CHAPTER X

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

[Sidenote: The “bankruptcy of science.”]

184. With Leukippos our story should properly come to an end; for he had really answered the question first asked by Thales. We have seen, however, that, though his theory of matter was of a most original and daring kind, he was not equally successful in his attempt to construct a cosmology, and this seems to have stood in the way of the recognition of the atomic theory for what it really was. We have noted the growing influence of medicine, and the consequent substitution of an interest in detailed investigation for the larger cosmological views of an earlier time, and there are several treatises in the Hippokratean _corpus_ which give us a clear idea of the interest which now prevailed.[986] Leukippos had shown that “the doctrine of Melissos,”[987] which seemed to make all science impossible, was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from the Eleatic premisses, and he had gone on to give a cosmology which was substantially of the old Ionic type. The result at first was simply that all the old schools revived and had a short period of renewed activity, while at the same time some new schools arose which sought to accommodate the older views to those of Leukippos, or to make them more available for scientific purposes by combining them in an eclectic fashion. None of these attempts had any lasting importance or influence, and what we have to consider in this chapter is really one of the periodical “bankruptcies of science” which mark the close of one chapter in its history and announce the beginning of a new one.

Footnote 986:

Cf. what is said in Chap. IV. p. 167, _n._ 383, of the Περὶ διαίτης. The Περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσιος and the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς are invaluable documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at this date.

Footnote 987:

Cf. Chap. VIII. p. 379, _n._ 919.

I. HIPPON OF SAMOS

185. Hippon of Samos or Kroton belonged to the Italian school of medicine.[988] We know very little indeed of him except that he was a contemporary of Perikles. From a scholiast on Aristophanes[989] we learn that Kratinos satirised him in his _Panoptai_; and Aristotle mentions him in the enumeration of early philosophers given in the First Book of the _Metaphysics_,[990] though only to say that the inferiority of his intellect deprives him of all claim to be reckoned among them.

Footnote 988:

Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R. P. 219 a). In Menon’s _Iatrika_ he is called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion or Metapontion. This probably means that he was affiliated to the Pythagorean medical school. The evidence of Aristoxenos is, in that case, all the more valuable. Hippon is mentioned along with Melissos in Iamblichos’s Catalogue of Pythagoreans (_V. Pyth._ 267).

Footnote 989:

Schol. on _Clouds_, 94 sqq.

Footnote 990:

Arist. _Met._ Α, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a).

[Sidenote: Moisture.]

With regard to his views, the most precise statement is that of Alexander, who doubtless follows Theophrastos. It is to the effect that he held the primary substance to be Moisture, without deciding whether it was Water or Air.[991] We have the authority of Aristotle[992] and Theophrastos, represented by Hippolytos,[993] for saying that this theory was supported by physiological arguments of the kind common at the time. His other views belong to the history of Medicine.

Footnote 991:

Alexander in _Met._ p. 26, 21 (R. P. 219).

Footnote 992:

Arist. _de An._ Α, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220).

Footnote 993:

Hipp. _Ref._ i. 16 (R. P. 221).

Till quite recently no fragment of Hippon was known to exist, but a single one has now been recovered from the Geneva Scholia on Homer.[994] It is directed against the old assumption that the “waters under the earth” are an independent source of moisture, and runs thus:

The waters we drink are all from the sea; for if wells were deeper than the sea, then it would not, doubtless, be from the sea that we drink, for then the water would not be from the sea, but from some other source. But as it is, the sea is deeper than the waters, so all the waters that are above the sea come from it. R. P. 219 b.

We observe here the universal assumption that water tends to rise from the earth, not to sink into it.

Along with Hippon, Idaios of Himera[995] may just be mentioned. We really know nothing of him except that he held air to be the primary substance. The fact that he was of Sicilian origin is, however, suggestive.

Footnote 994:

_Schol. Genav._ p. 197, 19. Cf. Diels in _Arch._ iv. p. 653. The extract comes from the Ὁμηρικά of Krates of Mallos.

Footnote 995:

Sext. _adv. Math._ ix. 360.

II. DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA

[Sidenote: Date.]

186. After discussing the three great representatives of the Milesian school, Theophrastos went on to say:

And Diogenes of Apollonia, too, who was almost the latest of those who gave themselves up to these studies, wrote most of his work in an eclectic fashion, agreeing in some points with Anaxagoras and in others with Leukippos. He, too, says that the primary substance of the universe is Air infinite and eternal, from which by condensation, rarefaction, and change of state, the form of everything else arises. R. P. 206 a.[996]

Footnote 996:

On this passage see Diels, “Leukippos und Diogenes von Apollonia” (_Rhein. Mus._ xlii. pp. 1 sqq.). Natorp’s view that the words are merely those of Simplicius (_ib._ xli. pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be maintained.

This passage shows that the Apolloniate was somewhat later in date than the statement in Laertios Diogenes[997] that he was contemporary with Anaxagoras would lead us to suppose, and the fact that he is satirised in the _Clouds_ of Aristophanes points in the same direction.[998] Of his life we know next to nothing. He was the son of Apollothemis, and came from Apollonia in Crete.[999] The Ionic dialect in which he wrote is no objection to this; it was the regular dialect for cosmological works.[1000]

Footnote 997:

Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206). The statement of Antisthenes, the writer of _Successions_, that he had “heard” Anaximenes is due to the usual confusion. He was doubtless, like Anaxagoras, “an associate of the philosophy of Anaximenes.” Cf. Chap. VI. § 122.

Footnote 998:

Aristoph. _Clouds_, 227 sqq., where Sokrates speaks of “mixing his subtle thought with the kindred air,” and especially the words ἡ γῆ βίᾳ | ἕλκει πρὸς αὑτὴν τὴν ἱκμάδα τῆς φροντίδος. For the ἱκμάς, see Beare, p. 259. Cf. also Eur. _Tro._ 884, ὦ γῆς ὄχημα κἀπὶ γῆς ἕδραν ἔχων κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 999:

Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206).

Footnote 1000:

Cf. Chap. VII. pp. 327 sqq.

The fact that Diogenes was parodied in the _Clouds_ suggests that he had found his way to Athens; and we have the excellent authority of Demetrios Phalereus[1001] for saying that the Athenians treated him in the usual way. He excited so great dislike as nearly to imperil his life.

Footnote 1001:

Diog. ix. 57, τοῦτόν φησιν ὁ Φαληρεὺς Δημήτριος ἐν τῇ Σωκράτους ἀπολογίᾳ διὰ μέγαν φθόνον μικροῦ κινδυνεῦσαι Ἀθήνησιν. Diels follows Volkmann in holding that this is a note on Anaxagoras which has been inserted in the wrong place. I do not think this is necessary, though it is certainly possible.

[Sidenote: Writings.]

187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several works, though he allows that only one survived till his own day, namely, the Περὶ φύσεως.[1002] This statement is based upon references in the surviving work itself, and is not to be lightly rejected. In particular, it is very credible that he wrote a tract _Against the Sophists_, that is to say, the pluralist cosmologists of the day.[1003] That he wrote a _Meteorology_ and a book called _The Nature of Man_ is also quite probable. This would be a physiological or medical treatise, and perhaps the famous fragment about the veins comes from it.[1004]

Footnote 1002:

Simpl. _Phys._ p. 151, 24 (R. P. 207 a).

Footnote 1003:

Simplicius says Πρὸς φυσιολόγους, but he adds that Diogenes called them σοφισταί, which is the older word. This is, so far, in favour of the genuineness of the work.

Footnote 1004:

Diels gives this as fr. 6 (_Vors._ p. 350). I have omitted it, as it really belongs to the history of Medicine.

[Sidenote: The Fragments.]

188. The work of Diogenes seems to have been preserved in the Academy; practically all the fairly extensive fragments which we still have are derived from Simplicius. I give them as they are arranged by Diels:—

(1) In beginning any discourse, it seems to me that one should make one’s starting-point something indisputable, and one’s expression simple and dignified. R. P. 207.

(2) My view is, to sum it all up, that all things are differentiations of the same thing, and are the same thing. And this is obvious; for, if the things which are now in this world—earth, and water, and air and fire, and the other things which we see existing in this world,—if any one of these things, I say, were different from any other, different, that is, by having a substance peculiar to itself; and if it were not the same thing that is often changed and differentiated, then things could not in any way mix with one another, nor could they do one another good or harm. Neither could a plant grow out of the earth, nor any animal nor anything else come into being unless things were composed in such a way as to be the same. But all these things arise from the same thing; they are differentiated and take different forms at different times, and return again to the same thing. R. P. 208.

