Professional Documents
Culture Documents
American Academy of Arts & Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
http://www.jstor.org
I? pt $i?<r ?>s.
A STUDY OF THE CONCEPTION OF NATURE
PRE-SOCRATICS.1
By
Presented
William
by M. H. Morgan,
October
Arthur
AMONG THE
Heidel.
November
3, 1909.
"
Professor
John Burnet says :2 So far as I know, no historian of
Greek philosophy has clearly laid it down that the word used by the
early cosmologists to express this idea of a permanent and primary sub
stance was none other than <?wis ;3 and that the title ILepl <$>vo-em,
so
to
of
sixth
fifth
the
and
wTorks
centuries
commonly given
philosophical
B. c.,4 means simply Concerning the Primary
Substance.
Both Plato
and Aristotle use the term in this sense when they are discussing the
1 This
before
paper was begun in the spring of 1908, and was read in substance
the Classical Club of Princeton
Dec. 17, 1908.
University,
2
Greek Philosophy,
2d ed., 1908, p. 12 foil.
Early
3
view that Anaxi
Burnet,
ibid., p. 13 foil., p. 57, n. 1, rejects the traditional
so used ?pxh, which,
mander
he says, "is in this sense purely Aristotelian."
This
and the other that "To Anaximander
statement,
?pxv could only have meant
begin
uno rcop
II. povaoop, 51 (7, 584 Littr?)
; cp. Hippocrates,
ning,'" are open to question
okws ?pyafoprai
ai ?pxai
?pX&p ?dararai ?p ei'pr/tca oi irdpra, and ibid. (7, 590 Littr?)
es povaop. Cp. Philolaus,
fr. 6 ?irei ??
rr/p d?ppLr/pKai rr/p rapaxw
T$ v7Pt> vir?yovaai
rai ?pxai vircLpxop oi>x bpLO?aiov?' opi?cpvXoi ?aaai, fr. 8 r/p2p piop?s <bs ?p ?pxv odaa
that all the
iraprup, fr. 11 ?px? Kai ayepi?p, though I lay no stress on these, believing
occurs in the Eudemian
so-called
of Philolaus,
fr. 16, which
fragments
excepting
are spurious.
This use of ?px'h ? causal principle
Ethics,
Cp. also note 166, below.
'
'
=
sense
The
Aristotelian
may well have been old ; cp. irr/yr) and pifa/xa
aroixe?ov.
of ?pxv occurs
in Plato, Tim.
48 B ; cp. Diels, Elementum,
Burnet
also
p. 20.
Anaximander
called this something
says (p. 56) "That
[i.e. his "Aweipop] by the
name of (pvais, is clear from the
likewise may fairly
This
statement
doxographers."
be challenged.
4 Burnet
here adds in a note : "I do not mean
to imply that the philosophers
used this title themselves
The writer men
had no titles.
; for early prose writings
as Herodotus,
tioned his name and the subject of his work in the first sentence,
for
As the titles were, in all probability,
added later it is interesting
instance, does."
: r? y?p r?p
to note the words
i. 9, p. 487 K?hn
of Galen, de Elem. sec. Hippocr.
iraXai?P ?irapra irepi (p?aews ?iriy?ypairrai,
r? ?lappiepi?ov, r? 'J?pLire?o
r? MeXlaaov,
It was there
Kai r?v ?XX p ?ir?vrup.
KX?ovs, 'AXKpialwp?s re Kai Topylov, Kai UpooUov,
fore, as we shall see, a sort of blanket-title.
80
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
earlier philosophy,5 and its history shows clearly enough what its origi
In Greek philosophical
nal meaning must have been.
language, <?wris
means
is
and persistent,
which
that
primary, fundamental,
always
as opposed to what is secondary, derivative, and transient ; what is
It is what is
'given/ as opposed to that which is made or becomes.
there to begin with."
"There is one important conclusion," says Professor Burnet,6 "that
follows at once from the account just given of the meaning of 4>v<n<;,
and it is, that the search for the primary substance really was the thing
Had their main object been,
that interested the Ionian philosophers.
as Teichm?ller held it was, the explanation of celestial and meteorolog
their researches would not have been called7 Ilept
ical phenomena,
<?vo-eco? IcrTopLYj,but
rather
Ilepl
ovpavov
or ILepl
/xeTewpwv."
HEIDEL.
?
Ilepl
?$.
<j>v<r
81
9 Besides
we have incorporated
titles from Hecataeus
Herodotus,
(fr. 332 M?ller),
of Syracuse
Alcmaeon
It is possi
(fr. 3 M?ller),
(fr. 1), and Thucydides.
ble that the Mt/cpos At?/coc^os of Democritus
had such a title ; cp. Diog. Laert. IX. 41.
We have, howTever, what are said to be the opening words of other works, but mention
the name of the author nor the subject ; e. g. Heraclitus,
neither
fr. 1 ; Archytas,
fr. 1 ; Protagoras,
of Apollonia,
fr. 1 ; Anaxagoras,
fr. 1 and 4 ; Diogenes
fr. 1. For
Antiochus
to him to be genuine
attributed
those who hold the fragments
I may add, Philolaus,
that
the incorporated
fr. 1. One may, of course, assume
in these cases
title was
a formal title had been substituted
either because
for it, or because
it
disregarded,
was considered
The works of Hippocrates,
do not have incor
however,
negligible.
the author ;. but have in some cases an introductory
sentence
porated titles naming
e. g. ?. ywaiKe?rjs <p?aLos (7,312
the subject:
which announces
irepi ?? rrjs
Littr?)
fr. 165 X?yu r??e
yvpaLK ?7)s <f)?<rios Kai pocrrjfjL?r?vpr??e X?yw ; similarly Democritus,
irepi t?p ?vfjLw?prwp. Cp. also Hippocrates
(Littr?) 8, 10 ; 8, 408 ; 8, 466 ; 8, 556 ;
8, 512.
10
n. ?px> ?TjTpiKrjs,20 (1, 620 Littr?)
reipei ?? avro?s o X?yos es (piXoao
Hippocr.
<pirjp,Kad?irep 'EfJLire?oKXrjsrj ?XXoi o? irepi <p?o~iosyeypdcpacrip. ?y?) ?? rovro fx?p, ?>'<ra
Tivi e?pr/rai $/ o-o<pi<rrfi f? ly/rpco 9/ y?ypairrai
irepi <f)?<rios,fj<T(roppo/jlL^??rfj ir/rpiKr/ r?x^XI
irpoo"f}K i,p fj r% ypa<pLK7J. II. o~apK?p, 15 (8,604 Littr?) Kai ela? tlpss o? ?Xe?ap <?>v<tlp
we lind such titles as
In Hippocrates
%vyyp?<popres On o ?yK?cpaXos ?anp 6 i?x^v.
The
(p?aios ?ar?cop, II. <p?crios irai?iov, U. R?enos ?pdpd?irov, n.
yvpaiKe?r/s.
<f>?<TLos
of these titles will be seen, I trust,
in the sequel.
It may
com
excite
meaning
ment
to do otherwise
I do so because
tha,t I quote Hippocrates
indiscriminately.
were to, prejudge
a question
not yet settled ?
I incline to
hardly even fairly put.
of the Corpus Eippocrateum
that the works
the opinion
one or two
(with possibly
to the fifth century
and points
of
; at any rate, the conceptions
belong
exceptions)
show few traces of the influence of Socratic
view they present
thought.
11 Xen. Mem.
I. 1, 14 t?p re irepi rrjs tup it?ptup <j>v<T
ios ixepifxPL?Prwp ; Plato,
96 A (see above, note 7) ?y? y?p, ?cfyq (se. ? 'EcoKpdrrjs), p?os ?p
Legg. 891 C ; Phaedo
n.
is
Bav/marCos Cos?iredv/uLrjcrara?rrjs rrjs o~o<p?asfjp ?ij tcaXoda? irepi (p?aeus larop?ap, which
of great importance
since in this connexion
Plato most
the relation
clearly defines
to that of the <?>v<tikoI; for Aristotle
of the Socratic-Platonic
it is hardly
philosophy
to do more than refer to Bonitz's Index under the expressions
oi <pvo~tKoi,oi
necessary
irepi (pvaeus, ol <f>vff?oX?yoi, tpvcrioXoye?p.
?
6
VOL. XLV.
PROCEEDINGS
82
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
"
further statements that
the search for the primary substance really
"
was the thing that interested the Ionian philosophers" and that Greek
philosophy began, as it ended, with the search for what was abiding in
the flux of things ;" it must be said that so to define the scope of Greek
philosophy were to reduce it to terms which are well-nigh nugatory.
Greek philosophy did, indeed, seek the permanent amid the flowing ;
but, as the first determined effort of the human mind to frame a sci
This ex
ence, it sought an explanation of the fleeting phenomena.
it found ultimately
in that which abides, and gave to it
planation
various names : but it was not the permanence, but the causality, of
the viroKtLfjitvovto which, as scientists, the Greek philosophers devoted
Aristotle was clearly right in refusing to regard
their chief attention.12
the Eleatics, in so far as they adhered to their metaphysical
principles
which excluded causality and motion, as <j>v(tlkol.
I.
"One may
"
niasses."
a remote
No
past,
matter
we
come
what
at
historical
last
to
phenomenon
All
human
religion.
we
apperceptive
may
trace
conceptions,
to
so
: so Greek
philosophy
as
a whole
was
not
creation
e nihilo.
HEIDEL.
?
Ilept
<J>vct<?S.
83
15
Teachers of Greece, p. 22.
If Tha?es said irdpra irXf)prj
Cp. Adam, The Religious
'
'
of Homeric
out of harmony with
the new philo
Be?p, it was a survival
thought
are common
Such survivals, however,
in all ages.
sophical movement.
16
ibid., p. 24.
Cp. Adam,
17 II. XIV.
18 II.
That
this passage
is cosmological
was seen by
xx, xxi.
in the
Theagenes
sixth century,
b.c. (see Schol. II. B on T, 67), and
Pise
emphasized
by Murray,
of
the Greek Epic,
Theorien
des griechi
p. 239 if., and by Gilbert, Bie meteorologischen
schen Altertums,
p. 25, n. 2.
PROCEEDINGS
84
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
easy.
982b 18.
983b 20 and
not expressly
It is noteworthy
Aris
27 foil., transi. Ross.
that, though
assent to the interpretation
of the myth,
he evidently
has
totle does
of refuting it.
no thought
21 Philos. 26
(Diels, Dox. 574, 14).
23
For this passage see Diels,
40, ? 29.
Plato, Soph. 242 C.
Vorsokr.,*
23
1071b 26 foil., 1075b 26 foil.
Cp., e.g.,' Met.
24 Met. 993a 15 foil.
prelude to the myth, Plato, Polit. 268 E.
Cp. the interesting
stimulated
the tendency
to allegorical
and
This conception
powerfully
interpretation,
freedom in reinterpreting
his predecessors.
for Aristotle's
accounts
25 I directed
to several
of somewhat
instances
attention
violent
reinterpretation
HEIDEL.
?
Ilepl
<|>v<r?>s.
85
offered a like apology, only with larger charity, for the still earlier cosmog
'
'
26 in the same
onists.
spirit remarked upon the poetic
Theophrastus
diction of Anaximander
because he referred to the mutual encroach
'
ment of the elements as injustice/
Indeed, the mythical cast of much
of the earlier philosophy is so.marked as to constitute a serious prob
lem to the historical student, who desires to interpret fairly the thought
of the age. This fact, duly considered, throws light in both directions.
em
It shows, on the one hand, that theogonists and cosmogonists
or
names
at
to
the
of
divinities
any
designate philosophical,
ployed
rate, quasi-philosophical
concepts ; but it also shows that the philoso
phers were not themselves conscious of a complete break with the past.
Thus, while the theogonists pictured the origin and operations of the
world in terms of the history and behavior of mythical
characters,
often so vaguely and imperfectly conceived27 as at once to betray their
factitious nature, the philosophers applied to their principles and ele
ments names and epithets proper to the gods.28
This course was,
and
natural
to
the
indeed, extraordinarily easy
Greeks, whose religion
wras in its higher phases essentially a worship of Nature.29
But this
in her more significant aspects was in itselt
very worship of Nature
one of the chief influences which predisposed the Greeks to a philoso
phy of Nature.
There are certain picturesque effects of this intimate historical con
on nature with theology (in the Greek sense),
nexion of speculation
which are perhaps worth noting.
Aristotle
repeatedly uses the ex
pression
/cocr/xov y?vvav
in my
of his precursors
f?r Gesch. der Philos.,
alongside
KO fjL07roL?v or
KocrfjLoiroda
in reference
Change in Pre-Socratic
Philosophy
(Archiv,
study, Qualitative
There seem still to remain a few scholars who, even
1906).
of this tendency
noted by Natorp
after the illustrations
(e. g., Philos. Monatshefte,
are unaccountably
blind to it.
xxx.
345) and Burnet,
26
I. 2, p. 24, 20 (Diels).
Apud Simpl. In Phys.
