ifJl-!

l)

Ullll.ltl

'I

(i'"i;i;lli'',

'v

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in

2011 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/historyofancienOOwind

HISTORY
OF

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

HISTORY
OF

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
BY

DR. W.

WINDELBAND

PKOFE8SOR OF PHILOSOPHY IX THE UXIVEKSITV OF STRASSBUKG

lut^ortjEtJ 2ran0latton

BY

HERBERT ERNEST CUSHMAX,

Ph.D.

INSTRUCTOB IN PHILOSOPHY IN TUFTS COLLEGE

Cbirt! (CDition

FRO^f TEE SECOND

GERMAN EDITION

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1910

t(P

16

IM7

Copyright, 1899,

By Charles

Scribner's Sons.

All rights reserved.

TO

willia:\[

r.

shipmax,

ll.d.

^iroffssor of iinglisl) in Cufts Colltgc,

MY FRIEND AND COUNSELLOR.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
Professor Windelband's Geschichte der Alten Philosophie
is

already

well

known

to

German

philosophical

readers as one of the famous Mller series of hand-books,

and yet

to that wider circle of English readers

it is still

a
of

foreign book.

In

many

quarters

technical

scholars

Greek philosophy have already commended its important innovations, and to these its erudition and scholarship are patent. In its translation, however, under the title of "The
History of Ancient Philosophy,"
reader and
losophy.
I
it

will reach the general

serve as

an introduction to the beginner in phi-

have personally never been able to see why the

possible.

approaches to the study of philosophy have been made as

difficult

and uninviting as

In other hard subto allure the

jects all sorts of helps

and devices are nsed

beginner within.

Into philosophy the beginner has always

had

to force his

way with no indulgent hand

of
affairs,

to help.

In

the past the history of thought has too often been entirely

separated

from the history

processes

as

if

the subjec-

tive historical

could have been possible with-

out the objective concrete events.

Professor Windelband

has gone far to lead the general reader to the history

of

thought through the history of the affairs of the Greek

nation.

This

is,

to

my

mind, the

difficult

but absolutely
if

necessary task of the historian of thought,

to reach any but technical philosophers.

he wishes

This work occu-

B
\\3

.W7

viii

PREFACE
and may mark the
oi'

pies a unique position in tliis respect,

be;inning of an cpocli in the rewriting

tlic

history of

philosophy.
1

am

inde))ted to

many

friends for help in

will

my

translain

tion of this work.

The reader

allow

me
of

to

mention

particular Professor

George H. Palmer,

Harvard,
to tlie

my
for

friend and former teacher, for introducing

me

work;

and

my

colleagues. Professor Charles St. Clair

Wade

much

exceedingly valuable assistance, and especially Pro-

fessors Charles E.

Fay and Leo R. Lewis, whose generous

in the discussion of

and untiring aid

ever

the whole

shall

remember.
due in

have, are

Whatever merits the translation may no small measure to their help; for

whatever defects
responsible.

may

appear,

can hold only myself

that I have found

So complete are the bibliographies here and elsewhere it necessary to append only a list of such
of

works as are helpful to the English reader

Philosophy.

Ancient

HERBERT ERNEST CUSHMAN.

Tufts College,
June, 1899.

PREFACE
TO THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION
Having undertaken
tumsiissensehaft,
it

to prepare

a r^sum^ of the history of

to offer to

ancient philosophy for the

Handbuch der Klassischen Alter-

seemed expedient

my

trained

readers, not an extract from the history of the literature of

the Greeks and

Romans, which can be found elsewhere

but rather a short and clear presentation, such as would

awaken
of a

interest and give an insight into the subject matter and the development of ancient philosophy. The necessity

new

edition gives evidence that this presentation has

won

itself

friends far

beyond the

circle

of

those

most

nearly interested.

This, moreover, would not have hap-

pened had I not abandoned the idea of presenting a colfrom the data usually furnished, and had I not given to the subject the form which my long personal experience as an academic teacher had proved to be most available. As a result I found myself in the somewhat painful position of being compelled to present didactically many very considerable deviations from the previous conception and
lation

treatment, without being able in the limitations of this

resume

to

advance for experts

I

my

reasons save in short

if I

references.

should have been very glad

could have

found time to justify

tailed discussions.

my

innovations by accompanying de-

But, unfortunately, the execution of

whole purpose has been postponed up to this time through more important and imperative tasks. The new

my

X
edition, therefore, linds

I'UEFACE

mc

again in the same position of

in the force of the

being compelled to trust more

relations of the subject matter
laid

general

and

in the emi)hasis briefly in a leisurely

upon important moments, than

extended

polemical presentation, which would otherwise have been

usual in this particular held.

For the chief matters in which I have gone my own ways separation of Pythagoras from the Pythagoreans and the discussion of the latter under " Efforts toward Reconciliation between Ileracleitanism and the Theory of Parmenides," the sci)aration of the two phases of Atomism

the

by the Protagorean Sophistic, the juxtajjosition of Demoeritus

and Plato, th conception of the Hellenic-Roman philfirst ethical and then osophy as a progressive application of science, to which I have also organically conreligious

nected Patristics,
its essentials.

all this

the reader finds unchanged in

My

treatment of these questions has found

opposition

many quarters, but in many also an expected and the reader may be assured that I have always been grateful for this latter, and have given it careThis weighing of objections was the ful consideration.
recognition in
;

more needful since I had occasion in the mean time to deal with the same questions in a larger connection and from
a different point of view.

The

trained eye will not

fail to

recognize in this second edition the influence of the objec-

where these have not convinced me. numerous small changes in the ])resentation, and in Here, again, the the choice of bibliography and citations. revising hand needed to follow many a kindly suggestion in the discussions of this book, and accept many a gratifying explanation in the works that have appeared during the
tions of experts, even
in the

past five years.

The only change

discussed.

in the external

form

of the

book

is in

the very desirable addition of an index to the philosophers

PREFACE
Then may my

xi

brief treatise continue to fulfil its task:

to solicit friends appreciative of a noble cause, to preserve

alive the consciousness of the imperishable

worth which
all

the

creations

of

Greek thought possess

^VILHEL^I

for

human

culture.

WINDELBAND.

Strassburg,

April, 1893.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Translator's Preface Author's Preface (to second German edition)

vii

...

ix

INTRODUCTION
1.

Significance of ancient philosophy to European civilization

2. 3.

Division of ancient philosophy

Historical methods

3 5 8

4-6.

Sources and developments of ancient philosophy

...

A.
Introduction
turies B.
7.
8.
:

GREEK
life of

PHILOSOPHY
conditions of philosophy in
the seventh

The preliminary

the Greek intellectual

and sixth cen16-3tj

Geographical survey
Social

16 17
:

and

political relations

9.

The

period of ethical reflection

the Seven

Wise Men

18

10.
11.

Practical

and

special learning

20
26 28 33

Religious ideas

12.
13.

The reformation by Pythagoras The first problems of science

1.

The Milesian Nature Philosophy.

Pages 36-45.

14. 15. 16.

Thales

36 39 43

Anaximander Anaximenes

XIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.

TiiK ^Iktapiiysical Conflict.

Hkkacleitus

Paob

and
46
52
5!)

TUK Elkatics.
17.

Pages 46-71.

Xenophanes
Heracleitiis

18.
19.

20.

rannenides Zeno and Melissas

3.

65

KiKOKTs TOWARD RECONCILIATION.

Pages 71-100.
73
80

21.

Kinpedocles

22. 23. 24.

Aiiaxagoras

The beginnings of Atomism The Pythagoreans

4.

Lcucippus

87

93

The Gukkk Enlightenmp:nt. The Sophists AND Socrates. Pages 100-151.

100 108 123 135
140
Sophists

25.
26.

Eclecticism and special researcli

The

27.
28.

Socrates

29.
30.

The ]\legarian and Elean-Eretrian Schools The Cynic School The Cyrenaic School
5.

145

Materialism and Idealism.

Plato.

Democritus

and
155
159 170
174

Pages 151-223.

31.
32. 33. 34. 35.
36.

The life and writings of Democritus The theoretic philosophy of Democritus The practical philosopliy of Democritus The life and writings of Plato The theory of Ideas of Plato
Tlie ethics of Plato

189

37.

The nature philosophy

6.

of Plato

204 216'

Aristotle.

Pages 224-292.

38.

39. 40.

The Older Academy The life and writings of The logic of Aristotle The The
physics of Aristotle
ethics

Aristotle

........

224 230

247 257

41.
42.
43.

Tiie metaphysics of Aristotle

268 282

and

poetics of Aristotle

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xv

B.
44.

HELLEXIC-ROMAN

PHILOSOPHY
Page

Introduction

293

1.

Tue Controversies of the Schools.

The Peripatetics The Stoics The Epicureans
2.

Pages 298-329
298
303 319

45.

46. 47.

Skkpticis.m

and Syncretism.

Pages 320-3-19.
329

48.

The Skeptics
Eclecticism

49.
50.

337
341

Mystic Platonism

3.

Patristics.

Pages 349-365.
352

51. 52.
53.

The Apologists The Gnostics and their opponents The Alexandrian School of C'atechists:
4.

355

Origen

361

Neo-Platonism.
:

Pages 365-383.
366

54. 55.
56.

The Alexandrian School Plotinus The Syrian School Jamblichus The Athenian School Proclus
: :

375
377

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

385
,

389

HISTORY
OP

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
INTRODUCTION
1.

Scientific interest in
is

ancient, especially in Greek,

it

philosophy,

not confined to the value that

possesses as

a peculiar subject for historical research and for the study

of civilization. But it is also equally conpermanent significance that the content of cerned in the ancient thought possesses by reason of its place in the development of the intellectual life of Europe. The emphasis falls primarily upon the lifting of mere knowing to the plane of systematic knowledge, or science. Not content with his storing of practical facts, and with his fantastic speculations born of his religious needs, the Greek sought knowledge for its own sake. Knowledge, like art, was developed as an independent function from of the

growth

its

involvement in the other activities of

civilization.

So,

and foremost, the history of ancient philosophy is an insight into the origin of European science in general. It is, however, at the same time the history of the birth For the process of diiferentiaof the separate sciences. tion, which begins with distinguishing thought from conduct and mythology, was continued within the domain of With the accumulation and organic arscience itself. rangement of its facts, the early, simple, and unitary science
first

to

which the Greeks gave the name

1

(f)L\oao<pia,

divided into

lIIt;i\>KY

OF ANCIENT

I'lULi )S()Pliy

the special sciences, the single

(f>iXoao(f)iaL,

and these then

lines.

continued to devehip on more or less indc})endent

Conceruing the history and meaning of the name of

;

''

phi-

losophy," see especially R. Haym, in Krsch and (4 ruber's EncyUeberweg, (rndHln'ss, I. 1 khpdie. III. division, vol. 24 Wintlelband, J'raehalicn, p. 1 flf. The word became a technical It meant there exactly what sciterm in the Socratic school. ence means in (lernian. In later time, after the division into the special sciences, the word philosophy had the sense of 2. ethico-religious practical wisdom. See
;

J?

The beginnings

of scientific life that arc thus found in

ancient philosophy

are most influential upon

the entire

development that follows. With proportionately few data, Greek philosophy produced, with a kind of grand simplicity, conceptual forms for the intellectual elaboration of its facts,

and with a remorseless

sists the peculiar

logic

it

developed every essential

point of view for the study of the universe.

Therein con-

character of ancient thought and the high

Our present language its history. and our conception of the world are thoroughly permeated by the results of ancient science. The naive ruggedness with which ancient philosophers followed out single motives of reflection to their most one-sided logical conclusions, brings into clearest relief that practical and psychological necessity which governs not only the evolution of the
didactic significance of

problems of philosophy, but also the repeated historical

tendencies toward the
solution of these problems.

We

may

likewise ascribe a typical significance to the universal

stages of development of ancient philosophy, in view of the

fact that philosophy at first turned with

undaunted courage

it turned back to the inner world, and from this point of view, with renewed strength, it attempted to conceive the World-All. Even the manner in wlii(di ancient thought i)laced its

to the study of the outer world

thwarted there,

entire apparatus of concoptual

knowledge

at the service of

INTRODUCTION
social

and religious needs has a peculiar and more than

historical value.

The real significance of ancient philosophy will be much exaggerated if one tries to draw close analogies between the different phases of modern philosophy and its exponents, and those of the ancients. Read K. v. Reichlin-Meldegg, D. Parallelismus d. alien u. neuen Philosoplde, Leipzig and Heidelberg, detailed parallelism is impossible, because all the 1865. forms of the modern history of civilization have so much more nearly complete presuppositions, and are more complicated than The typical character of the latter those of the ancient world. is valid in so far as they have " writ large" and often nearly grotesquely the simple and elemental forms of mental life, which among moderns are far more complicated in their combinations.

2.

The

total

of

that

which
into

is

usually

designated

as

ancient philosophy falls

two large

divisions,

which

must be distinguished as much in respect to the civilizations that form their background as in respect to the intelThese divisions are, lectual principles that move them. Greek philosophy, and (2) Hellenic-Roman philosophy. (1) We may assume the year of the death of Aristotle, 322 b. c,
as the historical line of demarcation between the two.

Greek philosophy grew out of an exclusive national culture, and is the legitimate offspring of the Greek spirit. The Hellenic-Roman philosophy came, on the otlicr hand, out of much more manifold and contradictory intellectual movements. After the days of Alexander the Great a culture that was so cosmopolitan that it broke down all
national barriers, increased in ever-widening circles
the nations

among

upon the Mediterranean Sea. The fulfilment- of these intellectual movements was objectively expressed in

the

Roman Empire,
tlie

subjectively in Christianity

and, be

it

Hellenic-Roman philosophy foi-ms one of the mightiest factors in this very process of amalgamation.
remarked,
Moreover, there
is

a not less important difference in the

the two periods.

scientific interest of

Greek philosophy

HISTORY OF ANCIENT

I'lIILOSOl'IIY

began with an independent desire for knowledge.

It

was

ever concerned in the quest for knowdedge that was free

from

all

subordinate purposes.
in his logic,

It perfected itself in Aris-

totle, partly

knowledge, and partly in The energy of this purely theoretic interest of sciences.

which was a universal theory of the scheme of a developed system

in the following time,

was gradually extinguished

objective special sciences.

only partly maintained in unpretentious work

and was upon the

"Wise

Man

The practical question how the should live entered into " philosophy," however,

and knowledge was no longer sought on account of itself In this way the Hellenicbut as a means of right living. Roman philosophy fell into dependence upon the general a thing that never but temporary changes in society, Then later its purely Greek philosophy. happened in original ethical tendency changed entirely into the effort to

find
tion.

by means of science a satisfaction for religious aspiraIn Greece, philosophy, therefore, w^as science that
;

had ripened into independence

in

Hellenism
full

and the
possession

Roman Empire,
of
its

philosophy entered with a

consciousness into the service

of the

social

and

religious mission of

man.

It is obvious, from the elasticity of all historical divisions, The postthat this antithesis is not absolute, but only relative. Aristotelian philosophy is not entirely lacking in endeavors for the essentially theoretical, nor indeed among the purely Greek thinkers are there wanting those who set for philosophy the Socratics for example. Howultimately practical ends, ever, comparison of the different definitions which in the course of antiquity have been given for the problem of philosophy, justifies, on the whole, the division we have chosen, which takes the purpose of philosophy in its entirety as the princ'qnHtn

dicisionis.

These divisions approach most nearly among later writers those of Ch. A. Rrandis in his shorter work, Gesch. d. Enttvick. d. (iriecldschca Phil. v. Hirer Narlnvirknngeii im rmischen Reiche (2 vols., Berlin, ixirl and 1864), although he distinguishes formally three perioils here, as in his larger work.

INTRODUCTION
These periods are:
(1) pre-8ocratic

philosophy; (2) the develphifirst

opment from Socrates to Aristotle; (8) post- Aristotelian Yet he unites the first two divisions as " the losophy.

half," and distinctly recognizes their inner relationship in contrast to the third division, which forms ''the second half." Zeller and Schwegler also employ these three periods as the basis of their work upon the Greeks, while Ritter puts the Stoics and^ Epicureans also in the second period. Hegel, on the other hand, treats tlie entire Greek philosophy until Aristotle as the first period, to which he adds the Gra-co-Ronian philosophy as the second and the neo-Platonic philosophy as the third. Ueberweg accepts the divisions of Ritter, with tljis
variation,

he

transfers the Sophists from the

first

period to

the second.

purposely desist from dividing here the two chief periods The demand for comof philosophy into subordinate periods. prehensiveness, which alone would justify further divisions, is satisfied with the simple general divisions, while a comprehensive view of the steps in development is provided for in another manner by the treatment of individual doctrines. If a completer subdivision should be insisted upon, the following might be

We

adopted
(a)
(1)

Greek philosophy

into three periods

The cosmological, which includes the entire pre-Socratic speculation, and reaches down to about 450 b. c. ( 1-3) (2) The anthropological, to which belong the men of the Greek Enlightenment, i. e., the Sophists, Socrates, and the socalled Socratic schools ( 4) (3) The systematic, which by its uniting the two preceding periods is the flowering period of Greek science. (b) Hellenic-Roman philosophy into two sections (1) The school-controversies of the post-Aristotelian time,
;
:

with the accompanying essential ethical tendency,

ticism,
(2)

critical

skepS3's-

and retrospective erudition (1 and

Eclectic Platonism, with
its

2).

bifurcation into the rival

4).

tems of Christian and neo-Platonic religions (3 and

3.

The

scientific

treatment of the history of philosophy

history, as
in this treatise, has a
it

or of

a part of

that

double task.

must determine the actual number of those concepts which are claimed to be " philoso])hic," and must conceive them in their genesis,
the one

On

hand

particularly in their relation to each other.

On

the other

6
hand,
it

ms n IKY

OF ANCIKNT IMIILOSOIMIY
of

must determine the value

each

individual

philosophic doctrine in the development of the scientific

consciousness.

In the

first

regard the history of philosophy

is

purely an
predilec-

historical science.

As

such,

it

must without any

tion proceed, by a careful examination of the tradition, to

establish with

philological exactness the content of

It

the

philosophic doctrines.
all

must explain

their origin with

the precautionary measures of the historical method.

It

furthermore must make clear their genetic relations, on

life

the one hand, to the personal

of the philosophers, and,

on the other, to civilization as a whole. In this way it will be plain how philosophy has attained to an actual
process of development.

From

this historical point of view,

however, there arises

for the history of philosophy the critical task of determin-

ing the results which the various systems of philosophy

tion of the world.

have yielded for the construction of the human concepThe point of view for this critical study
Nevertheless
criticism,

need not be the peculiar philosophical attitude of history. one hand, be that of inner it must, on the

which

tests the teaching of a philosophical sys-

tem by

logical compatibility

and consistency

it

must, on

the other hand, be that of historical generalization, which estimates philosophical teaching according to
tual fruitfulness
its intellec.

and

its

practical historical eflicacy

The

history of ancient philosophy as a science has to

difficulties in

meet very great and sometimes insuperable

other hand, in
able, after a
its critical

the fragmentary character of the literary sources.

On

the

problem,
of nearly

it is

fortunate in being

development

two thousand years, to

judge the value of individual teaching with no personal

bias.

The different points of view taken in investigating the tory of philosophy are as follows
:

his-

INTRODUCTION
(1)

of description. According to teachings of the different philosophers are supposed to be reported with historical authenticity. So soon, however, as any report is claimed to be of scientific value, the tradition must be criticised; and this, as all other historical criticism, can be accomplished only by investigating the sources. (2) The genetic point of view of explanation, which has three possible forms, This represents the per(a) The psychological explanation. sonality and individual relations of the respective philosophers as the actual causes or occasions of their opinions. This is an attempt to under(h) The pragmatic method. stand the teaching of each philosopher by explaining the contradictions and unsolved problems of his immediate predecessors. This sees in the philosophical (c) The kulfnr-historisch view. systems the progressive consciousness of the entire ideal development of the human mind. Starting from a (3) The speculative attitude of criticism. systematic conviction, this seeks to characterize the different phases of philosophical development by the contributions thereto (Compare Hegel, in Vorwliich they have severally furnished. Jesnngen ber d. Gesch. d. Phil., Complete Works., Vol. XIII. Windelbaud, Gesch. d. 19 ff. Ueberweg, Grandriss, I. 3 Phil.., Freiburg i. B., 1892, 1 and 2.) Until witliin the previous century enumeration of the 2ylaclta 2)hdosophorum., with some little application of the pragmatic method, essentially predominated in the history of philosophy. Hegel, with all the exaggeration of this speculative point of view, was the first to raise philosophy from a mere collection of curiosities to a science. His constructive and fundamental idea that in the historical order of philosophical theories the categories of true philosophy repeat themselves as progressive achievements of humanity involved an emphasis upon the knltur-historisch and the jjragmatic explanations, and this required only the iudividualistic i)sychological supplementation. On account of Hegel's speculative conception, on the other hand, historical criticism fell with the disappearance of faith in the absolute philosophy. By this historical criticism the mere establishment of the facts and their genetic explanation are changed into a complete philosophical science. Hegel created the science of the history of philosophy according to its ideal purposes, but not until after his day was safe ground presented for achieving such a science by the philological method of getting the data without presuppositions. Upon no territory has this method since recorded such far-reaching success as upon the field of ancient philosophy.
ihis the
;
:

The naive point of view

8
4.

IITSTORY OF ANCIENT

riIIL( )S()PIIY

The
fall

scientific

helj)s to tlie stiuly

:

ophy

into throe classes

of ancient philos-

Only a very few of the have been preserved. complete single works in the purely Greek philosAs to ophy, they are to be found only in Plato and Aristotle.
(<?)

The Original
of

Sources.

writings

ancient

philosophers

The
ers

original sources, however, are richer in the Hellenic-

Roman
are

period.

Tiie writings of the ancient

Greek

tliink-

preserved

in

only

a fragmentary

way through

incidental citations of later literature.

mentioned A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosojjhorum Grd'corum (;3 vols., Paris, 18G0-81). Yet it satisfies today neither the demauds for completeness nor for aceurac}'.

The most comprehensive

collection not especially

hereafter, is that of F.

W.

Nevertheless the works that have come

down

to us are

by no means to be accepted in toto and on trust. Not alone unintentionally, but also from its desire to give to
its

own

teaching, so far as possible, the nimbus of ancient

in

wisdom, later antiquity substituted

many
of

instances

its

own compositions
in particular are

for the writings of the ancients, or in-

terpolated their texts.

The sources we

Greek philosophy
still

not only in a very fragmentary but also

are
limited to a

in a

very uncertain state, and

conjecture of a greater or less degree of probability in

regard to

many

very weighty questions.

The

jjhilological-

historical criticism,

which seems indispensable under these requires a safe criterion for our guidance, and circumstances, this criterion we possess in the works of Plato and Aristotle.
Opposed to the easy credulity with which in the previous century (according to Buhle) tradition was received, Schleiermacher had the especial merit of having begun and incited a Brandis, Trendelenburg, Zeller, and Diels fruitful criticism. were likewise the leaders in this direction.
5. (?>)

The Corroborative Testimony of Antiquity/.

in ancient literature

Early

(according to Xenophon)

we

find tes-

INTRODUCTION

timony on the life and death of notable philosophers. Of importance for us, moreover, are the passages in which especially in the beginning of his Plato and Aristotle
3Ietaphi/sies

linked

their

own teaching

to the early phi-

losophy.

Afc

the time of Aristotle there arose a widely

spread, partly historical and partly critical literature, con-

cerning what was then ancient philosophy.

this

Unfortunately,
Especially

has been
is

lost,

excepting a few fragments.

disciples,

deplorable
Aristotle
particular.

the loss of the writings of this character of

and his immediate

Theophrastus

in

Similar works, likewise no longer extant, issued

from the Academy, in which, moreover, commentating also had its beginning at an early time. So, also, the historical and critical works of the Stoics have gone forever.
This historiography of philosophy, the so-called dox-

commentating and collating, developed Alexandrian literature, and had its tliree philosophical centres in Pergamus, Rhodes, and Alexandria. These voluminous and numerous works in their original form are in the main lost. Yet with all recognition of the erudition that doubtless permeated them, it must still be maintained that they have exercised a bewildering influence in various ways upon succeeding writers, who took excerpts directly out of them. Besides this almost unavoidable danger of reading later conceptions and theories into the old teaching, there appear three chief sources
ography, with
its

enormously

in the

of error,

(1) In the inclination to fix the succession of ancient philosophers after the manner of the later successions of scholarchs. (2) In the fantastic tendencj' to dignify ancient Greece with the miraculous and the extraordinary. (3) Finally, in the effort that sprang out of an undefined feeling of the dependence of Grecian upon Oriental culture. Encouraged by a new acquaintance with the East, some scholars have tried to knit every significant fact as closely as possible with Oriental influence.

10

HISTORY OF ANCIENT

1MIII,0S()PI1Y
left

Statements at only (hird or fourth hand arc

over to
the

from the Roman period. The fragments of Varro, in the writings

lis

historical notes in

of Cicero (Rud. Ilirzcl,

l/ntersuch. zu 0. philos. Schriften^ 3 parts, Leipzig,

1877-

1883), as well as of Seneca, Lucretius, and Plutarch, are

valuable, but
historical

must be used with

of

care.

The
lost.

philosophical-

writings

Plutarch

are

The compila-

tion preserved

under his name,

I>e physicis philosophoruni

decretis (in Dlibner's edition of

is,

the Morals, Paris, 1841), according to Diels, an abstract of the Placita of Aetius,

dating back to Theophrastus, and was

middle of the second

(f)iXoa6(f)ov

century.
is

made perhaps in the The spurious book irepl

laTopia^,

which

falsely ascribed to Galen, is in

the

main

identical with it (published in the nineteenth vol-

ume

of KuIdi' Si-hen Gesamtausgabe').

Many

later excerpts

of Favorinus are included

among

the uncritically collected

also Mercklin,
Cr.,

reports
atticce,

so, also, those of

Apuleius and of Gellius (Nodes

ed. Hertz,

Leipzig,
u.

1884-85

see

Die Zitiermethode
1860).
connection.

Quellenbenutzung des A.

Leipzig,

Lucian's writings must also be mentioned in this

Those numberless historical accounts in the Galen (especially De placitis Hippocraiis et Dlatonis, separately published by Iwan Mller, Leipzig, 1874) and of Sextus Empiricus (Op. ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1842 TTvppoovecot V7rorv7roi}<ji<i and Trpo? fiaOrj/juaTiKov^) arc Out of the same period philosophically more trustworthy. Flavius Philostratus, Vitce sophistarum grew the work of (ed. Wcstermann, Paris, 1849), and of Athenasus, DeipnoAvritings of
:

sophistr.e (ed.
is

Meineke, Leipzig, 1857-69).

Finally,

there

the book which was regarded for a long time almost as

the principal source for a history of ancient philosophy;

viz.,

that

of

Diogenes Laertius,
roiv

irepl

iwv, BoyfMurcov koL

air 0(^6 e'y^iuTwv

ev

(f)tXoao<f)ia

evhoKLfiTjcrdvTtov

iXia

BeKa (ed. Cobet, Paris, 1850).

Another kind

of secondary sources is furnished by the

INTRODUCTION
writings of the church fathers,
getic,

11
polemical, apolo-

who have

and dogmatic aims

This
is

in reproducing the

Greek phi-

losophy.

especially true of Justin Martyr, Clement

of Alexandria, Origen (Kara KeXo-ov), Hippolytus {Refutatio

omnmm

hceresium, ed. Duncker, Gott., 1859, the first book

of this being formerly supposed to be a

work

of Origen
eva)ir/.,ed.

under the
lian

title cf)i\oao(f)ov/j.va'),

Enseh'ms (Pr'vp.
of the

Dindorf, Leipzig, 1868), and in certain respects also Tertul-

and Augustine.
a

The importance

church

fatiiers

as sources for the study of ancient philosophy has attained

recently to

completer and more fruitful

recognition,

especially since the impulse given by Diels to their study.

Finally, the activity in

commentating and
in

historical rein

search was carried on

Platonic school.
is

a lively fashion

the neo-

The

chief

work indeed, that

laropia).

of

Porphyry,

not preserved

(^iX6a-o(f)o<;

On

the other hand,

the writings of the neo-Platonists in general offer numerous

historical data
;

and, as already the earlier commentaries

of

Alexander

of Aphrodisias {zu Arist. Met., ed.

Top.,

Hay duck,

M. Wallies, Berlin, 1891 smaller works by Ivo Bruns. Berlin, 1898), so the commentaries of Themistius, and especially Simplicius, contain many carefully and intelligently compiled excerpts from the direct and indirect sources of earlier times. Among
Berlin, 1891, and zu Arht.

the latest writers of

ancient literature the collections of

Stobasus and Photius, and those also of Hesychius, appear

useful for the history of philosophy.
Diels, Doxographi Graci (Berlin, 1879). An exand, for a beginning, an extraordinarily instructive collection of the most important passages from the primarv and secondary sources is that of Ritter and Preller in their Historia. lyhilosophice Gra^ro-romanip ex fontiuni loo's contexta (7 ed. is brought out by Schnlthess and TTellmann, Gotha, 1888V
cellent
6.

Compare

(c)

The Modern Expositions.

philosophy

Scholarly treatment
literature

of

ancient

was

in

modern

con-

12
fined at antiquity.

HISTOllV OF ANCIKXT rillLOSOrilY

first to

a brief criticism of
philosojihy

llie

latest

works
in

of

Thus, the occasional

histoi-jcal collections con-

cerned with ancient

sources.

which we

lind

the

Humanisticliterature, in the main led l)ack to neo-Platonic

by

The very first work, the Hidory of Philosophy, Thomas Stanley (London, 1665), scarcely more than
Bayle in his

reproduced the reports of Diogenes Laertius.

Du'tionnaire historique et critique (1 ed., Rotterdam, 1697),

gave a powerful impulse to

critical treatment.*

Later appeared the writings of Brucker, thoroughgoing,

industriously compiled, but in point of fact not equal to

the task
(L"lm,

Kurze Fragen aus der

f.),

2'>hilosophischen Historie
philosoj)hice

1731

Historia

critica

(Leipzig,

1742
a

f.),

Institutiones histories philosojjhice (Leipzig, 1747;

compendium for a school manual). With the formation of the great schools of philosophy, particularly in Germany, the history of philosophy began
to

be treated with reference to

its

single directions and

In the front D. Tiedemann came with his empirical-sceptical Geist der Philosophie (Marburg, 1791 ff.).
systems.

Then

followed, from the Kantian point of view, J. G. Buhle

with Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie (Gott., 1796 ff.); Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, 1798 ff.);
then the Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (5th ed.), Amad. Wendt, Leipzig, 1829, a much used epitome,

commending
Fries,

itself

by

its

careful literary data

and

J. F.

Geschichte

der Philosophie

(1

vol.,

Halle, 1837).

From
1807)

the Schellingen point of view, there are Fr. Ast's

Grundriss einer Geschichte

;

der

Philosophie

(Landshut,

E. Reinhold, Geschichte der Philosophie nach den

ihrer Entwickelung

Hauptpunkten

(Jena,

1858).

From
notes

the point of view of

Schleiermacher,

are his

own

for his lectures on the history of philosophy in a collection

*

Upon

wliich a philosophical article of value in part even to-day has

in

been published

German by

II.

Jacob

(17! 7-98,

Halk).

INTRODUCTION
of

13
:

three parts, four volumes (Berlin, 1839)

Geschichte der Pliilosophie
Ptter,

Die
Ch.

H. (Hamburg, 1829
Philosophie in

Ritter,
ff.)
;

F.

Die

Creschichte

der
the

Umriss

(Elberfeld,

1873).^

From
;

Hegelian point of view,

are Hegel's lectures upon the history of philosophy in his

J. E. Erdmann, Gnoidriss complete works, XIII. ff. der Geschichte der Philosophie (3 ed., Berlin, 1878).

From
1880).
of

the Hcrbartian point of view,

is

Ch. A. Thilo, Kurze

jjrar/matische

Geschichte der Pllosopliic

(Cothen, 2

ed.,

With

especial reference to the factual development

problems and concepts, ancient philosophy has also been by W. Windelband, Geschichte der Philosophie (Freiburg i. Br., 1892). Of the other numerous complete presentations of the history of philosophy, that of J. Bergtreated

mann

Of the presentations in other languages than German which also

(Berlin, 1892)

may

be finally mentioned.

give valuable contribution to the study of ancient philosophy,

V. Cousin, Histoire gcne'rale de la A. Weber, Histoire de A. Fouillee, philosophic europeeniie (Paris, 5 ed., 1892)
be here mentioned
:

may

philosophic (12 ed., Paris, 1884)

Histoire de la Philosophie (Paris, 3 ed., 1882)

R. Blakey,
;

History of the Philosophy of Mind (London, 1848) G. H. Biographical History of Philosophy (London, Lewes,

ed.,

1871,

German

ed., Berlin,

1871).

The completest literary data for the historiography of philosophy, and particnlarly ancient pliilosophy, are found in Ueberweg, Grundriss d. Philos., a work which presents also in its remarkable continuation by M. Heinze (7 ed., Berlin, 1886) an indispensable completeness in its annotations. The texts furnished by Ueberweg himself were at first only superficially systematized by him, and were given an unequal, confused, and, for beginners, untransparent character by his later additions,
interpolations,
1

and annotations.
is

An

iuspirhi^ statement of the development of ancient pliilosophy

also that of Brandis's Gescluclde der Philos. seit

Kant,

Part (Breslau,

1842).

14

IIISTOHY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

The

profouiider philological studies at the beginning of

the nineteenth eentiiry were advantageous to the history

of ancient philosophy, since a critical silting of tradition

and methodical basis for historicalwas facilitated (coni))are Zeller, '/a/n-bilcher der Gegenwart, 1843). The greatest credit for such a stimulus is due to Schleiermacher, whose translation of Plato was a powerful example, and whose special works upon Heracleitus, Diogenes of Apollunia, Anaximander, and others have been placed in Part III. book 2, of his collected works. Among the numerous special researches arc to be mentioned A, B. Krische's Forschungen auf dem
a
philological

and

philosophical research

Gebiete der alten Philosophie (Gott., 1840)

lenburg,
Historische

also A. Trende-

Beitrge

zur

Pliilosophie

(Berlin,

1846

f.),

the author of which deserves credit for his stimula;

tion of Aristotelian studies

H. Siebeck, Untersuchungen zur

Philosophie der Griechen (2 ed., Freiburg i. Br., 1888) G. Teichmller, Studien zur Geschichte der Begriffe (Berlin,

1874

ff.)

0. Apelt, Beitrge zur Geschichte der griechischen

;

Philosophie (Leipzig, 1891)

Leipzig, 1892.

E.

Norden

(the

same

title),

As

the

first

product of these critico-philological studies,

we may consider the praiseworthy work of Ch. A. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der griechisch-rmischen Philosophie (Berlin, 1835-60), by
the side of which the author

placed a shorter and especially finely conceived exposition,

Geschichte der Entwickelungen der griechischen Philosophie

und ihrer Nachioirhungen im rmischen Reiche (Berlin, 1862 With less cxhaustiveness, but with a peculiar u. 1864). superiority in the development of the problems, Ludw.
Strmpell
(2d
part,

Leipzig,

1854,

1861),

K.

Prantl

and A. Schwegler (3 ed., especially, by Kstlin, Freiburg, 1883) treated the same su])joct. All these valuable works, and with them the numerous synopses, compendiums, and compilations (sec Ueberweg,
(Stuttgart, 2 ed., 1863),

INTRODUCTION

15

above mentioned, pp. 27-29), are overshadowed beside that

masterpiece and, for
philosophy
tion, the
:

many
first

reasons, final

word upon ancient

fifth edi-

E. Zeller, I)ie PJdlosophie der Griechen (Tuff.

:

bingen, 1844

the

book

is

published in the

second in the fourth edition, the

original

otliers in the third

edition).^

Here, upon the broadest philological-historical

sources,

foundation and upon

authoritative,

philosophical,

and illuminating statement is gi\en of the entire development. Zeller has published a clever summary of the whole in Grundriss d. Gesch. der Alten Philos.
(4
ed., Leipzig,

1893).

The special sides of ancient philosophy have been presented in the following notable works Logic K. Prautl, Gesch. cl. Logik im Ahencllande (vols. 1 and P. Natorp, Forschungen z. Gesch. 2, Leipzig, 1855 and 1861)
:

des Erkenntnissjjroblems im Altertum (Berlin, 1884) Giov. Cesca, La teoria della conoscenza nella filos. greca (Verona, 1887). Psychology: H. Siebeck, Gesch. d. Psy. (vol. 1, Gotha, 1880 and 1884) A. E. Chaiguet, Histoire de la psy. des grecs (Paris, 1887-92). Ethics L. v. Henning, D. Prinzipien cl Ethik, etc. (Berlin, E. Feuerlein, D. philos. Sittenlehre in ihren geschicht1825) lichen Hauptjormen (Tubingen, 1857 and 1859) Paul Janet, Histoire de la j^hilosophie morcde et politicpie (Paris, 1858) J. Mackintosh, T/ie Progress of Ethical Philosophy (London, 1862) W. Whewell, Lectures on the History of Morcd Philosophy (London, 1862) R. Blakey, History of Moral Science (Edinburgh, 1863); L. Schmidt, D. Ethik 'd. cd. Griechen (Berlin, Th. Zeigler, D. Ethik d. Gr. u. Rmer (Bonn, 1881) 1881) C. Kstlin, Gesch. d. Ethik (1 vol., Tbingen, 1887) especially compare R. Eucken, D. Lebensanschauungen d. grossen Denker
; ;

(Leipzig, 1890).

The following
D. Lehre
d.

particularly treat special topics

;

v.

Logos (Leipzig, 1872)

;

D. Lehre

in griech. Philos. (Leipzig, 1884) Cl. Materie in d. griech. PhUos. (^Mnster,

M. Heinze, Eudaemonismus Bumcker, Das Problem

:

d.

1890) Gesch. d. Aesthetik im Altertum (Leipzig, 1893).

^

J. Walter,

Referred to in this work usually as I^,

II*.

etc.

Tr.

16

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT I'lIlLOSOPHY

A.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
Introduction

The Preliminary Conditions of Pliilosopliy in the Greek InteUeetual Life of the Seventh and Sixth Centuries B. C}
7.

The

history of the philosophy of the Greeks, like the

history of their political development, requires a larger con-

ception of the geography of the country than the present

conception
usual

of

its

political

relations

-would
is

imply.
of

Our

present idea of ancient

its

Gi'eece

country

wherein Athens by
portions,

literature

overshadowed the other

and by the brilliancy of its golden age eclipsed its Ancient Greece was the Grecian sea with earlier history. all its coasts from Asia Minor to Sicily and from Cyrcne to Thrace. The natural link of the three great continents was this sea, with its islands and coasts occupied by the most gifted of people, which from the earliest historical times had settled all its coasts. (Homer.) Within this circle, the later so-called Motherland, the Greece of the continent
of Europe, played at the beginning a very subordinate role.

In the development of Greek culture, however, leadership

branch of the race which in its entire history was in closest contact with the Orient, the lonians. This race laid the foundation of later Greek development, and by its commercial activity established the power of Greece.
fell

to that

At

first

as seafarers

and sea-robbers

in

the train of the

Phoenicians, in the ninth and eighth centuries the lonians

won an

increasing independence, and in the seventh cen-

tury they

commanded

the world's trade between the three

continents.

Over the entire Mediterranean, from the Black Sea to the Pillars of Hercules, the Greek colonics and trade cen1

Reference should be made to corresponding sections in historical

tliis

parts of

l)0ok for details.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
tres

17

were extended.
at

the enterprising Ionian spirit.

of

commerce, and

Even Egypt opened its treasures to At the head of these cities the same time the leader of the Ionian

League, Miletus appeared in the seventh century as the

most powerful and most notable centre of the Greek genius. For here It likewise became the cradle of Greek science. in Ionia of Asia Minor the riches of the entire world were heaped together here Oriental luxury, pomp, material pleasure held their public pageants here began to awaken the sense of the beauty of living and the love of higher ideals, while rude customs still ruled upon the continent of Europe. The spirit became free from the pressure of daily need, and in its play created the works of noble leisure, of art, and of science. The cultured man is he who in his leisure does not become a mere idler. 8. Thus, while wealth acquired from trade afforded the basis for the free mental development of the Greek, so, on the other hand, this same wealth led to changes of political and social conditions which were likewise favorable to
;
;

the development of intellectual

cratic

life.

Originally,

aristo-

had ruled Ionian cities, and they were probably descended from the warlike bands that in the socalled Ionian migration from the continent of Europe had settled the islands. But in time, through their commerce, there grew up a class of well-conditioned citizens, who restricted and opposed the power of the aristocracy. On the one hand bold and ambitious, on the other thoughtful and
families
patriotic

men

took advantage of these

democratic tenof the oligarchy

dencies, and after destroying the

tried to set

power

up monarchies and equalize, as far as

principles
is

possible,

the interests of all classes.

The tyranny based on democratic

the typical

governmental rule of this time, and extended its power, although not without vigorous and often long partisan
struggles,

from Asia Minor across the islands even

2

to

18

iiiSTOKY OK ,\Nrii:Nr riiii.osoriiv

European Greece. Thrasyljulus in Quietus, Polycratcs in Samos, Pittacus in Lesbos, Periander in Corinth, Peisistratus in Athens, Gelon and Hiero in Syracuse, tliesc men had courts that at this time constituted the centres of inThey drew poets to them they founded teHectual life. libraries; tliey supported every movement in art and sciBut, on the other hand, this political overthrow ence. drove the aristocrats into gloomy retirement. Discontented with pul)lic affairs, the aristocrats withdrew to private life, which they adorned with the gifts of the Muses. Heracleitus is a conspicuous example of this state of Thus the reversed relations favored in many ways affairs. the unfolding and extending of intellectual interests. This enrichment of consciousness, this increase in a higher culture among the Greeks of the seventh and sixth centuries, showed itself first in the development of lyric poetry, in which the gradual transition from the expression of universal religious and political feeling to that which is personal and individual formed a typical process. In the passion and excitement of internecine political conflict, the individual becomes conscious of his indei)endence and worth, and he " girds up his loins " to assert his rights everywhere. In the course of time satirical poetry grew beside the lyric, as the expression of a keen and cleverly developed individual judgment. There was, moreover, still

more

characteristic evidence of the spirit of the time in the

so-called

Gnomic

poetry, the content of which

is

made up
This sort

of sententious reflections upon moral principles. of moralizing,

which appeared also

in fable-poetry

and

in

other literature,

may be regarded as symptomatic

spirit.

of the

deeper stirring of the national

9.

Now, any extended reflection upon maxims of moral judgment shows immediately that the validity of morality
in sonu; way, that social consciousness has become unsettled, and that the individual in his growiug

has been questioned

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

19

independence has transcended the bounds authoritatively

drawn by the universal consciousness. Therefore it was entirely characteristic of this Gnomic poetry to recommend moderation to show how universal standards of life had
;

been endangered by the unbridled careers of single persons, and how in the presence of threatening or present

anarchy the individual must try to re-establish these rules

through independent reflection. The end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth centuries in Greece formed, therefore, an epoch of peculiar
ethical reflection,

which

of the ancients, the

age of reflection.
of the previous age

is usually called, after the manner Age of the Seven Wise Men. It was an The simple devotion to the conventions

had ceased, and

social consciousness

was

profoundly disturlied.
ways.

Individuals began to go their

own
^

Notable

men

appeared, and earnestly exhorted

to its senses.

society to
established.

come back

Rules of

life

were

izing

sermon was made palatable, and

But, let

In riddle, in anecdote, in epigram, the moral" words "

winged

passed from mouth to mouth.

it

be remembered,

these homilies are possible only

when

the individual op-

poses the vagaries of the mob, and with independent judg-

ment brings
gave the

to consciousness the

maxims

of right conduct.

Tradition selected early seven of such men, to

whom

it

They were not men of of practical wisdom, and erudition, nor of science, but men They pointed in the main of remarkable political ability .^ and therefore out the right thing to do in critical moments,

name

of the

Wise Men.

With

this conception

about the Seven Wise Men,

it is

conceivable

that Plato {Protag., 343 a) should characterize

them

as forerunners of

the old strong Dorian morality in contrast to the innovations of the

Ionian
TraiSei'as'.
^

movement

^rjXcorA

kui

e'pao-ral

/cat

fj.adr]rai

ttjs

AoKf Saifiovlcov

Dicaiarchus called

them

ovre aocpovs ovrt cpiXocrocpovs, avveTovs 5

I.

Tivas KoX vofioderiKovs.

Diog. Laei't.,

40.

20
in

IIISTUV OF ANCIKN'P l'HILOSOl'HY

public and
private matters were
authorities to
their

fellow-citizens.