(3) For it would not be possible for it to be divided as it is without intelligence, so as to keep the measures of all things, of winter and summer, of day and night, of rains and winds and fair weather. And any one who cares to reflect will find that everything else is disposed in the best possible manner. R. P. 210.

(4) And, further, there are still the following great proofs. Men and all other animals live upon air by breathing it, and this is their soul and their intelligence, as will be clearly shown in this work; while, when this is taken away, they die, and their intelligence fails. R. P. 210.

(5) And my view is, that that which has intelligence is what men call air, and that all things have their course steered by it, and that it has power over all things. For this very thing I hold to be a god,[1005] and to reach everywhere, and to dispose everything, and to be in everything; and there is not anything which does not partake in it. Yet no single thing partakes in it just in the same way as another; but there are many modes both of air and of intelligence. For it undergoes many transformations, warmer and colder, drier and moister, more stable and in swifter motion, and it has many other differentiations in it, and an infinite number of colours and savours. And the soul of all living things is the same, namely, air warmer than that outside us and in which we are, but much colder than that near the sun. And this warmth is not alike in any two kinds of living creatures, nor, for the matter of that, in any two men; but it does not differ much, only so far as is compatible with their being alike. At the same time, it is not possible for any of the things which are differentiated to be exactly like one another till they all once more become the same.

(6) Since, then, differentiation is multiform, living creatures are multiform and many, and they are like one another neither in appearance nor in intelligence, because of the multitude of differentiations. At the same time, they all live, and see, and hear by the same thing, and they all have their intelligence from the same source. R. P. 211.

(7) And this itself is an eternal and undying body, but of those things[1006] some come into being and some pass away.

(8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is both great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of great knowledge. R. P. 209.

Footnote 1005:

The MSS. of Simplicius have ἔθος, not θεός; but I adopt Usener’s certain correction. It is confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos, that the air within us is “a small portion of the god” (_de Sens._ 42); and by Philodemos (_Dox._ p. 536), where we read that Diogenes praises Homer, τὸν ἀέρα γὰρ αὐτὸν Δία νομίζειν φησίν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν εἰδέναι τὸν Δία λέγει (cf. Cic. _Nat. D._ i. 12, 29).

Footnote 1006:

The MSS. of Simplicius have τῷ δέ, but surely the Aldine τῶν δέ is right.

That the chief interest of Diogenes was a physiological one, is clear from his elaborate account of the veins, preserved by Aristotle.[1007] It is noticeable, too, that one of his arguments for the underlying unity of all substances is that without this it would be impossible to understand how one thing could do good or harm to another (fr. 2). In fact, the writing of Diogenes is essentially of the same character as a good deal of the pseudo-Hippokratean literature, and there is much to be said for the view that the writers of these curious tracts made use of him very much as they did of Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.[1008]

Footnote 1007:

Arist. _Hist. An._ Γ, 2. 511 b 30.

Footnote 1008:

See Weygoldt, “Zu Diogenes von Apollonia” (_Arch._ i. pp. 161 sqq.). Hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of those writers. His great achievement was the separation of medicine from philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i. pr.). This is why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the “sophists” are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged. To the latter class belong the Περὶ διαίτης and the Περὶ φυσῶν; to the former, especially the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς.

[Sidenote: Cosmology.]

189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as the primary substance; but we see from his arguments that he lived at a time when other views had become prevalent. He speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean elements (fr. 2), and he is careful to attribute to Air the attributes of Nous as taught by Anaxagoras (fr. 4). The doxographical tradition as to his cosmological views is fairly preserved:—

Diogenes of Apollonia makes air the element, and holds that all things are in motion, and that there are innumerable worlds. And he describes the origin of the world thus. When the All moves and becomes rare in one place and dense in another, where the dense met together it formed a mass, and then the other things arose in the same way, the lightest parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun. [Plut.] _Strom._ fr. 12 (R. P. 215).

Nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what is not. The earth is round, poised in the middle, having received its shape through the revolution proceeding from the warm and its solidification from the cold. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).

The heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone. He thinks they are the breathing-holes of the world, and that they are red-hot. Aet. ii. 13, 5 = Stob. i. 508 (R. P. 215).

The sun was like pumice-stone, and into it the rays from the aether fix themselves. Aet. ii. 20, 10. The moon was a pumice-like conflagration. _Ib._ ii. 25, 10.

Along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible stones, which for that very reason are nameless; but they often fall and are extinguished on the earth like the stone star which fell down flaming at Aigospotamos.[1009] _Ib._ ii. 13, 9.

Footnote 1009:

See Chap. VI. p. 292, _n._ 657.

We have here nothing more than the old Ionian doctrine with a few additions from more recent sources. Rarefaction and condensation still hold their place in the explanation of the opposites, warm and cold, dry and moist, stable and mobile (fr. 5). The differentiations into opposites which Air may undergo are, as Anaxagoras had taught, infinite in number; but all may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and dense. We may gather, too, from Censorinus[1010] that Diogenes did not, like Anaximenes, speak of earth and water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather of blood, flesh, and bones. In this he followed Anaxagoras (§ 130), as it was natural that he should. That portion of Air, on the other hand, which was rarefied became fiery, and produced the sun and heavenly bodies. The circular motion of the world is due to the intelligence of the Air, as is also the division of all things into different forms of body and the observance of the “measures” by these forms.[1011]

Footnote 1010:

Censorinus, _de die natali_, 6, 1 (_Dox._ p. 190).

Footnote 1011:

On the “measures” see Chap. III. § 72.

Like Anaximander (§ 20), Diogenes regarded the sea as the remainder of the original moist state, which had been partially evaporated by the sun, so as to separate out the remaining earth.[1012] The earth itself is round, that is to say, it is a disc: for the language of the doxographers does not point to the spherical form.[1013] Its solidification by the cold is due to the fact that cold is a form of condensation.

Footnote 1012:

Theophr. _ap._ Alex. in _Meteor._ p. 67, 1 (_Dox._ p. 494).

Footnote 1013:

Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).

Diogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists that the heavenly bodies were made of air or fire, nor yet with Anaxagoras, that they were stones. They were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which we may trace the influence of Leukippos. They were earthy, indeed, but not solid, and the celestial fire permeated their pores. And this explains why we do not see the dark bodies which, in common with Anaxagoras, he held to revolve along with the stars. They really are solid stones, and therefore cannot be penetrated by the fire. It was one of these that fell into the Aigospotamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently to the rise of animals.[1014]

We are prepared to find that Diogenes held the doctrine of innumerable worlds; for it was the old Milesian belief, and had just been revived by Anaxagoras and Leukippos. He is mentioned with the rest in the _Placita_; and if Simplicius classes him and Anaximenes with Herakleitos as holding the Stoic doctrine of successive formations and destructions of a single world, he has probably been misled by the “accommodators.”[1015]

Footnote 1014:

Aet. ii. 8, 1 (R. P. 215).

Footnote 1015:

Simpl. _Phys._ p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 83, _n._ 123.

[Sidenote: Animals and plants.]

190. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubtless under the influence of heat. Their souls, of course, were air, and their differences were due to the various degrees in which it was rarefied or condensed (fr. 5). No special seat, such as the heart or the brain, was assigned to the soul; it was simply the warm air circulating with the blood in the veins.

The views of Diogenes as to generation, respiration, and the blood, belong to the history of Medicine;[1016] his theory of sensation too, as it is described by Theophrastos,[1017] need only be mentioned in passing. Briefly stated, it amounts to this, that all sensation is due to the action of air upon the brain and other organs, while pleasure is aeration of the blood. But the details of the theory can only be studied properly in connexion with the Hippokratean writings; for Diogenes does not really represent the old cosmological tradition, but a fresh development of reactionary philosophical views combined with an entirely new enthusiasm for detailed investigation and accumulation of facts.

Footnote 1016:

See Censorinus, quoted in _Dox._ p. 191.

Footnote 1017:

Theophr. _de Sens._ 39 sqq. (R. P. 213, 214). For a full account, see Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. As Prof. Beare remarks, Diogenes “is one of the most interesting of the pre-Platonic psychologists” (p. 258).

