5"/-^^/('cX^^-,^.-i3LEYPLACEf|||\n31932ofMediaLIBRARY"1orcr.to ^,V, ...'.**iJUL111966CONTENTSOFTHE SECOND VOLUME.THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHH^OSOPHY.SECOND SECTION.HERACLEITUS, EMPEDOCLES, THE ATOMISTS.ANAXAGORAS.I. Hebacleitus.PAGE1. General standpoint and fundamental conceptionsof the doc-trineof Heracleitus 12. Cosmology 473. Man: hisknowledgeandhis actions . . . ... 794. Historical position and importance of Heracleitus. TheHeracleiteans . 1 04II. Empedocles axd the Atomists.A. Empedocles:1. Universal bases of the physicsof Empedocles: genera-tion and decay, primitive substance"; and movingforces 1172. Theworldandits parts 1453. Religiousdoctrinesof Empedocles . . . .1714. Scientific character and historical position of the Em-pedocleandoctrine . . . , . . , . 184vi CONTENTS OF THESECOND VOLUME.B. TheAtomisticphilosophy:page1. Physicalbasesof the system. AtomsandtheVoid . 2072. Movementof theatoms. Formation and systemof theuniverse. Inorganicnature 2353. Organicnature. Man: hisknowledgeandhis actions , 2534. TheAtomistic doctrine as awhole: its historical posi-tionandimportance. Lateradherentsof theschool . 292III. Anaxagoras.1. Principlesof hissystem: MatterandMind ....3212. Originandsystemof theuniverse 3543. Organicnatures: Man 3634. Anaxagoras in relation to his predecessors. Character andoriginofhisdoctrine. TheAnaxagoreanschool. Archelaus 373THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.THIRD SECTION.THE SOPHISTS.1. Originof theSophisticdoctrine2. Externalhistoryof the Sophists3. Teachingof theSophistsconsideredin its generalcharacter4. SophistictheoryofknowledgeandEristicdisputation5. Opinions of the Sophists concerning Virtue and Justice.PoliticsandEeligion. SophisticKhetoric . . . .6. Value and historical importance of the Sophistic doctrineThevarioustendenciesincludedin itINDEX394407429445469496517ERRATA.Page24, 3, line 6/orinfra,p, 555, S, Srded. readinfra,p. 46, 1.54 (first column),line10/orinf.p. 708, 2,3rded. readinf. 234, 2.,,57, 2, line 7 (second colunm)/or heat and warmth readlightandwarmth.,, 59,Bforp. 621, 2read57, 2.69, n. line 12 (first column)/or Diog. ii. 8 (inf.p. 77)read Diog.ix. 8 (inf.p. 77, 1). 70,line 12(secondcolumn)/or363, 5read363, 2.80, note1omiti. 614sq.96, note2,line12/orp.601 sq. 3rded.readinf. 113sq. 196, 1, line12/orp. 707, 1, 4read148, 4: 149, 3.207, 1, Line13omitsometimes. 310, 1, line 2/or294, 2 read294, 4. 320,2, line1/orDiogenesreadDiagoras.412,line6/orLeontiumreadLeontini. 453,1forp. 638, 1 read630, 1.,, 453,4, lastline/orp. 638,2read632. 2.8THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GEEEKSIN ITSHISTOEICAL DEVELOPMEXT.THEPRE-SOCRATICPHILOSOPHY.11. HERACLEITUS,EMPEDOCLES,THEATOMISTS,ANAXAGORAS.I. HERACLEITUS.i1. Thegeneral standpoint andfundamental conceptionsofthe doctrineofHeracleitus.Whilein the Eleatic Schoolthedoctrine of theUnityofall Beinghad led to the denialof the possibility ofpluralityand Becoming,contemporaneously-with that^Schleiermacher, Herakleitosder Bunkle, ete. ; Mus. d. Alter-thumsw. i. 1807, p.313 sqq. (dottin Schleiermacher's WerJce, 3 Ahth.1. 1 sqq.); Bernays, Heraditca,Bonn, 1848; ibid/ Ekein. Mus.N.F. vii. 90sqq.,ix.241sqq. ; ibid.Die HeraMitischen Briefe,Berl.1869; Lassalle. Die Fhilo.?ophieHraJdeitos des Dimkeln. 