This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a projectto make the worlds books discoverable online.It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subjectto copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain booksare our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge thats often difficult to discover.Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this books long journey from thepublisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to thepublic and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps toprevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files forpersonal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Googles system: If you are conducting research on machinetranslation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage theuse of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google watermark you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them findadditional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that justbecause we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in othercountries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we cant offer guidance on whether any specific use ofany specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a books appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manneranywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Googles mission is to organize the worlds information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readersdiscover the worlds books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the webat http://books.google.com/

1

RSIvm

^

2>\r\3

ES\?

"V

A HISTORYOF

GKREEK PHILOSOPHYFROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE

TIME OF SOCRATES

WITH A GENERAL INTRODUCTION

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF

DR E. ZELLER

PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN

faritb the guitjjor's sanction

ET

S. F. ALLEYNE

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. II.

LONDON

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

All rights rtserved

1881

--

A HISTOEY

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

VOL. II.

LONDON i PHISTED BT

BPOTTI8W00UK AND CO., NKW-STHEET BQUAttB

AND PARLIAMENT STREET

ERBATA.

Page 24, 3, line 6for infra, p. 555, 3, 3rd ed. read infra, p. 46, 1. 54 (first column), line 10for inf. p. 708, 2, 3rd ed. read inf. 234, 2.

57, 2, line 7 (second column)for heat and warmth read light andwarmth. 59, afor p. 621, 2 read 57, 2. 69, n. line 12 (first column)/or Diog. ii. 8 (inf. p. 77) read Diog.

ix. 8 (inf. p. 77, 1). 70, line 12 (second column)/or 363, 5 read 863, 2. 80, note 1omit i. 614 sq.

96, note 2, line 12-for p. 601 sq. 3rd ed. read inf. 113 sq. 196, 1, line 12/or p. 707, 1, 4 read 148, 4 ; 149, 3. 207, 1, line 13omit sometimes. 310, 1, line 2/or 294, 2 read 294, 4.

320, 2, line Ifor Diogenes read Diagoras. 412, line 6for I.eontium read Leontini.

453, 1for p. 638, 1 read 630, 1. 453, 4, last line/or p. 638, 2 read 632, 2.

.^FRALLIRliAur,

UNIV. i

Ti CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

B. The Atomistic philosophy : paok1. Physical bases of the system. Atoms and the Void . 2072. Movement of the atoms. Formation and system of the

universe. Inorganic nature 2353. Organic nature. Man : his knowledge and his actions . 2534. The Atomistic doctrine as a whole : its historical posi

tion and importance. Later adherents of the school . 292

III. Anaxaookas.

1 . Principles of his system : Matter and Mind . . . .3212. Origin and system of the universe 354

3. Organic natures : Man 3634. Anaxagoras in relation to his predecessors. Character and

origin of his doctrine. The Anaxagorean school. Archelaus 373

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

THIRD SECTION. '

THE SOPHISTS.

1. Origin of the Sophistic doctrine 3942. External history of the Sophists 4073. Teaching of the Sophists considered in its general character . 4294. Sophistic theory of knowledge and Eristic disputation . . 4465. Opinions of the Sophists concerning Virtue and Justice,

Politics and Religion. Sophistic Rhetoric .... 4696. Value and historical importance of the Sophistic doctrine.

The various tendencies included in it 496

INDEX 517

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKSIN ITS

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY.

11. HERACLEITUS,EMPEDOCLES,THE ATOMISTS,ANAXAGORAS.

I. HERACLEITUS.1

1 . The general standpoint and fundamental conceptions of

the doctrine of Heracleihis.

While in the Eleatic School the doctrine of the Unity

of all Being had led to the denial of the possibility of

plurality and Becoming, contemporaneously 2 with that

1 Schleiermacher, Herakleitot

_> HERACLEITUS.

school there arose in Asia Minor, at the opposite poleof the Greek civilised world, a system which developed

80th or 81st Olympiad, and thisstatement seems to derive confirma

tion from the fact that, accordingto Strabo, xiv. 1, i. 25, p. 642 (in

comparison with his evidence noweight can be attached to the 8thof the so-called Heraclitcan letters,p. 82, Bern ). HermodornsthoEphe-sian, who, we are told by Pliny. H.Nat. xxxiv. 5, 21, and Pompouius,Digest, i. 1, tit. 2, /. 2, 4, assisted

the Roman decemviri in their legislation (01. 81,4; 452 B.C.), was noother than the friend of Heracleitus, whose banishment the philoso

pher could not forgive his countrymen. (Strabo I.e., Diog. ix. 2,&c. ;

vide infra.') From this Hermann inferred (De Philos. Ionic. Mtatt. p.

10, 22), and Schwegler agrees withhim (Rom. Gcsch. iii. 20 ; otherwisein Gesrfi. d. Griech. Phil. 20. Kiist-lin's edition, where also, p. 79. thereference of Parmenides to Heracleitus, which Bernays conjec

tured, but which is irreconcile-aMo with Hermann's computation,

is admit ed) that Heracleitus wasborn about 01. 67 (510 B.C.) anddied about. 01. 82 (450 b.c). I

have shown, however, in my treatise Dc Hrrmodnro JSpkcHo et

Ilermnd.Plat. (Marb. 1859), p. 9sqq. that this opinion is not. justifiable. The statement of Euse-

bius repeated by Syncellus is initself not nearly so trustworthyas that of Diogenes, taken from

Apollodorus ; Hermann urges inits favour that Eusebius determines

the date of Anaxagoras and Demo-critus more accurately than Apol

lodorus, but this is not the case.On the contrary, the statementloses all weight by its glaring

contradiction with the earlierutterances of the same author.Where Eusebius found the state

ment, and on what it is based, wedo not know ; but if we remember

that the primo of Heracleitus (nothis death, as Hermann says: the

words are clarus habebatur, cog-noscebatur, IJKnafc) is here made

to coincide almost exactly with thelegislation of the decemviri, itappears probable that it. arose from

tile supposition that Hermodortis.the friend of Heracleitus, entered

into connection with the decemviriimmediately after his banishment,

and that his banishment coincidedwith the axuii of the philosopher.Now the assertion of Diogenes canhardly be founded upon any accu

rate chronological tradition ; it isfar more likely (as Diels acknow

ledges, Rh. Mus. xxxi. 33 sq.) thatits author knew only of the gene

ral statement that Heracleitus hadbeen a contemporary of Darius I.,and that in accordance with this, heplaced his prime in the 69th Olym

piad ; i.e. in the middle of Darius'sreign (01. 64, 3-73, 4). But that

this theory is at any rate appro.xi-matelv correct, and that the death i

of Heracleitus cannot be placedlater than 470-478 B.C., we find exrtremely likely for other reasons.For though we may not lay much

stress on the circumstance that,according to Sotion, ap. Diog. ix. 5,

Heracleitus was regarded by manyas a pupil of Xenophanes, the allu

sion to him by Epicharmus, whichwe have found probable vol. i. p. 532,

would imply that his doctrine wasknown in Sicily as early as 470 n.c. ;and since he himself instances as

HIS DATE AND LIFE,

the same presupposition in a contrary direction, andj

regarded the one Being as something purely in motion Iand subject to perpetual change and separation. The |

author of this system is Heracleitus.1

men to whom varied knowledge hasnot brought wisdom, only Xeno-phanes, Pythagoras and Hecatseusin addition to Hesiod, this looks as

if the later philosopher, and especially his antipodes Parmenides,were unknown to him. Moreover,

the statements about Hermodorusdo not by any means compel us to

regard Heracleitus as later. Forfirst, the theory that Hermodorus,

who took part in the decemvirs'legislation, was the same personas the friend of Heracleitus is

not based even by Strabo (as Ihave shown. I.e. p. 15) on trustworthy tradition, but merely on a

probable conjecture ; and secondly,we have no reason to assume that

Hermodorus was of the same ageas Her.ieleitus. Supposing him to

have been 20 or 25 years younger,it would be quite possible to admithis participation in the lawgivingof the decemviri, without on thataccount altering the data of Hera

cleitus' death to the middle of thefifth century. We certainly cannot

place the banishment of Hermodorus and the composition of Heracleitus' work earlier than 478 B.C.,

forthe rise of democracy at Ephesuswould scarcely have been possiblebefore the deliverance from thePersian dominion. On the otherhand this event^may have givenrise to the deliverance. Both

theories are compatible with thatsupposition : on the one hand, thatHeracleitus died in 475 B.C. ; onthe other, that Hermodorus assisted the decemviri in 452 b.c.

Aristotle fixes the age of Heracleitus at 60, if the reading of themanuscripts in Diog. viii. 52 becorrect: lApiffrori\i\s yap aitrbv

(Empedocles) In rt 'HpdicKiiTove^rjKovra Itu>v ipy\ffi TertKtvn\K(vai.Sturz, however, instead of 'ttpdtc-KtiTov reads 'HpaicXtiSri!, and Cobet

has admitted this conjecture, whichis favourably regarded by many

authorities (more than a conjecturehe does not consider it), into thetext. It does not commend itselfto me as indispensable ; for it isperfectly conceivable that Aristotle

may have connected the two mentogether in reference to their age,and tho biographer of Empedocles,

here referred to by Diogenes (thatthese words, as well as the context,are derived from Apollodorus seemsto me doubtful, in spite of the ob

servations of Diels, A'A. ilfiis.xxxiii.38), may have also quoted what hehad taken the opportunity to sayabout Heracleitus, in the sameway that in 55 Philolaus is

mentioned with Heracleitus. On the other hand it is very possible

that 'HpoKAfiToy may have been amistake for 'HpaxKfttns ; and we

must thereforo leave this questionundecided like many others respecting the chronology of Heracleitus.

1 The native city of Heracleitus, according to the unanimoustestimony of tho ancients, was

Ephesus. Metapontum is substituted by Justin, Cohort, c. 3, but

this is merely a hasty inferencefrom a passage in which Heracleitus is named in connection with

n 2

HERACLEITUS.

The doctrine of Heracleitns,1 like that of the

Hippasus of Metapontum ; as wascustomary, in accordance witl^Arist. Me/apkj j, 3^84a 7. His

father, accordu^gpPlfffx. 1 . &c,was callod Blyson, but others name

him Hcrncion (whom Schuster, p.362 sq., conjectures to have been hisgrandfather). That he belonged to

n family of position is evident fromthe statement of Antisthenes, ap.