III. ARCHELAOS OF ATHENS

[Sidenote: Anaxagoreans.]

191. The last of the early cosmologists was Archelaos of Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxagoras.[1018] He is also said to have been the teacher of Sokrates, a statement by no means so improbable as is sometimes supposed.[1019] There is no reason to doubt the tradition that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in the school at Lampsakos.[1020] We certainly hear of Anaxagoreans,[1021] though their fame was soon obscured by the rise of the Sophists, as we call them.

Footnote 1018:

Diog. ii. 16 (R. P. 216).

Footnote 1019:

See Chiapelli in _Arch._ iv. pp. 369 sqq.

Footnote 1020:

Euseb. _P. E._ p. 504, c 3, ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέλαος ἐν Λαμψάκῳ διεδέξατο τὴν σχολὴν τοῦ Ἀναξαγόρου.

Footnote 1021:

Ἀναξαγόρειοι are mentioned by Plato (_Crat._ 409 b 6), and often by the Aristotelian commentators.

[Sidenote: Cosmology.]

192. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos[1022] writes as follows:—

Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of Apollodoros. He spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar way to Anaxagoras, and of the first principles likewise. He held, however, that there was a certain mixture immanent even in Nous. And he held that there were two efficient causes which were separated off from one another, namely, the warm and the cold. The former was in motion, the latter at rest. When the water was liquefied it flowed to the centre, and there being burnt up it turned to earth and air, the latter of which was borne upwards, while the former took up its position below. These, then, are the reasons why the earth is at rest, and why it came into being. It lies in the centre, being practically no appreciable part of the universe. (But the air rules over all things),[1023] being produced by the burning of the fire, and from its original combustion comes the substance of the heavenly bodies. Of these the sun is the largest, and the moon second; the rest are of various sizes. He says that the heavens were inclined, and that then the sun made light upon the earth, made the air transparent, and the earth dry; for it was originally a pond, being high at the circumference and hollow in the centre. He adduces as a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not rise and set at the same time for all peoples, as it ought to do if the earth were level. As to animals, he says that when the earth was first being warmed in the lower part where the warm and the cold were mingled together, many living creatures appeared, and especially men, all having the same manner of life, and deriving their sustenance from the slime; they did not live long, and later on generation from one another began. And men were distinguished from the rest, and set up leaders, and laws, and arts, and cities, and so forth. And he says that Nous is implanted in all animals alike; for each of the animals, as well as man, makes use of Nous, but some quicker and some slower.

Footnote 1022:

Hipp. _Ref._ i. 9 (R. P. 218).

Footnote 1023:

Inserting τὸν δ’ ἀέρα κρατεῖν τοῦ παντός, as suggested by Roeper.

It is not necessary to say much with regard to this theory, which in many respects contrasts unfavourably with its predecessors. It is clear that, just as Diogenes had tried to introduce certain Anaxagorean ideas into the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to bring Anaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views by supplementing it with the opposition of warm and cold, rare and dense, and by stripping Nous of that simplicity which had marked it off from the other “things” in his master’s system. It was probably for this reason, too, that Nous was no longer regarded as the maker of the world.[1024] Leukippos had made such a force unnecessary. It may be added that this twofold relation of Archelaos to his predecessors makes it very credible that, as Aetios tells us,[1025] he believed in innumerable worlds; both Anaxagoras and the older Ionians upheld that doctrine.

Footnote 1024:

Aet. i. 7, 4 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 217 a).

[Sidenote: Conclusion.]

193. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of Diogenes, has all the characteristics of the age to which it belonged—an age of reaction, eclecticism, and investigation of detail.[1026] Hippon of Samos and Idaios of Himera represent nothing more than the feeling that philosophy had run into a blind alley, from which it could only escape by trying back. The Herakleiteans at Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped up as they were in their own system, did little but exaggerate its paradoxes and develop its more fanciful side.[1027] It was not enough for Kratylos to say with Herakleitos (fr. 84) that you cannot step twice into the same river; you could not do so even once.[1028] But in nothing was the total bankruptcy of the early cosmology so clearly shown as in the work of Gorgias, entitled _Substance or the Non-existent_, in which an absolute nihilism was set forth and based upon the Eleatic dialectic.[1029] The fact is that philosophy, so long as it clung to its old presuppositions, had nothing more to say; for the answer of Leukippos to the question of Thales was really final. Fresh life must be given to the speculative impulse by the raising of new problems, those of knowledge and conduct, before any further progress was possible; and this was done by the “Sophists” and Sokrates. Then, in the hands of Demokritos and Plato, philosophy took a new form, and started on a fresh course.

Footnote 1025:

Aet. ii. 1, 3.

Footnote 1026:

Windelband, § 25. The period is well described by Fredrich, _Hippokratische Untersuchungen_, pp. 130 sqq. It can only be treated fully in connexion with the Sophists.

Footnote 1027:

For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, _Tht._ 179 e. The new interest in language, which the study of rhetoric had called into life, took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary etymologising, such as is satirised in Plato’s _Cratylus_.

Footnote 1028:

Arist. _Met._ Γ, 5. 1010 a 12. He refused even to speak, we are told, and only moved his finger.

Footnote 1029:

Sext. _adv. Math._ vii. 65 (R. P. 235); _M.X.G._ 979 a 13 (R. P. 236).

APPENDIX THE SOURCES

_A._—PHILOSOPHERS

[Sidenote: Plato.]

1. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell upon the history of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical and epistemological inquiry; but when he does, his guidance is simply invaluable. His artistic gift and his power of entering into the thoughts of other men enabled him to describe the views of early philosophers in a thoroughly objective manner, and he never, except in a playful and ironical way, sought to read unthought-of meanings into the words of his predecessors. Of special value for our purpose are his contrast between Empedokles and Herakleitos (_Soph._ 242 d), and his account of the relation between Zeno and Parmenides (_Parm._ 128 a).

See Zeller, “Plato’s Mittheilungen über frühere und gleichzeitige Philosophen” (_Arch._ v. pp. 165 sqq.); and Index, _s.v._ Plato.

[Sidenote: Aristotle.]

2. As a rule, Aristotle’s statements about early philosophers are less historical than Plato’s. Not that he failed to understand the facts, but he nearly always discusses them from the point of view of his own system. He is convinced that his own philosophy accomplishes what all previous philosophers had aimed at, and their systems are therefore regarded as “lisping” attempts to formulate it (_Met._ Α, 10. 993 a 15). It is also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in a much more sympathetic way than others. He is distinctly unfair to the Eleatics, for instance.

It is often forgotten that Aristotle derived much of his information from Plato, and we must specially observe that he more than once takes Plato’s irony too literally.

See Emminger, _Die Vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den Berichten des Aristoteles_, 1878. Index, _s.v._ Aristotle.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Stoics.]

3. The Stoics, and especially Chrysippos, paid great attention to early philosophy, but their way of regarding it was simply an exaggeration of Aristotle’s. They did not content themselves with criticising their predecessors from their own point of view; they seem really to have believed that the early poets and thinkers held views hardly distinguishable from theirs. The word συνοικειοῦν, which Cicero renders by _accommodare_, was used by Philodemos to denote this method of interpretation,[1030] which has had serious results upon our tradition, especially in the case of Herakleitos (p. 157).

Footnote 1030:

Cf. Cic. _De nat. D._ i. 15, 41: “Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo libro de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.” Cf. Philod. _de piet. fr._ c. 13, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ τά τε εἰς Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον ἀναφερόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ καὶ ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς καὶ Κλεάνθης, πειρᾶται συνοικειοῦν ταῖς δόξαις αὐτῶν.

[Sidenote: Skeptics.]

4. The same remarks apply _mutatis mutandis_ to the Skeptics. The interest of such a writer as Sextus Empiricus in early philosophy is to show that skepticism went back to an early date—as far as Xenophanes, in fact. But what he tells us is often of value; for he frequently quotes early views as to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis.

[Sidenote: Neoplatonists.]

5. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators on Aristotle in so far as they are independent of the Theophrastean tradition. Their chief characteristic is what Simplicius calls εὐγνωμοσύνη, that is, a liberal spirit of interpretation, which makes all early philosophers agree with one another in upholding the doctrine of a Sensible and an Intelligible World. It is, however, to Simplicius more than any one else that we owe the preservation of the fragments. He had, of course, the library of the Academy at his disposal.