1858,2vols. ;Gladisch, Herakldtos undZoroaster, 1859 ;Schuster, Hera-kleitos von Ephesi'.s, 1873 ;Teich-miiller, Neue Stud. z. Gesch. d.Begrife. 1. B.. Herakldtos. 1876.-In Diog, ix. 1, the prime ofTOL. II.Heracleitus is placed in the 69thOlympiad(404-500B.C.), no doubton the authority of Apollodorus,who takes his dates almost en-tirely fromEratosthenes,Similarly,Euseb. Chron. gives 01.70; Syn-cellus,p. 283, C. 01. 70, 1. Heisdescribedasacontemporaryof Da-rius I. in the interpolated letters(Diog. ix. 13, cf. Clemens, Strom.i. 302 E; Epictet. Enchirid.21),in whichthatprinceinviteshimtohis court, and Heracleitus declinestheinvitation. Eusebius.however,andSyncellus,p.254 C, place hisprimein 01. 80, 2;ad.81, 2;intheIIERACLEITUS.schooltherearose in Asia i\Iinor, at the opposite poleof theGreek civilised world, asystemwhichdeveloped80th or 81st Olympiad,and thisstatement seemstoderiveconfirma-tion from the fact that, accordingto Strabo, xiv. 1, i.25, p.642 (incomparison with his evidence noweightcanbe attached to the 8thoftheso-calledHeracliteanletters,p.82, Bern),Hermo'lorustheEphe-sian,who, wearetoldbyPliny, H.Nat. xxxiv. o, 21,andPumponius,Digest, i. 1, tit. 2,/.2, 4, assistedtheRomandeconiA'iriintheirlegis-lation (01. 81, 4; 452B.C.), wasnootherthan the friendof Heraclei-tus, wdiosebanishmentthephiloso-phercould notforgivehiscountry-men. (Strabo /. c, Diog. ix. 2,&c.;videinfra.) Fromthis Hermannin-ferred {De P/iilos. Ionic. Miatt.p.10, 22),andSehwegleragreeswithliim{Rom.Gcach.iii. 20;otherwisein Gesch. d. Griech. Phil. 20, Kost-lin's edition, wherealso,p. 79, thereference of Parmenides to Hera-cleitus, which Bernays conjec-tured, but which is irreconcile-ablewith Hermann's computation,is admit:ed) that Heracleitus wasborn about 01. 67 (510 B.C.) anddied about 01. 82 (450 b.c). Ihave shown,however,in mytrea-tise Dc Hermodoro Ejjkcsio etHermod.Plat. (Marb. 1859), p. 9sqq. that thisopinion is not justi-fiable. The statement of Euse-biusrepeated by Syncellus is initself not nearly so trustworthyas that of Diogenes, taken fromApoUodorus ; Hermann urges initsfavourthat Eusebiusdeterminesthe dateofAnaxagorasandDemo-critus more accuratelythanApol-lodorus, but this is not the case.On the contrary, the statementloses allweight by its glaringcontradiction with the earlierutterances of the same author.Where Eusebius found the state-ment,andonwhat it is based,wedonotknow;but if werememberthatthe primeof Heracleitus(nothis death, as Hermann says: thewords are clams habebatur, cog-noscebatur, ijKfiaCf) is here madetocoincidealmostexactly withthelegislation of the decemviri, itappearsprobablethatitarosefromthe supposition that Hermodorus,the friend of Heinicleitus, enteredintoconnectionwith thedecemviriimmediatelyafter his banishment,and thathis banishment coincidedwiththe aKULT) of the philosopher.Nowthe assertion of Diogenescanhardlybefounded upon anyaccu-rats chronological tradition;it isfarmore likely (as Diels acknow-ledges, Bh. Mits. xxxi. 33sq.) thatits authorknewonly of the gene-ral statement thatHeracleitushadbeenacontemporary of Darius I.,andthat inaccordancewiththis, heplacedhisprimeinthe69thOlym-piad;i.e. in themiddleofDarius'sreign (01. 