The

spirit of

Gnomic poetry was prom-

inent in the apothegms, the catchwords, which they are

supposed to have uttered.

so often and with so

Nothing was repeated by them

phrasings as the
i^rihev 'yav
!

many

Tradition is not agreed as to the names of " the Seven." only are mentioned by all Bias of Priene, who upon the invasion of tlie Persians recommended to the lonians a migration to Sardinia Pittacus, who was tyrant of Mitylene, about GOO 15. c. Solon, the law-giver of Athens and the Gnomic poet Thales, founder of the ^lilesian pliilosopliy, who advised the lonians to form a federation with a joint council in Teos. The names of the others vary. Tlie later age as('ril)ed to the Seven all kinds of aphorisms, letters, etc. (collected and translated iuto Germau, but without critical investigation, by C. Dilthey,

Four

'

Darmstadt, 1835).^
in this way, through political and social relations, independence of individual judgment was educated the first on its practical side, and the propensity was formed for expressing such judgment, it was an inevitable eon-

While

sequence that a similar emancipation of single individuals

from the ordinary way of thinking should take place within Independent judgment naturally apthe domain of theory. peared at this ])oint, and formed its own views about the
connection of things.
manifest
itself

Nevertheless this propensity could

of

only in a revision and reconstruction

those materials, which

the individuals discovered partly in

the intellectual treasures

nation's practical
life,

accumulated previously in the and partly in the religious ideas. 10. The practical knowledge of the Greeks had increased to very remarkable dimensions between the time of Hesiod's Works and Days and the year 600 B. c. The inventive, trade-driving lonians undoubtedly had learned very much from the Orientals, with whom they had inter1

Compare

Cic. Rep.,

T.

12.
III.

Also Lael.,
2'd\) ff.

7.

Br unco, Ael. Sem.-ErL,

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
course

21

and of wliom they

"^ere

rivals.

Among

these,

especially

among the
and

Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Assyrians,

incredible that the Greeks should

there existed knowledge that had been garnered tlirough

many

centuries,

it is it

not have appropriated

wherever opportunity

offered.

The question how much the Greeks learned from the Orient In opposition to the unhas passed through manj' stages. critical, often fantastic, and untenable statements of the later Greeks, who tried to derive everything important of their own teaching from the honorable antiquity of Oriental tradition, later philology, in its admiration for everything Greek, has persistently espoused the theory of an autochthonic genesis. But the more the similarities with the Oriental civilization,
and the relations between the diflferent forms of the old and the Greek culture have been brought to the light by acquaintance with the ancient Orient, dating from the beginning of and the more, on the other hand, philosophy this century
;

understood the continuity of the historical moments of civilization so much the more decided became the tendency to refer the beginnings of Greek science to Oriental influences, particularly in the history of philosophy. "With brilliant fancy A. Roth (Gesch. xi.nserer abendlndische a Philos., Mannheim, 1858 f.,) attempted to rehabilitate the accounts of the ueo-Platonists, who by interpretation and pervei'sion had read into the mythic narratives, which were introduced from the Orient, Greek philosophical doctrines he then rediscovered these doctrines as primeval wisdom. AVith a forced construction, Gladisch (D. Religion u. d. Philos. in ihrer ireltgesch. Entwick., Breslau. 18.32) tried to see in all the beginnings of Greek philosophy direct relations to individual Oriental peoples and he so conceived the relationship that the Greeks are supposed to have appropriated in succession the ripe products of all the other civilizations. This appears from the following titles of his special essays Die Eleatea Die Pythagoreer und die Schinesen (Posen, 1841 und die Indier (Posen, ISi-l) EmpedoMes und die Egypter (Leipzig, 1858) Heracleitos und Zoroaster (Leipzig, 1859) Anaxagoras nnd Israeliten (Leipzig, 18G4). Besides the fact that they first found many analogies through an artful interpretation, both Roth and Gladisch fell into the error of transmuting analogies into causal relations, where equally Moreover, notable disparities might also have been found. where, as usual, religion is concerned, that of the Greeks, which
;

22
!ias

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

influenced the beiiumings of science in so many ways, was and historical rehitionship with that of tlie Orient. Such exaggerations are certainly censurable. But, on the other hand, it would be denying the existence of the sun at noontide to refuse to acknowledge that the CJ reeks in great measure owe their information to contact with the barbarians. It is here even as in the history of art. The Greeks imported a large amount of information out of the Orient. This consisted in special facts of knowledge, particularly of a mathematical and astronomical kind, and consisted perhaps besides in But with the recognition of tliis sitcertain mythological ideas. uation, which recognition in the long run is inevitable, one does not rob the (Greeks in the least of their true originality. For as they in art derived particular forms and norms from Egyptian and Assyrian tradition, but in the em|)lo3'ment and reconstruction of thes used their own artistic genius, so there flowed in upon them too from the Orient many kinds of knowledge, arising out of the work and practical needs of many centuries, and various kinds of m3'thological tales, born of the religious imagination. But nevertheless they were the first to transmute this knowledge This spirit of sciinto a wisdom*sought on account of itself. ence, like their original activitj', resulted from emancipated and independent individual thought, to which Oriental civilization had not attained.
foinul to be in genetic

Principally in mathematics and astronomy do the Greeks

ajipear as the pupils of the Orientals.

Since economic needs

compelled the Plioenicians to make an arithmetic, and from

early times led the Egyptians to construct a geometry,
it is

probable that in these things the Greeks were pupils rather

than teachers of their neighbors.

concerning proportionality and
its

proposition like that

application to perspective,

Thalcs did not communicate to the Egyptians, but derived

from them.^
l)y

Although there are further ascribed

to

him

propositions like that concerning the halving of the circle

the diameter, the isosceles triangle, the vertical angles,

the equality of triangles having a side and two angles equal, yet
it

may be

safely concluded in every instance that these

elementary propositions were generally known to the Greeks

1

See

24.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
of his time.
It is likewise a

23

matter of indifference whether

Pythagoras himself discovered the theorem

or whether his school established
it,

named

after

him

whether the discovery

was the result of pure geometrical reasoning or was an actual measurement with the square and by an arithmetical calculation, as

Roth says.
is

Here, again, the reality of such knowl-

edge at that time

least,

rendered certain, and

its

suggestion, at

from the Oriental

circle is probable.

In any case,

however, these studies in Greece soon flourished in a high

degree.

Anaxagoras was reported,

for instance, to

have

busied himself in prison with the squaring of the circle.

Astronomical thought had a similar status, for Thales predicted an eclipse of the sun, and it is highly probable that

he here availed himself of the Chaldcean Saros.

On

the

other hand, the cosmographical ideas ascribed to the oldest

philosophers point to an Egyptian origin, especially that

view, authoritative for later time, of concentric spherical
shells in

which the planets were supposed

to

move around

the eai'th as a centre.

From

all

reports

it

appears that the

questions concerning the constitution of the world, of the

size, distance,

form, and rotation of the planets, of the

etc.,

incli-

nation of the ecliptic,

the ancient thinkers.

keenly interested every one of

still

The Milesians

thought the earth

to be flat, cylindrical, or plate-shaped, floating

upon a dark, atmosphere and in the middle of a world sphere. The cold Pythagoreans seem to be the first independently to discover In the physics of this the spherical shape of the earth. time the interest in meteorology is dominant. Every philosopher felt bound to explain the clouds, air, wind, snow,
hail,

and ice. Not until later did an interest in biology awaken, and the mysteries of reproduction and propagation called forth a multitude of fantastic hypotheses (Parmenides, Empedocles, etc.).

Deficiency in physiological and anatomical

knowledge

obviously delayed for a long time the progress of medical

24
science.

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIY

Tlicrefore

wc

arc safe in sayini;-

'

that medical

science

was inherited
all

in its original tradition entirely inde-

pendently of

other sciences as the esoteric teaching of

;

and that philosophy also liardly had any connection with medicine down to about the time
certain priestly families
of the Pythagoreans.

Medicine consisted simply in empir-

ical rules, technical facts,

and a mass of data accumulated during the experience of centuries. It was not an etiological
science, but an art practised in the spirit of religion.

We

have

still

the oath of the Asclepiades (a priestly order of

this soi't,

which however had also lay brethren), who as well as the gynmasts practised the art of healing. Such medical orders or schools existed notably in Rhodes, Cyrene, Crotona, Cos, and Cnidus.

Rules for the treatment of the sick

were partly codiiied

in

documents, and Hippocrates knew two

versions of the yva)fiat KviBcac (Cnidian sentences), the

valuable of which (larpiKirepov)

more came from Euryphon of

Cnidus.

Likewise the geographical knowledge of the Greeks had reached a high degree of completeness about this time. The broad commercial activity whereby they visited the

Mediterranean Sea and all its coasts had essentially transformed and enriched the Homeric picture of the world. It is stated that Anaximander drew up the first map of the world. The statement of Herodotus ^ is interesting, that Aristagoras, by showing such a chart in Laceda?mon, sought to awaken the continental Greeks to a realizing sense of the menaced geographical situation of Greece by the Persian
Empire.
Historical knowledge too was beginning to be accuyet strikingly late for a peo))le mulated at this time,

like the Greeks.

From

the old epic had issued the theo-

gonic poetry, on the one hand, and the heroic on the other.
1

Hiiser, Lehrbuch d. Gesch. d. Medizin, 2 ed., 21-25.

V. 49.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

25

Collections of saga and of the histories of the founding of

cities,

as they

added
Minor.

to these for the first time in the Ionian cities of

had been gathered by the logograjihers, were Asia

after long journeys gave to their logog-

Men, who

raphies greater extent and variety of interest, introduced

then that form of historical presentation which we

still

may

recognize in Herodotus.

At

the

same time, however,

this

was pressed into the l^ackground by the grouping of all accounts around the important event of the Persian wars.

In place of fantastic fables about strange people in the

form that Aristeas of Proconnesus related them, we now have the more sober reports of the logographers. Of these
there appeared, in the sixth century, Cadmus, Dionysius,

and especially Hecateius of Miletus, with his TrepujjTjai'i, in which geography and history are closely interwoven. In these men realistic considerations had taken the place of aesthetical, and their writings therefore have the prose
rather than the poetic form.

About 600

B. c.

the intellectual circle of the Greeks was

is clear that there were

and important knowledge, and it men, otherwise favorably conditioned in life, who took a direct and immediate interest in knowledge which had hitherto been employed for the most varied practical ends. They planned how to order, classify, and extend these acquisitions. It is likewise comprehensible
replete with this manifold

same purposes were formed, might happen, around distinguished men, and how in these schools by co-operative labor a kind of scholastic order and tradition maintained itself from one generation
scientific schools for th

how
as

it

to another.

After the investigations of H. Diels (Philos. Aufstze z. Zel1887, p. 241 f.) it can scarcely be doubted that in this very early time the scientific life of the Greeks constituted itself into closed corporations, and that the learned societies ah'eady at that time carried all the weight of judicialreligious associations (iaa-oC) which v. Wilamowitz-Mullendorf
lerJiibilaKin, Berlin,

26
(^Liitiyoiios

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPHV

run Jiuri/slos,
p. "ido
f. )

hiis

alivady proved for the

later seliools.

assoeialion.

The l*vtha>;oreans were uiuloiibLedly such an The schools of physicians were organized on the

perhaps still more rigorously in the form of princi|)le, Why, then, should this not be the case the priestly orders. with the schools of Miletus, Elea, and Abdera?

same

11. Likewise, in the religious notions of the

Greeks lay

certain definite points of departure for the beginnings of

their philosophy, especially since

those

religious notions

were

in

the liveliest fermentation about the time of the

This is accounted for by the great vitality which from the beginning characterized the religious existence of the Greeks by reason of their
seventh and sixth centuries.
unparalleled development.
of originally

Out

of the early differentiation

conmion
also

ideas, out of the capricious formation

of local cults within families, tribes, cities,

and provinces,
of

incidentally

out of

the

introduction

distinctive

foreign religious ceremonies, there grew up a rich and, as

it

were, confusingly iridescent variety of religions.

Standits

ing over against this, epic poetry had already created

Olympus,

its

poetic purification,

of the original,

and its human ennobling mythical forms. These products of poetry

came

to be the national religious property of the Hellenes.

But along with the veneration of these products there were the old cults that shut themselves up only the more closely in the Mysteries, in which now as ever the peculiar
energy of religious craving expressed
of expiation
tion,
itself

in a

service

and redemption.

however, the assthetic

With the advance of civilizamytliology succumbed to a

gradual change in two directions which had been blended

iudistinguishably in the Olympian forms.
tion

The
;

first direc-

was toward mythical explanation

itself

of nature

the second

was toward ethical idealizing. The first tendency showed

in the

the cosmogonic out of the epic poetry.

development of Cosmogonic poetry

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

27

shows how the individual poets with their peculiar fancies

studied the question of the origin of things, and in addition

mythologized the great powers of nature

freely creative

in

a traditional or

form.

Two

groups can be distinguished

to the

among them, corresponding

tions of

different

interpreta-

Homeric

poetry.

Such

of the Orphic theogonies,

which go back thus far, belong, with the sole exception of Hesiod, to one group, and Epimenides and Acusilaus are among its bettei' defined historic names. Whether they
presuppose only Chaos or Night as the original powers,
or whether with these Air, Earth, Heaven, or something
else,

they appear reasonably enougli

in Aristotle as ol

etc

For it is always some dark and reasonless primeval ground from which they evolve material things, and they may be considered as representatives of
vvKTo^ jevvMvre'i deoXoyoi.
the evolutionist idea.
science

Likewise in this respect Milesian

followed immediately in their wake, and had in

same principles but with greater clearness of thought ( 14-16). Over against these was the later tendency whose representatives were regarded by Aristotle as
part the

standing between the poets and philosophers

avTMv).

(/xe/xiy/juevot,

By

these the Perfect was supposed as the form-

ing (creative) principle at

the beginning of time.

To
of

them belongs, besides the

Clazomenge,
^

entirely mythical

Hermotimus

the historical Pherecydes of Syrus, a contem-

porary of the earliest philosophers and a

his conceptions in prose.

man

wljo wrote

He
with
to

presupposed Zeus as the per-

sonality giving

order and reason to the world, and that

act

Time 2 and Earth

(xpovo'?, %<wi').

He appears

Zeus as original principles have represented in grotesque

of

images the "

five-fold "

development

individual thin;:s

out of the rational principle.

1

"Whom some
\p6vos

try to identify with Anaxagoras.

f.
;

See Carus, Nach-

gelassene Werke, 4 vols., 330

*

Zeller,
else.

P. 924
Zeller,

f.

may mean something

I*.

73.

28

HISTORY OF ANCIENT

I'lIILOSOPlIY

Sturz ^Leipzig, lH8i) lias publi-slu'd the fiagmonts of PherecytU's. H()th, out of most nnccilMiii data, (irsch. nnscrrr
(il>e?idlaii(h'si-ln'ii

7'////o.s.,

II.

](il

f.,

tiied to attributi to Pliore-

the introduction into Greoct' of K<iyptian niotapliysios and astronomy. .1. Conrad (C'oblonz, l.ST), R. Zimmermann, Stiulicn II. Kritiken (\'ienna, 1<S7(>. 1 f.), also treat the " philosophy" of rhereevdes. See II. Diels, ^I/v.7). /'. (h'sch. d. '
t'vdos
iV///o.s-.\ I.

11.

These

later

cosmogonies were apparently already under

the infinence of the ethical

movement, which

liad pressed

into the circle of religious ideas, and, as against the nature-

mythical interpretation that ascribed aisthetic character to

the different gods, sought to

moral

life.

embody in them the ideal of The second tendency comes to light in the
in particular.

Gnomic poetry

Zeus

is

thus (Solon) honored

of the

less as creator of

Nature than as ruler

moral world.

The fifth century, in following out this Homeric mythology expressed completely
sacus, a pupil of Anaxagoras).

idea,

saw the

in

ethico-allc-

gorical terms (especially ascribed to Metrodorus of l^amp-

Three moments especially

(1)

in the ethicizing of religious ideas appear:

the gradual

stripping

off

of

naive anthropomorphism from the gods,

which led

to a violent opposition to esthetic

the part of Xenophanes,

respect of the

mythology on who was a direct descendant in this

;

Gnomic poets (2) necessarily connected with the above, the development of the monotheistic germs
contained in the previous ideas
tality

(3) the emphasis on the thought of moral retribution in the form of faith in immor;

and transmigration.

So far as the

last

two thoughts

belonged with a greater or less degree of clearness also to

the Mysteries, they were in some degree the centre of an ethical reaction against the pantheon " constructed by the
poets."
12. In this direction tended the great movement which shook the western part of civilized Greece about the end of

the sixth century, and in

many ways

influenced the devel-

GREEK PHILOSOPHY.
opment
of science.

29
the ethico-religious

This movement

is

reformation of Pythagoras.
It is absokitely necessar}', in the interest of historical clearness, to distinguish Pythagoras from the Pythagoreans, and the practice of the former from the science of the latter. The investigations of modern time have more and more led to this The accounts of the later ancients (neo-Pythagodistinction. rean and neo-Platonic) had gathered so many myths aljout the personality of Pythagoras, and had so ascribed to him the ripest and highest thoughts of Greek philosophy through direct and

indirect falsification, that he

became a mysterious and entirely But the fact that the cloud of myths inconceivable form. should thicken from century to century in ancient time around him, makes it necessary ^ to go back to the oldest and, at the same time, most authoritative accounts. Therein it appears that neither Plato nor Aristotle knew anything about a philosophy of Pythagoras, but simply make mention of a pliilosophy of the " so-called Pythagoreans." Nowhere is the "number theory" referred to the "Master" himself. It is also to be regarded as highly probable that Pythagoras himself wrote nothing. At any rate, nothing is preserved which can be confidently attributed to him, and neither Plato nor Aristotle knew of anything of the sort. On the other hand, the first philosophical writing of the school is that of Philolaus,- the contemporary of Anaxagoras, and therefore of Socrates and This philosophic teaching will. be set forth in Democritus. the place which belongs to it chronologically in the development of Greek philosophy ( 24). Pythagoras himself, however, in the light of historical criticism, appears only as a kind of founder of religion, and a man of grand ethical and political efficiency. His work had an important place among the causes and the preliminary conditions of the scientific life in Greece. Concerning the life of Pythagoras little is certain. He came from an old Tyrrhean-Phliasian stock, which had migrated to his home, Samos, at the latest in the time of his grandfather. Here he was born, somewhere between the years 580 and 570, as the son of INInesarchus, a rich merchant. It is not impossible that differences that arose between him and Polycrates, or the antipathy of tlie aristocrat to- this tyrant, drove him out of
1

See Zeller,
2G1

I^. f.,

256

ff.,

against A.

los., II. b,

48

f.).

Zeller shows clearly that Pythagoras

Roth {Gench. nnnerer abendlan. Phihad no

philosophy.
2

Diog. Laert., VIII. l,

.s:>.

30

HISTORY OK ANCIKXT PIIILOSOPHY

lie seems to have entered alread}' upon a career It is not to be determined that of his hiter life. with jierfeet surety, but may l>e reganh^d as by no means improbable, that he made a kind of educative journey to investiAt this time he gate the sanctuaries and cults of Greece. came to know Pherecydes. This journey may have extended About the year .;iO, also into foreign lands as far as Egypt. ^ however, he settled in Magna Gra?cia, the region where (at

Samos, where

simihir to

a time when Ionia already was struggling with Persia for existence) were brought together, in the most splendid wa}', Greek power and Greek culture. Here was still a more motley mixture of Hellenic stocks, and here between cities, and in the cities between parties, the battle for existence was most passionately' waged. Pythagoras appeared here and preached, founded He his new sect, and met with the most decided success. chose the austere and aristocratic Crotona as the centre of his operations. It appears that his sect co-operated in the decisive battle (510 b.c.) in which Crotona destroyed its democratic But very soon after that event rival, the voluptuous Sybaris. democracy became predominant in Crotona itself and in other These cities, and the Pythagoreans were cruelly persecuted. persecutions were more than once repeated in the first half of the fifth century, and the sect was entirely dispersed. Whether Pythagoras in one of these persecutions, perliaps even in the verj' first instigated by Cylon in 504, found his end, or whether His in another way, or where, when, and how, is uncertain. death is surrounded by myths, but we shall have to place it at about 5C0. Jamblichus, l)e vita Pi/fhago7->ca, and Porphj-ry, De vita Pijtliarjor^p (ed. Kissling, Leipzig, 1815-16, etc.), H. Ritter, Geschichte der p;/(hagorischen Philosoi)hie (Hamburg, 1S26) B. Krische, De sorietatis a Piitlicujora in urbe Crotoniataram conE. Zeller, Pyth. ?<. die (Utce scopo politico (Gttingen, 1830) Ed. Pijth.-saga, Vortrag u. Abhdl. I. (Leipzig, 1865) 30 ff. Chaignet, Pythacjore et la philosophie jtythagoricieinie (Paris, 1873); L. V. Schroeder, I'yih. u. d. Inder (Leipzig, 1884); P. Tannery, Arrh. f. Gesch. d. Ph., I. 29 tf.
; ; ;

On
moral
1

the one liand, Pythagoras found his purpose in the

claril'ication
is

and purification of the world

tlu^

of i-cligions

There

scareely a rround for doubting

(stiniony of Isocrales

(Busir, 11).

Tlu; rircumstances of the shcoikI half of the sixUi ccnturv

as in no wise an e.\ce])tional rase that the son of a
j)alri-

make

it aii)L'ar

ciau of Sanius should journey tu Lgypt.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY
ideas.

31
witli the

He

.stood in. this respect entirely in line

progress and innovation of the time, and he antagonized, as

a point of view antiquated or coming to be so, the religion On of the poets, in which he missed a moral earnestness.
the other hand, he was inspired by the same ethical impulse

against that weakening of the moral bond to which the

new methods
in fact to

of Greek had already led.

social life threatened to lead,

and

He

called, therefore, for a return

the

old

institutions

and convictions.

Especially in

he represented a reaction in favor of the aristocThis racy as opposed to the growing democratic movement. opposition determined the peculiar position of the Pythagpolitics,

orean society.

The

society was, in truth, one of the

most

important factors in the religious and intellectual advance of the Greek spirit, and at the same time it flung itself
against
politics.^

the

current

of

the

time as regards ethics and

As

to the latter, the Ionian Pythagoras preferred

the more conservative Dorian character, and the " Italian

philosophy" founded by him passed

as an antithesis to the Ionian.

among

the

ancients

The emphasis upon the unity of the divine Being and a purely moral conception of the same was carried no farther by Pythagoras and by the Pythagoreans than by the Gnomic poets. Neither was the conception of the purely spiritual here attained, nor a scientific foundation and presentation given to ethical concepts, nor, finally, a sharp contradiction made to the polytheistic popular religion. (Of course we do not include in this statement the doctrines of the neo-Pythagorean and neo-Platonic schools.) On the contrary, Pythagoras had the pedagogic acumen to develop these higher conceptions from those existing in the myths and religious ceremonies. He used in this way the 3Iysteries, especially the Orphic, and he himself appears to have been connected with the cult of Apollo in particular. He laid particular emphasis upon the doctrine of immortality and its application to a theory of moral religious retribution, and this also took the mythic form of the doctrine
1

Similarly and

(in

a hipTcr siale. this

is

repeated by Plato's work.

32

HISTORY OF ANCIHXr riiiLOsoriiY

But doubtless the Mysteries tliemselves of metempsychosis. contained nnich in harmony with the doctrine of transmigration, especially tliose ^lysteries of the ehthonic divinities. But to the orilinary Greeks transmigration was and remained a foreign conception, which in early times they had mocked at,' and they were niost inclined to lay it at the door of foreign
intluence.

Wliatever of the Pythagorean ethical teaching is certainly proved, may be found in the (iiiomic teachings. But at all events we see there, in the consciousness of duty, in introspection, and in subordination to authority, a greater earnestness and rigor, with at the same time a decided abandonment of sense-pleasure and a powerful tendency to spiritualize life.^ Many ascetic tendencies doubtless were already connected with this. The pronounced political turn which Pythagoras at the same time gave to his society determined its fate and led it first to victory, then to destruction. Yet this political tendency is not to be regarded as original, but as the natural consequence of the moral-religious ideal of life.

In order to attain such a goal, Pythagoras founded at

Crotona his religious society, which soon spread Magna Gra?cia. But this sect was, to be sure, at first only a kind of Mysteries, and nearest It is to be distinguished related to it were the Orpines. from these only so far as it expressly determined also the
first

in

over a greater part of

political
its

and

in part
It

even the private

life

of its

members by

sought to evolve also a general education and an all-round method of life out of its moralIts most commendable feature was, religions principle.
regulations.
life were and the common activities were relatively little prized, Thus, the directed toward fostering science and art. To Pythagoreligious in time became a scientific dlacro^;.

that within the society the external goods of

ras himself
1

may

be rcferi'cd the thorough study of music,

life
is

See Xcnoplianes' witty distich against it: Dio^r. Lacrt., VII I. 3(). The so-calK'(l "golden poem" wherein the Pythagorean rules of Zeller are laid down was, according to Mullach, collated by Lysis.
it

certainly right in saying that

was ]irohnhly

carlior

handed down

in verse form.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

33

and perhaps in the same connection the beginnings of mathematical investigations which therefore, like medicine,
have a point of depai-ture equally independent of that of
" general philosophy."
^

It is no longer certain how much the society directed by Pythagoras himself was in possession of all of the rules by which, according to later accounts, the community life of the members, their initiation, their education even to the particulars of each day's duties, were provided for. The conception taken from later analogies is scarcely credible, that the Pythagoreans were a secret society in which the novitiate first after a long preparation and after the performance of many s^'mbolical formalities could share in tlie " mysteries." Roth in particular has tried to re-establish this distinction of the esoteric and exoteric. Pythagoreanism was certainly no more and no less a secret society than all the other Mysteries, and there is not the slightest ground for assuming a secret science in it. That the stimulus given by Pythagoras to the spiritual community of life was concerned with music and mathematics, may safely be accepted. All else is doubtful, and probabl}' fabulous. So, too, it is impossible to find out anything certain as to the founder's personal familiarit}' with these subjects. Even the well-known geometrical proposition is not to be attributed to him in entire confidence. He himself belongs rather to the religious and political life. But the spirit in which he founded his school was of such a nature that scientific interest could and actually

did flourish in

it.

13.

In Greek national

life

such were the essential condi-

which appeared at the beginning of the sixth century as an independent phenomtions for the origin of the philosophy

enon.

Its entire course,

however, since
to centre.
life

it

upon the general civilization drifting from circumference

of the nation,

was dependent shows a gradual

lie

The beginnings

scattered in those circles of Hellenic

where, in friendly
it

as well as in hostile contact with neighboring peoples,

first

Afterwards in the entire Sophistic Enlightenment philosophy centred itself in

developed into
full

independence.

See G. Cantor, Vorlesungen ber

3

d. Gesch.

<!.

Mnlh..

T.

125

f.

34

IIISTOKY OF ANCIHNT IMllH

;

)S( I'llV

the Athens of Perielcs

sonality of Socrates
it

und there through the great perhecame naturalized, it perfected itself,

and established

its

great schools.

Subjectively viewed, the development of Greek science is Like all naive and natural thinka fully rounded whole. ing, it began with a recognition of the outer world. Its first

tendency was entirely cosmological, and it passed through Foundering in the physical into metaphysical ])roblems.
these and at the
public
life,

same time troubled

])y

the dialectic of

an object of reflection. A.n anthropological period began, in which man appeared as the most worthy object of consideration, and ultimately
the Spirit
itself

made

as the only object of investigation.

Finally, science in its

perfected strength, acquired in the profound study of the laws of its reason, turned back to the old problems, the

conquest of which came to

continuity.

it

now

in

great systematic

Hegel, Gesch. der Fhilos., Complele Works., See 2, note. If one strips away the formal from Hegel's Vol. XIII. 18. terminology, which served him in his systematization of the historical processes, then one meets here, as so often in Hegel, an inspired insight, with whieli he apprehended the essential features in the development of historical phenomena.

The

origins of scientific reflection are to be sought in the

cities of

the seacoast of Ionia, which were in a flourishing

b. c.

condition about 600

The happy nature

all

of the Ionian

race was here accompanied by

social,

the necessary material,

Its

and intellectual requisitions for science.

creative talent were remarkable.

men-

tal alertness, its frequently dangerous curiosity for the novel,

and
first

its

Here, for the

time, mature minds brought their independent judgto bear not only

ment

questions.'
^

The

idea of the connection of things

Thales)
:

upon practical but upon theoretical was no

TTtpuiTfixDTrjs ;(pftar e^iKfo-ai

Plutarch

Sol., 3 (tonceriiiiig

rfi

6a)pia.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY

o5

longer formed after the models of mythology, but by personal reflection and meditation.

Nevertheless these

new
reli-

endeavors leading to science grew out of the circle of

of the functions

gious ideas, and thereby did science prove itself to be one

which had been differentiated out

of the

original religious life of

human

society.

At

first

science

same problems that concerned mythological difference between the two docs not Ke in their subject matter, but in the form of their interrogation and the nature of their reply. Science begins where a conceptual problem takes the place of curiosity as to sequences, and where, therefore, fancies and fables are replaced by the investigations of permanent relations. The common task for the Greek philosopher lay in the necessity to understand the change of things, their origination, destruction, and traftsmutation into one another. This very change, this process of happening ( Geschehen') was accepted as a matter of course, and was not required It had rather to to be explained or reduced to its causes. be described, objectified, and conceptually stated. The myth accomplished this in the form of a narrative. To the question, What existed previously ? it made answer with a description of the origin of the world, and tells of the battles of Titans and how they finally produced this world.
treated the
fancy.

The

Among men
to

of science this interest in the past

is

an interest in what

permanent.

gave way They no longer

of perceived

asked for the temporal but for the real prius

Being.

Face to face with the perpetual vicissitudes of individual things, they expressed the thought of a worldunity,

by asking what

is

permanent amid the changes.

Consequently they formed as the goal of their research the concept of a world-stuff that changes into all things,

and into which all things return when these things vanish from perception. The idea of a temporal origin of things gives place to that of eternal Being, and thus arises the

36
apXV-i^
t/lic

HISTOUY OF ANCIKNT I'lIILOSUPHY

first

concopt uf Greek
"'

philusopliy.
is

The

first

question of Greek scieiiee was,

What
is

tlie

stuff out of

which the world

into single things

is
't

made, and how

the stuff changed

"

Science thus arose from cosmogonies

and thcogonies.

The
ratit)n,

transition

from the myth to science consists

in

stripping off the historical, in rejecting chronological nar-

science

and in reflecting upon the Unchangeable. was obviously an investigation of nature.

Pln'lo.^. d.

Tlie first

See S. A. Byk. Die vorsocratfsche

Gr. in ihrer oryan-

ischen Gliederung, 2 parts, Leipzig, 1H75

and 1877.

1.

The Milesian Nature Philosophy

14. The principal centre for these beginnings in science was the chief^f the Ionian cities, Miletus. From two gen-

erations of scientists in this city, tradition has preserved

three
^

names

Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes.^

I.

Arist. Met.,

3, 983, b. 8.
eis b

^ ov yap ecrnv awapra ra ovra Koi e^

rijs

ov ylyvfrai irpiTov Kai

<Tr]s,

(pddpfTai TeXfvralov,

fv ovarias inropLfvovcf)a(Tiv

Tols 8f Trndfai pfTaaWova-rjs, tovto

(TTcixfiov koi ravriju dpxTjP

Omitting the deduction of the Aristotelian categories, oi)(Tia and ndos, this definition of apx^h which furnishes an immediate suggestion of the transition from the temporal to the conceptual, may
ivai

Twy ovTuv.

be taken as historical in the sense that

It is of little

it

existed

among

the old lonians.

tual

way.

importance who introduced the term dpxq in this concepSimpl. Phys., G redo, 24, 13 asserts it to be due to Anaxialready present in Thales.

mander.
2 Tt
is

The thought was

evident that one need not limit the Milesian philosophy to

these

three

well-known men

but nothing

is

traditionally certain.

For the

allusion of Theophrastus,

who (Simpl.

Phys., 6) speaks of pre;

decessors of Thales,

may

also be applied to the cosmogonies

and the

reports of Aristotle, according to which the physicists were those

who

accepted as dpxr) the intermediaries between air and water (De ccelo, III. 5, 30:5 b, r_') or between air and fire (Pli'/s., I. 4, 187 a, 14) leave

open the

i)ussil)ilitv

and probability that he has

'Jo.

in

mind the

later eclec-

tic stragglers.

Compare

THE MILESIAN NATURE rHILOSOPHY

;

37

K. R. Ritter, Gesch. der ionischen Flnlosoplde (Berlin, 1821) Seydel, Der Fortschritt der Metaph>jsik luitcr den ltesten ionischen Philosophen (Leipzig, 1G1) P. Taunery, Four Vhistoire * de la science hellene, I. (Paris, l7j.
;

answered the question concerning the substantial constitution of the world (^Weltstoff)
Thaies (about 600
b. c.)

by declaring
Aristotle,^

it

to be water.

Tiiis

is

the only assertion that

can be attributed to him with

perfect certainty.

Even

who could

give only traditional reports concern-

ing Thales, as early as his time had only conjectures about

the grounds of this assertion.

When

Aristotle states that

the moist character of the animal seed and animal nutrition

was the occasion for

this statement of Thales

(and to

Aristotle's inference,^ all later supplementary conjectures

appear to refer), we are permitted to attribute this inference

to the specific interest in biology, which appealed strongly
to the Stagirite, but, for all

we know, not
of

at all to Thales.

More probable
Aristotle,^

is

the

conjecture,

likewise

reported by

which brings the teaching

Thales into connecIn these the ocean

tion with ancient cosmological ideas.

was considered the oldest and most important thing. It would be exceedingly strange if the Ionian thinker, in answer to the question as to the constitution of the world, had not decided in favor of the element so important to his

The thought of its infinite mobility, its transformation into earth and air, its all-engulfing violence, could not but have held an important place in the minds of seafaring folk. The reported cosmographical ideas of Thales agree with this, for he is said to have thought that the also
people.
'^

earth floated in water, and to have given, in connection

with this, a Neptunian explanation of earthquakes.

^

Met.,

I. 3,

983

b, 22, Xaiov 'lacos ttjv vnokr)-<^i.v.

I.

2 Pint.
*

Plac. phil.,

3 (Dox., 276).

Compare

Zeller, 1^. 175,

2.

See beyond.

* Arist.

De

ccelo, II. 13,

294

a, 28.

38

IITSTOKY OF AXriKNT PIIII.OSPIIY

But

it

assertion

makes no difference wliether Thalcs came to his more through organic than inorganic ohservations.
is

So much
the i)ure

clear, that the

chemical composition of water,

HoO, did not determine his choice of it as the cosmic matter. Rather its fluid state of aggregation and the
important rule that it played in the mobile life of nature determined his decision, so that in the ancient reports vypov is often substituted for vhwp. The idea of Thalcs seems to have been to select as the world stuff that form of matter, which promised to make most readily comprehensible, the transformation on the one

hand

to the solid,

on the other to the volatile. More definite data concerning the modus operandi of these changes do not appear to have been furnished by Thales. It must remain problematical whether he, like the later philosophers, conceived this process of change as a condensation and rarefaction. At any rate, Thales represented this fluid cosmic matter Of a force moving matter as in continuous self-motion. and distinguishable from it, he taught nothing.^ In naively considering an event as a thing requiring no further explanation, he advocated, like his followers, the so-called hylozoistic theory, which represents matter as eo ipso moving and on that account animated. With this are compatible his Trdvra TrXijpTj Oecv ehat ^ and his ascription of a soul to the magnet.^

The scientific view of the world had obviously at this stage not yet excluded the imaginative view of nature held by Greek mythology.
^

Acfording

to the statements of the later writers (Cicero,

De

nat.

deor., I. 10),

Thales placed in antithesis to the cosmic matter the form-

Sucli statements betray, on the one hand, the terminology of the Stoics, and on the other lead us to infer a confounding of

ing divine spirit.

Thales with Anaxagoras.

including Thales,
^
is

The hylozoism
5,

of all the ancient physicists,

I. 3.

affirmed by Aristotle in Mel.,

I.

Arist.

De anima,
405

411

a, 8.

Ibid., 1. 2,

a, 20.

THE MILESIAN NATURE PHILOSOPHY

39

The time in which Thales lived is determined by an eclipse, which he is said to have predicted. In accordance with modern investigations (Zech, Astronomische Untersuchungen ber die wichtigsten Finsternisse, Leipzig, 1853), this must be placed in the year 585 b. c. His life falls, at all events, in the flourishing period of Miletus under Thrasybulus. The year of his birth cannot be exactly determined; his death may be placed directly after the Persian invasion in the middle of the sixth century (Diels, Rhein. Mas., XXXI. 15 f.). He belonged to the old family of the Thelides, which sprang from the Boeotian Cadmians, who migrated into Asia Minor. Hence the statement that he was of Phoenician derivation (Zeller, I^ 169, 1). See 9 for his practical and political activity; 10, for his knowledge of mathematics and physics. The Egyptian journeys which later literature reports, are at least doubtful although, provided that he was engaged in commerce, they are not impossible. Xone of the writings of Thales are cited by Aristotle, and it is consequently doubtful if he committed an}'thiug to writing.
15. If Thales is to be regarded as the first physicist, we meet the first metaphysician in the person of his somewhat younger countryman, Anaximander (611-545 B. c). For his answer to the question concerning the constitution of

the universe

is

already to be essentially distinguished, in

its

its

content as well as in

fundamentals, from that of Thales.

Thales had sought to find the cosmic matter in the empirically known, and had seized upon what appears as the most
If Anaximander was not content with was on account of his pronounced principle ^ that the cosmic matter must be thought as infinite, so that it

completely mutable.
this theory,
it

may not

be thought to exhaust

itself in its creations.

From
all of

this it followed

immediately that the cosmic matter cannot

be found among empirically given forms of matter,

which are limited. Thus there remained for the definition of the cosmic matter only the quality of its spatial and temporal infinity. Consequently Anaximander said that
the
1

apj(Ti] is

the aireipov.
HI.
8,

Arist.

//(//.<;.,

208

a, 8-.

see Plut. Plac,

I.

3 (7)ox., 277), Xva

40

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIY

The most important

for the first time,
is

asjjcct of this

dictmu

is

that hcr(^

the step taken from the concrete to the

to the legrij[flich.

abstract,

from the anschaulich

Anaxi-

mandcr explained the sensuously given by the concept. The advance consisted in the fact that the a-rretpov is distinguished from
all

perceptible forms of matter.

Anaxi-

mander thus referred the world of experience to a reality

beyond experience, the idea
tual postulate.
of

which arises from a concep-

He

characterized this transcendent reality

by

all

the predicates which his

mind conceived as
it

requisite

for the cosmic matter.

lie called
^
;

diivarov kuI avwiXeit

dpov, dyevvT]Tov Kal <pdapTov

all

he described

as including

things (Trepcexeiv)
;

and

as

determining their motion

it

{Kvepvv)

"

and he designated

in this sense as to Oelov.

But with

this first

metaphysical concept began then also

it.

the difficulty of giving a content to

conceived the airecpov to be pre-eminently a spatial

temporal
the

infinity,

at this principle.

That Anaximander and way in which he arrived follows from the Concerning his attitude, however, toward
the
qualitative
still

question

of

determination

of

the

aireipov,

both antiquity and

more modern

investiga-

tors have

apparently had divided opinions. The simplest and the most natural theory to entertain is the following

that

Anaximander

did not express himself about the quality

tlie

of this

imperceivable cosmic matter, for

it

ancient ac-

counts agree that he did not identify

known
he,

elements.

any one of the certainly, is it whether More questionable,

witli
I.

as Herbart {ComjAetc Works,

I.

196)

and his school

(Strmpell,

29) are inclined to accept, expressly denied

the qualitative determination of the cosmic matter, which

would have
1

antici))ated the Platonic-Aristotelian conception

203
b,
8.

Arist.

Phyx., ITT. 4,
hcer., I. 6

Likewise atbiov and

dyij/jco,

see

Hippol. Ref.
^

(Dox., 559).

Wliicli expression docs not

ahendl. Philos., II. 142;,

mean, as lliith thinks (CescJi. tinserer " a mental guidance." See Zeller, 1\ 204, I.

THE MILESIAN NATURE PHILOSOPHY

of matter as au undetermined possibility.
it is

41

But, on the
of the

other hand,
aireipov

certain that

Anaximandcr thought

always as corporeal,^ and only the kind of corporeality can be subject to controversy. The hypothesis,
too, exJDressed repeatedly in later antiquity, is untenable,

that he asserted the cosmic matter to be an intermediary state between water and air, or air and fire. On the contrary, the combination of the Anaximandrian principle with the /Ltt7/xa of Empedocles and Anaxagoras^ which Aristotle gives, led even in antiquity to the conception of the aireipov as a mixture of all the empirical material elements. If now, also, the adherence of Anaximander to
viz.,

hylozoistic

monism

is

as

Aristotle says

it

is

so very
cit.')

certain that one cannot

make him (with

it is

Ritter, op.

the father of mechanical physics, in opposition to Ionian

dynamics,^ yet, on the other hand,

incontrovertible that

Anaximander

in

some conjecturable, obscure way must

itself all

have stated that the aireipov contains in

in the cosmic process.*

known

material elements, and then differentiates these elements

Doubtless he held an attitude of

uncertainty as to the relationship of the aireipov to these

particular elements, similar to the mythological primeval

idea of Chaos, which idea, to be sure, had already been

greatly purified, but
assimilated.

not yet thoroughly elaborated

and

Accordingly Anaximander was doubtless content in merely indicating as eKKpiveaOac the development of par1

Compare

Zeller, I*.

186,

1,

as

against Michelis,

De

a,/,

infinito

(Braunsberg, 1874).
2

Arist. Met.,
a,

XL

2,

10G9

b.

22

to

wbich add especially

Phi-!..

I. 4,

187
3 *

20

01

(k tov ivbs evova-as ras euavTirqras (KKpiveaOau laantp

Ava^ifj-avSps

(Prjari

kt\.

Compare
I.

22.

Brandis, Handbuch,
Arist. Met.,

125.

XI.

2,

this as a bvvdpei inclusion.

vXij.

and Theophrastns (SimpL Pliys., 6) interpret The aireipov became to them their aopicrroy

42

lUSroKY OF AXCIKNT
fnnu
llio

I'lIILl )S01'1IV

ticuiiir IhiiiiTS

cosmic matter.

Indccnl he caused

the antith(>(ical the the

(iTTeipoi'

Warm
its first

and Cold

to he differentiated

as

qualitative determinations.
(jualities

from Out of
to

mixture of these two

world.

was supposed

he

formed then the Fluid, the fundamental material

finite empirical

of the

theory of Thales was complete

that the ])articular

Thus the metaphysical basis to the for Anaximander taught parts of the world had been differentiated
;

out of the Fluid.

These were the earth,

air,

and the

fire

encircling the Avhole.

The philosopher inserted

of the origin of the

into this meteorological account

world a multitude of single astronomical ideas ( 10) which, even if they appear childish to us to-day, nevertheless not only show a many-sided interest in nature, but also presuppose independent obser-

vations and conclusions.

facts of organic life also,

Anaximander
and there
is

reflected

upon the

])reserved one obser-

vation of his in accord

with the modern evolution theory.

This

is to

the effect that animals appeared

when

the primi-

tive liquid earth dried up,

and were originally

fish in

form.

Then some of them, adapting themselves to their new enviThis process of developronment, became land animals.
ment, in
its

naive explanation, includes even man.

The

single qualitative differentiations are lost again in

the pci-pctual life-process of the cosmic matter, in the same

wa\- that they arise out of the aireipov.

Anaximander,
of

in

the

manner reminding us original as a kind of compensation for the Oriental-reliffious ideas

reabsorption in a poetic
^

single

fragment verbally ])reserved

to us,

has descril)ed this

injtistice

of individual

existence.

e'^

on> he

7)

yeinjai'i

ian
Kara

Tot^ oval, Kai Tr}v

^Oopav ek ravra yiveaOai Kara to XP^^^'

rrj<i

SiBovai yap avra hUrjv Kal Tiaiv [XXr/Xot?]

1

ahiKia^i

Pint.

Plac. \. 19 (Dox., 430)

Ilippol. Ref. hoer.,

f.

I. 6

{Dox., 5C0>

Compare Tfichmller,

Studie?}, I. 63

2 Siinpl. Phjs., f/, 24, 13.

THE MILESIAN NATURE rniLOSOPIIY

rT}v

43

Tov )(^p6vov rci^w.

To

this

Anaximander united the

itself

theory, also similarly Oriental, that the cosmic matter in

perpetual transformation creates out of

world-systems,

and again absorbs them.^

Whether

to the

view of an end-

less plurality of successive world-formations

was connected

also that of a plurality of co-existing worlds, contained in

the primitive matter, remains undecided and not probable.^

The determination of the dates of the life of Anaximander rests uix)n the arbitrary statement of Apollodorus, that in the second year of the fifty-eighth Olympiad he was sixty-four years old and directly afterwards died. (Diog. Laert., II. 2.) This is
not far from the truth. Further of his biography is not known. His work, to which some one gave the title -epl c^iVcw?, was in prose, and appears to have been lost very early. Compare Sehleiermacher, Utber An., Complete Workt>, HI. 2, 171 f. Bsgen, Ueber das airupov des A. (Wiesbaden, 1867) Neuhuser, ^;ma;.
;

Milesius,
16.

(Bonn, 1883).

We

turn back from the metaphysical to the physical

point of view

when we pass from Anaximander

to

Anaxi-

menes,

for the latter

empirically known.

sought the cosmic matter again in the Nevertheless the reflections of Anaxi-

mander were not

had

ineffectual

upon

his successor.

For when

he substituted the air in place of the water of Thales, he

especial reference to the postulate of

Anaximander

he explained that the air is the -rreipoi; apxv- He found the claims of the metaphysician to be thus satisfied by the empirical material.^ At the same time he chose the air on
1

Plut. Strom.,

fr.

