch a n g in g it he is try in g to m islead us into th in kin g that he is saying so m eth in g d iffe re n t. You say in y o u r poem s that the u niverse is o n e, an d you p ro d u ce excellen t evid en ce fo r that view. H e says that th ere d o not exist several things, and he too p rod u ces m any im pressive pieces o f evid en ce. O n e o f you says that o n e th in g exists, th e o th er that th ere d o not exist several things, a n d each o f you expresses h im self in such a way that you seem n o t to be sayin g th e sam e thin gs at all even th ou gh you are sayin g pretty well the sam e th in gs - so m eth in g which seem s to be above the heads o f the rest o f u s.’ ‘Y es, Socrates,’ said Zeno; ‘but you h a ven ’t alto geth er grasp ed the tru th ab o u t m y book. L ik e a Spartan h o u n d , you are goo d at chasin g an d trackin g d ow n w hat I h ave said. But, first, you h aven ’t seen that m y book isn’t really so very co n ­ ceited - 1 did not w rite with the intention you d escribe o n ly to hide the fact from p eo p le, as th ou gh that w ere a g rea t ach ieve­ m ent. Y o u have m ention ed an accidental fea tu re o f the book: in truth it is a sort o f d efen ce o f P arm enid es’ argu m en ts against those w h o try to rid icu le him on the g ro u n d s that i f th ere exists

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

o n ly o n e th in g then the a rg u m e n t leads to m any absurd and co n trad ictory conclusions. M y book attacks those w ho say that several things exist, aim in g to show that th eir hypothesis, that several things exist, leads to even m ore ridiculous results, if you exam in e it p ro p erly , than the hypothesis that only on e th in g exists. It was with that sort o f am bition that I w rote it w hen I was yo u n g. A fte r it was w ritten som eone stole it, so that I co u ld not even co n sid er w h eth er it shou ld be b ro u g h t out into the ligh t o r not.’ (Plato, Parmenides 127A-1 28 d)

Zeno's treatise consisted o f a series o f arguments designed to show that the common sense 'hypothesis' that there are several things in existence leads to absurdity. Later sources say that there were forty arguments in all. There are substantial fragments o f two o f those arguments; Aristotle provides a critical paraphrase o f fou r more o f thejn; and we possess accounts o f a further two. The fragments are all preserved in Simplicius’ commentary on the Physics. Simplicius is discussing a passage where Aristotle refers to two arguments, the argument that 'everything is one’ and the argument f‘ rom dichotomy’. The passage was understood in different ways by Aristotle’s commentators, and Simplicius’ citations o f Zeno occur in his survey o f their dispute.

A le x a n d e r says that the second a rg u m en t, from the d icho­ tom y, is Z en o ’s and that he claim s that if w hat exists has m agni­ tu d e and is d ivid ed , then it will be m any and no lon ger one, thus p ro v in g that the o n e does not exist . . . A le x a n d e r seem s to have taken his o p in ion that Z en o d oes aw ay with the one fro m E u d em u s’ w ritings. For in his Physics E u dem u s says: T h e n d oes this n o t exist a lth o u g h som e o n e th in g does exist? T h a t was the p u zzle. T h e y re p o rt that Z en o said that he w ou ld be able to talk about w hat exists i f only so m eo n e w ould exp lain to him w hat on earth th e on e was. H e was p u zzled , it seem s, because each percep tible item is called m any th in gs both by way o f pred ication and by b ein g divisible into parts, w hereas points a re n o th in g at

>52

ZENO

all (fo r he th o u g h t that w hat n eith er increases w hen a d d ed nor d ecreases w hen subtracted was not an existen t thing). N ow it is indeed likely that Z en o a rg u ed on both sides by way o f intellectual exercise (that is why he is called ‘tw o -to n g u ed ’) and that he actually published argu m en ts o f this sort to raise puzzles a bout the one. B u t in his treatise, which contains m any argum ents, he shows in each case that a n yon e w ho says that several things exist falls into inconsistencies. T h e r e is on e a rg u m en t in w hich he show s that i f several things exist they are both large and sm all - so larg e as to be infinite in m agnitu de, so sm all as to have no m agn itu d e at all. H ere he shows that w hat has no m agn itu de, no m ass, and no bulk, does not even exist. For, he says, i f it were added to anything else, it would not make it larger. For i f it is o f no magnitude but is added, [the other thing] cannot increase at all in magnitude. Thus what is added will therefore be nothing. And i f when it is subtracted the other thing is no smaller — and will not increase when it is added again — then clearly what was added and subtracted was nothing. [29 в 2] Zeno says this not to d o away with the o n e but in o rd e r to show that the several things each possess a m agn itu d e — a m agn itu d e which is actually infinite by virtu e o f th e fact that, because o f infinite divisibility, th ere is alw ays so m eth in g in fro n t o f w hatever is taken. A n d he shows this h avin g first show n that they possess no m agn itu d e from the fact that each o f the sev­ eral things is the sam e as itself and o n e. (T hem istius actually says that Z en o ’s a rg u m e n t establishes that w hat exists is o n e from the fact that it is continu ous and indivisible; ‘fo r if it w ere d ivid ed ,’ he says, ‘it w ould not strictly sp eak in g be o n e because o f the infinite divisibility o f bodies.’ B u t Z en o seem s rath er to say that there d o not exist several things.) P orp h yry holds that the a rg u m e n t fro m d ich otom y belonged to Parm enides w ho a ttem pted to show by it that w hat exists is one. H e writes as follows: Parm enides had a n o th e r a rg u m en t, the o n e based on d ich otom y, w hich p u rp o rts to show that w hat exists is o n e th in g only and, m oreo ver, partless and indivisible. For w ere it divisible, he says, let it have been cu t in tw o - and

»53

EARLY GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

then each o f its parts in two. Since this goes on fo r ever, it is clear, he says, that e ith er som e final m agnitudes will rem ain w hich a re m inim al and atom ic and infinite in num ­ ber, so that the whole thing will be constituted from infin­ itely m any minima; o r else it will disappear and be dissolved into n othin g, and so be constituted from nothing. B u t these consequences a re absurd. T h e r e fo r e it will not be d ivided but will rem ain one. A g a in , since it is e v eryw h ere alike, if it is really divisible it will be divisible e v eryw h ere alike, and not divisible in o n e place and not in an oth er. T h e n let it have been d ivided everyw h ere. It is clear, again, that n o th in g will rem ain bu t that it will d isap pear; and i f it is constituted at all, it will again be constituted from noth ing. F or i f an yth in g rem ains, it will not yet have been d ivid ed everyw h ere. T h u s from these considerations too it is evid en t, he says, that what exists will be indivisible and partless and o n e . . . P o rp h yry is righ t h ere to r e fe r to th e a rg u m en t from d icho­ tom y as in trod u cin g the indivisible o n e by way o f the absurdity co nsequ ent u pon division; but it is w orth asking w h eth er the a rg u m e n t is really P arm enid es’ rath er than Z en o ’s, as A le x ­ a n d er thinks. F or n oth in g o f the sort is stated in the Parm enidean w ritings, and m ost scholars ascribe the a rg u m en t from d ich otom y to Zen o - indeed it is m ention ed as Z en o ’s in A ris­ totle’s w o rk On Motion [i.e. Physics аздЬд]. A n d why say m ore w hen it is actually fo u n d in Z en o ’s ow n treatise? For, show ing that i f several things exist the sam e things are finite and infinite, Z en o writes in the fo llo w in g w ords: I f several things exist, it is necessary fo r them to be as many as they are, and neither more norfewer. But i f they are as many as they are, they will be finite. I f several things exist, the things that exist are infinite. For there are always others between the things that exist, and again others between them. And in this way the things that exist are infinite, [в 3] A n d in this way he has p roved infinity in quantity from the d ich otom y. A s fo r infinity in m agn itu de, he proved that earlier in the sam e arg u m en t. F or h avin g first p ro ved that i f what exists had n o m agn itu d e it w ould not even exist, he continues:

154

ZENO

But i f it exists, it is necessary fo r each thing to have some hulk and magnitude, and fo r one part o f it to be at a distance from the other. And the same argument applies to the protruding part. For that too will have a magnitude, and a part o f it will protrude. Now it is all one to say this once and to say it fo r ever. For it will have no last part o f such a sort that there is no longer one part in front o f another. In this way i f there exist several things it is necessary fo r them to be both small and large — so small as not to have a magnitude, so large as to be infinite, [в l ] Perhaps, then, the a rg u m e n t from d ich otom y is Z e n o ’s, as A lex a n d e r holds, b u t he is not d o in g away with th e o n e but rather with the m any (by show in g that those w ho h ypoth esize them are com m itted to inconsistencies) and is thus co n firm in g Parm enides’ a rg u m e n t that w hat exists is one. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 13 8 .3 -6 , 13 8 .2 9 -14 0 .6 , 1 4 0 .1 8 -1 4 1 .1 1 ) Aristotle discusses fou r o f Zeno’s arguments in the Physics. The account is concise, and the text in crucial places is uncertain. Zeno argu es fallaciously. F or if, he says, e v ery th in g is alw ays at rest w hen it is in a space equal to itself , an d i f w hat is travel­ ling is always in such a space at any instant, then the travellin g arrow is m otionless. T h a t is false; fo r tim e is n o t co m posed o f indivisible instants - n o r is any o th er m agn itu de. Zen o’s argu m en ts ab o u t m otion w hich p ro v id e tro u ble fo r those who try to resolve them a re fo u r in n u m ber. T h e first m aintains that n o th in g m oves because w hat is travelling m ust first reach the half-w ay point b efo re it reaches the end. W e have discussed this earlier. T h e second is the so-called A chilles. T h is m aintains that the slowest th in g will n ever be ca u gh t w hen ru n n in g by the fastest. F or the p u rsu er m ust first reach the p o in t fro m w hich the pu rsu ed set out, so that th e slow er m ust alw ays be ah ead o f it. T h is is the sam e a rg u m e n t as the d ich oto m y, bu t it d iffe rs in that the additional m agnitu des a re n o t d ivid ed in half. N ow it follows from the a rg u m en t that the slow er is n o t cau gh t, and the sam e e rro r is com m itted as in the d ich oto m y (in both

155

EARLY

GREEK

PHILOSOPHY

argu m en ts it follow s that you d o not reach the en d i f the m agni­ tu d e is d ivided in a certain way - but h ere th ere is the additional point that not even the fastest ru n n er in fiction will reach his goal w hen he p u rsu es the slowest); hen ce the solution must also be the sam e. A n d it is false to claim that the o n e ahead is not cau gh t: it is not ca u gh t while it is ahead, but nonetheless it is ca u gh t (provid ed you g ra n t that th ey can co ver a finite distance). T h o se , then, are two o f the argu m ents. T h e third is the on e we have ju s t stated, to the e ffe ct that the travelling arrow stands still. It d ep en d s on the assum ption that tim e is com ­ posed o f instants; fo r if that is not g ra n ted the in fere n ce will not go th ro u gh . T h e fo u rth is the a rg u m en t about the bodies m ovin g in the stadium fro m o pposite d irections, an equal n u m b er past an equal nu m ber; the o n e g ro u p starts from the en d o f the stadium , the o th er from the m iddle; and they m ove at equal speed. H e thinks it follow s that h a lf the tim e is equal to its d ou b le. T h e fallacy consists in claim in g that equal m agnitudes m ovin g at equal speeds, the o n e past a m ovin g object and the o th er past a stationary object, travel fo r an equal length o f tim e. B u t this is false. F or ex a m p le, let the stationary equ al bodies be a a ; let в в be those b eg in n in g fro m the m idd le, equ al in n u m b er and in m agn itu d e to them ; a n d let c c be those b eg in n in g from the en d , equ al in n u m b er and in m agn itu d e to them and equal in sp eed to the b s . It follow s that, as they m ove past on e anoth er, the first в and the first с a re at the en d at the sam e tim e. A n d it follow s that the с has travelled past all o f them but the в past h a lf o f them . H en ce the tim e is h a lf — fo r each o f the two is alo n gsid e each fo r an equ al tim e. A t the sam e tim e it follows that the first в has travelled past all the cs; fo r the first с and the first в will be at o p p o site en d s at the sam e tim e (being, as he says, a lo n gsid e each o f the b s fo r a tim e equ al to that fo r which it is alon gsid e each o f th e a s ) - because both a re alo n g­ side the a s fo r an equ al tim e. T h a t is th e a rg u m en t, and it rests u p on the falsity w e have m ention ed. (A risto d e, Physics 2 3 ^ 5 -2 4 0 8 18 ) 156