64, 3-73, 4). But thatthis theory is at anyrateapproxi-matelycorrect,and thatthedeathof Heracleitus cannot be placedlater than470-478B.C., wefind ex-tremely likely for other reasons.Forthoughwemay not lay muchstress on the circumstance that,accordingto Sotion, ap.Diog.ix.5,Heracleituswasregarded bymanyasapupilofXenophanes,the allu-sion tohim byEpicbarmus,whichwe have found probablevol.i.p.532,would implythat his doctrinewasknowninSicily asearlyas470b.c.;and since he himself instances asHISDATEAXD LIFE.the same presupposition in a contrary direction, andregardedtheoneBeing as somethingpurely inmotionandsubject toperpetual change and separation. Theauthorofthis system is Heracleitus.^mento whomvariedknowledgehasnot broiurht wisdom, only Xeno-phanes,Pythagoras and Hecataeusin additiontoHesiod.thislooks asif the laterphilosopher,and espe-cially his antipodes Parmenides,wereunknowntohim. Moreover,thestatements about Hermodorusdonotbyanymeans compel ustoregard Heracleitus as later. Forfir.st, the theorythat Hermodorus,who took part in the decemvirs'legislation, was the same personas the friend of Heracleitus isnot based even by .Strabo (as Ihave shown, I. c.p. 15) on trust-worthy tradition, but merelyonaprobableconjecture;andsecondly,wehavenoreason to assume thatHermodorus was of the sameageas Heracleitus. Supposinghimtohavebeen 20or25 yearsyounger,it wouldbequitepossible toadmithis participation in the lawgivingof the decemviri, withouton thataccount alteringthedateof Hera-cleitus'deathto themiddle of thefifthcentury. We certainlycannotplace the banishment of Hermo-dorusandthecompositionofHera-cleitus'work earlier than -l-TS b.c,for theriseof democracyatEphesuswouldscarcelyhave been possiblebefore the deliverance from thePersian dominion. On the otherhand this event may have givenrise to the deliverance. Boththeories are compatible withthatsupposition : ontheone hand,thatHeracleitus died in -475 b.c.;onthe other, that Hermodorus as-sisted the decemviri in 452 B.C.Aristotle fixes the age of Hera-cleitus at60, if thereadingof themanuscripts in Diog. viii, 52 becorrect: 'Api(TTOT\r}s yap avrhv(Empedoeles) en re 'HpaKXeirovk^-r]KOVTa irwy ,andCobethasadmittedthisconjecture,whichis favourably regarded by manyauthorities(morethanaconjecturehe does not consider it), into thetext. It does not commend itselfto me as indispensable;for it isperfectlyconceivablethatAristotlemayhave connected the two mentogetherin reference to their age,andthe biographerofEmpedoeles,herereferred to byDiogenes(thatthesewords,aswellasthe context,arederived fromApollodorusseemstomedoubtful, in spite of theob-servationsof Diels,Rh. Mus.xxxiii.38),mayhavealsoquotedwhathehad taken the opportunityto sayabout Heracleitus, in the sameway that in55 Philolaus ismentioned with Heracleitus. Ontheother hand it is very possiblethat 'HpaKXetrovmayhave been amistake for 'Hpa/cXe/STjs; and wemusttherefore leave this questionundecidedlikemanyothersrespect-ingthechronolog}'ofHeracleitus.'Thenative city of Heraclei-tus. according to the unanimoustestimony of the ancients, wasEphesus. Metapontum is substi-tutedby Justin, Cohort, c. 3, butthis is merely a hasty inferencefrom a passase in which Herac-leitus is named in connection with2IIERACLEirUS.The doctrine of Heracleitus,^ like that of theHippasus of Metapontum;aswascustomary, in accordance withArist. Mctaph. i. 3, 984 a. 7. Hisfather,accordingtoI)iog.ix. 1 , &c.,wascalled Blyson,butothersnamehim Heracion (whom Schuster,p.362pq.. conjecturesto