Diog. ix. 6, that he resigned thedignity of $aai\tvs to his younger

brother ; for this was an officehereditary in the family of An-droclus, the Codrid, founder of

Ephesus (Strabo, xiv. 1, 3, p. 632;Bernays, Heraclitea, 31 sq.). He

held decidedly aristocratic opinions(vide infra), while his fellow-citizens were democrats ; this explains

why his friend Hennodorus shouldhave been exiled (Diog. ix. 2)and he himself regarded with littlefavour (Demetr. ibid. 15). The

persecution for atheism, however,which Christian authors infer from

this (Justin. Apol. i. 46; Apol. ;i.8; Athenag. Supplic. 31, 27), isperhaps wholly derived from the

fourth Heraclitean letter (cf. Ber-nays, HtraJcl. Br. 35), and is rendered improbable by the silence of

all ancient authorities. Concerningthe hist illness and death of Hera-

cleitus all kinds of unauthentieatodan.l sometimes contradictory storiesare to be found in Diog. ix. 3 sqq.,

Tatian, C. Grcec. c. 3, and elsewhere(cf. Bernays, llerakl. Brie/e, p. 55sq.). If they have any historical

foundation (Schuster thinks, p.217, they may have a good deal), wecannot now discover it. Lassalle's

opinion (i. 42), that they arosemerely from a mythical symbolising

of the doctrine of the passage ofopposites into one another, appears

tomejjtf ^Klic disposition Is described byTheophrastus as melancholy (ap. '

Diog. ix. 6 ; cf. Pliny, H. Ar. vii.

19, 80), and this is confirmed bythe fragments of his writings. Butthe anecdotes which Diogenes (ix.

3 sq.) relates concerning his misanthropy are worthless ; not to speakof the absurd assertion that he

wept, and Democritus laughed, overeverything (Lucian, Vit. Auct. c.

13; Hippolyt. Brfut. ;. 4; Sen.Be Ira, ii. 10, 5; Tranqu. An. 15,

2. &c). As to any instructorsthat he mag have had, ordinarytradition seems entirely ignorant;which proves that the ancients

(Clemens, Strom, i. 300 c, sqq. ;Diog. ix. 1; Prooem. 13 sqq.; I

similarly Galen, c. 2) found it impossible to connect him with anyschool. It is, therefore, manifestly

an error to represent him as apupil of Xenophanes, which is

done by Sotion, ap. Diog. ix. 5, oras a scholar of Hippasus, whichis asserted by another account (ap.Suid. 'Hpxh. But that he claimed tohave learned everything from himself, to have known nothing in his

youth and all things afterwards(Diog. ix. 5; Stob. Floril. 21, 7 ;

Procl. in Tim. 106 E), seemsmerely an inference from some

misapprehended utterances in hisworks.

1 Our most trustworthy sourceof information in regard to the doc

trine of Heracleitus is to be foundin the fragments of his own work.This work was written in Ionicprose, and according to Diog. ix. 5,

HIS WORK.

Eleatics, developed itself in express contradiction to

12; Clem. Strom, v. 571 C, borethe title repi tyiafas. We are toldin Diog. ix. 5 that it was divided

into three \oyoi, tts t rbv vepl rovTavrbs ko.1 rbv iroKiTtKbv Kal 6to-

\oyi'6v. It is quite possible (asSchuster remarks, p. 48 sqq. in opposition to Schleiennacher, Werke

-. Phil. ii. 25 sqq.) that the workmay have contained several sections, each devoted to a par

ticular subject ; and this may bebrought into connection with thefact that, according to Diog. 12, italso bore the title of Mowrai ; if,

like Schuster, p. 67, we thinkof the three muses of the older

mythology. (On the other hand,two more titles are given in Diog.

12, which are certainly spurious ;cf. Bernays' Heracleit. 8 sq.) But

there is no doubt that the Movoaioriginate with Plato, Soph. 242

D ; not (as Schuster, p. 329, 2, isinclined to suppose) with Hora-

cleitus ; and the names of the throesections given by Diogenes (asSchuster observes, p. 54 sq.) withthe Alexandrian catalogues, andthat these names correctly described

the contents of the work is quiteuncertain, as is. proved, amongother evidence, by the double titles

of the Platonic dialogues. Thefragments we possess contain very

little that could be assigned to thesecond section, and still less that is

appropriate to the third, if the former were really devoted to politics

and the latter to theology; and itis the same thing, as we shall find,

with the other traditions concerningthe doctrine of Heracleitus (cf.Susemihl, Jahrb. f. Philol. 1873,H. 10, 1 1, p. 714 sq.). I believe it

to be impossible to recover the planof the work, with any certainty,

from the fragments in existence ;and Schuster's attempt at such areconstruction is founded on suppositions that are generally doubtful, and in some cases, it appears

to me, more than doubtful. Thatthis was the sole work of Hera

cleitus is unquestionable, not onlybecause of the indirect testimony ofAristotle, Hhet. iii. 5, 1407 b, 16 ;

Diog. ix. 7 ; and Clemens, Strom.i. 332 B, where mention is madoof a irvypapfia in the singular, and

not of ouypdiifiaTa, but because noother work was either quoted or

commentated on by the ancients. InPlutarch, Adv. Col. 14, 2 'Hpaittel-tov 5i rbv Zotpodo-rpTjv, we shouldread, with Diibner, 'Hptuc\fiSou(vide Bernays, Iih. Alua. vii. 93 sq.),an amendment which of itself set

tles Schleiermacher's doubt as tothe genuineness of this writing, and

the trustworthiness of Plutarch'sstatements concerning Heracleitus(I. c). David, Schol. in Arist. 19 b,7 ; Hesych. Vir. HI. 'Hpdic\. ; Schol.

Bekker, in Plat. p. 364, mentionHeracleitUs's airfypipnuera; butthis is only a proof of their carelessness. The Heracleitean letterscannot possibly be considered genuine. Concerning a metrical version

of the Heracleitean doctrine, videVra,p. 21, 1. Whether Heracleitusreally deposited his work in thetemple of Artemis, as is stated inDiog. ix. 6 and elsewhere, cannot

be ascertained ; if he did, it couldnot be for the sake of secrecy, asTatian, C. Gr. c. 3, suggests. Norcan we suppose that his well-knownobscurity (cf. Lucret. i. 639), which

procured for him the title of ano-rnvbs among later writers (such asPseudo-Arist.. De Mundo, c. 5,

396 b, 20; Clem. Strom, v. 671,

HERACLEITUS.

the ordinary mode of thought. Look where he will,

C), proceeded from discontent andmisanthropy (vide Theophrastus,ap. Diog. 6, and Luc. Vit. Auct.

14) ; or from a wish to conceal hisopinions (ride Diog. 6; Cic. N. D.i. 26, 74 ; iii. 14, 35 ; Divin. ii. 64,

133, &c). Against the latter view,vide Schleiermacher, p. 8 sqq. ;Krische, Forschumyeti, p. 59.Schuster says in its favour (p. 54,

72 sq., 75 sqq.) that Heracleitushad every reason to conceal opinions

which might have brought uponhim an indictment for atheism ;

but on the other hand it is noticeable that in his fragments thosejudgments on religious usages and

political conditions, which wouldhave given the most violent offence,are enunciated in the plainest andboldest manner possible (vide infra,

opinions of Heracleitus on ethicsand politics), while those propositions which are difficult to understand, on account of the obscurityof the language, are precisely those

which could in no way have endangered the philosopher, however

clearly he might have expressedthem. Not one of the ancients

asserts that Heracleitus was purposely obscure in his writings, in

order to avoid persecution. Thecause of his obscurity seems tohave lain partly in the difficulty ofphilosophic expositions at that

epoch, and partly in his own peculiar character. He clothed hisprofound intuitions in the most

pregnant, solemn, and for the mostpart, symbolical expressions possi

ble, because these suited him best,and seemed best to correspond with

the weight of his thoughts; andhe was too sparing of words andtoo little practised in the art of

composition to escape the am

biguity of syntactical arrangement,which whs noticed by Aristotle(Bia. iii. 5, 1407 b, 14; cf. I)e-metr. De Elocut. c. 192). He himself characterises his language as alanguage adapted to the subject,when in Fr. 39, 38 (ap. Plut. Pyth.

Orac. c. 6, 21, p. 397| 404 ; Clemens,Strom, i. 304 0. and pseudo-Iambi.De Myster. iii. 8, refer to the first

of these fragments, and not to somedifferent utterance, and pseudo-

Iambi, he Myster. iii. 15 to thesecond), according to the most pro

bable acceptation of these fragments (which Lucian, i.e., confirms),

he compares his discourses to theearnest and unadorned words of aninspired sybil, the oracular sayingsof the Delphic god. This oracular

tone of the Heraclitean utterancesmay be connected with the censure

of Aristotle (Eth. -V.vii. 4, U 46 b,29 : M. Mor. ii. 6, 1201 b. 6), whosays he had as much confidence in

his opinions as others had in theirknowledge. When results, merely,

without demonstration are to beset forth in a statuesque style, the

distinction between the several gradations of certainty can neither befelt nor represented. The confi

dence with which Heracleitus stated his convictions is seen, amongother examples, in the expression

(Fr. 137; Olympiod. Gory. 87vide .Talin's Jakrb. Suppl. xiv. 267 ;cf. Diog. ix. 16): Keyw tovto nal

napa Tlepfrp6yp &v. Vide also ivfra,where ' the one on whom he relies

more than on thousands,' is primarily himself. A remark attri

buted to Socrates on the difficultyof Heraeleitus's exposition is given

in Diog. ii. 22 ; ix. 11 sq. In Diog.ix. 15 sq., mention is also made of

some ancient commentators of He-

HIS WORK.

nowhere can our philosopher find true knowledge.1The mass of men has no intelligence for eternal truth,though it is clear and obvious ; that which they dailyencounter, continues strange to them; whither their

own road leads is hidden from them ; what they dowhen they are awake, they forget, as if it were done

in sleep ; a the order of the world, glorious as it is,

absolute is exempt from all sensibleexistence, that it is the negative.'To me it seems more likely thatthe true meaning is this : ' Noneattains to understand that wisdomis separated from all things,' that

is, has to go its own way, divergingfrom general opinion. This doesnot contradict ineoBai r$ vvtl\ as

Schuster (p. 42) believes, for vybyis something different from the

opinion of the people. Schuster'*explanation, which is that of

Heinze (Lehre vom Logos, p. 32),' that wisdom is the portion ofnone,' as far as I can see, does not

harmonise any better with his conception of \vybv. In order to

decide with certainty as to thesense of the words, we should know

the connection in which they stand.2 Fr. 3, 4, ap. Arist. Rhrt. iii.5, 1407 b, 16; Sext. Math. vii.