ZENO

Aristotle refers back to his earlier discussion o f thefirst o f Zeno’s argu­ ments: Zen o’s a rg u m en t assum es that it is im possible to traverse an infinite nu m ber o f things, o r to touch an infinite n u m b er o f things individually, in a finite tim e. B u t this is false. F or both lengths and lim es - and indeed all continua — are said to be infinite in two ways: e ith er by division o r in respect o f th eir extrem ities. N ow it is not possible to touch a quantitatively infinite nu m ber o f things in a finite tim e, but it is possible so to touch things infinite by division. F or tim e itself is infinite in this way. H ence it follow s that w hat is infinite is traversed in an infinite and not in a finite tim e, and that the infinite things are touched at infinitely not at finitely m any instants. (ibid 2 3 3 8 2 1-3 1) Later authors add nothing to Aristotle’s account o f these paradoxes. Diogenes Laertius purports to quote a sentence o f Zeno’s, but most scholars doubt his evidence: Zeno does away with m otion by saying: What is moving is moving neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not. [в 4] (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers IX 72) Two further Zenonian arguments are referred to by Aristotle and explained in more detail by Simplicius: It is clear that n o th in g can be in itself as its p rim ary place. Zeno’s puzzle - that if places exist then they will be in som e­ th in g - is not d ifficu lt to resolve. F or n o th in g preven ts the prim ary place o f a th in g fro m bein g in so m eth in g else - but not in it as in a place. (A ristotle, Physics 2 io b 2 2 -2 5 ) Z en o’s a rg u m en t seem ed to d o aw ay with th e existen ce o f place. It was p ro p o u n d ed as follow s: I f places exist, th ey will be in som ething; fo r e v ery th in g that exists is in som ethin g. B u t

EARLY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

w hat is in so m eth in g is in a place. T h e r e fo r e places are in places — and so ad infinitum. T h e r e fo r e places d o not exist . . . E u dem u s relates Z en o ’s view as follows: Z en o ’s p u zzle seem s to lead to the sam e conclusion. For h e claim s that ev ery th in g that exists is som ew here. B ut if places are a m o n g the things that exist, w h ere will they be? S u rely in a n o th er place - and that in an other, and so on. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 5 6 2 .3 -6 , 5 6 3 .17-2 0 ) Z en o ’s a rg u m e n t - that any part o f a m illet-seed m akes a sound - is false; fo r n o th in g prevents it from having no effect at all, in any length o f tim e, on th e air which the w hole bushel sets in m otion. (A ristotle, Physics 250319-22) H av in g ssid that if the w hole fo rce m oved the w hole w eight a certain distance in a certain tim e it does not thereby follow that h a lf the fo rce will in the sam e tim e m ove the w hole w eight h a lf — o r any part — o f the distance (nor will every part o f the fo rce w hich m oved the w hole w eight be capable o f m oving the w hole w eigh t fo r a given tim e and o v e r a given distance), [A ristotle] thus solves the problem w hich Z en o o f Elea pu t to P rotagoras the sophist. ‘T e ll m e, P rotagoras,’ he said, ‘does o n e m illet-seed - o r the ten-thousan dth p art o f a seed - m ake a sound w hen it falls?’ P rotagoras said that it did not. ‘ B u t,’ he said, ‘d oes a bushel o f m illet-seed m ake a sound when it falls o r not?’ W hen he replied that a bushel does m ake a sound, Z en o said: ‘W ell, then, isn’t th ere а ratio betw een the bushel o f m illet-seed 3nd th e sin gle seed - o r th e ten-th ou ssnd th p art o f a single seed?’ H e a greed . ‘W ell, th en ,’ said Zeno, ‘will there not be similar ratios between the sounds? For as are the sound­ ers so are the sounds. A n d if that is the case, then if the bushel o f m illet-seed m akes a sou n d , the single seed - and the tenth ou san dth p art o f a sin gle seed - will also m ake a so u n d .’ T h a t was Z en o ’s argu m en t. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 110 8 .14 —28)

158

PART III

12 EMPEDOCLES Empedocles came from Acragas in Sicily. His family was rich and distinguished — his grandfather won a victory in the horse-racing at the Olympic Games o f 496 вс. His dates are uncertain, since the vari­ ous figures cited by our sources do not tally with one another. Aristotle allegedly said that he died at the age o f sixty: the remainder o f our evidence suggests that the period from about 495 в с to about 4 35 may be roughly right fo r his life-span. He was apparently a person o f some political importance (the trad­ ition makes him a keen democrat), and in addition he may have worked as a doctor. He wrote several works, all o f them in verse, o f which the most important were later entitled O n N atu re and Purifications. Numerous fragments o f these works survive, some o f them quite leng­ thy; but the sources rarely ascribe them to one poem rather than the other and rarely indicate the order in which they appeared within their original poem. Questions o f ascription and arrangement have greatly exercised scholars, but little progress has been achieved. I shall translate first the passages which certainly or probably or perhaps come from O n N atu re, and then the passages which certainly or probably or perhaps come from the Purifications. I should stress that many o f the ascriptions implicit in the following pages are highly uncertain.

On Nature The dedication and perhaps thefirst line o/O n N a tu re are preserved: Pausanias, a cco rd in g to A ristip p u s an d Satyrus, was [E m p ed o ­ cles’] lover, to w hom he ad d ressed On Nature, thus: 161

EARLY GREEK P H IL O S O P H Y

Pausanias, son o f wise Anchitus, listen . . . [31 в 1] (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V I II 60)

Empedocles promised Pausanias remarkable powers, and urged him to guard his knowledge carefully:

A cco rd in g to Satyrus, G orgias says that he h im self was present w hen E m ped ocles p erfo rm ed m agical d eed s, and Em pedocles h im self p rofesses as m uch - and m uch else beside - in his poem s w h ere he says: What drugs there are for ills and what help against old age you will learn, since for you alone shall I accomplish all this. And you will stop the power o f the tireless winds which sweep over the earth and destroy the crops with their breath, and again, i f you wish, you will bring on compensating breezes. And after black rain you will produce a seasonable drought fo r men, and after the summer drought you will produce tree-nurturing streams which live in the ether. A nd you will lead from Hades the power o f dead men. [в i n ] ‘ (ibid V III 59)

. . . Such acco rd in g to E m ped ocles is th e generation and destruction o f o u r w orld an d its com position fro m g oo d and evil. H e says that th ere is also a third intelligible pow er which again can be m ade fro m these. H e writes: For i f you press them into your throbbing mind and watch over them in kindly fashion with pure attentions, these will indeed all remain with you throughout your life, and you will gain many others from them; for they themselves will increase each into its character as is the nature o f each. But should you reach out fo r things o f a different kind which among men are numberless and trifling and blunt their thoughts, they will leave you at once as time revolves, 162

EMPEDOCLES

desiring to come to their own dear kind; for know that they all have thought and a share o f mind, [в 1 10] (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies V I I x x ix 2 5 -2 6 ) [Em pedocles] advises Pausanias, in P ythagorean fashion, to guard his doctrines within a silent mind [в 5]; and in gen eral, those m en think that silence is divine. (Plutarch, Table Talk 728E) Empedocles’ superior understanding depended on a proper appreci­ ation o f the sources o f human knowledge: A s fo r the view that the discern m en t o f truth does n o t lie with the senses, [Em pedocles] writes as follows: For narrow are the devices dispersed over the limbs, and there are many wretched impediments which blunt the thought. Having seen a small part o f life, swift to die, men rise and fly away like smoke, persuaded only o f what each has met with as they are driven in every direction. Who then claims to fin d the whole? These things are not in this way to be seen by men nor to be heard nor to be grasped in their minds, [в 2.1—8] A s fo r the view that truth is not co m p letely u nattainable but can be grasped in sofar as hum an reason reaches it, he m akes this clear when he continues the lines ju s t q u oted : So you, since you have come here, will learn no more than mortal mind attains to. [в 2.8—9] In the follow in g lines he attacks those w h o p reten d to know m ore and establishes that w hat is g rasp ed th ro u g h each sense is trustw orthy p ro v id ed that reason is in ch a rg e o f it (even th ou gh he had earlier ru n dow n the reliability o f the senses). For he says: But, 0 gods, turn the madness o f these men from my tongue, and from holy mouths channel forth a pure spring. And you, Muse o f long memory, white-armed maiden, 163

EA RL Y GREEK P H I L O S O P H Y

I beseech: what it is right for mortals to hear, send to me, driving the well-reined chariot o f piety. She will not compel you to accept the flowers o f reputation and honour from mortals on condition that you say more than is holy with temerity. A nd then indeed do you sit on the summit o f wisdom. But come, observe with every device in the way in which each thing is clear: neither hold sight higher in trust than hearing or resounding hearing above the clarities o f the tongue, nor let any o f the other limbs by which thought has a way be deprived o f trust, but think in the way in which each thing is clear, [в 3] (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians V II 12 2 -12 5 ) F or the divine, as the p oet from A cragas says, cannot be approached by the eyes o f men or grasped by their hands, by which the greatest path to persuasion leads to the minds o f men. [в 133] (C lem ent, Miscellanies V xii 81.2) F or m ost p eo p le req u ire p r o o f as a p led g e o f the tru th , not bein g satisfied with the bare security w hich com es from faith: But whereas those who are very evil when in power have no trust, you, as the assurances from our Muse enjoin, must learn, once you have sifted the argument in your breast. [в 41 ‘ For evil m en, says E m pedocles, custom arily w ant to have p o w er o v e r the tru th by d istru stin g it. (ibid V iii 18.3-4) Happy, then, it seem s, a cco rd in g to E m pedocles, is he who has gained the wealth o f divine thoughts, wretched he whose beliefs about the gods are dark, [в 132] (ibid V xiv 140.5) With the invocation to the M use in fragment в 3 compare: 164