27
II. 114 and
Parmenides
See, e.g., Diels,
p. 10 ; Rohde, Psyche,
Lehrgedicht,
Gesch. des Altertums,
I, a (2d ed.), p. 100 foil.; Burnet,
115, n. 2; Ed. Meyer,
Greek Philosophy,
Early
(2d ed.) p. 74 foil.
28
Rh. M., N. F., 64, p. 189.
Cp. Otto Gilbert, Ionier und Eleaten,
Empedocles
deifies the Sphere, the elements, and the efficient causes, Love and Strife.
The practice
The question
continues
Greek
is where
belief ends
thought.
throughout
religious
: see Millerd,
On the Interpretation
and metaphor
I do
of Empedocles,
p. 34.
begins
as well as Gilbert
not doubt that Professor Millerd,
Theorien,
etc.,
(1. c. and Meteorol.
Teachers
of Greece, pp.
184-190,
248, 250, go
p. 110, n. 1) and Adam, The Religious
'
*
as sober belief what was in fact poetic
See Burnet,
too far in accepting
metaphor.
unter Griechen
Rohde
unsterblich
says (Psyche n. 2) "Wer
p. 74 foil., p. 288 foil.
This
statement
sagt, sagt Gott : das sind Wechselbegriffe."
certainly
requires quali
fication
; but this is not the place to discuss the matter at length.
29 Ed.
Gesch. des Altertums,
I, a (2d ed.), pp. 97-100,
Meyer,
distinguishes,?
?
two classes of gods : I. universal
con
aside from purely magical
beings,
gods,
PROCEEDINGS
86
to philosophical
tence
are
called
the philosophers
accounts
Ikjovol
OF
THE
AMERICAN
of creation
or a-rroyovoL
of
ACADEMY.
elements.31
the genealogy
forms of exis
In
other
words,
of the world.32
ceived
where
153 A.
Cp. Plato, Theaet.
See my
as, e. g. r? ?? ?XXa ?k rovrwp.
abound,
article,
expre?sions
notes 36 and 41.
Philosophy,
Change in Pre-Socratic
Qualitative
32 In this connexion
of Greek historiography
it is proper to refer to the beginnings
?
In each case it is the desire of the ?arwp to go back to first
both are iaropiai.
"
Professor Millerd
Ilepl (pvaetos as a "world
story ;
speaks of Empedocles'
principles.
con
in
to have grown up among the Greeks
such in truth it is. History
appears
events.
In Xeno
similar
Kriaeis and other
with Genealogy,
nexion
dealing with
of iaropLa were naturally
united.
to tradition,
the two interests
according
phanes,
his natural
constituted
of the present world
derivation
;
His physical
philosophy
of
to have
on the historical
side, he is reported
composed poems on the founding
Met.
984b 8.
31 Similar
HEIDEL.
?
Ilepl
ws.
<(>v'<r
87
with
him
?xvOoXoy?a
is associated
with'
ttoltjo-ls,
and,
when
contrasted
. . . ro?cr
ovS?v xprjo-Tov
evecm.
Indeed,
what
could
Such
fic
tions profit an age that was busily engaged in sweeping the mists from
the crest of Olympus to let in the dry light of reason 1 Hecataeus, an
other child of the sixth century and a Xoyoyp?fos or devotee of lo-rop?a,
in the introductory sentence of his Genealogies, says :34 "I write the
following as it seems to me in truth ; for the tales (Ao'yot) of the Greeks
are many and, as I think, absurd." He employs the term Ao'yotwhere
a later writer would probably have said jjlvOol; for he refers to Greek
Yet \6yos had even in his day come to mean
mythical genealogies.
35 as
prose
opposed to epic composition, and Hecataeus proposed to use
the 'new vehicle of artistic expression in the service of sober truth or
that he criticises the stories of "the
to-ropta.36 It is noteworthy
the gods in prayer and enforcing
of the request by giving the
the fulfilment
genealogy
I. 132 says, the Beoyoplrj) of the divinities.
This
is in turn con
(or as Herodotus,
"
"
which
in
the magical
consists
nected with
the cause
and
assigning
procedure,
e.
the
wound
how
that
con
thus
g., produced
which,
(say, iron) originated,
telling
a cure.
the cause and effecting
On this see Stewart, The Myths
trolling
of Plato,
p. 10 foil., who calls this the ''aetiological
myth."
33 See
Diels, Parmenides
p. 10.
Lehrgedicht,
34 Fr.
332, M?ller.
35 What
the substitution
of prose for verse meant
to philosophical
can be
thought
best appreciated,
in connexion
with Parmenides
and Empedocles.
Par
perhaps,
menides
tried to write verse like a philosopher,
and was ridiculed as a
shabby poet ;
tried to write philosophy
like a poet, and is regarded
as a fifth-rate
Empedocles
for his pains.
thinker
36 For
I. 1 ; for \o70s,
1. 21.
For the whole
iaroplr/ see Stein on Hdt.
ibid.,
see Bury, Ancient
Greek Historians,
matter,
p. 16.
PROCEEDINGS
88
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
37
The new era of travel and
Greeks,"
finding them utterly ridiculous.
research had brought to light many an evidence that things were not
what they seemed, at least that much which passed for true and un
questionable among the Greeks was differently conceived or otherwise
done in other lands.38 The age of the Sophists merely made common
property what had for a hundred years exercised the wits of the great
leaders of the new thought.
We have seen that Greek religion in the Homeric age harbored two
conceptions which contained the promise of disintegration,
though they
to the one conception
still dwelt peacefully side by side. According
"
natural," occasioning
every event was equally divine and so equally
no surprise ; according to the other, certain provinces of the world,
physical and intellectual, were apportioned to the "wide-ruling gods"
of Olympus.
The former tended to dull the faculty of curiosity, the
latter to stimulate it. For, in a sense, the Olympians were personified
laws of Nature.
With the increasing organization of experience came
"
"
and overlordship of Zeus, who
greater emphasis upon the G?tterstaat
assumed more and more the title of Oe?spar excellence and subordinated
the lesser gods to himself, reducing them in the end to expressions of
But back of Zeus, even in Homer, lurks the
his sovereign pleasure.
power of Motpa, before whose might even the "pleasure"
mysterious
of Zeus avails little. As Zeus subdues the lesser gods, so Fate or Law
But the bright patterns woven
subdues Zeus to her inexorable will.
based as they were upon personal caprice and
into Greek mythology,
37
:
Abh. der Berl. Akad.,
1882, p. 70, refers to Anaxagoras
(fr. 17 Diels
Bernays,
to Hecataeus
rb ?? yipeaBai Kai dir?XXvada? ovk ?pd?s popX?ovaip oi^XXr/ves),
(fr. 332),
Philodemus
(II. evae?das p. 84, Gomp. : ?aovs <paaip oi Hap?XXrjpes Oeovs) and adds :
von dem Volk zu reden."
"Es ist die vornehme Art der Philosophen
Compare also
The feeling is deeper than mere pride : it marks
fr. 8 and 9 (Diels).
the
Empedocles,
as the statement
of (pvais, over the popular
exaltation
of the philosophical
\070s,
Greek Historians,
stands for poplos and pivdos. Bury, Ancient
X?70S which
p. 51, n. 2,
oi "EXXr/pes he is contrasting
the
remarks that w7hen Herodotus
quotes and criticises
or Egyptians,
that of Phoenicians,
and "is really
with
tradition
Greek
Persians,
on oi "EXXrjpes, that is, on the current
of Hecataeus
criticisms
of
quoting
mythology
tradition."
38 It would
giving direction
epic
etc.,
clearly
Sophists.
originated
in the sixth
century,
and supplied
the arsenal
of
HEIDEL.
Il pl
0)S.
<J)VCT
89
<j>vo-Lo\oyicL
is
simply
?oyos
or
toTopta
7rcpt
?
</>ixre(o?,
the
child
and Fall,
ch. 66.
See Adam's
607 B.
Repub.
p. 2 foil., 401 foil.
41
368 A (with Adam's
Repub.
42
22 A foil., etc.
Apol.
40
note
note).
Teachers
of Greece,
OF
PROCEEDINGS
90
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
in apol
inclination : 6 y?p ?o'yo? ^u?? fipei, he says of himself43
ogizing for expelling Homer from the ideal state of the philosopher
king.
to Pythocles 44 a distinction is drawn be
In the Epicurean Epistle
tween such phenomena as admit of but one rational explanation and
such as admit of several explanations equally consonant with the data
In the former, the conclusion must be categorically affirmed ;
of sense.
in regard to the latter, one must suspend judgment : "for one must
into the operations of nature, not in accordance
conduct investigations
with vain dogmas and ex-cathedra pronouncements, but according as the
his
demand.
phenomena
. . . But
one
when
fails
to
state
one
possible
ex
planation and rejects another that is equally consonant with the data
of sense, it is evident that one falls wholly outside the breastworks of
science and lapses into /xi)0o?."45
From
the
first
<$>vo-io\oyLa
or
laropia
disregards
irepl
religious
<?vo-ea>? is
authority
characterized
46
by
{vo^o?eo-?a of
43
HEIDEL.
pl
<|>v<ra>s. 91
OF
PROCEEDINGS
92
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
as,
e.
g.,
in the
treatise
II.
Ieprjs vovo-ov,
the
gods
are
definitely
ruled out as a particular cause, and only the elemental substances, which
rule in the human frame, are recognized as divine.54
Thus the divine
working becomes another name for the operation of Nature.
II. acpwv
A good illustration of this procedure is found inHippocrates,
vS?r?Jv T?7IW. After remarking that the Scythians worship the eunuchs
because they attribute their estate to a god and fear a like fate for
"I myself regard this as divine, as
the author says:55
themselves,
well as everything else. One is not more divine nor human 56 than
Yet every
another ; but all are on the same level, and all are divine.
one of these things has its natural cause, and none occurs without a
natural cause. I will now explain how inmy opinion this comes about."
the author proceeds to give a purely naturalistic explana
Whereupon
tion.
You
will
note
here
the
words
'?kolo-tov
. . .
e\et
57
52 See
see Hippocr.
n.
For the physicians,
above, n. 37.
?pdpup, 67 (4, 280
Littr?), UpoppijTLK?P, 2 (9, 10 Littr?), n. r?xvr/s, 1 (6, 2 Littr?).
53 n.
yvpaiKe?r/s (j>vo~ios,1 (7, 312 Littr?).
Similarly Hpoypwo-riK?p, 1 (2,112 Littr?)
to see whether
it is
it is required that the physician
study the nature of the disease
for the strength
of the body, a/na ?? Kai et ri deiop ?pecrri ?prrjo-i povaoiai,
too powerful
is with
Kai rovr?ov rr/p irp?poiap K/uLap0?peiP. Yet, the main business of the physician
the disease and its natural causes, which he must combat.
54
: ravra ?' eo~ri 6e?a, tiare
n.
/irjoep
ieprjs po?aov, 18 (6, 394 Littr?)
Hippocr.
?iaKpipopra rb poucrrj/ia dei?repop rCjp Xolit?p lovar/fidrtap po/ii?eiP, ?XX? irdpra Beta Kai
For the last phrase
<pv<rip?? 2%et ?Kacrrop /cat ?vpa/up ?(j> ?uvrov.
?pdpuiripa ir?pra
see n. 57.
56
55 Ch.
n.
54.
22, p. 64 K?hlewein.
Cp.
57
in these words a protest
Philos. Monatshefte,
21, 581 detects
against
Natorp,
of
the supposition
I think he is in error : it is rather a protest
against
teleology.
HEIDEL.
Kal
ovB?v ?vev
?
c?>vo-io<sy?verai.
?
Ilepl
4>vo- ?>s.
"
Every
thing
has
93
its natural
cause
and
l?e?p, ov??p
it is omitted
392-395.
?p ra?s
by Diels.
?iro??aeai
Cp. Gilbert,
irpoaxpVTai
Aristoteles
rip
und
94
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
to his
pocrates,61 and was, apparently, the r?le assigned by Anaxagoras
could find no better solution
No9s. Disguise it as he might, Aristotle
Plato 62 puts the question sharply as between God
of the problem.
and Nature, and says that the majority favor the latter.
Such, indeed,
was for the moment the logical outcome of the pre-Socratic movement
It might be allowed that the idea of God was innate ;63
of thought.
all
other
like
ideas, it was more likely to be regarded as having a
but,
as
and
requiring explanation along with the other immediate
history,
Thus, among others,
(<?vcri?)or mediate (vo/xo?) products of nature.
Critias 64 explained belief in the gods as a deliberate fiction concocted
by a clever statesman to enforce morality beyond the reach of the law,
man by r? ^crewpa. It
supporting it with the natural fears inspired in
is not necessary here to rehearse the familiar story of rationalism as
65 but it is not too much
applied to religion in the fifth century, b.c.;
to say that philosophy had deliberately enthroned Nature in the place
of God.
could not so remain
But nature, thus completely depersonalized,
as
that
the power
Conceived
brings to pass all the events
indefinitely.
nature
sum
became in fact a Creator
of
the
experience,
constituting
and Governor, only deprived of reason and purpose, and identified
The Greek mind, with its plastic imagin
with the sum of existence.66
to acquiesce in this imper
ation, was not likely, however, permanently
sonal view of nature, although Qvo-is was extremely late in attaining
Yet, as we shall see,68 a good beginning
personification as a deity.67
was made in the pre-Socratic period.