_B._—DOXOGRAPHERS

[Sidenote: The _Doxographi graeci_.]

6. The _Doxographi graeci_ of Professor Hermann Diels (1879) threw an entirely new light upon the filiation of the later sources; and we can only estimate justly the value of statements derived from these if we bear constantly in mind the results of his investigation. Here it will only be possible to give an outline which may help the reader to find his way in the _Doxographi graeci_ itself.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The “Opinions” of Theophrastos]

7. By the term _doxographers_ we understand all those writers who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the great work of Theophrastos, Φυσικῶν δοξῶν ιηʹ (Diog. v. 46). Of this work, one considerable chapter, that entitled Περὶ αἰσθήσεων, has been preserved (_Dox._ pp. 499-527). And Usener, following Brandis, further showed that there were important fragments of it contained in the commentary of Simplicius (sixth cent. A.D.) on the First Book of Aristotle’s Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις (Usener, _Analecta Theophrastea_, pp. 25 sqq.). These extracts Simplicius seems to have borrowed in turn from Alexander of Aphrodisias (_c._ 200 A.D.); cf. _Dox._ p. 112 sqq. We thus possess a very considerable portion of the First Book, which dealt with the ἀρχαί as well as practically the whole of the last Book.

From these remains it clearly appears that the method of Theophrastos was to discuss in separate books the leading topics which had engaged the attention of philosophers from Thales to Plato. The chronological order was not observed; the philosophers were grouped according to the affinity of their doctrine, the differences between those who appeared to agree most closely being carefully noted. The First Book, however, was in some degree exceptional; for in it the order was that of the successive schools, and short historical and chronological notices were inserted.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Doxographers.]

8. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the epitomators and compilers of handbooks, who flourished more and more as the Greek genius declined. These either followed Theophrastos in arranging the subject-matter under heads, or else they broke up his work, and rearranged his statements under the names of the various philosophers to whom they applied. This latter class form the natural transition between the doxographers proper and the biographers, so I have ventured to distinguish them by the name of _biographical doxographers_.

I. DOXOGRAPHERS PROPER

[Sidenote: The _Placita_ and Stobaios.]

9. These are now represented by two works, viz. the _Placita Philosophorum_, included among the writings ascribed to Plutarch, and the _Eclogae Physicae_ of John Stobaios (_c._ 470 A.D.). The latter originally formed one work with the _Florilegium_ of the same author, and includes a transcript of some epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-Plutarchean _Placita_. It is, however, demonstrable that neither the _Placita_ nor the doxography of the _Eclogae_ is the original of the other. The latter is usually the fuller of the two, and yet the former must be earlier; for it was used by Athenagoras for his defence of the Christians in 177 A.D. (_Dox._ p. 4). It was also the source of the notices in Eusebios and Cyril, and of the _History of Philosophy_ ascribed to Galen. From these writers many important corrections of the text have been derived (_Dox._ pp. 5 sqq.).

Another writer who made use of the _Placita_ is Achilles (_not_ Achilles Tatius). Extracts from his Εἰσαγωγή to the _Phaenomena_ of Aratos are included in the _Uranologion_ of Petavius, pp. 121-164. His date is uncertain, but probably he belongs to the third century A.D. (_Dox._ p. 18).

[Sidenote: Aetios.]

10. What, then, was the common source of the _Placita_ and the _Eclogae_? Diels has shown that Theodoret (_c._ 445 A.D.) had access to it; for in some cases he gives a fuller form of statements made in these two works. Not only so, but he also names that source; for he refers us (_Gr. aff. cur._ iv. 31) to Ἀετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν. Diels has accordingly printed the _Placita_ in parallel columns with the relevant parts of the _Eclogae_, under the title of _Aetii Placita_. The quotations from “Plutarch” by later writers, and the extracts of Theodoret from Aetios, are also given at the foot of each page.

[Sidenote: The _Vetusta Placita_.]

11. Diels has shown further, however, that Aetios did not draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an intermediate epitome which he calls the _Vetusta Placita_, traces of which may be found in Cicero (_infra_, § 12), and in Censorinus (_De die natali_), who follows Varro. The _Vetusta Placita_ were composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels now calls them the Poseidonian Ἀρέσκοντα (_Über das phys. System des Straton_, p. 2). There are also traces of them in the “Homeric Allegorists.”

It is quite possible, by discounting the somewhat unintelligent additions which Aetios made from Epicurean and other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents of the _Vetusta Placita_ (_Dox._ pp. 181 sqq.), and this gives us a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by Theophrastos.

[Sidenote: Cicero.]

12. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxographers, and not with the philosophers; for he gives us nothing but extracts at second or third hand from the work of Theophrastos. Two passages in his writings fall to be considered under this head, namely, “Lucullus” (_Acad._ ii.), 118, and _De natura Deorum_, i. 25-41.

(_a_) _Doxography of the “Lucullus.”_—This contains a meagre and inaccurately-rendered summary of the various opinions held by philosophers with regard to the ἀρχή (_Dox._ pp. 119 sqq.), and would be quite useless if it did not in one case enable us to verify the exact words of Theophrastos (Chap. I. p. 52, _n._ 2). The doxography has come through the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in the headship of the Academy (129 B.C.).

(_b_) _Doxography of the “De natura Deorum.”_—A fresh light was thrown upon this important passage by the discovery at Herculaneum of a roll containing fragments of an Epicurean treatise, so like it as to be at once regarded as its original. This treatise was at first ascribed to Phaidros, on the ground of the reference in _Epp. ad Att._ xiii. 39. 2; but the real title, Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, was afterwards restored (_Dox._ p. 530). Diels, however, has shown (_Dox._ pp. 122 sqq.) that there is much to be said for the view that Cicero did not copy Philodemos, but that both drew from a common source (no doubt Phaidros, Περὶ θεῶν) which itself went back to a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos. The passage of Cicero and the relevant fragments of Philodemos are edited in parallel columns by Diels (_Dox._ pp. 531 sqq.).

II. BIOGRAPHICAL DOXOGRAPHERS

[Sidenote: Hippolytos.]

13. Of the “biographical doxographies,” the most important is Book I. of the _Refutation of all Heresies_ by Hippolytos. This had long been known as the _Philosophoumena_ of Origen; but the discovery of the remaining books, which were first published at Oxford in 1854, showed finally that it could not belong to him. It is drawn mainly from some good epitome of Theophrastos, in which the matter was already rearranged under the names of the various philosophers. We must note, however, that the sections dealing with Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles come from an inferior source, some merely biographical compendium full of apocryphal anecdotes and doubtful statements.

[Sidenote: The _Stromateis_.]

14. The fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean _Stromateis_, quoted by Eusebios in his _Praeparatio Evangelica_, come from a source similar to that of the best portions of the _Philosophoumena_. So far as we can judge, they differ chiefly in two points. In the first place, they are mostly taken from the earliest sections of the work, and therefore most of them deal with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and the earth. In the second place, the language is a much less faithful transcript of the original.

[Sidenote: “Diogenes Laertios.”]

15. The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes Laertios, or Laertios Diogenes (cf. Usener, _Epicurea_, pp. 1 sqq.), contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies. One is of the merely biographical, anecdotic, and apophthegmatic kind used by Hippolytos in his first four chapters; the other is of a better class, more like the source of Hippolytos’ remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise this “contamination” by referring to the first doxography as a “summary” (κεφαλαιωδής) account, while the second is called “particular” (ἐπὶ μέρους).

[Sidenote: Patristic doxographies.]

16. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in Eusebios (_P. E._ x., xiv., xv.), Theodoret (_Gr. aff. cur._ ii. 9-11), Irenæus (_C. haer._ ii. 14), Arnobius (_Adv. nat._ ii. 9), Augustine (_Civ. Dei_, viii. 2). These depend mainly upon the writers of “Successions,” whom we shall have to consider in the next section.

_C._—BIOGRAPHERS

[Sidenote: Successions.]

17. The first to write a work entitled _Successions of the Philosophers_ was Sotion (Diog. ii. 12; R. P. 4 a), about 200 B.C. The arrangement of his work is explained in _Dox._ p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos. Other writers of Διαδοχαί were Antisthenes, Sosikrates, and Alexander. All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre doxography, and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.