EMPEDOCLES

T h e ju s t account which strives on the side o f Love is called the Muse by Em pedocles, and he invokes h er to strive on his side, in these lines: I f ever fo r the sake o f some creature o f a day, immortal Muse, it pleased you that my cares should pass through your mind, now, as I pray, stand by me again, Calliope, as I reveal a good account about the blessed gods, [в 131] (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies V I I x x x i 4) O n N atu re described a complex, cyclical history o f the universe. Everything is compounded from four elements or ‘roots’. The primary moving factors are two powers, Love and Strife. The elements period­ ically unite into a divine and homogeneous Sphere. The Sphere then dissolves and the world is established in a series o f stages. History then reverses itself, and the universe gradually returns to the state o f the Sphere. The cosmic cycle rolls on repeatedly, without beginning and without end. Empedocles’ poem contained repetitions and reprises. This is clear in the surviving fragments, and Empedocles himself avows it: But, lest, as E m pedocles puts it, I shall be th ou g h t to attach one heading to another and not complete a single path in my tales, [в 24] let m e b rin g my in trod u cto ry rem arks to th eir a p p ro p ria te end. ' (Plutarch, On the Decline o f Oracles 4 1 8c) ‘T w ice and thrice fo r the fin e’: a p roverb, m ean in g that o n e should speak o ften about w hat is fine. T h e verse fro m which the p roverb com es is by E m pedocles, H e says: For it is fine to speak twice o f what one should, [в 25] (Scholiast to Plato, Gorgias 498E) Two long extracts from Simplicius’ commentary on the Physics pro­ vide good accounts o f the general structure o f Empedocles’ cosmic history. In the first book o f his Physics E m ped ocles talks about the o n e and the finitely m any and the p eriod ic creation and 165

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

gen eration and destruction by association and dissociation in the follow ing way: I will tell a two-fold story. At one time they grew to be one alone from being many, and at another they grew apart again to be many from being one. Double is the generation o f mortal things, double their passing away: one is bom and destroyed by the congregation o f everything, the other is nurtured and flies apart as they grow apart again. And these never cease their continual change, now coming together by Love all into one, now again all being carried apart by the hatred o f Strife. < Thus insofar as they have learned to become one from many> and again become many as the one grows apart, to that extent they come into being and have no lasting life; but insofar as they never cease their continual change, to that extent they exist forever, unmoving in a circle. But come, hear my words; fo r learning enlarges the mind. As I said before when I revealed the limits o f my words, I will tell a two-fold story. At one time they grew to be one alone from being many, and at another they grew apart again to be many from being one — fire and water and earth and the endless height o f air, and cursed Strife apart from them, balanced in every way, and Love among them, equal in length and breadth. Her you must regard with your mind: do not sit staring with your eyes. She is thought to be innate also in the limbs o f mortals, by whom they think thoughts o f love and perform deeds o f union, calling her Joy by name and Aphrodite, whom no-one has seen whirling among them no mortal man. Listen to the course o f my argument, which does not deceive: these are all equal and o f the same age, but they hold different offices and each has its own character; and in turn they come to power as time revolves. And in addition to them nothing comes into being or ceases. 166

EMPEDOCLES

For i f they were continually being destroyed, they would no longer exist. And what could increase this universe? and whence might it come? And where indeed might it perish, since nothing is empty o f them? But these themselves exist, and passing through one another they become different at different times — and are ever and always the same, [в 17] H ere h e says that that w hich com es fro m m any - fro m th e fo u r elem ents - is one, an d h e shows that it exists som etim es w hen L ove is d om in an t and som etim es w hen S trife is. F o r that neith er o f these com pletely passes away, is show n by the fact that they a re all equ al and o f the sam e a g e and that n o th in g com es into bein g in add ition to them o r ceases. T h e m an y from which the on e derives a re plu ral - fo r L ove is not the on e, since Strife too brings them into unity. H aving m entioned the m any o th er things, he con tin u es by sketching the ch aracter o f each o f them , callin g fire Su n , air Brightness an d H eaven, and w ater Rain and Sea. T h is is w hat he says: But come, consider these witnesses to my former words, i f anything I said before was incomplete in form: the sun, hot to see and radiant everywhere, the divine bodies flooded in heat and shining brightness, rain everywhere, dark and cold, and from earth flow forth things firm and solid. In Anger they have different forms and are all apart, but in Love they come together and are desired by one another. For from these comes everything which was and which is and will be trees spring up, and men and women and beasts and birds and fish that live in the water and even gods, long-lived and highest in honour. For these themselves exist, and passing through one another they become different; fo r the mixture interchanges them, [в 21] H e gave a clear illustration o f how d iffe r e n t things co m e fro m the sam e elem ents: Just as painters, when they decorate offerings — 167

EARLY CREEK PH ILOSOPHY

men well taught by skill in their art — take the many-coloured pigments in their hands, and, harmoniously mixing them, some more some less, make from them shapes resembling all things, creating trees and men and women and beasts and birds and fish that live in the sea and even gods, long-lived and highest in honour: so let not deceit persuade your mind that there is any other source fo r the countless mortal things we see. But know this clearly, having heard the tale from a god. [в 23] H e considers these m any things, and not ju s t L ove and Strife, to be in the gen erated w o rld , as is clear w hen he says that trees and m en an d w om en an d beasts have com e into bein g from them . A n d th ey ch a n g e into o n e an o th er, as he show s when he says: In turn they come to power as the circle revolves, and they decline into one another and increase in their allotted turn, [в 26.1—2] H e indicates that even w hat com es into bein g and is destroyed possesses im m ortality by way o f succession w hen he says: But insofar as they never cease their continual change, to that extent they exist forever, unmoving in a circle, [в 17 .12 — »3] H e also hints at a d o u b le w orld - o n e intelligible and the o th e r p erceptible, o n e d ivin e and the o th e r m ortal, o n e con ­ tain in g thin gs as parad igm s an d the o th e r as copies. He show ed this w hen he said that not o n ly gen erated and perish ­ able th in gs are co m posed o f these bu t so too a re the gods (unless this sh ou ld be ex p lain ed in term s o f E m pedoclean usage). In the fo llo w in g verses too you m igh t thin k he is hint­ in g at a d o u b le w orld: For they are all in union with their own parts — Sun and Earth and Heaven and Sea — which have been separatedfrom them and grown in mortal things. In the same way, those that are more ready to blend are made similar by Aphrodite and love one another. But most hostile are the things which differ most from one another in birth and blending and moulded shape, 168

EMPEDOCLES

quite unaccustomed to come together and deeply dismal *at their strife-birth because they were bom in anger * [в 22] H e shows that they a re h arm on ized even in m ortal things, but in the intelligible w orld th ey a re m ore u nited and are made similar by Aphrodite and love one another, [в 22.5] A n d even i f this happens everyw h ere, nevertheless in­ telligible things are m ad e sim ilar by L ove w hereas p e rce p ­ tible things are o verp o w ered by S trife and torn fu rth e r ap art and in the blen d in g o f th eir birth they subsist in sh apes w hich are m oulded and copied , strife-born an d u naccustom ed to union with o n e another. H e also su pposed that gen eration takes place in virtu e o f som e association and dissociation, as is show n by the first pass­ age I set dow n: At one time they grew to be one alone from being many, and at another they grew apart again to be many from being one. [в 1 7 .1 —2] See also his rem ark to the e ffe ct that g en eratio n and d estru c­ tion are nothing but there is only mixing and interchange o f what is mixed [в 8.3] and allotted con gregatio n and flyin g apart. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 15 7 .2 5 -1 6 1 .2 0 ) Most think that a cco rd in g to E m ped ocles L o v e a lo n e m ad e the intelligible w orld and S trife alon e the p ercep tib le w orld. But in fact he gives both o f them th eir a p p ro p riate fu n ction s everyw h ere, as we can see from his w ords in th e Physics, w h ere he says that A p h ro d ite o r L o v e is a cause o f th e creative co m p o ­ sition o f this w orld too. H e calls fire H eph aestu s and Su n and Flam e, w ater Rain, air E ther. H e says this in m an y places, includin g the fo llo w in g verses: Earth, roughly equal to them, happened together with Hephaestus and Rain and shining Ether, anchored in the perfect harbours o f Aphrodite, either a little more earth or less where they were more. And from them came blood and different forms o f flesh, [в 98] B e fo re these lines he refers in o thers to the activity o f both [Love and Strife] in the sam e things, as follows: 169

EARLY CREEK

PHILOSOPHY

When Strife reached the lowest depth o f the vortex, and Love comes to be in the middle o f the whirl, in her all these things come together to be one thing only, not suddenly, but coming together at willfrom different directions. As they mingle, innumerable types o f mortal things pour forth. But many stand unmixed among them as they blend those which Strife holds, still aloft; fo r not completely does it all yet stand out at the furthest limits o f the circle, but parts o f it remain in the limbs, and parts have stepped out. And as it ever runs out ahead, so ever pursues the gentle, immortal onrush o f complete Love. And at once become mortal those things which formerly learned to be immortal, and mixed those which formerly were unmixed, interchanging their paths. As they mingle, innumerable types o f mortal things pour forth, fitted with every sort o f shape, a wonder to see. [в 35.3—17] H ere he clearly says both that m ortal things w ere constructed by L ove and that S trife d id not yet all stand outside the areas w h ere L o v e pred om in ated . A g a in , in the lines w h ere he gives the characteristics o f each o f the fo u r elem ents and o f S trife and L ove, he clearly refers to the m ixtu re o f both - o f S trife and o f L o v e - in all o f them . T h e lines a re these: The sun, hot to see and radiant everywhere; the divine bodies, flooded in heat and shining brightness; rain everywhere, dark and cold; and from earth flow forth things firm and solid. In Anger they have different forms and are all apart, but in Love they come together and are desired by one another. For from these comes everything which was and which is and will be trees sprang up, and men and women and beasts and birds and fish that live in the water, and even gods, long-lived and highest in honour, [в 2 1 .3 -12 ] A little fu rth e r o n h e says: In turn they come to power as the circle revolves, 170

EMPEDOCLES

and they decline into one another and increase in their allotted turn. For these themselves exist, and passing through one another they become men and the other kinds o f animals, now by Love coming together into one arrangement, now again each carried apart by the hatred o f Strife, until, having grown together as one, they are completely subdued. Thus insofar as they have learned to become one from many and again become many as the one grows apart, to that extent they come into being and have no lasting life; but insofar as they never cease their continual change, to that extent they exist forever, unmoving in a circle, [в 26] T h u s both the o n e-from -m an y (which com es ab o u t because o f Love) and the m an y-fro m -o n e (which o ccu rs w hen S trife predom inates) a re located by him in this su blu n ary w orld too in w hich m ortal things a re fo u n d , it bein g clear that at d iffe r ­ en t tim es and fo r d iffe r e n t p eriod s now S trife and now L ove dom inates. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 1 .3 1 —34.8) The remaining fragments can best be read as supplements to and expansions upon the texts quoted by Simplicius in these two passages. Certain lines in the passages show that Empedocles was aware o f the Parmenidean objections against generation and change, and that he hoped to have evaded them. Some further fragments have a Parmen­ idean background. T h e n Colotes, as th ou gh he w ere talking to an u n lettered king, fastens n ext on E m pedocles: Another thing I will tell you: there is no birth fo r any mortal thing, nor any cursed end in death. But there is only mixing and interchange o f what is mixed but men name these things birth, [в 8] (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 1 1 1 f ) [Em pedocles] was so fa r from u psettin g w hat exists and figh tin g against the ap pearan ces that h e d id not even banish the expressions fro m o rd in a ry lan gu age: rath er, h e rem oved 171