The transfer of the functions
of the
to
<?ucri?
and attributes of the ancient gods
by the philosophers
61 II.
<f>?(7ip?e ir?vrcov 6eoi di K?<7jUiT](Tap.
?ia?T-qs, I. 11 (6, 486 Littr?)
62
. . . fxCov?XKov tipos % ?eov
Soph. 265 C f(Ja drj ir?vra Qptyra Kai drj Kai <f>vr?
irpbrepop ovk ?vtcl ; >)r<? r v tt?WCop ?Sypari
?arepov yiypeadai
8r)fjLiovpyovvTOS <pr}<ro?ULev
air? tipos curtas aUTO/narys Kai ?pev
avr? yew?v
Kat prj/JLCLTi
Tty <f>?<Tiv
xP(^fJL l/0L
?tapoias <pvoTL)(T7?s,
t) fiera \6yov re Kai eVtcrr^jU^s OeLas ?irb Oeov yLypofji?prjs ;
63
Kai y?p fi?Xiara 77 irepl 6eQ>p
n.
evaxwo(T^V7l^i 6 (9, 234 Littr?)
Hippocrates,
?5t](Tls p p?ip avTT] efiirXeKerai.
64 In the
fr. 25 (Diels).
Satyr drama Sisyphus,
65 See
chez les Grecs, 1904.
La Critique des Traditions
Religieuses
Decharme,
66
drawn from that passage
the follow
additions
the necessary
Cp. n. 62. With
1. 80, 9Wachsmuth)
well
of 0tW
expresses
(Stobaeus,
by Iamblichus
ing definition
: 0&rtz> ?? X?7w ttjp ?x?purrop
air?ap tov k6<j^ov
of the pre-Socratics
the conception
Kai ?xupio-Tws irepi?xov?rap ras 5Xas curias rrjs yep?aews.
(Stobaeus
Cp. also Hermes
I. 289, 26 Wachsmuth)
(pvrjp (= <p?<rip)wap?xei
i] <p?<ris ir?prup, <p?ov<Tar? ytyp?fiepa,
rots
<f>vofi?poLS.
67 See K.
Preisendanz,
Philologus,
in the tenth Orphic Hymn.
? See
below, notes 106 foil.
XLVIH.
$tf(rts is worshipped
HEIDEL.
pl
<j>v(T(os.
95
96
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
HEIDEL.
Synopsis
rk.
of the Uses
in the
concrete
of (piais.
: growth
=
((pvais y?peais)
(p?ais as a J
: growth
process.
1 B. in the abstract
of nature.
L
I.
IL
(puais as
the begin
of a"
ning
process.
III.
(piais as
the end or
result of a
process.
(Aristotle's
"final
cause,"
in
which,
the com
plete circle
is identified
with the
''
efficient
cause.")
97
II?pV 4>v<r?i>s.
as a phenomenon
as a law, principle
or fact
or
'
force
'
regarded negatively,
as
natural
limita
tions.
Let us now turn to the uses of </>tW, following the order of the syn
involved in them. Etymologically
opsis and noting the implications
"
means "growth : as an abstract verbal its first suggestion (I.)
<f>vo-Ls
is that of a process.
The process of growth may be regarded concretely
fuller
is Woodbridge,
Somewhat
The Dominant
Paris, 1901, pp. 65-69.
Anciens,
Greek Philosophy,
Philos. Rev.,
which
1901, pp. 359-374,
of the Earliest
Conception
was brought
to my attention,
after this article was in the hands of the printer, by
The Meaning
Rev.
Philos.
of (pvais in the Greek Physiologers,
(July),
Lovejoy,
Professor W. A. Merrill's
and Use
1909, pp. 369-383.
study of The Signification
of the American
Philol.
by Lucretius
Ass'n,
of the Word Natura
(Proceedings
will serve as an interesting
of the
illustration
July, 1891, vol. 22, pp. xxxii-xxxiv)
influence of pre-Socratic
The same may be said of the articles nature, kind,
usa^e.
One cannot overlook
and kin, in the Oxford English Dictionary.
the lexicographical
of covens found in Aristotle's
studies
form, Met. A, 4).
B, 1 (and in briefer
Phys.
will be made to his distinctions
at the proper points in the survey.
Reference
There
are several words of similar origin and meaning
which
should be studied
in connex
if a really exhaustive
account of the word is to be given
ion with
from a lexi
(pv?TLS
them may
be mentioned
Of
<f>vr?and y?ppa.
Among
point of view.
cographical
course <pvuv in all its uses is of the utmost
; but, for our present purpose,
importance
these may be disregarded,
illustration.
except for occasional
VOL. XLV.-7
PROCEEDINGS
98
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
cj>vo-Ls, as
implying
motion,
seems
always
to denote
a process
or a
HEIDEL.
?
IIcpl
<|>v<r?s.
99
: r?
nomous,
?x?v lern
or, as
<?uo"ei,
the
Sotfratics
would
ama?.
That
say,
avrofiarov.
is cuvera
which
The
is auto
pre-Socratics,
when
a "second-nature,"
79 and
thus
approaches
v?pos.*0
It was
apparently
oiire Kar?
As has been already
said, the
(p?aip oW vit' ?pdyKr/s.
the pre-Socratics
meant
did not realty understand
what
by saying that a
occurs dpdyKr/ ; as it was opposed to what occurs according
to design,
it
phenomenon
as due to no cause at all, to t?xV) or to
was rashly described
almost
indifferently
rb aur?pLarop.
Cp. such popular phrases as r?dpayKala rvxv> Soph., Ai. 485.
77
p (pX?\p . . .
n. oar?oop (p?aios, 18 (9, 194 Littr?) r) ?? ?Kr&p ?piarep
Hippocrates,
use of
If one compares the analogous
rr/p avrr/p (pvaip ?pplfarai rfj ?p ro?ai ?el-io?aip.
Socratics
contrasted
They
PROCEEDINGS
100
on
that
the
of
analogy
the
such
OF
words
THE
as
Constructions
ubiquitous
AMERICAN
av?y/o?,81
Kara
vo^os,
ACADEMY.
cut ta,
oY/07, Xoyo?,
cj>v(tlv, napa
etc.,
<?>vcrei, <f)V(TLV
<?ixtif,
phrases
as
irap?
<?>vo-iv have
no
proper
sense
except
in
relation
to
a teleological
interpretation of nature ;83 but it is obvious that the
were
not aware of this implication.
They built up a
pre-Socratics
structure of conceptions which of necessity led to teleology, but it was
of human and physical
the parallelism
law, but the latter was con
instinctively
to
Yet
in
of
their
law, they
trying
interpret
physical
point
departure.
sciously
derived from human
law, as, e.g. the dt/07 of Anax
necessarily
imported conceptions
said ?v?yKa 5' ov?? Oe?i ?idxopr ai he
When
Simonides
imander
and Heraclitus.
of Mo?pa in Homer.
I can
the same as the (intermittent)
meant much
tyranny
not but think that Pindar
(Plato, Gorg. 483 C, 484 B) p?pLosb irdprwp ?aaiXevs dpar?p
re Kai ?dap?rwp ?
:
the same thing
#7et ?iKai?p rb ?iaibrarop
vireprdra xeLp'1 meant
felt
also
the
overruling
the saying
interpreted
p?/ios
(7, 470 Littr?)
Vorsokr.2
632, 31 foil.).
cp.
the opposite
in. 38, vi.
and Nestle, Neue Jahrb. f?r d. klass. Altert.,
905 f. K?hn),
1909, p. 10 foil.
Zeller,
u. Begr?ndung
der sittlichen
Ueber Begriff
Gesetze, Abh. d. Berl. Akad.,
1882, cites
of (pvais and p?pios. Cp. Arist.
of the blending
some interesting
phrases characteristic
The latter, speaking
of the Stoics,
Gael. 268a 13, Arius Did.
(Diels, Dox. 464,24 ff.).
5' virdpxeiP irpbs dXXr/Xovs ?i? rb X?yov yuer^xetv, os ?ari (pijaei p?pios.
says KOLPOJplap
in Hippocrates,
of reason is here the basis of law : conversely
The common possession
of a common
is
the possession
II. ?irrapLr/pov, 9 (7, 450 Littr?)
physical
composition
die : /cat 7e ? B?paros ?i? rr/p
law that all must
of the inexorable
the foundation
(hare irapd?eiypLa ro?s ir?aip elpai, ?'rt irdpra (p?aiu ?%et> ?K T&v avr?oop
fiolpr/p ?Xax^P.
fio?pa has become
expressly
?jura, piera?oXas ?x^iv ?i? xp?vuv t?p Upovpi?po?P. Here
a
in matter.
law inhering
physical
81
V. 105 r)yovp?.eda y?p r? re de?op o??r? rb dpdp?irei?p re aa(p?s ?i?
Cp. Thucyd.
/cal r/pie?so?ire d?vres rbp p?pLOP
od av Kparrj, ?pxew
iravrbs virb (p?aews
?paymir/s,
II. aapK?p, 19
Troad.
483 E ; Eurip.,
ktX.
886; Hippocrates,
Gorg.
Cp. Plato,
eKaara ?ioiKe?rai, ?y?j
(8, 614 Littr?) rrjs ?? (p?aios rr/p ?p?yKr/p, ?ion ?p ?irr? ro?reojp
irdvra ylperai ?i ?pdyKi/p Belr/p
U. ?ialrr/s, A, 5 (6, 476 foil. Littr?)
(ppdao) ?p ?XXoiaip.
is said from the point of view of Heraclitus.
82 With
860, where
(pvaip ?xcw one should class such uses as ?(pv, Soph. Elect.
states a natural
law.
One also meets
?pdyKr/p ?xeip (bare c. inf.
83
Philos. Monatsh.
21, p. 575 rightly refers to this fact ; but he fails
Natorp,
inference.
In Aristotle,
did not draw the obvious
observe that the pre-Socratics
193a 32 (bairep r?xvi) X?yerai
is clearly
course, the thought
e.g. Phys.
expressed,
Kar? r?x^r/p, ovrw Kai (p?ais rb Kar? (pvaip X?yerai.
it
to
of
rb
HEIDEL.
?
IIcpl
4>v<T?s.
101
the Socratics who seized the import of their labors, and, by introducing
the teleological method, reconstituted
Even in the post
philosophy.
Socratic period teleology, because seen essentially from the pre-Socratic
point of view, became, for example among the Stoics, an idle play-thing,
being purely external.84
The step is short and easy from <?vo-i?,regarded as a process eventu
ating in a result, to <?iW considered as the author or source of that
which so results (IL). The distinction must lie in the degree of em
from its
phasis laid upon the beginning of the process as distinguished
in
of
the
visited
end, and, by consequence,
upon the
degree
disruption
Such a separation is the result of analysis, and
process as a whole.
the relative prominence of the members into which the unitary process
falls may reasonably be supposed to indicate the direction of interest
of those who used the terms. This is, however, a point extraordinarily
It is safe to say that the
difficult to determine in a satisfactory way.
:
layman is chiefly interested in </>w-i?,the result of the nature-process
he takes it for granted ? his not to question w7hy. It must, therefore,
occasion no surprise that by far the most numerous uses of <f>va-Ls
belong
to this class (III).
The philosopher, also, must begin with the finished
In a peculiar way <?>vo-ic
product and from it reason back to its source.
in this sense (II.) will occupy his attention ; but it is obvious that the
distinction between cause and law must be difficult to draw. Even in
the philosophical and scientific literature of our day it is almost im
possible to maintain a sharp distinction between them. We may be
inclined to lay this to the charge of the Aristotelian
usage ; but this
solution would fall short of historical truth. As we shall see, the four
fold causation of Aristotle,
united in cfrvo-Ls,
is rooted in pre-Socratic
usage, though Aristotle reinterpreted the pre-Socratic ?oyo? ?ufew?, or
chemical definition, converting it into a Xoyo? ovo-?as as the result of
logical definition, and at the same time made explicit the unconscious
teleology of the pre-Socratics by recognizing in the logical definition
the final cause.
Touching the beginning of the process, the philosophers were chiefly
in what Aristotle
interested
styled the "material cause"
(II. A).
There is no reason to doubt that the pre-Socratics used <j>v<ris
in this
sense.85 Aristotle
speaks of Tha?es as the founder of the philosophy
84 From certain
of view modern
from Kant
onwards,
may
points
philosophy,
to interpret
in terms of teleology
said to be the attempt
the world
consciously
as the method
of human
At bottom Pragmatism
conceived
is hardly any
thought.
outside
the
thing more than an effort to do this consistently,
leaving no Absolute
process.
teleological
85 It is one of the
of Burnet
services
(see above, n. 3) that he directed
many
be
102
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
which deals with the material cause,86 and says that the majority of
the first philosophers regarded material causes as the sole causes of all
88 uses
<?vW of the substance contributed by
Empedocles
things.87
the parents to the birth of their offspring, and Hippocrates 89 does so
In another passage Hippocrates well
likewise in the same connexion.
illustrates this force of <?vVi?. He is engaged in a polemic against the
monists, who assert that all is one, and makes the point that a living
of substances unless they
being does not arise from even a multiplicity
are mixed
in the right proportions,90 and hence ? fortiori, could not
"
arise from a single substance.