132 (who both say that this wasthe beginning of Heracleitus's

work); Clem. S/rom. v. 602 D;Hippol. Re/ut. ix. 9 : toO \6yov

rovb" i6yros al. : tov 6yros ortoO Storms ; the latter, which isthe usual reading in our Aristote

lian text, is inadmissible, if onlyfor the reason that in that case the

oei cannot be connected with thepreceding context, whereas Aris

totle expressly remarks that wedo not know whether it belongs towhat goes before, or what followsit ; it seems to me Aristotle must

racleitus's work. Brandis (Gr.Rom. Phil. i. 154), with good reason, on account of other passages,Diog. vi. 19, and ix. 6, doubtswhether the Antisthenes here alluded to is the Socratic philosopher

(vide Schleiermacher, p. S), andLastalle makes the unfortunate

suggestion, i. 3, that in Eus. Fr. Ev.xv. 13, 6, Antisthenes the Socratic

is not colled 'HpaK\sa>Tui6s, butHpajcAeiTtitSs, tij aviip to

HEUAVLEITUS.

nave read rovSc u>ros, and Hera-cleitus must have written: tovS'

46vtos or rovSe 46vr. aUl avvtTotylvovrai avQpunoi Kal irp6ofcv ?)

anuvaai Ka] atcovtrcwTts to ttdwtovyivofievav yap -xavrw Kara *rbv\6yov t6vSc aTnipoMTLv (so Bern.Mull. Schust. read) iotmurt irtipti-payoi iirio>v Kal tpyoav toiovtwv

6koIwv 4yii Snryevpai Kara, tpinrii/Siaip4

IGNORANCE OF MANKIND. 9

for them does not exist.1 Truth seems to them incredible ; 2 they are deaf to it, even when it reaches

their ears ; 3 to the ass chaff is preferable to gold, andthe dog barks at everyone he does not know.4 Equally

incapable of hearing and speaking,5 their best coursewould be to conceal their ignorance.6 Irrational asthey are, they abide by the sayings of the poets and

or something of the kind], toCt'tan Kara tyt\bv koS6ti vaptik-tiQafiev.The words marked as a quotationI agree with Bernays, Rh. Mus.vii. 1 07, in regarding as cited from

Heracleitus, but manifestly only

fidOri rrjs yv&ijeus is an expression

which reminds us so strongly ofChristian language (cf. 1 Cor. ii.

10; Kcv. ii. 24; 1 Cor. viii. 1, 7 ;2 Cor. i. 5, and other passages),and partly because for the reasonsfrom memory, and therefore not already given, supra, p. 6. I can-

altogether literally. The words in not agree with Schuster, who, p. 72,Hippocr. x. Shut, i. 5 (if taken from finds in this fragment a recom-

Heracleitus) must belong to the mendation to guard against perse-same connection : koI t /ii? ir/>f}

10 HERAL'LEITUS.

the opinions of the multitude without considering thatthe good are always few in number ; that the majoritylive out their lives like the beasts, only the best among

mortals preferring one thing, namely undying glory, toall besides ; ' and that one great man is worth more than

thousands of evil persons.2 Even those who have earnedthe fame of superior wisdom in most cases fare very

little better at the hands of Heracleitus. He sees in themfar more diversity of knowledge than real intelligence.

On Hesiod and Archilochus, on Pythagoras, Xenophanes

and Hecataeus, but above all, on Homer, he passed theseverest judgments ; 3 a few only of the so-called seven

wise men are treated by him with more respect.4 How-

1 Fr. 71, as this is restored byBernays, Hfracl. 32 sq. ; cf. Schus

ter, 68 sq. (in preference to Las-salle, ii. 303): from Priel. inAlii'), p. 255 ; Creuz. iii. 1 15, Cous. ;

Clem. Strom, v. 576 A : ti'j yapaitruiv [so. Ttov TroWuv'] v6os fi cppvi' ;oj/uti'i' auiSotni tirovTai Kal StSa-(TKaKcfi (1. -\wv) xptovrat d/jLiKu, oi/K

(tS6rti oti troKKol kclkoI oKiyoi Sea-yaSot. aiptovrat yap tv avrla irdV-ttov ol &pi

FLUX OF ALL THINGS. 11

ever great then may be the differences between the

theory of Heracleitus and that of the Eleatics, they are

both equally opposed to the ordinary theory of the world.According to Heracleitus, the radical error in thepopular mode of presentation consists in its attributingto things a permanence of Being which does not belong

to them. The truth is that there is nothing fixed andpermanent in the world, but all is involved in constantchange,1 like a stream in which new waves are. continu

ally displacing their predecessors ; 2 and this means not

by Aleseus, ap. Diog. i. 76, canhardly be our philosopher.

1 Plato. Thcat. 160 D: koto. . . 'HpanKarov . . . olov fotli/xajaKtvcfaBat to wiyra. Ibid. 152 D

(inf. p. 18, 2); Crat. 401 1) : Kaff'Hpdic\(iTov ay yyoivro to uvra tivatre iravra Kal fiivfiv oi/tty. Ibid.

402 A : Xiyti irov 'Hpa^cA. ort irdvraJ(Wpti Kal OVOiV ^l'(, Kal norau'ivpur) aweiKafav ra tiyra \tyei &>s ols

is rbv avrbv itorafiOy oi/K ay tpfiatris.Ihid. 412 1) : rb -nay fjyat iviropt'ta.to . . . ToXii ai'Tuv . . . roiovrdv

ti rivai, olov oi/oiv aAAo i) xatpciv.Soph. 242 C sqq. ; vide inf. p. 33, 1 ;Arist. Mctaph. iv. 5, 1010 a, 13

(vide next note). Ibid. 1, 6, subinit. : tois 'HpaxKcireioLs Sdafr, i/s

enrdyrwy rwv alo-6-nrwv acl pt6vrtevKal 4-WKTT-tlfilJS TCpl avruiv Ot/K odo"TJ$.

Ibid. xiii. 4, 1078 b, 14: to7j 'Hpa-K\eir*tots \6yois its Trdrtey rayaio'&nrxy ati ptSvruy. De An. i. 2,405 a, 28 (after the quotation,

538, 2, 3) : iv KLiriad 5' cImu touvra KOKCiVof afro Kal oi iroA-\ol. Top. i. 11, 104 b, 21 : 8ridrra kivutm Ka$' 'HpaKKtirov.fhys. viii. 3, 253 b, 9 (infra, p.

15. 1); De Calo, iii. 1, 298 b, 29(inf. p. 21, 1). Also later writers,as Alex, in Top. p. 43; Schol. in

Arist. 259 b, 9 ; in Metaph. iv. 8,p. 298, 10 Bon.; Pseudo-Alex, in

Metaph. xiii. 4, 9, p. 717, 14, 765,12 Bon.; Amnion. De lnterpr.9;Schol. in Ar. 98 a, 37 ; Diog. ix.8; Lucian, V. Anct. 14; Sext.

Fi/rrh. iii. 115; Plut.. Piac. i. 23,6'; Stob. Eel. i. 396, 318. Thesame theory is presupposed LyEpicharmus, vide supra, vol. i.529 sq.

Plato, Crat. 402 A. vide previous note ; Plut. de Ei ap. D. c.

18: iroTautp yap oi/K i aiTtf> KaO' 'HpaKAeiTOf. oi

12 IIERACLEITU8.

merely that all individual existences are fleeting, but

that any continuance in the state of a thing is a delu

sion, as we are distinctly assured by Heracleitus himself,as well as by all our other authorities from Plato andAristotle onwards.1 Nothing remains what it is, every-

Aristotelian Stoic form of expression. The same expression is usedby Plut. de s. Num. find. e. 15, endp. 559; Qu. Nat. 2, 3, p. 912 ;

SimpL Pht/s. 17 a, m, 308 b;Plut. Qu. Nat. adds, trtpa )&/>

i-rttfrpti vSara ; more fully Clean-thes, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. xvi. 20, 1 :

'HpctK\. . . . \tyw ouTwy TrOTapolffiroiffiv avroiffiv i)if&tuvovtTlv trfpa Kal

cripa vSara imtytl (thorest cannotbe regarded as Heracleitean). InHeracleitus, Alleg. horn. c. '-'4, p.

51, \lt:hl. we find: vorap.o'is TotyOUTOiS infialvofiiv T Kdl OVK ^Uj8a{-

vo\ktv, tljxivTt koX ovk (1/j.iv, whichmay be explained thus: 'We only

seem to descend into the sameriver, identical 'with itself; intruth, we do not descend into thesam, for during our descent it is

changing ; and so wo ourselves areand are not, because we also are

constantly changing ' (Schuster'sinterpretation, p. 88' we are in it,

and at the same time uo longer init,' is less satisfactory to me). The

words, however, likewise admit ofanother interpretation : ' In truth

we do not go down into the sameriver, and we are not the same(after I/*y we may supply oiouVol from the preceding context)as before.' Arist. Mctaph. iv. 5,

1010 a, 12, is in favour of thisinterpretation: (KpariAos) 'Hpa-

K.\tT$> lircrl/ia tlv6vri, on 51s ryavr$ TtoraixQ ovk toTtv ifjL&TJvai'alrros yap moo ott' Siraf; for if

Heracleitus had also said this,there was no reason for the censure.

So does Seneca, Ep. 58, 23 : Hocest, quod ait Heraclitut : ' in idemflumen bis descendimus et non de-

scendimus.' The latter pass-agemight be quoted in favour ofSchleiermacher's conjecture, I. c.

143. that in Heracloitus (Allcg.Horn. 1. c.) " Sis " should be inserted

after norapoh rots avruls ; but itseems to me more probable that the

'Aw' in Seneca is an explanatoryaddition taken from the famousproposition : ' We cannot descend

twice into the same river.' Schuster's restoration of the text of Heracleitus from the above quotations;p. 8C sqq.) is not at all clear tome. All the expressions here cited

need not necessarily be taken fromone and the same place.

1 Schuster, p. 201 sq., has been atmuch pains to prove that Heraclei

tus, in the sentences quoted above,merely intended to express the

thought ' that nothing in the worldescapes the final destruction.' Icaunot, however, satisfy myself thathis argument is really satisfactory.

In the first place, it may well bedoubted whether the original expression of the Heracleitean doc

trine (as he believes, vide p. 86),is to be found in the words TrdvraX"P" Kai oiSiv ntVet, Crat. 402 A

(vide the last note but one). It isnot altogether clear from this pas

sage whether these were actuallythe words of Heracleitus : it is alsovery improbable that, if they were,

he should not often have recurredto his original view; and in that

FLUX OF ALL THINGS. 1:3

thing passes into its opposite, all comes out of all ; all

is all. The day is sometimes longer, sometimes shorter ;

case we might conjecture that hewould not always have employedone and the same formula. Why

the expression adduced by Schustershould be more authentic than the

others that have been handeddown to us ; why the itivra Au>

which is mentioned by Aristotlethree times (Z)e Coelo, iii. 1, Metaph.

1, 6, and De An. i. 2, vide, infra,p. 22, 4) ; or the corresponding

passage, otov pevaara kivcutBcu raKama, which is quoted in Plato as

a saying of Heracleitus, Thetet. 160I), should not equally reproducehis own words ; why he should

have said lavra xaP**< an(J nt(according to Crat. 401 D) Mmuto xdWa Kal fitveir ovSlv, it does

not appear. Whatever expressionHeracleitus may have employed,

the chief question is, what hemeant by it. And he himself loaves

no doubt upon this point. Theriver, which lahitur et labetur inomne vclubilis avum, would havebeen a very inappropriate illustration of the proposition that all

things in time come to an end;but it is perfectly just in regard to

the constant change of things.This is clearly marked by Heracleitus as the point of comparison,

when he snys that we cannot godown twice into the same river.

Whether the river flowed on eternally, or at some time or othercame to an end, is, in reference tothis point, quite immaterial. But

even if tbe explanations of Heracleitus had been less equivocal

than they are, the opinion of thewriters who were acquainted with

his works, not as we know them,in small fragments, but in their

whole connection, would bedecisive.