E A RL Y GREEK P H I L O S O P H Y

the h arm fu l factual m isu n d erstan d in g w hich they cause and then restored them to cu rren t use, in these lines: When they come into the air mixed in the form o f a man or o f a kind o f wild beast or o f a plant or o f a bird, then people call this coming into being; and when they have separated off, this they call wretched fate. They do not call things as they should, but I myself also subscribe to the convention, [в 9] C o lotes h im self cites these lines but does not notice that E m pedocles did not d o away with m en and beasts and plants and birds, w hich he says a re p ro d u ced as the elem ents mix; and h avin g pointed o u t th eir m istake to those w ho call this association and dissociation birth and wretchedfate and evil death [в 10], he did not disallow the use o f the custom ary expressions fo r them . N ow I d o not think that E m ped ocles is here upsetting o u r m od e o f expression ; rath er, as 1 said earlier, he is in substantial d isagreem en t o v e r g en eratio n from the non-existent, which som e call birth. H e shows this m ost clearly in the follow ing verses: Fools — they have no far-ranging thoughts: they suppose that what did not exist before comes into being or that something may die and perish entirely, [в 11 ] T h e s e a re verses o f o n e w ho shouts alo u d to all w ho have ears that h e is not d o in g aw ay with co m in g into b ein g but only with co m in g into b ein g from w hat does not exist, n o r with destruction but only with co m p lete d estruction, i.e. destruction into w hat does not exist. I f you wish som eth in g gen tler than that savagely sim ple d en u n ciation , the fo llo w in g passage m ight lead you to accuse him o f excessive kindness. T h e r e E m p ed o­ cles says: No man wise in these things would suppose in his mind that while men live — what they call life — for so long do they exist and experience ill and good, but that before they were made men and after they are dissolved they are nothing, [в 15] T h o se a re th e w ords not o f o n e w ho d enies that those w ho h ave b een bo rn and a re livin g exist, bu t rath er o f on e who 172

EMPEDOCLES

thinks that both those w ho have not yet been born and those who have alread y d ied exist. (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 1 1 3 a d ] A gain , even if it is quite im possible both fo r w hat d oes not exist to com e into bein g and fo r w hat exists to perish , w hy sh ou ld not som e things nevertheless be gen erated and o th ers eternal, as E m pedocles says? For he too, havin g adm itted all this nam ely that from what does not exist nothing can come into being, and fo r what exists to be destroyed is impossible and unaccomplishable — for it will always remain wherever anyone may fix it [в 12] - nevertheless he says that som e things a re etern al (fire, w ater, earth, air) while o th ers com e and have com e into b ein g from them . ([Aristotle], On Melissus, Xenophanes, Gorgias 975336—b6) Sim ilarly, E m pedocles says that all the things that exist a re always continuously m ovin g as they associate, and n o th in g is em pty - he says: No part o f the universe is empty: whence, then, might anything come? [в 13] A n d when they have been associated to g eth er into a single form , so as to be o n e, he says that in no respect is it empty, nor yet overfull, [в 14] For what prevents them from bein g carried into o n e an o th e r’s places and fro m m ovin g rou n d sim ultaneously, o n e into the place o f an o th er, the o th er into that o f an o th er, and so m eth in g else always ch a n g in g into that o f the first? (ibid 9 7 б Ь г з -з о ) The four 'roots’ or elements are described more than once. E m pedocles [derives everyth in g] fro m fo u r elem ents: Hear first the fou r roots o f all things: bright Zeus, life-bringing Hera, Aidoneus,

173

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

and Nestis, who waters with her tears the mortal fountains, [в 6] (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians X 315) T h e r e will be no such th in g as grow th a cco rd in g to E m p ed o­ c l e s - ex cep t by way o f addition; fo r fire increases by fire and earth increases her own form, ether ether, [в 37] B u t these are additions, and w hat grow s is not th ou gh t to grow in this way. (A ristotle, On Generation and Corruption 333335—Ьз) It is better to think o f the e th er as co n tain in g and binding everyth in g , as E m pedocles says: Come and I will tell you *. . .* from which all the things we now see came to be: earth and the billowy sea and the damp air and the Titan ether, binding everything in a circle, [в 38] (Clem ent, Miscellanies V viii 48.3) Som e think that [the w ord anopaia] is used instead o f ‘u p w ard ’. T h e y r e fe r to E m pedocles, w h o says o f fire swiftly upward [в 51]. (Eustathius, Commentary on the Odyssey I 321) Love and Strife are generally presented as the twin causal powers in the universe: T h e crea to r and m aker o f the gen eratio n o f all generated things is d ead ly Strife, while the ch a n g e and d ep a rtu re o f g en ­ erated things from the w orld and the establishm ent o f the O n e is the w ork o f Love. E m ped ocles says o f both that they are im m ortal and u n gen erated and never had a b egin n in g o f g en ­ eration — he writes as follows: For they are as they were before and as they will be, nor ever, / think, will boundless eternity be emptied o f these two. [в 16] A n d w ho are these two? - L ove and Strife. (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies V II x xix 9 -10 )

*74

EMPEDOCLES

Perhaps even th ou gh S trife p red om inates in this w orld and Love in the S p h ere, yet both a re said to be p ro d u ced by both. T h e r e is no reason why we should not set d ow n som e o f E m pedocles’ verses which m ake this clear: B u t ! shall return to the path o f songs which I traced before, channelling this account from that: when Strife reached the lowest depth . . . [в 3 5 .1 -3 ] . . . H ere it is m ade clear that in the creation o f the w orld S trife draws back and L ove p red om inates w hen it comes to be in the middle o f the whirl, [в 35.4] i.e. o f the vortex; hen ce th e vortex exists even w hen L ove predom inates. It is clear too that som e o f the elem ents rem ain unm ixed by Strife, while those that a re m ixin g m ake m ortal anim als and plants, since w hat is m ixin g is again dissolved. A n d sp eakin g about the creation o f these co rp oreal eyes, he says: From which divine Aphrodite fashioned tireless eyes, [в 86] and a little later: Aphrodite, fitting them with pegs o f affection, [в 87] A n d ex p lain in g w hy som e see better by d ay an d o th ers by night, he says: When first they grew together at the hands o f Cypris. [в 95] - H e is sp eakin g about the things in this w orld , as a p p ears from the follow ing verses: I f your trust was at all deficient on any o f these matters — how when water and earth and ether and sun were blended, and the forms and colours o f mortal things came into being as many as there are now, fitted together by Aphrodite, [в 71 ] A n d a little later: So then Cypris, when she had moistened earth with rain, busily making forms, gave it to swift fire to harden, [в 73] A n d again: Those which are dense inside but loose outside, chancing upon such a fluidity in the hands o f Cypris . . . [в 75] I have set dow n these verses from the first few I hit u pon. (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 2 9 .2 1 -5 3 0 .1 1 )

175

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

F or E m p ed ocles says that h ere too [i.e. in the su blu nary world] L ove and S trife p red om in ate by turn s o ver m en and fish and beasts an d birds. H e writes as follows: This is plain in the bulk o f mortal members: somtimes by Love they all come together into one, limbs which the body acquires when life is thriving at its peak; sometimes again, divided by evil Conflicts, each wanders apart along the shore o f life. So too is it with plants and fish o f the watery halls and beasts o f the mountain lairs and flying gulls, [в 20] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 1 124.9—18) But, as the ancient scholars noted, Empedocles sometimes ascribes causal powers to the elements themselves, he sometimes invokes theforce o f necessity and he sometimes appears to allow room in the universe for chance events. In gen eral, fire divides and separates, w ater is adhesive and retentive, h o ld in g and g lu in g by its m oisture. Em pedocles alluded to this every tim e he refe rre d to fire as cursed Strife [cf в 17.19 ] anc* to w ater as tenacious Love [в 19]. (Plutarch, The Primary Cold 952л) [Friendship] collects and com pacts and conserves, b rin gin g m en to g eth er by conversation and g oo d will — as when rennet pegs and ties white milk, [в 33] as E m ped ocles says. (Plutarch, On Having Many Friends 95A) T h e m oist causes the d ry to be b o u n d ed , and each is a sort o f g lu e fo r the o th er, as E m ped ocles said in his Physics, gluing barley with water [в 34] - an d fo r this reason th e b o u n d ed b o d y is m ad e o f both. (A ristotle, Meteorology 3 8 ^ 3 1 -3 8 2 3 3 ) E u dem u s takes it that the p erio d o f m otionlessness occurs u n d e r the d om in an ce o f L ove d u rin g the S p h e re, w hen e very­ th in g has been collected togeth er, where neither the swift limbs o f the sun are discerned, [в 27.1] 176

EMPEDOCLES

but, as he says, in this way it is held fast in the close covering o f Harmony, a rounded Sphere, rejoicing in its pleasant rest, [в 27.3—4] W hen Strife has again b egu n to p red om in ate, then again m otion occurs in the S p h ere: For all the limbs o f the god shook, one after another, [в 3 1 ] W hat is the d iffe re n c e betw een sayin g 'becau se th at is its nature’ and saying ‘by necessity’, without a d d in g any explan­ ation? T h a t is what Em pedocles appears to say in the line: In turn they come to power as time revolves, [в 17.29] and again w h ere he m akes necessity th e cause o f w h at com es into being: There is an oracle o f necessity, an ancient seal o f the gods, eternal, sealed by broad oaths, [ в 1 1 5 . 1 - 2 ] For he says that each pred om in ates in turn because o f necessity and these oaths. E m ped ocles says this too o f the p red o m in a n ce o f Strife: But when Strife had grown great in the limbs and rose to office as the time was completed, which was laid down fo r them in turn by the broad oath . . . [в 3°] N ow [Aristotle] says that to say this w ithout any ex p lan a tio n is sim ply to say that ‘that was its n a tu re’. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 118 3 .2 8 -1 18 4 .18 ) Necessity is unm usical, Persuasion m usical - she loves the M uses fa r m ore, I sh ou ld say, than E m p ed ocles’ G ra ce an d hates intolerable necessity, [в 1 16] (Plutarch, Table Talk 7 4 5 D ) E m pedocles says that air does not alw ays sep arate o f f to the highest point, but as ch an ce has it. A t all events, h e says in his cosm ogony that Then it happened to be running in this way, but often otherwise. [в 53] A n d he says that the parts o f anim als are m ostly fo rm ed by chance. (Aristotle, PA^jtcs 196320-24) 177

EA RLY GREEK PH IL O SO P H Y

E th er was carried u p w ard s not by S trife but, as he som etim es says, as i f by ch an ce Then it happened to be running in this way, but often otherwise [в 53] - and som etim es he says that fire is naturally carried upw ards, w hile eth er, h e says, sank with long roots into the earth, [в 54] (Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption 334a 1—5) T h a t [the early n atural scientists] had som e notion o f things h a p p e n in g by chance is show n by the fact that they som etim es use the w ord - as E m ped ocles says that fire does not always sep arate o f f upw ards but as ch an ce has it. T h u s he says in his cosm ogony that Then it happened to be running in this way, but often otherwise,

[в 53] and elsew here: . . . as each happened, [в 59.2] A n d he says that m ost o f the parts o f anim als com e about by chance, as w hen he writes: Earth, roughly equal to them, happened together . . ., [в 98. l] an d again: Gentle flame chanced on a little earth, [в 85] and elsew here: Chancing upon such a fluidity in the hands o f Cypris. [в 75.2] Y o u co u ld p ro d u ce m an y o th e r exam p les o f this sort from E m ped ocles’ Physics, such as: Thus by the will o f chance all things think, [в 103] an d a little later: And insofar as the most flne-textured things happened to fa ll together, [в 104] B u t E m ped ocles, w ho seem s to use ch an ce only in sm all m at­ ters, does not m erit m uch atten tion, not h avin g exp lain ed what ch an ce is. (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 3 0 .3 1-3 3 1.16 ) The divine and homogeneous Sphere is described in several frag­ ments. 178