[Sidenote: Hermippos.]

18. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as Καλλιμάχειος (_c._ 200 B.C.), wrote several biographical works which are frequently quoted. The biographical details are very untrustworthy indeed; but sometimes bibliographical information is added, which doubtless rests upon the Πίνακες of Kallimachos.

[Sidenote: Satyros.]

19. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, wrote (_c._ 160 B.C.) _Lives of Famous Men_. The same remarks apply to him as to Hermippos. His work was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos.

[Sidenote: “Diogenes Laertios.”]

20. The work which goes by the name of Laertios Diogenes is, in its biographical parts, a mere patchwork of all earlier learning. It has not been digested or composed by any single mind at all. It is little more than a collection of extracts made at haphazard, possibly by more than one successive possessor of the MS. But, of course, it contains much that is of the greatest value.

_D._—CHRONOLOGISTS

[Sidenote: Eratosthenes and Apollodoros.]

21. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes of Kyrene (275-194 B.C.); but his work was soon supplanted by the metrical version of Apollodoros (_c._ 140 B.C.), from which most of our information as to the dates of early philosophers is derived. See Diels’ paper on the Χρονικά of Apollodoros in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxi.; and Jacoby, _Apollodors Chronik_ (1902).

The method adopted is as follows:—If the date of some striking event in a philosopher’s life is known, that is taken as his _floruit_ (ἀκμή), and he is assumed to have been forty years old at that date. In default of this, some historical era is taken as the _floruit_. Of these the chief are the eclipse of Thales 586/5 B.C., the taking of Sardeis in 546/5 B.C., the accession of Polykrates in 532/1 B.C., and the foundation of Thourioi in 444/3 B.C. Further details will easily be found by reference to the Index, _s.v._ Apollodoros.

INDEXES

I. ENGLISH

Aahmes, 22, 46 Abaris, 87, 97 _n._ 205 Abdera, school of, 381 Abstinence, Orphic and Pythagorean, 102 sq., 104 sq.; Empedoklean, 289 Academy, 35 Achilles and the Tortoise, 367 Aether. _See_ αἰθήρ Aetios, App. § 10 Aigospotamos, meteoric stone of, 292, 312, 413 sq. Air, 77, 78, 79 _n._ 154, 120, 173, 214, 224, 263, 309, 336, 341, 411 sq. See ἀήρ Akousmata, 105 sq., 328 Akousmatics, 96, 103 Akragas, 228 sqq. Akron, 231 Alexander Aetolus, 295 Alexander Aphrodisiensis, 139, 209 Alkidamas, 229 _n._ 504, 231 _n._ 5, 235, 297 _n._ 675, 321 _n._ 739, 360 Alkmaion, 123 _n._ 263, 223 sq., 236, 327, 344, 350 Amasis, 39 Ameinias, 193 Anaxagoras, 290 sqq.; and Perikles, 294 sqq.; and Euripides, 295; relation to Ionic school, 292; and Zeno, 362 Anaxagoreans, 35 _n._ 50, 415 Anaximander, 52 sqq. Anaximenes, 75 sqq.; School of, 83, 292, 408 _n._ 997 Androkydes, 328 Andron of Ephesos, 93 Animals, Anaximander, 72 sqq.; Empedokles, 279 sqq.; Anaxagoras, 315 sqq.; Diogenes of Apollonia, 414 Antichthon, 344, 349 sqq. Antonius Diogenes, 92 Apollo Hyperboreios, 93 _n._ 189, 97 _n._ 205, 232 Apollodoros, App. § 21, 43, 52, 75, 94 _n._ 192, 125, 143, 192 sq., 228 sq., 290 sq., 358, 370 Apollonios of Tyana, 90, 92 Apophthegms, 51, 127 Archelaos, 415 sqq. Archippos, 99, 319 Archytas, 110, 319, 328, 346 Aristarchos of Samos, 349 Aristeas of Prokonnesos, 87, 97 _n._ 205 Aristophanes, 75, 296 _n._ 669, 381, 408 Aristotle, App. § 2; on Egypt, 18, 23; on Thales, 47 sqq., 50; on Anaximander, 57 sqq.; on Pythagoras, 93 _n._ 189, 100, 107 _n._ 226; on Xenophanes, 137 sq., 139 sq.; on Herakleitos, 160 _n._ 373, 162, 177, 179; on Parmenides, 193, 203, 207, 208, 213; on Alkmaion, 223; on Empedokles, 177 _n._ 401, 228 _n._ 502, 231 _n._ 511, 234, 237, 253 _n._ 565, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274 _n._ 606, 278, 280, 281, 397 _n._ 962; on Anaxagoras, 263 _n._ 582, 291, 303, 305, 306, 309, 310; on the Pythagoreans, 100 _n._ 208, 110, 111 _n._ 232, 119, 331 sqq., 353 sqq.; on Zeno, 361, 365 sqq.; on Melissos, 374 sq., 377, 378; on Leukippos, 380, 385 sq., 387, 397 _n._ 962; on Hippon, 49 _n._ 2, 406; on the _galeus levis_, 74 _n._ 141; on the theoretic life, 90, 108; on the mysteries, 91 [Aristotle] _de Mundo_, 185 [Aristotle] _de Plantis_, 279 _n._ 618, 298 _n._ 677, 315 Aristoxenos on Pythagoras, 92, 94 _n._ 191, 95, 96 _n._ 201, 3, 98 sq., 102, 109 _n._ 231; on the Pythagoreans, 107, 319, 334, 353; Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις, 100 _n._ 209, 325; on Hippon, 406 _n._ 988; on Plato, 323 sqq. Arithmetic, Egyptian, 22, 111 _n._ 233; Pythagorean, 109 sq. Arithmetical symbolism, 111 Astronomy, Babylonian and Greek, 25 sqq. _See_ Heavenly bodies, Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, Earth, Eclipses, Geocentric and Heliocentric hypothesis Atheism, 51, 75, 141 Athens, Parmenides and Zeno at, 192; Anaxagoras at, 294 Atomism. _See_ Leukippos Atoms, 387 sqq.

Babylonian language, 21 _n._ 29; astronomy, 25 sqq.; eclipse cycle, 41; μαθηματικοί, 350 _n._ 834 Beans, 102 Biology. _See_ Animals, Plants Blood, Empedokles, 286, 288; Diogenes of Apollonia, 414 Brain, Alkmaion, 224; Empedokles, 235; Sicilian school of medicine, 288 _n._ 645 Breath. _See_ Respiration. Breath of the World, 79, 120

Cave, Orphic, 257 _n._ 571 Chaos, 8, 9 _n._ 7 Chronos, 10 Cicero, App. § 12; on Thales, 50; on Anaximander, 64; on Anaximenes, 82; on Parmenides, 220, 221 _n._ 482; on Atomism, 393 _n._ 953, 394 _n._ 956 Clement of Alexandria, 19 Comic poets on Pythagoreans, 103 _n._ 218 Condensation. _See_ Rarefaction Conflagration. _See_ ἐκπύρωσις Continuity, 369 Copernicus, 349 Corporealism, 15 sq., 206, 227, 357, 377 Cosmogonies, 8 sqq. Croesus, 28, 37, 38 Çulvasūtras, 24

Damasias, 43 _n._ 68 Damaskios, 9 _n._ 10, 232 Darkness, 79, 121, 173, 214 Death, Herakleitos, 171 sqq.; Parmenides, 222; Alkmaion, 225; Empedokles, 283 Dekad, 113 Demetrios Phalereus, 290, 408 Demokritos, 2 _n._ 1; date, 381; on Egyptian mathematics, 24; on Anaxagoras, 291, 381; primitive astronomy of, 345, 392; and Leukippos, 381 Diagonal and Square, 116 Dialectic, 361 Dikaiarchos on Pythagoras, 92, 96 _n._ 202, 100 Diogenes of Apollonia, 381, 407 sqq. Divisibility, 304, 306, 362, 365, 376 Dodecahedron, 341 sqq. Doric dialect, 325, 327 sq.