These writers are unanimouslyagreed that he denied any perma

nent state of things. Schuster says(p. 207 sq.) that Plato was thefirst to ascribe this meaning toirivra ytwptTthat Aristotle followed his example, but betrayed

in Phys. viii. 3, that he had nothimself found a definite explanation

of the words in Heracleitus's work.For my part, I can charge neitherPlato nor Aristotle, nor even Plutarch, nor Alexander, who were

equally in possession of this muchread book, with so careless andsuperficial an account; and I do notsee what can justify us, even irrespectively of Heracleitus's own

assertions, in opposing their unanimous declarations with a theorywhich cannot bring forward a

single witness in its defence. Foreven Phys. viii, 3 proves nothing.Aristotle here says, 253 b, 9 :

14 HERACLEITUS.

and so is the night ; heatsun is at one period nearer

been correct ; viz., that Heracleitusdistinctly maintained tho perpetual

variation of things, and proved it(as we shall find) by many examples, bur, that he did not, likeAristotle, distinguish logically the

various kinds of change, and therefore in places where he announcedhis proposition in a general manner, he held to tho indeterminate

conception of the motion (or thoflux I nf all things, without explain

ing wherein this motion consisted;whether the place, or the size, orthe material constitution of things,or all these at once, were constantlychanging. In Plato, also, Timet.

181 B sqq., the proposition that,according to the Heracleitean doc

trine, iravra Trarrav Ktwrjtrw &eiKu-ftrai, everything is perpetually

changing its place as well as itsconstitution (is subject to a constant a\\olu(Tis as well as a -Ktpi-ph). is indeed declared to be the

proper sense of the doctrine, but insuch a manner that we can plainlysee that it was Plato who firstdiscriminated these two kinds of

motion. Schuster is of opinion thatto assume the perpetual changeof individuals would lead to thegreatest difficulties. If we suppose

that their shape is porpetuallychanging (which no one, so far asI know, ascribes to Heracleitus),this is contradicted by the continu

ance of the earth, sea, and sky, ofsouls after death, etc. If theyare constantly changing theirsulatance for some other sub

stance, this theory is compatibleneither with the period of the

world's conflagration, nor with thefollowing period in which all issea (vide infra. Her. Cosm.), nor

and moisture alternate ; theto us and at another farther

evon with the prosent cosmicalperiod ; it would only be in keep

ing with the idea that everythingis, at every moment, changing all

its old parts for new; that theworld is everymomenr. as by magic,disappearing and reappearing -

which we can hardly suppose tohave been the opinion of Heracleitus. But in order to refute theaccounts of his doctrine by theseconsequences, two things must, first

be demonstrated. First, thatHeracleitus, in case the accountsare correct, himself drew theseinferences ; and secondly, that hefound difficulty in them. Andneither of these two presupposi

tions can I admit. How do weknow that Heracleitus, if he heldthe perpetual transformation ofsubstances, regarded this transformation as taking place momentari 1 v,and not gradually, now quickly,and now slowly ? or that he ever

said to himself, ' If all is constantlychanging, this must be true of the

smallest particles of matter ? ' Howagain do we know that from his pointof view such an absolute transfor

mation of substances would seemunthinkable? Even on this presupposition, the apparent perma

nence of particular things, eventheir continuance till the end ofthe world, would bo perfectly explicable, if we also suppose that

what they lose on one side wouidbe made up to them on the other ;

which, according to p. 559 sq., 3rded., seems to have been actuallyHeracleitus's opinion. Cf. withthe preceding observations, Suse-

mihl, I. c. 725 sq. ; Siebeck, Ztschr.f. /'Ai'Uxvii.245sq. ; Teichmiiller,

New. Studien, l. 118 sqq. The

FLUX OF ALL THINGS. lo

away. The visible passes into the invisible, the in

visible again into the visible ; one thing takes theplace of another, or is lost by means of the other ; the

great is nourished by the small, the small by the great.From man, too, nature takes some parts, while at the

same time she gives him others ; she makes himgreater by giving to him, and less by taking away, and

both coincide.1 Day and night are the same ; that is,

irpbs tt&vto. KaX irdvra irpbs tKavrovravrb . . . xaP" W trivra (to! 6(Ta

Kal avBptinriva avw Kal Ki.ru afi(i$6-p-tva- VP1 *J itypirtl M rb ni-

khitov koI IxAxwrov . . . rvpbs(

l'J HERACLEITUS.

there is one essence which is now light,1 now dark ; 2lieneficial and destructive,3 upper and under,4 beginning

aySptiiruv so it is with the nature of man ; rb p.ev (nominative)

wtft'et. rb be e'AKti, rb p.*v blbuffi, rb5e Xaflfidvel, Kal rw fiev blbuffl, rui

[tow] be XaixQai/tL, Kal tw fievblbctMTi, rooovrtp k\4op (and that to

which it gives, becomes more by somuch), rav be kauPdvei, roookrtp

fieiov.1 Frag. 25, Hippol. Refut. ix.10: Tjfidpa yap, (pijtrl (sc. 'HpdK\.)tKal yv tnriv c, \eyuv wbe tos-btba.

FLUX OF ALL THINGS. 17

and end.1 Mortal and immortal 2 are the same. Sicknessand health, hunger and satiety, labour and refreshment

are alike ; the Deity is day and night, summer and

winter, war and peace, plenty and want ; all is one, allbecomes all.3 From the living comes death, and from

the dead life, from the young old age, and from the oldyouth ; from the waking, sleep, and from the sleeping,

wakefulness. The stream of generation and destruction never stands still ; the clay out of which things

are made is for ever being moulded into new forms.4

under, and vice versa ; upper andlower are consequently the sameessence. Meantime it is a question

whether the words Kal rb &va> . . .rb abrb belong to Herncleittis, ormerely contain an inference drawnby the author from ' iSbs &vo> ' &c.)

bibs avb! xdru filrj Kal uvrij. Weshall have more to say on this subject further on.

1 Fr. 58 ; Porphyr. in Schol.Ven. in 11. xiv. 200 : tyvbv apxhKal nepas

IH IIERACLEITUS.

jAll life and consciousness of life ! is founded on this| constant motion, which alone constitutes the existence

1 of things ; nothing is this or that, but becomes what

ever it is, in the movement of the life of nature ; thingsare not to be conceived as permanent, and finished once

for all ; they are continually being reproduced 2 in the

in all probability also that whichis said of the stream of Becomingand decay, of light and Hadesis

chiefly borrowed from the samesource. As to the meaning of thosewords, Plutarch says : ' Heracleitus

declares the living to be identicalwith the dead, the waking with thedeeping, &c, because both passinto one another (for as the livingbecomes dead when it dies, so the

dead becomes living when theliving feeds upon it ; as the youngbecomes old through the lapse ofyears, so the old becomes young bythe propagation of the species),and it car.not be urged that this

was too trivial for the profoundphilosopher (Lassalle, i. 160); for

in the first place the thought thatiu a certain sense the dead againbecomes the living, and the old.

young, was sufficiently remote fromthe ordinary presentation, and

secondly, the inference would bein any case peculiar to Heracleitus,

that consequently the living andthe dead are one and the same.In themselves, however, the words

might likewise signify : the livingis at the tame time dead, and viceversa, because the living only arose

from the destruction of a previousexistence ; and the dead is undergoing the transition to that oxistence ;waking is sleeping, and sleepingwaking ; because in waking all thepowers are not in full activity, and

in sleep they are not all at rest ;

youth is age, because it only arisesfrom that which has long been in

existence ; and age is youth, because it only consists in constant

renewal ; and even the more abstract expressions that life is at thesame time death, &c, allow of justification (cf. Plut. De Ki. ap. 1)

c. 1 8, p. 392). The unity of deathand life is referred to in Fr. 139(Ett/mol. Magn. v. Bias; Eustath.

in II. p. 31, 6) : t$ ovv &lai uvo.uafiiv Bios ipyov 8e Bdvaros.

' Hence the statements in Plac.i. 23 : 'Hp. yptuiav itai trrdffiy 4ktwc oKwvaytfper (an yap touto ruy

vtKpwv. Iambi, ap. Stob. i. 906 :to uec toTs axnois 4wtij.tyeiv Ka.aa.Toif

ilvai to 5e fi(Ta$d\\tv ip4peiy kvd-vaaatv. Numtn. ap. Porph, Antr.

Nymph, c. 10 : 88er ko\ 'rlp&KXtiros{-Of) *I/V)(T 4pwKai p.aK' ov $av\oy \6yov us apa %v

aiy auTO KaB' ainb ovtidv 4(rriv, oi/o"&v rt Trpofftivois bp6us ou5' oiroiovof'*'ti, aAX* 4av its /xe^o irpoo'ayopfvTjs,

real fftxiKpbv (pai'urai. Hal cav Bapv,Koixpov, {'U.navr6. tc oStois, ws utjSc-

vbs vyros 4vbs jutVtc riybs fiJir* Stoio-yovv 4k 8 87) (papas tc koI KitrftaeusKal Kpdtrtws vpts aAATiXa yiyveratTrdvra a 5/j

FLUX OF ALL THINGS. 10

flux of phenomena by means of active forces ; theymerely mark the points where the opposing streams of

natural life cross each other.1 Heracleitus thereforelikens the world to a mixture which must continually

be stirred that it may not decompose,2 and the world-creating power he compares to a child who, in play,draws his pebbles this way and that.3 While, there-/

fore, Parmenides denies Becoming, in order to maintain!the conception of Being in its purity, Heracleitus denies

E : avibp-tv Kttff avrb U7j5ef elvai . . .iv ok tt] irpbs &\\T]\a dfjtiKia vdtnayiyvtoQai Ka\ lrayroTo awb rrjs Kiin\-

ceais . . , oi$\v tivai %v airb Kaffavrb aAXa rivl ol ylyvto-8ai, rb 8'

ttvai TavraxAQty ifaiperiov. In thofirst of these passages, this opinionis generally ascribed to all the an

cient philosophers, except Parmo-nides.aud especially to Heracleitus.

Kmpedoclcs, and Protagoras; anlthe riyl is only applicable to Protagoras. However, it has alreadybeen proved, and we shall see, fur

ther on, thit the words quotedcorrectly represent the doctrine ofHeracleitus.

1 Further details hereafter. Fr. 85 ; Theophr. De Vcrtig.

9, p. 138 ; Wimm. : ti tt /d> (thisis no doubt correct ; Bernays,Heracl. 7, reads : Si)), naSiirfp

kHpa.K\arAs (fnjcn, Kat b kvkcwv iita-

totoi uh mi.ovij.tvos (thus Wimmerreads, following Usener and Bern. ;

the older editions leave out /i^,which, however, in spite of Las-salle, i. 75, is decidedly requiredby the context. Cf. Lucian, Vit.Auct. 14: tu-xtZov odb'lv, a.\\a kus

it KuKtHova Tama ffwtiXiovrai, Haliffrt ruvrb rtptyu aTtptylij, yvaffisayvteffli). uiya uucpdv, avu tcarta vept-Xuptoyra xal afiti$6fitva iv rjj tup

axuvot iraiSijj. The anecdoteinPlut.Garrulit. c. 17,P- 511, can scarcelyhave any connection with this doctrine. The kvk*&>v of Heracleitusis mentioned by Chrysippus, ap.