EMPEDOCLES

A bo u t the form w hich the w orld has w hen it is b ein g arra n g ed by L ove h e says this: There are no two limbs branching from its back, no feet, no swift legs, no generative organs: it was a Sphere, equal to itself from all directions, [в 29] (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies V I I x x ix 13) But he, from all directions equal to himself and completely boundless, a rounded Sphere, rejoicing in his pleasant rest, [в 28] (Stobaeus, Anthology I x v 2) T h a t is why the wise m an o f A cragas, in his criticism o f the stories o f a n th ro p o m o rp h ic god s told by th e poets, said — sp eakin g in the first instance about A p o llo (with w hom his argu m en t was prim arily con cern ed ) but also in the sam e way about all the god s For no human head is fitted to his limbs, no two branches spring from his back, no feet, no swift legs, no hairy genitals: he is merely a mind, holy and wonderful, rushing xvith rapid thought over the whole world, [в 134] (A m m onius, Commentary on On Interpretation 2 4 9 .1-10 ) B ew are that you d o not in trod u ce E m ped ocles’ S trife, o r rather stir u p the old T ita n s and the G iants against natu re, o r lon g to see that m ythical and fe a rfu l chaos an d h o rro r, separating ev ery th in g heavy and e v ery th in g light, where neither the bright form o f the sun is seen nor the shaggy power o f the earth, nor the sea, fc f в 2 7 .1—2] as E m pedocles says. (Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 926E) The development o f the world included a bizarre phase in which monstrosities o f various sorts came into being:

[Aristotle] asks w h eth er th ere co u ld n o t then h ave been a »79

EARLY GREEK PH IL O SO P H Y

d iso rd erly m otion which p ro d u ced m ixtures . . . o f the sort which E m pedocles says cam e about in the reign o f Love: Here many neckless heads sprang up. [ в 5 7.1 ] . . . B u t how co u ld a ‘neckless h ea d ’ and the o th er things d escribed by E m ped ocles in th e lines: Naked arms strayed about, devoid o f shoulders, and eyes wandered alone, begging for foreheads, [в 57.2—3] a n d m any o th er thin gs - how co u ld these signify mixtures, when th ey a re certain ly not exam p les o f m ixtures from which natural objects a re co m p ou n d ed ? . . . B u t p erh ap s E m pedocles does not m ean that these things com e about u n d er the p red om in ­ a n ce o f L ove (as A le x a n d e r th ou gh t) but rather at the time w hen S trife does not yet all stand out at the furthest limits o f the circle, but parts o f it remain in the limbs, and parts have stepped out. A nd as it (he m eans Strife) ever runs out ahead, so ever pursues the gentle, immortal onrush o f complete Love, [в 3 5 .10 -1 3 ] So in this w orld the lim bs, still ‘sin gle-m em b ered ’ from the dissociation o f S trife, w an d ered about and desired to m ix with o n e an oth er. But when, he says, god mingled more with god - w hen L ove achieved co m p lete p red om in an ce o ver Strife these things came together as each happened, and many others in addition to these were continuously bom.

[в 59] T h u s E m ped ocles said that the fo rm e r p h en om en a occu r in the reign o f L o v e not in the sense that L ove was alread y p re ­ d om in an t bu t in the sense that she was about to p red om inate an d was still sh ow in g u n m ixed an d single-lim bed things. (Sim plicius, Commentary on On the Heavens 5 8 6 .6 -7 , 1 0 -1 2 , 29“ 587-4. 12-26) In the secon d book o f his Physics, b efo re discussing the articulation o f m ale and fem ale bodies, Em pedocles has these lines: Come now, hear how the shoots o f men and pitiable women were raised at night by fire, as it separated, thus —fo r my story does not miss the mark, nor is it ill-informed. 180

EMPEDOCLES

First, whole-natured forms sprang up from the earth, having a portion o f both water and heat. Fire sent them up, wishing to come to its like, and they showed as yet no desirable form in their limbs, nor any voice, nor member native to man. [в 62] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 8 1.29—382.3) E m pedocles the natural scientist, w ho also speaks o f the p ecu li­ arities o f anim als, says that som e hybrid s w ere g en era te d , d if­ feren t in the b len d in g o f their fo rm s but co n n ected by the unity o f their bodies. T h e s e are his words: Many grew double-headed, double-chested man-faced oxen arose, and again ox-headed men — creatures mixed partly from male partly from female form, fitted with dark limbs, [в 61] (A elian , The Nature o f Animals X V I 29) T h e s e things - and m any o th ers m ore d ram atic - a re like the m onsters o f E m ped ocles they lau gh at - th e lumberers with countless hands [в 60] and the man-faced oxen, [в 61.2] (Plutarch, Against Colotes 1 123B) Within the natural world, Empedocles’ 'physics’ and his ‘chemistry’ depend on a theory o f effluences and channels: C o n sid er the m atter, th en , h avin g with E m p ed ocles reco g ­ nized that there are effluences from all things that have come into being [в 89] - fo r not only anim als and plants and earth and sea, bu t stones too, and bron ze and iron , continu ously give o f f n u m erou s streams. (Plutarch, Scientific Explanations 91 6 d) E m pedocles said that in all su blu nary things - w ater, oil, etc. - channels an d solid parts a re m in gled . H e called the channels hollow and th e solid parts d ense. W h ere the solid parts and the channels, i.e. the hollow and th e d en se parts, a re 181

EA RL Y GREEK P H I L O S O P H Y

com m en su rate in such a way as to pass th ro u gh o n e an oth er, he said that m ixin g and b len d in g take place (e.g. w ater and wine), bu t w h ere th ey a re incom m ensurate, he said they d o not mix (e.g. w ater and oil); fo r he says water is more suited to wine, but with oil it will not. [в 91] A n d a p p lyin g this to all bodies, he attem pted to explain the sterility o f m ules. ([Philoponus], Commentary on the Generation o f Animals 1 2 3 .13 -2 1) A varied d iet sends fro m itself into the mass o f the body n u m erou s qualities and gives to each part w hat is app rop riate; so that th ere occurs w hat E m ped ocles described: thus sweet grasped sweet and bitter set upon bitter, sharp went to sharp, and hot rode on hot. [в 90] (Plutarch, Table Talk 663л) D iffe re n t thin gs a re a p p ro p riate and fitting to d iffe re n t things, as beans and p u rp le o r nitre an d sa ffro n seem to m ake a m ixed dyeThe gleam o f bright saffron is mixed with dark purple, [в 93] as E m p ed ocles said. (Plutarch, On the Decline o f Oracles 433B) The remainingfragments o f O n N atu re describe the natural world. I group them here under seven thematic headings.

Astronomy E m p ed ocles expresses th eir d iffe re n c e charm ingly: sharp-arrowed sun and gentle moon, [в 40] (Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 920c) A p o llo is called Eleleus because he turns [elittesthai] rou n d the earth . . . o r because he orbits in a collected mass o f fire, as E m ped ocles says: 182

EMPEDOCLES

Hence, collected together, he orbits the great heaven, [в 4 1] (M acrobius, Saturnalia I xvii 46) T h e m oon h e rse lf is invisible then, an d she o ften hides th e sun and m akes it d isap p ear she cuts o ff his rays, as E m pedocles says, as he travels above, and casts a shadow on the earth as great as the breadth o f the bright-eyed moon, [в 42] (Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 929c) Just as sounds w hen reflected g ive an ech o d u lle r than the original voice, and the blows o f ricoch etin g missiles strike with less violence, so the light, having struck the broad circle o f the moon, [в 43] flows weakly and dim ly to us. (ibid 929E) Y o u Stoics lau gh at E m ped ocles w h en h e says that the sun, which is p ro d u ced about the earth by th e reflection o f h eaven ly light, again shines back on Olympus with fearless face, [в 44] (Plutarch, Why the Pythia No Longer Prophesies in Verse 400B) T h e general view hold s that the m oon is nearest, since th ey say that it is actually a fra g m en t from the sun — so Em pedocles: In a circle round the earth she winds, another’s light, [в 45] (A chilles, Introduction to Aratus 16) [T h e m oon] pretty well tou ches the ea rth a n d , o rb itin g n ear her, * turns like the track* o f a chariot, [в 46] as E m pedocles puts it. (Plutarch, On the Face in the Moon 925B) ‘H oly [ages]’ : this is taken fro m the co m p o u n d euages o r pan­ ages. Em pedocles: She observes the holy circle o f her king opposite her. [в 47] (Anecdota Graeca [ed. B ekker] 1 3 3 7 .1 3 - 1 5 ) 183

EA R L Y GREEK P H I L O S O P H Y

Part o f the earth blocks th e su n as it travels ben eath it and, as E m ped ocles says: Earth makes night by standing in the way o f the light, [в 48] (Plutarch, Platonic Questions i o o 6e) In th e d ark a ir o f deserted, blind-eyed night, [в 49] as E m ped ocles puts i t . . . (Plutarch, Table Talk 720E)

The Earth Som e say that the region below the earth is infinite (e.g. X eno­ p hanes o f C o lo p h o n ), so that th ey n eed not take the trouble to look fo r an exp lan atio n [o f w hy the earth is at rest]. T h a t is w hy E m ped ocles criticized them , saying: I f the depths o f the earth are boundless and the ether immense, as the tongues o f many mouths have vainly poured forth, seeing little o f the whole . . . [в 39] (A ristotle, On the Heavens 294321-28)

T h e r e a re stream s o f fire u n d e r the earth , as E m ped ocles says: Many fires bum beneath the threshold, [в 52] (Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus 118.26-28) W h y does w ater look w hite on the su rfa ce but black in the depths? Is it because d ep th is the m oth er o f blackness inas­ m uch as it blunts and w eakens the rays o f th e sun b efo re they d escen d , w h ereas the su rface, because it is im m ediately a ffe c ­ ted by the sun , can receive the w hiteness o f the light? T h is is the view that E m ped ocles assents to: In the bottom o f the river the shadows make the colour black, and the same is seen in hollow caverns, [в 94] (Plutarch, Scientific Explanations 39) 184

EMPEDOCLES

It is equally absurd fo r an yon e to think, like E m ped ocles, that when he says that sea is ea rth ’s sweat [в 55], he has said so m e­ th in g illum inating. (Aristotle, Meteorology 357325—26) E m pedocles: Salt was compacted, forced by the rays o f the sun. [в 56] (H ep h aestion, Handbook I iii 4) Poseidon is su m m on ed by Iris w ho calls him e ith er to th e sea o r to the gods, as E m ped ocles o r so m eo n e else says: Iris brings a wind or a great rainstorm from the sea. [в 50] (T zetzes, Allegories in the Iliad X V 86)

Botany I f the air continu ously fa vo u re d the trees, then p erh a p s even what the poets say w ould not seem u n r e s s o n a b le -a s E m p ed o ­ cles says that, everg reen an d ev er-fru itin g [в 77], they flourish throughout the year with abundant fruit, thanks to the air. [в 78] (H e supposes that a certain b len d in g o f the s ir - the sp rin g blending - is com m on to all seasons.) (T h eo p h ra stu s, Causes o f Plants I xiii 2) [Plants] rep ro d u ce fro m them selves, 3nd th e so-called seeds which they p ro d u ce a re not sem en but em bryos — E m pedocles puts this well w hen he says Thus tall trees first lay olives, [в 79] For what is laid is an em bryo. (A ristotle, Generation o f Animals 73 18 1-6 ) E m pedocles says that This is why pomegranates are late-fruiting and apples exception­ ally sweet, [в 80] (Plutarch, Table Talk 683D) 185

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

C o n co ction seem s to be a sort o f rottin g, as Em pedocles indi­ cates w h en h e says: Wine from the bark is water that has rotted in the wood, [в 81] (Plutarch, Scientific Explanations 9 12 c)