He then proceeds :91 Such being the
of
to this usage, though
I cannot but differ from him in the interpretation
attention
serve no useful purpose to specify further instances.
It would
But
individual
texts.
*
natural kind,' and hence is proba
it should be noted that <p?ais in this sense means
from
n.
in.
derived
and
2.
89,
A,
e??ea, n. 113.
bly
Cp. l??ai,
86Met.
983b 20, interpreted
by 983b 7 foil.
87Met.
983b 7 : tup or/ irp?rwp (piXoao(pr/adprwp oi irXe?aroi r?s ?p tiXr/s e??ei p.?pas
in Tim.
Proclus
(Diehl, i. p. 1) says to the same effect
(?r)dr/aap dpx?s e?pai ir?prup.
o? pi?p toXXo? r?p irpb rod HXdriapos
(pvaiKCop irepi rr/p HiXr/p?i?rpi\pap.
Cp. Gilbert,
und die Vorsokratiker,
Philol.
Aristoteles
68, 368 foil.
*'
88 Fr. 63 ?XX? ?i?airaarai
: der
Diels renders
pieX?up (p?ais
i) pi?p ?p ?p?pos.
:
Burnet
"the
der
Glieder
auseinander
substance
of
;"
(the child's)
Ursprung
liegt
and part in the woman's
is divided
between
limbs
them, part of it in the man's
The phrase pieX?wp (p?ais occurs
Here
I agree in the main with Burnet.
(body)."renders :
fr. 16, 3, where Burnet gives it the same sense, whereas Diels
also in Parm.,
In this case I agree wTith Diels.
seiner Organe."
"die Beschaffenheit
89 n.
484 Littr?)
?irr/p ?? ri oi P?ar/pLa irpoair?ar/ Kai rod vypov avrov,
yoprjs, 11(7,
i??ai ?ovaai, OK?aai ?p (p?aei virrjpj-ap, rr/p yovr/p oi>x
ci(py ofi rb air?ppia ylperai, r?aaapes
?Xr/p irap?xovaip, KrX.
90 n.
There
is much
in this discussion
which
(pvaios dp?pd?irov, 3 (6, 38 Littr?).
of Empedocles,
for the interpretation
it is of
of whose thought
the reasoning
applies
It clearly presupposes
and combats
the theory of Diogenes
extreme
importance.
For the interpretation
of Empedocles
the
(cp. espec. fr. 3, beginning).
of mixture
fit conditions
for y?peais are of especial
interest,
regarding
and the admixture
of all four elements.
The
since they imply definite
proportions
to the medical
schools should be constantly
borne in
relation of Empedocles
intimate
so far as it consisted
was
in the ministration
of medicaments,
mind.
Medicine,
in the microcosmic
the art of interfering
in
ir?Xepios, which
reproduced
essentially
of Apollonia
statements
miniature
HEIDEL.
103
pl 4>v<rews.
<??W),
when
man's
body
ceases
to be,
the moist
to
the moist,
the dry to the dry, the hot to the hot, and the cold to the cold. Such
is the constitution (<?ucrts93)of animals and of all things else ; all things
originate in the same way, and all end in the same way ; for their con
stitution is composed of the aforesaid substances and terminates in the
same in the aforesaid manner,?whence
it sprung into existence,
thither also does it return."
Here we find peacefully side by side two uses of <?iW, (1) that of
elemental constituent and (2) that of the resultant constitution. Among
the strict monists there would be no real distinction, and thus there
would be a show of reason for Professor Burnet's main contention if
one limited its application to the Ionians and insisted on a strictly
of
monistic interpretation of their thought ;94 but where a multiplicity
elemental constituents are recognized, the two uses must differ at least
92 This
is interesting
in view of its evident
and important
upon
dependence
as a shifty and inaccurate
to regard Empedocles
incline
Those who
Empedocles.
to take seriously his doctrine
of /?t?ts, as does Profes
and decline
pseudo-philosopher
sor Millerd,
reckon with
On the Interpretation
p. 39 foil., should
of Empedocles,
on scraps of his philosophical
instead of relying
poem, espe
entirely
Hippocrates
found Em
The fact that Aristotle
agrees with Hippocrates.
cially when Aristotle
own misinterpretation
inconsistent
doctrine
with Aristotle's
of the elements
pedocles'
"
to those
"union
into one
of Empedocles'
(Millerd, p. 40) means absolutely
nothing
was to find his own "indeterminate
matter"
who know how prone the Stagirite
in
2d ed. p. 57.)
his predecessors.
etc., and Burnet,
Change,
(See my essay Qualitative
for the pre-Socrat
that the significance
The fact is, and it ought to be emphasized,
even by scholars
has been too much
ics of a knowledge
of Hippocrates
neglected
The study of Qualitative
in 1906
I published
otherwise
competent.
Change which
in value if I had then realized the evidential
would
have gained
value of
immensely
literature
for these subjects
and had
the Hippocratean
corpus and of general Greek
drawn from these sources which were then at my command.
the materials
incorporated
for a rehandling
of that whole question,
is not, however,
This
the proper occasion
it must
93 This
therefore be postponed.
the fact that, while the philosopher
does speak of
passage well illustrates
as 0&rts, when he uses the term in a general way, as, e.g.
substance
the elemental
he means
the "constitution"
of
the, Quais of a man or the Qvo-ls of the universe,
On the Interpre
of Professor Millerd,
This
agrees well with the conclusion
things.
tation of Empedocles,
p. 20.
94 Such an
I cannot accept for the lonians
(see my Qualitative
interpretation
of rb ?p as rb 6/uloiop,
Chamge, etc.), since strict monism
implies the interpretation
Even Diogenes
is not to be regarded
first in the Eleatics.
which appears distinctly
as a consistent monist,
in his One.
since he admitted
distinctions
and
PROCEEDINGS
104
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
condition
in Plato,100
and
<?vo-i? as
</>ixri? coupled
with
apxata
Karao-racm
to the use
constitution.
95 The
987a 17 ; [Arist.], Be
(p?creis, in this sense, is rare, cp. Arist., Met.
plural
Be Morte
Mundo,
396M4;
Philodem.,
[Plato], Epin.
(Diels, VorsoJcr.,2 385, 17).
981 D, uses the singular, not the plural, as one might gather from Diels, Elementum,
p. 22.
96 The
II. <pvo~LosdpBp?irov, 4
of this is common
; e.g. Hippocrates,
recognition
rb ?? a?pLa rod dpBpdoirov ??%e??v ewvrip alp.a /cat <pX?yp,a Kai x?^Vv
(6, 38 foil. Littr?)
?apBrjp re Kai p-?XaiPOP, Kai ravr ?crrlp avr?cp rj <f>?aisrov cromaros, Kai ?i? ravra dXy?et.
29 A.
Kai vyLaipei.
Cp. also Plato, Phil.
97 Demoer.
on Arist., Phys.
are a comment
fr. 168. But the words of Simplicius
rrjp Kara r?irop
265b 24 ?i? ?? rb kcpop Kwe?vBal <f>a<rip Kal yap ofiroL (the Atomists)
But rr?p (pvaip
Ktpe?aBaLrr\p <p?o~ipX?yovcri, and may have no other warrant.
KLPrjCFLP
"
as Prantl
renders it.
almost certainly,
in the Aristotelian
Nature,"
passage means,
calls rb kcp?p (which differs from rb paar?p, according
On the other hand, Epicurus
this
to Democritus,
only as pcrj??p from ??v) by the name of dpa(f>r?s <p?(Tis, though
985b 4 foil.
But see Arist., Met.,
for rb ?patp?s.
may only be a periphrasis
"
98 Fr. 2
a substance
: by having
renders
'?repop"?p rrj i?La <p?crei. This Burnet
"
which is probably
anderes in seinem eigenen Wesen,"
to itself ; Diels
says
peculiar
constitution
the true meaning,
?).
(composition
implying
99 n.
; ibid. 61 (4, 262 Littr?).
?pBpcop, 30 (4, 144 Littr?)
100
...
? ?pws ?p,<pvros ?XXrjXwp
Symp. 191 A. i] <pvcris o?xa erpif]Br? ; 191 C ?ari
ro?s dv&p?irois Kai rrjs dpxatas
(frvcrews crvpaycayevs Kal ?irixeipurp iroirjaai ?p ck ?vo?p Kai
idcraaBa? rr?p <pvai.prr?p dpBpc?irLpr?p; 192 E i] dpxct?a <f>vo~is; 193 C e?s rrjp dpx^^v direX
In Democritus,
fr. 278 we
547 B eirl ttjp dpx^?ap Kardcrracrip.
B??p (prjatp. Cp. Repub.
n.
find dirb Quaios Kal Karavrdaios
527, 1) is
(Diels, Vorsokr.
dpxa?ys.
Protagoras
a work LT. rrjs ?p dpxv Kara<rrdo~em (perhaps a sort of
to have written
reported
Jahrb. f?r klass. Altert.,
Neue
II. (f>vo~ewsdpBp?irov) from which Nestle,
1909, p. 8,
83
320 C, foil.
Hdt. vni.
in the Protag.
the myth
Plato
thinks
freely transcribed
also Aristotle's
Here
?p dpBp?irov (f>uo~LKal Kardaaai.
irp?rr) vvvBeaLS
belongs
r) ?%dpxys o-?arao-is, LT. ?iairrjs, A, 2 (6, 468 Littr?).
(see n. 73) and Hippocrates'
says
HEIDEL.
?
Uep\
105
4>vo- ?>s.
We have seen that in the world of Homeric thought every event was
regarded as due to the activity of the gods, and that, as the conception
of Nature replaced that of the gods as a basis of explanation, 4>vcns
was conceived as the source of the manifold activities of the world.
The phenomena of life, cosmic and microcosmic,
seeming to occur
spontaneously and without external cause101 and direction, naturally
engrossed the attention of the philosopher and might well make it
Aris
appear possible to dispense with a special cause of motion.
totle 102 complains that the first philosophers did not concern them
of
selves with this question, confining themselves to the investigation
the material cause ; and such anticipations
of his efficient cause as he
finds in the early cosmogonists and cosmologists bear the stamp of
vital and psychic agencies, hardly distinguishable
from the personifica
tions of mythology.
From these facts divergent conclusions have been
drawn, some assuming that the mythical conceptions continued essen
tially unchanged, others finding a refined animism to which they give
the name of bylozoism or hylopsychism.
The first conclusion is shown
to be false by the mechanical
interpretation put upon the activities of
named agencies ;103 the second presupposes distinc
the mythically
In general the phil
tions which developed only at a later period.104
to
contented
with
have
themselves
the recognition of
appear
osophers
the autonomy of nature, assigning no ground for her activity, since she
seemed herself to be the sufficient explanation of events.
The strict
exclusion of divine agency not unnaturally suggests a conscious effort
to eliminate such interference, though this inference might be wrong ;
on the other hand the habit of saying that certain phenomena occur
"
"
or "of necessity" or "by chance" gave, as we have
of themselves
A modern philoso
seen, great offense to the teleological Socratics.
an
of
the
conscious
difficulties
attempt to define
pher,
presented by
causality and necessity, would judge these early thinkers with less
But the constant criticism of pre-Socratic
severity.
philosophers
Socratic
their
of
successors, due to the teleological prepossessions
by
101
seems to have been gener
of animal life, for example,
Spontaneous
generation
As philosophy
advanced
the higher forms of life were
ally accepted for lower forms.
at least at the beginning
of the world.
included,
102
und die Vorsokratiker,
Aristotle, Met. 984a 18-985b 22. Cp. Gilbert, Aristoteles
68, 378 foil.
Philol.,
103 In
this is obvious
to all who regard him as a philosopher
and
Empedocles
consider the evidence
; it is equally clear in regard to Parmenides.
tative Change, n. 89, and see also ibid. nn. 55 and 65.
104 For this see
ed. 2, p. 15 foil.
Burnet,
Cp. my
Quali
106
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
HEIDEL.
?
Ilepl
<|>vo"tt$.
107
Trat?os i} ?acriXriir}.
(Abh. der Akad. Berl.,,1882,
p. 43) said of the
Bernays
er unabl?ssig Welten
seinen Zeus,
"H.
hatte
insofern
baut und Welten
'
'
ein
Kind
w?hlte
zerst?rt,
; der tiefsinnige
genannt
spielendes
Naturphilosoph
dieses Bild, um das Wirken
der Naturkr?fte
allen menschlichen
nach dem
Fragen
zu entr?cken."
Heraclitus
Zwecke
had little reason to fear teleological
probably
a game of solitaire
of nature.
or playing
the ai?p is playing
interpretation
Perhaps
now winning
on Hdt.
11.