2 (Dox., 579).
f.

See Zeller,

1.

212

This
,

is
.3

attested expressly

by

Siraplicius, Phys.,

6>-,

24, 26

see Eus.
;

Prcep
jiev Koi

I. 8,

(Dox., 579) and especially Schol. in

rrjv up)(T]v,
i

A rist..

514
is

a,

33

a-jTeipov

avTos vTreero

ov prjv tri nopiarov ktK. It

thus impossible

to premise with Ritter

Gesch. der PJiilo.s., 217) that Auaxiraenes made a distinction between the air as a metaphysical cosmic matter and the Brandis also, who first entertained this same as an empirical element.

view in his handbook.

so

I.

144, has later (Gesch. d. Entw., I. 56, 2) not laid

much

stress

on

it.

44
arcount of

IllSTOKY OF ANCIENT rilTLOSOPIIV

its

easy miilability

olu/j.evo'i

euaWoicoTov

irpof /xerafSoXy'/r {Sclxil.

yL/.s7.,

dpKdr ro ruv at'po? 514 ii, .33 ). If

is

we add

to this, finally, the single statement whieli

'
:

i)re-

served of his vrritings

(TvyKparel
iifia^^

olov

t)

-yfrvy^i]

>}

i/fierepa diip

ovaa

Kai oXov rov Kocrfxov Trvev/xa koX drjp irepLe^ei^

we know

that his

main object was

to declare the

cosmic

matter to be the most alive and most continuously mobile AVc likewise meet here a very of the known elements.

which the p^t] changes into and rarefaction (^/xdi>co(Ti<; or dpaiwat^ irvKvwaL^^. Out of the air through rarefaction originates fire through condensadefinite idea of the
in

manner
:

other kinds of matter

his theory of condensation

tion,

wind, clouds, rain, water, earth, stones, successively

enumeration there appears considerable observations, and at the same time the physicist's tendency to use the state of aggregation as a standard for the different changes in Milesian science already knew the the cosmic matter. connection of the state of aggregation with the temperaand Anaximenes taught'* that rarefaction is. identical ture with increase of warmth, condensation with increase of
come. In
this
in

definiteness

meteorological

cold.

From
nomena

these general observations

Anaximenes not only

to

gave a great number of explanations of particular phein

which he showed himself

have been a many-

sided and sharp-sighted physicist, but he also gave a theory

of the origin of the world.

To

the latter was appended the

Plac, 1. 3 {Dox., 278). Far from favoring a purely principle, by Anaximenes. as Roth
1

Plut.

spiritual interpretation of tbe

(^Gescli. d. uhc.ndl. Philoa., II.

world
f.)

250

will

have

it,

this

passage shows the naive materialism of earliest science

as

it

also appears in the casual

remark

air.

The
8 *

materiality of the cosmic matter of

his theory of

beyond a doubt by
Hipp. Ref.
Plat.

Anaximander that the soul is Anaximenes is proved condensation and rarefaction.

of

h., I. 7

(Dox., 560).
7, 3,

De pr. frig.,

947.

THE MILESIAN NATURE PHILOSOPHY

safely attested
^

45

conception of a periodic change of worldworld-destructions,

It is
i. e., of a successive not certain, however, that he

formings

and

plurality of worlds.

thought the destruction of the world

Nothing
nological
is

to

be conflagration.
its

known

of the

life

of Anaximenes, and

determination is ditticult. See Zeller, 219, 1. Against the conjectures of Diels {Bhein. JIus., XXXI. 27) there is the probable theory that by the '* capture of Sardis," with which his death is said to be coincident (Diog., II. 3), we are to understand the capture b}^ the lonians in the year 499. Accordingly his birth would have to be in the 5od Olympiad, as Hermann has it {De philos. Jonic. cpfatibus, CTttingen, 1H4:9). Roth (II. a, 246 f. b, 42 f.) makes the date too late by placing His -n-epl (^r'a-cw? was written - yAoWo--// it in the 58th Olympiad. This is tlie beginning of a dry practical 'la^t airkrj Kai aVcptTTw. prose which shows itself contemporaneously in the historiography of his countryman Hecatteus.
;

chro-

With

the destruction of Miletus after the battle of Lade,

fall

494, and the

of the independence of Ionia, the first Greek science along the lines of natural philosophy came to an end.^ When, at least a generation * after Anaximenes, in another Ionian city, Ephesus, the

development

of

great scientific theory of

Heracleitus appeared, the

new

theory did not leave the old theory unused.

Heracleitus,

on the other hand, joined to the old theory the religious and metapliysical problems which had appeared in the mean time from other directions.
1

Simpl. Phijs., 25 7

^ ^

According to Diog. Laert.,

IT. 2.

The

great chronological chasm between Anaximenes and Heraclei-

tus

is

consistent with the entirely different handling of the problems by

the latter.

Therefore the customary way of making Heracleitus a

Milesians
is

follower of the

the less tenable, since the

teacliing of

Heracleitus absolutely presupposes that of Xenophanes.

*

If

one places the death of Anaximenes at 525 (Diels and Zeller)

of Heracleitus, at the earliest, at 475, then the

and that
still

chasm

ajjpcars

greater.

46

niSTOKY OF AN'CIENT riiiLosoniY

2.

The Metaphysical Conflict

The advance from

Heracleitus

and the

Eleatics.
the speculations in nature-philosophy

of the Milesians to the conceptual investigations in

Being and Becoming of Heracleitus and his Eleatic opponents was the result of a reaction, which tiie conception of the world created by Ionian science necessarily exerted upon

the religious ideas of the Greeks.

The monistic tendency

which science showed in seeking the unitary cosmic matter was in implicit opposition to polytheistic mythology, and necessarily became more and more accentuated. It was inevitable, therefore, that Greek science on the one hand should emphasize and reinforce the monistic suggestion which it found in the field of religious ideas, but on the Dther that it should fall so much the more into sharper
opposition to the polytheism of the state religion.

The imperturbable champion of this man who stands as the religious-philosophical

17.
ical

conflict,

the

link between

the Milesian nature philosophy and the two great metaphys-

systems of Heracleitus and Parmenides, and at the same time the man who is the messenger of philosophy from the East to the "West, is Xenophanes,^ the rhapsodist
1

The
is

disposition of the material of the text,

whereby Xenophanes,
facts
firstly,

who

generally called the

"founder"
is

of the Eleatic school, has been

separated from this school,

justified

by these two

the

theory of Xenophanes in point of time and subject matter precedes that

of Heracleitus,

and the theory of Heracleitus

;

cedes that of Parmenides

secondly,

that

in the same respects preXenophanes is neither a

genuine

Eleatic, nor yet

first

a representative

of

the

Eleatic
of

theory of

Being, enunciated
lies

by Parmenides.

The importance

Xenophanes
I.

not within a metaphysical but a religious-philosophical territory,

his strength does not consist in conceptual thought (Arist. Met.,
b, 27, calls

and
5,

986

him, as opposed to Parmenides, aypoiKOrtpov^ but in

the powerful and grand thought of Oneness.

I.

See Brandis, Handbuch,

359.

THE METAI'IIYSICAL CONFLICT

of Colophon,

47

who sang

in

Magna
the

Grgecia (570-470).

To

him

antiquity referred as the first

champion against the

popular religion.

anthropomorphic element in
criticised the representation of

He

gods in

human

form,i and

made

sport of the poets

who
If

attributed to celestials the

passions and sins of men.^

the highest and true God.^

He

asserted the singleness of

believe that herein

we may

he taught nothing but what was already provided for and

hinted
at, if not indeed definitely presented, in the Pythagorean doctrine as known to him, and possibly even earlier

in the Mysteries,

then that

which makes Xenophanes a

philosopher

is

the basis which he developed for monothe-

ism from the philosophy of the Milesian physics. We can condense his teaching into a sentence the p-)(rj is the
:

Godhead. According to his religious conviction, God is the original ground of all things, and to him are due all attributes which the physicists had ascribed to the cosmic matter. He is unoriginated and imperishable * and, as the cosmic matter was identical with the World-All for the lonians, so for Xenophanes was God identical to the worldall. He contains all things in himself, and he is at the same time ev koI irav? This philosophical monotheism,
;

Compare
Compare

the

well-known verse iu Clem. Alex. Strom., V. 714

(fr. 5, 6).
2
^

Sext.

Emp. Adt:

math., IX. 19.3

and

I.

289.

" Etf 6e6s ev re deolai koL dvopanoicn (ityia-Tos ovre befias dvrjToicriu

o^oiios ovTf voTjua." later in the

The metaphysical monotheism

in

Xenophanes and
in Plato

Greek thinkers

in

a certain sense

even

is

allied with the recognition also of subordinate deities

as parts of the world.

this

The Stoa was

a

the

first to

which are treated attempt to analyze by

side

relationship

in

conceptual
thus

way.

Side

with

the

metaphysical monotheism, there

poh'theism.
*
it

continued to exist a mythical

According to

Arist. Rhet., II. 23, 1399 b, 0,

Ijirth

impious to speak of

and

<leath, of origination

Xenophanes declared and extinction,

.
.

of a
^

Godhead,

dfj.<f)OTpo}s

yap
6'',

a-vfiSalveiu pr] flvai tovs deovs irore.

Compare Simpl. Phys.,

22, 26

Iv rb ov Ka\ jiav

Sevo(pvr]v

vnoTidfaOoi.

48
SO

HISTOHY OF ANCIHNT PlllLOSorilV

energetically defended against
is

the polytheism of the

myth,
as

consequently not theistic but entirely pantheistic,

we use the terms.

and
all

World and God

to

Xcnophanes are

identical,

the single things of perception lose them-

selves in that one, unchanging, universal essence.^

In consequence of his religious predilection, however, Xenophanos emphasized the singleness of the divine cosmic principle

more decidedly than the Milesians, to whom this is a selfevident principle, owing to their concept of the dp^v- It
remains indeed doubtful whether the entire Zeno-likc argument for this, founded on the superlatives " mightiest and " best," can be ascribed to him.^ To the quality of
singleness, however,

Xcnophanes further ascribed

^

to the

cosmic deity that of unity

consists he

in

the sense of qualitative

nnity and inner homogeneity.

Nevertheless, of what this

had as

little

to

say as

Anaximander conIn his

cerning the qualitative constitution of the ireipov.

possible

poetry he attributed to the Godhead in an incidental

all

way

functions and

powders, spiritual

as well as

material.^

Yet out

of the

mass
all

of his utterances Aristoth-

could obtain^ only an indefinite and obscure assertion of

the essential homogeneity of

that

being.

It

was

of greater

importance, however, for future philosophical development

Xcnophanes followed
;

to its logical conclusion the con-

cept of qualitative unity

1

and that moreover he extended

Pifrr.
ffxui>

According to Sext.
;

Emp.
yap

hypot.,

T.

33,

the

sillograph

Tinion makes him say

av(\vfTO

orrnr]

vov (\)pvaai\ii Eij iv ravro xf Ylv

nav

6'

eov aiel IlvTj] avf\K(>p.(vov fiiav fli (pCcriv earad ofiolav-

De Xen. Zen.

Gorgias, 97

7 a,

23

Simpl. Phjx., I.e.

' *

In which the ambiguity of the Iv played a great role. ovXos Spa ovXos 8e votl, o^Xoy Sext. Emp. Adv. math., IX. 144
:

8e t

OKOveiKpa8ai"(i.
6

Simpl. Phys.,

6', 23,

IS: dXX* dndvevdt nuvoio voov

(f)pevi

iravra

World.
6

Thus the often mentioiie(l ball-sliape of the Clodhead Compare llippol. Ref. h., I. 14 {Dox., G5). Compare Plat. Soph., 242 d. Met., I. 5, 986 b, 22.

or of the

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

it

49

over temporal

differentiations

in such a

way

that he

ascribed unchangeability to the

Godhead

in every respect.^
his prede-

cessors.2

He thereby enters into significant opposition to From the concept of the divine a/>%?7,
the character of

there van-

ished

mutability

which had played so

great a role in the Milesian hylozoism.

In the emphasis upon this claim that the apxv is unoriginated and imperishable, and must also be immobile, excluding therefore Kivqai'i as well as
distinctive
d\\oi(ocn,<s,

lay the

Xenophanes. For just here the concept of the apx?;' could no longer serve as an explanation of empirical events. However, Xenophanes did not himself appear to have been conscious of the chasm he left between his metaphysical principle, and the plurality and changeableness of individual things.^
innovation
of

the teaching of

an obviously naive * manner he conjoined to his metaphysics a multitude of physical theories. Nevertheless he does not appear as an independent investigator in physics, but he simply follows the views of

For

in

religious

entire doctrine he seems to have been perfectly familiar,^ and adds certain more or Among the latter less happy observations of his own.

Anaxi-mander, with whose

Eus. Prcep.
:

er., I. 8,

eivai Xf'-yet

ro nav atX ofioiov.

Hippolyt. Re/.,

I.

14

ore iv to
:

nap iariv

e^co ^era/SoA^y.
P/ii/s..

He
:

also denied
ale\ 8'

movement
re lUveiv

to the world-all

compare Simpl.

C^ 23, 6

evrair

KivovfKvov ovbiv ovSf fifTep^fcrdai

'

i.v eirinpenfi,

aWodfV

aXXrj.

Tins very opposition

I. 5.

Aristotle

emphasizes

in

connection

with

Met.,
^

It is possible, also, that

he endeavored to avoid a
1.

diffic-uky

here by an

indefinite expression, just as Diogenes, II.

reports that
fifprj

Anaximander

(no source of authority given) taught

ra fxh

fj.Taa\Xfiv. to 5e

nav
*

fjLfTaXriTop eivai.

Thus he

lets

stand the plurality of mythical gods under the metato think

physical Godhead.
^

Theophrastus appears

him the pupil

4

of

Anaximander

See

Zeller, I*. 508, 1.

50

lllsroKV OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOl'IIV

belong the very childish ideas about astronomical objects.

For instance, the stars were to him clouds of lire, which were (luenched when they set and were enkindled when they
rose
'
;

he attached great significance

to the earth as the

fundamental element of the empirical world (with the addition of the water), and he thought it to be endless ^ in His statement was more happy its downward direction.
about the petrifactions he had observed in
of the original
tion.*

Sicily, as a proof
its

drying of the earth from

muddy

condi-

Yet Xenophanes apparently held such physical theories concerning the individual and temporary in small esteem compared to his religious metaphysics, which he championed vehemently. To this only can his sceptical
remarks
in

one of his fragments^ refer.

The differing statements as to wlien Xenophanes lived can be reeoneiled most easily by assuming that the time when lie, according to his own statement (Diog. Laert., IX. 19), at twentyfive began his wanderings, coincided with the invasion by the Persians under Ilarpagus (546, in consequence of which so many lie himself testifies (loc. cit.) that lonians left their liomes). his wanderings lasted sixty-seven years, at which time he must have attained the age of at least ninety-two. Impoverished during the emigration, if not already poor, which is less probable, he supported himself as a rhapsodist by the public rendering of his own verses. In old age he settled in Elea, the founding of whicii in 537 by the fugitive Phcenicians he celeAccording to the preserved brated in two thousand distichs. fragments, his poetic activity was essentially of the Gnomic order (9). He embodied his teaching in a didactic poem in hexameter, of which only a few fragments remain. These have been collated by Mullaeh; also b}' Karsten, Philosophorum
reliquice, I. 1 (Amsterdam, l>i;55) Reinhold, Xeiiophanis doctrina (.Jena, 1.S47), and in the different works about Xeuophanes liy Franz Kern (^Programm,
;

Grcecorum operum

De genuina
1

Stob.

Ed.,

I.

ry'2-1

{Box., 34).

2
8 <

Achilles Tatius in Isagoge

.'^iinpl.

ad Aratwn,
Se.xt.

128.

Phijs. 41*, 180,

I.

1.

Emp. Adr.

malh.. IX. 3(il.

Ilipiml. Ref.,

14 {Dox. C'J).
4!),

Sextus Emp., VII.

110

VIII. 32G.

Stob. Ed.,

I.

224,

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

51

Naumburg, 1864; Oldenburg, 1876; Danzig, 1871; Stettin, 1874, 1877) Freudenthal, Die Theologie des Xoiophanes (Breslau, 1886). Compare Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos., 1. 322 f. The pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Xenophane, Zetion,Gorgia (printed in the works of Aristotle, and in Mullach, Fragm.
;

271, also under the title De Melissa, Xenopliane et Gorcfia), According to the investigathe Peripatetic school. tions of Brandis, Bergk, Ueberweg, Vermehren, and Zeller, we ma}' believe that the last part of this work doubtless treats of Gorgias, and the first part almost as surely of Melissus. The middle portion presupposes an older presentation about Xenophaues winch was referred wrongly by a later commentator to Zeno, and was supplemented with some statements about Zeno's views drawn from other sources This part of the treatise can be used only with the greatest judgment, and then as illustrative of what on the one hand the fragments, and on the other the reports, of Aristotle give.
1.

came from

The teaching
cept of the apxv-

of Xeiiophanes,

immature as

it

appears,

nevertheless discloses the inadequacy of the Milesian con-

In or behind the change of single things,

he
if

said,

should be sought a cosmic principle that creates

but yet itself always remains unchanged.
conceive
utterly
of
this

them
"we

all,

But
of

seriously

cosmic

principle

Xenophanes as
time regard
it

unchangeable, and at the same

as the sole

and all-embracing
its

actuality,

it is

impossible to understand

capacity of being ceaselessly

transmuted into individual tilings. The two thought-motifs that had been fundamental in the concept of the apx^ now part company, on the one hand, the I'eflection upon the fundamental fact of the cosmic process (Gesehehen), on the other the fundamental postulate of the permanent, of the unchangeably self-determined, of Being. The more

difficult their reconciliation

is it

appeared, the more conceivable

that the

young

science, at

whose command there was

fall

as yet no wealth of mediating data, and which on the other

hand was developed wnth naive unconcern, should

regard for the other.

upon

the expedient of thinking out each motif by itself without

From

this

courageous oiiesidedness,

o2

TIISTOHY
it

(F

ANCIKNT

T'lIILOSOrilY
origi-

iiiulauntcJ as

Avas at paradoxical consequences,

nated the two great nu'taphysical systems wlioso

oi)])osition

cleitus
18.

determined later thought. and Parmenides.

These are the theories

of llera-

The doctrine

of absolute, ceaseless,

and universal
Trdvra pel

mutability already was even in anticjuity regarded as the

kernel of Ileracleitanism.

Its

watchword

is

and

when Plato
Kal ovSev

gave the phrase a new turn,

viz.,

on

Trvra %a)pet

/j,6VL,

the proposition,

he gave at the same time the obverse of the denial of the permanent. Here in Dark," essentially distinguished

this is Ileracleitus, " the

from the

^lilesian philoso])hers, with

whom

he, under the

is

name

of the " Ionian natural

])hilosoi)hers,"

generally

Heracleitus found nothing permanent in classed ( 10). the perceptual world, and he gave up search for it. In
the

must varied phrase he presented the fundamental

of tlie continuous

truth

transmutation of

all

things into

one another.
each other.
of change,

From

every

realm

of

life

he seized ex-

amples, in order to point out the passage of opposites into

He

described in bold figures the ceaselessness

to him the essence of the world, and needed no derivation and explanation. There are no truly existing things, but all things only become and pass aioay

which was

again in the

])lay of

perpetual world-movement.
in

The ap-^r]

is

not so

much immutable matter

independent motion, as

is the motion itself, from which forms of matter are later derived as products. This thought is stated by Heracleitus by no -means with conceptual clearness, but in sensuous pictures. Already the Milesian investigators had noted that all motion and change are connected with temi)eratui'e changes (16), and so Ileracleitus thought that the eteiiial cosmic motion ex-

the Milesians had said, but

all

pressed itself by
identical with

fire.

Fire

is

the

(ipx^'h l'"^

""'^

as a stuff

itself in all
1

its

ehanges, but rather as the

a.

Cralyl.,

4U2

THE METAPIIVSICAL COXFLICT

ever-uniform process
pass away.
It is the
itself,

53

in

which

all

things rise and

world

itself,

therefore, in its unorigi-

nating and unperishing mutability.^

The exceptional
b}'

difficulty of this relationship

it,

was remarked

the ancients, and from

especially, the Epliesian got his

nickname, o-kotciio?. Herein appeared the amalgamation of the abstract and the concrete, of the sensuous and the syml)olical, which, in general, characterized the entire thought and habit of expression of Heracleitns. Neither to oracular pride nor to the assumption of mysteriousness (Zeller, V. .j70 f.) is this deficiency to be attributed in his writing, but to inability to find an adequate form for his aspiring abstract thought. Besides this, a priestly ceremoniousness of tone is unmistakable. Hence the wrestling with language which appears in nearly all the fragments hence the rhetorical vehemence of expression and a heaping up of metaphors, in which a powerful and sometimes grotesque fanc}' is displayed. Concerning especially his fundamental teaching, his words seem to show in isolated passages that he had only substituted fire for water or air. But more exact search shows that the dpx>'i meant quite a different thing to him. He also identified fire and the world-all and fire and the Godhead nay, hylozoic pantheism finds in the teaching of Heracleitns its own most perfect expression. Yet he meant that this world principle is only the movement represented in the fire. It is the cosmic process itself.
;
;

Heracleitus proceeded from the point of view that the

ground of things, fundamental in it. He found fire to be the condition of every change, and But he did therefore the object of scientific knowledge. not only mean this in the sense that " nothing is permanent save change," but also in the higher sense that this eternal movement completes itself in determined and everrecurrent forms. From this metaphysical thesis he attempted to understand the problem of the ever-permanent series of repetitions, the rhythm of movement and the law
fire-motion
is originall}'

in itself the final

is

and accordingly no permanent Being

Fr. 46 (Schust.) kct^ovtv avrhv nvTatv ovre ris deu)v ovre dv6p)'
f'noirjcrei',

va>v

dXX'

fjv

del koi 'iariv

nip dil^aov.

54
of

IITSTOHY OK ANCIENT rillLOSol'llV

cliaugc.

In obscure and

undeveloped form
It

or'ujimtfed
in

here the conception of natural law.

appeared

the

vesture of

tlic

mythical

Ei/jbap/jLvr)y

Fate, or an all-powerful AIkij,

an all-deternuning menacing every deviation

as

with punishment. Since it is to be regarded as the peculiar the reason that object of reason, he called it the ^0709,

rules the world. In tho later presentations of t'\'s theory, in which its Stoicism appears, it is dittieiilt to get at what is in itself peculiarly But the fundamental tbouglit Ileracleitan (Zeller. l"*. 606 f.). of a world-order of natural phenomena cannot be denied to Compare "SI. Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der Ileracleitus. fjrierhischen Philosophie (Leipzig, 1872).

Tlic

most universal

forn? jf the

cosmic process was, there-

fore, for Ileracleitus that of opposition

and

its

elimination.
it

From
that

the notion of the " flow of

all

things,"

followed
unites

every single thing in

its

continuous change

in itself perjjetually opposing determinations.

is

Everything

and the

only a transition, a point of limit between the vanishing The life of nature is a continuous passabout-to-be.
ill
:

ing into one another of

opposites,
7ro\.e/xo9

and out

of their strife

come

the individual things

Trdvrwv fievirarrip eart,

TrdvTcov Se aatXeiK;.'^

But as these antitheses ultimately arise only out of the universal and all-embracing, living, fiery, cosmic force, so they find their adjustment and reconciliation Fire is, in this respect, the " unseen harin this same fire. mony." ^ The world-all is consequently the self-divided ^ and the self-reuniting unity.'* It is at one and the same
1

Fr. 75.
Ccjinpare Fr. S
(TfprrjTas 6
f.
:

Koii.

dp/xow'r;

yap OK^avhi

<f)avep^v

Kudrrav. iv
C

tjtcis 8ta(j)opus

fiiyuvuiv 6(6s iKpvi\rf K'.\ KaT(8v(T(v.

omp.

Zeller,

604
8

The

dcfiainji

here obviously characterizes the

tv 8ia(fiep6pfi>ov avru avr.

metaphysical in

opposition to the ])hysical.

Plato, Sj/mp., 187 a
;
:

rit

Compare

Soph.,

242 c
*

also Fr. 98.

Ileracleitus sought to picture this relationship in the obviously unfor-

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

ime
in

55
^

strife

and peace

or

what seems
it is

to

mean

the same

Heracleitus' terminology,
fuhiess.'-

at

one and the same time

principles

want and

The

physical

application

of

these

afforded

a thoroughgoing theory of the elemental changes in the Action and reaction take place in orderly sucuniverse.

and indeed in such wise that they are constantly Thus it happens that single things have the appearance of persisting, when two opposcession,

balanced in their results.

ing forces temporarily hold

as, for instance, the river

each

other

in

equilibrium,

appears as a permanent thing

flows to a point as flows from

because just as
it.

much water

Heracleitus designated this rhythm of change as the two " Ways " which are identical, the 680^; Karw and the
0S09 av(o.^
itself into

By

the

first

Way

the

original

fire

changes
;

water and then into earth through condensation

by the second the earth changes back through liquefaction to water and then to fire. This double process is
true in one respect for the entire world
;

for in regularly

recurrent periods*
the original
of pure fire.
fire,

it

develops into individual things from

and then returns to the initial condition Hence comes the idea of alternating world-

formation and world-destruction.^

tunate figure of the
Koa-fxov oKoacnrep
1

On

the other liand, this

bow and

the lyre

ttoKLvtovos [-rpoTroy] yap pnovirj

f.

to^ov koi Xvprj^.

As

to the meaning, see Zelk-r, P. 598

Ibid., 641.

Fr. 67.

From

these

determinations apparently come

ve'iKos

and

(f>i\6TTjs,
3

the different conditions developed by Empedocles (^ 21).

Laert.,

Compare Diog

TX.

8.

The

designations Kdra and ava are to

be understood as

first

of all spatial, but they

appear to have acquired a

it "is

connotation of value.

thing becomes less valuable, the farther

from the
*

fiery element.

He has

suggested for these the Great Year (18,000 or 10,800 years

?)

following perhaps the Chaldeans.

^

in Heracleitus

The acceptance of successive may be looked upon

world-formations and destructions

as assured from the deductions of

Zeller, I<. 626-640.

56

IIISTOHV OF ANCIENT rillLOSOI'IIV

of
J

orderly clianue
scrit's
liis

matter

verifies

itself

in

every single
aj)})lied

in

nature.

low far Ih

raeleitns,
ol,jects,

however,

view to jiartienlar physical

we do not know.

In cosmogony, he appears to have been satisfied with bringing the " sea" ont of the primitive lire, and then out of the
sea the earth on the one hand, and on the other the
air.

warm

The only detail authoritatively attested one that reminds us of Xenophancs that the sun is a mass of vapor,

taking

lire

in

the

moi'ning and

becoming extinguished
For Hcracleitus was
lie

in the evening, reconciles us to the loss of other theories of Heracleitus, in case

less a physicist

he had any.
principle

than a metai)hysician.
with

thought out
in

a single fundamental

profound reflection
lay

and

vivid

imagination.

His

interest

the

most

general of principles and in anthropological questions.

It can scarcely be accidental tliat in the preserved fragments of Heracleitus there is little peculiarly i)hysieal, but inucli that is metaphysical and anthropologieal. If his writing actually had three kyoi (Diog. Laert., IX. 5), of which one dealt with rrepl tov Trai'To?, and both the others were 7roAtTtf)? and eoA-oyt/)?, this is proof that we have to do with a philosoplier who did not, as his Milesian predecessors, accord a merely casual consideration to human life, but made it liis prime study.

The conflict of the pure fire and the lower elements into which everything changes repeats itself in man. The soul as the living principle is fire, and finds itself a captive in a body made out of water and earth, which, on account of its inherent rigidness, is to the soul an abhorrent object.
With
this theoiy Heracleitus united ideas of transmigration, of retribution after death,

and the
it

like

and he, as

Pythagoras, seems to have attached

to

to certain Mysteries.

In general he took a position in religious matters similar that of Pythagoras. Without breaking entirely with the popular faith, he espoused an interpretation of the myths that inclined toward monotheism and had an
ethical

import.

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

The
vitality of tlic soul,

57

in every respect,

and consequently its perfection depends on its derivin^i^: its nourishment

the universal reason, the A.0709.

from the cosmic

breath
is

fire,

The

the physical

medium
is

of

obtaining this nourish-

A further sense perception, which is the absorption of the outer through the inner fire; and this
ment, and cessation
of
life,

of the breath stops activity.

medium

however,

accounts for the depression of soul-activity in sleep.

drier and

The

more

fiery,

the better and wiser

is

the soul, and

the more does

it

participate in the universal cosmic reason.

is

Since the cosmic reason

of

cosmic law, the reasonableness

man

consists in his conformity to law, and in his con-

scious subordination to it. On that account Heracleitus regarded the ethical and political tasks of mankind as

expressions of the supremacy of law.

cratic hate

His entire

aristo-

against the democracy, that had attained to

power,

is

revealed in diatribes against the anarchy of the

their caprice.

multitudes and

Only

in

subordination to

order and in the last instance to cosmic law, can

man
In an

win that serenity which constitutes his happiness.

apprehension of law, however, and in sul)ordination to the universally valid, Heracleitus found the theoretical goal
of

mankind.

Only the reason and not sense perception

guarantees the attainment of this goal, and without the

reason eyes and ears are bad witnesses.^
1

The

great

mass
12G),

The well-known Frapnent

usually interpreted
as

11 (Sext.

Emp.
sense

A'lr.

mnth.,YU.

KUKol prvpfS vpiTTOKnv 6(f)6a\fioi kol wto appovi ^Irvxas

is

e;|f6vT&)i',

disdain of

knowledge.
I^.

Schuster
G56
f.) to

(p. 19 f.) has

made an attempt (confuted by mean between

Zeller,

5 72

f.,

stamp Heracleitus

as a sensualist on account of his theory of perception.

The correct

position lies in the

these two authorities. Right

knowledge indeed arises in sense when the right soul elaborates it. The criterion to which all things are referred is here again conformity In to law, which is universally valid and won only through thought. sleep and through mere individual perception every one has only his own, and therefore a false^ world of ideas. The analogy in practical life is

58
of

II1ST(1IJV

OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPHY
arc badly
off.

mankiiul

in

this ivspt'cl

They do not

reflect,

but live on as the ileliided victims of sense, whose

its

greatest decci)tin consists in

simulation of permanent
of
all

Being amid the transitoriness

percci)tion.

the

phenomena

of

Horacloitus of i^.phesus, son of Blyson, belonged to the most his native eity, -which traced its origin U) C'odrus. In this family the dignity of px'^i' atriXeik was inherited, and Ileracleitus is said to have surrendered it to his brother. The dates of his birth and death are not exactly known. If he survived the banishment of his friend Ifermodorus (compare PI Zeller, iJe Ilerni. Ephesio, Marburg. 1801), who was forced from the eity b}' the democratic ascendency after the tlirowiug off of Persian domination, his death can scarcely have been before 470. About this time he himself went into retirement to devote himself to science. His birth, since he is said to have lived about sixty j'ears, can be placed between 540-530. With these dates, moreover, the statements of Diogenes Laertius agree, for Diogenes places the uKfjn] of Heracleitus in the sixty-ninth Olympiad. His own writing, in poetically ceremonial prose, supposes that Pythagoras and Xeuophaues are already familiar names. It w^as not probably written until the third decade of the fifth centur}'. His rude partisanship upon the side of the oppressed aristocracy is all that is known of his life, by which is explained his contempt for mankind, his solitariness and bitterness, and his ever emphatic antagonism toward the public and its capricious sentiments. In the collection and attempt at a systematic ordering of the unfortunately meagre fragments of Heracleitus' book, and in the presentation of his doctrine, the following men have done eminent service Fr. Sehleiermacher {Her. der Dunkle von Ephesus, Ges. Wei-ke III., II. 1-146) Jak. Bernays ( Ges. Abh. herauarjez. von Usener, I., 1885, 1-108, and in addition especially the "Letters of Heracleitus," Berlin, 18(;i)) Ferd. Lassalle (Die Philos. Her. des Dunkeln von Ephesus, 2 vols., Berlin, 1858); P. Schuster (Her. v. Ephcsus. Leipzig, 1873, in the Acta soc. j>/t?7., Lips, ed., Ritselil. III. 1-391) Teichmller (Neue Studien zu Gesch. der Begriffe, Parts 1 and 2)

eminent family of

sliown in Frajjment

12.S,

^vvbv

icm

Trcri

to

(jifjovflv.

^vv

i>a>

Xtyorraj

l<T)(ypl^f(T6ai )(pTj Tc ^vi> ndvTcov.

oyanep
vofioi,

vo^lco TroXff ku\

nu\xi l(T)(vporfp(i)s

Tpf(f)ouTai

yap nvrei

ol

avOpumivm

vno (vus tov

Otiov.

THE METAPHYSICAL COXFLICT

59

J. Bywater {Her. reliquiit', Oxford), 1877, a collection which iucludes, to be sure, the counterfeited letters, but those, however, that presumably came from ancient sources Th. Gom;

perz {Zu II.'s Lehre und den Ueherresten seines Werke, Vienna, 1887) Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philos. der Her. v. Eph. im Lichte der Mysterienideen (Berlin, 1886).
;

sole true

In the theory of Heracleitus, scientific reflection as the method already so far strengthened itself in the
it

abstract development of his concepts that

set itself over

against

customary opinion and

sense
a
still

appearance with
liigher degree tlie

a rugg'ed self-consciousness.

To

same
19.

attitude appears in the antagonistic theory of the

Eleatic School.

The

scientific

founder of the Eleatic school was

set forth

by Xenophanes in and singleness of the Godhead and its identity with the world, was developed entirely conceptually by Parmenides as a metaphysical theory. That concept, however, which was placed as central and drew all the others entirely into its circle, was Being. The great Eleatic was led up to his theory through reflecParmenides.
religious assertions about the unity

What had been

tions of a purely formal logical nature.

In a

still

obscure

and undeveloped form the correlation of consciousness and Being hovered before his mind. All thinking is referred to something thought, and therefore has Being for its content. Thinking that refers to Nothing and is therefore
contentless,

cannot be.

Therefore not-Being cannot be

it be.^

thought, and
all follies to
it

much

the less can

It is

the greatest of
of

discuss not-Being at
is,

all,

for

we must speak

as a thought content, that

ourselves."
:

as

must contradict
^

If all

something being, and thinking refers, however,

fxfj

Verses 35-40 (Mullach)

vv. 43-51.

ovre yap av yvcirji t6 ye

voe'iv ecrriv

euu

ov yap

awoTOV.
^

ovT (ppdcraii. to yap avro

re

/cat eii'at.

Steinhart and Bernays have rightly called attention to

is

the fact that Heracleitus

antagonized here, for he ascribes Being and

not-Being alike to the things conceived in the process of Becoming.

r.O

IlIsrOlIY

OF ANCIKN'T rillLOSOl'IIY
is
1)0

to sonicdiiiig bein<5, then

]>ein<^

everywhere the same.

is in all

For whatsoever also may

the same.

thought as in the particular

thing, nevertheless the quality of Being {das Sein}

Being

is

the last product of an abstraction that

has
the

compared the particular thought contents.

alone remains

when

all

difference has been abstracted

Being from

content determinations of actuality.^

From

this fol-

lows the fundamental doctrine of the P]leatics, that only

the one abstract Being
is.

Parmenides would be com])lete in this brief sentence eanv elvai, if on the one hand there did not follow from this conceptual definition a number of predicates primarily negative and predicates of Being, and susceptible only disjunctively of positive formulation if on the other hand the philosopher did not deviate from
])hilosophy of

The

the strict logic of his

own

postulates.

In respect to the
tions

first, all

time and qualitative distinc-

must be denied to Being. Being is unoriginated and It was not and will not be, but only is in imperishable. For time, wherein perhaps any thing timeless eternity .^ that is, first was and suffered change,^ is in no wise different from a thing that is. Being is also unchangeable, entirely homogeneous and unitary in quality. It is also not plural,
but
is

the one unique, indivisible,'* absolute cosmic Being.

Zeller, P. 670.
is

Compare

The same

dialectic

in reference

to
in

Being
seeking

and not-Being
1

repeated in the dialogue, The Sophist (238),

for the possibility of error.

This line of thought

is
if

repeated by the Xeo-Platonists, by Spinoza

P>eing
'/.

et al.,

and

is

unavoidable

is

valid as the criterion of " things

f.

being."
-

Compare Kant, AV.

C,\
:

'.

JVni., Kehrb., 471

tjv

V. .59 if., especially

ov8t ttot

ovo' ((rrai iiru vvv ia-Tiv fxov

nav

This is di3 V. 90 oiSe XP'^^"^ fariv ^ fo-rai XXo TtaptK rov eovros. rected perhaps against the cosmogonies, perhaps against the chronoloo-ical measure of cosmic development in Heracleitus. "
:

V. 78.

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

.11 pluralit)-, all

fil

qualitatire difference, all origination, all

change or destruction are shut out by true Being.

clearness and sharpness.

In this

respect Parmenides has constructed the concept in perfect

But this abstract ontology among the Eleatics nevertheless took another turn through some content definitions obtained from the inner and outer world of experience. This occurred in the two directions resulting from the way in which Parmenides gained the concept of Being from the identity of thinking and the thing thought. That Being, to which thought refers in its naive conception as if it were its own necessary content, is corporeal actuality. Therefore the Being of Parmenides was identified with the
absolutely corporeal.
of not-Being got

The polemic against the acceptance a new aspect in this way. The 6v coin/ir/

cides with the nrXeov, the

Eleatics taught that there

fore

Being

is

indivisible,

and the no empty space. Thereimmovable,^ and excludes not

6v with the Kevv
;

is

only

qualitative

change, but
corporeality
is
is

also

all

change of place.
not

This

absolute

therefore
is

boundless
itself,

{arekevTriTov), but

Being ^ that

complete in

unchangeably determined, self-bounded, like a perfectly rounded, changeless and homogeneous sphere.^
1

vv. 80, 85
V.

twvtoi' t

iv tuivtu) re fxivov Kaff e'coDro t( Kelrai.

s

88

f.

Doubtless Parmeuidi

antagonized the ^Milesian teaching

But it is utterly unnecessary and aneipov presupposes the numThere is not the slightest ber investigations of the Pythagoreans. Inversely it is not impossible that the trace of this in Parmenides.
of the aneipop in all its possible affiliations.
to think that the opposition of nepas

opposition of the Eleatics against

all

predecessors

made

the dual con-

cept so important that the Pythagoreans inserted this

among

their

fundamental antitheses.
influenced Parmenides, in

Doubtless the purely Greek representation

which the measurable and self-determined and never the measureless and undetermined was regarded as perfect. Melissus seems ( 20) to have neglected this point, and thus to have approached the theory of Anaximander.
V.

102

f.

62

IlISTOKV OF AXCTl.NT rillLOSOrilY

On the other hand, however, there was aj^ain for Parmenides no Being which was not either consciousness or something thought rwvrov 8' icrrl voeiv re teal ovvcKev iart As for Xenophanes, so also for Parmcnides, vr)fia (v. 94). corporeality and thought perfectly coincide in this cosmic god, this abstract Being to 'yap ifKeov icnX vrjfia (v. 149).
:
:

AVe can designate, therefore, the Kleutic system neither as nor idealistic, because these terms have meaning only when corporeality and thought have been previously considered as different fundamental forms of actuality. 'J he Eleatie theory is rather an ontology which in regard to its content so completely took its stand at the naive point of view of the identification of corporeality and thought, as really to exalt
materialistic
it

to the dignity of a principle.

More prominently
principle, gained

in the teaching of

Parmenidcs than
:

in

that of Xcnopliancs does the peculiar result appear

that the

by conceptual reflection out of the need

This Eleatie concept of Being could world that Parmcnides
All plurality and

of for

knowing the
the
little

real world, proves itself entirely unsuitable

purpose.

explain so

of the empirical

had

to

deny the existence of that world.

diversity, all

coming into existence, existing and passing out

of existence, are only illusory appearance,

false

names that
whose
illu-

mortals have given to true Being.^

sory
-

The

Eleatie found the

origin of this appearance in sense-perception, of

character he gave warning.

entirely

He did

not seem, however,

to realize the circle involved in his reasoning.

Although
in

from an

opposite

principle, he

explained

sharper epigrammatic way than Ilcracleitus, how the truth can be sought only in conceptual thought but never in the
^

V.

98

f.

invalidated by,
Eristic,

The conjecture ovap among other thin,'?,

instead of ovofi (v. 98, Gladisch)

is

the circumstance that Sophistry and

plurality of
2

which were deveio{)ed from Kleaticism, frequently spoke of the names for the one thing thiit is ( '28).
f.

V.

54

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

senses.

63

His ontology

is

a perfectly conscious rationalism

that shut out all experience and denied all content.

Nevertheless Parmenides believed that he could not do without a physical theory, possibly because he felt the de-

mands
part
'

of

his scientific society

in

Elea.

of his didactic

poem gave a kind

first i)art.

of hypothetical

So the second and

problematical physics which stands out of logical connection with

tlie

ontology of the

But on the other

hand the "

Human

Opinions " about the

things offered to sensation were not

many changeable simply reproduced,

general plurality

but were transformed, as they would necessarily have to be,

according to his presupposition,

if

in

motion and change were to be recognized as real. To this belonged first of all tlie statement that that which is not, is thought ^ as actual side by side that which is and that out of the reciprocal action of the two are derived multiplicity and the process of individual Becoming. The physical theory of Parmenides was a dualism, a theory of opposites. Although in this respect it reminds us strongly of Heracleitus, the agreement with him is still more apparent in the making whatever really is as the equivalent of the light, and whatever really is not as the equivalent of the
;

opposites was and the heavy, the fire and the earth, the reference was to Anaximander. Yet, on the other hand, there was full recognition of the Heracleitan teaching, which had set fire over against all the other elements as the forming and determining element. If Parmenides did not herein also point out the relation between these two opposites as tliat of an active

darkness.^

When

therefore

this

pair of

identified with the thin

and

thick, the light

V.

18-30; 33-7; 110

this point later

f.

On

Atomism, whieli was more

regarded not-Being,

logical
i.

than even

Parmenides himself
as actual.
* V.

in physics,

e.,

empty space,

122

f.

64

lllSTOKY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOl'IIY

and a passive principle, nevertheless Aristotle was justified {Met.y 1. 3, 984 b, 1), inasmuch as for Parnienidcs tlic lire, which possesses Being, certainly had the value uf an animating, moving principle over against the darkness as a
thing not possessing
it.

Of the particular theories of Parnienides which have been handed down in a very fragmentary condition, there is not much to remark. With him also the principal stress was
laid

upon metaphysics.

The

little

information that exists

proves that he tried with considerable art to develop the dualism which he derived from his general ontology, and
that he even descended to details which he
to

explain in

all

subjoined existing

made it his duty In some particulars he their bearings. theories to his own without making any
^

actual advance in physics.

His astronomical ideas agree

so thoroughly with those of the Pythagoreans, with

whom

he doubtless
.2

came
the

in contact, that one

must admit the

upon the Pythagoreans in As to the origin of man, he held the same astronomy view that Anaximander held before him and that EnipeOtherwise, excepting some remarks docles held after him.
dependence of
Eleatics

about procreation,

etc.,

only his theory of sensation has

come down
of the

to us.

In this he taught, like Heracleitus, that

in

two fundamental elements contained

is

man, each

is

susceptible to that which

related to

it

in the

external

world.

The

Warm

in a living

man

senses the fiery connec-

(^Lehenszummmenhang^, but even also in tion- in-things the corpse, the cold, stiff body feels what is like it in its surroundings. He expressed the opinion that every man's
1

V. 1'2U

f.

C'oni])are, for details, Zellor, T.

525

That Parnienides here showed

is

not the least knowledge of the

so-ealle^l

number-theory,
<.f

another proof

of the later origin of this philosophical leaching

tlie

IVthagoreans,

their metaphysical.

whose mathematical and astronomical investigations obviously preceded See 24.

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

ideas and intuitions are determined by
^

65

the mixture of

these two elements in him.

There is no ground for doubting the genuineness of the report of Plato that Parmeuides iu his old age went to Athens, where The statements of the dialogue the young Socrates saw him. I^armenides, which presents the fiction ^ of a conversation between Parmenides and Socrates, are not wanting iu probability. According to this, Parmenides was born about 515. He came from a distinguished family, and his intercourse with the Pythagoreans is well attested.* On the other hand, however, his acquaintance with Xenophaues ^ is also well proved, together with whom he directed the activity of the scientific association Parmenides exercised a decided inin his native city, Elea.
^

fluence on the political life also of this newly founded city,^ and is in general represented as a serious, influential, and morally

His work was written about 470 or somewhat answer to that of Heracleitus, and at the same time it inspired the theories developed somewhat later and almost contemporaneously by Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Philolaus (Chap. III.). It is in verse, and shows a peculiar amalgamation of abstract thought and plastic poetic fancy. The greater portion of the preserved fragments came from the first and ontological section of the poem, which was perhaps also called Trepl </)i'o-e<o?. Besides Karsten and Mullach, Am. Peyron (Parmenidis et Empedolh's fraginenta, Leipzig, 1810) and Heinr. Stein (Si/mb. philofoyonnn Bointensimn in honorem F. Rifschleii, Leipzig, 1864, p. 763 f.) have collected and discussed the fragments. Compare Vatke, Parmenidis Veltensis doctrina, Berlin, 1844; A. Bumker, Die Einheit des P'schen Seins {Jahrb. f. kl. klass. Philol., 1886, 541 f.).
high character.
It
'^

later.

was

in

20.