Zoology I am aw are that E m ped ocles the natural scientist used the word kamasenes to co ver all fish in gen eral: How the tall trees and fish [kam asenes] o f the sea . . . [ в 7 2 ] (A th en aeu s, Deipnosophists 3 3 4 B )

A s fo r anim als them selves, you cou ld not find any crea tu re o f land o r air as prolific as all the creatu res o f the sea are. W ith that in m ind, E m ped ocles w rote: Leading the unmusical tribe o f fertile fish . . . [ в 7 4 ] (Plutarch, Table Talk 685F)

Y o u see that g o d , o u r fin e craftsm an as P in dar called him , did not ev ery w h e re send fire u p a n d ea rth d ow n , bu t he arran g ed them as the needs o f bodies d em an d ed . This is found in shell-fish, heavy-backed sea-dwellers — yes, and in limpets and stone-skinned turtles, says E m ped ocles, where you will see earth dwelling on top o f flesh, [ в 7 6 ] (ibid 61 8b )

Som e anim als a re a rm o u red with h orn s an d teeth and stings, and as fo r hedgehogs, E m p ed ocles says, sharp-arrowed hairs bristle on their backs, [в 83] (Plutarch, On Fortune 98D)

186

EMPEDOCLES

Biology E m pedocles, by placin g S trife an d L o v e a m o n g th e principles as causes o f fo rm , . . . d efines fo rm , I su ppose, by the ratio in which each is m ade; fo r h e m akes flesh and bo n e and the rest by a certain ratio. In the first book o f th e Physics h e says: Kindly earth in her well-made hollows received o f the eight parts two o f bright Nestis and four o f Hephaestus. And they became white bones, wonderfully fitted together by the glue o f Harmony, [в 96] (Sim plicius, Commentary on the Physics 3 0 0 .16 -2 4 ) I am talking o f bones and hair and e v ery th in g else o f that sort. T h e y have not got a nam e in com m on, b u t non eth eless they are all the sam e by an alogy, as E m ped ocles says: The same are hair and leaves and the thick feathers o f birds and scales on strong limbs, [в 82] (A ristotle, Meteorology 387b 1-6 ) T h e body o f the sem en can n ot be separated, p art in the fem ale and part in the m ale, as E m ped ocles says But the nature o f the members is separated, part in a man’s . . . [в 63] (A ristotle, Generation o f Animals 764b 1 5 -18 ) I f m ale and fem ale a re d ifferen tia ted d u rin g gestation, as E m pedocles says poured into pure places, some grow as women, i f they meet with cold . . . [в 65] (ibid 723 3 2 3 -2 5 ) O th ers o f the o ld er g en eratio n have also said that th e m ale is conceived in the righ t p s rt o f th e w om b. P arm enid es p u t it like this: In the right boys, in the left girls, [28 в 17] 3nd E m pedocles ssys this: For in the warmer part was the male portion [в 67] 187

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

— and fo r that reason m en a re d a rk and m ore m asculine and m ore hairy. (G alen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics X V I I A 1002 к) E m pedocles the natural scientist allegorizes and speaks o f the divided meadows o f Aphrodite [в 66] w h erein th e g en eratio n o f ch ild ren takes place. (Scholiast to E u ripid es, Phoenician Women 18) M ilk is concocted blood , not rotten blood . E m ped ocles eith er m isu nd erstood this o r else used a p o o r m etap h o r w hen he said that On the tenth day o f the eighth month comes white pus. [в 68] (A ristotle, Generation o f Animals 77 73 8 -10 ) W h en the sows live 3nd fee d to g eth er with the hogs it puts them in m ind o f sex and stim ulates th eir desire. Em pedocles says the sam e o f hum ans: And on him came desire, *reminding him through sight*, [в 64] (Plutarch, Scientific Explanations 9 17 c ) [E m pedocles] ssys that inhalation and exhalation occu r because th ere are certain vessels w hich contain blood (but are not fu ll o f blood) and w hich h ave chann els lead in g into the extern a l air, n a rro w er than th e parts o f the flesh bu t broad er than those o f th e air. H ence, since the blood naturally m oves u p and d ow n , w hen it m oves dow n the air flows in and inha­ lation occu rs, and w hen it m oves u p th e air flows outside the bo d y an d exhalation occurs. H e m akes an an alo gy with what h ap p en s in a clepsydra: Everything inhales and exhales like this: all have bloodless tubes o f flesh stretched over the surface o f their bodies and at their mouths close-packed holes pierce right through the outer surface o f the skin, so that the blood remains inside but channels are cut to give easy exit to the ether. Whenever the gentle blood rushes from them the bubbling air rushes down with a wild swell, 188

EMPEDOCLES

and when it runs back, it exhales again. As when a girl plays with a clepsydra o f shining bronze when she covers the neck o f the tube with her pretty hand and dips it into the soft body o f shining water, no moisture enters the vessel, but it is held back by the mass o f air which presses from within on the close-packed perforations until she uncovers the compressed stream. A nd then, as the air leaves, the water enters in proportion. Just so, when she holds the water in the depths o f the bronze, the neck and channel being blocked by a mortal hand, the air outside eagerly keeps the moisture within at the gates o f the harsh-sounding strainer, controlling the surface, until she releases her hand. Then again, the reverse o f before, as the air enters, water runs out in proportion. Just so with the gentle blood pulsing through the limbs — whenever it rushes back inside, a stream o f air at once comes down swelling and surging, and when it runs back, it exhales again in equal quantity, [в l oo] (A ristotle, On Respiration 4 7 3 5 1-4 7 4 3 5 )

Perception E m pedocles [says that the soul] is co m posed o f all th e elem ents and that each o f them actually is a soul. H e says: For by earth we see earth, by water water, by ether bright ether, and by fire flaming fire, love by love and strife by mournful strife, [в 109] (A ristotle, On the Soul 40 4b ! 1—15) Em pedocles seem s to thin k, as I said b e fo re , that som etim es we see w h en ligh t leaves th e eyes. A t any rate, h e says this: As when someone, intending a journey, prepares a light, a flame o f flashing fire through the winter night, fitting a lantern as protection against all the winds,

189

EA RL Y GREEK P H I L O S O P H Y

which stops the breeze when the winds blow, but the light passes through to the outside, inasmuch as it is finer-textured, and illuminates the ground with its tireless rays: so then the ancient fire, imprisoned in the membranes and fin e tissues, lies in ambush in the round pupil; and they hold back the deep water which flows around, but let thefire pass through inasmuch as it isfiner-textured. [в 84] Som etim es he says we see in this w ay, som etim es by efflu en ces fro m the objects seen. (A ristotle, On the Senses and their Objects 437b23-438a5) A s E m ped ocles says, from both [nam ely eyes] comes a single vision, [в 88] (Strabo, Geography V III v 3) D o h o u n d s, as E m ped ocles says, tracking with their nostrils the fragments o f animal limbs, [в 10 1.1] pick u p the efflu en ces w hich the beasts leave on the m atter? (Plutarch, Scientific Explanations 9 1 7 E ) W h y d o h o u n d s not sm ell the tracks w hen th e h are is dead? . . . W h en it is alive they p erceive it becau se the sm ell is con tin u ­ ously given o f f by th e anim al; bu t w hen it is d ead the smell ceases to flow. F or th e sm ell is not left beh in d, in the way in which E m ped ocles says it leaves from its paws in the soft grass, [в 101.2] ([A lexan d er], Problems 22.7) B rea th in g is a cause o f sm ell not in itself bu t accidentally, as is clear fro m the case o f anim als an d fro m the facts ju s t m en­ tioned. B u t again at the en d o f his w o rk E m ped ocles - as it w e re settin g his seal on it - speaks as th o u g h this w ere the cause: Thus are all things allotted breath and smell, [в 102] (T h eo p h ra stu s, On the Senses 22) 190

EMPEDOCLES

Thought E m pedocles seem s to treat th e blood as th e o rg a n o f u n d e r­ standing: Nourished in a sea o f churning blood where what men call thought is especially found — for the blood about the heart is thought fo r men. [в 105] (P o rp h yry, in Stobaeus, Anthology I x lix 53) In gen eral, th ey su p p o sed that th o u g h t was p ercep tio n and perception an alteration . . . T h u s E m ped ocles says th at o u r th ou gh ts ch a n g e as o u r con d ition changes: For men's wisdom grows in relation to what is present, [в 106] A n d elsew here he says that: Insofar as they become different, to that extent always does their thought too present different objects, [в 108] (A ristotle, Metaphysics 1009b 1 2 - 1 3 , 17- 2 1 ) T h o u g h t d ep en d s on sim ilars, ign o ra n ce on dissim ilars, as th ou gh th in kin g w ere the sam e as o r sim ilar to p erceivin g. F or h aving en u m erated the ways in w hich we reco gn ize each th in g by its like, at the en d h e ad d s that fro m these all things are fitted together and constructed, and by these they think and feel pleasure and pain, [в 107] T h a t is why w e think especially with o u r blood; fo r in this the elem ents o f the parts are best blen d ed . (T h eo p h ra stu s, On the Senses 1 o)

Purifications The Purifications were addressed to the citizens o f Acragas, Empedo­ cles’ own city. His candid greeting to them survives: H eraclides says that th e w om an w ho d id not b rea th e was in such a state that h er body rem ained w ithou t b reath and w ithout a pulse fo r thirty days. T h a t is w hy H eraclides calls

EARLY GREEK P H IL O S O P H Y

[Em pedocles] both a d o cto r and a seer, relyin g also on the fo llo w in g lines: 0 friends who live in the great town o f yellow Acragas on the heights o f the citadel, caring fo r good deeds, greetings: an immortal god, no longer mortal, 1 travel, honoured by all, as is fitting, garlanded with bands and fresh ribbons. Whenever I enter a thriving town I am revered by men and women. They follow me in their thousands, asking where lies the path to gain: some want prophecies, others for diseases o f every sort request to hear a healing word, [в 1 1 2 .1 - 2 , 4 - 1 1 ] (D iogen es L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V III 61)

E m ped ocles says [ o f the A cragantines]: Honourable harbours fo r strangers, knowing no ill. [в 112.3] (D iodorus, Universal History X III lxxxiii 2) G ram m arian s a re blind in these m atters - and also with regard to the verses w ritten ab o u t them . E m ped ocles says: Greetings: an immortal god, no longer mortal, I travel, honoured by all. [в 1 12 .4 -5 ] A n d again: But why do I attack them as though I were achieving something great i f I prove superior to much-perishing men? [в 113] G ram m arians and o rd in a ry read ers will suppose that the p h ilosop h er said this fro m boastfulness and contem pt fo r o th er m en - so m eth in g which is alien even to o n e m oderately versed in p hilosoph y, let alon e to a m an o f Em pedocles’ stature. (Sextus Em piricus, Against the Mathematicians I 302-303) A n d it com es u p o n m e to praise h igh ly the A cra ga n tin e poet w ho hym ns faith in these words: My friends, I know that there is truth in the stories which I shall tell; but hard indeed 192