(k?/oos), now losing
against a dummy,
(Xi/ul?s). Cp. Stein
latter:
of
p.
of
PROCEEDINGS
108
THE
OF
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
of Socratic
philosophy.
of
cfcvo-is,
there
was
so much,
non-material
in
character,
which
called
debs of Xenophanes
is invested,
What
gods is so pronounced.
of personality,
appears shadowy.
transi, of Ross, modified.
as the negation
especially
remains
after the denials,
HEIDEL,
Il pl
109
?>S.
<j>\J<T
of
another
: ?v6po)7ros
psychologists'
avOpayrrov
ycvra.
The
kvkXo?
yevecrewc
thus
fallacy.
121
II. r?xvr/s, 2 (6, 2 foil. Littr?)
is an interesting
discussion
of the
Hippocrates,
of arts, which could not have taken the form it actually
"existence"
takes if the
and "actuality"
had been current.
Aristotelian
distinctions
have
"Potentiality"
no significance
in relation
to things which have a real history
; the terriis acquire
such as we find in the Aristotelian
only in relation to an ideal construction,
meaning
of the ovaia of a thing has reference
system, where the definition
an end as seen from without.
Teichm?ller,
strangely
enough,
into the pre-Socratics.
ceptions
to its realization
imported
these
of
con
110
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
It has already been said that the practical man is concerned chiefly
with the product, which he takes roughly for granted without too much
curiosity as to its origin ; but he is intensely interested in its uses, what
ever they may be. He does not reflect upon even this circumstance,
in his pragmatic way to do the work in hand.
however, proceeding
he
therefore
When
speaks of <?vW it is generally some aspect of nature
as it is that he has in view.
From this attitude springs the common
and quasi-philosophical
circles, which regards
usage of philosophical
chiefly things as things, without too much implication of further ques
In so far as there is a suggestion of further questions, they
tionings.
that is, "what it is" ex
concern the "constitution"
of the thing ?
it
is
made
This is the regular sense
in
"what
of."
terms
of
pressed
of the phrase irepi ^vo-ews as applied in titles of the works of Hippo
crates,122 and there is no reason to think that it bore a different sense
when used as a title of distinctively
philosophical writings.
If it were our purpose to treat fully of the uses of <?iW we should
have to gather and discuss here the multitudinous
meanings of the term
This we could not do, however, with
which fall under the third head.
out unduly and unprofitably increasing the bulk of this study ; for most
developments of (?iW, regarded as the end of ther process (III.), are of
slight interest for the particular purposes of our inquiry. We may
therefore here content ourselves with a summary glance at the ramifica
tions of this main branch, adding such observations as may serve to
and scientific conceptions.
throw light on philosophical
as the end of the pro'cess, from without
We may then regard 4>vo-l<$,
or from within.
As seen from without it is the outward constitution
or frame of a thing (III. A) ; viewed from within, it is its inner consti
Under the former head we may distinguish
tution or character.
(1)
the individual frame,123 (2) the specific or generic,124 (3) the uni
122 See
are probably
not origi
The titles of Hippocrates
above, n. 10 and n. 93.
instances
since in many
they are in doubt, some works that bear specific titles
is in keeping
with the facts mentioned
This
clearly parts of larger wholes.
being
the
But in the case of Hippocrates
works.
below, n. 204, relative to philosophical
form the subject as stated in the
in abbreviated
title in most cases merely
reproduces
of (p?ais, when used by Hippocrates
body of the work ; and the invariable meaning
"
is
constitution."
of discourse,
in reference to the subject-matter
123 In the
stature attained,
the (perfect)
eis
(pvais denotes
individual,,
primarily
as Paul
This
is Aristotle's
4, 13.
says, Eph.
?p?pa r?Xeiop, els pi?rpop ijXiK?as,
441 ?Kpca?oi (pvaip
Pers.
the whole
creation groaneth.
Aesch.,
?preX?x^^i for which
nal,
HEIDEL.
Ilcpl
4>vo- ?>s.
Ill
PROCEEDINGS
112
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
In
/?tocios
in the
it was
titular
Ilept
the
cause."
the
object
Aristotelian
the
Among
of scienti
as we have
seen,
<?i>o-6w?.
577,
582, finds
a deep
significance
in these
same phrases.
HEIDEL.
pl
113
<|>v<rW$.
conclusion
as
to
the
connotation
of
<?uVis when
as
used
a compre
hensive term has been, stated ; but it is desirable that this conclusion
be confirmed by a consideration of the questions raised by those who
wrote
llc/ot
<^i;o-ea)?. Many
a word
having
a wide
receives at different
range
of
meanings
in
times an emphasis
of native endowment,
common ; cp.
talent, or power, are exceedingly
Examples
fr. 3 ; Epicharmus,
fr. 40 ; Critias,
fr. 9 ; Democritus,
fr. 21, 33, 176,
Protagoras,
Of (pvais = instinct we have an instance
in Democritus,
fr. 278.
183, 242, etc.
In
fr. 267 (pvais means
Democritus,
'birthright.'
130 "The metes
and bounds
of providence"
furnish a favorite
theme
to singers
and sages of all ages and peoples.
104.
Greek
Cp. for example, Psalm
mythology
found a text in the extravagance
of the elemental
water and fire
in the
respectively
flood and in the conflagration
of the world due to the escapade of Phaethon.
Anaxi
and Heraclitus
in the cosmic
mander
called
o?Kr? to curb such transgression.
also recognized
this principle
in the periodicity
of cosmic
Xenophanes
processes.
later philosophers
With
it was a common
theme.
fr. 3, couples ?vpapas
Democritus,
and (p?ais ; cp. also Archytas,
fr. 1, and Herodotus,
In Herodotus,
8, 83.
7, 16 a,
it is said that the winds
do not suffer the sea (pvai rrj ?wvrrjs
is
xP&aBai, which
afterwards
On this see my review of Hirzel,
explained
by reference to ??pis.
Themis,
und Verwandtes,
in A. J. P., xxix,
In Thucydides,
Bike,
p. 216 foil.
2, 35, 2
in relation
to (pB?pos, which
vir?p rr?p (pvaip is set definitely
opens up the kindred
their proper pier pa,
subject of the jealousy of the gods visited upon all who transgress
as we find it developed
in the tragedians
and Herodotus.
In fact all
things have
even God, according
to the Greeks.
their limitations,
There
is an
pass
interesting
IT. r?xvr/s, 8 (6, 12 Littr?), where, after
age in Hippocrates,
unreasonable
rebuking
the author says : ei y dp ris r) r?xprjp, es ? ?rj
critics of the art of medicine,
r?xpy,
r} (p?aip, es ? pLT](pvais ir?(f)VKep, d^i?aeie ?vpaaBai, ?ypoe? ?ypoiap ?ppiofovaap p,ap'ir?
re
&p
iarip
r&p
r?ia?
re
rG>p rex^?ojp opydpois
piaXXop $ dpLaBlr}.
ydp
ijp?p
(pva?wp ro?a?
As limitation
eiriKpar?eip, rovr?wp ?arlp rjpi?p ?rjpnovpyo?s e?pai, ?XXup ?? o??k earip.
are the basis of intelligence
and definition
and the guaranty
of sanity, the Greeks had
an antipathy
to all extravagance.
This appears most
to the
clearly in their aversion
?-rreipop in all forms.
?
VOL. XLV.
8
PROCEEDINGS
114
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
in regard
to
<f>vais and
have
seen,,
for
example,
that
the
per
meanings
attached
to
the
term
<j>vo-ls.
this
may prosecute
inquiry in either of two ways.
First, we
may study the fragmentary remains of the literature of pre-Socratic
philosophy and extract from its implicit logic the answer to our ques
tion. Or we may approach the matter indirectly, asking what were
the ideals of science in that age as we find them reflected in the non
or only quasi-philosophical
literature of the time and
philosophical
of the following period which received its inspiration from the pre
Socratics.
should be followed conjointly ; for
Strictly both methods
a
we
at
could
thus
arrive
that might be justly regarded
conclusion
only
as definitive.
But a moment's
will
convince any reader that
thought
the limits of such a study as this could not possibly be made to yield
to a detailed examination
of the individual systems with a view to
them
the
of their propounders.
from
interests
So compre
deducing
in connexion with a history of
hensive a review must be undertaken
early Greek philosophy, which is not, and cannot be, the scope of this
Our attention
shall, therefore, be directed to the second
study.
means of approach, with only an occasional glance at the systems of
We may pursue this course
the pre-Socratic philosophers themselves.
with the better conscience because it is self-evident that the scientific
ideals of the age were, or soon became, common property, to the defini
tion and development of which every man of science contributed what
he had to offer.
Nowhere does the unity of pre-Socratic thought
more clearly appear than in this field, where philosophers and medical
theorists cooperated in laying broad and sure foundations.
gives us the best glimpse of the scientific ideals of the
Hippocrates
will
it
and
prove worth our while to pause for a moment to learn
age ;
what he has to teach us. The true physician is called the child of his
in his devotion to it, since the love of one's
art ;131 he is disinterested
a love of mankind.132
The charlatan was
art involves necessarily
We
131
132
napa77
Among
the philosopher
HEIDEL.
?
Ilepl
<j^o- ?)S.
115
The
particularly despised, and his histrionic deportment decried.133
physician who desires to appear in public and address the people, should
refrain from quoting the poets : such a procedure merely argues inca
In public speech or writing, however, one
pacity for honest work.134
must begin by laying down a proposition to which all may assent.135
204 Littr?) the physician
is bidden rb ?? r)Bos ehai KaXbp Kal dyaB?p, roiovrop S' ?pra
irdai Kal aepvbp Kal (p?X?pBpwirop. UapayyeXiai,
5 (9, 258 Littr?) ris y?p ?5 irpbs Aibs
: cp. Isocr. 19, 30)
to the fraternity
r)5eX(piapi?pos (called brother, because
belonging
of the fraternity
leads to the
?rjrpbs ?rjrpeveip ireiaBe?rj drepapip?y ; The brotherhood
of man
! Ibid. 6, r)p 8? Kaipbs e?rj yioprry?r]s ??vip re ?opn Kal ?irop?opn,
fraternity
pidXiara ?irapK?eiP r?iai roiovr?oiaip.
r)v y?p irapy (p?XapBpuir?r] irdpean Kal (p?Xorexv?r).
i. 2, 60 refers to Socrates'
refusal to receive remuneration
for his informal
Xen. Mem.
as evidence
instruction
that he was (piXdpBpwiros and d-rjpioriKOs. In like manner Plato,
of wisdom as due to (piXapBpwiria, which
3 D, explains his lavish expenditure
Euthyph.
but would even display
would not only refuse to accept remuneration
itself in paying
It seems evident that the exalted and even extravagant
the listener to boot.
disinter
carried beyond the common practice,
of Socrates reflects, though it doubtless
of the medical
also of the early philosophical
and possibly
the teaching
schools,
swears to regard
the physician
In the medical
schools.
"OpKos (4, 628 foil., Littr?)
and his teacher's
sons as his
his teacher as a father, sharing with him his substance,
he swears ?i?d?eip rrjp r?%vr]P ra?rwp . . .
brothers
; if they desire to learn medicine,
like Paul, was a debtor to all men : he could
?pev piiaBov ko? ?vyypafrrjs.
Socrates,
is the first great
receive
That
the
pay from none ; for Socrates
cosmopolitan.
from this custom was one of Plato's
severest charges against them.
Sophists departed
men of whom Xen. Mem.
I. 2, 60 complains,
who departed
from
They were like the
and demotic way : ovS?pa ir?wore puaBbp rrjs avpovalas
the philanthropic
?irp??aro,
&p ripes piiKp? p.?pr? irap ?i<elpov (Socrates)
?XX? iraaip d<pB?PWs ?irrjpKei rdp eavrov
irpo?Ka Xa?opres iroXXov ro?s ?XXois ?ir?Xovp, Kal o?tx r)aap ?bairep eKeipos ?rjpioriKO?. Cp.
n. evax^oaTupris,
ir?aai y?p al pir] pier aiaxpoxep?eirjs
2 (9, 226 Littr?)
Hippocrates,
"
Kal ?axwfJ'Oav'pris (se. r?x^ai) KaXaL These are the truly "liberal
arts.
133 n.
; n.
