CHAPTER X. Eclecticism and Reaction

ECLECTICISM AND REACTION

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. Leukippos had shown that “the doctrine of Melissos,” 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. We know very little indeed of him except that he was a contemporary of Perikles. From a scholiast on Aristophanes 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, 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).

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. We have the authority of Aristotle and Theophrastos, represented by Hippolytos, 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. 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 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

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.

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 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. Of his life we know next to nothing. He was the son of Apollothemis, and came from Apollonia in Crete. The Ionic dialect in which he wrote is no objection to this; it was the regular dialect for cosmological works.

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 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.

187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several works, though he allows that only one survived till his own day, namely, the Περὶ φύσεως. 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. 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.

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.

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, 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 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. 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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.”

Footnote 1014:

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

Footnote 1015:

Simpl. Phys. p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 83, n. 123.

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; his theory of sensation too, as it is described by Theophrastos, 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

191. The last of the early cosmologists was Archelaos of Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxagoras. He is also said to have been the teacher of Sokrates, a statement by no means so improbable as is sometimes supposed. There is no reason to doubt the tradition that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in the school at Lampsakos. We certainly hear of Anaxagoreans, 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.

192. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos 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), 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. 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, 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).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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.

* * * * *

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, 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.

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.

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

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.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 Theophratos Added.

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

212.26 It seem to me Added.

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

249.21 meadows of Aphrodite Removed.

292.34 διήκουσε)[”] Added.

331.19 Aristotle on the Number. Added.

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

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

415.6 Anaxagorea Presumed.

433.5 παλίντροπ[ὸ/ο]ς Replaced.