havebeenhisgrandfather). Thathebelongedtoa familyofpositionisevidentfromthe stiitement of Antisthenes, ap.Diog. ix. 6, that he resigned thedignityof ^aaiK^vs to hisyoungerbrother ; for this was an officehereditary in the family of An-droelus, the Codrid, founder ofEphesus(Strabo, xiv. 1, 3, p. 632;Bernays, Hcraclitca, 31 sq.). Hehelddecidedlyaristocraticopinions(vide infra'), while his fellow-citi-zensweredemocrats;this explainswhyhis friend Hermodorusshouldhave been exiled (Diog. ix.2)andhehimselfregarded with littlefavour (Demetr. ibid.15).Thepersecution for atheism, however,whichChristianauthorsinfer fromthis (Justin. Apol. i. 46; ApoL ii.8;Athenag. Supplic. 31, 27),isperhaps wholly derived from thefourth Heraclitean letter (cf. Ber-nays, H-yrakl. Br.35),andis ren-deredimprobablebythe silence ofallancientauthorities. Concerningthelast illnessanddeath ofHera-cleitusallkindsofunauthenticatedand sometimes contradictory storiesare to befoundin Diog. ix. 3 sqq.,Tacian, C. Crrcec. c. 3, andelsewhere(cf. Bernays, Herakl. Briefe, p.obsq.). If they have anyhistoricalfoundation (Schuster thinks,p.217,they mayhaveagooddeal),wecannotnowdiscover it. Lassalle'sopinion (i. 42), that they arosemerelyfroma mythicalsymbolisingofthe doctrine of the passage ofoppositesintooneanother,appearstomefar-fetched. Thedispositionof Heracleitus is described byTheophrastus as melancholy {ap.Diog. ix. 6;cf. Pliny, H. N. vii.19, 80),and this is confirmedbythefragmentsofhiswritings. Butthe anecdoteswhich Diogenes (ix.3 sq.) relatesconcerninghismisan-thropyareworthless;nottospeakof the absurd assertion that hewept,andDemocrituslaughed,overeverything (Lucian, Vit. Auct. c.13; Hippolyt. Eefiit. :. 4; Sen.DeIra, ii. 10, 5 ;Tratiqu. An. 15,2, &c.). As to any instructorsthat he may have had, ordinarytradition seems entirelyignorant;which proves that the ancients(Clemens, Strom, i. 300 c, sqq.;Diog. ix. 1; Prooem. 13 sqq.;similarly Galen, c. 2)foundit im-possible to connect him withanyschool. Itis, therefore,manifestlyan error to represent him as apupil of Xenophanes, which isdonebySotion, ap. Diog. ix. 5,oras a scholar of Hippasus, whichis assertedbyanotheraccount{ap.Suid. 'Hpa/cA.), probablyamiscon-c*^ption ofArist.Mctaph.i. 3;ortoconnect him, as Hippolytus does,Iqc. cit., with the PythagoreanSmSox^- But that he claimed tohavelearnedeverythingfromhim-self, tohaveknown nothingin hisyouth and all things afterwards(Diog. ix. 5 ; Stob. Floril.21, 7 ;Procl. in Tim. 106 E), seemsmerely an inference from somemisapprehended utterances in hisworks.'Ourmost trustworthysourceofinformationinregardto thedoc-trine ofHeracleitus is tobefoundin thefragments of hiis ownwork.This work was written in Ionicprose,andaccordingtoDiog. ix.5,HIS WORK.Eleatics, developed itself in express contradiction to12; Clem. Strom, v. 571 C, borethe titleTrept(piaeus. Wearetoldin Diog. ix. 5 that it wasdividedinto three\6yoi,ets re rhvTrepi roviravThs Koi rhv ttoXitikov koi deo-XoyiHov. It is quite possible (asSchusterremarks,p.48 sqq. inop-position to Schleiermacher, Werkez. Phil. ii. 25 sqq.) thattheworkmay have contained several sec-tions, each devoted to a par-ticular subject; and this maybebrought into connection with thefact that, accordingtoDiog. 