Whereas Parmenides made

a no inconsiderable con-

cession to the customary idea of the plurality and change

of things, at least in his construction of
1

an hypothetical

V.

146

f.

2 3 * 5 * '

Tliecetetus,

183

e.
;

Parmenides, 127 b
Diog. Laert., IX.
Arist. Met.,
I. 5,

Sophixt, 217 c.
;

2.">

Strabo, 27,
b, 22.

1, 1.

980

Plato, ThecEt, 183 e:

Diog. Laert., IX. 23, according to Speiisippus. compare Soph., 237 a; Parm., 127
5

b.

66
physics
liis

IIISTOHV OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOrilV

friend and
})upil

Zeiio of Elea proceeded to

refute even this customary point of view,

and thereby

to

establish directly the teaching of his master concerning

the unity and unchangeablencss of Being.

The habit of abstract thinking, which was raised to a pre-eminence by

Parmenides, manifested
science.
itself

here

in

the

way

in

which his

pupil turned entirely from the earlier i)hysical tendency of

or understanding empirical reality.^

in the conceptual

Zeno was no longer concerned in apprehending He was interested only

defence of the jiaradoxes of his teacher.
the plurality and
spirit

In seeking to discover, therefore, the contradictions which

inlicre

in ordinary opinions regarding

mutability of things, he employed in a

tiian

more partisan

Parmenides arguments not based on subject matter

or empirical fact, but only those of formal logic.

This appeared primarily in the form of the proof,

systematically and expertly used, as
it

first

seems, by Zeno.
disjunc-

By the continuous
tives,

repetition

of

contradictory

he sought to deny exhaustively all the possibilities of comprehension and defence of the assailed thought,
it

until

was

at last

brought into obvious contradictions.

the

On

account of this keen application of

apparatus

which lets the entire proof seem to be controlled the law of contradiction, we may suppose that Zeno first by had a clear consciousness of formal logical relations.
of logic,

Aristotle even called

him

the inventor of dialectic.^

All the
of space

difficulties that

Zeno by

this

method found

in

the ideas of multiplicity and

movement

refer to the infinity

partly to the infinitely small.

and time, and indeed partly to the infinitely large, These difficulties sim])ly

prove in the last instance the impossibility of thinking exclusively of continuous spatial and temporal quantities
.1

Zeller, 11*. 538, for unimi)<)rtant

to controvert this,
^

and

for the most ])art rest

and even trivial notes which seom upon misconceptions.

Dio'r. Laert.,

VIII. 07.

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

as analyzed into discrete parts,
finity

67

of

thinking of the in-

this ground the no conclusive solution until the very real and difficult problems resting on them were considered from the point of view of the infinitesimal calculus.
of

the

perceptive process.
find

Upon

difficulties of

Zeno could

Aristotle, PJnjsics, in many places with the comments Simplicius. Bayle, Did. hist, et crit., article Zenon ; Herbart, Einleitumi in die FJiilos., 139 Metaph., 28-4 f. Hegel, Gesch. d. Phil, Complete Works, Vol. XIII. 312 f. Wellmaun, Z'^nons Beweise gegen die Bewegung und ihre Widerlegungen, Frankfort a. O., 1870 C. Dunan, Les arguments de Zenon d'Elee centre le mouvem,ent, Nantes, 1884.

Compare

by^

of

The proofs advanced by Zeno against the multiplicity what really is, were two, and they were concerned in

part with magnitude, in part with number.

As
it

regards

magnitude, whatever possesses Being must,

be
infinitely great infinitely small

if

be many,

on the one hand infinitely small and on the other

:

because the aggregation

which every one, being indivisible, of ever so has no magnitude, can result also in no magnitude infinitely great because the juxtaposition of two parts presupposes a boundary between the two, which, as something real, must itself likewise have spatial magnitude, but on this account must again be parted by boundaries from the two minor portions of which the same is true, etc., etc. Again, as regards number, whatever possesses Being must, if it be supposed to be many, be thought as both limited and It must unlimited. be limited because it is just as many as it is, no more nor less. It must be unlimited because two different things possessing Being must be separated by a boundary which as a third must itself be different from these, and must be separated from them both by a fourth and fifth, and so ad infinituvi.'" ^
parts, of
1

many

The second

proofs,

part of tlu- argument is essentially the same in both and was called by the ancients the argument e'< 8ixoTOfj.ias, in

GS

IllsroUV

Ol'

ANCIKNT PHILOSOPHY

It is probable, ami also clironoloirically quite ]>ossible, tliat these proofs were even at tliat time diiectod against the beginTliey are intended to show tiiat the nings of Atomism (i; 2;5). world cannot be thought as an aggregation of atoms. Consistent with this view is the further circumstance that Zeno's polemic was made against the idea of mutability of what possesses Being only in the sense of kiVt/o-i?, not in the sense of dA.AoiwAtomism aflirmed KtVr/rri?, and denied (Tt9 (<iualitative change). There is, in addition, a third argument qualitative ciiange. against the })lurality of Being, which Zeno seemed rather to indiThis is the so-called Sorites, according to cate than to develop. which it is inconceivable how a bushel of corn could make a This argument noise when the single kernels make none. became elTective in the polemic against the atomists, who sought to derive qualitative determinations from the joint motion Presumably against atomism there was directed of atoms. another argument of Zeno, whicii dealt neither with the plurality nor the motion of what possesses Being, but with the reality of emjjty space, which was the presupposition of movement to the atomists. Zeno showed that if what possesses Being should be thought as in space, this space as an actuality must be thought to be in another space, etc., ad infinitum. On the other hand, the application which Zeno made of the categories of infinity and finiteness, of the unlimited and limited, appears to suggest a relationship to the Pythagoreans, in whose investigations these ideas played a great role. 10
;

24.

The
Zeno

contradiction involved in the conception of motion

tried to prove in four

ways

of going through a fixed space.

divisibility of the space to be

(1) By the impossibility This means that the infinite

:

passed through will not allow

(2)

the beginning of motion to appear thinkable.

impossifiilify of passing through
limits.

By

the

a space that has movable

is

This supposes the goal, which

to be reached in

any

finite time, to

be pushed away, though perhaps ever so

of this
is

little.

An

example
(3)

Achilles,

who cannot

catch

the tortoise.
at

By

the infinitely small

in

amount of motion

any instant of time, since the body

is

motion during any

which dichotomy
sense.

used not

in the logical but in the original physical

THE METAPHYSICAL CONFLICT

individual instant of time
rest.
is

69
/.

at

some

definite point,

e.

at

He

used the resting arrow as an example.

of the amount of motion.
process
of

(4)
as
it

By
of

the

relativity

motion

a
is

carriage appears to differ in

amount according
separation

measured

in

its

by a stationary

carriage or by one in motion in the opposite direction.

Little is known about the life of Zeno. If one holds that the exact chronological reports in the dialogue of Parmenides are fictitious and the statements of the ancients about the aKixYj are doubtful, nevertheless it is certain Zeno can have been scarcely a generation younger than Parmenides. One will not make a mistake if one places the length of his life at sixty years, between 490 and 430. He was, then, the contemporary of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and Philolaus, and it is easily possible that he held fast to Parmenides' doctrine of Being in its conceptual abstractness in direct contrast to the remodellings of it by these men. His well-attested ^ryypafi/xa was composed in prose, and, to suit his formal schematism, was divided into chapters. In these the single u-oe'o-et? found their reductio ad absiirdum.^ If the preseutation of these in accordance with their polemic nature had the form of question and answer,'^ then this is probably the beginning of the philosophic dialogue-literature which later developed so richly.^

Of lesser significance* was Melissus

supporter of Parmenides's
doctrine

of

Samos.

Xot

native Eleatic, he was also not a complete and consistent

somewhat the junior

of the Eleatic,

time of the eclectic tendency in

of Being. He was and lived on into the which the opposing the-

ories began to fade out ( 25). In the main, to be sure, he thoroughly defended the Eleatic fundamental princijde, and in a manner obviously antagonistic to Empedocles,

Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and

1

in part to the Milesian physics.

v, 139, 5.

Plato, Pann., 127 o

ff.

Simpl. Pliys., 30
^*^'

Arist. nepl

(rocf).

eXe'yx-'

^''^ ^^ -~-

* *

Dioo;. Laert.,

IIL
I. 5,

48.

Arist. Met.,
13.

98G

b,

27

PJiys., I. 3,

18G

a, 8.

Trepi

(rocj).

fXiyx

5,

lC7b,

70

IIISTOKY

(F

AXriKXl'

I'lIII.osi

UMIV
y of
(lie

Yet he stood with

his doctrine of

llie infinit

One

in

so striking a contrast to Parnienick's, and in snch obvious

harmony with Anaximauder,

intermediary between the two.

that he appears as a real

of his arguments schematism of Zeno. Melissus tried to prove in these that (1) what really is, is eternal because it can arise out of neither what is nor what is not; (2) that what really is, is without beginning and end, temporally and spatially, i. e. infinite {irecpov) (3) that what really is, is single, since several things that really are, would limit one another in space and time (4) that what really is, is unchangeable, motionless, and condi-

The form

shows the influence

of the dialectic

tion

change involves a kind of originaand ending, and every movement presupposes empty space which cannot be thought as possessing Being. It is
tionless, because every

thus clear that Aristotle correctly found the conception of

the v in Melissus to be
ides.

more

materialistic than in

Parmen-

What

Melissus won by such an approximation to

the

Milesian physics,

when he

still

denied every change

tlierefore, to be

to Being, is not clear.

His theory appears,

a compromise without any strong principle.

Melissus, son of Ithagenes, was a navarch, under whom the tieet conquered the Atlienians in 4-42. His personal relation to the Kleatics has not been explained. His Evyypa^ifxa (Trepi <^i.'o-w? or Trept tov 6rTo<;, .Sinii)licius and Suidas) was written in prose. Compare F. Kern, Zur Wrdif/inifi des ^f., (Stettin, 180); A. Pabst, De M. P. fr<((/iii(^ntis' (Bouu, 1H1)) INI. Offner, Zur Beuiiheilung des Jl. {Anh. f. Gesch. d. Philos., IV. 12 f.;.

Samiau

The polemic of Zeno gave clearest expression to the fundamental ])rinciple of the Eleatic philosophy. He
thought
out logically and
consistently
in

the conce))tually

necessary concept of Being, which

callv actual.

itself

alone did not

sufhce for the apprehension and explanation of the empiri-

The Heracleitan

thesis that the essence of

EFFORTS TOWARD RECO^XILIATION

things
is

7]^

an orderly process of perpetual Zeno's argument was purely change, stood opposed to ontological. It recognized only the one increate and unchangeable Being, and denied the reality of multiplicity and Becoming without also explaining their appearance.
to be sought in
it.

The argument
seized

of

Heracleitus
itself

was
its

entirely

genetic.

It

permanent modes without satisfying the need of connecting this process with an ultimate and continuous actuality. The concept of Being is, however, a necessary postulate of thought, and the proand
cess of occurrence
is

upon the process

a fact not to be denied.

Consequently,

from the opi)osition of these two doctrines, Hellenic philosophy gained a clear view of the task which in an indefinite

way underlay
change.

the very initial conception of the

a/3%'}.

This

task was from Being to explain the process of phenomenal

3.

Efforts toward Reconciliation.

rise to a

The above problem gave

cal theories

number

of philosophi-

which are best designated as efforts toward reconciliation between the thought motifs of the Eleatic and Heracleitan schools. Since all the arguments aim at so modifying the Eleatic idea of Being that from it the orderly process of occurrence in the Heracleitan sense

may
and

seem conceivable, they are

physical character.

at once of a metaphysical

Two ways were

The inadequacy

open for the solution of this problem

one led from Parmenides, the other from Heracleitus.

of the Eleatic concept of

Being to explain
its

empirical plurality and change was due essentially to

qualities of singleness

and spatial immobility. If these characteristics, however, were given up, those of nonBecoming, indestructibility, and qualitative permanence could be more strongly maintained in order to explain pro-

72

HISTORY OK ANCIENT rUTLOSOl'HV

cess and change by

means

of a plurality of objects pos-

sessing Being {Seiendrn), with the help of spatial motion.

The theories of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the Atomists moved in this direction. Common to them all was the pluralism of substances, and the mechanistic method of explanation, in virtue of which origin, change, and destruction were supposed to be derived merely from the motions These of these substances unchangeable in themselves.
theories

were
of

in

extreme antithesis
Milesians in

to

the

hylozoistic

the other hand, these three systems were distinguishable from one
the
particular.

monism

On

another partly as to the number and quality of the substances that each assumed to exist, partly as to the relationships of substances to motion and

moving

force.

The

insufficiency of the Heracleitan theory consisted, however,

not in establishing the concept of the rhythm of the process of occurrence, but in retaining nothing else of
really
is,

what

as entering into these changes.

Heraclcitus had

recognized
abstract
If

no one of the empiiical materials, and no noumenon, and consequently nothing as Being. now Parmenidos showed that thinking undeniably presomething that
really
is,

suj)poses

one would be forced to

try to vindicate the character of Being for the relations

and connections which Heraclcitus had retained as the This the Pythagoreans attempted to do sole permanence.
with their peculiar number theory.

These four efforts toward reconciliation sprang accordingly sunultaneously out of one and the same need. Their represenFrom this fact are tatives were nearly contemporaneous. exi)lained not only a lumiber of the similarities and atlinities in their doctrines, but also the circumstanoe that they frequently, j)articnlarly in j)olemics, seem to have referred directly to one This is at the same time a proof of tlie lively scienanother. tific interest and interciiange of ideas in the middle of the fifth century through the entire circle of (ireck civilization. The " efforts toward a reconciliation " used as a basis for associating these philosophers here is fairly generally recognized

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

73

fof the first throe, although on the one hand Anaxagoras is usually set apart hy himself (Hegel, Zeller, Ueberweg), beUu the cause we have overestimated his doctrine of the i/oC?. other hand, Atomism (8chleiermacher, Kitterj has naturally been Compare, respectively, 22 and 23. classified with Sophistry. Yet, from the time of the Pythagoreans until now, .Strmpell Brandis treats alone has preceded me in this proposed view. indeed the Pythagoreans for the first time before the Sophists, but as a tendency independent of the others.

and most imperfect of these attempts at He proceeded reconciliation was that of Empedocles. of Parmenides that there can expressly from the thesis
21.

The

first

be no origination and destruction as such.

to

In his effort

explain apparent origination and

be

destruction, he said

that every origination should

regarded as a combi-

nation, and every destruction a separation of the original

elements.^
irdvToav,

He

called the original materials the pi^)/j.ara

and he does not seem to have employed the later customary expression, (TTOL-)(ela. The predicates of " unori-

ginated," " imperishable," " unchangeable," belong to the

elements.

They are

eternal Being

and the manifold and

change

of single things are

spatial Jiiotion, by virtue of

supposed to be explained by which they are mixed in differ-

ing relations to one another.

Accordingly, Empedocles should apparently be accredited

with the priority of forming this conception of the element that has been so powerful in the development of our science
nature. It is the conception of a material, homogeneous in content, qualitatively unchangeable, and liable to changing states of motion and to mechanical division.
of

He

got this conception, nevertheless, in the attempt to

of

make

the concept of Being of Parmenides useful in the explanation

^

nature.

Much
I.

less

happy, although historically

Plutarch, Plac,

30 (Dox., 326) (^van ofvor ianv ('nram-uv mjTcp

Dv8f TIS oiiKofievov davoTOio rfXex/tyj.

dWu fiovou ixl^is t(

didXKa^U

Tf fjLiyfVTWu

tern, (^vais S'eVl Tois ofOfid^erai avdpnoicnv.

74

iiisroHY OF AxriF.xr rmi.osdi'iiv

was the point of view which Empodocles formed of the luiinber and essence of these elements. IJe adduced the well-known four: earth, air, lire, and water.
quite as effective,

The choice of four fiimlaiiiont:d elements was the result of no systematic conception on the part of Empedocles, hi the way that Aristotle, by whom this theory was established and made the common projjcrty of all literature, later made tiiem a fundamental part of his system. As it appears, it was the result of an impartial consideration of the previous philosophic theories water, air, lire are to be found as elements nmong of nature the lonians; and earth in the hypothetical physics of tiie Kleatics. That Empedocles placed tire over against the three other elements, and thus returned to the two divisions of Ileracleitus Nevertheless the number ( 19), reminds us of this latter. of elements as four has in it something arbitrary and innnature, as likewise appears from the superficial characterization that
:

'

Empedocles gave

to ea(;h singly.^

Empedocles

to all

appearances was not able to say

Quantitative
ap|)ear
to

how
and

the different qualities of

particidar things were derived

from

their

combining.

relationships

states of aggregation

might

be thus derived,

but not particular qualities.

seems

to

have had only the former

described the process of

Empedocles mind when he so combination and separation, that

Consequently
in

therein the protruding parts of one body were supposed to

press into the pores,

i.

e.

into the interstices,^ of another body.

Empedocles seems to be referring to the former also in liis defining the relationship and the strength of the reciprocal attraction of empirical things by the stereometricnl
similarity between

the emanations of

one substance and

difference
b, 19.

the
1

pores

of another.
I. 4,

As
32
;

to the
gen.
et

qualitative
con:,
II. 3,

Arist. Met.,
Zeller,

985

a,

De

330

2
3

V. 690.
acceptation presupposed a discontinuity of the
orijrin.il

That

tliis

matter, and hardly was to be thought without the presupposition of empty

space, which he with the Eleatics denied (fr. v. 91, Arist.
2,

De

coelo,

IV.

309

a, 19),

appears to have

fiirnislied

no difficulty to Empedocles.

EFFORTS TOWAKD JiKCONCILTATK )N

75

between individual things, he taught only in very general terms that this difference depends on the different masses in whicli all or only some of the elements exist in
combination.

But the more that Empedocles claimed the character of Parmenidean Being for his four elements, the less could he find in them an explanation of the motion in which they must exist according to his theory of union and separation.
the

As pure changeless Being,

selves, hut

the eleme7its rould not

move them-

only be moved.

To

explain the woi'ld, the theory

needed further, then, beside the four elements, a cause of motion or a movhu/ force. Here, in the statement of this problem, appears first completely Empedocles's opposition to the hylozoism of the Milesians. He was the first in whose
theory /orce and matter are differentiated as separate cosmic

powers.

Under the

influence of Parmenides he had accord-

ingly so conceived the world-stuffthat the ground of motion

could not be found in

it itself.

So, in order to explain the

cosmic process, he had to find a force different from the stuff and moving it. Although Empedocles introduced this
dualism into the scientific thought of the Greeks,
it

appeared
;

not in sharp conceptual, but in mythical-poetic form

for

he designated the two cosmic forces which caused the combination and separation of the primitive substances, as Love

and Hate.

The personification, which Empedocles moreover, as likewise Parmenides hi his didactic poem, extended to the eleso also the representation ments, was mythical and poetic madequate because stated in terms of sense and not developed Indeed, it to conceptual clearness, was of the same character. is not certain from the passages in which his principles {p-)^<n) were enumerated as six in all, whether or not he thought of the two forces incidentally as bodies (Arist. De gen. et con:, I. 1, 314 a, 16; Sinipl. Phys. 6 v, 26, 21), which as such were Obviously he formed mingled with the other substances. no sharp idea of the nature of the actuality and the eflicieucy that belong to Love and Hate. There is the additional
;

76

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PlIILOSOniY

fact Uiat the duality of forces M()t only was called forth by the theoretic ueedof represent inj:; the dilTi-ri-nt causes in the o|t|)oscd hul ii was also j)roeesses of cosmic union and scparalimi occasioned by consiileralions of worth, in whii-h Love is ihe cause of Goodness and Hate of Evil (compare Aristotle, Met.^ I. The view of Aristotle is supported by the predi4, 984 b, 32).
;

cates

(fiiXOTiji

which Empedoeles and I'tiKos.

(fragment

v.

lOG

f.)

attributes

to

From

these presuppositions Empedoeles derived an ex-

planation of the cosmic pi'ocess, not indeed conceiving each

individual occurrence as ever and always arising from a

universal law of combination and sepai-ation, but yet satis-

fying the demands of the Ileracleitan philosi)hy by the

assumption of a perpetual cyclic process of development. He taught, namely, that the four elements, that he assumed as alike in their mass, change out of a state of perfect
mingling and equality, separate by the action of the j/et/co?, and become completely sundered that then from this state
;

back through the influence of the to their original absolute intermixture. There re<fiL\Tii<: sults from this a cycle of four continuously dissolving cosmic states (1) that of the unlimited supremacy of Love and
of separation they pass
:

of the perfect unification of all the elements,

which

is

called
;

by Empedoeles cr^atpo? and also designated as to

eV or de6<i

(2) that of the process of successive separation through the constantly growing preponderance of veiKo^ (3) that of the absolute separation of the four elements through the
;

sole

supremacy

of

Hate

(4) that of the process of succes-

sive recombination
<^A6tj79.

through the increased predominance of

Compare

Arist. Phjjs., VIIT. 1,

20

b, 2G.

a world of individual things can appear only in the second and fourth stages of the cosmic ])rocess, and that such a world is characterized every time by the opposition and separating principles. conflict between the combining and Here is the place of the Heraeleitau fundamental principle in Ou the other the Empedocleau conception of the cosmos.
It is clear that

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

hand,
it

77

can be said that the two parts of

tlie

didactic

poem appear no longer

in the opposition of

Parmenidean Being and

;

Appearance, but in the relationship of changing cosmic states. first and third phases are acosmic in the P^leatic sense the second and fourth are, on the contrary, full of the Heracleitau

The

All that we have of the particulars of the theory of

Empe-

docles seems to teach that he regarded the present state of

the Avorld as the fourth phase, in which the elements that have been separated by Hate are reuniting through Love

At least in reference to the formation world he taught that the separated elements have been brought through Love into the whirling motion that
into the Sphairos.
of the
is

in the process of uniting them.

Originally the air en-

compassed the whole like a sphere, and by virtue of this motion fire broke out from below. The air was pressed below and into the middle, was mixed witli the water into mud, and then formed into the earth. The two hemispheres originated in this way one was light and fierv the other dark, airy, and interspersed with masses of fire, which on account of the rushing of the air in rotatory motion around the earth created day and night.
:

not without dependence In particular, Enipedocles showed highly developed astronomical ideas on the Pythagoreans concerning the illumination of the moon from the sun, concerning eclipses, the inclination of the ecliptic, etc., and also many

interesting meteorological hypotheses.

Empedocles had an
world.

especial

interest

in

the

organic

He

regarded plants as primary organisms and as

having souls like animals. He compared in isolated remarks the formation of fruit with the procreation of
animals, their leaves with hair, feathers, and scales; and so

one finds in him the beginnings of a comparative morphology.

Also numerous ])hysiological observations of his

are preserved.

But

especially are there biological reflec-

78
tioiis,
ill

iiiSTOKY OF ANciKxr riiiLosornv

which he

in

some ineasure
of the

in

the spirit of the

jireseut fhoDrv of adaptation exphiiiu'd, aUhoiigh with fanciful

naivete, the existence

present vital organisms

by the survival of })iirposefnl

foi-nis

from things that on

this purely

the whole wore aimlessly created.^

Empedocles did not except man- from

meof

chanical origination, and he constructed a large

number

interesting single hypotheses in resi)ect to his j)hysiological

The blood plays an important role in this was to him the real carrier of life, and in it he believed he could see the most perfect combination of the
functions.

theory.

It

four elements.

It is of cs[)ecial interest that

he conceived

the process of perception and sensation as analogous to his

universal theory of the interaction of elements.

He

exthe

plained this process as contact of the small

i)arts of

perceived things with the similar parts of the perceiving

organs, wherein the former were supposed to press upon

the latter, as in hearing

in
siglit.

or the latter upon the former, as

Since then, in general, such interaction was to

his

mind the more close, the more nearly similar were the emanations and pores, he established the principle, thereexternal things are

fore, that all

which
ture of

is

similar to them.

degree the idea that

all

man

is

known by that in us Herein was involved to some a microcosm, the finest admix-

the elements.

Hence it followed for Empedocles that all perceptual knowledge depends upon the combination of elements in the body and especially in the blood, and that the spiritual nature depends on the physical nature. Just on this
1

Aristotle has brought this thought into abstract expression, and

//(

it

contains the whole modern development theory

nuce.

Phi/s., TI. 8,

198 b, 29;
ravra
-

jxeu eaidr].
Ku'i

dnaXfTo

neu ovv anavra a-vverj Sxrntp kiii/ d (VtKO. tov eye vera, dno ruii civTOfiToii (Tva-TauTu 7rtT>;Sfi'c9, oaa 8f fir] uvTOis, aTTWvTiu Kunff) 'EfinedoKXiis Xey, etc.
ottov

lie aj)pears lu have

made good

use ui the tales about the centaurs.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

79

account, moreover he could deplore incidentally, as Xenophanes deplored, the limitation of human knowledge ; and

could assert, on the other hand, with Heracleitus and Par-

menides, that true knowledge does not grow out of sense

perception, but

only out of reflection {uoelv) and reason

Empedoclesof Agrigentmn, the first Dorian in the history of philosophy, lived probably from 490-430. He came from a rich and respectable family which had been partisans for the democracy in the muuicipal struggles. Like his father, INIeton, Empedocles distingiiislied himself as a citizen and statesman, but later he fell into the disfavor of the other citizens. In his vocation of physician and priest, and with the paraphernalia of a magician,^ he tlien travelled about through Sicily and ^lagna Many stories circulated into later time concerning his Graecia. death, like that well-known one of his leap into ^Etna. In this religious role he taught the doctrine of transmigration and of an apparently purer intuition of God, like that of the Apollo cult. These teachings, which were not consistent in content with his metaphysico-ph3'sical theories, show, however, much the greater similarity to the teaching of Pythagoras ( 12). Pythagoreanism he certainly knew, and indeed his entire career suggests a copy of that of Pythagoras. When we consider his political affiliations, it is improbable that he had any close connection with the Pythagorean society. Empedocles stood comparatively isolated, save his acquaintance with the teachings of Heracleitus and Parmenides, the latter of whom he presumably knew personally. Nevertheless he seems to have been affiliated with a yet larger body in that he is characterized as one of the first representatives of rhetoric.^ He had even connections with the so-called Sicilian school of rhetoric (or oratory), in which are preserved the names of Tisias and Korax as well as that of Gorgias, whom they antedate.* Only Trepl <^i'creojs and KaOapfxoL are the wi'itings of Empedocles that can be authenticated. The preserved small fragments are especiall^^ collated by Sturz (Leipzig, 1805), Karsten (Amsterdam, 1838), and Stein (Bonn, 1852). Compare Bergk, De ^jrooejH/o, E.Berl..

1
"^

Fr. V. 24; 81.

Thus he pictured himself

Diog. Laert., VIII. 57
;

in

the beginning of the Songs of Purifica-

cation (Kodapfioi).
3
*

Sext.

Emp. Adc.

math., VII. 6,

See below,

26.

80
1839

HISTORY OF an(^ii:nt

I'liir.osoi'iiv

Panzerbioter, Beitrge zur Kritik loxf Erluternng des E. ; Scliljior, E. quatenns lleraditum t<ecutnH (Meiuingoii, 18H) E. und d. Orphiker (Arcli. f. sit (Eisenixeh, 1.^78). (J. Kern, Gesch. d. Ph., 1.498 f.).
;

cles,"

EmpodoAnaxagoras brought the movement of thought, which had been begun by Empedocles, to an end in one lie, like Empedocles, was convinced that we do direction.
22.
^

" Older in years, youni^er in works than

not use language correctly

destruction, since the

when we speak
of the

of origination

and unchangeably the same.^ On this account apparent origination and destruction arc better designated as combinaWhatever tion and separation (a-vyKpLai'i sive o-y/x/itft?). enters into coml)ination or whatever suffers separation was to him, also, a plurality of original substances which he Thus far he agreed with his called -x^p-^/jbara or airep^iara. But he took decided excej)tion to the arbipredecessor. trary assumption of Empedocles that there are only four
elements, since
four elements.
it

mass

world must remain

is

impossible to explain the qualita-

tive distinctions of empirical things by the union of these

Since

the

Parmenidean idea

of

Being

excludes the new creation and destruction of qualitative determinations, and demands qualitative unchangeableness for
the totality
of

primitive

materials,

Anaxago-

ras argued that there arc as

dififerent

from

qualitative xRVf^"-"^^^ one another, as there are qualitative deter-

many

The things of which we named according to are sensible are composite, and the primitive material that prevails in them at any parminations in empirical things.
tlicy are

ticular

instant.^

Their

qualitative

change

{u\\oio)ai<;)

consists in the fact that other primitive materials enter

into the combination or

1

some are excluded from

:^.

it.

Arist. ^ret.,l.

084

a, 11.

2
3

Fr. 14.
Arist.

Phys.,V. 187

b.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

81

The
ible
sist
^
;

xpv/J.ara must, according to this, be thought as divis-

which concomponents, we must designate as X^p7]/j.ara all those substances which fall into homogeneous parts, however far they be divided. Therefore Aristotle
in antithesis to the perceived things,

and

of heterogeneous

designated the

cnrep/xaTa

of

Anaxagoras as

ofioiofiepr},

and

in later literature they

go under the name of homoio-

Consequently, what Anaxagoras had here in mind was nothing other than the chemist's idea of the element. The utter inadequacy of data on which Auaxagoras could depend appears in the development of his tlieory. For since observation had as yet not been directed to chemical,
meriai.

but only to mechanical analysis, the constituents of animals, such as bones, flesh, and marrow, as well as metals,

were enumerated

as

elements.

Further,

because

the

philosopher possessed no means of fixing upon a deter-

mined number

of elements,

berless and differing in

form

he declared them to be num(tSe'a), color, and taste.

"When Aristotle in several places (see Zeller, I^. 875 f.) cites only orgauic substances iu Anaxagoras as examples of the elements, he is speaking more out of his preference for this field than of an inclination on the part of Anaxagoras to refer There is not the slightest inorganic matter to the organic. trace to be discovered in Anaxagoras' cosmogony of a qualitaIn tive distinction between the organic and the inorganic. particular, what we may call his teleology is not by any means
confined to the orgauic.

As

regards the motion of these substances, Anaxagoras

Being from that of an entirely different way from what in Empedocles. The poetical and mythical form thought he stripped off but at the same time,
also separated the principle of
ing, but in
;

Becom-

we

find

of this

instead

less

In remarkable dependt-nfe on Parmenides, Anaxagoras neverthemakes a polemic, like Empedocles, against the acceptance of empty space (Arist. Phys.,lV., 6, 21;} a, 22), and at the same time also against
1

the finite divisibility of matter postulated in the concept of atoms.

6

82

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIY

like Hei-acleitus

of reflecting

upon the antagonistic pro-

motion, he emi)hasizcd again the unity of the cosmic process. Since Anaxagoras, as is the case with all naive conception, could think of the actual only as
cesses of
'material

had to seek among the numberless which is the common cause of motion Yp7;/xaTa for one This primitive dynamic material or for all the others. motion-stuff was conceived by him as having life within
stuff,

he

itself,

after the analogy of the Ionian cosmic matter.

It

moves the others from within itself.^ Its nature, however, was inferred by Anaxagoras from the character of the
world of perception
world
presents
itself

that
as

it

brought into being.

This

an ordered, purposeful whole,

and the forming force must also be orderly and purposeful. Therefore after an analogy ^ to the principle actively

working

in living beings,
it

Anaxagoras

called

it

the

i/oO?,

the reason, or, as

stuff {Denkstoff).
ple, the

may

best be translated, the tliowjht-

"spirit"

indeed in " lightest,"

itself.

Far from being an immaterial princito Anaxagoras corporeal mutter, but It is the a state of exceeding refinement. the most mobile, the only matter that moves
is

It

represents the Xyo'i, both

in

the

macrocosm

and in the microcosm. As regards the form and movement of the cosmic process, it has all the functions of
the Ileracleitan
fire.

The order
n-orld,
I'oi?

purposefulness of the empirical (<oo-/xos) and on which Anaxagoras depended in his assertion of the 8iuKoo-|ua)v Ta Travra, was not noted by him so much in single

terrestrial things as in the great relationships of the universe, in

1

Aristotle in Physics, VIII. 5, 250 b, 24, proved only that

fiiyrjs.

Anaxagoras
only

has called the povs the dnad^i and

The predicate

aKivrjTot is

an inference of Aristotle. Tlie mobility of the vovs and its implications "^90 ill single things is dearly set forth in passages like Stob. Ecl.y I.
(Dox., 392), and Siiupl.
'^

P////.S-.,
1

.'{5

rrrlo, 164,

2.'{.

Arist. ^fel.,

I.

3,

I'.S

b.

!.'>,

Kantf) fvrois

faJoiff.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECO^XILIATIOX

83

the regular revolutions of the heavenly bodies.^ His monism and the teleological method of his presentation rested on astronomical considerations. Compare W. Dilthey, Einleitung in d. Geistesicisse nsc/taften V, 201 f. He sought in a pureh' naturalistic wa}- a physical explanation, and was not in the smallest degree concerned with religious matters. If he, as is very doubtful, called - the vois God, yet this would only have been a metaphysical expression, as it had been among the Milesians. The doctrine of the vois was fallen by Aristotle very much in the sense of an immaterial spiritualit}', when in the well-known passage {Met., I. 3, 984 b, 17) Aristotle placed the doctrine of Anaxagoras as that of the only sober philosopher among them In the Hegelian interpretation, which even to-day is not all. outgrown, Anaxagoras is placed at the close of the pre-Sophistic development on account of his alleged discovery of the " Spirit." It sounds so fine when in this philosophy of nature the world principle becomes ever more " spiritual" in passing from water through air and fire until finalh' the '' pure Spirit" has been as it were distilled from matter. But this " Spirit " is likewise only living corporeality, i. e., that which moves itself. Anaxagoras with his ror; is scarcely a step nearer the immateOn the rial than Anaximenes with air, or Heracleitus with fire. other hand, we must net fail to recognize that in this characterization of the moving principle Anaxagoras, in a still more emphatic manner than Empedocles, had taken up the factor of a judgment of value into his theoretic explanation. Admiration of the beauty and harmony of the workl dictated to him the acceptance of a tliought-stuff arranging the universe according to a principle of order.
,

This
ments.
ple,
all

i>ou^,

therefore, stands over against the other eleis

It

alone

in itself pure
its

and possesses through

"

and unmixed. It is simknowledge" a power over

other material stuff.^

It plays

somehow

as a stimulus
it.

upon the other substances, which are mixed by

particular things thus originating.
'

It

participates temporarily to a greater or less degree in the

For, like

all

matter,

it

Simpl. 33 verxo, IjG,

vvv
TTfpixoij'i.

13-,

iravra BifKanrjae vos koI tiju

rpVtof kui
t]

Tre pix^aprjaiv

raiiT-qv. fjv

rd re ucrTpa. Kni o

<T(\i]vri kiu

arjp Kai

6 aWrjp
^

01

anoKpivupivoi.
II. 37. ll-s
;

Cicero, Acatl.

Sext. Eiiip. A-fc. math., IX.

6.

' Fr. 7

and

S.

S4
also
able.
is

IllSTOKY OF ANCIKNT PHILOSOPHY

quantitatively divisible and qualitatively unchangeReuiainin<r essentially identical with
itself, it is dis-

tributed in different proportions in single things.

Anaxagoras used
sueh single

this thought-stuff only to cxphiin

tlie

on

the one hand the beginnings of motion, and on

])i"occsscs Avhieh

other

he could not derive from the

mechanism

of the once for all

What
tain

these processes in })articular are,

awakened cosmic motion. we cannot ^ ascer-

from the reproaches made against Anaxagoras.^ So far as our knowledge goes, the application that Anaxagoras
has made of his
is

vov<;

theory to explain the cosmic process

that he ascribed to the "ordering " thought-stuff the beginning of motion, and that he

limited simj)ly to this,

then conceived the motion to go on mechanically by impact

and pressure between the other primitive materials in a manner })lanncd by the vou^. Connected with this is the
fact that Anaxagoras denied a plurality both of coexisting and successive worlds, and that he aimed to describe only Consequently in distincthe origin of our present world. tion from his predecessors he spoke therefore of a temporal

beginning of the world.

Preceding this beginning mingling of

all

is

a state of the most perfect

with the excep-

substances, reminding us of the Sphairos of

all -x^p^fiara,

Empedoclcs.

In this mingling

tion of the vou^, are so minutely distributed that the

whole

possesses no particular character.

This idea reminds us on tiio one hand of Chaos, on the other of the avTiLpov of Anaximander. In his delineation of this idea, we have the fact that he taught that the mixtures of differing ^)i'ifjiaTa let only those qualities come into perception 'u
^

How
It is
it

iiiisjndvred

the

meaning

is, is

clear, for

Anaxagoras conceive^l
1. 4,

his voiis as a (Hviiie

^

lu'incr.

highly improbal)li', according to Theoph. Hist, plant., III.

tlie

that

concerns the genesis of

organism.
I.

riato, Phreih, 97 h; Arist. ^f>l..

\,

f)S5 a, 1.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION

S5

in this which the components are all harmonized. He also way conceived the four elements of Empedocles as sucli mixAbsolute mixture has no quality; tures of primitive matter.^ '^^ ^^^^ beginning of the writing of 6/.oi} Travra
xP'//^^

Anaxagoras.

In this Chaos the primitive thought-material first created velocity. This, beat one point 2 a rotatory motion of great of the ing extended in broadening circles, led to the formation account of world, and is further being continued on
orderly

the infinity of matter.

first differentiated

By

this rotation

two great masses are

which were characterized by the opposiPure-light, and Dry, as against Dark, tion of Bright, and Moist, and are designated by AnaxaCold, Dense-heavy,

Warm,

goras as aWrip and

rjp.^

The latter is pressed

and

into the centre,

His ideas of been essentially influenced the earth show him to have dissipated fragby the lonians. He regarded the stars as become glowing in the ments of earth and stone that have He saw in the great meteor of Aegospotamoi fiery circle.

and

condensed into water, earth,

stones.

same time a proof a confirmation of this theory and at the world. Anaxagoras's of the substantial homogeneity of the
many-sided ideas astronomical view shows highly developed,

and inferences, which

rest in part
;

He

explained eclipses correctly

upon his own studies. and while he allowed to

the sun and

moon

were nevertheless
size.

altogether too small dimensions, they very great compared to their perceptual

Chaos, Accordingly Anaxagoras was convinced that, as in from it, the combinaso in all individual things developed
1

Arist.

De

gen.

et

corr.,

I.

1,

314

a,

24; Zeller, P. 87G.

:

the pole star see Presumably Anaxagoras assumed this point to be see Dilthey, op. cil. 17G f. H. Martin, Memolres de T Institut, 29, than of Parmenides. 3 These antitheses remind us more of the lonians mixture and the determination of the In respect to the manifold of the the /^ly/xa and the they stand in Anaxagoras obviously between
2
;

qualities,

Empedoclean elements.

86
tion of the

insroijY or axciknt imiilosoi'iiy

cosmic elements
of

is

so fine and intimate that

is

something at least

each one

everywhere.

Thus the

and animals on the separation of the water and earth, wliich separation was caused by the heavenly fire. But the vom, as the vitalizing principle, stands in intimate relations with these, and its independent power of motion was doubtless introduced hereby Anaxagoras as the cause of functions that are not mechanically explicable.^ lie, too, seems to have given especial
organic airepfiara develop as plants
attention to sense perception, wliich, however, he derived, in
entire opposition to Empedocles,

from the reciprocal action

Accordis

of opposites influenced by the feeling of aversion.

ingly perceptual knowledge acquired in this

relative.^

way

only

In contrast to

it,

the truth

is

found solely through

the X6709, through the participation of the individual in the

world reason.
in Clazomenfe in the circle of Ionian from which apparently he got his rich scientific knowledge and his pronounced po.sitive and physical interest. His birth is (Zeller, I^. 865 f., against Hermann) to be placed at about 500. We do not know about his education, particularly how he could have been so powerfully inHuenced by the Eleatics. He was of wealthy antecedents, and was regarded as an honorable gentleman, who, far away from all practical and political interests, "declared the heaven to be his fatherland, and

Anaxagoras originated

culture,

the study of the heavenly bodies his life's task," a statement in which, side by side with the presentation of a purely theoretical ideal of life, is to be noted the astronomical tendency which also characterized his pliiloso|)hy. About the middle of the century Anaxagoras, then the first among philosophers of renown, removed to Athens, where he formed a centre of scientific activity, and appears to have drawn about him the most notable men. He was the friend of Perieles, and became in^

To

this the objection of Aristotle

applies,
(i/oC?)

that

Anaxagoras did

not distinguish the principle of thought

seelenden)
principle
(yjrv\rj).

certainly did not arise from

2

(De an., I 2, immanent criticism.

from the animating {he404 b.) This objection

Arist. Met., IV. 5, 1009 b, 25; Sext. Emp., VII. 91.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION.

87

volved under the charge of impiety in the political suit brought He was obliged in consequence of this against Pericles iu 434. Here he founded a to leave Athens and go to Lampsaeus. scieutific association, aud while high in honor he died a few years later (about 428). The fragments of the only writing preserved of his (as it appears) Trepl (^rnrcoj? (in prose) have been collected by Schaubach (Leipzig, 1827) and Schorn (with Panzerbieter, De those of Diogenes of Apollonia. Bonn, 1829) Breier, Die frac/mentorum Anax. (Trdine (Meiniugen, 1836) Zevort, Philosophie des An. nach AriMotles (Berlin, 1840) Dissert, de la vie et la doctrine d' A. (Paris, 1843j Alexi, A. n. M. Heinze, eher den seine Philosophie (Neu-Ruppin, 1867) voC's des A. {Berichte d. Sachs. Ges. d. TF., I890j. Archelaus is called a pupil of Anaxagoras, but appears, nevertheless, to be so much influenced also by other theories The allegorical that he will be mentioned in a later place. interpretation of the Homeric poem, which in part is ascribed to Anaxagoras himself ^Diog. Laert.. II. 11), in part to his pupil, Metrodorus, has only the slightest relation to his philosophy.
;
;

23.

The philosopher who

it

desired to abandon the arbitrary

theory of the four elements of Empedocles, was obliged, iu

order to oppose to
a consistent theory, to assert either
all

that the qualitative determinations of things are

pri-

mary, or that no one of them

is.

The

first

way Anaxagoras
in their explana-

chose; the Atomists the second.

While

tion of empirical occurrence they also postulated a plurality

unchangeable things having Being, they had the boldness deduce all qualitative distinctions of the phenomenal world from purely quantitative differentiations of the true
of to

essence of things.

This

is

their especial significance in

the history of European science.

It has been customary in the history of philosophy to treat the theory of the Atomists in inseparable connection with the pre-Sophistic systems. This is explained from the fact that all direct knowledge fails concerning the founder of this theory, Leucippus and his doctrine, and that the teaching of the Atomists lies before us relativeh^ complete only in the form But between Leucippus and that Democritus developed it. Democritus is an interval of certainly forty years, and this lies which epoch in that epoch of most strenuous mental labor,

88

IIISTOin'

OF ANCIKNr PHTLOSOPIIY.

tlio ho_<riiiiiin'is of Sophism. Lciioij^pus is the contomporaiy of Zono, Kiiipidocli's, :iik1 Anaxagoras, hut Democritus is the coiiteiiipoiaiy of Socratos, and, in the works of his old age, of IMato. It is also consonant witli this ditTerence of years that the fundamental thought of the Atomists in the form of the nu'taphysical postulate of Leucippus arose from the Ileracleitan-Parmenidoan problems but also that the development of that postulate, which Democritus gave to these problems, was for the first time possible npon the Sophistic theories as a basis, especially those of Protagoras ( 32). To these changed temporal conditions there is the further correspondence in the fact that those theories of the Atomists, which we can refer to Leucippus, remained entirely in the compass of the problems confronting his contemporaries, Empedocles and Anaxagoras. On the other hand, the theory of Democritus gives the impression of being a comprehensive system, like that Therefore tlie reasons from the point of chronology of Plato. and from that of tiie subject matter requiic the beginnings of Atomism in Leucippus to be separated from the system of Democritus, which was conditioned by the subjective turn given to Greek thought. must make this discrimination, however difficult it may be in details. Accordingly in this place is to be developed only the general metaphysical basis of Atomism, which has grown out of Eleaticism.^ It was therefore on the one hand a complete misconception of the primal motives, but on the other a legitimate feeling although defended entirely falsely in connection with preconceived notions with which Schleiermacher (Gesch. d. Pliilos., Complete Works, III. 4 a, 73) and Ritter after him {Gesch. d. Philos., 1. 589 f.) sought to classify the Atomists with the Sophists. In Leucippus Atomism arose as an offshoot of Eleaticism. The theory of Democritus, however, far from being itself Sophistic, presupposed the theory of Protagoras. The suggestion of this relation may be found in Dilthey, JSinleitiuig in die Geisteswissenschaen, I. 200.

witnessed in (iroeco

We

Leucippus, the
in tlie

first

representative of this theory, stands

To

his

most marked dependence on the Eleatic teacliing. mind also, Being excluded not only all origination

and destruction, but all qualitative change. Likewise Being coincides with the corporeal, that is, the 6v with the
^

As

to the perfect certainty of ascribing this to Leucippus, see Zeller,

1.