EMPEDOCLES

fo r men and unwanted is the onrush o f trust to their minds. [в 114] (C lem en t, Miscellanies V i 9.1) The main theme o f the P urifications was the fa ll o f the spirits from an original state o f blessedness, and their subsequent punishments. The introduction to the story is preserved by Plutarch: E m pedocles at the b eg in n in g o f his p h ilosop h y says by way o f p reface that: There is an oracle o f necessity, an ancient decree o f the gods, that whenever anyone errs and defiles in fear his dear limbs - one o f the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life he shall wander thrice ten thousand seasons awayfrom the blessed ones. Such is the road I now follow, a fugitive from the gods and a wanderer, [в 1 15 .1, 3, 5 - 6 , 13] H e then shows from his ow n case that not ju s t h e h im self but all o f us a re im m igrants h ere and stran gers an d fu gitives. F or it is not blood, m y frien d s, n o r b len d ed b rea th (he says) w hich provides the substance and principle o f o u r souls: fro m these the body is co m p o u n d ed , earth -born an d m ortal; bu t the soul has com e h ere from elsew h ere - and h e calls birth by the gentlest o f term s, a jo u r n e y abroad. A n d what is m ost tru e, the soul flees an d w and ers, d riven by the d ecrees and laws o f th e god s . . . W h en it is tied to the body, it cannot recall o r rem em b er from what honour and from what height o f bliss [в 119] it has fallen, h avin g ex ch a n g ed not Sardis fo r A th en s, n or C orin th fo r L em nos o r Scyros, bu t th e h eaven s an d the m oon fo r earth and an earth ly life. A n d then it com plains an d su ffers like a feeb le w ilting plan t i f h ere it is m oved a little way fro m one place to anoth er. (Plutarch, On Exile 6 0 7 с e) There is a more detailed description o f the same events in Hippolytus’ account o f Empedocles’ philosophy. (The lines quoted by Plutarch are

193

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

usually amalgamated with those in Hippolytus and turned into the single fragment, в 115.) A b o u t his ow n birth E m ped ocles speaks as follows: Among them am I too now, a fugitive from the gods and a wanderer, [cf в 1 15.13 ] i.e. he calls g o d th e o n e an d its unity in w hich he existed b efo re bein g torn aw ay by S trife and co m in g to be am o n g the m any things h ere in the w orld o f S trife. For, h e says, I trusted in mad Strife [в 1 15.14] - by S trife, m ad and d isturbed an d unstable, E m pedocles m eans the crea to r o f this w orld. F or this is the sentence and the necessity im posed on souls w hom S trife tears fro m the one an d creates and prod u ces. H e says: < . . . > whoever having erred swears a false oath — one o f the spirits who have been allotted long-lasting life [в 1 1 5 .4 -5 ] (he call souls ‘lon g-lastin g spirits’ because they are im m ortal an d live lo n g lives) — he shall wander thrice ten thousand seasons away from the blessed ones, [в 1 15.6] (H e calls blessed those w ho a re g ath ered to g eth er by L ove fro m the m any into the unity o f th e intelligible w orld.) T h ese, th en , he says m ust w an d er and become in time all sorts o f mortals, changing the painful paths o f life; [в 1 15 .7 -8 ] fo r th e souls ch a n g e fro m b o d y to bo d y, altered and punished by S trife an d not allow ed to rem ain in unity. R ath er, the souls u n d e rg o ev ery p u n ish m en t at th e h an d s o f S trife as they ch a n g e fro m b o d y to body: The ethereal power, he says, pursues souls to the sea, the sea spits them up onto the threshold o f the earth, the earth into the rays o f the bright sun, and the sun hurls them into the whirls o f the ether: each receives them from another: all hate them, [в 1 15 .9 -12 ] T h is is the p u n ish m en t w hich th e crea to r visits on them , like a sm ith resh a p in g iro n and takin g it fro m the fire to p lu n g e it

194

EMPEDOCLES

in water. F or e th er is fire, w hen ce the crea to r hu rls th e souls into the sea, and earth is the land; so he m eans: ‘fro m w ater to land, from land to air’. T h is is w hat he says: . . . the earth into the rays o f the bright sun, and the sun hurls them into the whirls o f the ether: each receives them from another: all hate them, [в 1 1 5.1 o - 12] T h u s o u r souls a re hated and to rtu red and pu n ish ed in this world, acco rd in g to E m pedocles, and then g ath ered to g eth er by L ove, w ho is g o o d and w h o takes pity o n th eir lam entation and on the d iso rd erly and vile arran gem en ts o f m ad Strife; she soon hastens to lead them fro m the w orld and to fashion them ap p ro p riately fo r the o n e, lab ou rin g to en su re that everyth ing, led by h er, com es to unity. Such bein g the dispositions m ad e by fatal S trife in this divided w orld, Em pedocles u rg ed his follow ers to abstain from all living things; fo r he says that the bodies o f the anim als we eat are the dw elling-places o f p u n ished souls. A n d h e teaches those who h ear these w ords o f his to exh ib it self-control in their dealings with w om en so that they m ay not becom e fellow w orkers and fellow -labou rers in the en terprises w hich S trife creates, as it continu ously destroys and pu lls ap art the w ork o f Love. T h is, acco rd in g to E m pedocles, is the greatest law fo r the o rd e rin g o f the universe. H e says: There is an oracle o f necessity, an ancient decree o f the gods, eternal, sealed with broad oaths [в 1 1 5 .1 - 2 ] - by necessity he m eans the ch a n g e fro m o n e to m an y by S trife and from m any to o n e by L ove; and by the god s, as I said, he m eans the fo u r m ortal g o d s (fire, w ater, earth , air) a n d the two im m ortals, w ho are u n g en e ra ted and etern ally at w ar w ith o n e another: S trife and Love. (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies V I I x x ix 14 -2 3 ) After the fall, the spirits thus undergo various incarnations. Empedocles here embraces the Pythagorean notion o f metempsychosis. T h e fate o r natu re which d eterm in es the m etem psychosis itself is called by E m pedocles a spirit w hich wraps in an unrecognizable garment o f flesh [в 126]

*95

EARLY CREEK PHILOSOPHY

and gives the souls th eir new cloth ing. (P orphyry, in Stobaeus, Anthology I xlix 60) E m pedocles says that the best m ove fo r a h um an is to becom e a lion, i f d eath chan ges him into an anim al, and a laurel, i f into a plant. T h is is w hat he says: Among the beasts they become lions, mountain-laired, sleeping on the ground, and laurels among fair-tressed trees, [в 127] (A elian, The Nature o f Animals X II 7) A b o ve all, [Em pedocles] assents to the idea o f m etem psychosis, saying: For already have I once been a boy and a girl and a bush and a bird and a silent fish in the sea. [в 117] H e said that all souls ch a n g e into every sort o f anim al. (H ippolytus, Refutation o f A ll Heresies I iii 2) E m ped ocles too says that the souls o f th e wise becom e gods. T h is is w hat he writes: In the end they are seers and hymn-writers and doctors and princes among earth-dwelling men; and then they arise as gods, highest in honour, [в 146] (Clem ent, Miscellanies IV xxiii 150.1) I f we live in a holy and ju s t fashion, w e shall be blessed here an d m ore blessed w h en we have left h ere, not possessing hap­ piness fo r a p eriod o f tim e bu t bein g able to rest fo r eternity at the same hearth and table as the other immortals, relieved o f mortal pains, tireless, [в 147] as E m p ed ocles’ philosophical poem puts it. (ibid V xiv 122.3) The cycle o f incarnations thus ends in a return to blessedness. But life in this world now is miserable: H eraclitus evid en tly vilifies gen eratio n . . . and E m pedocles clearly agrees with him w hen he says: 196

EMPEDOCLES

/ wept and I lamented as I saw the unfamiliar place, [в 1 1 8] A n d again: For from living things he made corpses, changing their forms. [в >25] A n d again: Alas, poor race o f mortals, unhappy ones, from what conflicts and what groans were you bom. [в 1 24] (ibid III iii 1 4 .1-2 ) T h e P ythagorean s, and a fte r them Plato, d eclared that the w orld was a cave o r cavern . F or in E m pedocles the pow ers that gu id e souls say: We have come to this roofed cave, [в 1 20] (P orphyry, The Cave o f the Nymphs 8) For m an descends and leaves the place o f h appiness, as Em pedocles the P yth agorean says: a fugitive from the gods and a wanderer, 1 trusted in mad Strife, [в 1 15 .13 —14] B u t he ascends and resum es his old con d ition , i f h e escapes earthly things an d the pleasureless country [в 12 1.1], as the sam e man says, where are Slaughter and Rage and the tribes o f other Plagues. [в 121.2] T h o se who fall into this place wander in the darkness on the meadows o f Ruin, [в 121.4] (H ierocles, Commentary on the Golden Verses X X I V 2) It is not true, as M en an d er says, that By every m an a spirit stands, as soon as he is born . A g o o d g u id e fo r his life. B u t it is rath er as E m ped ocles says: two fates o r spirits take o ver and govern each o f us w h en we a re born there were Earth and far-seeing Sun, bloody Discord and soft-faced Harmony, Beauty and Ugliness, Speed and Slowness, desirable Truth and black-eyed Obscurity, [в 122] (Plutarch, On Tranquillity o f M ind 474 в с )

*97

EARLY GREEK PH ILOSOPHY

A fte r th at com es the birth o f the so-called T itan s. T h e y must rep resen t the d ifferen ces a m o n g things. F or Em pedocles en u ­ m erates them in scientific term s Birth and Death, Sleep and Wakefulness, Motion and Rest, much-garlanded Greatness * and Lowliness, Silence and Speech*, [в 123] a n d m an y o thers - he is clearly h in tin g at the variety o f things. (C o rn u tu s, Theology 17)

Y o u r own p oet, E m ped ocles o f A cragas, says the sam e: For that reason, troubled by cruel evils, you will never relieve your heart from wretched pains, [в 145] (C lem en t, Protreptic II xxvii 3)

The Purifications appears also to have contained a description o f a Utopia or a Golden Age:

E m pedocles, w h en h e tells o f the birth o f th e gods, also indi­ cates his view s on sacrifices w hen he says: Among them was no god Ares, nor Tumult, nor was Zeus king, nor Cronus, nor Poseidon, but Cypris was queen — i.e. L ove whom they worshipped with holy statues and painted animals and subtly perfumed oils, with offerings o f unmixed myrrh and o f pungent frankincense, pouring libations o f yellow honey on to the threshold [в 12 8 .1-7 ] - custom s w hich even now a re still p reserv ed a m o n g som e p eo p le, bein g as it w ere traces o f the truth. But with the fo u l slaughter o f bulls their altars were not washed. [в 128.8] (P o rp h yry, On Abstinence II 21)

B y such [i.e. vegetarian] o ffe rin g s n atu re and every sense o f the h u m an soul was pleased -

198

EMPEDOCLES

But with the fo u l slaughter o f bulls their altars were not washed, but this was the greatest defilement among men: to bereave o f life and eat the noble limbs, [в x 2 8 .8 -10 ] (ibid II 27) E m pedocles bears witness to this w hen he says o f [Pythagoras]: Among them was a man o f immense knowledge who had obtained the greatest wealth o f mind, an exceptional master o f every kind o f wise work. For when he stretched out with all his mind he easily saw each and every thing in ten or twenty human generations, [в 129] (P o rp h yry, Life o f Pythagoras 30) For reason, which leads to virtu e by way o f ph ilosop h y, always m akes a m an consistent with h im self and u nblam ed by h im self and full o f peace and g oo d will tow ards h im self there is no faction and no fateful conflict in his members, [в 27a] (Plutarch, Philosophers and Princes 7 7 7 c ) E m pedocles uses the w ord [ktilos] o f tam e an d g en tle things: A ll were gentle and amenable to men, both beasts and birds; and kindness glowed, [в 130] (Scholiast to N ican d er, Theriaca 452) In the second bo ok o f E m p ed ocles’ Purifications o n e can find the alpha lon g, as is clear fro m a critical com parison - fo r he uses manoteros as th ou gh it w ere tranoteros: O f those which, with closer set roots beneath and fewer [m anoterois] branches, thrive . . . (H ero d ian , On Accentuation in General fragm en t) The story o f the fa ll and the doctrine o f metempsychosis had impli­ cations for practical ethics. A s everyon e som ehow surm ises, th ere is by n atu re a com m on ju stice and injustice, even in the absence o f com m u n ity and com pacts . . . T h is is w hat E m pedocles says ab o u t not killing