Earth, a sphere, 26; Thales, 47 sqq.; Anaximander, 70, 72; Anaximenes, 80, 81, 83 _n._ 167; Xenophanes, 136; Anaxagoras, 313; Pythagoreans, 344 sqq.; Leukippos, 401; Diogenes of Apollonia, 413 Echekrates, 343 Eclipses, Thales, 40 sqq.; Anaximander, 67; Anaximenes, 82; Herakleitos, 164; Alkmaion, 224; Empedokles, 276; Anaxagoras, 299; Pythagoreans, 349 sq.; Leukippos, 401 Ecliptic. _See_ Obliquity Effluences. _See_ ἀπορροαί Egypt, 39; Thales in Egypt, 43; Pythagoras and Egypt, 94 sq. Egyptian arithmetic, 22 sq.; geometry, 23 sq., 44 sq. Ekphantos, 338 _n._ 794, 387 _n._ 939 Elea, era of, 125 _n._ 270, 127, 192 Eleatics (_see_ Parmenides, Zeno, Melissos), 35 _n._ 49; Leukippos and, 382 sqq. Elements (_see_ στοιχεῖα, Roots, Seeds, ἰδέα, εἶδος, μορφή), 56 _n._ 103, 57, 59, 235, 263 sqq., 265 _n._ 586, 339 sqq. Eleusinia, 86 Embryology, Parmenides, 203 _n._ 448; Empedokles, 282 Empedokles, 227 sqq.; relation to Leukippos, 236, 383, 392; on Xenophanes, 138, 246 _n._ 555; on Pythagoras, 232, 259 _n._ 577; on Parmenides, 239, 261 Ephesos, 143 sqq. Epicurus and Leukippos, 380 sq., 388 _n._ 940, 391 _n._ 949, 394 sq. Epimenides, 9, 87 Equinoxes, precession of, 25, 347 _n._ 824 Eratosthenes, App. § 21, 228 _n._ 502 Eros, 9, 219 Euclid, 116, 117 Eudemos on Thales, 44 sq.; on Pythagoras, 115 _n._ 241, 116 _n._ 243; on Parmenides, 203 _n._ 449; on Zeno, 363, 366 _n._ 889; on the term στοιχεῖον, 263 _n._ 580 Eudoxos, 118, 216, 342 Eukleides of Megara, 355 Euripides (fr. inc. 910), 12 _n._ 14, 14 _n._ 18; and Anaxagoras, 295 sq. Eurytos, 110 sq., 320, 322 Eusebios, 19 Euthymenes, 44 Even and Odd, 333 sqq. Evolution, Anaximander, 73 sq.; Empedokles, 281; Anaxagoras, 315 Examyes, 40 Experiment, 31 sq., 274

Figures, numerical, 110 sq., 337 Fire, 121, 160 sq., 215 Fire, central, 218, 344 sqq. Forgeries, 46, 113 _n._ 235, 185 Fossils, 136

Galen, 234 _Galeus levis_, 74 _n._ 141 Geocentric hypothesis, 31, 123, 218 Geometry, Egyptian, 23 sq.; of Thales, 45 sq.; of Pythagoras, 115 sq. Glaukos of Rhegion, 228 _n._ 503 Gnomon (the instrument), 31 _n._ 4, 53 Gnomon (in geometry and arithmetic), 114 _n._ 238 Gods, Thales, 50; Anaximander, 64, 74; Anaximenes, 82; Xenophanes, 140 sq.; Herakleitos, 188 sq.; Empedokles, 264, 272, 288 sq.; Diogenes of Apollonia, 410 _n._ 1005 Gorgias, 229 _n._ 504, 231, 234, 256 _n._ 569, 287 _n._ 642, 417 Great Year, 25, 175

Harmonics, 118 “Harmony of the Spheres,” 122, 351. _See_ ἁρμονία and Soul Harpedonapts, 24, 116 Hearing, Empedokles, 285; Anaxagoras, 317 Heart, 235, 288 _n._ 645 Heavenly bodies, Anaximander, 66 sqq.; Anaximenes, 80, 81; Pythagoras, 122 sq.; Xenophanes, 133 sqq.; Herakleitos, 165 sqq.; Parmenides, 215; Empedokles, 274 sq.; Anaxagoras, 312; Leukippos, 401; Diogenes of Apollonia, 413 Hekataios, 20, 44, 46, 53 Heliocentric hypothesis, 27, 347 _n._ 825, 348 sq. Herakleides of Pontos, on Pythagoras, 104, 105, 108, 321 _n._ 739, 387 _n._ 939; on Empedokles, 228 _n._ 502, 3, 233 _n._ 520, 236 _n._ 532; heliocentric hypothesis of, 349 Herakleiteans, 35 _n._ 48, 140, 417 Herakleitos, 143 sqq.; on Homer, 182, 185; on Pythagoras, 94, 107, 143; on Xenophanes, 143 Hermodoros, 143 Herodotos, on Homer and Hesiod, 8; on Egyptian influence, 17; on geometry, 23; on Orphicism, 95 _n._ 195; on Solon, 28; on Lydian influence, 38; on Thales, 38, 39, 40, 43 sq., 46; on Pythagoras, 93, 94 _n._ 191, 95 _n._ 195, 2, 107 Hesiod, 6 sqq. Hieron, 125 Hippasos, 103 _n._ 217, 117, 121, 156, 215, 341, 343, 354 Hippokrates, 235 _n._ 528, 405 _n._ 987, 411 _n._ 1008; Περὶ ἀέρων ὑδάτων τόπων, 79 _n._ 154 [Hippokrates] Περὶ διαίτης, 167 _n._ 383, 183 _n._ 413, 305 _n._ 695, 307 _n._ 699, 405 _n._ 986 Hippokrates, lunules of, 343 Hippolytos, App. § 13, 156 Hippon of Samos, 49, 58 _n._ 109, 406 sqq. Hippys of Rhegion, 121 _n._ 260 Homer, 5 sqq. Hylozoism, 15 Hypotenuse, 116

Iamblichos, _V. Pyth._, 92 _n._ 186 Ibykos, 220 _n._ 482 Idaios of Himera, 58 _n._ 109, 407 Ideas, theory of, 354 sqq. Immortality, 91, 172 sq., 225 Incommensurability, 116 sq. Indian philosophy, 21. _See_ Transmigration Infinity, Anaximander, 59 sqq.; Xenophanes, 137 sq.; Parmenides, 207; Melissos, 375. _See_ Divisibility, ἄπειρον Injustice, 56, 71, 160, 226 Ionic dialect, 327 sq., 408

Justice, 32, 161 _n._ 374

Kebes and Simmias, 320, 343, 354, 355 Kebes, Πίναξ, 194 Kratinos, 406 Kratylos, 417 Kritias, 288 _n._ 645 Kroton, 95 _n._ 198, 222 Kylon, 97 _n._ 204, 98

Lampsakos, 297, 415 Leukippos, 380 sqq.; and the Eleatics, 382, 384 sqq.; and Empedokles, 236, 383, 392; and Anaxagoras, 383 sq., 392; and the Pythagoreans, 387, 389, 392; and Demokritos, 381, 389 sqq., 401 _n._ 979 Light, Empedokles, 276. _See_ Moon Lightning and Thunder, 68, 70, 401 _n._ 979 Limit, 121, 215, 333 sqq. Lives, the three, 108, 109 _n._ 229, 154 _n._ 362 Love. _See_ Eros, Love and Strife, 266 sqq. Lucretius, on Empedokles, 237; on Anaxagoras, 306 _n._ 696 Lydia, 37 sqq. Lysis, 99, 319, 326

Man, Anaximander, 73; Herakleitos, 168 sqq. Maoris, 9 Map, Anaximander’s, 53 Materialism, 208 Matter. _See_ ὕλη Measures, 167 sq., 181, 410, 413 Medicine, history of, 222, 225, 226, 234, 236, 265 sq., 288 _n._ 645, 322, 344, 405, 411, 414 Megarians, 355 Melissos, 369 sqq. _Melissos, Xenophanes and Gorgias_, 138 sqq. Menon, Ἰατρικά, 49 _n._ 85, 235 _n._ 527, 322 _n._ 742, 327 _n._ 763, 340 _n._ 799, 406 _n._ 988 Metapontion, 95 _n._ 199, 97 _n._ 205 Metempsychosis. _See_ Transmigration Meteorological interest, 49, 70 Miletos, 37 sqq., 76, 380, 382 Milky Way, 69, 220, 314 Milo, 99, 222 Mochos of Sidon, 19 _n._ 27 Monism, 206, 227 Monotheism, 141 sqq. Moon, 68; light of, 202 _n._ 446, 275, 276, 299, 314 Motion, eternal, 15, 61; denied by Parmenides, 207; explained by Empedokles, 267; Anaxagoras, 309; criticised by Zeno, 366; denied by Melissos, 376; reaffirmed by Leukippos, 392 sq. Mysteries, 90, 190