I*.

843, n.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATIOX.

7rX,eoi'.

89
felt

By

Airtne of this coincidence

Parmenidcs had

compelled to deny the reality of empty space, and therefore Should now, however, also that of plurality and motion.
as the interest of physics

demanded,

plurality

and motion

be recognized as real, and a scientific apprehension of the

actual again be rendered possible, then the simplest and

most

logical

method was

to declare

that

'

Xon-Being,"

the Void {to Kevov), did nevertheless exist.

this assumption, however,
is

simply this

to

The aim of make possible

and mobility for that which really is. Thereby it becomes possible to create a world of experience from the " Void " and the multiform " Full " moving in the " Void," to construct that world from that which has no Being and from a multiplicity of those tilings that have
plurality

Being.

categorical physics thus appears in place of the

in

hypothetical physics of Parmenides, and

place of a

problematical appears
physics.

an assertorical and an apodeictic

But while Leucippus departed from the Parmonidean

concept of Being only so far as seemed absolutely necessary to explain plurality and motion, he
to
still

clung not only

the characteristic of unchangeableness

indestructibility),

(un-Becoming
thoroughgoing

and

but

also

to

the

what possess Being. In oppoEmpedocles and Anaxagoras, Leucippus therefore taught that all these varieties of what possess Being are He agreed entirely with Parhomogeneous in quality. menides tliat this quality is abstract corporeality {to irXeov) devoid of all specific qualities. According to the Eleatics, all distinctions are due only to the permeation of that which really is not, by that which really is. So, on the one hand, to Leucippus distinctions between individuals
qualitative homogeneity of
sition to
^
fif)

Democritus seems to be the

fiaXXov TO 8ev ^ to
Phit.
fj-ridev flvai,

first to

"

(las Tchts sei inn nichts

have made the pointed remark mehr real als das

Nichts."

Ade.

col. 4, 2

(1109).

90
(hat

lIISrOKV OF ANTIKNT
ivally possess

I'lIILOSi^l'IIV.

to their limitation through that

empty space.
motion.

Being exist only in those qualities due which really is not; viz., These are the distinctions of form and
othci-

On

tlie

hand, each of the changeless suba continuum and therefore indivisiin eni|)ty space, therefore

stances possessing Being must bethought as a corpoivality,

homogeueous
ble.

in

itself,

Being,

wliicli is

moved

con-

sists of

innumerable, exceedingly small bodies.

Leucippus
is,

called these

Atoms

{rofjLot).

every one of which

like

the Being of Parmenides, unoriginated, indestructible, un-

changeable, indivisible, and homogeneous in itself and with

Parmenides was broken up into an infinite number of small primitive elements which, were they not separated by empty space, would constitute a single element in the sense of Empedocles, and indeed would be the absolute qualitativeless eV
all

other Being.

The

single cosmic-Being of

of

Parmenides.

Of all the transformations of' the Eleatic teaching, that of Leueippirs is characterized by a striking simplicity, and by keen logical limitation to that which is indispensable to a professed At the same time it is explanation of the phenomenal world. clear that the Atomism which became later so important in the development of seientifie theories did not grow out of experience, or observations and the conclusions built upon them, but directly out of the abstractest meta})hysieal concejits and absolutely universal needs for the explanation of aetiuility.

Up

to this point the Atomistic theory has

been regarded

as a variant of the Eleatic metaphysic, arising

interest in physics.
far

from an
is

But, on the other hand, Leucippus

so

under

the influence of Ionian

monism

that he does

not seek the cause of motion

in a force

different

from

the stuff, but he regards spatial motion itself as a quality,

immanent
neous
to
it

in the stuff.

The

corjtoreality that

is

in all

atoms did
KLvrjcn<;,

not. in his

mind,

j)ossess the

homogepower
;

change

itself qualitatively, that is to say,

dWouoaif;

but

did possess

an original underivablc motion that

EFFORTS TOWAIU) RKCOXCILIATIOX.

91

In fact, Leucippus seems to is given in its own essence. have understood by this term not so much that of heavifall from above downward, ness, but rather a chaotic primal condition of bodies moving, disorderly, among each

other in
ists

all

directions ( 32).

At

all

events, the

Atomjjerfeet
/

held this original state of motion as uncaused and

self-evident.

So we can see in their view

tlie
:

synthesis of the Heracleitan and Eleatic thought

all

homo-

geneous elements of Being are thought as unchangeable, but at the same time as in a state of motion that is selforiginated.

This

is

the extent to which the beginnings of

Atomism

may
in

It is an attempt to explain the world by atoms in original motion

with certainty be
space.

ascribed to Leucippus.'

empty

The

purely

mechanical part of

the

theory, that the world was formed by collision, lateral and

rotatory motion, likewise presented itself to the founder of

Atomism
developed

in
it.

the

same form

in

which Democritus

later

It is

not so easy to explain, however,

dititicult

how

Leucippus solved the more

qualities arose

and delicate question

various

regarding the manner in which the

empirical
;

from these complexes

of

of

atoms
into

that

is

to

say,

the

transformation

quantitative

qualitative

jective

Of his answer we know nothing. The submethod which Democritus applied to it was not as yet available to the founder of Atomism, since this method grew out of the investigations of Protagoras. Whether Leucippus^ was content with setting up this origination
differences.
1

To my mind,
its

there

is

his doctrine of \\w alarjr

no foundation for the behef that Leucippus in employed the antithesis of (f)v(rei j/o/io)

and following all tradition, this antithesis is SoThe inference rests upon the obviously late and inaccurate note phistic. in Stobaeus, Eel., I. 1104 (Dox., 397 b, 9) from which it might also be adduced that Diogenes of ApoUonia was an Atomist. It is certain that Leucippus, as an Eleatic, denied sense qualities as real. For some later
from
significance

92

HISTOHV or ANTIENT PHILOSOPHY.

of the qualitips out of the quantitative relationships only

as a nietaihysical postulate; whether he exphiined these

qualities, like

I'arnienides, simply as vain

show and

illu-

sion

or whether he in an uncertain manner, like JMupcdo-

all other material from the four elements and their mixtures, so that he too sought to refer enqtiiieal things back to the difierent form and size of the combining

cles, derived

atoms,

how

far, in

fact,

he

in general passed
sjtecilic
all

metaphysical principles to the

physical theory,
late to

concerning

from tlie development of the

it

this

is

doubtless too

determine.

From the allusions in his theory, and from the ver}' uncertain reports from tlie extant literature, it is only safe to say that probabl}' Leueippns was younger than Parmenides, considerably older than Demoeritus and contemporary with Em[)t'doeles and Anaxagoras. It is hardly possible to decide between the ditferent reports, whether his residence was in Miletus, Klea, or Abdera. Since however his pupil (eTalpo<;) Demoeritus doubtless was an Abderite, and came from a seientitieally active circle which we cannot ^ possibly suppose to be that of the Magi, alleged to have been left behind by Xerxes, we may assume that a seieutitic activity was developed in Abdera in the second half of the sixth centur}-, which city attained its highest glory under the iiiHuence of the colonists from Teos. Leueippus was its tirst representative of any significance.Protagoras appears to have originated in the school of Abdera at a time between the two great Atomists 2(5). That Leueippus put his thought in writing is not entirely certain, but is probable. Nothing of his work remains, however. In any event, even early in antiquity, there was uncertainty about the authorship of what had been ascribed to him.* Theophrastns ascribed ^ to him the /xe'ya? 8ittKoo-ju,o? which went under the name of Demoeritus. It is
(

reporter this denial

(vnu).

is

identical with the assertion of their subjectivity

little

Parmenides himself best teaches us how

a pre-Sophistic thinker.
Juhilium, p. 258
(>,

this equivalence

was
1

possiljle for

Zeller, I*. 763.

Diels.

A u/slze

Zeller

De

Xen., Zen., Gorf/.,

980

a,

7;

e'l

toIs

AfvKinnov

caXov/xfVois

\6yois*

Diog. Laert

IX. n;

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION.

93

strange that in the memory of succeeding times and indeed iu modern time (Bacon. Alb. Lange), even as in antiquity (Epicurus), he has been entirely overshadowed by Democritus.-'
24.

" Between these and in part already before them,"

the Pythagoreans sought finally to apply their mathematical

studies to the solution of the Heracleitan-Eleatic problem
( 12).

However in this respect the Pythagoreans form no perfectly homogeneous whole. It appears rather that within the society, corresponding to its geographical extension and its gradual disintegration, the scientific work divided on different lines.

Some Pythagoreans clung to the development of mathematics and astronomy others busied themselves partly with medicine,
;

parth' with the investigation of different j^hysical theories (concerning both see 25) others finally espoused the metaphysical theory, which so far as we know was constructed first by Philolaus and is usually designated as the number theory. Philolaus, if not the creator, at least the first literary representative of the "Pythagorean philosophy." was an older contemporary of Socrates and Democritus. and cannot, at any rate,
;

be set farther back than Anaxagoras and Empedocles. Indeed he is presumably somewhat younger than the latter two. Of his life we know nearly nothing, and we are even not sure whether Also that he, like he was a native of Tarentum or Crotona. other Pythagoreans about the end of the fifth century, lived for a time in Thebes, is inferred with uncertainty from the passage Nearly as doubtful is his supposed in Plato, Phrfdo. 61. authorship of the fragments that are preserved under his name. They have been collated and discussed first by Bcickh (Berlin, 1819). From the investigations of Fr. Preller (article PhUolaos in Ersch >n>d Gmher EncykL. III. 23. 370 f.), V. Rose (De

Uhrornm ordine et anctoritate. Berlin, 185-4). C. Scftaorschmidt (Bonn, 186-4), Zeller (Hermes, 1875. p. 175 f.). they may be assumed in part to be genuine, but they must be very cautiously introduced into the discussion of the original number
Arlsfotelis

theory.
1

Zeller,

I*.

7C1, 843.

Compare E. Rhode, Verhandl. der

Trierer

Philol.-Versuchungen, 1879. and Jahrbcher fr Philologie u. Pdagogik,

1881, 741
2
f.

Diels,
I.

Arist. Met..

.">

Verhandlungen der Stettiner Philologie Vers. 1880. V de tdvtois Kai npo tovtcoi' o'i KaXonfievoi Hvayd:

petoi T)v fjLa6r]fiaTiv &y^fifvoi ktK

94

HISTOKY OF AXCIKXr

I'lIILOSOPIIY.

Along uith Philohuis are mentionod, in Italy C'liiiiasof Taron turn/ in Tlu'bos Lycis the toacluT of Kpaininoiidas, and Kurytiis tlie pnpil of riiilolaus, a citizen of C'rolona or Tareutuni. Kurvtiis iu tnrn had as pupils XenophiUis of Thracian Chalcis, the I*liliasians Phanto, Echecrates, Diodes, Polyniastiis.From Cyrene Prorus is mentioned. In Athens Plato brought forward the two Pythagoreans, Sinunias and Cebes. as witnesses of the death of Socrates. Almost mythical are the Locrian Tiniivus* and the Liicanian Ocellus. The philosophic teaching of any of these men is not in any wa}' certainly known. With the dissolution of the Pythagorean League in the fourth centui-y the sciiool became extinct. The doctrines of the last signilicant personality in it, Archytus of Tarentum, merged, so far as our knowledge goes, into those of the older Academy ( 3H). A collection of all the Pythagorean fragments is in JMullach Ritter, Gesch. der jvjth. Philos. (Hamburg, 1826) Rothenblicher, Das Sjfstem der Pj/fhagoreen vach den Angaben des Aristoteles (Berlin, 1867) Alb. Ileinze, Die meta. Grundlehren der lteren P. (Leipzig, 1871), Chaignet, Pijthagore et la })hilos. Pi/thagorienne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1873) Sobczyk, Das pj/fh. Si/stem (Leipzis:. 1878) A Doering, Wandlungen in der j^i/th. Lehre (Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos., v. 503 f.). As to the Pythagorean teaching, only that can be regarded as genuine which Plato and Aristotle report, together with the concurrent portions of the fragments transmitted iu such questionable shape.
; ;

In the Pythagorean society mathematical investigations were pursued for tlie first time quite independently, and were brought to a higli degree of perfection. Detailed

views concerning the number system, concerning the series of odd and even numbers, of prime numbers, of squares, etc.,

wore early

instituted.

It

is

not improbable that they,

ajjpiying arithuictic to geometry,

came

to the conception

embodied in the so-called Pythagorean theorem. Herein must they have had a premonition of the real value of
number-relations in that they represent number as the ruling
1

Jiinilil.

De

vita P>/(1i., 2(>6.

'

Dio-

r.aert.,

VIII. 4G.

TIk- writing

lieariii'_r tlii>

name and

conci'rni-il witli the soul of tlu^

world,

u.>iually publi>li(<l in I'lato's work., is

certainly a later

compendium

of Plato's TijTKPus.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION.

principle in space.

95

Their number theory was strengthened bj the results attained by them in music. Although later

and physically no doubt that the Pythagorean harmonic shows an exact knowledge of those
reports

include

much

that

is

fabulous

impossible, there can nevertheless be

simple arithmetical relations

(first of all,

the string-lengths)
this

out of which musical melody arises.

To

that the regular revolution of the stars,

may
of

be added which they

made

especially careful observations,

all

the standard for

and which are indeed time measurements, made the world-

order [Koafios) likewise appear to them to be numerically

determined. From these premises it can be understood how some Pythagoreans came therefore to find in numbers
the permanent essence of things, concerning which essence
the battle between
philosophic theories had taken place.

On

the one hand, numbers might be substituted

since

they we"e supposed to be self-existent, unchangeable, and

self-unitary

for

the abstract Being of the Eleatics as a

principle at least equally available in the explanation of the

phenomenal world. On the other hand, since Heraclcitus had found that the only permanent in change was in the orderly forms of the nature process, the relationships of number ruling the process of change gave an exacter form to The Pythagorean number-theory attempted to this idea. determine numerically the permanent relations of cosmic life. The Pythagoreans said therefore All is number, and they meant by this that numbers are the determining essence of all things. Since now these same abstract numbers and.
:

number-relationships are found in

many

different things

and

processes, they said also that the

numbers are the

original forms which are copied by the things.

observations of the Pythagoreans in the harcanonic were apparently empirically made upon That they had no the heptachord with strings of different length.
1

Zeller,

I*.
it

317.

The

monic

or, as

is

called,

theory of oscillation, goes without saying.

96

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY.

It is scarcely conceivable that the Pythagoreans came to their predilection for mathematics, music, ancl astronomy through The inverse is rather true, that they came from metaphysics. such concrete studies, in undertaking to enter upon the solution as Aristotle {Met., I. 5) also sufliof universal problems, For their treatment of geomciently indicated by the aipfieiuL. etry and stereometry, and their prevailing arithmetical fondness, see Roth {Gesch. loiserer abendl. ]*hili)s., II. 2), although he on this territory accredits indeed too much to the old rythagoreans. Cantor, Vorlcs. ber d. Gesch. d. Math., 1. 124.

In order to derive, liowever, at one and the same time

the manifoldness and changcablcness of individual things

from number relations, the Pythagoreans gave metaphysical meaning to the fundamental opposition which they found They declared that the odd and in the number theory. the even are respectively identical with the limited and the unlimited.^ As all numbers are composed of the even and the odd, all things also combine in themselves fundamental antitheses, and especially that of the limited and the unlimited. To this Ileracleitan fundamental principle there is bound this logical consequence, that everything is the reconciliation of opposites, or a " harmony," an expression which ill the mouth of the Pythagoreans has always the

suggestion of musical investigations.

The antithesis, liowever, acquired among the Pythagoreans in conformity to their later attitude a still more pronounced value than with Heracleitus. The limited was the
better, the

more valuable

to

them, as

it

was

to

Parmenides.

Odd numbers are more nearly perfect than even. In this way the Pythagorean system got a dualistic cast, Avhich is
noticeable in all its parts; but this

was

theoretically over-

come by the
tive
1

fact that since the One, the odd-even primiitself,

number, creates both series from

The ground
\*.

so also
r.
;

all

the

of this identification (Siini)l. /V(//s.. lO

artificial in

Zeller,

322)

is

that

it

was obviously made ad

hoc,

compare and is

no natural product of the number theory.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECONCILIATION.

antitheses of the cosmic
unity.
life

97

are in a grand harmonious

The later Stoic neo-Platonists, 1. e. neo-Pythagoreans. tried to find in this antithesis tiiat of force and stutf, spirit aud matter,
and they deduced
less,
tlie dyads from the divine monads. Neverthenot the slightest suggestion of such a conception can be

found in the Plato-Aristotelian reports, which would certainly have been particularly observant of this point.
All that we

know with any

certainty

respecting the

special doctrine of the Pythagoreans

as contrasted with

these general principles reveals their effort to construct, in

accordance with a scheme of numbers, an harmonic order

of

thmgs
is

in the various fields.

For

this there served first

first

the decimal system, in which every one of the

ten

num-

bers

accorded a special significance,^ derived from arithconsiderations.

of the

metical

The arithmetical mysticism or Pythagoreans seems to have consisted in bringing into relation with numbers the fundamental ideas of various departments of knowledge, and thereby giving expression to the relative rank, value, and significance of
symbolism
these ideas.

There is here the suggestion of the ideal thought of an order of things permanently determined by the number series; but much caprice in oracular symbolizing and pai-allelizing was obviously developed in details. Beside the number ten of cosmic bodies, the series of elements is about as follows (Jamblichus) (1) point, (2) line, (3j surface, (4) solid, (5) quality, (6) soul, (7) reason, etc.; or, on the other hand, (1) reason as located in the brain, (2) sensation in the heart, (3) germination in the navel, (4) procreation in (/ern'ialibus, etc. Then the virtues. At the same like iustice, were also desio;nated bv numbers.
:

time these concepts, which are symbolized by the same number in different series, also suggest and are related to one another. Thus it came about that the soul was called a square or a sphere. Doubtless with this the thought was connected that
^

In a certain sense the rvthajrorean? a]ipe.ir to have rejrarded the

Arist. Met.,

development from the One to the Ten as gradual. 1072 b. See Zeller, I*. 348.
r

XI.

7,

98

IlIsrOKV OK ANCIKM" I'llILOSOPIIY.

decade of gods. If one adds that these determinations were given by different Pythagoreans differently, it is easily understood why this first scheme of a mathematical order of the world ended iu an
different thin<rs should be assigned ainong a

unfruitful confusion.

An

approximate representation

of

the division of the

which the Pythagoreans applied, or wished to apply, this number theory shows a collection of pairs of opposites which were arranged in a parallelism,
different
to
like the original
pair.

domains

Even here

is

the sacred
;

number

(2) odd and even (3) one and many (4) right and left (5) male and female (6) rest and motion (7) straight and crooked (8) light and darkness (9) good and evil (10) square and rectangle. This eccentric and in itself principleless arrangement ^ shows that the Pythagoreans attem])ted at least an all-round ap|)lication of their fundamental principle. Alongside their mathematical, metaphysical, and physical conceptions, the ethical conceptions ten completed
;
:

(1) limited and unlimited

;

theoretically find their place

but in the development,

nevertheless, the physical interest everywhere outweighs

the others.
Wliile

now

this completely ontological

number system

of concepts satisfied the Eleatic motifs yet the physics of

the Pythagoreans was very greatly under the influence of

Heracleitus, as

was

also the physics of Parmenides.

In the

theory of the formation of the world,^ the Pythagoreans

placed
^

fire in

the middle as the original condition of things,

is

In which always the first-named number

the

more nearly

perfect.

This beginning of

scientific consideration of ethical ideas, of wiiich

intimations are at

hand

in the special doctrines,

likewise bespeaks a

later position for the

'

Pythagorean philosophy.
of

It

must remain uncertain wliethcr they also accepted the theory

periodic world-formation and destruction.

They taught

''

the great year "

stars,

in the sense that, witli the return of the original

all

arrangement of the

individual appearances, persons, and experiences would return.

EFFORTS TOWARD RECr)XCILIATION.

as the self -determining One, the animating
force.
(i. e.,

99

and impelling
it

Fire drevv around

itself,

however, the unlimited

(i. e.,

empty) space, ^ and limited

formed)

in ever-

a conception which vividly reminds growing dimensions, us of the hivT) of Anaxagoras and Leucippus. The most brilliant achievement of the Pythagoreans was their astronomy, and in this respect they are far in advance
of all their contemporaries.

They regarded not only the

world-all as globular, but also the single stars as luminous

which move around the central fire in transparent Their most important advance in the fact that the earth likewise was regarded as a here is The older globe, moving around this same central fire. Pythagoreans believed that the earth presents always the same side to the central fire, so that mankind on the opposite side never gets sight of the central fire, nor yet of the counter-earth (^avrixdoiv) that is between the earth and the central fire. The counter-earth was conceived, presumably However, mankind in order to complete the number ten. does get sight of the changing aspects of the moon circling outside the earth, as well as of the sun, five planets, and heaven of fixed stars. The distance of the spheres from the central fire was determined by the Pythagoreans accordCorresponding to this, ing to simple number relationships. they assumed that from the revolution of the spheres there
globes,

globular shells, the spheres.

resulted a melodious musical sound,

of the spheres.

tlie

so-called

harmony
of the

In this way the orderly revolution

stars

became

for

them

the perfect and divine, while the

terrestrial world, the

world under the moon, was repre-

sented as the changing, changeable, and imperfect.

the
Eleatic
static

Thus

world and the Heracleitan changing

world appear to have been apportioned to different regions

of the actual world.
1

The assumption
6,

of the Kevov

is

expressly confirmed by Aristotle,

Phys., IV.

213 b, 22.

100

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY.

sj/stonate ccelpstiion
;

Compare Bckh, De Platonis

et

glohornm
;

de cera indole astroxomici' P/iihlairce (Berliu, l<Sl) Gruppe, M. Die Kosmif^chen Systeme der Griechen (Berlin, 182) Satorius, Die Entioickehuig der Astronomie bei den Griechen bis Anaxagoras und Empedokles (Breslau, 1883).

oreans

Furthermore, the shape of the elements among the PythagJust as they reduced the space is worthy of note.

forms to number relationshijjs, so they referred tlic different corporeal elements to si)acc forms, by ascribing simple stereometric forms to the ultimate constituents of matter
the tetrahcdrou to
air,
fire,

the cube to earth, the octahedron to

the icosahcdron to water, and, finally, the dodecahedron

to the ajtlier,

which was added by them to the four Empedoall

clean elements and conceived as surrounding

If

the others.

one

is

able to see in this the result of an interest in crys-

tallography, nevertheless, on the other hand, also here a fantastic caprice is only too apparent.

Although consequently the augury of a mathematical statement of natural law is the permanent service of the Pythagorean philosophy, yd the form of the statement that was advanced by them was little suited to further scientitic investigations. Apart from astronomy, this knowledge of the Pythagoreans, to which some value in empirical investigations may be ascribed, stands in no connection with the metaphysical number theory, and has come from such Pythagoreans, who were little, if at all, interested in the number theory ( 2b).

4.

The Greek Enlightenment.

the sophists and socrates.

which Greek science and fundamental concepts concerning nature, a kind of i-eaction began about the middle of the fifth century. The metaphysical tendency of thought declined. Of hypotheses there were
25.

After the rapid development

in

at the first onset defined a

number

of valuable

THE GKEEK ENLIGIITEXMENT.

already

101

many eiiougli,aiid it seemed more important to test and verify them in application to special kinds of knowledge. The lively exchange between the different schools led easily to a blending of principles, which thereby lost their
harshness, but unfortunately
their

force

more the

circles of scientific activity increased, the

interest turned to the single problems of

The more the science. There

as
well.

began an epoch of eclecticism and detailed investigation.

only

The after-effects of the Milesian researches are met not among the younger physicists, who regarded the cos-

mic matter as a compromise between air and water or between fire and air, but also, in a man like IJceus of Himera, who agreed with- Anaximenes in maintaining that the air was the ap-^^T].^ A full adaptation, however, of the
Milesian teaching to the position of science, in
at
its

attempts

compromise, appears in by far the most important of

these eclectics, Diogenes of ApoUonia.

Nothing is known about his life. It is even doubtful, on account of the Ionian dialect of his writing, irepl </)i'crws (see G. Geil, Pliilos. Monatsheften, XXVI. 257 f.), if the place of his birth was the Apollonia in Crete. Schorn and Panzerbieter have Schorn (Bonn, 1829, with those of collected the fragments, Anaxagoras) and Panzerbieter (Leipzig, 1830, Diog. Apollonia). See Steinhart's article in the Encyklopdie of Ersehand Gruber. Schleierniacher, who in his treatise concerning Diogenes (Comat first placed him very high plete Works, III. 2, 149 ff. and chronologically early, came later ( Vorles. ber Gesch. der Philos., Complete Works, III. 4 a, 77) to view him as a prinZeller agrees with this last conception cipleless eclectic. (P. 248 f.). D. Weygoldt (Arch, f Gesch. d. Philos., I. IGl f.) has identified some "teachings of Diogenes in some pseudo writings of Hippocrates.

Diogenes anticipated his later point of view in the desire, expressed in the beginning of his writing, for an unambiguous starting-point and a simple and worthy investigation. The hylozoistic monism of the Milesians formed for him
1

Sext.

Emp. Adv.

math.,

IX. 360.

102

IIISTOKV OF ANC'IKNT

1'1I1L( )S()1'IIY.

which he defended ^ against phiralistic, (Anaxagoras and Empedi)clcs) by the subtle conception that the process of Becoming, the change of things into one another and their reciprocal influence, arc explicable only l)y the presupposition of a common fundamental essence, of which all particular things are shifting transforthis startinu:-])oiiit,

theories

The constitutive characteristics, mations {erepoiwcTei'i). however, of the p^t) he regarded on the one liand, like the lonians, as motion and animation, and on the other, in apparent agreement with Anaxagoras, as reasonableness and
purposiveness which are manifested in the
distribution of matter in the universe.
tlie list

proportionate
in

So he accepted

of predicates of the
vov^i,

Air of Anaximenes those also

ac/xa
ec8o<i.

of the

Anaxagorean

fieya Kai la-)(ypov

and called ^ this air-spirit a Kal ai'Biov re Kal avarop Kai TroWa
Tri/eO/xa,

The
and
tion

air,

likewise called
is

as being the

medium

of life

of thought,

the uniform and universal reality, both in

Through condensaand rarefaction, which were respectively (compare cooling and warming, the cosmic 16) identified with matter changed into individual things. Through the effect of weight, which drove the rarer above and the more condensed below, there were completed the order and motion of the world-all, which was conceived to be in a periodic alternation of origination and destruction. In the organism the The soul is denied to plants, and in air serves as the soul.
the microcosm and in the macrocosm.

animals it is found in the blood (after Empodoclos). Life depends upon the blood receiving the air, upon the mixing of which the mental condition of the organism depends.
just presentiment Diogenes jxjintod out the distincbetween the arterial and venous Ijlood. Moreover, his tion valuable knowledge of the arterial system, his idea of the

'

With a

brain as the seat of thought, his theories of the origin of

sense perception, as well as his numerous other physiologi1

Simpl. Phijs., 32 verso, 151, 30.

7/,/j.^

33

j-ecto,

153, 17.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

cal

103
accurate sense

and biological observations, show a

is

fine,

for detailed research in the organic world.

Inversely, there

an approximation to Ionian hylozoism

as
is

it

presented

itself

among

the Eleatics to Melissas

of

in the only pupil of

Anaxagoras

whom

anything definite

Archelaus of Athens or Miletus, who air the original mixture of all the X^pyjfiara of Anaxagoras, and associated the vovi essentially with the air ( 26), similarly to Diogenes, only in a more

known.

This

is

identified with

the

mechanical way.
In Ephesus, on the other hand, a school continued to exist which actively held to the teaching of Heracleitus. It did not lessen the paradoxes of Heracleitus, but appears to have exaggerated them in so enthusiastic and unmethodical a

manner
reported
cleitans

that Plato
^

made

sport

of

them.

At

least

it

is

most important of these Heraand a younger contemporary of Socrates, the teacher

that Cratylus, the

of Plato, so subtilized the Heracleitan proposition concern-

ing the inability of stepping into the same river twice, as to

postulate the impossibility of stepping in even once.

Antiquity

associated with Heracleitus a

movement

de-

veloped within the Pythagorean circle, whose leader was

Hippasus of Metapontum, approximately a contemporary of Philolaus. He emphasized the Heracleitan moment in the Pythagorean physics so exclusively that fire was for him

apxv i^ ^^^ Ionian sense. The old tradition designated him as the head of the exoteric Acousmatics, who were not initiated into the secrets of the number
entirely the

theory.

On
1

the other hand, Ecphantus, and similarly perhaps

179
e.

Thecei.,

In the

same feeling

is

tlie

entire

dialogue of

Cratylus written.
2
3 *

Arist. Met., III.

IbiJ., I. 3.

5,
7.

1010

a, 12.

984

a,

Jamblichus,

De

vit.

Pyth., 81.

104
Xutluis,'

HISTORY OK ANCIKNT PHILOSOPH V.

joined the Pythagorean teaching to atomism, to

which the transition appears to have been

the Pythagoreans.
hirities to the
vov<:

made

in the ste-

rcometrical construction of the elements as attempted by

Lii<c\vise in

Ecphantus we find simi-

theory of Anaxagoras.''

differing in size, form,

and

force, are so

The atoms, moved by the voO'f

them the unitary spherical shape of the world formed and maintained. While such adjustments and compromises between the metaphysical theories were l)eing attempted, the special inThis terest of this period was in detailed investigation. developed vigorousl}- in all domains, and in its progress special departments of science even then were differentiating Mathematics ^ was themselves from general philosophy. the first to proceed independently not only in the Pythagorean school, but among other thinkers (Anaxagoras, and later Plato and Democritus), it found recognition and proThe trisection of an angle, the squaring of the motion. circle, the doubling of the cube, were the pet problems of the time. A certain Hippocrates of Chios wrote the first manual of mathematics, and introduced the method of desThere was wanting, it is true, ignating figures by letters.
that out of
is

perfectly

a logical development of the art of demonstration.

ever, a considerable

How-

amount

which was obtained in mental and partly tentative. Brilliant progress in astronomy * was made in the fifth and in the beginning of the fourth century, particularly by Whether it were experience (the cirthe Pythagoreans. cumnavigating of Africa ?) or theoretic reflection upon the
1

knowledge was accumulated, an empirical way, partly experiof

Compare
Details

Zeller, I*. 405, !. Zeller, I*.

2
'

by

458

f.

Cantor, Vorles. ber d. Gesch. d. Math.,

T.

IGO

f.,

171

f.

Compare O.

Grui)pe, Die kosnmchi>ri Systeyne d. Griechen, Berlin,

1851.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

problems that led to the hypotheses of the central
the
counter-earth,
fire

105

and

gradually the theory

of
fire,

the

dhirnal

movement

of the earth

around the central

which alone

could explain the apparent rotation of

the heavens,

was

superseded by the theory of the revolution of the earth upon its axis. Hicetas of Syracuse appears to have been
the founder of this theory.

He was
it

certainly
in

younger
that
last
^

than Philolaus, and perhaps

phase of Pvthagoreanism, as
(38).

a participant

merged

in the

Academy

About

this time, in other

departments of natural science,

a richer, more exact treatment of individual facts took the

place of ultimate hypotheses.
revolution,

Here appeared a wonderful

the investigation of the

when

interest in meteorological observations be-

gan

to give place to interest in

organic world, and of

man

in particular.
^

Typical in this respect appears Hippo

naturalist of the time of Pericles, who,

(of

Samos

?),

inasmuch as he postulated the moist as p-)(r)^^ is usually mentioned in connection with Thales so also Cleidemus,^ in whose
;

Here, asfor the following, we

may refer once

edition.

for all to the Geschichte

der Mathematik, Naturwissenschaft und Medizin in Altertum, appearing

in this

same volume

of the

German

This special treatment

allows us to

make only a

brief sketch of these subjects,

and

to lay the

emphasis upon the distinctively philosophical movement.

2

Works, Vol.
3

Compare Schleiermacher, Ueber den Philosophen Hippon, Complete III. p. 408 f.; Uhrig, De Hippone atheo (Giessen, 1848). With special emphasis upon the moist character of animal seed,

Arist.

De

an., T. 2.

This explains the one supposition of Aristotle con14).

cerning the origin of the teaching of Thales (see

If the

charge of

Atheism which was made against Hippo refers to the fact that he did not recognize anything as imperishable, and declared that nothing exists
except phenomena (schol. in Arist., 534
moist
totle's
dp)(f].

a, 2'2),

he was, in spite of his

This explains ArisI.

a purely positive anti-metaphysician.

j)rejudice against

him

{(popriKiTfnos,

De

an.,

2; (vriXfui

rrji

diauoiai, Met., I. 3).

4

Zeller, P. 927.

106

HISTOKV OF AXCIKNT rillLOSOrilV.

searches into the pliysiology of sensation we find suggestions of Anuxagorns.

Medicine also could not hold itself apart from the influence of the general body of scicnco, and it appeared for a time as if it would be entirely absorbed into the speculations
of natural philosophy.

The impulse
and
is

thereto arose from the

Pythagorean

circles,

])rincipally

traced

back to

Alcmajon,^ a physician in Crotona, and perhaps a some-

what older contemporary of Philolaus. He stood aloof from the number theory, but in common with its adherents held to the doctrine of antitheses.^
in
lie also believed

fundamental opposition of the terrestrial imperfection and the celestial perfection, which dualism he, like Philolaus, appears to have developed astronomically. His medical views depended npon the universal Pythagorean-Heracleitan presuppositions, since he defined health Specifically, there as the harmony of opposing forces. were supposed to be fundamental humors whose homogeneous mixing indicated health, while an excess or deficiency of any one of them led to pathological conditions. Such aetiological theories did not, however, prevent Alcmaeon from making careful and valuable investigations. He is said to be the first to make sections he appears to have been the first to locate thought in the brain, and to designate the nerves as canals leading thither from Connected with this for him as well the sense-organs. as later for Democritns and Plato was the fact that he in an Eleatic-Heracleitan fashion opposed thought to
the
;

perception.

As

a type of the temporary amalgamation of medicine

and natural philosophy, we may take ^ the pseudo-Hippo1

Unna, De Alcmceone Crotoninta ejuaque fragmentis, found

f.

in Peter-

sen's Phil. Tibt. Stud. 1832; R. Ilirzel, Hermes, 1876, p. 240

2 3

Arist. ^^pf., T. 5, 986 a, 27.

Compare

Siebeck, Gesch. der Psychol.,

I.

1,

94

f.

THE GREEK ENLir.IITEXMEXT.

cratic
(1.

107

work Trepl BiaiT-r]^, which has been proved ^ by Zeller 663 f., against Schuster, ^erac//iM.s,99f., and Teichmller, JVette Studien, I. 249 f., II. 6 f.) to belong to the time after Empedocles and Anaxagoras and before Plato. This writing pictures in the microcosm of the human body, as well
a constructive and now a destrucand water, and it ascribes motion The theory is then to lire and nourishing power to water. detail, and deviates into a medical psycliology carried out in which regards the soul as a mixed essence corresponding
as in the universe,
tive battle

now
fire

between

in miniature to the body.

(460-377) - was that he defended the independence of medicine against such naturephilosophical tendencies, which he contested principally
of Hippocrates
irepl ap-^air}^ Ir^rpiKrj^.

The merit

He
its

separated medicine as a

re)(^ui]

from philosophy

in a purely

restoring to the body

Greek fashion as the art of beauty lost through disease. On

(irepl
SiaLrrj'i

the other hand, Hippocrates

in the Cnidian school.

o^ewv) also re-

jected the purely symptomatic

He

in vogue urged that the determination

method that was

was

to be attained by a comprehensive and careful observation of the alriai ^- and in this he found a successor in Diodes of Carystus. He
;

of the empirical causes of disease

distinguished causes dependent on external events, like

cli-

mate, seasons,
like the diet.

from those subject to the human will, Remoter causes are distinguished from the
etc.,

more immediate, but always investigation is limited to experience, and only immanent, not transcendent, ffitioloCompare Weygoldt, //?/. /. kl. PhUuL, 1882, IGl f. The mass of writings passing under the name of Hippocrates are pubhshed by Khn and by Littre, and the latter bars made a French translation. Only a small portion of these writings belongs to Hippocrates, and this portion contains several very difficult problems of
1
2

detail.
8

J. Ilberg, Stud id Pseudippocrnfea (Leipzig, 1883).

d.

See C. Goring, Ucber den Begriff

Ursache

in d. griech. Philoi.

(Leipzig, 1874).

308
jrics

IllSTOKY OF ANCIKXr
arc sought.

I'lIIl.oSOlMI V.

As

witli

four fuudanioutal liuiunrs

and black

gall

formed

Alcnuvou,

llio

luixtiin'

of tlio

llic Itlood. iililcgni,

yellow gall,
of this

likewise the central

i)i)int

medical theory.

Besides this the school of IlipiJoerates de-

veloped an accurate knowledge of anatomy and j)hysiology.

In the former branch the knowledge of the bi-ain and nervous system, and especially, even thus early, of the particular sense nerves,
is

to be particularly noted

and concerning

the latter

is

the theory of the efKpvTov depfiou, wherein the

held to be the

The bearer of life, however, was which is a material wafted like air through the veins. This is an hypothesis which, like similar teachings of Diogenes of Apollonia, seemed to rest upon' a presentiment of the importance of oxygen.
cause of
life

was sought.
irvevixa^
^

Historical research

also,

like
fifth

that of natural science,

acquired at the end of the

century not only greater

extent and more manifold form,^ but also a positive and

scientific

method.
still

While

in

Herodotus the naturalistic

narrative was

interwoven with myth and saga, and

still

the realistic conception was

to hfive

permeated with elements

of the old faith, the stripping off of the mythical appears

psychological motivation

been perfected in Thucydides, whose mastery of was determined entirely by the

Enlightenment.

spirit of his time, the Attic

But with this internal process of transformation there went on also in the second half of the fifth century a great change in the external relations of Greek science. There was here, too, a powerful influence in the mighty development of the national life which had dawned u])on
26.
1

See

II.

Sit'bcck,

Die Entwickelung der Lehre vom Geist (vrveiVa) in

:

der

anlikeit
f.

Wissenxchaft

Zeitschrift

fr

V'kerspsj/cholof/ie,
I.

1S81, p.

3C4
2

Comj)are with his Gesch. der

into

Psi/cholof/ie,

2. p.

780

f.

Logography developeil
11), into fuller

histories

of

localities

(Xantluis of

Sardis and IIij)pasus of Rhegium, the Lydian and Sicilian histories);

then (

expositions by Charo of Lampsacus, Ilellanicus

of Mityleiie, Damastes, etc.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT

109

for existence

Greece during the Persian wars. The glorious struggle which the Greeks made against the Asiatic

ascendancy had strained the powers of the people to the utmost, and had brought all their possibilities to their
richest uufuldiug.

The most valuable prize of the victor}' was that impulse for a national unity of mental life, out of which the great creations of Hellenic culture proceeded. Science was involved in this movement. Science was drawn out of the silent circles of the select societies in which it had until then been nurtured. On the one hand, it entered with its discoveries and invention into the service of practical life ;^ on the other hand, its doctrines, and particularly its transformation of religious views, were brought
through poetry to the apprehension of the

common mind.

The view of nature in .Tlschylus, Sophocles. Pindar, and Simonides appears on the whole in a similar setting as in the Gnomic poets. Direct allusions to philosophy are found first in Euripides (compare especially E. Khler, Die Philosophie des Anaxagoros unci E., Bckeburg, 1873;, and in Euripides, I. Epicharmus, who stood near to the Pythagoreans, but also seems to have been familiar with the other philosophic teachings of his time. (Compare Leop. Schmidt, Qucp.stiones Epicharmece, Bonn. 1846 Zeller, P. 460 f ) The divestiture of nature of its gods by science " pressed always further to an ethical allegorizing of the gods (Metrodorus of Lampsacus compare 11). This permitted, on the other hand, the comed\' (of Elpicharmus, Cratinus. Eupolisi to outdo the anthropomorphism, which had been for good and all outgrown, even to the extent of witt\persiflage of their divinities. The weaker faith appeared, the greater seemed the need of supplying its place by knowledge.
;
''
;

Amid
all
1

such increased intellectual activity there arose in

fifth

Greece in the

century an impulse for education, aris-

An example may

Miletus, whose connection with the Pythagoreans

ful.

be found in the architecture of Hippodamus of is indeed very doubt-

His magnificent bnildinL's, however, in the Piraeus, Thurii, and Rhodes, and the entire development of architecture, presuppose a high deeree of development in incchanics and technology. Compare K. J;

Hermann, D. H. Milesio (Marburg,

1841).

110

iiisToKv OF anci?:nt riiiLosoriiv.

ing out of need, curiosity, and woudor.

to

Evcrvbody desired

know

wliat

tlic

schools had devek)i)('d llirough research

and

rellection concerning thv nature of things.

To such

answer was speedily forthcoming. There were men who engaged to reveal the results of science to the people. Philosophy stepped out of the school and forth upon the mart.^ These public teachers of science were the Sophists.
questioning
a

ready

Tliat the Sophists converted science into a trade is one of the chief and heaviest charges which Socrates,'^ Plato, and Aristotle raised against them; these three tlioiight the dignity of science as a disinterested research was impaired in this way h}tlie So[ihists. ]f we cannot agree ^ with tliis judgment from a modern point of view, yet the fact is nevertheless to be recognized that when science was taught for pa}', it assumed an entirel}' new social position ; and this is the essential fact in the whole matter.
'^

This movement showed

Here, in the middle of the
of Greece

itself

first

of all

in

Athens.
life

fifth

century, the intellectual

was concentrated, had attained its highest elflorescence, and had gained its political power and commercial supremacy. Science, like art, crowded into this t?}? 'EWdSo'i TO Trpvravelov t?}? cro(f)[a<i. Here the need of culture developed most actively among the lesser citizens, here learning began to have political and social power, and here the supremacy of culture was personified in Pericles. Thus in science also Athens absorbed into itself the scattered beginnings of Greek civilization.
Anaxagoras had lived for a long time in Athens. Parmenides and Zcno probably visited Athens, and Heraeleitanism was represented there by Cratylus. All important Sophists
^

2
2 *

See Windelband, Praeludien, Xen. Mem., I. 6.

Gnrfj.,

p.

56

f.

420

c
1,

Elh.iXik., IX.

1164

a, 24.

See Grote, Hist, of Gr., VIII.

49;J

f.

Zcllcr,

I*.

971

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

sought and found here honor and glory. the Attic period of ancient philosophy, its period.

Ill

With them began most magnificent

The

Sophists are, accordingly,

first

and foremost the

bearers of the Greek Enlightenment.

The

period of their

activity is that of the expansion of scientific culture.

less ability in

With

independent creation, the Sophists devoted their energies to revising and popularizing existing theories.
Their work was
science.
first directed,

with an eye to the people's

needs, to imparting to the mass of people the results of

Therein

lay,

along with their justification, also

the danger to which the Sophists succumbed.

So^to-TTy?

meant

originally
^

"a man
;

of science" in general.

Then, as Protagoras claimed for himself, it meant " a teacher of science " and of political virtue later, expressly, a paid teacher of rhetoric (see below). The opprobrium attached to the word Sophist at present is due to the polemics of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, which have unfavorably dominated history in its judgment of the Sophists, until Hegel (Complete Works, \'ol. XIV. 5 f .) made prominent the legitimate momeut of their work. Since then, this has attained a complete recognition (Brandis, Hermann,'^ Zt-Uer, Ueberweg-Heinze), but on the other hand has been exaggeratedly emphasized by Grote (Histor}- of Greece, VIII. 474 f.). Compare Jae. Geel, Historia critica t>ophi star urn (Utrecht, 1823); M. Schanz, Die Sophisten (Gttingen, 1867); A. Chiapelli, Per la storia della sopJiistica qreca {Arch. f. Gesch. d. Ph.. III. ) the fragments in Mullach', II. 130 f. The difference between the earlier and later Sophists (Ueberweg) is well founded, since in the nature of the case at the beginning the serious and legitimate aspects of the movement were more prominent, while later on appeared the vagaries of the members and the menace of their doctrines to society. This development was so necessary, the consequences were so certainly determined by the prececlents, and this distinction is on that 'account only so relative, that it, particularly for a brief presentation, will not be adopted as a basis of subdivision. Plato's dialogue Protagoras gives in its clear characterization of the principal personages an exceptionally vivid pic;

Plato, Protaq.. 318 d.

Hermann, Gesch.

u. Sijst. d. plat. PJiilos.,

I.

179

f.,

296

f.

112

HISTORY

(F

ANCIKNT

I'HILOSOl'Il V.

In spite of the ture of the entire movement of the Sophists. general polemic character of this work, the better aspects The most deroi2;atory of Sophism are not entirely obscnred. characterization of the Sophists is given in the dialogue ."iopldst transmitted under Plato's name. The Aristotelian conclusions agree with this dialogue in the main (Jltt., III. ; VII. :5). The worst is the detinition r-eftl (rocf>. Acy^- I. 165 a, "21 erm koi o cro</)to-Tr/<; yap 7] (TocfiUTTiKrj (^un'o/icn; aofjiia ovcra 8 ov
;

;y;/j7;/xaTUjT7)<;

utto ^ati'o/AcV?;; ao<f)ia<; aXX.

oi'K oucrr;?.