Ieprjs po?aov, 1 (6, 354 Littr?) epiol de ?oK?ovaiP
irjrpov, 4 (9, 210 Littr?)
oi irp?roi rovro rb p?arjpia ?(piepi?aapres roiovroi e?pai ?vdpcjiroi o?oi Kal pvp elai pbdyoi re
Kal KaBdprai Kal dy?prai Kal ?Xa?opes, OK?aoi 8?] irpoairoi?oprai a<p?8pa Beoae?ees e?pai
'
Kal irX?op ri ei8?pai odroi ro?pvp irapapnrex?pLepoi Kal irpo?aXXopiepoi rb Be?op rrjs ?pirjxa
pirjS rod pirj tax^w o ri irpoaep?yKapres d)(peXr)aovaip, <bspi?] Kar?SwXoi ?uaip ov8?p ?iriar?
piepoi, iepop ?popiiaap rovro rb irddos e?pai, Kal X?yovs ?iriX?^apres ?irirrjSeiovs rrjp trjaip
Karearr)aapro es rb ?a(paX?s a<plaip avro?ai, KaBappio?s irpoa(p?popres Kal eirao?S?s, KrX.
estedness
116
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
but if he
The physician will not indulge in useless dialectics,136
knows his art he will prefer to show it by deeds rather than
Life is fleeting, art is long,138 and a cure may depend
words.137
the physician must not restrict his
moment.139
Hence
the
upon
to rational inference but must resort to the rule of rote to
attention
140 he must therefore have a
knowledge of prac
gether with reason ;
The main object of medicine is to effect
tice as well as of theory.141
a cure;142 above all the physician should avoid making much ado and
is not, however, a
The art of medicine
nothing.143
accomplishing
a
of
mere routine ; good share of the ability
the physician is shown in.
his capacity to judge correctly touching what has been written ;144 for
science is constituted by observations drawn from every quarter and
An art or science attests its reality by what
brought into a unity.145
cannot always arrive at
The art of medicine
it accomplishes.146
as
absolute certainty ; but far from disputing the reality of medicine
an art or science because it does not attain strict accuracy in all things,
it and to
one ought to praise it because of its desire to approximate
admire it because from extreme ignorance it has proceeded to great
discoveries well and rightly made, and not by chance.147
fr. 1 : X?yov iraprbs ?pxopiepop ?oKe? pioi XPe&v ^vaL tt]v ?pxyv
of Apollonia,
Diog.
The latter ideal com
avay.<pia?r/rryrop irap?x^^Gai, rr/p ?? ep/ir/pelap airXr/p Kai ae/ipr/p.
of the true philosopher,
n.
the portrait
evaxvf^oatjpr/s, 3 (9, 228 Littr?)
ports with
eveirlr/ xP&fJ-woi, x&PLTL?iarid?/iepoi.
136 n.
evax'QV'Oavpr/s, 1 (9, 226 Littr?).
137 n.
r?xvr/s, 13 (6, 26 Littr?).
138
'Afopiapiol, 1 (4, 458 Littr?).
139
1 (9, 250 Littr?).
IlapayyeXlai,
140
?e? ye pir/p ravra
ei?ora
1 (9, 250 Littr?)
?ar?Xoyiaficj) irp?repop
napa7Ye\tcu,
Plato
and Aristotle
iridav(? irpoa?xovra
?xer? X?yov.
oppose
lr/rpeveip, ?XX? rpi?y
260 E), but pier? X?yov.
(Plato, Phaedr.
rpi?r) to r?xvT) ; but this rpi?r) is not ?rexvos
141 n.
ovk ?pK?ei piovpop Ao7y el??pai rr/p r?x^r/p ra?rr/p,
?pdp p, 10 (4, 102 Littr?)
?XX? Kai bpLiXlr/opnX?eip.
142 n.
?pOpap, 78 (4, 312 Littr?).
143 n.
?pdpwp, 44 (4, 188 Littr?) aiaxpbv p,?proi Kai ?p irdar/ r?x^rj Kai o?>x rJKiara ?p
?ireira pir/??v
Kai itovX?p X?yop irapaaxopra,
Ir/rpiKrj ttovXvp ?xXop, Kai iroXXr/p ?xj/iv,
<h(peXr)aai.
144 n.
Cp. n. ?iairr/s, A, 1 (6, 466 Littr?).
Kpial/JLcop,1 (9, 298 Littr?).
145
2 (9, 254 Littr?) o??ru)y?p ?oK?co rr/v ^vpiiraaap r?x^r/P ?pa?eixOrjpai,
napa77eXiai,
?i? rb e? eKaarov rov r?Xovs rr/pr/Or/pai Kai eis ravrb ^vpaXiadr/pai.
146 n.
of definition
We even find a suggestion
r?xvr/s, 5 and 6 (6, 8 foil. Littr?).
Kai irpur?p ye oiopie??ai
of an art, ??. r?x^r/s, 3 (6, 4 Littr?)
in terms of the purpose
rdv poae?prwp rovs Ka/x?rovs, ktX.
? PopLl(c? Ir/rpiKT/pe?pai, rb or/ ir?pi?rap ?iraXX?aaeiP
to
that n. r?x^r/s belongs
incline me to the opinion
This and several other matters
is not thereby appreci
its general value for our purposes
the fourth century,
though
ably affected.
147 II.
ov (pypii or/ ?i? rovro ?e?v rr/p r?xvr/p ws
IrjrpiKrjs, 12 (1, 596 Littr?)
?pxatys
HEIDEL.
?
Ifcpl
117
<{>v<r(?$.
"
"
There be," we read,148 who have reduced vilifying the sciences to
a science, as those who engage in this pursuit opine.
I think not so ;
but they are giving an exhibition of their own learning.
To me it ap
pears that to make a discovery, that were better made than left undis
and to advance
covered, is the desire and function of understanding,
to completion that which is half-finished,
likewise ; but to essay with
ungentle words to shame the discoveries of others, oneself bettering
nothing, but casting reproach upon the discoveries of those who know
before those who do not know, this appears to me not the desire and
function of understanding,
but argues natural depravity even 149 more
than want of science." Another interesting passage is the following : 15?
"
Medicine has long had an established principle and a method151
of
its own invention, in accordance with which the many excellent discov
eries were made in the long lapse of time and in accordance with which
also the rest will be made, if one, having proper capacity and a knowl
edge of past discoveries, shall take these as the point of departure for
But whoso, casting these aside and rejecting all, shall essay
his quest.
to investigate after another method and in other fashion, and shall say
that he has discovered aught, is deceived and deceives others ; for that
is impossible."
Elsewhere we are assured152 that the science of medi
cine has nothing left it to discover, since it now teaches everything,
characters as well as proper seasons. He who has learned its teachings
will succeed with or without the favor of fortune.153
From this it will be seen that the ancient art or science of medicine
had not only developed the spirit of science and formulated in general
its ideals, but that in some minds it had attained to a position of such in
The fact that the claim
dependence that it might lay claim to finality.
ovk ?ovaap ov?? KaX?s ?f]reop.?vr/p rr/p ?pxair/p airo?aXea9ai,
ei pLr/ ??xet ^epi irdpra ?Kpi
?XX? iroX? piaXXop, ?i? rb ?yy^js, o?/xai, rod ?rpeKeardrov
b/iov ??paadai rJKeiv
Kai ?/c iroXXrjs ayvaalr/s
Sav/x??eiP r? ?^evpr/pi?pa, ws koX&s Kal
XoyiapLcp, irpoaieadai,
opd?s ??eupr/rai, Kai ovk ?irb r?x7)**
148 n.
r?xvr/s, 1 (6, 2 Littr?').
149 I read en
pi?XXop, and ?rexvlr/s.
150 n.
?pxaty* ir/rpiKrjs, 2 (1, 572 Littr?).
151
and above, n. 147, Kai ovk ?irb
Cp. n. evaxyp-oavpr/s, 2 (9, 226 Littr?),
r?xrjs.
152 n. r?ir??P r?p Kar?
&pdpwirop, 46 (6, 342 Littr?)
ir/rpiKr/ ?rj pLOi?oK?ei r)or? ?pev
as y?p
pr/adai ?Xrj, rjris ovrojs ?x^i, r/ris ?i?daKei ?Kaara Kai r? ?dea Kai ro?s Kaipo?s.
ovrws IrjrpiKr/p ?ir'iararai,
rlr/p r?xvv
?iripL?pei, ?XX? Kai ?pev r?xv$ Kai ?iV
?X?xiara
r?xV eviroir/?eirj ?p. ?e?r/Ke y?p ir/rpiKq ir?aa, Kai (palperai rCov ao?piapL?rup r? K?XXi
'
ara ?p avrr} avyKelpiepa ?Xdxicrra r^xvs ?e?aOai
i) y?p r?xV avroKparr/s Kai ovk ?pxerai,
'
ov?' ?ir' evxv ?arip avrr/p (an avrr/s ?) ?Xde?P r) ?? ?iriarr)pirj ?px^ral re Kai evrvxi)s
?ir/p,
n.
evaxmovupr/s,
7 (9, 258
118
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
; 1, 1 foil. K?hlewein).
HEIDEL.
119
p! 4>i5(r ws.
else they choose, reducing the causes of human diseases and death to a
minimum, one and the same for all, basing their argument on one or
two ; but in many of the novelties they utter they are clearly in the
This is the more blameworthy, because they err touching an
wrong.
actual art which all men employ in the greatest emergencies and in
which they honor most the skillful practitioners.
Now there are prac
titioners, some bad, some excellent ; which would not be true if medi
cine were not actually an art, and no observations or discoveries had
been made in it. All would be equally unskilled and ignorant of it,
and the cure of diseases would be wholly subject to chance. As a matter
of fact, it is not so ; but, as artisans in all other arts excel one the other
in handicraft and knowledge, so also in medicine.
Therefore I main
tained that it had no need of vain hypotheses, as is the case in matters
inaccessible to sense and open to doubt.
Concerning these, if one es
say to speak, one must resort to hypothesis.
If, for example, one should
speak and entertain an opinion touching things in the heavens or under
the earth, it would be clear neither to the speaker nor to those who
heard him whether his opinion was true or false ; for there is no appeal
to aught that can establish the truth." While the resort to hypothesis
in medicine
is here denounced there are instances of such use in the
works of Hippocrates,
notably in Ilept <?vow.159
One more passage160 relating to philosophy we may properly quote
"
here.
Whoso is wont to hear men speak concerning the human con
stitution beyond the range of its bearing upon medicine, will find the
following discourse unprofitable ; for I do not say that man is wholly
air, nor fire, nor water, nor earth, nor any thing else that is not clearly
This I leave for whoso wills to say. Yet I think that
present in man.
those who say this are in error ; for they agree in point of view, but
not in statement.
in support of their
Nevertheless
the argument
same
all
that
that
is
for
view
the
exists is one. This
of
;
say
they
point
is the One and All ; but they give it different names.
One calls the
One and All air; another, fire; a third, water; still another, earth. And
each supports his argument with proof and evidence, which amounts to
For, seeing that they are all of one mind, but say, one man
nothing.
this thing, another that, it is clear that they have no knowledge of the
159 Littr?
The treatise is a Sophistic
intended
to prove that
6, 90 foil.
exercise,
the air in the body, is the cause of all diseases, and employs
air, particularly
hypoth
II. (pvaios dpdpdiirov and
esis avowedly.
The treatises
Cp. c. 15 (p. 114 Littr?).
as Littr?
at such exercises,
H. apxaiv*
irjrptKTjs aim their polemic
justly
observes,
6, 88.
160 II.
(pvaios dpBp?irov, 1 (6, 32 foil. Littr?).
Littr?,
6, 88, thinks the author of
this
treatise
had definitely
in mind,
among
others,
the essay
II. QwQv,
PROCEEDINGS
120
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
asks
the
question,
Why*?
But,
while
almost
any
answer,
judi
ciously framed, will satisfy the child, the philosopher knows that the
question may receive very different answers according to its' specific
'
To ask why is to demand an explanation ; and cause is
intention.
our generic name for explanation.
Different as individual attempts at
a few kinds. We are famil
explanation may be, they are reducible to
iar with the four-fold causal principle of Aristotle, and with the,fact
that, while recognizing four kinds of causation and insisting that in ex
planation one should adduce all causes, he did not find it possible to
reduce all to one, but was compelled to content himself in the ultimate
analysis with two.161
of metaphysics
This is, of course, not the place to discuss matters
except so far as they pertain or contribute to our purpose ; but there
is here a point of some interest for us. We have noted that of Aris
It is that which is
totle's causes, the material points to the past.
161
Cp. Ritter-Preller,
?? 395-396.
HEIDEL.
121
TlepX 4>v<Tws.
as
we
have
seen,
no
matter
how
abstract,
assumed
in
the
I sought
to set forth
logical aspect of this situation
and the Contingent
in the Aristotelian
System.
in my
essay
on The
122
OF
PROCEEDINGS
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
primal matter seemed to lend itself better than another to the explan
ation of phenomena.
The elements were interesting only as means to
an end.
It was the regularities of phenomena more than anything
else that drew the attention of the philosopher ; presumably it was this
aspect of nature which counted most strongly in favor of a single pri
But the tendency to simplify was indulged too far
mary substance.
and led ultimately to the opposite extreme.
to explain things, assigns the cause
Science, then, in attempting
and interprets the facts in accordance with analogies drawn from expe
rience.
In Hippocrates,
II.
<j>vo-wv, c.
15 we
read
"Airs,
then,
have
of the monists
p. 119 foil.
contained
in Hippocrates,
??.
(pvvLos
HEIDEL.
123
opinion
that,
so far
as
concerns
knowledge
Repl
cfavo-euc, one
can
know
nothing definite about it except from medicine ; but this may be thor
it seems to
oughly learned when men go about it rightly. Hitherto,
me, we are far from it : far, that is to say, from having a scientific
knowledge of what man is (that is to say, what his constitution
is),
and to what causes he owes his origin and the rest, in any exact sense.