Philodem. Nat. De. Col. vii. ; according to Petersen's emendation,to which, however, Sauppe prefersanother and simpler version. Epicurus, ap. Diog. x. 8, calls Heracleitus a KWOJT^J.

Prod, in Tim. 101 F: i\\oi

ii not rbv foiiXLOvpybv iv rw ttoffiiavp-yuv wai^tiv elpiiKao-i, Ka9dtrtp ' Hpa-

k\(itoj. Clem. Patdag. i. 90 C :Toiavrriv rtva val^eiv iraiitav rbv

iaxnov Am *Hpct*fAiTos \tyet. Fr.49 ; Hippol. Refut. ix. 9 : al&iv iralsitrrt *aiuv. jrtTTva>v ' trattibs tj/3a

20 HERACLEITUS.

( Being that he may maintain in full force the law ofBecoming ; while Parmenides declares that the notion

of change and of movement is merely a delusion of thesenses, Heracleitus asserts the same of the notion of

permanent Being ; while Parmenides regards the ordinary mode of thought as erroneous in principle because

it assumes generation and destruction, Heracleitus comes

to a similar conclusion precisely for the opposite reason.But the metaphysical proposition that all things

are in a continual flux becomes with Heracleitus aphysical intuition. The living and moving element in

nature seems to him to be fire ; if all things are con

ceived in perpetual motion and change, it follows that

all things are fire. This second proposition does notseem to have been developed from the first by consciousreflection, but the law of change which he everywhere

perceives, presents itself to him through the directaction of the imagination under this symbolical

aspect, the more general import of which he cannottherefore separate in his own consciousness from the

sensible form in which it is contained. In this way wemust understand the assertion ' that Heracleitus held

1 Arist. De Coelo, iii. 1, 298 b, do-Alex, on Metaph.xu. 1, p. 643,29: of Si tA pev SAAo irima ylvea- 18 Bon.: 6 p.iv yap 'Hp&K\tiTosBat r( 4>a

THE PRIMITIVE FIRE. 21

fire to be the first element, the principle or primitivematter of all things.1 ' This world,' he says, ' the same

for all, has been made neither by one of the gods nor

by any man ; but was, and is, and shall be, an ever living

by Simpl. Phys. Ill b, containsmuch that is truly Heracleitean.

For, after Simplicius has givenas the doctrine of Heracleitus,

(V ITVp&f TCfTCtpCLiTfjLfVOV TTOLVTa fJfCU

*cal tis rovro xdVra kvaKvtaBau,he afterwards says: 'HpoKAwroj

" ti tip" Kiynr "koX in tupis t4T&rra." As these words are made

into a hexameter in Stobsus. andas we elsewhere (ap. Proc in Tim.

36 C; Plut. Viae. ii. 21; Qu. Plat.viii. 4, 9, p. 1007; cf. also thervpit aiioif)i)v, infra, p. 27, 1) meot

with fragments of verse bearingHeracleitus's name, we may suppose tb.it there was a version of

his doctrine, made in hexametersto assist the memory, which probably emanated from the Stoics.Schuster, p. 354, conjectures theauthor of it to have been Scythi-

nus, who, according to Hieronymus,ap. Diog. ix. 1G, rendered the work

of Heracleitus. into verse ; aud refers to versified fragments in Stub.

i. 26.1 On this Teichmiiller remarks(N. Stud. i. 118 sq., and similarly, p. 133, 143 sq.. although hequotes my very words, from ' The

metaphysical proposition ') : ' According to this, therefore, Hora-cleitus first discovered the meta

physical truth, and then made thededuction, which depends upon theobservation of things.' I really

thought I had said the contrarysufficiently clearly to have been

safe from sueh a misrepresentationof my opinion. Even the ' meta

physical ' proposition is obviously

not to be understood as an d priorione; I am speaking of the law ofchange, which Heracleitus everywhere perceived, and I have shown,

p. 13 sq., on what kind of perceptions the philosopher based his pro

position. I derive the propositionfrom observation, and expresslyremark that it did not precede the

assertion ' All is fire ' in the consciousness of Heracleitus. I cer

tainly do not suppose, however, inregard to this fire, that Heracleituswas thinking merely of the actual

fire that ' we see, and hear crackling,' etc. ; nor that any man everthought that the whole world hadbeen and would be again such avisible crackling fire ; nay more,

that it was so always, even at thepresent time. Heracleitus says of

the world, not only ijr *al Iztoi, buttjv if 1 Kal tfTTi Hal tiTTai tvp atlfaov.

Consequently, I cannot but thinkthat this view is symbolical. That

fire was to Heracleitus ' only a symbol for the law of change,' I neversaid, but it is imputed to me byTeichmiiller, who naively quotesthe very words which refute him

(' Heracleitus did not separate themore general meaning of this con

ception from its sensible form'),as evidence. But if Heracleitus, in

asserting the world to be fire, didnot mean to assert the absurditythat it was visible fire, the con

ception of fire must have had asignification with him, transcend

ing its directly sensible content;that is to say, it was a symbolicalconception.

L'L> IIERAC'LEITUS.

fire, kindled and extinguished in due measure : ' ' fire,never resting, rules in all.2 He thus indicates his

reason for calling the world a fire ; it was, as Simplicius 3and Aristotle 4 observe, in order to express the absolute

1 Fr. 46 (Clemens Strom, v.599 B. Plut. An. Pr. 5, 2, p. 1014 ;Simp]. Dc Cafo 132 b, 31, 19;

Schol. in Arist. 487 b, 46, 33):ic6fffxov rbvSf rbv avrbv awdvrtiivodrt tls Bfav otrre hvBpumwv 4iroi-

T)trw dXV %v acl nal torai, irvpaei^tudc, airr6p.evoy fitrpa teal airo-afitvvifuvov perpa. To the latterdefinition I shall presently recur.The words rbv ainbv awdvrav aboutwhich Sculeiermacher (p. 91) is

uncertain, I consider genuine, onaccount of their very difficulty,

though they are wanting in Plutarch and Simplicius ; the andrruv,

I refer, as masculine, to the godsand men, so that the words wouldindicate the reason why none ofthese can hare made tie world ;namely, because they all, as partsof the world, are contained in it.Lassalle, ii. 56 sq., says : ' the oneand same out of all things, thatwhich, springing from all, is internally identical ; ' but the forceof this explanation is not clear.

That the world is the same forall, Heracleitus remarks also ap.

Plut. lh Supcrst. 3, vide inf. chapter on Her. Anthrop. We need notenquire with Schuster (p. 128), whosupposed the world to have beencreated by a man, nor need we, withTeichmiiller, N. Stud. i. 86, answerthe question by a reference to theOriental apotheosis of princes (theywere not so foolish in Egypt or

Persia as to regard a favouriteprince as the creator of the world).

' No god and no man ' means, ashas already been observed, vol. i.,

p. 559, l,no one absolutely. To theGreeks of the time of Heracleitus,indeed, the notion that the worldwas made by one of the gods wouldhave been scarcely less strange thanthe idea that a man made it. Theeternity here ascribed to the world

by Heracleitus does not contradictthe assertion of Aristotle that allhis predecossors considered theworld as become, or created : thishas already been pointed out, vol.i. p. 440, 1 ; 670 ; cf. also infra,Her. Cosm.

' Fr. 68; Hippol. liefut. ix. in :to Si Ttdvra oiaKlfai K*pavr6s. 11 i]>-pocr. it. 8io(T. i. 1 0, end (vide infra,

p. 27, note). We meet with (hosame world-ruling fire, also underthe name of Ktpavvbs, in the hymnof Oleanthes (Stob. Eel. i. 30), verse

7 sq. where that Stoic, who we findfrom other indications especiallyresembled Heracleitus, exalts Zeusas ' He that holds in his hands theo el {uiovra Kfpawbv ( 1 h e nvp de Ifaov) :$ trit HarevGuvas Kuivbv Kuyov, ts Sia

Ttdvrwv

THE PRIMITIVE FIRE. L'.'I

:\

life of nature, and to make the restless alternation ofphenomena comprehensible. Fire is not to him anunvarying substance, out of which things derived

were compounded, but which in this union remains

qualitatively unchanged, like the elements of Empedocles or the primitive substances of Anaxagoras ; it isthe essence which ceaselessly passes into all elements,

the universal nourishing matter which, in its eternalcirculation, permeates all parts of the cosmos, assumes

in each a different constitution, produces individualexistences, and again resolves itself ; and by its absolute motion causes the restless beating of the pulse

of nature. By fire, the fire-flash o'r lightning,1 Hera- Vcleitus understood not merely visible fire, but heat in J

ri\\a ji s jififia. Ve Vita et m.c. 5, 470 a, 3 : t6 Si -nvp at! Sia-

tcAci yivoficvov Kal frtov titrirep xo-rapis. Similarly Theophr. Fr. 3

(De Igne), 3.1 The Ktpawbs has already comebefore us, p. 22, 2, in a connection

in which it can only signify fire asthe creative principle of the world,and not merely lightning in the

special sense. rpritrrtip, however,has doubtless the same general(significance in Fr. 47 ; Clemens,

Strom, v. 599 C : xvpbs Tporalrporoy DaKaaaa 0aAd

24 HERACLEITUS.

general, the warm matter, or dry vapours, according to

the language of later writers ; ' and for this reasonhe even substituted for fire the breath, the ifrvxv* per

haps also aether.3 But it would imply a misconception1 Aristotle expressly says thisin the passage we have just been

discussing. Cf. also Fr. 89 ap.Clem. Strom, vi. 624 D; PhiloMem. Mundi, 958 C (cf. Prod.

in Tim. 36 ; Julian Orat. V.

1 When Aristotle /. c. (videprevious note)saysthat[Heracleitus

sought the soul in the &.va8vfiicuris,i $s rSXXc trwiffTTiffiv, it is plainthat this avaBvpSati is cannot beseparated from the irDp which is

elsewhere declared to be Hera-cleitus's primitive matter. Schuster

thinks (p. 162) it is useless to on-quire whether Aristotle meant the

same thing by the two words ; tome there seems no reason to doubt

so clear an expression. If, in oneplaee fire, and in another the awi-

(huia

THE PRIMITIVE FIRE. 25

of his whole system to say, as Aenesideimw4ioes, that

he supposed all things to consist of warm air. In

accordance with this larger import of the word,

Heracleitus says of his fire, that it is never destroyed,2Heracleitus, and which (even in

Heracl. Alleg. Horn. c. 26) does notabsolutely coincide with the dis

tinction said to have been made byour philosopher between aether and

fire. He thinks that the apathy ofaether (ps.-Censorinus, /. c.) whichcontradicts the Stoic doctrine, musthave been taken from Heracleitus,whereas it is far more likely thatits source is Aristotle's Physics(vide Part n. b, 331, 2nd ed.) from

which we must also derive theconceptions of Ocellus, 2, 23, andthe spurious fragments of Philolaus(Lassalle, however, considers themauthentic), which were discussed

vol. i. 399, 1 ; cf. 1. c. p. 358.1 Ap. Sext. Math. X. 233 ; ix.360: cf. Tertull. De An. c. 9, 14 ;Part m. b, 23 sq.