The popularizing tendency

of Sophistry found an emi-

nent representative in Hippias of Elis. A brilliant jwlyhistor, he dazzled his contemporaries in all sorts of mathematical, zoological, historical, and grammatical learning.

At

the same time, however, as the dialogue Hippias

his

Major shows, he aimed by

somewhat

colorless

moral

teaching to achieve a cheap success with the masses. It was very much the same with Prodicus of lulis on the
island of Ceos, of

whose shallow ethics an example

is

preserved in the well-known Heracles at the Cross Ways.^

The strength

of

Prodicus lay in synonymy.

See L. Spengel, Swaywy?/ rexiw (Stuttgart, 1828); J. Mhly, Die Sojihiat Hippias von Hlis {HheiiiisrJics Museum,, 18GU f.); F. G. Welcker, Prodikas der Vorgrirjer (/es Socrates (in a Both were al)Out of an age, and smaller work, II. HDo f.). somewhat younger than Protagoras. Nothing further is known Hippias, who prided himself on his concerning their lives. memory and his great learning, was pictured as one of the most CHinceited Sophists. Prodicus was treated by Plato with playful irony on account of his pedantic pains in word-splitting. For Socrates' relation to him, see 27.

The

instruction that the Sophists were called upon to

Democracy give had to adapt itself to a specific purpose. had gained ascendency in Athens and most other cities, and
the citizen was brought by duty and inclination into active This evinced itself particul)articipation in j)ubli(; affairs.
larly in oratory.
1

AVitli the higlicr cultui'c of the

masses,
f.

Hermanu,

Ge.^ch. u.

%v/.

cl.

plat. Philus., I. 17'J

f.,

296

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

the greater "were the

113

power
state.

of the

demands upon those vrho by the spoken word wished to win influence in the

The youth who attended upon the teaching of him into a cultured and eloquent citizen of the state. So the Sophists found their chief task in scientific and rhetorical instruction for public life. The instruction consisted on the one hand in
the Sophist desired to be trained by
technical and formal oratory, and on the other in
ticular end they

that

learning -which appeared especially important for any par-

had

in view.

Therein lay not only the through

social-historical significance of the Sophists, but also the

tendency of
"which

all

the independent investigations

the

Sophists have furthered science.

Gorgias of

Leontini and Protagoras of Abdera may be regarded the most eminent representatives of this phase of Sophism.

For the characterization and criticism of Sophism as a technique of education in statecraft, one ought to consult especially Concerning the relation of the Plato's dialogue, Gorgias. Sophists to rhetoric, see Fr. Blass, Die attische BerecJsaynJieit von Gorgias bis Li/sias (Leipzig, LS68). As a typical expression of these attempts of the Sophists "o-hich embraced also legal oratory, may be taktu the utterance of Protagoras that he would pledge himself to ^ tov i]tt<jj \uyov K^iLTTm ttol^Iv. - an expression, to be sure, wliich called forth the crushing criticism of Aristophanes, who in the Clouds imputed it to Socrates. more reliable fact about the life of Gorgias is that he was in Athens in 427 as head of the embassy from his native city His hfe has been set by Frei (Rh. Mus., (Thucyd., III. -SG). He made a great 1850, 1851) in the time from 483 to 375. impression in Athens by his eloquence, and exercised a distinct influence upon the development of rhetorical style. He spent his protracted old age in Larissa in Thessaly. The genuineness of both of his preserved declamations (ed. Blass, Leipzig, 1881) is doubtful. His philosophical treatise bore His conthe title TrepI ^I'o-eojs 17 Trept tou /xt/ ovto? ('see below). nection with the Sicilian school of oratory (Corax and Tisias), and therefore also with Empedocles, is undoubted. His connection with the Eleatics appears equally certain, from the argu-

Arist. Rhet.,

H. 24; 1402
8

a, 23.

114

iiisRiRY OF ANciKM' riiii.osoriiv.

mentation in his writings. Compare II. E. Foss, De G. L. (Halle, 1828); II. Uiels, Gorgias und Empedocles {Berichte der Be rlii er ka de mii'). Alcidainus of Klea, Tolus ^ of Agrigentum, Lyc9phron, and
I

Protari'hus - are named as pupils of (lorgias. Protaiioras. doubtless the most important of the Sophists, was born in Abtlera in 4.S or somewhat earlier. It can be assumed that he was not distant in his views from the school of Atomists in that city. Considcrabl}' younger than Leuci[)pus, and about twenty years older than Democritus, he formed the natural connection between the two (see '23, 81). With keen insight into the needs of the time, and much admired as a teacher of wisdom, he was one of the first to make an extended He was in Athens many times. tour of the Grecian cities. In 411, and during the rule of the four hundred, he was there He was confor the last time, and was accused of atheism.

demned, and upon

his flight to 8icily

was drowned.

The

titles

(Diog. Laert., IX. 5;')) of his numerous writings, only a very few of which are preserved, prove that he dealt with the most Comvaried subjects in the domain of theory and practice. pare J. Frei, Qacestiones ProtagoreK (Bonn, 1845) A. J. Vitringa, De Prot, vita et jihilos. (Groningen, 1851). Lately Th. Gompertz (Vienna Session Reports, 1890) has identified a Sophistic si)eech with the Apology of Medicine in the pseudoHippocratic writing, Trept rexv-qz, and has noted its not fully undoubted connection with the teaching of Protagoras. Antinuierus of Mende, Archagoras, P^uathlus,'' Theodoras the mathematician, and in a wider sense Xeniades of Corinth also are to be regarded as pupils of Protagoras. Eminent citizens of Athens, like Critias, probably Callicles, or poets like Eveuus of Paros, etc., stood in a less intimate connection with the Sophists.
;

of their instruction comfrom independent nature study and metaphysical speculation, and to content them-

The

practical

and

political

aim

pelled the Sophists to turn aside

selves with the presentation, in popular form, of such theories only

1

when they were

called for or appeared effective.*

2

Plato, Corg.
Plato, ThecBtetus.

pi^to, Phileh.

8
*

Many,
c.

like Gorgias, rejected

tliis

as perfectly worthless.

See Plato,

Meno, 95

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

The

115

peculiar task in teaching men how to persuade drove them, on the other hand, to interest themselves more thoroughly in man, especially on liis psychological side. Who-

ever endeavors to

influence

man

by speech must know

of his ideas and While earlier science with naive devotion to the outer world had coined fundamental concepts for its knowledge of nature, Sophistry, so far as it adopted the methods of science, turned to inner experience, and comvolitions.

something

of the genesis

and development

pleted the incomplete earlier philosophy by studying the

mental

life

of

man.

In

this

essentially anthropological

tendency,

sophistry

turned

philosophy

on the road

to

subjectivism.^

This new kind of work began

efforts

first

with language.
of

The

of

Prodicus in
respect.
little

synonymy, those

Hippias in

grammar, were
fruitful

in this direction.

Protagoras was especially

^

in this

Persuaded that theory without

practice

without theory, he connected the practical teaching, to which Gorgias seems to have limited himself, with philological investigations.
useful as practice

was as

He

concerned himself with the right use of words,^ in their

etc.

genders, tenses, modes,*

Compare Lersch, Die

Die

Sprac/iphiJos. der alten.

;

Spracliphilos. vor Platon (Philol., 1856) Logik., I. l4 f.

I. 15 f. Alberti, Prantl, Gesch. der

;

Similar small beginnings in logic appeared, in addition That teachers of oratory should to those in grammar.
1

What

Cicero {Tusc, V. 4, 10) said of Socrates, that he called

philosophy
him.
2
3

down from heaven

into the cities

and houses,

is

equally

true for the entire

Greek Enlightenment,

for the Sophists as well as for

Srobgeus Florilecrinm, 29, 80.

Plato,

Phmh..
and

20

7 c.
(l)(^a)\r),

Diog. Laert., IX. 53. in which ho distinguished

fvroXrj.

(prnais,

^6xpTf(rii,

116
loHect

iiisroiiv

OF ANCiKxr riiiLOsopiiY.
to be

how

a thing

was

proved and controverted,

is

(il)vioiis.

It is also easily

credible (Diog. Laert., IX. 51

f.)

that Protagoras

had

his attention

drawn

to the natui-e of

contradictory propositions, and was the

first

to teach the

method
tation,

of proof {Ta<i Trpo? T<; 0ai<i

ently formal logic sprang

proof,

and

Apparnp here as an art of argumencontradiction. Of how far it was

iTrtxeipf']cret<i).

developed in details by

the

Sophists,

we unfortunately

know

absolutely nothing.^
are better informed concerning their general view

We
of

human knowledge.

earlier metaphysical

The less the Sophist championed and physical learning, and the more

he entertained his hearers by his clever opposition to it, and the more vividly again instruction presented to the
consciousness of the rhetorician the possibility of proving
different things of the

same

object, so

much

the

more con-

any universally valid truth or in the possibility of any certain knowledge. Their preoccupation with the theory of knowledge led, as
ceivable
is it

that these

men

lost faith in

things were, by a psychological necessity to skepticism.

This skej)tic'isin is the theoretical centre of Sophistry- That degenerated among the younger Sophists into frivolous argumentation should not lead to the misconception of the scientific seriousness with which the negative epistemology was On the other hand, it developed, especially by Protagoras. ivas an unhistoric interpretation for those in modern time, following Grote's example, to celebrate Protagoras as the founder E. Laas, Idealismus und Positivismffs, I. of Positivism W. Ilalbfass, Die Berichte des PInton (Berlin, 1880) var. loe. Opposed to u. Aristoteles ber Protagoras (Strassburg, 1882).
tins
: ;

in the

That the Aristotelian lo^ic was not without precedents, literary or form of practical exercise, may be taken a priori a.s extremely How far these j)rece(lents reached cannot be determined probable. from the verv few indications from extant literature (see particularly
^

Plato's (?) dialogue Sophist).

This lack of evidence

hl-iury
uf

is

one of the most

regrettable

deficiencies
T.

in
1
1

the
f.

(ireek

science.

Compare

Prantl, O'esch. d. Log.,

THE UREEK EXLIGIITEXMENT.

this is P.

117

Xatorp, Forschungpn zu Gesrh. des Erkmntnissprob149 f. Compare Fr. Sattig, Der Protatjoreische Sensualismus iu Zesrfir. f. Philos. (1885 f.). Tlie chief source for the epistemology of Protagoras is Plato's dialogue, ThecBtetus. Yet it is a question how far the presentation developed in this may be referred to Protagoras himself. The teaching of Gorgias is in part preserved in the pseudo-Aristotelian De Jlelisso, Zenone, Gorgia, c. 5 and 6 ( 17) and in part in Sext. Emp. Adv. math., VII. 65.
lems, p.
1 f.,
;

In order to establish his skeptical belief about human knowledge, Protagoras made the eternal flux of Hera-

But he emphasized still in which every single thing does not so much exist, as momentarily come
cleitus

his

point of

departure.

more than Heracleitus the

its

correlation,

into existence, through

relation to other things.

it

From
on
in-

the disavowal of absolute Being

of things arise only out of the

followed that qualities

effect of things

temporary

one another.

Quality

is

the product of motion,^ and

deed, as Protagoras in a purely Heracleitan

forth, always of

manner

set

directions.

One

two corresponding motions but in opposite of these was designated as activity, the
It follows that in general it can
is,

other as passivity .^

never

be said what a thing

but at most what

changing relation

to otlier things,-^
still

becomes in its and the Protagorean corit

relativeness contained a

greater significance in apply-

ing this general theory of motion to the theory of

perception.
1

human

Whenever

a thing affects one of our senses,

It

is

not clear from the Tkecetetus whether and

how Protagoras

discussed the

substratum of the

Kivr^a-is.

Even

if

he did not with

Heracleitus deny
is

It it, yet he regarded it at any rate as incognizable. conceivable that the Abderite Protagoras developed this theory in

comphance
2

to

the
it

demands

of

Atomism,

in

which shape Democritus

later received
T/iecet.,

( 32).
f.

15G

Similarly the skeptical statements of Xeniades appear to have been

conceived.

Compare

Zeller,

I*.

988.

lis
in

lllsrOKY OF

AXriKNT

rillLOSOI'IlV.

which the motion proceeding' from the object meets a

reacting motion of the organ, there then arises in the sense

organ the percei)tual image,^ and simnltaneously in the Therefore thins, the quality corresponding^ to the image.
every perception teaclics only

how

the thing appears in the

and indeed for him alone. Now for Protagoras, sense perception was regarded as the only source of knowledge and of the entire mental Therefore there was for him no insight into the Being life.* no idea of what of things over and above those relations things might be in themselves abstracted from perceptual

moment

of perception for the perceiver,

relations.

Rather

is

everything for each individual

;

just

what

it

appears to him

but

it

is

such only to that indi-

vidual, and,

more exactly, only

perception.

momentary state of The well-known statement has this meaning:

for his
"^

irdvTcov j^prifiaTcov fierpov v6poiiro<;, tcov fxev

ovrwv

(o^

eari,

TMV
^

he

jxrj

ovTwv

ft)?

ovk

ecrriv.

The

ability of the different objeets to influence the different sense

organs appears already to have led Protagoras to his theory of the See T/iecet., 156 c. different velocities of raovenients of the objects.

With

this reduction of the qualitative to

the quantitative, Protagoras

stood entirely in the school of the Atomists ( 23 and 32). 2 Under this term the sensations and also the feelings are classified in
the Tkecetetus (156).
8 That the aia-drjrov in reality arises with the aia-drja-n, is an addition presumably of those who had extended and ajjjjlied the theory of the Abderite (according to the *The(stetns). FoB-such an assertion carries one far beyond the bounds of skepticism. This cannot apply to

Democritus.
*

Whether and how Protagoras has proved and explained

fivai ttjv yj^vxfjv Trapa

this

view
not

(firjbev

ras

ala-drjcrfis,

t)iog.

Laert., TX. 51)

is

In the light of the earlier Rationalism ( 18-2.S) this sensaTt is presaged in the physiotionalism seems somewhat unwarranted.

known.
logical
*

The

psychology of the later nature philosophy ( 25). explanation of Tkecetetus (152 a) does not permit the avdpanos

in this

well-known sentence to refer to the genus.

See Arist. Met., X.

6,

1062
6

b, 13.

Tkecetetus, 152 a; Sext.

Emp. Adv.

matk., VII. 60.

Tin:

GREKK ENLIGHTENMENT.

119

As Protagoras
cleitus, so

based his philosoi)hy upon that of Heratliat of

Gorgias founded his upon The former had concluded that to

the Eleatics.
is

all

opinion there
;

attached a relative, but to none an absolute, truth the latter sought to demonstrate in general the impossibility
of

knowledge.

While, however, the practical investiga-

tions of Protagoras enriched philosophy in the succeedino-

systems of Plato and Democritus, the argumentation of Gorgias was developed in a captious and sterile dialectic.

That which Is not, canis. For that which is, cannot be thought either as unoriginated and imperishable or as originated and perishable neither can it be thought as one or as many, nor indeed finally as moved, without being involved in obvious contradictions. The arguments of Zeno are everywhere re-employed here Moreover, that which is and that which is not to ( 20).
:

Gorgias showed

(1) Nothing
little

is.

not be, and even as

can that which

exist simultaneously, is impossible (against Heracleitus ?).

it would not be knowable for and that which is thought must be different, otherwise error would be impossible.^ (3) If there communicated, because were knowledge, it could not be communication is possible only by means of signs, which There is no warrant are different from the thing itself.

(2)

Were

there something,
is

that which

that there

is

a like apprehension of these signs

hy^

different

individuals.^

Howsoever seriously and scientifically the theories of Skepticism were held, even by Protagoras, they nevertheless led to the demoralization of science, and resulted finally Gorgias had found in a frivolous diversion in daily life.
1

This dialectic

is

more

finely

spun out

in the

dialogue of the Sophist.

almost inclined to regard these paradoxes of this anti-philosophical rhetorician as a grotesque persiHatre of the Eleatic dialectic. At all events, this last is inevitably and fatally involved in its own
2

One

is

toils.

120

IIIST(irxY

OF ANCIKXT

PIIILOSOl'IIV.
is

that every iircdicatiou of a sultjoct

doul)tfiil,' if

indeed

there
ieate.

is

any

ilifference

whatever between

subjtict

and pred-

He

therefore called in question synthetic judgments.

Protagoras himself doubted the reality of mathematical

knowledge.^
err, for

Euthydemus,
is

in the spirit of this relativism,^

said that anything

suitable to everything; one cannot

what is spoken exists also as a something thought.* One cannot contradict himself if he appears to, it is only because he is speaking of a difterent thing, and so on.
;

Since the majority of the Sophists did not take truth seriously from the beginning, their entire art
dispute with formal adroitness />ro
et

amounted

to a

contra over anything

facility.

whatsoever, and to equipping their pupils in this

the listener, to drive

Their principal aim was accordingly to be able to confuse

him

into

making absurd answers, and

^
;

to refute one's opponent.

Protagoras also wrote avriXoyiai and KaradWovre'i

and the practice of the

in trying to

Sophists, especially in later time,

be sensational, consisted simply in that art,

which

is

called Eristic.

Plato's Euthydemus describes with many playful witticisms the method of Eristic by the example of the two brothers EuUndemus and Dionysidorus, and Aristotle has taken the pains to arrange systematically these witticisms in the last book of the Tojdcs (Trepi (tocI>l<ttlkC)v cAeyxwv). The greater number of The ambiguity of the words, of the these witticisms are puns. endings, of the syntactical forms, etc., are in the main the basis The great of the witticisms (Prantl, Gesch. d. Xoy., I. 20 f.). favor with which these jokes were received in Greece, and espe1

Sophist, 251 b.

2 Arist.
8 T)v
*

Met.,

II. 2,

998

a, 3.

npos

Tt (Ivai. ttju aXfjdetav.

Sext.

Emp. Adv.

malh., VII. 60.

Here the ambiguity

of the copula also plays a part.

Lycophron
is

proposed to omit the copula.

^

The

proposition that "

man

is

the measure of

all

things "

cited as

the besrinnin"- of this work, and at the

same time

as the beginning of a

work, called

aXijeia,

which perhaps formed the

first

part of

it.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

cially

121

is explained bj- the youthful inclinalion to southron's fondness for talking, and by tlie awakening of reflective criticism upon familiar things of daily

in

Athens,
the

quil)ble, b}-

life.

However,

this facetious

method was unpromising

for the

serious progress of science.

victionless attitude of

On

the other hand, the conor

its

mind that the Sophists designedly

in

undesignedly encouraged became a direct menace in

application
effort

upon that domain

which, as their entire

deeply interested,

showed, they were

alone

the

ethico-political.

Since the time of the Seven Wise

Men

( 9), the content of moral and civil laws and obedience to them had been a common subject for reflection. But the

growing individualism, the inspired activity of the Periclean and the anarchy of the Athenian democracy for the first time brought into question through the Sophists the justification of these norms. Since here also the individual man with his temporary desires and needs was declared to be the measure of all things, the binding power of the law
age,

became as

relatively valid as theoretical truth

had been.

See H. Sidgwick, The Sophists (Journal of Philolosv, 1872, 1873) A. Harpf, l)!e Ethik des Frotayoras (Heidelberg", 1884) and the general literature concerning the Sophists and particuOf the profounder investigations larl}' that concerning Socrates. in which the more important Sophists were largely engaged, almost nothing is preserved save individual remarks and striking assertions. At most there is the myth of Protagoras in the dialogue Perhaps the first half of the second book of that name (320 f.). of the Jiepublic refers also to something of the same sort. Perhaps the Sophists suffer in this domain, as in theory, fiom the fact that we are instructed concerning them only from their opponents.^
;
;

The most important

this respect set
^

])oint of

view whicli the Sophists in

up appeared

in their contrast of the natural

There
in

is

also a frafrment found

by Fr. Blass

(l^nu-er.'i. Schrift. Kiel.,

1889)

Jamblichus, Protrepticce oraliones ad philosophiam, ch. 20,

it

who

attributed

to the

Sophist Antiphon.

122

IlISn^RY OF ANCIFA'T rillLOSOPIIY.

From reflection npon the and social condition of man. cliange not only of legal prescriptions but difi'erence and
also of social rules,^ the Sophists concluded that at least a

greater part of these had been established by convention through human statute {deaei sivc v6fx(p) ; and that only

such laws were universally binding as were established in 'I'he natural therefore all men equally by nature (<^uo-eO-

more nearly perappeared to be of the greater worth, manent and more binding than the social. Natural law
seemed higher than
historic positive law.

The more

se-

rious Sophists endeavored then further to strip oflf from natural morality and natural laws the mass of conventionalities
:

Protagoras^ taught that justice and conscience

(SUrj and a/Sto?) are the gifts of the gods, and are common to all men; but neither this nor the assertion of Hippias,

that

"law"

violently drives

man

to

mauy

things that are

contrary to " nature," sets up any thoroughgoing and necesBut the sary opposition between the two legislations. theory of the Sophists conceived of " nature " as more the

"human
did

nature," and as "

human nature"

limited to

its

physical, impulsive,

and

individual aspect, so

mnch

the

more

"law" appear

a detriment and a limitation of the nat-

Archelaus, the pupil of Anaxagoras, declared that social differences do not arise from " Nature " They
ural man.

conventional determinations (ou (pvaec aWa vufiw).^ Plato ^ has Callicles develop the theory that all laws are created by the stronger, and these laws, on account of need
are
of protection, the

weaker accept.
Mem., IV.

He ^
4, 14

puts into the mouth

Compare
In

Ilippias in Xen.

f.

liis niytli

rejjroduced by Plato.

'

J'lato, Prot.,

337

c.

Similarly, but

somewhat more brusquely,

f.

Cal

liclus
4
*

expresses himself in Plato, Gorgias, 482

Diog. Laert., II. 16.
Loc.
cit.
f.

llepuhlic, 1, 338

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

of

123

Chalcedon a naturalistic psychology of which the ruler in a natural body politic would establish laws for his own advantage. In this spirit Sophistry contended, in part from the point of view of " natural right," in part from that of absolute
of legislation, according to

Thrasymachus

anarchy, against
nobility, or as
ciple

many

existing institutions

not onlv as

the democratic Lycophron against every privilege of the

Alcidamus against so fundamental a prinwas slavery, but finally even against all custom and (dl tradition.^ The independence of individual judgment, which the Enlightenment proclaimed, shattered the rule of all authority and dissipated
of ancient society as

the content of social consciousness.

its more serious had directed against religious ideas, it is obvious that religious authority also would be swept away with the flood of the Sophistic movement. All shades of religious freethinking are met with in Sophistic literature: everything, from the cautious skepticism of Protagoras, who

In the attacks which already science in

aspects

claimed

to

know nothing

of the gods, to the naturalistic

and anthropological explanations as to belief in the gods, and even

of a certain Diagoras
27.
^

of Critias"^

and Prodicus^

to the outspoken atheism

of Melos.

Against the destructive activity of the Sophists appeared the powerful personality of Socrates, who stood
indeed with his opponents upon the

common ground

of the

Enlightenment, and like them raised

to a principle the inde-

To some
Compare

to Aristotle {Pol., IT. 8

2 8

extent with positive propositions whose authors, according & 7), were Hippodamus and a certain Phaleas,
Arist. Pol.,
I. 3, 12.53 b,

20.

By

reason of the vagueness of the object and the brevity of

51.

human

life;
* ^

compare Ding. Laert., IX.

Compare
Cic.

the verse in Sext.

Emp., IX.
118.

54.

De natura deorum, I. 42, Compare Zeller, I*. 864, 1.

124

iiispoKV OF AxciKxr riiiLosoriiv.

j)ciidoiit relk'ctioii

concerning cvcrvtliing given by tradition

in

and custom.

But at the same time he was unshaken

the conviction that tlirongh reflection a universally valid

truth could certainly be found.

The reports of Xenophoii,^ Plato, and Aristotle are the chief sources of our knowledge eoneeniing Socrates. The reinarkiibly different light that is cast from such ditlereut men upon this great personality makes him stand out in plastic distinctness. Xenophon saw more of the sober, practical, and popular side of the life and character of the man. Plato, on the contrary, beheld the height of his imaginatiou, the depth of his spiritual being, his elevating intiueuee on youthful and highly gifted minds. See S. Ribbing, Uebcr (l((s Verhlt lu'ss zirischcn (I. xcnopho id loschen a. d. platoam-Iien Berichten ber d. Persidirhkeit k. d. Lehre Xenophon's representation, so far d. Sokrate.s (Upsala, 1870). as the author's knowledge goes, is one of historic lidelity, but it was strongly under the inflneuee of Cynic party prejudice. Plato's writings, however, place in the mouth of Socrates less ofteu Socrates' teachings (only in the Apolo/// and the earliest dialogues) than the consequences that Plato has drawn out of them. Aristotle's teaching is everywhere authoritative as regards the teachings of Socrates for, following Socrates by somewhat of an interval, and uninfluenced by personal relationship, he was able to set in clear light the essential features of Socrates'
;

scieutifie

work.
u. sein

H. Kochly, Sokrates
219
f.);
;

Volk (in Acad. Vortr.

?<.

Red.,

I.

E. V. Lasaulx,

Des Sokrates Leben, Lehre und Tod

(Mnchen, 18.J7) M. Carriere, Sokrates u. seine Stellung in der Gesch. des menschliclien Geistes (in Westermann' s Monatsheften, 1864) E. Alberti, Sokrates, ein Versuch ber ihn nach den Quellen (Gttingen, 18G9); E. Chaignet, Vie de Sokrate (Paris, 1808) ;A. Labriola, La doctrina di Sokrate (Neapel, 1871) A. Fouillee, Laphilos. de Sokrate (Paris, 1873) A. Krohn, Sokrate doctrina e Piatonis repuhlica illustrata (Halle, 1875); Windelband, Sokrates (in Praeludien, p. 54 f.) K. Joel, Der echte u. der xenophontische Sokrates, I. (Leipzig, 18')2).
; ; ;
;

1 The Memorabilia are essential for our consideration of this (see A. Krohn, Soc. u. Xen., Halle, 1874). So is the Symposium. Tlie question as to the priority of the Si/mposium of Xonoplion or the Sympoaimn of

Plato

is

not yet fully decided in favor of

tlie

former, but

is

of

lute

accepted.

Compare Ch. Y.
etc.

Compare Sander, Bemerkungen zu Xeno-

phon's Berichten,

(Magdeburg, 1884).

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

Socrates was born in Athens a
of Sophroni^cus, a sculptor,
little

125

before 469,^ the son

and Phjenarete.

He

learned

the trade

of his father,

and discriminatingly absorbed the

Acquaintance with the

various elements of culture of his time, Avithout applying

himself to properly erudite studies.

methods

of instruction of the Sophists

awoke

in

him

the con-

viction of the dangerousness of their tendencies.

Against

them he

felt

himself called by divine direction^ to a serious

*

examination

of himself

and his fellow-citizens, and to un-

remitting labor in the direction of moral perfection.

He

was moved by a deep

religious spirit

and an exalted moral

sense in his investigations.

He

shared with his contem-

poraries an immediate interest in these investigations; and

his as

own
the

peculiar activity, which began in Athens as early

commencement

of the Peloponnesian war,'5 rests

it

upon

these.

He

belonged to no school, and

field,

was foreign

to his purpose to found one.

AVith spontaneous feeling,

he sought on the broad public

which Athenian life His extraordinary exterior,^ his dry humor, his ready and triumHis phant repartee brought him into universal notice. geniality, however, and the fine spiritual nature which lay hidden in his astonishing shell," the unselfishness which he manifested unstintedly toward his friends, exercised an irresistible charm upon all the remarkable personalities of the time, especially upon the better elements of the Atheoffered, intellectual intercourse with every one.
at his death (399) over seventy years old. Concerning a piece, later on pointed out as one upon which the young Socrates was said to have wrought, see P. Schuster, Weber die
^

He was

Portrts
3

tier grieck. Philos.

(Leipzig, 1877).

Plato.

A pol.

.33 c.
'

e^erd^eiu f/j-avTov Koi tovs tiWovs

ihid.,

28

e.

5
*

The production of the Clouds, 423, attests his popularity. The humorous characterization of his own Sileuus shape is
4,

in

Xeno-

phon's Si/mposium,
'

19

f.

Compare the
f.

beautiful speech of Alcibiades in Plato, S>/?nposium,

215

126
nian youth.
the neglect

HISTORY OF ANC'IKNT IMIILOSOIMIY.

While he
'

in

this

way obeyed higher duty

in

to

of

home
itself

cares, in free fellowship a circle of

admirers formed
aristocratic youth

around him

which especially the

were represented

in

men

like Alcibiades.

He

held himself as far

away from

political activity as pos-

but the unavoidable duties of the performed with simple integrity .^

sible,

citizen of a state

he

At the age of seventy Socrates was accused of " corrupting the youth and introducing new gods." The charges
arose originally from low personal motives,'^ but became
serious through political complications,* in that the aristocratically inclined philosopher, as the

active " Sophist,"

was

to be

made answerable
a

most popular and for moral

Notsmall pen-

degeneration by the democratic reactionary party.

withstanding he would have been freed with

alty
^ if

he himself had not offended

the Heliasts by his

of the sentence

candid pride in his virtue.

of death

The execution

was delayed

thirty days by the dewpla to Delos,

easily possible to him.

and Socrates disdained in his loyalty ' to law the flight so He drank the cup of hemlock in May, 8 399.
^

E. Zeller,
I.

Concerning Xantippe, whose name has become proverbial, see Zur Ehrenrettung der Xan. (in Vortrag und Abhandlung,
51
f).

p.
2

He made
The

fearless against the excited

three campaigns, and showed himself, as prytanis, just and minds of the masses (see Plato, ApnL, 32 f.).

accusers Meletus, Anytus, and Lycon acted out of personal

animosity, unless they were

satoribus, Gttingen, 1854).
*

men

of straw (K. F.

Hermann, De

Soc. accu-

See Grote,

The
;

thirty

of Greece, YHT. 551 f. was carried only by a majority of three or the sentence of death had a much larger majority (more than
Iliston/

verdict of " guilty "

eighty).
* ' '

The Apnlogji of Plato may be taken Compare Plato's dialogue, the Crito.
i.s

as authentic in its essentials.

In respect to the external circumstances of the dav of

liis

death,
it

Plato's dialogue, the Phieilo,

certainly historical, although Plato in

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

127

An instructor in philosoph}', in the strict sense of the tenn, Socrates did not have. He called himself (Xen. Symjiosmm^ But apparently he had become familiar with 1, 5) avTovpy6<i. mauN- of the scientific theories, especially with those of Heracleitus and Anasagoras, not only through the discourses of the Sophists but through his own readings. (Compare K. F. HerThe

De S. inafjUtris et discii'Iina jiire)nU, Marburg, 1837) process of development portraved in the Phcedo is scai-ccly historical, but can be looked upon as a sketch of the Platonic (Compare Zeller, IP. 51.) theory of ideas. Xenophon, as well as Plato, makes Socrates meet persons of everv position, caUing, and political complexion in his converHis relation to young men was an ethicall}- pedagogical sations. and morally spiritual ennoblement of the Grecian love for boys. Among the men who made his popular philosophical method Xenophon, who stood very near to their own are to be named the Cynics (compare F. Dmmler, ANti.sfhenica, Berl., 1882, and Academica, Giessen, 1889) also ^schines (not the orator), who wrote dialogues in the same spirit (K. F. Hermann, De yEsch. Socratici rellquiis (Gttingen, 1850) and the almost mythical shoemaker Simon (see Bckh, iSh7i07ns Socraticis dialogi, Heidelberg, 1810, and E. Heitz in O. MUer's Ditteraturgesc/iichte, IV. 2, 25, note 2). The legal measures against Socrates are open to the most The old view that the philosopher was different constructions. ruined through intrigues of the Sophists may be regarded as given up. and also the conception originated by Hegel {Complete Works, II. 560 f., XIV. 81 f), according to which, as in a traged}-, Socrates was the champion of the higher Idea, and was ruined by his unavoidable crime of offending the established laws. These great antitheses play no part in the trial. It appears, rather, that through personal and political intrigues Socrates became a sacrifice for the discontent which the democratic reaction fostered Although presumably uninagainst the entire Enlightenment. tentionally, nevertheless Aristophanes did a decided injury to the philosopher in his caricature of him in the Clouds,^ in that he stamped him in the public mind as a type of precisely those Sophistic excesses which Socrates fought most vigorously.
mann,
:

(Compare H. Th. Rtscher, Aristojjhanes und

goes far beyond Socrates
his personal conviction.
1

seine Zeitalter,

in his

(compare ApoL, 40 c) not only

in his presentation of evidence,

theory of the immortality of the soul but as to

1880.

Compare

especially

H.

DIels,

Verh. d.

Slett.

Phil.

Vers.,

i06f.

1L>8

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOrHV.

Berlin, 1817; Brandis, in the lih. Mus., 1828; P. W. Forclihainnier, JJie Athener und jSoc, Berlin, 1837; Bendixen, Ueber

den tieferen Schriftsbni^

etc.

(Husum, 1838.)
of tlie Sophists

The theory

of

knowledge

had

led in all

its parts to a relativism of individual opinions.

The

effort,

on the other hand, for a stable and universally valid knowledge formed the central point of the activity of Socrates. The iiriaTij/jLT] was set in antithesis to the B^ai by him
yet the
eVtcrT/;'/!^ is

not a complete, erudite possession to be

to be striven for in

handed down, but an ideal mon with other men,

work

in

com-

Fr. Schleierraacher, Ueber d. Wert des Sokratcs als Philos. in Ges. Werk, III. 2, 287 ff.

Socrates did not try, therefore, to impart knowledge or

to give purely formal instruction, but to

engage

in a

mutual

seeking for truth.

that such a
opinion.

The

basis of this was the conviction

norm

of truth existed

paramount

to individual

Therefore his activity found its necessary form in the dialogue, the conversation in which, through the exchange of opinions and through mutual criticism of these,
that should be found which
opinions
is

recognizable by

the Sophists studied the psychological

all. While mechanism by which

come

to be, Socrates

that determines the truth.

had faith in a law of reason His whole endeavor was only

a continuous invitation to his fellow-citizens to help this search.

him
-

in

His confession of his ignorance

signified this,
his

while

he also at the same time herein intimated

of
21

failure to attain his ideal of ao(f>ia.

same measure
1

Yot lie demanded the self-knowledge"^ also from others. For

;

Plato,

A pol,

f.

Symp., 216
f.

d.
<pi\o(ro(f)la

Compare

Plato, Si/mp., 203

In this connection the term

wins, as contrasted with the more pretentious

liar

aocfiia (a-ot^io-rijf), its

pecu-

meaning, "striving for knowledge."

yvciidi a-tavTOv,

See Ueberweg,
Xeii.

p. 2.

' Compare the oracular Apol, 21 f.

Mem,. IV.

21 f.; Plato,

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

129

nothing more dangerous blocked the way of wisdom than

that conceited affectation of

wisdom which the Sophistic

There-

half-education developed in the majority of minds.

fore his conversation analyzed with exasperating logic the

opinion which at the outset he elicited from others, and in

this superior manipulation of the dialectic consisted the

Socratic

irony.^

But

after

removing

this

Socrates, in leading the conversation, sought to

impediment draw out

In the

gradually what was

common

to the participants.

persuasion that serious reflection could find such a

common

thought, he " delivered" the slumbering thought from the

mind and this art he called his maieutic.*^ The method of the Socratic investigation corresponded,
;

in point of content also, to this external schema.

lie set

the concept as the goal

therefore

of scientific

work over against

the single ideas given by

individual perception.

When
he

Socrates

in

general

aimed

at

definition,
*

came

into contact with the efforts of the Sophists

who had
But

busied themselves in fixing the meanings of words.

he on his part went much deeper, in the hope of grasping the essence of fact and the law governing single cases and
relationships by the a|)plication of this universal principle.

In making the answer to the particular question from which

the conversation proceeded depend
tion to be sought, he
of logical
^

on the general

defini-

was making man conscious of the law dependence of the particulars upon the universal,

and exalting that law to the principle of the scientific method. In the search for universal concepts Socrates still
337

Plato, Rep.,

I.

a.

With

reft'rence to the profession of his

:

mother; Plato,

Theret.,

149

f.

Arist. Met., XII. 4, lOT-Sb. 17

is,

to opiCfoBai. Ka66\ov.

Tlie tech-

nical expression for the concept

*

in this connection, Xoyos-

Particularly with Prodicus, with

whom his relations were

uniformly

friendly.

Xen. Mem., IV.

13.

130

IllyTOKY OK ANCIENT

I'illLi SOl'IlY.

remained strongly fixed

in the habits of naive reflection.

tlie

For the inductive procedure,

rily colhited particular cases,

iutroductiou of which

is

accredited to liim,^ consisted in the comparison of arbitra-

by means of which, however,

But, neverdistinct

a complete induction could not be guaranteed.

theless, the Socratic

advance over the entirely unmethodical generalizations, which earlier thinkers had drawn from single observations or thought motifs. It began, moreover, to set a methodical treatment in the
place of ingenious fancies.
P. J. Ditges, Die epar/ogische Methode des S. (Cologne, J. J. Giittmanii, Utbcr den irisse use haftlichen /St((ndpunkt des S. (Hrieg, 18HI). Examples of the Socratic method are to be found in the Jlcrnondjilia of Xenophon and iu most of the dialogues of Platp. Socrates did not advance to a definite formulation of methodical principles, but his entire activity has given them distinctly the character of an inspired insight.

method was a

1864)

The realm

to

which Socrates applied this method of the

inductive definition of concepts included

of the Sophists

as in the case

essentially
him

the problems of

human

life.

For, as his search for conceptual truth was rooted in the

strength of his moral conviction, science and moral

culture were to
in the last instance identical.

self-

The

universally valid truth, which he said

means

of conversation,

is

was to be found by the clearness and certainty of

moral consciousness.

The limitation of philosophy to ethics, and on the other hand the establishment of scientific ethics, passed even in antiquity (See as the essential characteristic of the Socratic teaching. Neither the poetic license, with which Zeller, II*. 132 f. ). Aristophanes (in the Clonds) made of him a star-gazer, nor the passages in the later Platonic dialogues {Phcp.do and Philehits), in which a teleological nature-])hilosophy is put into his mouth, nor, finally, the very homely utilitarian theory, presumably afterward revised by tiie Stoics, wliich the Memonibilia makes him
'"

Arist. Met.,

1.

c.

See A. Kruhn, Xen.

u.

Soc. (Halle, 1874}.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

131

develop, none of these can have weiglit against the very definite expressions of Xenophon {JLm., I. 1, 11) and Aristotle {Met.. I. 6, 987 b, 2). On the other liand, his aversion to natural science was not in the spirit of Skepticism, but due to the deficiency of science in ethical value. universal faith in the teleological arrangement of the world and in a Providence over mankind remained side by side with this aversion. See conclusion in Plato's Apolorji/, in EiUhi/})hro^ etc.

In this specific ethical turn, Socrates followed, however,

a psychological principle, which expresses the rationalistic
cliaracter of the

Enlightenment

in its purity.

It

is

the

formula of

the identity/ of virtue

and knowledge}
life

In the

complicated relationships of civilized

the habitual ob-

servance of national conventions had become insufficient.

In the confusion of public

life,

mended

here, another there, every one

where one thing was comfelt that he needed

knowledge and judgment for making correct decisions.

In the increasing competition in civilization the well-in-

formed ^ man proved himself to be the abler in all departments of life. Socrates expressed himself most clearly as
to this condition,

when

he, applying the case to morals,

declared that true virtue consists in knowing, and that right

to

knowing leads always of itself to right acting. Thereby know the Good was elevated to the essence of morality and reflection to the principle of living. Philosophy, as Socrates understood it, was the independent meditation of reasoning man upon that law of goodness valid for all Knowledge is a moral possession, and the common alike.
^

striving for

fulness
1 2

it he designated as a process of mutual helpunder the name eptu?. On the other hand, this

See Xen. Mem.,

Ihid., 9, 10
ff.

III. 9, 4.

3 This is the Socratic concept cf epojs, whose extreme importance appears in the fact that not only Plato and Xenophon, but also other Compare friends within the Socratic circle, have written about it.

Brandis, Handbuch, II.

1,

64.

132

HISTORY OF

AM

IKNT rillLOSOI'lI V.

point of view involved a deterministic and intellectnal conception of the will, which

makes moral excellence depend-

ent upon intellectual culture, and in rencral the decision of

will exclusively

dependent on the clearness and ripeness

of the insight.

When

he assei'ted that
insi<>:lit,*

all

evil action prois

ceeds only out of a deficient

this

the

same as

proclaiming entirely

in the sjirit of

the Enlightenment that

knowledge
virtues

is

the

ethical

accord with
this

Vov Socrates all other the fundamental virtue, i-jriaTt'^fjiri?

ideal.
all

and possessing
teachable.

the

others

are

attainable

The process begun

at the time of the

and Seven
;

Wise Men was completed in these definitions of Socrates and the norms of universal consciousness, after they had for
a time been imperilled by individual criticism, during the

wild anarchy of opinions were again found by rational reflection

and by the recognition

of the universal validity

therein involved.
the teachableness of virtue is treated in a most in the dialogue Protagoras^ while the other dialogues of Plato's earliest period have for their common theme the reduetion of the single virtues to tlie fundameutal virtue of knowledge. These are Eathi/phro, loaches, Charmides^ and LijKis. Compare F. Dittrich, >' S. sententia rirtvtem esse

The question of

engaging dialectic

and partieularly T. Wildauer, Willens bei Sokrntes^ Piaton und ArisBesides, the determinism of toteles, Parti. (Innsbruck, 1877). Socrates stands in a close relation to his eud;>?monism (see l)elow). For the proposition that no one will freely do wrong is founded upon the same basis with that proposition that if one has recognized what is good for him it would be impossible Comfor him to choose the opposite against his own interest. pare Xen. Mem., IV. 6, 6; Arist. Magn. Jloral., I. 9, 1187 a,
srientiaiii

(Braunsberg, 1868)

Die

Psif('holoi/!e des

17.

this
1
-

In the realm of ethics, moreover, Socrates stopped at most general suggestion without developing systeXen. Mem III. 9. In Xcnujjhon one
,

still

finds the

word

aoc^ia for this

see

Mem.,

m.

9.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

'

133

matigally that kind of knowing ( Wissoi') in which virFor the distinctive trait of the tue was said to consist.
activity of Socrates

given conditions.
the the

was that he never lost sight of the Therefore the question, " What then is
the question as to what
is

Good?" always became

Good
;

in a particular respect

and

for a particular indi-

and the answer was always found in the suitable, which perfectly satisfies the striving of man and makes him happy. According to the grosser ^ interpretation of Xenophtju, Socrates' ethical theory was utilitarianism, and the value of virtue founded on knowing sank to
vidual
^

in that

the prudential cleverness of acting in every case according

to correct

knowledge {Erkenntnis)
identical
its

of expediency.

The

finer

presentation of Plato refers, however, this

is

oo<f)e\Lfj,ov,

which
to the

assumed as
perfection.
is

with koXov and

a.'yadv,

health of the soul,^ to

of

furtherance toward a true state

cases, nevertheless,
intellectual

In both

virtue

identified with happiness.^

which insight guides, makes

tic,

man

Right action, toward happy. The fundamental

thoroughly eudaemonisthis point.

conception of ethics in Socrates

is

and ancient philosophy did not pass beyond

Compare M. Heinze, Der Exidmonismus in der c/riech. Philos. (Leipzig, 1883) Zeller, IT*. 149 f. In all particulars the Socratie morals remained essential!}' Mithin the compass of Greek social-consciousness. ^ It sought to find a basis in the
;

Mem.,
in

III. 8.
it

In whose writintrs, in one passage,

would appear that Socrates

8,

agreed
/ravra
KaKcos.
^ * ^

morals with the relativism of the Sophists: Mem., III.

Kai

dyadu

KuXd eari npos a av ev

f)(rj,

kokii 8f Koi atcrxpa

wpos a av

Particularly note the representation of the Phcedo.

Xen. ^fem., IV.

1. 2.

To
is

be excepted

is

only the prohibition of doing evil to an enemy.

If here the contradiction

between Plato's and Xenophon's representaare inclined to regard Plato's report as the this prohibition as one already long

tions

irreconcilable,
:

we

true one

for the Crilo,

which treats

134

iiisroKv OK ANCir.Nr imiilosoi'iiy.

reverent recognition of divine law am] established nsagc. Particularh' Socrates himself, the model of noble and pnre morals, gave high place to civic virtue, to submission to tlie laws of the state. In tiic state, however, he would have not the masses, but
the

good and

intelligent, rule

(Xcn.

Jlefu., 111. 9, 10).

Socrates personally

supplemented

his

indifference

to

metaphysical and physical theories by a deep and religious

piety,

which led him

to believe in the rule of the divine es-

sence in nature and in

human

life.

He

likewise supple-

mented the unswerving

rationalistic one-sidcdness of his ethics by his

faith in obedience to the divine voice,

which ho

believed he heard in himself as Baifioviov.