Now so much at least it is indispensable that the physician should
know Uepl Screws and should greatly concern himself to know, if he is
to do any part of his duty ; to wit, what a man is (i. e. what his con
stitution is) relative to meat and drink, and what he is relative to the
rest of his mode of life, and what results follow for the individual from
things, and all this not merely in general terms, as e. g.,
particular
'
cheese is unwholesome food, for it distresses one who eats plentifully
'
of it ; but what particular distress it causes, and for what reason, and
"
it is unsuitable.
to what ingredient of the man's constitution
The
168
Cp.
illustrated
are
320 C foil., where
the virtues
in Plato's Protagoras,
the myth
contrast
An interesting
is presented
by
by the story of their origin.
the cases in which
De Gener. Animal.
778a 16 foil., where he discusses
Aristotle,
or physically
are to be interpreted
; y?peais is for
ideologically
phenomena
biological
The ancient physiologers
the sake of ovala, and ovala is the cause of y?peais.
thought
and efficient causes, not even discrim
otherwise
; hence they recognized only material
emar op
ov
:
own
view thus
?i? rb ylyveadai
states his
He
them.
inating between
Kai wpiapi?pa ?pya rrjs (p?ae?s ?arip,
iroi?p ri, ?i? rovro iroi?p ri ?ar'ip, oaa reray/x?pa
roiavra.
is presented
The opposite argument
?XX? pi?XXov ?i? rb e?pai roia?i ylyperai
the common
The latter clearly represents
in Plato, Euthyphro,
10 A foil.
logical
as established
in the pre
based upon the common usage of the Greeks
procedure,
to the teleo
the former conforms perfectly
Socratic period, though,
strictly
speaking,
of the inner contradiction
This is another
illustration
logical
logic of the Socratics.
also
of the Aristotelian
logic.
169 C. 20
(1, p. 24 K?hlewein).
124
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
writer then proceeds to say that the physician must study the particu
lar food-stuff and its physiological action as well as the individual con
stitution, determining which of the humors is irXelw ?ve?v Kal fxaWov
lv tw o-ufxaTi,
evhwaorrevw
and
then
knowing
which
humor
is inimical170
therefore,
and,
as premature,
considering
the
stage
of advance
ment
eral
attained
to
the
particular.172
"
is taken in the essay Ilcpt ?Wt^?: 173 I say that one
HEIDEL.
I? pl
<|>v(ra>s.
125
who is to write a proper treatise on human dietetics must first of all know
: he must know of
and distinguish
of man, ?know
the constitution
in the beginning and distinguish
what he was constituted
(in the in
dividual case) by what constituents he is ruled. Unless he knows his
original composition, he will not be able to know the results that flow
in the body,
the ruling constituent
from it; unless he distinguish174
he will not be capable of administering what is beneficial to the man.
This, then, the writer must know ; but he must have learned, in addi
? whether due to nature or to human constraint and
tion, the action
?
art
that each kind of meat and drink has which we employ by way
Plato refers in
of diet." To these, or similar, words of Hippocrates
It thus becomes a common
with cordial approval.
the Phaedrus175
a
into
place that distinction and, above all, analysis of complex whole
its parts, are necessary to clear philosophical thought ;176 and that, in
order to make clear the nature of anything, it is desirable by an act of
imaginative synthesis to reconstitute the fact thus analyzed.
The boy who takes his watch to pieces and tries to put it together
?
lags far be
usually with scant success, because synthesis
again,
instinct.
hind analysis, ?
indulges an ideal, rather than a practical,
He has no thought of making watches, but wants to understand his
Aristotle
At the beginning of the Politics177
puts the
time-piece.
"
matter clearly : As in other departments of science, so in politics,
the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or
least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of
... He who thus considers things in
which the state is composed.
their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will
174 I read
for yp?aerai.
oiayp?aerai
175 270 B ?p
?e? ?ieX?a?ai (piaip, abaros
and rhetoric)
?pL(por?pais (se. medicine
pi?p ?p rrj ?r?pa, ?pvxys ?? ?p rrj ?r?pa, et pi?XXeis, ?rj rpi?fj pl?pop Kai ?/xireipia ?XX? r?xvrj,
. . . ipvxr?s ofip
t? pL?p (pdppLaKa Kai rpo(pr/p irpoacp?p&p vyieiap Kai p?pLr/v ?pnroir)aeip
<f>T?>aiP
??tws X?yov Karapor/aai otei ?vparbp e?pai ?pev rrjs rod ?Xov (puae s ; Et pi?p 'Iiriro
ov?? irepi adopLaros ?pev rrjs pieOo?ov
'AaKXijiriaoUP ?e? ri irid?adai,
Kpdrei ye rip t?p
. . . T? roipvp irepi (pvaews aKOirei ri irore ??^ei 'liriroKp?rr/s re Kai b ?Xrjdr/s
ravrrjs
'
'
X?yos ?p ovx &?e ?e? ?iapoe?adai irepi brovovp (p?aecos irp?rop p.?p, ?irXovp r) iroXvei??s
?ari 06 ir?pi ?ovXr/aopLeda elvai avroi rexv-^oi Kai ?XXop ?vparoi iroie?v, ?ireira ??, ?p ?x?v
?irXovp rj, aKoire?p rr/p ?vpapnv avrov, r'iva irpbs ri ir?(])VKe eis rb ?p?p ?xov tf ripa els rb
irade?p ?irb rov, ??p ?? irXeio? e??r/ ?xv, ravra ?pi?pLrja?piepop, ?irep ?(p' ?pos, rovr i?e?p ?(p
eK?arov, r$ ri iroie?p avrb ir?tpvKep rj rc?>ri irade?p viro rod ; Kip?vpeuei.
176
Cp. Plato, Tim. 57 D ' ?ib ?r/ avpipieiypvpLepa avrd re irpbs avr? Kai irpbs ?XXr/Xa
rovs pi?XXopras irepi (p?aews
rr/p iro?K?Xiap ?arip ?ireipa
r)s ?rj ?e? dewpovs yiypeadai
But to study the iroiKiX?a of things requires
that the crazy
e?K?ri X?ycp xpMtvQv'i"
be set in order by analysis.
patchwork
177 1252a 24
11 foil, affords a
foil., transi. Jowett.
Thesmoph.
Aristophanes,
*
of (p?ais =
which at once suggests
constitution,'
'origin.'
good example
126
PROCEEDINGS
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
obtain the clearest view of them." Quite apart from the obvious debt
in this matter to Plato 178 and Hippocrates,
of Aristotle
it must be
clear that this method of procedure has no relevancy to the distinct
ively Socratic doctrine of definition in terms of the end or purpose ; it
is a survival from the naturalistic or mechanical mode of thought, de
veloped in the pre-Socratic age, which explains things in terms of their
origin and physical constituents.
Socrates, the originator of the teleological method, could not under
stand this procedure.
To his mind it belonged not to theory, but to
the sphere of the practical arts. There is an extremely
interesting
"Nor
passage touching this matter in Xenophon's Memorabilia.11*
did he (Socrates) converse," we are told, "about the constitution
of
the world (jrepl t?)? iw iravTi?v <?vo-a>?),as the majority of the philoso
phers do, inquiring how that which the philosophers call the cosmos
180 and
forces 181 (amy/catc) the phe
by what mechanical
originated
nomena of the heavens are brought about, but he even declared that
are fools." ..."
He
they who worry their heads about such matters
man
also
the
in
like
concerning
philosophers, asking whether,
inquired
ner as they who learn the human arts 182 think that they shall be able
to make what they may learn either for themselves or for whomsoever
they please, so also they who study things divine think that when they
have learned by what mechanical forces they severally come about, they
shall at their pleasure make winds and rains 183 and whatever of the
178
270 C foil.
Repub. 368 D foil., Phaedr.
summary of
Cp. Plato's
Especially
in Tim.
17 C x#?s 7rou T&v vlir'fy
the Republic
pi/Q?prwp X?yiap irepi iroXirelas r)p rb
K (pdXaiop oi'a re Kai e% o?cop ?p?p&p
For the
dplarrj Kare?paiper* &p pioi yep?adai.
a thing one should
see it put together,
that to understand
cp. Tim. 27 C,
thought
28 B, 90 E, etc.
?
i. 1, 11 and 15.
180 The MSS
the process
of
vary between
i<pv and. ?xe?* The former emphasizes
as to the truth about phenomena
it in the question
; the latter implies
origination
?s ?x t is often used in relation
fr. 10.
In Hippocrates
to
(7Tws ?xe0?
Cp. Parmen.
= constitution.
<p?ais
181 Where
the physical
riaip ((pvaim?s) dpdymis
yiyperai,
philosopher
inquired
iv. 7, 6. Cp. ibid,
Socrates
asked, if at all, J ?Kaara b Oebs pir/xap?rai, Xen. Mem.
= Beov
I. 4, 14 where
the mechanism
of God's
(p?aei
irpopo?a: (p?ais has become
providence.
182
fr. 31 (M?ller, F. H.
G., il. 281) (pr/ai ?' 'A. o piovaiKbs
Cp. Aristoxenus,
'
r?p ?p?pwp ?Kelpiap ?pct
Tp?C?p e?pai rbp X?yop r?p?e
'A6r)prjai y?p ?prvxe?p Sw/cp?ret
'
ripd, K&ireira avrov irvp?dpeaBai, ri iroi&p (piXoao(polij rov ?' eiir?pros, 8ri ?ryrC?Pirepi rod
?pdpcjiripov ?iov, KarayeX?aai rbp *Ip?op, X?yopra pirj ??vaaOai ripa r? ?pdp?iripa Kari?e?p
?ypoovprd ye r? Se?a. Compare the opinion of those who held that one cannot know
the (p?ais of man without
the (ptiais rod 8Xov.
knowing
183 One is
to regard this as a hit at Empedocles
Because
; cp. fr. 111.
tempted
of this expression Empedocles
has been set down as a charlatan
; but in the present
HEIDEL.
pl
<|>v(r (o$.
127
sort they may desire, or whether they do not even conceive such a hope,
but are content merely to know how these phenomena occur." The
difference between the physical and the teleological points of view is
by the story told by Plutarch in his Life of Per
beautifully illustrated
"
It is related that on a certain occasion the head of a goat
icles : 184
with a single horn was brought from the country to Pericles, and that
Lamp?n, the seer, when he saw the strong, solid horn growing out of
the middle of the forehead, said that, there being in the city two rivals
for power, Thucydides and Pericles, the power would come to the one
to whom the sign was given.
however, cutting open the
Anaxagoras,
skull, showed that the brain was not fully developed at the base, but
shrunken from its integument and coming somewhat to a point, egg
like, af the spot where the horn sprouted. At the time Anaxagoras
was applauded by those who were present ; but Lampon's turn came
shortly afterwards, when the power of Thucydides was broken and the
affairs of the people came steadily under the direction of Pericles.
There was nothing, however, so far as I can see, in the way of the phy
sical philosopher and the seer 186 being equally in the right, the one
to judge.
The promise of fr. 2 is sufficiently
State of his poem we are not in position
to think that fr. Ill belongs
fr. 10 and 11).
I incline
to
(cp. Parmenides,
the concluding
passage of his philosophical
poem, and voices the high hopes of the
soon be laid bare.
author that the secrets of nature will
The age of Empedocles
was intoxicated
as too difficult
with the new wine of science and regarded nothing
modest
PROCEEDINGS
128
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
singling out the physical cause (ttjv ol?tlolv)the other the purpose
(to tcXos) ; for the former was, by hypothesis,
inquiring from what phy
sical conditions it sprung and how it came about in the course of nature
well
(?k
TLvw
y?yove
what purpose
nal
ttws
ir?(j>vKe), whereas
the
latter
"
was
predicting
to
OTYjJJiaLVeL).
Democritus
is reported to have said that he would rather make one
contribution to the causal explanation of things than be made King of
the Persians.186
Surely this does not mean that he wanted to discover
an atom ; he was in search of the causal nexus in whatever form, and
his atoms and void were only the last link in the chain. Men knew
what it meant to explain : they did not confuse explanation with de
scription, although they might content themselves with the latter, in
default of the former. This was often the attitude of the physician,
aware of his ignorance of the real cause. The words of Thucydides
"
about the great plague well illustrate this point.
As to its probable
causes
or
he
"or
the
which
could
have produced
says,187
origin,"
might
such a disturbance of nature, every man, whether a physician or not,
But I shall describe its actual course, and
may give his own opinion.
the symptoms by which any one who knows them beforehand may
xecognize the disorder should it ever reappear."
It would be easy to multiply witnesses proving that the pre-Socratic
philosophers aimed at nothing short of a complete understanding of the
world in terms of its physical causes ; but enough has been said. There
is, however, one passage in Plato to which reference should be made.
In the Phaedo 188 Socrates sets forth, as only Plato could do it, the
difference in point of view between the Socratic and the pre-Socratic
No contrast could be more clearly or sharply drawn : on
philosophies.
the one hand we find an explanation of things beginning with matter
and operating with mechanical causes, for which Socrates declares him
self by nature unfitted ; on the other stands the teleological conception
of the world for which Socrates is sponsor.