1 Fr. 06, Clem. Paedag. ii. 196C : to fib Svyov irs 6.V rts \A8oi ;that the subject of Svyoy is *up or'o one can

hide himself from the divine fire,even when the all-seeing Helios

has set.' The tij is also defendedby Lassalle, ii. 28 (who pertinently

reminds us of Cornut. JV. Deor. 11,p. 35); Schuster, p. 184; andTeichmiiller, N. Stud. i. 184.

Schuster, however, refers it toHelios, who obeys the laws whichare inherent in fire; but with thisI cannot agree.

tions) much later than Aristotle.The further supposition (Lass. ii.

89 sq.) that aether was the highestcreative principle of Heracleitus,

and that he held three stages offire, in which it manifested itselfmore or less purely, viz. aether,

xDp, and xfmmTip, has no realfoundation, though its author hastaken much pains to prove it.

Lassalle thinks that this theoryalone can explain the assertion of

Aenesidemus, that air is the firstprinciple of Heracleitus ; but Ihave shown (Part m. b, 23 sq.,2nd ed.) that we do not require itfor this purpose. He also urgesthat in Ambrosius Hexaem. i. 6 T.,

1, 8 Maur., and also in Ps.-Censorinus Ft. 1,4, in the enumeration

of the elements, air (which can onlyhave come there by a confusionwith aether), and not fire, takesthe highest place, as if that enu

meration were necessarily according to a strict order, and as if

Censorinus had not immediatelyafter remarked : the Stoics placeaether above air ; and below air,

water. He lays great stress onthe quotation, I. c. [mvndus constat] quattuor elementis, terra, aqua,

igne, acre, cujus principalem solemguidam jmtaut, ut Cleanthcs ; but

cuius does not refer, as Lassallesupposes, to air, but to mundus;for Cleanthes regarded the sun asthe rtyi/ioyiKby tou Koauov (videPart in. a, 125, 1, 2nd ed.). He

relies on the Stoical discriminationof aethereal and common fire, inregard to which it is a questionwhether it was borrowed from

/

20 HERACLEITUS.

that it is not like sunlight connected with a particularand therefore changing phenomenon, but is the univer

sal essence, which is contained in all things as their

substance.' We must not, however, reduce it on that

account to a metaphysical abstraction, as Lassalle does.I When Heracleitus speaks of fire, he is not thinking'merely of 'the idea of Becoming as such,' 'the unity

in process (processireade Einheit) of Being and non-Being,' &c. ; 2 there is not a word to imply that hemeans only the ' ideal logical entity of fire,' and not the

definite substance perceived in the sensation of heat, orthat fire, as a principle, is absolute, immaterial, anddifferent from every kind of material fire.3 His own

1 Cf. Plato, Crat. 412 C sqq.,who, in his playful etymology of

hiKcuor, probably borrowed fromHeracleitus, proceeds quite in thestyle of Heracleitus when he says,

SVoi yb.p riyovvrtu rb xav elvcu ivroptla, rb fttv -ro\u ainov uTroKaa-f&ayouffi rotovTOv ri cfrcu, otov ouSir&K\o ti xp'''. 8'

THE PRIMITIVE FIRE. L>7

utterances, on the contrary, as well as the statements ofancient writers, leave no doubt that it was fire as a

definite substance in which he sought the principle and

essence of all things.

The primitive fire, however, changes into the mostvarious forms, and this, its transmutation, is the produc

tion of things derived. All things, says Heracleitus,

are exchanged for fire, and fire for all things, as wares

for gold, and gold for wares ; ' and herein he gives us topassages of the Cralylus ; but the those Heracleitean philosophers say

Sfpubv (v Ttf irvpi ivbv, even if it of *vp or Siptioy. Lassalle, ii. 22,really corresponds with Heraclei- thinks he has found the true doc-

tns's opinion, is not immaterial, trine of Heracleitus in Marc. Ca-bnt only the same matter whichcommunicates its heating power tofire ; and if it be urged that some

explain Sixatov, like Anaxagoras,from vovs, this explanation does

not relate ti fire but to the Siftoior,and it is not derived from Heracleitus but from Anaxagoras. Lassallefurther supports his view by refe

rence to two passages in Ps. Hip-pocr. t. Stair, i. 10, and De Cam.i. 425 K. And the thoughts there

expressed have certainly a Heracleitean stamp, for iu the first pas

sage, primarily in regard to man, itis said of the 9tp\ilna-rov ml l

28 HERACLEITUS.

j understand that the derived arises out of the primitive

I matter, not merely by combination and separation, butby transformation, by qualitative change ; for in the

' barter of wares for gold, the substance does not remain,but only the worth of it. Any other conception would

be altogether irreconcileable with the fundamental doctrine of this philosopher concerning the flux of all

things. It is, therefore, decidedly untrue to assert, like

some of our authorities, that, according to Heracleitus,

things are formed by means of the union and separationof substances,1 if this is intended in the sense given to

such expressions by Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and De-mocritus. But such language is also inaccurate and misleading if we understand by it, as some have done,2 that

p. 388 : irvpAs r' avrap.ufiio-aiwdVra, (p-qirlv 6 ^peEfcAeiTOy, ital trvp

UTOLfTWlf, UMTTTtp XpOffOV XP^/iOTO Kal

Xpvuarav xpwo1*- Heracl. Alleg.Homer, c. 43, p. 92, therefore says :nvpbs yap tij. koto ibv QvaiKOV

'HpaKhtiroy, afioififi to nivra yivt-ran. Similarly Simpl. Phys. 6 a,

and Diog. ix. 8 : irvphs o/joi/SV tojraVra, also Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 3, 6:auoi^jjc yap (Tri/p&s) tivai to Ttdma.

1 Aristotle is not among these ;lie says indeed in Metaph. i. 8, 988

b, 34 : tj; fiiy -yap tw $6*,(if otoi-X'twScVTOToc ftvai vdirrtjov 1% o\iylyvovrat avyKpltrci irp&rov, toiov-

tov 5e to fuKpofupiffrarov ko! Air-t

FIRE AND ITS TRANSFORMATION. 29

Heracleitus believed things to arise out of fire by condensation and rarefaction, and to resolve themselves into

fire again.1 It is undeniable that when fire passes into

moisture, and moisture into earth, condensation takesplace, and, in the. opposite case, rarefaction. But from

Heracleitus' point of view, rarefaction and condensation

were not the cause but the consequence of the changeof substance ; as he represents the process, it is not thatthe closer juxtaposition of the fiery atoms makes mois

ture arise out of fire, and solid earthy particles out ofmoisture ; but, on the contrary, that from the rarer

element is produced a denser, since fire is changed intomoisture, and moisture into earth ; and that conse

quently in order to reproduce fire out of the other

substances, not merely a decomposition of their primi-

fixWirrrn (Auaximenes and Diogenes) ftal r$ pxi\\of nal t\ttov

(Platol. It would, however,follownot that Heracleitus regarded thederived as arising from rarefactionand condensation, but only fromthe development of opposites fromthe primitive matter; and this isquite correct. Only the later

writers ascribe to him rarefactionand condensation. Thus in Diog.

IX. b sq. : rvpds auoiBv" t& wdura,apaiu&ei Hal Tvuvuirti yiv6/x(ya

. . . wKyoifxtvov yap rb nvp i^vy-paivtadai avvi

30 HERACLEITUS.

tive constituents, but an- entire transformation, aqualitative change of the parts, as well as of the whole,

is necessary. The language he uses to describe thepassage of one element into another shows this clearly

enough, for, instead of rarefaction and condensation, ofthe union and separation of substances, we read .only of

transmutation, of the extinction and kindling of fire,of the life and death of the elements ; ' terms which

are employed by no other natural philosopher. Butthe most decisive argument is that any theory, which

assumes a primitive matter of unchangeable quality,would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles

of Heracleitus. Fire with him means something en-I tirely different from the elements of the early physicists ;

the elements are that which, amidst the change of

particular, things, remains unchangeable; the fire ofHeracleitus is that which by means of constant trans

mutation produces this change.2

1 It follows then from the flux of all things thateverything, without exception, unites in itself opposite

qualities. Each change is a transition from one condi

tion to the opposite condition ; 3 if everything changes

1

FIRE AND STRIFE. 31

and only exists in this mutation, things are but a

middle-term between opposites ; and whatever point wemay seize in the flux of Becoming, we have only a

point of transition and limit, in which antagonisticqualities and conditions encounter one another. While,therefore, all things, according to Heracleitus, are per

petually involved in transmutation, everything has at Ievery moment opposite principles in itself; it is and itis not ; and we can predicate nothing of a thing the

opposite of which does not equally and simultaneouslybelong to it.1 The whole life of nature is a ceaseless

alternation of opposite conditions and phenomena, and

each particular thing is, or rather becomes, that whichit is, only through the perpetual emergence of the opposites midway between which it stands.2 Or, as this is ex-

tb.9 previous state, because a partof the previous characteristics havebeen exchanged for such as couldnot coexist in the same subject and

in the same relation ; and suchcharacteristics we call opposites.

Every difference leads hack topartial opposition, and everychange fluctuates between two con

ditions, which, when conceived ina perfectly definite manner, excludeone another.

1 Cf. besides what is said on p.1 1 sq., the statement of Aenesi-dcmus, ap. Sext. Purrh. i. 210:

'The sceptics say tint the oppositeappears in all things, the Heraclei-teans, that it actually belongs toall things;' and the correspondingstatement of Sextus himself, ibid.ii. 59, 63 : Gorgias teaches pritivtlyeu : Heracleitus, Tcdra thai (thatis to say, everything is all) ; De-mocritus teaches that honey is nei

ther sweet nor bitter. Heracleitusthat it is sweet and bitter at once.

Cf. Diog. ix. 7 sq. : irdyra re

yiveaSai xafl' (luaf.uti'jjn xal Sia tt)sivavTiorponTJs r)pu.6(r9ai to uvra. . . ylvarBai re trdvra Kar* Ivav-Ti

HERACLEITUS.

pressed by Heracleitus : All arises from division ; strife' is the father and lord of all things, the law and order of

the world ; ' the unlike is joined together,2 high and deep

nostra mutuality sententias decern-

trariis. odditis immensis atquelabo-riosis argumentis. The last 'wordswould imply that Heracleitus, like

the Pseudo-Hippocrates (vide supra, p. 16, 1), had proved his

doctrine of oppesites by numerousexamples.

