Chapter X: Eclecticism and Reaction

[Sidenote: The “bankruptcy of science.”]

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

Footnote 986:

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

Footnote 987:

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

I. HIPPON OF SAMOS

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

Footnote 988:

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

Footnote 989:

Schol. on _Clouds_, 94 sqq.

Footnote 990:

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

[Sidenote: Moisture.]

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

Footnote 991:

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

Footnote 992:

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

Footnote 993:

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 994:

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

Footnote 995:

Sext. _adv. Math._ ix. 360.

II. DIOGENES OF APOLLONIA

[Sidenote: Date.]

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

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

Footnote 996:

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

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

Footnote 997:

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

Footnote 998:

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

Footnote 999:

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

Footnote 1000:

Cf. Chap. VII. pp. 327 sqq.

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

Footnote 1001:

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

[Sidenote: Writings.]

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

Footnote 1002:

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

Footnote 1003:

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

Footnote 1004:

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

[Sidenote: The Fragments.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 1005:

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

Footnote 1006:

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

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

Footnote 1007:

Arist. _Hist. An._ Γ, 2. 511 b 30.

Footnote 1008:

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

[Sidenote: Cosmology.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 1009:

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

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

Footnote 1010:

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

Footnote 1011:

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

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

Footnote 1012:

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

Footnote 1013:

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

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

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

Footnote 1014:

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

Footnote 1015:

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

[Sidenote: Animals and plants.]

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

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

Footnote 1016:

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

Footnote 1017:

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

III. ARCHELAOS OF ATHENS

[Sidenote: Anaxagoreans.]

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

Footnote 1018:

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

Footnote 1019:

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

Footnote 1020:

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

Footnote 1021:

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

[Sidenote: Cosmology.]

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

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

Footnote 1022:

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

Footnote 1023:

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

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

Footnote 1024:

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

[Sidenote: Conclusion.]

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

Footnote 1025:

Aet. ii. 1, 3.

Footnote 1026:

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

Footnote 1027:

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

Footnote 1028:

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

Footnote 1029:

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