Socrates tells how eagerly
in the hope of finding a real antici
he took up the book of Anaxagoras
Plato
pation of his view, but only to meet with utter disappointment.
does not often touch directly upon the earlier philosophies, but here he
has drawn a picture of their aims and methods which leaves nothing
to be desired.
Perhaps its full significance is hardly realized.
?6
Fr. 118.
187 il.
48, 3, transi.
be classed as note-books,
and its symptoms.
i88 96 A foil.
Jowett.
In Hippocrates,
explanation
commonly
HEIDEL.
It may be assumed,
by
the
pre-Socratics
?
LTcpl
the
main
senses
129
(|>\Jo- (?s.
of
the
of Nature
term
developed
<??o-is were
com
bined; that is to say, Nature meant to them not only that out of
which things grew or of which, in the last analysis, they are consti
tuted ; this was one of its meanings, but only one, and that not the
most important.
Certainly it would not be true to say even of the Ioni
ans that they restricted themselves to the question as to the primary
meant more than this : it
substance of the world. Nature (and cj>vo-is)
included the law or process of growth exemplified in all things. Aris
totle and Theophrastus
suggest that Thaies was led to the assumption
that water was the primary substance by observations connected with
; be that as it may, it is certain that his
evaporation and precipitation
successor Anaximander was more interested in the cosmic process of seg
regation than in his colorless Infinite, and thenceforward cosmic pro
cesses and laws occupy the attention of philosophers more and more.
The main sense of Nature was, however, the sum of things as consti
This it was,
tuted by the elements and the cosmic laws and processes.
the Natura Herum, to the understanding of which the philosopher im
mediately addressed himself; and it was in this sense that the term <?vo-i?
occurs in the titular phrase Hepl ^uo-ew?. Yet, as we have seen, while
'
'
the inquiry or lo-TopL-q
ireplf?o-eus concerned the question what is it
the answer at once carried the inquirer to the further ques
(o TL coti),
'
'
and 'how did it come about/
There
tions of what is it constituted
It is just what we might have
is nothing startling in this conclusion.
It is, however,
expected, knowing the operations of the human mind.
not without a certain interest that we thus discover the ideals of pres
ent-day science informing and impelling the fathers of all science.
Science, however, merely formulates in the hierarchy of its ideals the
interests of the plain man who goes about his daily business with no
for matters theoretical.
The common mind is
particular predilection
chiefly concerned with results, neither asking nor greatly caring how
As for the underlying causes, material or efficient,
they were obtained.
which produced the results, they are relatively unimportant, except for
the purpose of attaining the same object either actually or by way of
Thus every one has heard of the
ideal construction or verification.
latest invention, say the aeroplane, and accepts it as a fact of interest.
Many, though by no means all, know the names of the inventors ; the
human interest in personalities of distinction contributes not a little to
the attitude of mind which fixes attention upon the author.
Even
smaller is the number of those who know of what materials the machine
That is a question of importance chiefly to the practical
is constructed.
of all are those who concern themselves about
Fewest
experimenter.
VOL. XLV.?9
PROCEEDINGS
130
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
the natural laws involved in the attempt to navigate the air, of which
the inventor must take advantage in the deft adjustment of his me
chanical contrivance to the attainment of his cherished object. Many
an experimenter even will be found to be lacking in a knowledge of
these principles which absorb the attention of the theorist. The natural
philosopher, however, will devote himself to the determination and for
mulation
of the laws involved ; from his point of view the inventor is
the materials used in the
of no consequence, and in his calculations
contrivance will figure as a plus or minus quantity.
It remains for us to speak briefly of Professor Burnet's dictum189
concerning the scope of the early Greek researches Hep! <?>vo-cm. Since
he himself holds that the title is not original and finds it first men
tioned in Euripides,190 it is fair to judge it by the conceptions of the
But we may reasonably go farther and assert that the
fifth century.
fourth centuries b.c. merely reflects the ideals of
the
fifth"and
of
usage
Greek science as they were gradually developed from the beginning.
*
Aristotle
In the Metaphysics191
says : It is owing to their wonder
that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize ; they won
dered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little
and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e. g. about the phe
nomena of the moon and those of the sun, and about the stars and
It is clear that the "obvious diffi
about the genesis of the universe/'
"
are
to
have
said
which
culties,
originally excited the wonder of men,
belong rather to the stages of preparation for technical philosophy, and
that philosophy proper begins for Aristotle with the investigation of the
Accord
phenomena of the heavens and of the origin of the universe.
was
of
observed
it
the
to
also
Plato192
heavenly
phe
regularities
ing
nomena that begot the research into the nature of the universe.
They
were the Oe?apar excellence,1** and wonder born of the observation of
them was supposed to have produced the belief in the existence of
It can hardly be doubted that in the early stages of philoso
gods.194
phy the researches of investigators might have been almost indifferently
as
characterized
distinction
miliarity
5(rai
irepi
fjuertiop^v
or
irepi
(pvo-eoys
?o-Top?rj.
Speaking
of the
fxeydXaL
rdv
tc^vwv
irpovheovrai
?ho\e(T\ias
kclI
)u,T u)poXoyta?
189
A.
^vctcoj?
HEIDEL.
?
Ifcpl
131
?)S.
<j>v<T
passage.
"Concerning
r?
/xerewpa,"
we
read,197
"I
do
not
want
to speak except to show, in regard to man and the other animals, how
they came about in the,course of nature, and what the soul is, what is
health and disease, what it is that produces health and disease in man,
and from what cause he dies." The author, while professing to speak
irepi tu)v fierewpiuv,proceeds to sketch the origin of things, giving in fact
a miniature discourse Uepl ^vo-em after the manner of the
philosophers,
in the course of which he describes the segregation of the cosmic ele
ments and then turns abruptly to tell of the origin of the various parts
of the human organism.
Each subject is introduced with the laconic
but significant phrase, ?SSc?yeWo.198
We are thus brought face to face with the second sphere of interest
included in the researches of early philosophy ; for, however much the
cosmos engaged the attention of the investigator, the microcosm soon,
if not immediately, made good its claims. We have repeatedly
re
so far as it con
marked upon the intimate connexion of medicine,
cerned physiology, with inquiries irepi </>vct<d?. We need not now
It is sufficient to call attention to the fact
enlarge upon this theme.
as well as by the pre-Socratics.
that it was recognized by Aristotle199
But while the philosopher may have devoted the greater part of his
attention to these two fields, nothing lay outside the sphere of his in
terest.
Thus it is not improbable that the study of mathematics was
associated with philosophy from the beginning and included in the
whose empirical method
of
scope of ?lepl <?vo-c?)?{(TTop?rj.Aristotle,
determining what does and what does not belong to the subject matter
of the several sciences is well known, says in the Metaphysics
: 20?
196 See
des griechischen Altertums,
Theorien
Gilbert, Die meteorol.
p. 14.
197 n.
aapK?jp, 1 (8, 584 Littr?)
irepi ?? t?p pieTeibpiop o??? (read ov??p !) ??opiai
es apOpwirop ?iro?el^oi Kai r? &XXa ?"$a, OK?aa
X?yeip, r)p PLY/roaovrop
(read ?kws !)
?(pv Kai ?y?per?, Kai 6 ri xpvx?) ?arip, Kai 6ri rb vyialpeip, Kai on rb Kd/iipeip, Kai 6ri
rb ?p ?pdp?irip KaKbp Kai ?yadop, Kai 60ep ?irodpr)aKei.
This little treatise has been
and deserves especial
attention
of its intimate
because
relation
to
unduly neglected
Its date is hard to determine.
philosophy.
pre-Socratic
Diels,
Elementum,
p. 17,
n. 2, would assign it to the first half of the fourth century, b.c.
198
641a 7 our (asy?p Kai oi <pvaioX6yoi r?s yep?
Compare Arist., De Parti. Animal.
'
aeis Kai r?s a?r?as rov axw^ios
virb i?vojp y?p ??r/piiovpyr/Srjaap ?vpdpei?P.
X?yovaip
Ibid. 647a9 foil. ; [Arist.] Probl. 892a23 foil.
199
464*33
if. ;De Parti. Animal.
653*8 foil. ; De Sensu,
Cp. Arist., De Longev.
436a 17 foil. ;De Hespir.,
480b22 foil.
20? 1005a 19
foil., transi. Ross.
PROCEEDINGS
132
OF
THE
AMERICAN
ACADEMY.
"
We must state whether it belongs to one or to different sciences to
called axioms, and
inquire into the truths which are in mathematics
into substance.
Evidently the inquiry into these also belongs to one
. . . And for this rea
science, and that the science of the philosopher
son no one who is conducting a special inquiry tries to say anything
?
neither the geometer nor the arithme
about their truth or falsehood,
tician. Some natural philosophers (<?>vo~ikol)indeed have done so, and
their procedure was intelligible enough ; for they thought that they alone
"
were inquiring about the whole of nature and of being
(irepi re rrjs o?^?
<?w
?)s Kal
irepl
universe
tov
as those
philosophers
"
(
ol
202 he
irepl
In
ovtos).
"
manner
like
re
(^mreooc
tov
Kal
Plato201
o\ov
8?a\ey?/x
to
refers
who discourse
vot Kal
the
and the
ypacfrovres).
and
TOiV
the
pere?piuv
the general
prehends
of
phenomena
ao~Tpovo?xiKa
subject, which
?a-TpovopuKa
"
the
heavens
arra
includes
aTTtt.203
We
hiepwrav).
Se irepl c?vo-em re
(l<j>aivovTo
Here
irepl Screws
gives
therefore,
safely
say
that
202
315 C.
B.
Protag.,
Lysis, 214
203 This seems also to be the
put upon the passage by Gilbert, Die
interpretation
he emphasizes
des griechischen
the
Theorien
meteorol.
Altertums,
p. 3, n. 3, although
were used inter
fact that in many cases irepi p^ere?pwp and irepi <?>?o-eu)s
(undoubted)
20!
changeably.
204 See
Gilbert,
Anaximenes
und Anaxi
0. c, p. 6, n. 1 t "Es haben deshalb
nnd Anaxagoras
und Parmenides,
jeder in einem
Empedokles
mander,
Xenophanes
und Meteorologie
behandelt.
Auch des
die Metaphysik,
Werke
gleichm?ssig
Physik,
Schriften
von Apollonia
pierewpoXoyia und irepi dpBp?irov <f>?o-e(as
angef?hrte
Diogenes
ir. (p?aeus.
der auch hierin
Erst Demokrit,
seines Werkes
waren wohl nur Teile
?
seines Gesamtsystems
hat ? neben der Darstellung
in
erscheint,
epochemachend
seine Forschungen
Vorsokr.
einer Menge von Specialschriften
Diels,
niedergelegt."
to Diogenes.
same opinion regarding
the titles attributed
It was
p. 333, is of the
title ; cp. D. L.
in after times that II. quereos was the general
tradition
the common
r? ?? (f>ep?p,epopavrov ?t?XLop ?<rrl p.?p dira rod avp?xopros ?lepl
IX. 5 (of Heraclitus)
?? eis rpe?s X?yovs, e?s re top irepl rov irapros /cat iroXirucop Kai BeoXo
{p?aet?s, OL-Qpyrai
: Kai outos Se
2 (Diels, Box.
Philos.
555, 17) says of Pythagoras
yuc?p. Hippolytus,
=
Kai yewpLerp?ap Kai plovglk?jp
( irepl <f>v<yeo)s)tvT'?(J'as ?fu&v ?arpopop.iap
irepi <pvo~LK?P
. . . irepl darpwp Kai <f>vcrews
Kai ?pLBjx7)TLK'/)P.Cp. ibid. 1. 24 : etra ?irei??.p
<f>iXoao
fr. 6, irepl (pvaeios Kai apropias ??e ^x L- To the Pythago
KrX.
Philolaus,
fpr)o-w(Ti,
yewpierpLa ; cp. Nichomachus,
apud Iamblichus,
iaropia meant
reans, we are told,
89.
Vita Pythag.
205 It is therefore not
to find in Plato uses of <j>?<rtscorresponding
to
surprising
HEIDEL.
set
in sharp
?
IIcpl
contrast206
4>v<T?>$.
to
the
133
ethical
and
method
University,
Conn.,
July
10,
1909.
and in rebus;
the Lucretian
103 B otire rb ?p
thus, Phaedo
phrases in reram natura
132 D r? pi?p el'?rj ravra
r)pup oiire rb ?p rrj <p?aei, and Parm.
airep irapaSe?ypiara
?ardpai ?p rr? (p?aei.
206
Arist., Met. 987* 1 foil.
Cp. n. 7, above.
2?7
.
4, 642 Littr?.
Hippocrates,
Cp. also the "0Pkos (4, 628 foil. Littr?).
208
fr. 114 (Bergk)
Pindar,
Cp. especially
?X?ios bans ?8?jp \ Kelp ela' ?wb x^"
6l8e pi?p ?iov reXevr?p,
\ o?Sep 8? 8i?a8orop ?pxdp.
209 Fr. 910.
The text is quoted above, n. 185.