Likewise in the development of this thought, Xcnophon, provided the extant form of the Meiiiorabilia conies (roui him, stood at the point of view of commonplace utility, while Plato's Apologt/ repiesents faith in Providence in a high ethical light. In Socrates the rejection of nature knowledge comes about from the fact that such knowledge contains trifles that waste our time.^ On the other hand, there was the interest of piety, which It is imled ^ him to require a teleological view of the cosmos. probable that he gave an exhaustive development of it, because {JIf'?ii., I. 4, and IV. 3) Socrates usually was most prudently reserved on such questions. Even ]\Ionotheism he by no means emphasized sliarply. He speaks mostly of " the Gods," both in Xenophon and Plato, and no enemv ever once charged him with disavowing '- the Gods." ^ Concerning the Sat/^oviuF, compare

Ueberweg,

I^.

107,

and

Zeller,

W.

74.

lie

Regarded on the whole, the activity of Socrates, in that set up the ideal of reason as against relativism, was an attempt to reform the life morally by means of science.
of his teaching led
circle, thouji^h

The success

among

the best friends of

recognized in the Socratic

indeed at variance with popu-

lar opinion, clearly belongs to the earliest writings of Plato.

*

Ibid., T. 4,

Xen. Mem., I. 1, and IV. and IV. 3. He was reproached with

7.

introducin^ a

new

divine being, and his

Saiixouiou.

enemies ajipeared to be aiming especially at the

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

the

13o

philosopher to the highest

achievements of ancient

The principle of reflective introspection, however, which was thus victoriously awakened, and the enthusiasm with which Socrates turned his meditations from the charm
culture.
of external existence to the value of the intellectual
life,

were in the Grecian world a new and strange thing. At this point of view the philosophy embodied by him detached itself from its background of culture and took other shape.
28,

Under

the

name

'"Socratics" a number of schools

are usually grouped, which, founded by

men

of

more or

less

close association with Socrates, stepped forth, directly after his death, with opinions that belonged in their direction

and

content entirely to the Greek Enlightenment.

nevertheless,

If

we

look,

more
;

teaching have a

closely, we see that these men and their much nearer relationship to the Sophists ^

than to Socrates
of

and that, especially in the development these schools, the " Socratic element," which to some
still

degree was
called

present in Euclid, Antisthenes, and Aris-

tippus, vanishes

more and more from

should

sight.

These

so-

" Socratic schools "

rather

be

viewed as

branches of Sophism which were touched by the Socratic spirit. There were four such schools the Megarian and
:

the Elean-Eretrian. the Cynic and the Cyrenaic.

these the Cynics stand nearest to Socrates.

Among

XI.

F. Hermann. Die p/ti/os. Stelhotg der lteren Sokratiker Ihrer Sdoilen (in Ges. Abhandl., Gttingen, 1849, p. 227 f.) Th. Ziegler, G'sch. d. Ethik, I. 145.
;

K.

The founder

of the Meo-arian school, Euclid, believed in

tlie

his al)ility to give content to

Eleatic concept of Being,

by identifying it with the Socratic concept of the Good. Yet no victory over the abstract sterility of the Parmenidean principle was won by this method. For even if
1

Aristotle calls {Met., 11.

2,

99G a,

.33),

for example, Aristippus a

Sophist, and witli justice.

ir.G

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PIIILOSOPIIY.

defined^
wliieli is
tlic

Euclid
Being,

Clood as
^

tlic

one evev iminuiahle^

;

given

different

names by men

even

if

he

characterized

the different

virtnes only as the changing

of the one unchangeable virtue, that is, of knowing, which was thus identified with Being as among the Eleatics ; even if he thereby refused * reality to all concepts other nevertheless all this led than to that of the Good neither to the construction of an ethics nor to an enrichment of theoretical knowledge, but gave evidence of a con;

names

tinuation of unfruitful dialectic in the direction of Eleatic

Sophistry.

The Megarians,

therefore, accomplished noth-

ing in the realm of ethics.

The

only one of

fhem

to

whom

political teachings are ascribed

of the

school, who, however, in

was Stelpo, the later head this respect had entirely

In metaphysics the

adopted the views of the Cynics.

Megarians were

satisfied

with the assertion of the unity of

In

that whicli possesses Being, and with an indirect proof of

that assertion resembling the Eleatic argumentations.

this spirit
^

Diodorus Cronus added to the arguments of Zeno new ones which were indeed less significant and far more captious. In these the impossibility of constructing a continuum out of a sum of discrete quantities again played the chief rule. There was a similar tendency manifested in the investigations of the Megarians concerning the For the assertion that only the categories of modality. ^ is possible, and the famous proof {Kvpievutv) " of actual Diodorus Cronus that the unactual, which has demon-

Diog. Laert., VII. IGl.

Cicero, Acad., II. 42, 129.

'

*
''

Diog. Laert
Ibid.:

II. lOG.

compare Euseb. Prcep. ev., XTY. 17. Preserved in Sext. Enip. Adr. math., X. 85
Arist. Met., VIII. 3, 1046 b, 29.

f.

' Compare Cicero, De fato, G, 12 f. Later idiilosophers, particularly Chrysippus, have definitely declared their positions with reference to

this arjfument.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

stratcd itself through
its

137

not he called possihle

point

unactuality to he impossible,

may

only in a rather abstract

Avay to the refutation of

Becoming and change.^

Deycks, Die Megaricorum doctrina (Bonn, J^cole de Jfer/are (Paris, 1S18) Mallet, Histoire de Pecole de Megre et des ecoles d'^lis et d' ^retrie

Compare

F.

1827); Henne,
(Paris, 1845).

We can only speak in general of the dates of the life of Euclid of Megara, one of the oldest and truest friends that lie was not much younger than Socrates, yet he .Socrates had. considerably outUved him, and opened after the deatli of the master his hospitable house to his friends. About this time a school formed itself around him, and it appears to have remained intact througli the fourth century. Of the most of those who are mentioned as adherents of this school, we know only tlie names. Particulars are reported only of Eubulides of Miletus, the teacher of Demosthenes, of Diodorus Cronus, of lasus in Caria (d. 307), and especially of Stilpo, who was a native of Megara (Diog. Laert., II. 113 f.). Stilpo lived from 3(S0 to 300, and aroused universal admiration b}- his lectures. He linked the IMcgarian dialectics to the Cynic ethics, and decisively influenced thereby his chief pupil, Zeno, the founder of Stoicism. His younger contemporary was Alexinus of Elis. The most important controversial question arising in reference to the Megarian school concerns the hypothesis set up b}' Scldeiermacher (in his translation of Plato, V. 2, 140 f.) and opposed by Ritter {Urber d. Philos. der meg. Schule^ Mhein. 3lus., 1828) and Mallet (loc. cit. XXXIV. f.), accepted by most others, including Brandis and PrantI, and defended by Zeller (P. 215 f.). This hypothesis is to the effect that the representation of the theory of Ideas in tiie dialogue, the Sophist (246 b, 248 f.), refers to the Megarians. If one is convinced that this dialogue is genuineh' Platonic, it is difficult to provide for this theory of Ideas. For to presuppose any kind of an otherwise unknown school (Ritter) as the author of so significant a
1

Since Aristotle cites the proposition as Megarian, that only the

is

actual

the possible,

it

can

scarcely have arisen from the polemic

against the Aristotelian categories bvvay.is and eVepyeta.

But possibly

the later Megarians, for example Diodorus, developed

it

in this direction.

Compare Hartenstein, Ueber

die

die

Geschichte der metaphysischen Probleme

f.).

Bedeutung der viegarischen Schule fr (in Hist, philos. Abhand-

lungen, 127

l;')S

IIISIOKV OK ANCIKNT rUILOSOlMI V.

system us that of the (uTM/xarn i8t;, is forbidden because Aristotlo (Ml, I. 6; Nie. Ef/i.y I. 4) designated Plato distinctly as the inventor of the same. It is certainly very far from having any place in the Socratic schools, lint the teaching is even as little consistent with what has been at other times conlidently ascribed to the Megarians as with the teaching of any one of the other schools. In no place is there a single indication of it. It stands in so abrupt oi)position especially to the abstract theory of Being of the Megarians, that we do not avoid the diilicMlty by taking for granted a gradual development within the school.' On the other hand, it may be shown that the description which the dialogue, the /S<>phi,'<t, gives of this theory of Ideas, agrees completely and even verball}' with that phase of the Platonic philosophy expressed in the S;/>iiposiu)n.^ There is, accordingh', nothing left but either accept Plato as opposed to an earlier phase of his own teaching and its <^tAot, or to find the author of this criticism of the Platonic philosophy in an In (For details, see Ch. V.) Eleatic contemporary of Plato. neither case can the theory of Ideas treated in the passage in the Sophist., nor the developed theory of knowledge connected closely with it and completely Platonic in character, be ascribed This theory in the Sophist amounts to a to the Megarians. sensuous knowledge of yc'ietri^, or a knowledge of the corporeal world plus a conceptual knowledge of ova-La, which is a knowledge of the non-corporeal Ideas.

The only remaining

to the

feature worthy of
is its

comment

in regard

Megarian school
Eristic.
Its

development of the Sophistic

theory of unity involved a

art

of

abstract
all

skepticism regarding
tive trend
1

concrete knowledge and a nega-

in its instruction.

The prominent

fact in re-

Zeller

seems to believe (11^ 261) that the Euclidean theory of

unity.

Ideas was given up in the course of the development of the school to

satisfy the theory of

Since the latter theory had beeti given

form of Eleaticism there must then be expected conversely a gradual division of the Eleatic One into a pluralfrom the very beginning
ity of bJeas
^

in the

and

this

is

precisely what Plato accomplished.

d.

See E. Appel, Arch. f. Gesch.

In this connection there
is

Ph., V. 55

f.

hardly an allusion to Ideas as causes of

Tlie oiaia as airm is first introZeller, I*. 31G the phenomenal world. duced in the Phcedo, Philebus, and the latter parts of the Republic. See Ch. V.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

spect to Euclid isthat he in pulemics followed the
of neglecting proofs

1;39

method^

and even premises, and leaped directly to the conchision by mean 5 of reduefio ad absurdum. Stilpo
accepted the Sophistic-Cynic assertion, that according to the law of identity a predicate different from the subject

cannot be ascribed to the subject.

the so-called " catches."
a

The younger members,

in

Eubulides and Alexinus,^ got their notorietv by inventino"

These are questions put

such

way

that no one of the possible disjunctive answers can

be given without involving a contradiction.

See Prantl, Gesch. der Logik. I. 33 f. Diog. Laert.. II. 168, enumerates seven of these "catches," the Liar, then three practically identical ones, the Concealed, the Disguised, and the Eltctra., and further the Horned 3Ian, and finalTy the Heap (Sorites) and the Bald-head, which positively and negatively suggest the acerrus of Zeno (20). As was the case with the Sophistic witticisms, these were in the main reducil)le to verbal ambiguities. The livel}- interest that antiquity had in them was almost wholly pathological.

Still less significant was the Elean-Eretrian school, which was founded by Phi^do, Socrates' favorite scholar, in his Later it was transferred by Menedemus native city Elis. to his home, Eretria, where it died out about the beginning

of the third century.

It

appears to have taken a similar

school and Pha?do
essentials.

line of development as the Megarian

agreed with Euclid

in

all

Menedemus, who
Stilpo, co-

received instruction in the

Academy and from

operated with Stilpo in turning the school toward Cynic

ethics.

Both schools merged

finally, like the Cynic, in the

Stoa.
1

Diog. Laert., II. 107.

Whose name was

facetiously

perverted into 'EXfy^t-or:

Diog.

Laert., II. 109.

Presumablv he had received powerful influence from Euclid dui>

ing his stay in Megara.

140

HISTORY OF AXCIKNT
;

rillLOSOPIIY.

sc/u'ck'safe

Compare ISIallet (see above) !>. Preller, Phmdou'n J^ebensund Schriften (AVsc/i und Grulin\ III. 21. .S")7 f.) v.
;

Wilamo\vitz-M()lleiuirf {H'-rnies, 1879). Pbivdo, when very \oiing, was taken into captivitv liy the Athenians, and not long before Socrates" deatii he was, at the instigation of Socrates, freed from shivery b^- one of his friends. The genuineness of the dialogues ascribed to him was early verj' much in doubt. At any rate, as little from the literary activity of this school is preserved as from that of the Megarians. Menedemus. who is said to have died soon after 271 at the age of seventy-four, had (Diog. Laert., II. 125 f.) raised himself from a very low position to one of considerable authority. It is now impossible to tleterniine wliether his apparently loose and transitory relation to the Academy was a fact. Onl}' the names of the other members of the school are preserved.
29.

Notably more important are the two schools existing

ethical

immediately after Socrates and not uninfluenced by his In these, the Cynic and Cyrenaic, the doctrine.
life

opposition as to both moral and social conceptions of

took definite form.

for theoretic science

They had

in

common an
also

indifference

and a desire

to concentrate philosophy

upon the
thcii-

art of living.

i)hilosophy

from the Sophistic

in

partial support

was the origin of and they found formulations of Socrates. the They
circle
;

Common

were, however, diametrically opposed in their conception of

the place of

man and his relation to society. This remained a typical opposition for the whole ancient world. Both theories as the result of the cultural and philosophimpulse given by the Sophists reveal the disposition
of the Grecian

ical

possesses in

mon

world toward the value which civilization This comproblem put the same limits u{)on their endeavors in
its

control of individual impulses.

spite of their different conclusions.

The Cynic

school

was

called into life by Antisthenes of

its

Athens, and maintained

distant followers

popularity on account of the

original character, Diogenes of Sinope.

Among

its

more

may

be

named Crates

of Thebes, his wife

Hipparchia, and her brother Metrocles.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT.

141

Antisthenes, born about 440, was not a full-blooded Athenian. had entered the Sophistic profession of teaching as the pupil of Gorgias, before lie came under the influence of Socrates, whose active admirer he became. After the death of Socrates he founded a school in the gymnasium Cynosarges, which he Of his numerous writings administered for quite a time. (Diog. Laert. VI. 15 f.) only a few fragments are preserved, collected bv A. W. Winckelmann (Zurich, 1842). Compare Chappuis, Antisthene (Paris, 1804) K. Barlen, Antisthenes u. Fkiton (Neuwied, 1891); K. Urban, C'eber die Enrhnimgen der Philos. des Antisthenes in den 2^^'donischen Schriften (Knigsberg, 1882) F. DUmmler, Antisthenica (Halle, 1882) &r\d Akadeinika (G'lQSSQW, 1889); E. Norden, i>'e<7m(/ez. Gesch. d.gr. Ph., 1-4. Diogenes, the SujKpaTr;? ;xaivd;u,evos, fled as a counterfeiter from his home to Athens, and ornamented his proletariat and queer existence with the wisdom of Antisthenes. He claimed to put the theory of his teacher consistently into practice. In old age he lived as tutor in the house of Xeniades in Corinth, and died there in 323. Compare K. W. Gttling, Diogenes der I\y)iiker oderd. Phil, des gr. Proletariats ( Geschieh. AbhancU., I. 251 f.) K. Steinhart (Brsch u. Graber, I. 25, 301 f.) Crates of Thebes, nearly contemporary of Stilpo. is said to have given away his property in order to dedicate himself to His rich and nobly connected wife followed the C3nic life. Anecdotes only are preserved him into a beggar's existence. Cynicism continued concerning his l)rother-in-law. Metrocles. for example in Teles, later as a ])opular moralizing instruction

He

whom

Wilamowitz-Mollendorf treats {Philol. UntersKchungen, IV. 292 f."). and whose fragments have been published by O. Hense (Freiburg, 1889). Later do we find Cynicism in Bion of Borysthenes, wliose sermons greatly influenced later literature (Horace),^ as upon the other hand the satires of the Thcenician Menippus, which breathe the Cynic spirit, influenced Varro. See Zeller, IP. 246, 3.
V.

As

only the

Good was Being

life.

for the

Mcgarians, for

the Cynics virtue appeared to be the only legitimate content and purpose of
"With similar Eleatic one-sidcdall

ness they remained averse to

ful of

other ideals and disdain-

them.

They

tauglit indeed, like Socrates, that virtue

consists in knowing, and yet they emphasized the practical

^

Compare R. Heinze, De Honitio Bionis

imitatore

(Bonn, 1889).

142
side, that

IIISTOKY OF ANCIKNT
is,

I'lIlLt )S()1'11 V.

right action, and

of

especially the
^

consistent

earning out
tific

moral principles

in

life.

They

like-

Avise attributed

only so
as

much

value, therefore, to scien-

investigations

those investigations

serve ethical

purposes.
It is to be

added that

in its

epistemology also this school

stood entirely ujion the

It indeed

ground of Sophistic skepticism.

sounds to some degree Socratic for Antisthcnes to demand ^ the explanation of the permanent essence of Yet in his develoi)ment of this postilings by definition. tulate he fell back upon the opinion of Gorgias that of no
subject can an attribute differing in
j)redicated.

any way from

it

be

He made

it

equivalent to the statement that

only identical judgments are possible.^

the composite are definable
;^ all

Accordingly only

simple things, on the other

only by their peculiar individual names, which, however, do not explain the essence of the Thus their theory of knowledge reduced itself fact itself.

hand, can be indicated

to bare skepticism

and

it

also manifested itself in Antis-

thenes adopting the Sophistic teaching that a contradic

tion is wholly impossible.^
Antisthenes this consistency, this serious adherence to principles, was the central point. Diogenes intended assuredly to outdo him in this respect.
1

Even

in the character of

and

strict

2 '

To him

belongs the definition Xoyos

'orii'

6 to tI

tjv

>j

<ttl BtjXv.

That the place

in the So/jhlst, 251 b, refers to Antisthenes, Aristotle

teaches in Metaphysics, IV. 29, 1024 b, 32.

* 6

Compare Aristotle, ibid., VII. 3, 1043 b, 24. The logically central truth of the Cynic teaching appears
f.).

in the

Platonic statement {TheceL, 201

This truth

is

that the ultimate

terms

(to.

npra) by which

all else

may be

defined are themselves not

definable or reducible to something else.

Tliis opinion is closely joined

with that whijli

a-Toix(7a,

looks upon these last

all

elements of concepts as the

by which

things are really constituted.

This

is

a view

which

in a certain sense

sounds like the homoiomeriai of Anaxagoras,

1024 b, 34.

and
6

also like the Platonic theory of Ideas.

Arist. Met., IV.

2'J,

THE GKEEK ENElGilTENMENT

143

This purely Sophistic limitation of knowledge to nomenclature had taken on as a mo.st obvious nominalism a distinct polemical tendency against the theory of Ideas. The old tradition placed in the mouths of Antisthenes and Diogenes rough and coarse
ridicule of the Platonic theory (Tpa7re4i' opw, TpaireCTrjra 6'ov)(^ compare Schol. in Ariat., 66 b, 45, bp^, Diog. Laert., VI. 53
;

of the Cynics only The class concepts are single things existed iu natura rerum. only names without content. At the same time it is evident that, since the essence of a thing did not seem to them logically determinable, tliey claimed that it was producible only in sense Thus they fell into the coarse materialism which perception. regards a thing as actual only as the thing can be held in the
etc.
;

Zeller,

IP. 2)

for these leaders

hand.

TAecetetus, 155

Presumabl}' this fact is meant in the Sophist, 246 a e, Ph(edo, 79 f. Compare Natorp, Forschungen,

198

f.

So much the more was the science of these

to their theoretically

men

limited

meagre doctrine

of yirtue.

Virtue,

and

it

alone,

is is

sufficient to satisfy- all strivings for happi-

ness.

Virtue

not only the highest, but the only good,

the only certain

spiritual

Over against this of being happy. and therefore sure possession, which is protected

means

against all the changes of the fateful world, the Cynics

despised all that

is of

men

otherwise held dear.

is to

Virtue alone
;

worth

wickedness alone

be shunned

all else is

indifferent {SLdcf)opov^}

From

this principle they taught

the contempt of riches and luxuiy, of fame and honor, of

sistency,

But with this radical conwhich ever grew sharper with them, they also despised all the joy and beauty of life, all shame and conventionality, family and country.
sense-pleasure and sense-pain.

of these philosophical beggars coarse witticisms and ver}- many anecdotes relate to Diogenes. There is very little of serious investigation in their moralizing. Antisthenes appears to assert the worthlessness of pleasure, perhaps against Aristippus, and to have sought to demonstrate that man witli sucii a conviction, even if it be not entirely right, would be proof against the
raoralization

The obtrusive

appears mainly

in their

Diog. Laert., VI. 105.

144

iiiS'ioRV

OF ANCiKXT riiiLosoriiv

slavery of sense pleasure.^ In Diogenes this disgust of all external goods grew to the ijllosoi)liic:il grim humor of a proletarian, who has staked his cause on nothing. Irrespective of the mental culture to which, so far as it concerns viitue, he ascribed some worth,- he contended against all the devices of civilization as superllm>us, foolisii, and dangerous to virtue. Most dubious in all lliis was the shamelessness of wiiich the

Cynics were guilty, and

\

llieir
;

i-ulions of sexual relations

intentional disregard of all tiie consimilar too was their inditlVrence

For the cosmopolitanism in had not the positive content of a universal human ideal, but sought only to free the individual from every limitation imposed upon him by civilization. In particular, the Cynics fought against slavery as unnatural and unjust, just as already the Sophists had fought. On the other hand, it must not remain unnoticed that Antistiienes,^ in defiance of the judgment of Greek society, declared tiiat work is a good. Cynicism finally reckoned also religion among the a8i<^opa. All mythical ideas and religious ceremonies fall under the class of the conventionally determined, the unnatural, and are excusable onh" because they may be regarded as allegorical expressions of moral concepts. Positiveh' the Cynics represented an abstract monotheism which finds in virtue the true worship of God.
stale.^
*

and to tiie which Diogenes took pride

to the family life

minations

The fundamental purpose of Cynicism in all these deterThe wise is to make man entirely independent.
to

man
^

whom

virtue, once gained,^ is a

liis

permanent" pos^

session, stands in

complete
1,

self-sufficiency
a,

over against

See Arist. Eth. Nie, X.

It
is

1172

31; on the contrary, Plato

(Phiteb., 44

b) can hardly be regarded as referring to

Antisthenes
f.,

(Zeller, 11*. 308, 1).

probable that jjlaees like the Republic, 583

refer to Democritus.
2 ^

See below,

33 and 31.

Diog. Laert., VI. 68, and elsewhere.

From Diogenes
This
is

on, the Cynics

had wives and children

in

common.

{Ibid., 72.)

only one of the instances that they manifested of

a levelling radicalism (in distinction from Plato).

*
'-

Lor.

cit.

C3: see

ibid., 11, 38, 72, 98.

Ibid., 2.
It

**

can also be teachable, but more through practice than through

Ihid., lO.j
\'J.

scientific instruction.
7

f.,

70,

Xen. Mem.,

1, 2,

Diog. Laert.,

\L

11

f.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT

the great

145

mass of fools. His reward is the perfect independence in which he is equal ^ to the undesiring gods. In order to be as independent of external goods as possible, he reduces his needs to those most external. The less one needs, the happier ^ one is. The Cynic Wise Man feels himself free from society also; he sees through its prejudices he despises " its talk its laws and its conventions do not bind him. The independent lordship of the virtuous Wise Man does not need civilization and casts it
; ;

aside.

The
is

Sophistic

opposition of

(pvai'i

and

vo/xo^ is

constructed into a principle, and all

statute

human

limitation by

unnatural, superfluous, and in part corrupting.

From

the midst of the fulness and beauty of Greek civiliza-

Cynic preaches the return to a state of nature which would avoid all the dangers of civilization indeed, but would forfeit all its blessings.
tion, the

30.

The joyous wisdom

of

of the life of the Cyrenaics

formed

the completest antithesis to the morose seriousness of the

virtue

the

Cynics.

The

leader
of

of

this

school

was

Aristippus of Cyrene, a

man
circle,

the

world,

who once

belonged to the Socratic

but at other times led a

his

wandering

life

as a Sophist.

Through

daughter Arete

his conception of life

passed

down

to his grandson, the

younger Aristippus.
out

Soon

after this the school

branched

with

the

special
atheist,

interpretations

which

men

like

Theodoras the
the

Anniceris, and Hegesias gave to

Aristippian
is

principle.

Among

later

representatives

Euemerus
1

to be mentioned.

Diog. Laert., VI. 51.

4,

See the self-description of Antisthenes in Xenophon's Symposium, f. In this respect Cynicism showed that Eudajmonism is logically absence of need. From the eudteniunistic point of view, then, the goal is
2

34

the renunciation and suppression of

'

all

avoidable desire.

Thus Diogenes accepted

the designation of kvwv, which

nally a witticism in reference to the seat of the school, the

was origigymnasiuou

Cynosargus.
10

146

IIISTOKY OF ANelKNT rillLOSOI'II

the birth and death of Aristippus cannot be determined his life included from thirty to forty years in the fiftli and fourth centuries (43-;5GO). When he was young lie was intluenced to come to Athens by the fame of Socrates, and often during the course of his life did he return to That he for some time lived in Syracuse in the court that city. of the older ami younger Dionysius, that he pr(l)al)ly met Plato The foijnding of his school in there, cannot well be doubted. his native city, the rich and luxurious Cyrcne, occuired probablv at the end of his life, since all the known adherents to C!onipare H. v. the school were considerably younger than he.

The years of

ver}- exactly

Stein,
i/es

De

vita Aristippi (G()ttingeu, 185), also his Ge.sc/iic/ite

'

Plato isniuti, 11. GOf The technical development of the theory seems to have been completed by the grandson (fxjjTpoSaKTos:), of whom nothing Theodorus was driven out of his home, further is known. lie lived Cyrene, soon after the death of Alexander the Great, in exile for some time in Athens and at the court of Egypt, but he returned finally to Cyrene. Anniceris and Ilcgesias (ttcio-iIlegesias ai'UTo?) were contemporaries of Ptolemanis Lagi. wrote a treatise the title of which Cicero mentioned as 'Airo/capEuemerus, probably of Messene (about TcpCji' ( Tasc, 1. 34, 84). 300), set his views forth in what were well known to antiquity as the Upa dvaypacfir]. Compare O. Sieroca, J)e Euonerus (Knigsberg, ISG'J). The smaller fragments are in Mullach, II. 3D7 f. Compare J. F. Thrige, lies Cyrencsium (Copenhagen, 1878); A. Wendt, De p/iilos. Cyrenaica (Gttingen, 1841); Wieland (Aristip., 4 vols., Leipzig, 1800 f.) also gives a graceful and expert
exposition.

In his theory of life, Aristippus followed closely the teaching of Protagoras,^ just as Antisthenes followed the Indeed he developed the relativism direction of Gorgias.
of the

valuable psychology of the sense feelings.

tion instructs us only as to our
1

Protagorean theory of perception to a remarkably Sense percep-

own
XIV.

states (irddr]),^
18,
.31.

and

is

A<'Corrlincr to
.344.

Eusebius, Prcrp.

er.,

Compare, besides,

Zeller, It<
2

Which was

coniniiinical<'(i to iiiin
i

perhaps by his fellow-citizen, the

The(r'tetufi).

niatheinatician

Theodorus compare Plato, Sext. Emp. Adv. math., VII. IUI f.

THE GKEEK ENLIGHTENMENT

not concerned with the causes of those states

147
(^ra irewotr]'
;

Kora

TO,

Trddr]').

The causes

are

not recognizable

our

knowledge directs itself only to the changes of our own Sensations, since essence, and these alone concern us.
they are a consciousness of our
true.^

own

condition, are always

In this

spirit the

Cyrenaics assumed an attitude of

skeptical indifference to natural science.

They followed
his

Protagoras in the individualistic turn of this theory whenthey

asserted
that

the

individual

knows only
is

own

sensations, and

common nomenclature

no guarantee of

similarity in the content of the thought.

That these episteniological investigations of the school of Aristippus were used for a basis of their ethics but did not evoke their ethics, is proved for the most part b}' the subordinate position which thev received in the later systematizations of the school. According to Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math., VII. 11), concernthe treatment at this time was divided into five parts concerning the states of the soul (TrdOrj) ing good and evil and, finally, coiicerning external causes concerning actions concerning the criteria of truth (Trta-Tets).
:
; ; ; ;

However, the fundamental problem

of

of

the

Cyrenaics

(as of the Cynics) was that concerning the real happiness

man, and they emphasized simply the included moment mind to which As, however, Protagoras had reknowledge is limited.
of pleasure or displeasure in those states of

ferred the theoretic content of perception to differing corporeal motions, the Cyrenaics sought to derive also the

affective tone of the same from the different states ofi^ motion of him perceiving.^ Gentle motion (Xeta KivijaK;)

corresponds to pleasure
1 2 3

{r^hovrf), violent
f.
;

(^rpax^'i^cL)

to dis-

Sext. Sext.

Emp. Emp.

Arlv. math., VII. 191

op.
cit.
;

farther, Diog. Laert., 11. 92.

195.
Dios;.

Eusebius, he.

cit.
f.,

Laert

II.

8G

f.

Likewise the exposition

in the Philebus,

42

with the ndura

II*.

pt'i,

which brings this teaching directly into connection presumably refers to Aristippus. Compare Zeller,

352

f.

148

iiiSTOKv OF ANCiKXT riiiLosoriiv

pleasure (ttoVos), rest from motion to absence of pleasure

and pain

(^dijSovia

Koi airovia^.

Since

now

these three

possibilities include the

whole range of stimuli, there are

only two, perhaps three Trddr]: pleasant (7}8ea), unpleasant

(dXyetvd), and the states of indifference between them {to,

/Mera^v).^

Since, however,
is

among

these

three

possible

states, pleasure alone

worth striving
gives
bad.

for, rjBouij is
is

the

only goal of the will

or
the

(re'Xo?),

and accordingly

happiness
is is

Good itself. Whatever Whatever creates displeasure is

pleasure

good.
indif-

All else

ferent.

The question concerning the content

of the concept of

the Good, which was not really answered by Socrates, was

answered by these Hedonists, in that they declared pleasure to be this content, and indeed all pleasures, whatever their
occasion,^ to be indistinguishable.

By

this only the single

momentary
moment.^

state of pleasure is

meant.

The

highest, the

only good, for these Hedonists was the enjovment of the

P>04Ti these presuppositions the Hedonists concluded, with entire correctness, that the distinction of value between single fuflings of pleasure is determined not by the content or the cause, but only by the intensity of the feelings. They asserted

that the degree of intensity of the bodily feelings is greater than that of the si)iritual feelings.-* The later Cyrenaics, particularly Thcodorus,^ came therefore to the conclusion that the Wise Man need not regard himself restricted by law, convention, or indeed religious scruples, but he should so use things as to serve his pleasure best. Here, again, tiie Sophistic antithesis between 10//0S and 4)V(rL^''' is repeated, and the natural individual |)leasurahle feeling is taken as the absolute motive of action. Still more pronounced than in the degenerate phases of Cynicism appeared here the egoistic, naturalistic, and individnalistic trait which is l)asal in the couimon problem of l)oth theories. On the other
1

Scxt. Einp. np.

cit.

199.
\).

piato, Philebux, 12(1.

7,

'
*

See A. Lange, Gesch. des Mater.,

I)io<T.

3
&

2 ed.

Laert., II. 90.

Ibid., 99.

'

See

ibid., 93.

THE GREEK ENLIGHTENMENT

149

hand, Anniceris^ sought later to temper this radicalism, and to ennoble the desire for pleasure by emi)hasizing the eiijo\inent of friendship, of family life, and of social organization as more valuable. At the same time he did not lose sight of the egoistic fundamental principle, but onl}- carefully retined it. With this turn in its course, however, the C\renaic philosophy merged into Epicurean hedonism.

Virtue was, accordingly, for Aristippus identical with

the ability to enjoy.
recting
is,

The

utility of science consists in di-

Right enjoyment however, only possible through reasonable self-control

Requisite insight for this frees us from prejuof life in the

men

to the proper satisfaction.

((f)p6vr]cri'i).-

dice,

and teaches us how to use the goods

most reasonable way.

Above

all

else

it

gives to the

Wise

Man

that security in himself by which he remains proof

against weakly yielding to influences of the outer world.

It teaches

him,

w^hile in

himself and his surroundings.

enjoyment, to remain master of The problem for both Cynic

and Cyrenaic was the attainment of this individual independence of the course of the world. The Cynic school
sought independence in renunciation the Cyrenaic in lordship over enjoyment, and Aristippus was right when he
;

said that the latter

was more

difficult

and more valuable

re-

than the former.^

of the

In opposition to the Cynic ideal of

of the perfected

nunciation of the world, the Cyrenaic drew, as his picture

Wise Man, that

man
life,

of the world.

He

is

susceptible to the enjoyment of

he knows what

animal satisfactions are, and how to prize spiritual joy, riches, and honor. In elevated spirit he scrupulously

makes use
tites
;

of

men and

things, but even then never forgets

himself in his enjoyment.

He

remains lord of his appe-

he never wishes the impossible, and even in the few

of his existence he

happy days
^

knows how

to preserve vic-

toriously the peace and serenity of his soul.

Diog. Laert., II. 9G
;

see

Clemens Alex. Strom.,

a

II.

417.

Diog. Laert., II. 91.

JbiJ,^ 75.

150

IlIsroKV OF ANCIKNT I'lIlLOSOl'lIV

AVith these qualifications (reiniiuling us of Socrates), Aristippus went beyoiKl the principU> of ujomciitary enjoyment of pleasure when he, for exiunple, explained activity as reprehensible if, on the whole, it yields more unpleasurableness than pleasure. He recommended on this same ground that there be universal subordination to custom and law. Theodorus then went still further, and sought to tind the rt'Ao? of mankind, not in individual satisfaction, but in serene disposition This (xp)is also already a transition to the Epicurean conception. If the principle that only educated men know how to enjo}' happily veritied itself in the temperament and circumstances of Aristippus, his school on the other hand drew another irresistible consetpience from the hedonistic principle, viz., pessimism. If pleasure is said to give value to life, the greater part of humanity fails of its purpose, and thus life becomes worthless. It was Hegesias who dissipated the theory of Aristippus with this doctrine. The desire for happiness cannot be satisfied,- he taught. No insight, no opulence, protects us from the pain which nature imposes on the body. The highest we can reach and even as TtAos strive for is painlessness, of which death most certainly assures us.^ The particular ethical teachings of Hegesias appear more nearly like the precepts of the Cynics than like many of the expressions of Aristippus.
'

The
nistic

isolation of the individual

shows

itself in

the hedolife.

philosophers

in

their

indifference
his Sophistic

to

public

Aristi])pus rejoiced that in

wanderings no

interest in politics infringed

upon his personal freedom.* Theodorus^ called the world his country, and said that patriotic sacrifice was a folly which the Wise Man is above. These all are sentiments in which the Cynics and Cyrcnaics agree almost verbally, and in these the decline of Greek civilization was most characteristically expressed.
Religious beliefs are among the things which the Hedonists Freedom from shoved one side with sceptical indifference. religious prejudices seemed to them (Diog. Laert.., II. 91) to
1

Diog.

T.a.Tt., 11. 98.

'^

Ihkl, 94

f.

The
in

Itotiirts of IIi'<r('sias -rrdcridvaToi

are said to have been for-

bidden
Cicero,
*

Alexandria because be spoke too much of voluntary death.

I.

Tmc,

34, 83.
II. 1,

Xen. Mem.,

f.

Diog. Laert., II. 98.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

151

It is not related, however, he iiulisi)ens:il)le for the AVisc ]Man. that they set up in any way in opposition to positive religion another conception. Theocloriis proclaimed his atheism quite Eiiemerus devised for an explanation of the belief in openly. gods the theory to-day called after him, and often accepted in modern anthropology in many forms. According to this theor}',

the worship of the gods and heroes is developed from a rever(Cicero, De nat. ence of rulers and otherwise remarkable men. deor., I. 42, 119 ; Sext. Emp. Ado. math., IX. 17.)

5.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM.

DEMOCRITUS AND PLATO.

The Greek Enlightenment had impeded the progress

Greek
its

of

natural science by destroying the naive confidence of the

heing utilized for practical

Science was and was in danger of losing dignity and the independence which it had just achieved.
in the validity of
life,

human knowledge.

On

the other hand, the prevailing interest of the period

in psychology

had widened the

circle

of scientific work.

Logic and ethics had thus heen added to physics,

use the classification of the ancients.
psychical aspects of
life

to

Conceptions of the
conscious of his

now

stood side by side with those

of its physical aspects.

Man had become

share in the construction of the idea of the world.

essence of scientific research was found to consist
in

The
the

examination of concepts and the fundamental proposition of science had its formulation in the law of the domination of the particular by the universal.

At

the

same time,

however, the principle was seen that science could never

give satisfaction
if

it

disregarded the connection between

human
world.

life,

as teleologically determined, and the objective

The

subjective

moment had been sundered

objective,

in its develin a

opment from the

and consequently placed

152

HISTORY OF ANX^IENT
it.

IMIILOSOI'IIV
of

certain opposition to

In

tlio

mutual intci-pcnetration
deepeninj^ of

the two,

iiuil

in the tcnilency ot

these principles to coalesce,

its

did (ireek science liml the proioundest

conceptual
life.

and the greatest broadening of its practical the Peloponnesian war until I'hiiip of MaceFrom
lile

don,

when

the political

life

of (Jreecewas already approachits

ing dissolution, science created

comprehensive systems,

and perfected
associated
Aristotle.

itself

in its ripest undertakings,

which arc

with the three names Democritus, Plato, and

place, as preparation for the final synthetic

In the

first

statement of Aristotle, appeared the two metaj)hysical sys-

tems which expressed the greatest opposition possible within the realm of (Jrcck thought the materialism of Democritus and the idealism of Plato. Both appeared at that culmination point of Greek culture when the flood of Greek life was passing over to its ebb the Democritan system was about three decades before the Platonic, and in a remarkable degree independent of it.
:

Each- system

developed

its
is

doctrine on

a broad

epistc-

mological basis, and each

aphysical

related both positively

negatively to the Greek Enlightenment.

and Both were met-

systems of

outspoken
the time.

i-ationalism.

Each

in

complete exposition compassed

scientific interest of

the entire range of the

Finally, in hoth

became

opposed philosophical which have not been reconciled up to the present time. But there are just as many differences as there are similarities. Although agreeing with Plato as to the Protagorean theory of perception, Democritus turned back to the
defined those
old rationalism of the Eleatics, while Plato created a

views of the world

new
less

ideal Eleaticism out of the Socratic theory of the concept.

Democritus may therefore appear

less progressive

and

original in this respect than Plato. l)nt

we must remember

that as to their general metaj)hysics the principle of phys-

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

ics

153

dominated the Democritaii system, and the principle of Ethics was incidental in the former system, while in the latter physics was the incident.
ethics Uie Flatunic system.

In every direction the theory uf Democritus shows itself to be an attempt to perfect the jihilosophy of nature bv the
aid of the anthropological theories of the

Enlightenment

while Platonism was developed as an original recreation out of the same problems. The historical fate of both
these philosophies was also determined
for
l)y

this relationship,

the materialism of Democritus was pressed into the background from the beginning, while Plato became the determining genius of future philosophy.

The great significance, which in this exposition in distinction from all previous ones is given to Democritus by making him parallel with I'lato, is required solely by historical "accuracy. similar view was, for that matter, very common among the writers of antiquity. As a matter of chronology Democritus, who lived between 430 and 360 ( 31), was about twenty years

younger than Protagoras and ten years younger than Socrates. Although he never came under the direct personal influence of the latter, yet it must bo taken for gi-anted that a man to wLom in all antiquity Aristotle alone was comparable in learning, had not studied the scientific work of the Sophists in vain. To treat him entirely among the pre-Sophistic thinkers, as is customary,^ wonld be justified only if no traces of the inflnence of the Enlightenment are seen in him. We hope to show the contrary in
But, however, this exthe following exposition of his theory. position will not support the attempt to stamp the Democritan theory as a kind of Sophistry, as Schleiermacher and Ritter have made it. The strong bias of judgment and vagueness of treatment that has arisen from this interpretation is sufficiently The i)oints of view and theorepudiated l)y Zeller (I^ 842 f.). ries in Sophistic literature of which Democritus certainly did make use, were arranged by him synthetieallv in a unified metaphysic. but such a metaphysic lay far outside the horizon of
the Sophists. On the other hand, it is to be entirely admitted that even this materialistic metaphysic played a relativel}^

Most unfortunate

in this

connection

is

the arran'^ement of Schwegler-

Kstlin, wliere the Atoniists (as also

Empedocles and Anaxagoras) were

f.

treated before the Eleatics.

3 ed. p. 51

154
imfruitful
tliou'^lit

IITSTOKY OF ANflKNT rillT.c^ROTHY

part
in

ivjuvciKifmjz; aiiciont

tlioiiiiht.

For ancient

took a riatonie teiuU'UCV, and tlicioloio we have l)een verv imi)erteetly taught eoiieerniiii; the Deniucritan theory. But the case is entirely clilTerent when we cousitler the lokole European history of science. Since the time of Galileo, Bacon, and Gassendi. the Deinocritan teaching has become the fundamental metaphysical assumption of modern natural science, and
siiarply we may criticise this theory, we cannot deny significance (Lange, Ge.schichte des Miterialismus, 2 ed., I. Just in this, however, consisted its historical equality 9 f.y

however
its

with Platonism. One of the most striking facts of ancient literature is the apparently perfect silence that Plato maintained concerning Democritiis.^ This was discussed many times in antiquity.^ The Plato neglect is not possibly explained as hate or contempt.'* was very much interested in men like the Cynics and Cyrenaics

whose manner of thought must have been

with his

with men who must that of Democritus, have appeared to him far less significant intellectually. That Plato knew nothing of Democritus is chronologically a matter of If we also admit that Democritus on greatest improbability.

own than

far less in

sympathy

account of his long journeys entered* comparatively late upon his

literary activity, yet the

amount of

his literary

work requires

that its beginning be set distinctly before Plato's first works, and much the more before Plato's later works when Plato wrote The the Symjyosiam, Democritus was seventy-five years old. more remarkable is it that Plato, who otherwise refers to, or at
:

least mentions, all the other early philosophers, ignores not only Democritus, but also the Atomic teaching.^ It must therefore

The name Democritus occurs nowhere in Plato's writings, and there nowhere a mention of the Atomic doctrine. When Plato speaks of materialism (compare above), he cannot possibly have Democritus in
1

is

mind.
2

Diog. Laert., IX. 40.

As

early as Aristoxenus there appears to have been related the

foolish story of the

designed burning of the Democritan books by Plato.

Diog. Laert, op.

*

cit.

The time

of the composition of

his fiiKpoi diUKoafios,

7.30

Democritus

himself (Diog. Laert., IX. 41) places at

years after the destruction of

Troy
6

(see Zeller,
is

I*.

762),

i.

e.

aboiit 420.

the Sophist and the Pannenides whether they be dialogues written by Plato or originating from the Plado not mention Atomism, although there were present tonic circle
It

significant

that

both

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

155

be concluded, at all events, that Atomism the writing of had found no favor within the circle Leucippiis being doubtful of Attic culture. It therefore appears conceivable that the Athenians were entirel}- indifferent to the essentially scientific nature-investigations of Democritus at the time of the Sophists and Socrates. In Athens one worlied at other things, so that Plato even later also made no mention of the writings of the great Atomist in developing his own nature-theories. That he was not really acquainted with them appears to become more and more doubtful. R. Hirzel has pointed out two places {P/iiL, 43 f. Bf^p., 583 f.) where references are made to Democritan ethics {Unttrsuchungen zu Cicero's philos. Schriften^ I. 141 f.). P. Natorp has assented to this {Forschungen, 201 f.), but he has few results in following up " the traces of Democritus in Plato's It would be writings" (Arc/i./. Gesch. d. Philos., I. 515 f.). more satisfactory to seek negative and positive relations to Democritus in Plato's later metaphysic (Philebus) - and in his Compare bephilosophy of nature dependent on it (Timceas). low the references in the remarks to 37.

Democritus of Abdera, the greatest investigator of nature in antiquity, was born about 460, He was first
31.

attracted to scientific research in the school of Leucippus,

probably about the time when Protagoras, who was some twenty years his elder, also belonged to that circle. Hav-

ing the liveliest sense for individual investigation in natuThis ral sciences, he travelled extensively for many years.
led

him through Greece,

for a longer time into Egypt,

and

over a greater part of the Orient.