Necessity. _See_ Ἀνάγκη Nikomachos, 92, 112 _n._ 234 Nile, 43 sq., 313 Noumenios, 19 Nous, 309 sq. Numbers, Pythagorean, 331 sqq.; triangular, square, and oblong, 114

Obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac), 52, 82, 401 Observation, 29 sq., 73 sq. Octave, 118 Opposites, 56, 186 sq., 225, 235, 266, 305 Oriental influences, 17 sqq. Orphicism, 5, 9 sqq., 87 sq., 95 _n._ 195, 109 _n._ 229, 194, 221, 232, 257 _n._ 571, 258 _n._ 573

Parmenides, 192 sqq.; on Herakleitos, 143, 198 _n._ 438, 204 sq., 210; and Pythagoreanism, 210 sqq. Pausanias, 234 _n._ 523, 238 Pentagram, 343 Perception, Parmenides, 202 _n._ 447, 222; Alkmaion, 223 sq.; Empedokles, 284 sq.; Anaxagoras, 316 sq.; Leukippos, 401 sq.; Diogenes of Apollonia, 414 Perikles and Zeno, 193; and Anaxagoras, 294 sq.; and Melissos, 369 Petron, 65, 121 Pherekydes of Syros, 9, 87 Philistion, 234 _n._ 523, 235 _n._ 526 and 527, 266 _n._ 587, 288 _n._ 645, 356 _n._ 850 Philo of Byblos, 19 _n._ 27 Philo Judaeus, 18, 158, 185 Philodemos, 50 _n._ 89, 64, 221 _n._ 483 Philolaos, 319, 320 sqq. Philosophy as κάθαρσις, 89; Pythagorean use of the word, 89 sqq., 194, 321 _n._ 739, 359; synonymous with asceticism, 18 Phleious, 89 _n._ 178, 94 _n._ 191, 109 _n._ 229, 320 Phoenician influence, 18, 19 _n._ 27, 39 Physiology, Parmenides, 221 sq.; Alkmaion, 223; Empedokles, 282; Diogenes of Apollonia, 411 Pindar, 232 Planets, names of, 26 _n._ 40, 220; distinguished from fixed stars, 26, 82, 276, 392, 401; motion of, 122 sq., 225, 350, 353; system of, 344 sq. Plants, Empedokles, 277 sq.; Anaxagoras, 315 sq. Plato, App. § 1; on Egyptians and Phoenicians, 17, 20, 27 _n._ 41; on Egyptian arithmetic, 22; on schools of philosophy, 35; on Pythagoras, 96 _n._ 202; on Xenophanes, 140; on Herakleitos, 140, 159, 162, 176, 178; on Herakleiteans, 161 _n._ 373, 188 _n._ 418; on Parmenides, 192, 207, 221; on Empedokles, 159, 178, 269 _n._ 593; on Anaxagoras, 291 _n._ 655, 295, 297 sq., 309; on Philolaos, 319; on Pythagoreans, 121, 124; on incommensurables, 117 _n._ 245; on Zeno, 192, 358, 360, 361; on Melissos, 379 _n._ 919; _Phaedo_, 89 _n._ 178, 91 _n._ 183, 108 _n._ 228, 109 _n._ 229, 172 _n._ 391,182 _n._ 411, 320 sq., 342, 343, 345, 354; _Cratylus_, 417 _n._ 1027; _Theaetetus_, 117 _n._ 245, 263 _n._ 580, 338 _n._ 794, 417 _n._ 1027; _Sophist_, 356 _n._ 849, 358 _n._ 853; _Politicus_, 280 _n._ 621; _Parmenides_, 358 _n._ 852, 359, 360 sq.; _Philebus_, 323; _Symposium_, 221, 281 _n._ 625; _Phaedrus_, 295; _Gorgias_, 321; _Meno_, 234 _n._ 524; _Republic_, 25 _n._ 39, 90 _n._ 181, 177 _n._ 400, 216, 219 sq., 352; _Timaeus_, 61 _n._ 115, 79 _n._ 154, 113 _n._ 237, 118 _n._ 248, 121, 122, 225, 287, 340, 342, 345 _n._ 818, 346, 352, 396; _Laws_, 107 _n._ 227, 117 _n._ 246, 353 Pleasure and pain, Empedokles, 285; Anaxagoras, 317 Pliny, 42, 52 Pluralism, 227 sqq., 357 Political activity of philosophers, Thales, 46; Pythagoras, 96 sq.; Parmenides, 195; Empedokles, 230 sq.; Zeno, 358 Polybios, 99 _n._ 206 Polybos, 379 Polykrates, era of, 53 _n._ 97, 94 Pores. _See_ πόροι Porphyry, 92 _n._ 187, 104 _n._ 219, 257 _n._ 571 Poseidonios, 19 _n._ 27, 81 _n._ 159 Precession. _See_ Equinoxes Proclus, commentary on Euclid, 44, 115 _n._ 243 Proportion, 117 sq. Protagoras, 188, 360 Purification. _See_ καθαρμός, κάθαρσις Pyramids, measurement of, 45. _See_ πυραμίς Pythagoras, 91 sqq.; forged writings, 325 Pythagoreans, 212 sqq., 319 sqq.

Rarefaction and condensation, 77 sqq., 163, 204, 403, 412 Religion, 85 sqq., 189, 294. _See_ Orphicism, Monotheism, Gods, Sacrifice Respiration, 235, 253 _n._ 565, 284 Rest. _See_ Motion Revolution, diurnal, 61, 274, 346 sq. Rhegion, 99, 220 _n._ 482, 319 Rhetoric, 86, 234 Rhind papyrus, 22 sqq. Roots, 263

Sacrifice, mystic, 104 _n._ 220; bloodless, 258 _n._ 576 Salmoxis, 93 Sanchuniathon, 19 _n._ 27 Sardeis, era of, 43 _n._ 67, 53, 75 Schools, 33 sqq., 293 Sea, Anaximander, 66, 70 sq.; Empedokles, 277; Anaxagoras, 313; Diogenes of Apollonia, 413 Seeds, 306 Seqt, 23, 46 Seven Wise Men, 39, 46, 51 Sight, Alkmaion, 224; Empedokles, 284, 287 sq.; Anaxagoras, 316 Silloi, 129 Sleep, Herakleitos, 169 sq.; Empedokles, 283 Smell, Empedokles, 285; Anaxagoras, 316 Sokrates, Parmenides and Zeno, 192 sq., 358; and Archelaos, 415 Solids, regular, 328 sq., 340 Solon. _See_ Croesus Soul, 86, 91, 168, 225, 343, 414 Space, 204, 207, 366, 389 Speusippos, 113 _n._ 236; on Parmenides, 195; on Pythagorean numbers, 321, 336 _n._ 790 Sphere, Parmenides, 207 sq.; Empedokles, 262. _See_ Earth, Eudoxos, Harmony Stars, fixed, 68, 80 Stoics, App. § 3, 157, 179 sq. Strabo, 19 _n._ 27, 194, 195 _n._ 430 Strife, Herakleitos, 184; Empedokles, 266 sqq. Sun, Anaximander, 68; Anaximenes, 80; Xenophanes, 134 sq.; Herakleitos, 165 sq., 174; Empedokles, 274 sq., 347 sq.; Anaxagoras, 314