12, italso bore the title of MoCo-aj; if,like Schuster,p, 57, we thinkof the three muses of the oldermythology. (On the other hand,twomore titles are givenin Diog.12, which are certainly spurious;cf. Bemays' Heracleit. 8 sq.) Butthere is nodoubt that the Hiovaai.originate with Plato, Soph. 242D; not (as Schuster,p. 329, 2, isinclined to suppose) with Hera-cleitus;andthenamesofthethreesections given by Diogenes (asSchuster observes,p.54 sq.) withthe Alexandrian catalogues, andthatthesenames correctly describedthecontents of the work is quiteuncertain, as is proved, amongotherevidence,bythedoubletitlesof the Platonic dialogues. Thefragmentswepossess contain verylittlethat couldbeassignedtothesecondsection, andstill less thatisappropriateto the third,ifthefor-merwerereallydevotedto politicsandthe latterto theology; and itis thesamething, as weshall find,withtheother traditionsconcerningthe doctrine of Heracleitus (cf.Susemihl, Jahrb.f.Fhilul.1873,H.10, 11, p.714sq.). I believe ittobe impossibleto recover theplanof the work, with any certainty,from the fragments in existence;and Schusters attempt at suchareconstruction is founded onsup-positions thataregenerallydoubt-ful, and in some cases, it appearstome,more than doubtful. Thatthis was the sole work of Hera-cleitus is unquestionable, notonlybecauseoftheindirecttestimonyofAristotle, Rhet. iii. 5, 1407 b, 16;Diog. ix.7; and Clemens, Strom.i. 332 B, where mention is madeofaaxrypaixjxa in the singular, andnotof(TvypafxnaTa, butbecause noother work was either quoted orcommentatedon by theancients. InPlutarch,Adv. Col. 14, 2 'HpaKKsi-rov 5e rhv ZupodcrTprju,we shouldread, wath Diibner, 'Hpa/cAetSou(vide Bemays,Rk.Mus.vii.93sq.),anamendmentwhichof itself set-tles Schleiermacher's doubt as tothegenuinenessofthiswriting,andthe trustworthiness of Plutarch'sstatements concerningHeracleitus(I. c). David,Schol.inArist. 19 b,7 ;Hesych. Vir.El.'H/jokA.;Schol.Bekker, mPlat.p. 364, mentionHeracleitus's (rvyypd/u.iJ.aTa; butthis is only a proof of theircare-lessness. TheHeracleiteanletterscannotpossibly beconsidered genu-ine. Concerninga metricalversionofthe Heracleitean doctrine, videinfra,^.21,1. Whether Heracleitusreally depiisited his work in thetempleof Artemis,as is stated inDiog. ix. 6 and elsewhere, cannotbeascertained; if he did, it couldnot befor the sake of secrecy, asTatian, C, Gr. c. 3, suggests. Xorcanwesupposethathis well-knownobscurity [ct Lucret.i. 639),whichprocuredforhimthe title of(tko-Tcivhsamonglaterwriters (such asPseudo-Arist., De Mundo, c. 5,396 b, 20; Clem. Strom, v. 571,HEBACLEITUS.the ordinarymodeof thought. Look where he will.C), proceededfrom discontentandmisanthropy (vide Theophrastus,ap. Diog. 6, and Luc. Vit. Auct.14);or fromawishtoconceal hisopinions(vide Dios:. 6;Cic. N.D.i. 26, 74 ;iii. 14, 35 ;Divin. ii. 64,133,&c.). Againstthehitterview,vide Schleiermacher,p.8 sqq.;Krische, Forschuvigen,p.59.Schustersaj-s in its favour(p.54,72 sq., 75 sqq.) that Heracleitushad every reasontoconcealopinionswhich might have brought uponhim an indictment for atheism;butonthe otherhandit is notice-able that in his fragments thosejudgments on religious usagesandpolitical conditions, which wouldhavegiventhemostviolentoifence,are enunciatedin the plainestandboldestmanner possible(videinfra,opinions of Heracleitus on ethicsand politics), while those propo-sitionswhicharedifficulttounder-stand,onaccount of theobscurityof