1 ^V. 75 ; Hippol. liefut. ix.9 : irdKffXos iravrw p.iv iraTT/p loriniiiTUDV Si /SairiAei'S, Kal tovs p.iv

8tovs 5ei rout Si avBp&novs, roi/sp.iv SovKovs itroitidf robs Si lK*u64-povs. Philodem. ir. Eucrt/Scias Col.

7- Chrysippus said. Zeus and theit6htp.os are the same, as Hera

cleitus also taught, vide supra, p.17, 2 ; Pint, De Is. c. 48, p. 370 :'HpetaAfiTos p.iv yap avriKpvs iroAe-H.0V ovopdfai iraTtpa Kal jSatriAca Kalitvpiov lrAmwv. Procl. in Tim.

64 A : 'Hp. . . . t\tyf ir6\(fiostotJjp irivruw . Fr. 77 : Orig. c.

Cels. vi. 42 : ei Si XP^I T0V tfatpAV46vto. %wbv Kal AIkt\i> lp*ir, Kalyiv6fjLfva irama kot' ipiv Kal XP*-

fiti'a, where Schleiermachor's readings, elSivai for tl Si aud tpiv foripiiv, are less bold than he himselfsupposes. I am not more certainthan he is about beginning with

Xptdpuva, for Lassalle's interpretation (i. 115 sq ), 'bestir themselves,' cannot be proved to be

Greek ; Brandis's au^ipava doesnot seem to me like Heracleitus.Schuster's conjecture, p. 199, appears preferable, Karaxpfiinwa,

'applying themselves to.' Aristotle(vide next note) confirms thewords yiv6ntva, &c. Hence thecensure of Homer, ap. Eudom. Eth.vii. 1, 1235 a, 25 : ol 'HpaKAcirott7TiT(^u t VOfflVCWTl " its (pit (K

re Qtiav tcaX avQputirwv airtJAoiTO." ovyap av elvou apuovlav uj) Svros d4os

koI fSapeos, oitSi to fcjja ivtv 8i)\tosKal afiptvos dvavriwp Syraay. Thesame is related by Plutarch, /. c.

(on which cf. Schuster, p. 197 sq.) :Chalcid. in Tim. c. 295; Schot.

Venet. z. II. xviii. 107 ; Simpl. inCateg. Scltol. in Ar. 88 b, 30, who,in making good this censure, oixii-ffwrdat yip

STRIFE. 3-1

must unite, in order that a concord, male and female,a new life, may be produced.1 What separates, uniteswith itself2: the structure of the world rests upon

opposite tension, like that of the bow and the lyre ; 3

ipyitorrai, etc., and Alexander,Aphrod. ap. David Schol. in Arist.81b, 33, who explains the natureof the i-irriKflfiffa in the A

34 HERACLEITUS.

whole and divided, congruous and incongruous, accordant and discordant, must unite in order that from all

same, De Tranqu. An. c. 15. p.473, while on the other hand weread. De An. Procr. 27, 2. p. 1026 :

'HpaKAeiTos 5e iraKlvTpoTrov apuo~Vi-f)V KiKTUOV OKtiHTITtp KipVS KOl

Tdjou. Simpl. P/it/s. 11 a: islHpdK\eiTus rb aya6bv ko! rb Kaxbv

ii rainbv \iyaiv ffvvUvat SIk^vt6^ovkoI A upas. Porphyry, Antr. Nymph.c. 29 : Kai 5ia toCto iroXivrovoy ^

apuovla Kai (al. ^) to|u Si' ivar-t(wc. The text, however, is here

no doubt corrupt ; Lassalle (i. 96sq., 112) takes 'shoot through as

synonymous with penetrate ' ; but

this seems to me impi&sible, and Ican credit neither Porphyry nor

Heracleitus with so monstrous animage as a harmony shooting witha bow. Schleiermacher. p. 70, conjectures instead of to4v(i : t6ov,

6i ; so that the meaning would be :' And therefore Harmony is calleda " strained back " harmony and aharmony of the bow because it is

brought about by contradictions.'In this case we should have expected, instead of ft 8i' iv, 8ti 8.t. i. Perhaps some words have

been lost, and Porphyry may harewritten k. 8. t. Tra\lvrpovos ijappiovla noaaov us \6pas Kai t6ov,

in 8. iv, or, as Schuster moresimply proposes (page 231) napuovla Kvpas Kai t6$oo efrrep 8i*

iv. The meaning of this expression ha* always been a difficulty,even in ancient times. If. accord

ing to the precedent of Plato'sEryximachus and of Plutarch, theapuovlr\ Kipits were understood ofthe harmony of tones, there wouldbe no corresponding meaning forthe appoviri t6ov, and if theapuorlri T

STRIFE. 35

one may come, as all come from one.1 In a word, thewhole world is ruled by the law of opposition.

cleitus has reference not to theform, but to the force of the bow

and of the lyre. ' As the two con-flictingmoments of the extinguishedand re-kindled fire condition the

phenomenon, so the strainingapart of the arms of the bow and

lyre conditions the tension ' (p.16). This conception also is compatible with the words, and cm-

tains a suitable sense. Lassalle,i. 105 sqq., opposes Bernays,but the ground on which he doesso appears to me not very impor

tant, and two of the passages towhich he refers, Apul. Be Jifiindo,c. 21, and Iambi, ap. Stob. Fhril.

81, 17, have nothing to do withthe question. The statement of

Porphyry (noticed above), evenwere the text of it in order, couldequally prove nothing. Synes. Be

Insomn. 133 A, compares the harmony of the world with that of the

lyre, and explains the latter by theharmony of tones : which makes itprobable, indeed, that in his explanation of Heracloitus's words

he is following Plato, but cannotaffect our judgment concerning

Heracleitus's own opinion. Lassalle himself understands our viewas ' a harmony of the lyre with the

bow' (p. 111). He observes(p. 113), ' Ber Bogen sei die Seitedes Hervorfliessene der Einzellieitund somit der Unterschiede ; dieLeyer die rich zur Einheit ordnendeBewefjutifl dertelben. The bow isthe side whence flows forth singu

larity, and therefore differences,the lyre is the movement which reduces them to order: an allegory

of which, indeed, no Neo-Platonistneed be ashamed, but which the

most skilful commentator wouldfind it impossible to harmonise

with Heracleitus's words. Theharmony of the world is, indeed,compared to that of the lyre and

the bow, which must, therefore, besomething known and given in experience, the point of the compari

son lies in the ira\lvrovos or vaKlv-Tpoiros ; but where is the mention

of a harmony of the lyre with thebow ; and what, on the other hand,are we to understand by the antitypea harmony of differences,changing into its opposite ?

' Fr. 98 ; Arist. he Mundo. c.5, 396 b, 19 : trvvityfias oi\a [km ]

ov^l oijut, tTvfx

36 HERACLEITUS.

On account of these statements Heracleitus is censured by Aristotle and his commentators for denying the

law of contradictories.1 Later writers on the other hand

maintain that it is his merit to have first recognisedthe unity of opposites, the identity of Being and non-

Being, and to have made it the foundation of his sys

tem.' Whether this be regarded as a merit or a defect,neither view of it is absolutely true. Heracleitus could

only be said to deny the law of contradictories if he

maintained that opposite qualities could belong to tbesame subject, not merely at the same time, but in the

same respect. But this he does not say. He observes,

pretation, and would seem to showthat the expressions should betakenin a wider sense; as in all the arts,

one arises, in to\K&v, and viceversa, but not (k wivraiv.

1 Arist. Mctaph. iv. S, 1005 b,23 : bbivarov yh.p bmivovv rairrbvbiro\ap.$aytiv (hat a\ uij enrol,Ka.Bi.vep Tiy otovrai (vide vol. i.

553, 1) *)>' 'HpinKcirov. Ibid,c. 4, init., where Heracleitus is not

indeed named, but is evidently intended ; ibid. c. 7, end : totite 8' 4p.ir 'HpaKXtirov \6yos, Xiyav itoi/to

elrcu xal i*)) flrat, fiircura &Xrjfl7Jireiftv. Similarly c. 8, init. ; ibid.xi. 5. 1062 a, 31 : tox&di 8' &v tis

teal alirby rbv 'HpAicktiTov . . . yvi-ynturtv bp.o\oyuy, fi7|5tVoTf tAs

avTiKtiutias- (pdatis Svyarbv (focuKara Tue avruy aXi)6eveffBai' viiv 8'

ov avyiels iavrov ri noTt Xiytt, rav-T7iP tAaSf tV Si(av. Ibid. c. 6,

1063 b. 24 ; Top. viii. 6, 155 b,30 : ayaBbv icol naxby (Jyai ravrby,KaSa-rep lr\pix\(ir6t ipriatv. Phys.

i. 2, 185 b, 19 : "4\A pMv el tok6ytp ty t4 tvra -Kirra . . . T&rHpanktirov \6yov avfifialytt kiytw

axnoiv TavTbv yitp tarcu a,ya6$ ko\Kcucy flvat KaX ^ii o.ya6$ Kcd ayadv.&o~re Tavrbv larai ayaBbv koX ovkayaBbv Kal av&puiros Ka\ 'faros. The

commentators express themselvessimilarly. Alex, ad Metaph. l'HO

a, 6; 1012 a, 21, 29; 1062 a, 25,36 b. 2, p. 265, 17 ; 294, 30 ; 295,

19; 296, 1,624 sq. Bon. : Themist.Phyt. 16. b (113 Sp.); Simpl.Phi/s. 11a, unt. 18, a, m ; cf. Las-salle, i. 80. Asklepius, Schnl. inAri.it. 652, a, 11 sq. attributes to

Heracleitus the proposition, ivaSpurtibv tlvai irdrTwp tu>v vpayn&rvv,but he only said this

STRIFE. 37

indeed, that one and the same essence assumes the

most opposite forms, and that in everything, the oppositeconditions and qualities between which, as subject to

Becoming, it fluctuates, are united. But that it unitesthem in one and the same respect, he does not sayfor

the reason, no doubt, that such a conception ( which asfar as we know was first expressly noticed by Plato andAristotle ' ) never occurred to him. Nor on the other

hand has he spoken of the unity of opposites, the unity ofBeing and non-Being, in so general a manner, and the

general view does not follow so absolutely from the ex

pressions he uses. To say that ' One and the same essenceis light and dark, day and night ; one and the same pro

cess is generation and destruction,' is one thing ; to saythat 'there is no difference between day and night, be

tween Being and non-Being as such,' is quite another ;to maintain the unity of opposites in the concrete is

not identical with maintaining it in the abstract ; toassert that opposites are found in the same subject, is

not to assert their identity. The former view alone canbe deduced from the examples which Heracleitus bringsforward, and4ie had no occasion to go farther, since his

concern was not with speculative logic, but withphysics. We must not, however, suppose 2 that his

proposition meant no more than this : ' Each thingdisplays very different qualities, either simultaneously,if it be suddenly brought into connection with several

other things, or successively, if it be opposed to one,

and that a variable thing ; ' in the language of Her-

1 Cf. Part ii. a, 527, 1, third edition,edition; Part ii. b, 171, second * Schuster, p. 236 sqq.

38 HERACLEITUS.

bart, that the co-existence of contraries is merely the

product of an accidental opinion. Of such an ideaneither Heracleitus' own utterances nor the ancient

accounts of him bear any trace. On the contrary, he

says quite universally and with no limitation whatever,that the things which are apparently opposed to each

othersuch as day and night, war and peace, aboveand below are one and the same ; and the limits of hisreflection are indicated by the fact that he has not as

yet enquired under what conditions, and in what sense,

this coincidence of opposites would be possible.