Taras, 97 _n._ 204, 319 Taste, Empedokles, 285; Anaxagoras, 316 Tetraktys, 113 sqq. Thales, 39 sqq. Theaitetos, 117, 329 Theano, 353 Thebes, Lysis at, 99, 320; Philolaos at, 99 Theodoros of Kyrene, 117 Theogony, Hesiodic, 6 sqq.; Rhapsodic, 9 _n._ 10, 232 Theologians, 10 Theology. _See_ Gods Theon of Smyrna, 27 _n._ 41 Theophrastos, App. § 7; on schools, 33, 35, 52; on Prometheus, 39 _n._ 55; on Thales, 48; Anaximander, 54 sqq., 66; on Anaximenes, 76 sqq.; on Xenophanes, 126, 136, 137; on Herakleitos, 145, 156, 163 sqq.; on Parmenides, 209, 213, 214, 218, 220; on Empedokles, 229 _n._ 504, 236, 267 sq., 272 sqq., 278, 284; on Anaxagoras, 291, 292, 293 _n._ 660, 313 sq., 316 sq.; on Leukippos, 380 sq., 382, 384 sqq., 390 sqq., 402; on Diogenes of Apollonia, 381, 407 sq., 412; on Hippon of Samos, 406 Theoretic life, 291 Theron of Akragas, 229, 232 Thourioi, era of, 228 Timaios Lokros, 323 sqq. Timaios of Tauromenion, 228 _n._ 508, 230, 233, 237 _n._ 534 Timon of Phleious, 129, 324 Touch, Empedokles, 285; Anaxagoras, 316 Transmigration, 95, 101 sqq., 124, 289 sq. Triangle, Pythagorean, 24, 115

Unit, 337, 365

Void, Pythagorean, 120, 214, 224, 336, 383; Parmenides, 204, 207; Alkmaion, 224; Atomist, 389 sq. Vortex, Empedokles, 274; Anaxagoras, 311; Leukippos, 399 sqq.

Water, 48 sqq., 407 Weight, 394 sqq. Wheels, Anaximander, 67 sq.; Pythagoras, 122; Parmenides, 215 Worlds, innumerable, Anaximander, 62 sqq.; Anaximenes, 82 sq.; Pythagoras, 121; Xenophanes, 136; Anaxagoras, 312; Diogenes of Apollonia, 414; Archelaos, 417

Xenophanes, 124 sqq.; on Thales, 41; on Pythagoras, 124

Year. _See_ Great Year

Zamolxis, 93 Zankle, 127 _n._ 275 Zeno, 358 sqq.; on Empedokles, 359; on Pythagoreans, 362

II. GREEK

ἀδικία, 56, 60, 71 ἀήρ, 79 _n._ 154, 263, 264 _n._ 583, 284 _n._ 634. _See_ Air αἰθήρ, 263, 264 _n._ 583, 312 _n._ 709 ἀκούσματα, 105 sq., 328 ἀκουσματικοί, 96, 103 Ἀνάγκη, 219, 256 _n._ 569, 269 ἀναθυμίασις, 167 _n._ 382, 168 _n._ 385 ἀντέρεισις, 400 ἄντυξ, 216 ἄπειρον, 57 _n._ 105, 60 _n._ 113 ἄπνους, ἡ, 233 _n._ 520, 236 _n._ 533 ἀπορροαί, 236, 287 _n._ 642 ἀποτομή, 391 _n._ 949 ἀριθμητική dist. λογιστική, 23, 111 _n._ 233 ἁρμονία, 122, 158, 184 ἁρπεδονάπται, 24 ἀρχή, 13, 57 αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν, 355 _n._ 847

γαλεοί, 73 sq. γόητες, 106

δαίμων, 155 _n._ 364, 172 _n._ 391 διαστήματα, 65 _n._ 126 δίκη, 32, 161 _n._ 374 δίνη. _See_ Vortex διορίζω, 120 _n._ 254

εἶδος, 355, 388 _n._ 943 εἴδωλα, 403 εἶναι, 198 _n._ 435; τὸ ἐόν, 204 _n._ 450 ἔκθλιψις, 397 _n._ 962 ἔκκρισις, 61 ἐκπύρωσις, 178 sqq. ἕν, τὸ, 140, 363 _n._ 880, 377 ἐναντία. _See_ Opposites ἑνίζειν, 139 _n._ 306 ἐπίψαυσις, 400 ἐστώ, 330 _n._ 770

θεός, 74. _See_ Gods θεωρία, 28, 108

ἰδέα, 235 _n._ 527, 263 _n._ 580, 355, 356 _n._ 850, 388 _n._ 943 ἶδος, 243 _n._ 549, 249 _n._ 558 ἰσονομία, 225 ἰσορροπία, 398 ἱστορία, 14 _n._ 18, 28, 107 _n._ 244

καθαρμός, κάθαρσις, 88, 107 sq. κεγχρίτης λόγος, 1 _n._ 862 κλεψύδρα, 253 _n._ 565, 254 _n._ 566, 263, 309, 384 κληροῦχος, 219 κόσμος, 32, 148 _n._ 336, 182 _n._ 412 κρατέω, 310

λογιστική dist. ἀριθμητική, 23 λόγος, 146 _n._ 332, 148 _n._ 339, 152 _n._ 355, 153 _n._ 358 and _n._ 359, 157; λόγος τοῦ εἶναι, 355 _n._ 847

μεσότης, 118 μετάρσια, 296 _n._ 670 μετεμψύχωσις, 101 _n._ 212 μετενσωμάτωσις, 101 _n._ 212 μετέωρα, 32 μορφή, 263 _n._ 580, 356 _n._ 850

ὄγκοι, 338 _n._ 794, 368 _n._ 894, 387 _n._ 939 ὁλκάς, 341 _n._ 805 ὁμοιομερῆ, 306 ὅμοιος, ὁμοιότης, 72 _n._ 138 ὄργια, 88 _n._ 175 ὅρος, 115 _n._ 240 οὐρανός, 31, 140 _n._ 310; Aristotle’s πρῶτος οὐρανός, 177

πάγος, 273 _n._ 603 παλιγγενεσία, 101 _n._ 212 παλίντονος, 150 _n._ 184 παλίντροπος, 150 _n._ 347, 198 _n._ 438 πανσπερμία, 307, 389 περιαγωγή, 63 _n._ 119 περιέχω, 60 _n._ 114, 170 _n._ 389 περίστασις, 63 _n._ 119 πίλησις, 77 _n._ 151 πόροι, 224, 226 _n._ 500, 236, 269, 284 sq., 383 πρηστήρ, 69 _n._ 133, 165 πυραμίς, 25 _n._ 38

ῥαψῳδῶ, 127 _n._ 276 ῥοπή, 398

σῆμα σῶμα, 321 στασιῶται, 140 _n._ 307 στέφαναι, 215 στοιχεῖον, 54 _n._ 101, 56 _n._ 103, 263 _n._ 586, 265 _n._ 586, 306, 333, 388 _n._ 942 συνοικειῶ, 157 _n._ 370

τετρακτύς, 113 sq. τροπαί, 67 _n._ 129, 174

ὕλη, 57, 330 _n._ 770, 342 _n._ 807 ὑπόθεσις, 33 _n._ 46, 360 _n._ 866, 361 _n._ 871 ὑποτείνουσα, 116 _n._ 242

φαινόμενα, σῴζειν τὰ, 33 _n._ 46 φιλοσοφία, φιλόσοφος, φιλοσοφῶ, 28. _See_ Philosophy φύσις, 12 sq., 56, 388 _n._ 941 and _n._ 944

χώρα, 114 _n._ 238, 115 _n._ 240

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.

Transcriber’s Note

When Burnet gives the fragments of a Greek philosopher, he does so selectively, resulting in gaps in the sequence.

Some quoted and translated passages, printed as prose, also include line numbers in the right margin. These now appear in the text delimited by << >> at the place in the text where they originally appeared. These numbers should be regarded as approximate.

In note 813, the Greek phrase includes an unmatched closing bracket. This is a direct quotation from p. 234 of _Scholia in Lucianum_, edited by Hugo Rabe. The bracket was used by Rabe to separate the topic (the pentagram) from its gloss.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.

75.13 according to Theophra[s]tos Added.

197.21 Look stea[fd/df]astly with thy mind Transposed.

212.26 It seem[s] to me Added.

213.18 and Theoph[astros/rastos]certainly followed Misplaced. him

249.21 meadows of Aph[h]rodite Removed.

292.34 διήκουσε)[”] Added.

331.19 Aristotle on the Number[s]. Added.

332.32 τὰ γοῦν θεωρήματα πρ[ό/ο]σάπτουσι Replaced.

402 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰ αἰσθητ[α/ά] Replaced.

415.6 Anaxagorea[ns] Presumed.

433.5 παλίντροπ[ὸ/ο]ς Replaced.