thelanguage,arepreciselythosewhich could in no way have en-dangeredthephilosopher,howeverclearly he might have expressedthem. Not one of the ancientsasserts that Heracleitus waspur-posely obscure in his writings, inorder to avoid persecution. Thecause of his obscurity seems tohavelain partly in thedifficulty ofphilosophic expositions at thatepoch, andpartlyin hisownpecu-liar character. He clothed liisprofound intuitions in the mustpregnant,solemn,andforthemostpart, symbolicalexpressions possi-ble, becausethese suitedhimbest,andseemedbest tocorrespondwiththe weight of his thoughts; andhe was too sparing ofwordsandtoo little practised in the art ofcomposition to escape the am-biguityof syntacticalarrangement,which was noticed by Aristotle{Rher. iii. 5, 1407 b, 14; cf. De-metr.BeEhcut. c. 1 92). Hehim-self characteriseshislanguageasalanguage adapted to the subject,whenin Fr. 39, 38 (ap. Plut. Pyth.Orac.c.6,21,p.397,404;Clemens,Strom,i. 304C. andpseudo-Iambi.DeMyster. iii. 8, refer to the firstofthesefragments,andnottosomedifferent utterance, and pseudo-Iambi. Ue Myster. iii. 15 to thesecond),accordingtothemostpro-bable acceptation of thfse frag-ments(which Lucian,^.c, confirms),he compares his discourses to theearnestandunadornedwordsofaninspired sybil,theoracularsayingsoftheDelphicgod. Thisoraculartoneof theHeraclirean utterancesmaybeconnectedwiththecensureofAristotle {Eth. N.Vn. 4, 1146 b,29 ;M.Mor. ii. 6, 1201 b,5),whosayshehadasmuch confidence inhisopinionsas others hadin theirknowledge. Whenresults,merely,without demonstration are to besetforth in a statuesque style, thedistinction betweentheseveralgra-dationsofcertainty canneitherbefelt nor represented. The confi-dencewithwhich Heracleitussta-tedhisconvictions is seen, amongotherexamples, in theexpression(i^r. 137; Olympiod. z??- Gorg. 87videJahn'sJahrh.Sicppl.xiv. 267;cf. Diog. ix. 16) : Xeyw tovto kolTTapanpire(l)6v7) Hov. Videalsoinfra,where'theoneon whomhe reliesmore than on thousands,' is pri-marilyhimself. A remark attri-butedto Socrates on the difficultyofHeracleitus'sexposition isgivenin Diog.ii. 22;ix. 11 sq. InDiog.ix. 15 sq., mentionis also madft ofsomeancient commentatorsofHe-HIS WORK.nowhere can our philosopher iind true knowledge.*Themassof menhas no intelligence for eternaltruth,thoughit is clear and obvious; thatwhich they dailyencounter, continues strange to them; whither theirown road leads is hidden from them: what theydowhen they are awake, theyforget, as if it were donein sleep;^the order of theworld, glorious as it is,racleitus's work. Brandis {Gr.Rom.Phil, i, 154),-with goodrea-son,onaccount of otherpassages,Diog, vi. 19, and ix. 6, dcubtswhether the Antisthenes here al-ludedtois theSocratic philosopher(vide Schleiermacher,p. 5),andLassalle makes the unfortunatesuggestion,i. 3, thatinEus. Br.Ev.XV. 13, 6,AntisthenestheSocraticis not colled 'lipaK\ooTLK6s, hut'HpoKAeiTftds, Tis avrjp to (ppovqixa;of. partII. a, 261. 4. Inmyquo-tation ofthefragments, in the fol-lovring pages, I use Schuster'senumeration, butat thesame timeabsoluteisexempt fromallsensibleexistence, that it is the negative.'To me it seems more likely thatthe true meaning is this:'Noneattainstounderstand thatwisdomis separatedfrom all things,' thatis, has togo itsownway,divergingfrom general opinion. This doesnot contradict eirecrdai. T