But though it is necessary that all things should be1 sundered into opposites, it is equally necessary that theI opposites should again combine to form a unity ; for

that which is most opposed originates from one and thesame; it is one essence which, in the course of itschanges, produces opposites and again cancels them ;which in all things produces itself, and in the working of conflicting principles sustains all as one.1 In

1 Fr. 67 ; Hippol. Refut. ix. irrespectively of Schuster's inter-10: i fobs v/iipy (v$o6vti, xf'H"l>' pretation, ' each one makes a labelBipos, (iX*/ioj ttptirn, x6pns Amuy for it at pleasure ') in that way we

dWoiou-rai Si uKwtnrep 8rav (TvfjLfiiyfj get no suitable sense, since theBvuiaaiTL- ovondfercu Kaff it$oid)v forms which the primitive matter

ixiarou. Bernays, Rh. Mus. ix. assumes in its transformation are245, in the second clause of this something objectively given, andfragment where the text is evi- cannot be described by any com-dently defective, would substitute parisons we may choose. It is

Biufia for 0vtifmai ; Schuster, p. rather to be explained thus : it188 would introduce otvos before (the air mixed with perfumes ) isBwiiuun. To me it seems still named according to the smell (videsimpler to read Ikus tip instead of vol. i. p. 291, 2) of any one of these$>cu

HARMOXY. 39

separating itself from itself, it unites itself with itself : l

out of strife comes existence, out of opposition, union ;

out of unlikeness, coincidence ; One comes out ofall ; * all things submit to the Deity for the concord

of the whole ; even the unlike unites itself to God and

becomes like ; even that which appears to men an evil,

is for them a good ; 3 and out of all things is produced

that hidden harmony of the world with which thebeauty of the visible cannot compare.4 This is the

Tas o< ir p o trrjynplas fira\afx-Pdyoy 8ia t&s rijs 6\T)S, St' fis

Kfx&pyxf, -rapaWd^fts. Here wehare nothing to do with appella

tions at pleasure. Teichmiiller,X. Stud. i. 66 sq., thinks the disputed sentence can be explained

without altering thetext, by makingthe snbject to trvptfuyp and 6vop.&-

C'tcu, Bt6t, by which is meant fire.For my part I cannot conceive, evenfrom Heracleitus's point of view, agod who becomes mixed with perfumes. Kofi" fiSov^y Teichmiiller

likewise translates 'at pleasure.'1 Plato, Soph. I. c, vide supra,p. 33, 2 ; cf. 252 B, where the dif

ference between Heracleitus endEmpedocles is said to be that Em-pedocles represents these states of

nnion and separation as alternating,and Heracleitus recognises in theseparation itself a continual and

contemporaneous union.* Cf. p. 35. 1.

Sehol. Ven. ad 11. iv. 4 : *o-

Acuoi Kal pdxat yuiv Setya Sokci rtpSi df(fi ovoi ravra Seiyd' trvyrtXti

yap a-Travra b Bebs npbs apptovtayriv (&AAv i) Kal evidently only a

different reading) S\*v oucoyop&vto ovpjQipoyra, Imp Kal 'HpaK\eiTOS

Xryti, &s rip p.iv 6t$ KaAa trdvra KaliUaia, avBptcnoi Si a ptiv aStKa inrti-

Kippaat, a Si Sixaia. Cf. Hippocr.ir. Sio(t. c. 11: Tr&rra yap Sputa,

av6ptoia idvra' Kal avprpopa irdvra,Stdtpopa I6vra' Sta\ty6p.va oO Sta-\cy6ptcya, yyafirjv txovra, aypu/xoya

(speaking and not speaking, rational and irrational, as the two

main divisions of the irdvTa). ir*f-yavrlos i rpovos fKdaraiy, bpto\o-yoi/fifyos .... a p.iv ovv avBpvnrot

%6t

40 HERACLEITUS.

Tovritrn ret bpara ray aapdruv . . .(c. 10) ovtois 'HpdK\(tTos iy Tot)p.olpa liQtrai Kal rifia t4 iwpavijrois acpavtffiv . . . tan -yap, q>i)

HARMONY. 41

divine law to which all things are subject,1 the &Ur)whose decrees nothing in the world can transgress ; 2

amat. ' The tree ' does not. indeed,belong, as Schuster thinks (Fr. 74,

p. 1 93, Nature loves to hide her

self, like a tree ; ' Teichmiiller follows him, A'. Stud. i. 183), to thecitation from Heracleitus ; it refers

to the tree previously mentionedby Philo, the oak of Mamre, Gen.xviii. 1, which is allegorised inthis way ; and if it appears other

wise in our Latin text, the twotranslators, or one of them, must

be" answerable for it. (TheArmenian text, as I am informed

by Petermann, stands literallythus: 'The tree, according to

Heracleitus our nature, loves toconceal and to hide itself.') Theproposition which is supported byThemistocles, Or. v. C9 b (^>wis Si

kcl& 'HpaxK. KorfrncfrBai pi\et, similarly in the second recension of Or.v. or xii. 159 b), and by Philo, DeProf. 476 C; Julian, Or. vii. 216

C (Strabo x. 3, 9, p. 467, does notbelong to this) that nature Kjuir-rta&tu Kal KaraoverrOat

42 HERACLE1TUS,

the dependence or necessity by which all things areruled.1 The same universal order, conceived as efficient J

259, 3) conjectures AiWtu to haveljeen the word UBed by Heraeleitus.Lassalle. i. 351 sqq., defends yKur-

tcu, and supports his reading byPhilostratus, Apoll. i. 25, 2, who

mentions four images of birds(firyyj), reminding us of divineretribution, named from the Bt&v

yhiiiTTai of the Magi ; and hethinks that he has hereby proved

ii"t only that the handmaidens ofDike were called ' tongues ' among

the Persians, but that Heraeleituswas acquainted with the religiousdoctrines and symbols of the Magi.

This is certainly a mistake; foreven if pictures of the wryneckas symbolical of ' retpice finem '

were used by the Persians andcalled the tongues of the gods, itwould not follow that the Erinnyeswere called tongues of the gods or

simply yK&TToi. But even Ber-nays's suggestive conjecture has tobe given up ; for Schuster, p. 184,ami previously Hubmann (cf.Schuster, p. 357), propose K\a8asfor ^XioTTaj (the spinners, the

Moirss. who, as goddesses of Death,know how to find the sun when it

would overstep the measure oftheir life). Cf. further concerning

Si'ict), Orig. c. Cels. vi. 42 (vide sup.p. 32, 1), and what is quoted p. 26,

1, from Cratylus. Clemens, Strom.iv. 478 B, Abcijs uvofia ovk an ifSf-

aav, does not seem to belong here.1 Plut. Plac. i. 27: 'Hj>ok\.rivra Kaff tlpapfiUvriv, ttqv 5i ahrty

vw&px*iv Kal avdytc-nv. So Theodo-ret, Cur. Gr. Aff. vi. 13, p. 87;

Diog. ix. 7 ; Stob. i. 68 ; supra ;Stob. i. 178 (Plac. i. 28): 'Hpet-K\fir. ovtxiav (luapfitv^s aT*q>aive~to \6yov toy 8i& ovalas tov xayrbs

Si^Koira, o0tt; 5* icrl to aidipievtrufia, avep/juL ttji tov icavrbs ytvi-ffews koi trepioSov fiirpov TtTayfitirris.

itdvra Si Ka6' tlpLappcrnv, t^v 5'ovt^v vTrapx*tvav6.yKr\v'ypA$uyovv

taTi yap el^apfidtrq iravTcos. Herethere is a break in the text whichis the more to be regretted, as

Heraeleitus' own words are aboutto follow, wheroas what goes beforehas such a Stoical sound that it isof little consequence to us whether

the words from a&Yij to ytvtotusare (according to Sehleiermacher'sconjecture, p. 74) an interpolationrelating to oubv, ixitrraa&ai yvtbfnjv

JJre of tyituf}fiiv4)fftt Trivra (Neut,plur.) 8ii Trirrtui'. Instead of the

senseless ol iyitvfi. Schleiormaeherconjectures, p. 109 (cf. Lassalle, i.

334 sq.), dtn Kv&fpviioti, Beruays,Eh. Mus. ix. 252 sq., oicucffti,

ZEUS ASD THE ORDER OF THE WORLD. 43

force, is called the world-ruling wisdom, the \6yos,1

Schuster, p. 66, oTij rt KvfStpviiati,or ii) (oTi) rt) KvPfpinjacu, and

K-vfrfpiav is often found in a similarconnection, with Heracleitus andothers, as Schuster and Lassalleprove. Fr. 14 ; Orig. c. Cela. vi.

i 2 : r\6os yap avQptetrtiov p.iu o?*ktxtl vfyvv, Btiov Si 1xft- Pint.1M It. 76 : t) Si fcaa . . . 6v lariv,%v rravra eioVva* (cf. p. 45, w.) ; butthe interpretation 'not listeuing tome, but to the speech as such, the

contents of the speech, the reasons '(cf. Schuster, 83, 228) is also admissible. On the other hand, in thedefinitions quoted in the previousnote and at p. 31 , 2, from Stobseus,

of the (luapniin], the \6yos is nodoubt taken from the Stoic terminology ; ap. Clem. Strom, v. 599 C,

the Sioticuv \6yos Kai debs is notfound, as Lassalle thinks (ii. 60),in the citation from Heracleitus,

but in the interpretation by theStoics of Heracleitus's words ; this

interpretation itself is very inexact,

44 HERACLEITUS.

Zeus or the Deity 'and so far as it produces the endless series of cosmical periods, and of the varying conditions dependent on them, the ..Eon.2 All these conceptions signify with Heracleitus one and the same thing,3

and the world-forming force as active subject is nothere distinguished from the universe and the universalorder.4 This force, however, also coincides with the

and is expressly described byClemens as an addition of his own

(Svvdnftyap \fyti, ' the meaning ofhis statement is '). Also in Marcus Auielius, iv. 46 (vide sup. p.

8, n.), it is the Stoic who adds tothe words, $ fiaXtara SiijyeKus ifJU'Kovat \6ytp, these : ry ret 'oka, Sioi-

kovvti Originally scarcely moieMas intended by them than by theparallel passage : of* koS' tj/isVo"

iyxvpovixi, that which is constantlypresented to the eyes of men. Las-

salle, ii. 63, thinks he has discovered in Ft. 48, vide inf. p. 65, 1,

the pre-existeuce of the Logos, butwe shall find that k6yos here means

nothing more than relation