*99

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY

an im ate creatu res: it is n o t th e case that this is ju s t fo r som e an d n o t ju s t fo r others, but, a law fo r all, through the broad air it endlessly extends and through the boundless light, [в 135] (A ristotle, Rhetoric 13731)6^-9, 14 -1 7 ) P yth agoras an d E m p ed ocles an d the rest o f the Italians say th at we h ave a fellow ship n o t o n ly with o n e an o th er and with th e g o d s bu t also with th e irration al anim als. F or th ere is a sin gle spirit w hich p erva d es th e w hole w orld as a sort o f soul an d w hich unites us with th em . T h a t is why, i f we kill them and eat th eir flesh, we com m it injustice and im piety, inasm uch as we a re killin g o u r kin. H en ce these philosophers u rg ed us to abstain fro m m e a t . . . E m p ed ocles som ew here says: Will you not cease from ill-sounding slaughter ? Do you not see that you tear at one another in the carelessness o f your thought? [в 136] And: A father lifts his son who has changed his shape and slaughters him as he prays, the fool, while he cries pitifully, beseeching his sacrificer. But he, d eaf to his cries, slaughters him in the halls and prepares a fo u l feast. In the same way a son takes his father, children their mother: they bereave them o f life and eat their dear flesh, [в 137] (Sextus E m piricus, Against the Mathematicians IX 12 7 -12 9 ) Since no-on e is w ithou t sin, we can o n ly atone fo r o u r earlier sins ab o u t fo o d by later pu rification s. T h a t will h ap p en if we keep the h o rro r before o u r eyes and cry aloud with Em pedo­ cles: Alas that the pitiless day did not first destroy me before I contrived with my lips the terrible deed o f eating flesh. [в 139] (P o rp h yry, On Abstinence II 31) It seem s that o n e sh o u ld not only, with E m pedocles, keep altogether from the leaves o f the laurel, [в 140] bu t also sp are all o th er trees. (Plutarch, Table Talk 646D) 200

EMPEDOCLES

T h e m istake about not eatin g beans seem s to h ave arisen because in a poem o f E m pedocles, w ho follow ed th e teach in gs o f P ythagoras, the fo llo w in g verse is fo u n d : Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans, [в 141] (A u lu s G ellius, Attic Nights IV x i 9) [Gellius’ discussion o f the prohibition on bean-eating is quoted in fu ll in Chapter / 5 .] The last fou r short fragments are o f uncertain location and import. T h e teach in g o f Plato’s d octrines requ ires, first, a sort o f p u ri­ fication, i.e. train in g from ch ild h o o d in the a p p ro p ria te sub­ jects. For a cco rd in g to E m ped ocles, we sh ou ld cut with long-bladed bronze from five springs, [в 143] and wash ourselves; and Plato says that th e pu rification com es from five branches o f study. (T h e o o f S m yrn a, Mathematics 15 .7—12) [M etap h or m ay involve a transferen ce] fro m species to species: e.g. drawing o ff life with bronze [в 1 38] or cutting with long-bladed bronze [c f в 143], w h ere ‘d ra w ’ is used to m ean ‘cu t’ an d ‘cu t’ to m ean ‘d ra w ’, both b ein g fo rm s o f tak in g away. (A ristotle, Poetics 1 4 5 7 Ы 3 -1 6 ) T h e sam e [gram m atical construction] is also fo u n d in E m p ed o ­ cles w hen h e says: Him neither the roofed halls ofsceptre-bearing Zeus . . .[ в 142] (H ercu lan eu m p a p y ru s 10 12 , co lu m n X V II I) In all things I have th o u g h t E m p ed ocles’ p h rase, to abstain from evil [в 144], im portant and divine. (Plutarch, The Control o f Anger 464B) 201

13 FIFTH-CENTURY PYTHAGOREANISM Pythagoras’ followers in south Italy appear to have organized them­ selves into secret societies - a sort o f freemasonry. They practised some communal way o f life; for

[Pythagoras], a cco rd in g to T im ae u s, was the first to say that frien d s’ possessions a re held in com m on and that frien d sh ip is equality. A n d his pu pils contrib uted th eir goods to a com m on store. (D iogenes L aertius, Lives o f the Philosophers V I II 10) Pythagoras was revered, and a ll Ihings were aUributed to him: the Pythagorean phrase 'He said it himself became a proverb. The Pythagoreans practised no ordinary silence and their esoteric views were not divulged to ordinary men. The society is said to have had some political ambitions and interests. In the middle o f the fifth century disaster struck A t that tim e, in the region s o f Italy w hich w ere then called G re a t G reece, th e P yth ago rean m eetin g places w ere b u rn ed d o wn and gen eral constitutional u nrest en su ed - a not unlikely event, g iven th at the lead in g m en in each state had been thus u n ex p ected ly killed. T h e G reek cities in these region s w ere filled with blood sh ed and revolution an d turm oil o f every kind. (Polybius, Histories II x x x ix 1-3 ) 202

FIFTH-CENTURY PYTHAGOREANISM

The Pythagoreans who survived dispersed, some o f them eventually settling in mainland Greece. At an early stage, Pythagoras’followers divided into two groups, the acusm atici or Aphorists and the m athem atici or Scientists. T h e r e w ere two fo rm s o f his p h ilosoph y; fo r th e re w ere two kinds o f p eo p le w ho practised it, th e A p h o rists a n d the Scientists. T h e A p h o rists w ere allow ed by the o th ers to be P ythagorean, bu t th ey d id not allow that the Scientists w ere Pythagoreans, sayin g that th eir w o rk d eriv ed not fro m P yth ag­ oras but fro m H ippasus. (Som e say that H ipp asus cam e fro m C ro to n , o thers that he cam e fro m M etapontum .) T h e ph ilosoph y o f th e A p h o rists consists o f u n p ro v e n and u n argu ed aphorism s that o n e sh o u ld act in such an d su ch a way, and they attem pt to p reserve the o th er th in gs [Pythag­ oras] said as th ou gh they w ere d ivin e doctrines. T h e y d o not claim to say an yth in g on th eir ow n b eh alf, n o r d o th ey think that they o u g h t to say a n yth in g, bu t they ho ld that those o f their n u m ber are best fitted fo r w isdom w ho possess the m ost aphorism s. A ll these so-called aphorism s a re d ivided in to th ree kinds: som e o f them indicate w hat so an d so is, o th ers w hat is m ost such and such, o th ers w hat o n e m ust o r m ust not do. T h o se w hich indicate w hat so an d so is a re o f th e fo llo w in g sort. W hat a re the Isles o f the Blessed? - T h e sun an d the m oon. - W hat is the oracle at D elphi? - T h e tetractys, w hich is the h arm ony in w hich th e Sirens sing. W hat is m ost such and such: W h at is m ost ju st? - Sacrific­ ing. - W hat is m ost wise? — N u m b er (and secon d ly, w hat assigned nam es to things). - W hat is m ost wise o f th e things am ong us? - Medicine. - W hat is most fine? - H arm ony. - W hat is most pow erful? - W isdom . — W hat is most good? — H ap­ piness. - W hat is m ost tru ly said? - T h a t m en a re w retch ed . . . T h e aphorism s in d icatin g w h at sh o u ld o r sh o u ld not be d on e are o f the fo llo w in g sort. O n e m ust h ave ch ild ren (fo r one m ust leave servants o f the god s in o n e ’s place); o n e m ust p u t on o n e’s rig h t shoe first; o n e m ust not w alk a lo n g the highw ays o r d ip things in th e fon ts o r wash in th e bath -h ouse 203

EARLY GREEK PH IL O SO P H Y

(fo r in all these cases it is u n clear w h eth er o n e ’s fellow s are pure). A n d others such as: D o not help a n yon e to p u t dow n a b u rd en (fo r o n e m ust not becom e a cause o f idleness), but help him to take it up. D o not h ave in tercourse fo r the p u rp ose o f sirin g ch ildren with a wom an w ho w ears gold . D o not speak in the d ark. P ou r libations to the god s fro m n ear the hand le o f the cu p — fo r the sake o f the om en and so that no-one will d rin k fro m the sam e place. D o not have an im age o f a god as a seal on y o u r rin g lest it b e pollu ted ; fo r it is a likeness w hich o n e sh ou ld set u p in o n e ’s h ouse. D o n o t prosecu te y o u r own w ife; fo r she is a su pplian t (that is w hy at w edd in gs w om en are led fro m the hearth and a re g ra sp ed by th e rig h t hand). Do not sacrifice a w hite cockerel; fo r it is a su ppliant, sacred to the M onth (which is w hy it signifies the hour). G ive no advice w hich is not fo r the g oo d o f the receiver; fo r advice is sacred. L ab o u r is g oo d : pleasu res o f every sort a re bad; fo r those who h ave com e fo r pu n ish m en t m ust b e p u n ished. O n e should sacrifice and ap p ro a ch the tem ples w ithout shoes. O n e m ust not tu rn aside into a tem ple; fo r o n e m ust not treat the gods as digressions. It is g oo d to stand fast, receive w ounds in the fro n t, and so die: the op p o site is bad. H um an souls e n ter all anim als e x cep t those w hich it is rig h t to sacrifice; that is why on e m ust only eat those sacrificial anim als w hich it is p ro p er to eat and no o th er anim al. Som e o f the aphorism s a re o f this sort. B u t the m ost exp an s­ ive o f them a re co n cern ed with sacrifices o n various occasions a n d how they should be p e rfo rm e d , with the o th er ways o f h o n o u rin g the god s, with o u r rem oval fro m this life, and with burials an d how w e m ust be b u ried . In som e cases a reason is a d d ed - fo r exam p le, that you m ust have ch ildren in o rd e r to leave beh in d an o th e r servan t o f the god s in y o u r place. B u t o th ers h ave n o reason a n n ex ed to them . O f th e additions, som e will be th o u g h t to h ave been n atu rally attached, others to be fa r-fetch ed - fo r exam p le, not to break bread because it is disadvan tageou s with rega rd to th e ju d g e m e n t in H ades. T h e con jectu ral explan ation s a d d ed to such aphorism s a re not P yth ago rean bu t com e fro m certain outsiders w ho m ake soph ­ isticated attem pts to attach conjectu ral reasons to them . For 204

FIFTH-CENTURY PYTHAGOREANISM

exam p le, in the case ju s t m ention ed (why you m ust not break bread), som e say that you shou ld not d ivide w hat b rin gs p eo p le togeth er (in the old days, a fter the fo reig n fashion, all frien d s cam e tog eth er o v e r a sin gle lo a f o f bread), o th ers that o n e must not m ake such an om en at th e b eg in n in g by b rea k in g and cru m b lin g it. N ow all the aphorism s w hich deal with w hat to d o and w hat not to d o focus on the divine, and that is th eir sou rce. T h e whole o f their way o f life is o rd e re d with a view to fo llo w in g god. T h is is th e rationale o f their philosoph y. F or th ey th in k it absurd fo r m en to look fo r the g o o d fro m any so u rce o th e r than the gods: it is as i f you w ere living in a m on arch y and paid service to som e su bordin ate a m o n g the citizens, ig n o rin g the ruler o f all - that, they think, is ju s t w hat m en actually do. F or since god exists and is sovereign o ver everyth in g , it is clear that on