The exact time

of his

return and the beginning of his literary activity, however,

must remain

a subject for conjecture, and his death can

it

important occasions for

in the Sophist in the discussion of Being,

and
tlie

equal occasions in the Parmenides in the dialectic over the

One and

Many.
^

In any case the expression of Democritus (Diog. Laert., X. 36)

:

is

characteristic

ri\6ov

eh

\\6r]vas koi ovtis

fxe

tyvoiKfv

At

the time of the

Sophists of the Peloponnesian war, no one, not even Socrates, had the
spirit for serious investigation into the
2

nature studies of Democritus.

p. 16)

H. Usener (Preussisches Jahrbuch, LIII.

attention to this {Philebus, 28
f.).

has already given

much

156

IllsroUV OF ANCIKNT I'lIILOSOPHY

lie settled in his

only be approximately set at 360.

in Abdera.
lie

home

became

hijrlily

honored there, and he lived

his direction.

surrounded by those who prosecuted their researches un(k^r He remained distant and apart from the
little

Attic circle of culture, in which

notice was taken of

him, but he
Larissa.

may have been

in occasional intercourse with

the physician Hippocrates,

who

spent his later years in

of Democritus is fixed by approximately safe data, slateiuent (Diog. Laert.. IX. 41) that he was forty years younger than Anaxagoras, and from the statements he made concerning tlie time of the composition of his /lAtKrpos 8tuKo<r/Aos ( 30). The acquaintance of Democritus with the teaching of both his countrymen, Leucippus and Protagoras, is entirely assured b}- the testimony of antiquity and the character of his philosophy. He doubtless knew tiie Kk'atics as well, and one possessed of his great erudition could hardly be ignorant of most of the other physicists. Traces here and there in his system show this. He did not accept the number theory of the Pythagoreans. The friendly relationship to the Pythagoreans, attributed to him,^ can have reference only to his mathematical - researches, and perha|)s in part to his physiological and ethical undertakings. He also api)eared to be very familiar with the theories of the younger physicists. But more important for his develo[)ment of the Atomic theory were, on the one hand, his own very extensive and painstaking researches, and, on the other, the tlieory of perception that he obtained from Protagoras. Whether he gave much attention to the theories of the other Sophists, is still doubtful. They were entirely alien to his metaphysical and scientific tendency. But the thoroughness of his anthropology, the significance that be laid on metaphysical and ethical questions, and the single points which he found valid in them, prove, nevertheless, that he was not uninfluenced by the spirit of his time from which he was otherwise somewhat isolated. All these circumsiances assign to him the place of one who through tiie subjective period of Greek science was the banner bearer of the cosmological metaphysic and in consequence of his partial acceptance of the new elements was
life

The

from

Ills

own

Diog. Laert., IX. 38.

He

prided himself

particularly on
a).

his

mathematical knowledge

(Clemens Alex. Strom., 304

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

157

the finisher of the system. He did not receive the shghtest influence from his great contemporary Socrates. The duration of his travels was at all events considerable, and his sta}- in Egypt alone is given as about five years. ^ He

came to know the greater part of Asia.^ He got nothing philosophical from his travels, especialh' since his thought habitually avoided everything mythical. Nevertheless, his gain in breadth of experience and in the results of his colHis return to Abdera after his lections was only the greater. journeys was the beginning of his teaching, and his literarywork may be dated, in view of the extent of these travels, not Presumably he continued his work into matura before 420.^ vetustns (Lucret. De rer. //at., III. 1039). His fellow-citizens honored him with the name <jo4>ia. He seems to have been little interested in public affairs, and he reached the great age * of ninety or, according to some, of one hundred and nine years. His intimacy with Hippocrates ( 39), which is not improbable in itself, has been the occasion for the forgery of letters between the two (printed in the works of Hippocrates). Geffers, Qucestiones dtmocritere (Gttingen, 1829) Papencordt, De atomicorum doctrina (Berlin, 1732) B. ten Brink, Verschiedene Abhandlimgen in the Dhilologus. 1851-53, 1870 L. Liard, De Democrito jihilosopho (Paris, 1873); A. Lange, Geschichte des ^Materialismus, I'. (Iserl., 1873) p. 9 f.
certainly
;
;

Democritus was certainly very had arranged in fifteen tetralogies, whose titles are preserved in Diogenes Laertius (IX. 45 f.), even if this part was wrongfully ascribed to him (for Diogenes mentions there
literary activity of

The

great.

Even

if

a part of the works which Thrasyllus

Diodor.,
It

I.

98.

Strabo.

XV. L

38.

is little

probable that Democritus

appeared publicly with his

theory, especially with his discussion of definitions, before the beginning

of the activity of

Socrates (about the time of the beginning of the

The passage in Aristotle (De part, anhn., I. 1, mean with certainty a chronological relationship of the two philosophies, especially when compared with Melaphysics, XII. 4, 1078 b, 17. It signifies only that among pliysicists and
Peloponnesian war).

G42

a, 26), is

not to be taken to

metaphysicians

Democritus

first

treated definition, although

scientifii;

only

aj)-

proximately; while the direction of the

thought of Socrates
laughing phil-

was turned
*

to ethics.
'

In reference to the numerous anecdotes about the

osopher," see Zeller, P. 766.

ls
titles of

lUSTOKV OF ANCIKNT

rillL(

S( I'll

spurious writings), yet there remains a magnificent

besides.

number

In the genuine works

all

departments of

philosoi)hy, mathematics, medicine, metaphysics, physics,

physiology, ]>sychology, epistemology, ethics, esthetics, and

technics are represented.

Since the writings themselves

do not

lie

before us, the question of their genuineness

must

be decided on the score of greatest probability. The ancients were proud of the works of Democritus,

which by the way were written

for
tlic

in

Ionian dialect,

not only
in these

wealth of their contents, out of which Aristotle took

for his scientific writings, but also on account of

so

much

their highly perfected form.

They placed him

^

respects by the side of Plato

and other great

litterateurs.^

They admired the clearness of his exposition^ and the' effective power* of his buoyant style. The loss of these writings, which appears to have happened at some time from the third to the fifth century after Christ, was the most lamentable that has happened to
the original documents of ancient philosophy. "While the

has been preserved in its complete beauty, there remains of that of his great antipode only a torso that

work

of Plato

can never be completed.

lieber das VerzelcJinis der Fr. Schleiermacher, des Dein, hei TJiog. Laert., ('om]>lete Works,V>\\'\&\on III., Vol. III. p. 203 f. Fr. Nietsche, Beitrge zur Quellenkunde und Kritik des JJiog. Laert.y p. 22. The Fragments with annotations by Mullach, I. 330 f. (parW. Burchard, Democriti philoso'phim de ticularly Berlin, 1843) seitsibus fragmenta (Minden, 1830). Fragmente der 3Ioral des Ahderiten Democritus (Minden, 1834) Lortzing, Ueber d. ethiW. Karl, sehen Fragmente des Democritus (Bern, 1873) Democritus in Cicerd's philos. Sc/iriften (Diedeuhfeii, 1889). The insecurity in early time in reference to the writings of the Atomists can ho seen in the fact that wliile Epicuins seems to have called in question tlie existence of Leueippus (Diog. Lacrt., X. 13), the school of Theophrastus ascribed the /xc'yas StaKocr/xos

Compare

Schi'ift('7i

Cicero, Oral., 20, CT.

Ibid.,

j/,;j^ jjg

^jj-^i^^

I.

11, 49.

'

De

diciii., II. C4,

lo3,

I'lulaicli, Qutcs. conv.,

V.

7, G, 2.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

159

to Lencippns (Diog., IX. 4G). Compare E. Ehode and IT. Diels, in Verhand. der Philologischen Versuchnntjen^ 1879 and 1880, and the former in Jahrbuch f. Philologie^ 1881. The ethical writings, which V. Rose {De Arist. libr. ord., p. 6 f.) holds as
entirely ungenuine, can be taken in part as genuine (Lortzing), Concerning this last writing and the especially vepl v8v/jiir)<;. use Seneca made of it (De animi tranquillitate), see Ilirzel
(in

Hermes, 1879).

32.

The metaphysical
:

principles

of

the

teaching were given above in the

( 23)
tively similar atoms.

Atomism

of

Democritan Leucippus

empty space and numberless self-moving, qualitaThese atoms differ only in form and size, and in their union and separation all events are to be Their motions were accepted as self-evident; explained.
ceived thing, and the change arising from
its motion must remain as inexplicable for Leucippus as for the Eleatics. Here Democritus entered armed with the perception theory

but the dWoio}(Ti<i, the qualitative characteristics of the per-

of Protagoras.

products of motion.

but are only the

the time carries

The perceived qualities of things arise as They belong not to things as such, manner in which the subject perceiving at on its representation. They are, therefore,
In contrast to abso-

necessary signs of the course of the world, but they do not

belong to the true essence of things.

lute Being, that
is,

atoms and space, only a relative reality belongs to the sense qualities. But this relative reality of the images of perception was supposed by Democritus to be derived from absolute reality the Heracleitan from the Eleatic world. The realm of the relative and the changing had been known by Protagoras as the subjective, as only the world of representation. But the objective world, which Sophist with skeptical indifference had thrust aside, rethe mained still for Democritus the corporeal world in space. When lie thus tried to derive the subjective jtrocess from atomic motions, Atomism became in his hands outspoken

materialism.

160

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rHILOSoPIIY

significance
to
lie

The peculiar Atomism seems

in

more

in this

of Democritns in the histor}' of materialism than in his com;

He scarcely changed historv any way in its fundamental cosmological principles but tlie careful development of anthropology, which we cannot after
prehensive detailed investigations.
all

ascribe to Leucippus,

is

clearly his chief work.

Atomism, as it lias been develDemocritus, is tlie complete develo{> oped into a system by ment of the concept of mecluDiical necessity in nature.
principle of

The nnifying

Democritns, as well as Lencippus, designated this as avd^KT]^

or in the Heracleitan

manner

as

eifiapfj-ein].
;

Every actual

event

is

mechanics of atoms

possessing originally a

motion peculiar to themselves, they get impact ^ and push by contact with one another. Thus processes of union and separation come about and these appear as the origin and
destruction of things.
ical cause.2

No

event

is

without such a mechanall

This

is

the only ground for explaining

Every teleological conception is removed a phenomena. limine, and however much Democritus in his physiology referred to the wonderful teleology in the structure and functions of organisms, nevertheless he apparently saw
therein
of fact.
little

reason or cause for such teleology in point

Outspoken antiteleological mechanism is obvioush' the prindeep chasm which continued to exist between Democritus and the Attic philosophy, even at those points
cipal reason for the

concerning which Aristotle recognized the value of the investithe chasm which divided the teaching gations of Democritus. of Democritus from that of Aristotle. This was tlie reason that after the victory of the Attic philosophy, Democritus lapsed into oblivion until modern science declared in favor of his principle highly significant moment in and raised him to recognition.

of motion, the transit of motion

Since empty space wliich has no real Being cannot be the bearer from one atom to another is possible

latter

When the onlv through contact, and "actio in ilistans " is exeludetl. seems to occur, it is explained by emanations, as in the working
magnet
(as in Empedocles).
-

of the

Oii8(v xprjfxa ^aTTjv yiyvfTcii.

dXXa ntna

\6yov re koi

i/tt'

civyKTjs.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

161

the human apprehension of the world, and one never to be left out of account, caine hereby to clear and distinct consciousness, and ruled all Atomism as a methodical postulate. The charge raised by Aristotle (P/ij^s., II. 4, 196 a, 24) and before him by Plato (Phileb.. 28 d) and lately repeated (Ritter), that Democritus made the world one of chance (dvr/j.aTov, Ti-xr]) rests upon the entirely one-sided teleological use of this expression. Compare Windelband, Die Lehren vom Zufall, p. 56 f.

The Atoms
finite

are to be primarily distinguished from each

(cr;^?';^a

other by their form

or

lBea~),^

and there are an

is

in-

number
^

of forms.

The

difference of size^

referred

Motion dwells within the atoms, as a necessary irreducible function by which each atom, lawless in itself, and each one for itself, is in Where, however, several process of flight in empty space. The shock of of them meet, there arises an aggregation. meeting causes a vortex,^ which, when once begun, draws
in part to their difference of form.^

from the space surrounding it. In The coarse heavy atoms collect in the centre, while the finer and more volatile are pressed The motion of the whole mass has a to the periphery.

more atoms

into itself

this whirl

Like find Like.

balanced revolution however.

vidual objects constructed
^

With reference

to the indi-

in this

way, the order, position,

1 It is most characteristic that the Idta, the terra that appears in Anaxagoras. equally af)pears in Democritus and Plato for absolute realOf course in a different sense Democritus wrote (Sext. Emp, Adr. itv.

math., Yir. 137) a separate work, nepi

2

tSei/.

At

all

events, the atoms were thouglit of as so small that they were

imperceptible.
^

Yet

in this the different reports

do not

fully agree, in that occasion-

ally fxeyedos

and

trp^^ytta

seem co-ordinated, and atoms of similar forms are

See Zeller,
I*.

assumed
*

to be of different sizes.

777.

It is,

however, not
See pas-

impossible that Democritus had in

mind atom-complexes
is

for such cases.

Which,

as the only
I*.

ground of difference,
1.
f.

often quoted.

sages in Zeller,

770,

Diog. Laert.. IX. 31

Arist. Met., I. 4, 985 b, 13.

In this place under to ov

is

to be underra^i^i

Stood the thing possessing Being constructed out of atoms.

11

For

and

162

lllSTOUV OF AXCIKNT J'lllLOSOrilV

of the

and form

atoms -which constitute them, are the de-

termining factors.

The

real qualities of a perceived thing

are spatial form, weight, solidity, antl hardness.

Weight^

depends on the mass of matter,

the interstices of empty space. pend on the nature of the distribution

space.

an allowance for Solidity and hardness de-with

of nmtter

and empty

These arc the primary

things in themselves.

qualities

which belong to the

All others belong to the things only so far as they affect the pci'ceiving subject. The secondary
qualities are not therefore signs of things, but of subjective

states.^

Deraocritus considered color, taste, and temperature

as belonging to the secondary qualities, and he based their

subjectivity

on the difference of the impression

of the

same

object upon different

mcu>

In this thoor}- of the subjectivity of sense qualities (for desee below) Democritns carried out the suggestions of Protagoras. His i)rinciple of relativity especinlly sliows tliis. His polemic against Protagoras was [jrompted hy the fact that ho held, like Plato, side by side witli the tlieorj- of the relativity of sense perception, the possil)ility of a knowledge of al)solute realit}-. On this account, even as Plato, he battled agauist the Protagorean tlieor\-, in which everv percei)tion in this relative sense
tails,

eVtf could not be marks of ilistinction between the sinsle atoms, but only between the complexes. Cunipare De generatione et corruptione, U., 314 a,
24, in
6i(Tis.

which

thin^rs are distinguislied

tlie

Finally, both of

latter

by the atunis, and moments (order and

their r^i^

and

position) (h'ter-

mine the
^

aXXotwo-tf. the qualities of particular things.

in

Heaviness (pos)

Atomism very
i.

often clearly signifies approxi-

mately the same as movableness,

e.

the degree of reaction in pressure

and impact. The direction of the movement in fall is included by the term in Epicureanism. 2 The expressions " primary and secondary qualities " have been introduced by Locke. Tlie Democritan distinction liad been prmiously renewed by Galileo and Descarlcs. Descartes reckoned solidity auiong the secondary qualities, but Locke |)laeed it l)ack among the primary.
* Trdr] TTJi alarjcTfcs
*

dWoiovfxefrj'i

Tlieoph.

De

xens.,

63

f.

Ihid.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

must be

163

Compare Sext. Emp. Adv. math., VIII. called true. Democritus 56, VII. 139; Plutarch, Adv. col., 4, 2 (1109). also added to Ins recognition of the subjectively relative the Reality, however, conassertion of the objectively absolute. sists of space and geometrical forms of matter, and herein is his Compare V. Brochard, Prorelationship to the Pythagoreans. tagoras et Democrit {Arch. f. Gesch. der Philos., II. 368 f.).
Every place
fore
of the

meeting

of several

atoms can therethat

is

become the heginnhig

its

of a vortex

movement

ever increasing in

dimensions, and proves to be the point

of tlie crystallization of a particular world.

On

the one

side

it

is

possible that the small worlds tlius formed

may

be drawn into the vortices of a larger system and become

component parts of it, or on the other hand that they may shatter and destroy each other in some unfavorable colThus there is an endless manifold of worlds, and lision. an eternal living-process in the universe, in which the single worlds arise and again disappear through purely
mechanical necessity.

As

to the

form

of our

that the whole swings in empty space like a ball.

own world-system, Atomism taught The outcompactly united atoms,

of separation of
still

ermost shell of this

ball consists of

and the interior

is

is filled

with

air,

while in the middle, like

a disc, rests the earth.

stable

The process
flowing,
is

what

and what

is

taking place

in the

earth.

The

stars are like the earth, except that they are

much

Their fires are kindled by the rotawhole world, and are nourished by the vapors of the earth. Democritus said that the sun and moon are large dimensions, and he spoke of the mountains of the of moon. Both sun and moon were originally independent atom-complexes. They have been drawn into the terrestrial system by its revolution, and they were in that way set on fire.
smaller bodies.
tion of the

We cannot here go into the detailed description which the Atomists made of this division of the elements, as brought about

164

lIiyTORY OF AXCIKXT rHILOSOPUY

;

hv the vortex movement

the

see Zeller,

I*. 7'J8 f.

Nevertheless,

interpretation still championed by Zeller, P. M74 f., and earlier the nniversal interpretation, has been shaken by A. Brieger
{JJic Urhetctytiitij dtr Atonw, etc., I4, Halle; compare X'eJ iitomonnn Epicurearinn motupri/tcipali, M. Hertz, p. 88), and by H. C. Liepmann (Die Jlec/ia/u'k der Deniocriflschcii, Atome, This earlier interpretation was that the Atomists J^'ipzig, 1885). regarded the original motion of the atom in the direction ol' the Though the lull, i. c. downwards as perceived by the senses. ancient commentators thus brought the motion of the atoms into connection with fnn (rijin[mve above), yet the movement downwards was not expressh' mentioned as absolute. Democritus could easily designate in tlie vortex system of atoms the opposition between centripetal and centrifugal directions as ktc) and Accordingly he could have investigated tlie effect of the ^'a).

"heavy" in the vortex without teaching the conception of the Epicureans that " weight" is the cause of motion. Atomism has been apparently very much confounded with However iu the sources (probably academic) this in later time. which Cicero {JJefin., I. 6, 17) uses, there is the express statement that Democritus taught an original movement of the atoms ifi hifinito i/KDti, in quo nihil nee summiim iiec infimxim nee medium nee extretnum sif. Ei)icurus, on the contrary, degraded this teaching in assuming that the fall-motion is the natural one
for bodies.

The turbuJenta atomorum

co/icurf<io,

on the other

hand, here (20) was made a charge against Democritus. Tlato {Ti)iK, 30 a, Kur,vixvov TrATz/x/ieAtTj? KOL aruKTOj?) a[ipears to me to Comsignify this, and doubtless refers here to Atomism. In his matured repccc.lo. III. 2, 300 b, IG. pare Aristotle, resentation of endless space, it is remarkable that Democritus took a point of view in astronomy that was even for his time He did not think of the shape of tlie earth as very antiquated. spherical. He afliliated closely throughout with Anaxagoras, With this exception his single never with the Pythagoreans. hypotheses, esi)ecially his peculiar meteorological and physical hypotheses, make us recognize in him the thoughtful man of We find him collecting research and the penetrating observer. many kinds of particular ob.servations and explanations even in He agreed biology, wliich Aristotle and others later used. with Empedocles as to the origin of organisms ( 21).

The most important of the elements was thought by Democritus to be fire. It is the most j)erfcet because it is It consists of the finest atoms, which are the most mobile.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

smooth and round ^ and the smallest
consisted in
its

16

and hence

it is

of all. Its importance being the principle of motion in organisms,^ the soul-stuff.-^ For the motion of fire atoms

Upon this principle Pemocritus built an elaborately developed materialistic psychology, which in turn formed the fundamental principle of his epistemology
is psi/cJiical activity.^

and

ethics.
;

Fr. Heimsoeth, Democritys de anima docfn'na (Bonn, 1835) G. Hart, Zur /Seehn- uud Erkenntnislehre des Dunocritus (LeipIt is evident that the theorj- of fire in Democritus zig, 18<S6). goes back to Heracleitus. Fire plays, however, in Atomism the same role in man^' respects as the mind-stuff I'ofs in Anaxagoras. This is especial!}- true in his explanation of the organic world. Fire is indeed not the element that is moved by itself alone, but it is the most movable element, and it imparts its motion to the more inert material. It must be understood, from these references and relationships, that Democritus also thought that the soul and reason were distributed through the entire world, and that they could be designated as the divine.^ Yet it is certainly a later explanation which attempts to find in his theory' a world-

The isolation b}" the soul like the Heracleitan-Stoic world-soul. atomists of the motion of the separate fire-atoms has no reference to a unitary function. In physiolog}' Democritus considered the soul atoms to be disseminated throughout the entire body. He supposed that between every two atoms of the material of the human body is a fire atom.^ Thereby he concluded that soul-atoms of different size and motion are associated with different parts of the body. He accordingly located the different psychical functions in different parts of the bodv, thought in the brain, peiceptions in the different sense organs, the violent emotions (opyjy) in the heart, and the appetites in the liver. The fire atoms were supposed to be held together in the body b}' the breath, so that the diminution of the breath in sleep and death leads to the diminution or nearly entire destruction of the psychical life. The spiritual Individuality of man is also destroyed at death.

The
in the
1

pecidiarity of the

fundamental hypothesis that the

De
calo, III. 4, 303 a, 14.
Zeller,
2
*

Democritan psychology consisted life of the soul and

Ulrl.

Arist.

De

an.,
cit.

I.

2,

404
a, 8.

a, 27.

^ 5

Compare
Cicero,

814.

Arist. loc.

405

De

nut. deor., I. 43, 120.

Lucret.

De

rer. na^, III. 370.

1(56

IIISTOKV OF ANCIKNT VHILOSOl'HY

entire
qualitatively

its

dctcnniiied content

has

its

final

explanation

in the quantitative dilTercncc of the

life of
tlie

motion

of

atoms.

The

soul

is

really also only

an atom-

motion, although the very finest and most nearly perfect

of all motions.^

This doctrine attempted to elaborate the

different

kinds of atomic motion which form the true

itself in

essence of the different psychical functions.

This shows
ception.

the

first

place in his theory of per-

Since, for example, the influence of external things

upon

us,

which

is

manifested in perception,

is

possible only

by contact according to a mechanical principle,^ sensation can be induced only by emanations of these things pressing upon our organs. The sensitive fire-atoms found in these
organs, are thus set in a motion, which precisely
tion.^
is

the sensa-

Indeed Democritus, with support from the theory of

in

Empedocles, concludes that

motions corresponding to
perception,

every organ the stimulating

its

atomic constitution become

when a

similar motion meets^

them from the soul

im-

atoms

of the organ.

Democritus developed these theories

in particular.
It is particularly

for sight

and hearing

portant for his entire theory that he called the influences

emanating from objects "small images"

cussion of sight.

(eiScoXa), in his dis-

That Democritus did not actually deduce the (lualitative from the had assertions and good intentions about it, is quite obvious. It is of course unattainable and this shows the im))ssibility of
^

quantitative, but only

lojiical

completion of the materialistic metaphysic.

Tliat

lie,

however,

sou<jht to
^

work

it

out systematically,

makes him the father of materialism.

;

Therefore touch

sens., 4,

442

a, 29.

an interesting fact of historical development.

' *

is the fundamental sense com])are Arist. De This conception reappears in the " new i)sycholoo:y,"

Theoph. De sens., 54 f. Ibid. 5G. Developed in respect to the ear. Here is also the modern conception concerning the specific energy of the sense-organs, as dependent on the yieripheral end-organs being suited to the rejjroduction
of different motions.

This

is

approximately the thought of Democritus.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

167

Democritus agreed entirely with Protagoras in liis assessment of the epistemological value of these sensations. Since, then, the motion thus called forth is conditioned not
only hy the transmitting media
^

but also by the indepenis

dent action of the

fire

atoms,^ sensation

no true expresTherein consists

give

sion for the nature of perceived things.

the subjectivity of sense perception and

its inability to

true knowledge, and sense does not therefore truly repre-

sent the atoms and their connection in empty space.

Sense

and Democritus associated the formulation of this thought with the Sophistic contrast of the law of nature and the law of man vjxw yXvKv Kai v6/j,(p mKpov, vo^w
yields only qualitative determinations, like color, taste,

temperature.

0ep/j,6v, vofio) \lrv)(^p6v, vofio) 'xpou]

erefj he

UTOfxa Koi Kevov.^

is

Thereby

to sense

experience

objective truth

denied.^

Sense experience yields only an obscure view of what is viz., of the atoms, which are actual. True knowledge^

not perceptible to our senses, and of likewise imperceptible

empty space

can be attained only by thought.

it.

This rationalism, which in a typical manner stands in contrast to the natnral science theory of sense perception, arose out of the metaphysical need of the Protagorean theory of perception,

and went be3-ond

^

For a very instructive

parallel

between

Theoph. De

sens.. 50.

The Heracleitan-Protagorean moment

Sext. Emp., VII. 135.

of

this

theory lay in this

counter-motion particularly.
3

wise traced the

Zeller. P. 824, 3.
*

Compare Theoph. De sens., 63. He likehuman nomenclature for things back to dea-is. See

The

occasional strictures about the limitations of

;

human knowledge
Empedocles,

(Diog. Laert., IX. 72

see Zeller. P. 823

f.)

are, as also in

to be considered only in this relation.

seems all the more true, since Democritus expressly taught that there might also exist for other
It

things other methods of perception than those of man.

sistent with his

This was con399).

whole theory.
math.,

See Plutarch, Plac, IV. 10 {Dox.,

Compare below. 5 Sext. Emp. Adv.

YH.

139.

KkS

history of ancient I'lIILOSOPHY

rhito :ind Dcmocritus, see Sextus Enipirieus, Adr. math., YIll. This rationalism of Democritiis corresponds, in fact, entirely lo that of the old nietaphysic and the nature philosophy. The only diti'erence is that here in J^eniocritus it is not onh" asserted, but it is also based upon an anthropological doctrine. It is further to be observed, and it is also of value in drawing a parallel with Plato (Natorp, Forschuiigeyi, 207), that Deniocritus yiwfnj yi'ijcrn) refers to space and the mathematical relations possible in space. It must remain undecided how far connections with the Pythagoreans are to be supposed. Deniocritus, at all events, is as far distant as the Pythagoreans and the Academy from a really fruitful application of mathematics to physics in the manner of Galileo.
.|(i.

But, finally, thought

things,
far
is

itself,

which grasps the truth

of

nothing else than a motion of atoms, and in so like perception.^ Furthermore, since thought, as all
is

kinds of motion, can arise only from mechanical causes, Democritus saw himself driven to the conclusion that the
v6r)(TL<i

as well as the

ai,adr)<Tt,^

presupposes'^ impressions of

from the outer woi'ld upon the body. In view of ' the documents that lie before us, it is only supposititious liow Democritus more exactly represented to himself the process of thought. It is certain ^ that he traced dreams,
elhoyXa
visions,

and

hallucinations

to

elhoiKa

as

their

causes.

These are also ideas introduced indeed through bodily impressions, but not by the customary path of perception
^

Althoufrh in

itself
all

not equivalent on the higher pianos.

fire

It

is

like-

wise dissimilar to
2
8

the functions of the

atoms.

Plutarch, Plac, IV. S {Dox., 39.5).

Zeller (P. 821, 2) thinks that Democritus did not attempt such an investigation concerning the psychological principle in order to establish the
Zeller's view seems improbable, in on account of Democritus' elaboration elsewhere of his epistemological and psychological doctrine; in the second place, on account of the importance of the matter for his whole system finally,

preference of thought to perception.

the
first

place,

because of the traces of such undertakings in his preserved fragments. Compare G. Hart, Zur Seelen- und Erlenntnislehre des Dem., p. 19 f.
*

Plutarch, Qucest. cone, VIII. 10, 2; Cic.

De

div., II. 67,

137

f.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM.

through the organs
of sense.^

169
is

Democritus

so far

from

holding these images as purely subjective that he ascribes to them rather a kind of presentient truth.^ He looks upon the
process distinctly after the analogy of the sense of sight as the name eiSwXa shows. eiBcdXa, finer than those influencing
the sense, create a

correspondingly finer motion of the

If now soul atoms, and thus arises our dream knowledge. the finest motion of the Democritus regarded thought as fire atoms, he must have looked upon the finest et'ScoXa also as the stimuli of that motion, viz. those et8)Xa in which the true atomistic form of things is copied. Thought is accordingly an immediate knowledge ^ of the most minute These the theory of atoms. articulation of actuality,

remain ineffectual to the greater portion of humanity compared to the gross and violent stimulations The Wise Man, however, is alone to the sense organs. sensitive^ to them, but he must avert his attention from
finest e'i8co\a

the senses

in order to conceive

them.

Compare E. Johnson, Der Se?isiialis7ni(s des DemoJivit, etc. To designate De(Plauen, 1868) Natorp, F<ir$chu)i(/en, 164 f. mocritus as a sensualist is only justified by the fact that he thought
;

^ It does not appear from the preserved passages exactly clear whether Democritus in his explanation of dreams thought that the

tlhmka press in during sleep without the help of the sense organs
that they were those that

or

had pressed in during wakefulness, but on account of their weakness had first come into activity during a state of sleep. Perhaps he had both conceptions.
-

According
life of

to Plutarch {op.

cit.),

the

dream

is

able to reveal

strange
^

the soul to the dreamer.

in

{Handbuch,

pointed out first by Brandis and abandoned by him (Geach. d. Entw., I. 145) analogy revived by Johnson. This analogy is to the effect that thought is an immediate inner perception or the intuitive conception of absolute
:

Thought

analogy to sense of sight

f.)

I.

333

reality.
*

Compare

the

somewhat dark passage. Plutarch, Plac, IV. 10:

al(r6rj(Tis Trepi

ArjfjiKpiTOi

nXeiovs eluai

ra uXoya foJa kol

Trepi

rovs ao<f)ovs

Koi irepi rovs deoiiv.

See Hart, op.

cit. p.

19

f.

170

niSniRY OF ANT'TKNT PHTrOsOpII V

is

that the ground of the stiimihitioii and the fiiiKtioning of thought analogous to that of (sight) poicoption. The (Hstinguishing

characteristic of Deniocrilus is, however, this, that tliongiiL could go on without the help and therefore to the exclusion of Therefore he is an outspoken rationalist.' sense-activity. These passages in which it is apparently ascribed to Democritus that he drew conclusions from <l>atv6fxva concerning the voijrd (Sext. Enip., VII. 140; Arist. De an., 1. 2, 404 a, 27), prove only on the one side that he undertook to explain phenomena from atomic movement tw dWouna-OaL ttouI to aiaOveatu (Theopli. De ^^e/is., 49). On the other side these passages showthat he tried to have the theories verif}- themselves through their ability to explain phenomena, and to derive ap[)earance from absolute actuality. Aoyoi tt^o? tt;i' aLcrrfO-tv afxoXoyovfieva Xeyoi'T<; (Arist. D( gcn. et corr.^ I. 8, 325 a).
:

33.
its

The Ethics
liis

of Democritus,likc his epistemology, has

roots in

psychology.
fire

Feeling and desire are

Kiv/]at<;,

motions of the
nition
of

atoms.

As, liowever, he established in

theory this difference of value,

that only obscure recogin

phenomena takes

place

the gross stimulaof

tions of the senses,

and that insight into the true form

things
in

is

solicited by the gentlest

pi-acticc

he applied the
is

movement of thought, so same distinction. As in metaethics happiness (evSai-

physics knowledge
fioin'a)
is is

the

t6\o<;,^ in

the Te\o<i.

In the attainment of this happiness

there

also here the fundamental difference between aptruth."'^

pearance and
^

The

joys of sense deceive, and only

Just as

all

pre-So])histic'

philosophers (Heraclcitus, Parmenides)

arc found to have their episteinological rationalism united with a distinctively sensualistic psychology of thought.
(1.

Compare Windelband,

Gesch.

Phllof:., 6.
-

Or

ovpoi, fr. 8

and

9.

With

this establishment of a unifying prin-

ciple for the ethical determination of value, Deniotritus stood uniquely

by the
little.

side

of

Socrates.
Zie<cler,

Practically he

differed from Socrates but

I.

Compare
is

Gmch. der

Ethik;

34.

Fortunately,

ibid.

36, there

an allusion indicating that Democritus' pupil, Anaxarchus,

of vofxos

was
2

called EvSaifxopiKos.

The opposition human convention

here
(fitati.

and

(f)v<Ti.s

prevails also here.

Only through
lives

(vofuo) desires are of value.

The Wise Man

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

those of the spirit are true.

171

This fundamental thought

shows

itself

through

all

the ethical expressions of

Demo-

critus as a principle fully parallel to his epistemological

principle.

that violent and stormy

the soul,

Also here he held the principle as authoritative ^ motions disturb the equilibrium of

i. e. disturb the fire atoms. Such motions brinowith them a state of agitation of the senses. Therefore, in spite of their apparent momentary pleasure, such motions

lead in reality to lasting dissatisfaction.

motions

of

Fine and gentle thought have, on the contrary, true pleasure in

themselves.

Compare Lortzing, Ueher

crit's (Berlin,

die
in

ethischen

Fragmenta Derao(1879', p. 3.54 f.)

;

1873j
;

R. Hirzol

Hermes

F.

Kern, in Zeitschr. fr Philos. tt. philos. Kritik (1880, supplementary part) M. Heinze. Der Eiidmoiiismiis in der griech. Philos. (Leipzig, 1873;. The attempt to reduce all qualitative to quantitative relations, which ver}' properly gives a unique place in .incient philosophy to the Democritan atomism, becomes the capstone of his ethics. The /jcKpal KLvria-t<; contain true happiness in the moral as well as in the intellectual world, and the fxeydXai are disturbing and deceptive. For pai'ticulars, see especially G. Hart, op. cit., p. 20 f. If then the value of the ps3'chical functions is made dependent in both directions upon the intensity of atomic motion, and indeed in inverse ratio, then it is difticult not to think of the similar purpose in the hedonism of Aristippus, who made the same distinction, in a coarser wav to be sure, in estimating the value of the delights of the senses. It must remain undecided whether Demociitus directly influenced the Cyrenaics, or whether there had been a common source for the two in the doctrine of Pythagoras.

The pleasures of sense are relative. They have a phenomenal 2 but not an actual value, viz., the value belonging
1 -

Fr. 20 (Stob. Ed.,

Plato, Rep. 584 a.

I.

40).

The above

representation

is

supported prima-

rily

by Plato's Republic. 583 f., and Philebus, 43 f., whose references to Democritus appear to Hirzel and Natorp to be certain (see above). In both instances it is remarkable to see the exposition colored by medical expressions and examples which probably belong to the writing
of

Democritus

(Trfp\ fidvfj.ir]i).

172
to
in
(f)6ai'i.

IIISTOKY

(F

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
differ

Sense pleasures
individuals,
is

like

the

perceptions

different

and depend
conditioned
tlie
'

on

circumstances.

Every sense pleasure

therefore
loses
its

only by the cessa-

tion of unpleasurable feeling in

desire concerned, and

apparently
in

positive

character.
of

True
But
has
to

happiness consists

peace

{ijavx^a)

the soul, and

it.

Democritus generally uses evdv/xla to designate

he also uses
for

many

other expressions, as aOa/ula., drapa^la,

^v/x/juerpla^^

uOaufiaaia, ap^iovla,
it

especially evecrToo.

He

a very happy simile of a calm of the sea

excess'^
of

(jaXtjvr)').

By every

excitation tliought

is

aroused

aXko^povelv^ and feeling to stormy unrest.

is

The

right

condition of gentle harmonious motion of the soul-atoms

possible only through intellectual

knowledge.

Out

of

this flows the true happiness of

man.

In these definitions the content of the ethics of Democritus is fully

ethics of
of

man
is

evil

on a level with the ethics of Socrates. The Democritus intimately connected the social worth with his intellectual I'cfinement. The ground of Happiness therefore conlack of cultivation.^
of the life, in
social

sists

not in worldly goods,^ but in knowledge," in the har-

a life of temperance and worth of a man is to be estiself-limitation.^ mated ^ by his mental calibre and not by his actions and he who acts unjustly is more unhappy than he who suffers unjustly.^" Everywhere he regarded the peace of man to lie looked upon the withbe within himself {evecrroj). drawal from the sense-desires and upon the enjoyment of

monious leading

The

the intellectual
^

life

as true happiness.^^

2 3 5
^

Fr. Mor. Both the Fr. 25.

7.

last terras

have a Pythagorean sound. * Theoph. De sens.,

6 8 10

58.

Fr. 116.
Fr. 136.
Fr. 109.
It

Fr.

1.
;

Fr. 20

compare

25.

Fr. 224.

must remain uncertain

to

what extent Democritus distinguished

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

173

The numerous single sentences which have been preserved from Deraocritus suit entirely the quality of this noble and high view of life. Since the}' all, however, have been transmitted in a disconnected way, it can no longer be determined whether and how they have a SNstematic derivation from the developed fundamental princii)le. In particular is to be emphasized the high worth tliat Democrilus places in friendship.^ and on the other hand his full understanding of the importance of civil life, from which he seems to have deviated only in reference to the Wise Man- with a cosmopolitanism analogous to that of the Sophists. Yet there remains here much that is doubtful. Democritus maintained an attitude of indifference to religious belief, which was consistent with his philosophy. He explained the mythical forms, in part by means of moral allegories,^ in part b}- nature-myth* explanations. He accepted, in connection with his theory of perception, essentially higher anthropomorphous beings imperceptible to the senses, but influential in visions and dreams. He called these daemons ei8wAa, an expression employed elsewhere in his epistemology for the emanations from things. The\' are sometimes benevolent, sometimes
malevolent.^ The school at Abdera disappeared quickly after Democritus Even in its special undertaking, it performed.*' after the died. Its philosophileader fell, scarcely anything worth mentioning. cal tendency, however, became more and more sophistic' and thereb}' led to .Skepticism. Metrodorus of Chios and Anaxarchus of Abdera, the companion of Alexander on his Asiatic campaign, are the notable names. Through the influence of Pyrrho, a pupil of Metrodorus, the Abderite philosophy became Skepticism, and the contemporaneous Xausiphanes formed the

connection between

it

and Epicureanism.

between the perfect happiness of the Wise

yvafiTj,

Man won through the yvrjairj and the peace of the ordinary man obtained by temperance and self-control. Compare Th. Ziegler, op. cit., who wishes to put into u
similar

relationship both of the chief ethical writings,

Trept

(idvfilrjs

and
1

vTToriKai.

Fr. K32

f.

Fr. 225.

3 ^ ^

Clemens, Cohort., 45
Sext.

f.

into
''

5 /j/,/ Emp. Adv. math., TX. 24. The astronomical tenets of Metrodorus seem to indicate Heracleitan ideas. Compare Zeller, I*. 859.

a relapse

For the theoretical skepticism of Metrodorus, compare Eusebius, Whatever is reported of the ethical tendency of v., XIV. 19, 5. Anaxarchus reminds one of Hedonism, and Cynicism as well.
Proep.

174
34.

IIISTOKY OF ANCIENT

I'llILOSt )riIY

Democritus' consummation

of

the metaphysics

of

science by
total

means

of materialistic psychology

formed

in the

The

growth of ancient thought only an early dying branch. Greek thought ))crfccted itself nearly contemporaneously in the ethical imuuiterialism of
principal tendency of

Plato at the centre of Attic civilization.

The same

ele-

which were fundamental to the theory of Democritus, were combined afresh and in an entirely different manner in the Platonic system under the influence of the Socratic principle. Heracleitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Philolaus, and Protagoras furnished the
of the earlier science,
it was worked over in an entirely original manner from the point of view of conceptual knowledge.

ments

material for the theory of Plato, but

Perictione, was born in came from a distinguished and prosperous family. Endowed with every talent physical and mental, he received a careful education, and he was

Plato, the son of Aristo and

in

Athens

427, and

familiar at an early age with all the scientific theories that

interested

Athens

at that time.

The

political

excitement

of the time

made

the youth desire a political career.

its

The

Peloponnesian war was raging, and during

internal

progress the

and external

affairs

of

Athens were becoming

the other hand, the rich

more and more

artistic

precarious.

On

develoj)ment of the time was irresistibly attractive,

and Plato was led to try poetry in many of its forms. Both Plato's political and poetic longings appear to follow him in his entire philosophy on the one side in the lively, although changing interest that his scientific work always shows in the problems of statecraft, and on the other in the artistically perfected form of his dialogues. But both
:

are subordinate to his entire absorption in the personality

and teaching of the character of his great master Socrates, whose truest and most discriminating i)upil he remained
for

many

years.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALLSM

175

Of the general works concerning Plato and his theory there are to be named W. G. Tennemann, Si/stein der plat. Pinion.^ Fr. Ast, FlatotCs Leben xi. Schriften 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1792-5) K. F. Hermann, Gesch. u. /Si/st. der 2>l((t. (Leipzig, 181G)
;
;

G. Grote, Plato and Other ComFhilos. (Heidelberg, 1839) pojiions of Socratt'S (London, 1865) H. v. Stein, Sieben Bcher zur Gesch. des Pbxtonismus (Gttingen, 1861 f.) A. E. Chaignet, Zia vie et lesecrits de Pbito (Paris, 1871) A. Fouillee, La philosophie de Pkito (4 vols.. 2d ed., Paris, 1890). The nearest pupils of Plato, especially Hermodorus, dealt with his life also the Peripatetics. Aristoxenus and others. The expositions of Apuleiiis and Oh'mpiodorus (published in Cobet's edition of Diogenes Laertius) have been preserved. Besides there is a life of Plato in the Prolegomena (printed in Hermann's The collection of spurious edition of the Platonic wi'itings). letters printed with his works is a ver}' nntrustworthy source. Onh- the seventh among them is of any worth. K. 8teinhait has published a life of Plato (Leipzig 1873), which ranks well among the new works. On his father's side, Plato had the blood of the Codrus family' in his veins, and on his mother's he traced his lineage back to Solon. ^ He himself was called after his grandfather, Aristocles, and is said to have been called Plato for the first time b^' his gymnasium teacher on account of his broad frame. For the determination of the year of his birth, the statements of Hermodorus are decisive (Diog. Laert., 6), that when he went to Euclid at Megara in 399. immediately after the death of Socrates, he was twenty-eight years old. That his birthday was celebrated in the Academy on the seventh Thai'gelion emanates possii)ly from the Apollo cult, to which many of the early myths about the philosopher seemingly are referable. That Plato was early remarkable in ever}' physical and musical art is entirel}- in agreement with every part of the picture of his personalit\-. The particular accounts about his teachers (Zeller, H*. 394) throw no light on his own scientific significance. His early acquaintance with the Heracleitan Cratylus is attested b\' Aristotle.^ At what points of time in his development the teachings of the other philosophers whose influence is traceable in his works wei'e known to him, cannot be ascertained. Pearly in his career Heracleitus, the Eleatics. Protagoras and other Sophists, and later ^ Anaxagoras and the Pythagoreans were authorities for him.
;

HL

It is

improbable that his family was

it.

i)oor, as

many

later writers

would have
*

His style of
987
a, 32.

life

indicates the contrary.

^

Met,

1. 6,

ludeed, relatively late: see below.

170

IIISTOKY OF ANCIKNT PllILOSOl'IIY

Plato was hostile to the democracy, as was consistent witli the traditions of liis family and liie jwlitical views of his tcaciier, Socrates. Yet his political inclinations, as he has laid them
that native city appears highly conceivaltle. That he concerned himself in his Noutli, as was the custom, with epic and dramatic poetry, is not to be doubted, notwithstanding the uncertainly of the particular traditions about it. Concerning the time when he became acquainted with Socrates, an acquaintance that certainly eclipsed all the early interests of the youth, there is nothing very definite to be said. If he were then, according to Ilermodorus,' twenty years old, there remained
his complete abstinence from public
life in his

down

in his

works, diverge so far from

liistoric aristocra<;y

which ceased when he probable that Plato had formulated tiie content of the separate conversations in the earliest dialogues during Socrates' life.his poetic atteraj)ts,
It is

ver}' little room for began philosophy.

After the deatli of Socrates, Plato went

pupils of the master, to Euclid at Megara.

first,

with other
soon after

He

began a journey which took him to Cyrene^ and to Egypt, and he seems to have returned to Athens from this j(jurney about 395. Here he apparently already began, if not liis

work in which he opposed the different tendencies of the Sophists. About the end of the first decade of the fourth century, he began
teaching, yet the part of his literary
his first tour to

Magna

Grjecia and Sicily, which not only

brought him into personal touch with the Pythagoreans, but also led him to the court of the elder Dionysius of Syracuse. Here he was in close intimacy with Dion, and was thereby

drawn
court.

into the strife of political parties which ruled the

Matters became dangerous for him, for the tyrant

hostile

grew

and treated

liim as a prisoner of war.

He

delivered Plato over to the Spartan ambassador, and the

1

Diog. Laert., III.

G.

The statement concerning

iraprohahle.

the Lysis,

ihitl.

35,

is

in

itself

by no

means
3

His intimate relations with the nialhcinatieian Theodorns,

tlie ])n|iil

of Protagoras (see Thea'h^lus), are

somehow connected

witli liis stay in

Cyrene

possibly also his essentially polemic relation to Aristippus.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

177

iatter sent the philosopher to the slave-market of .^gina,

where a man from Cyrene bought his freedom. About 387 Plato returned to Athens, and founded his scientific society soon after in the Academy, a gymnasium. Here, to a continuously increasing band of friends and youths, he imparted his philosophic theories, sometimes in dialogues, sometimes
in longer discourses.

The only data for this part of bis life which are not reported alike everywhere in the sources have probabl}' been given their definitive statement b}- Zeller, II*. 402. It is probable that Plato's Wandcrjahre, from the death of Socrates until his failure in Syracuse, were not without interruption, and that he meanwhile had ah-eady begun his instruction at Athens, although to a small circle, and not yet to the closed and organized Academy. The literar}- activity of Plato in the interim (395-91) was essentiall3'only a defence of the Socratic doctrine, as Plato conceived it and had begun to develop it against Sophistry, which was Whether or not Plato left his home flourishing more than ever. a second time for political reasons, during the Corintliian war, when Athens was again ruled by the democracv,^ is uncertain. He probabl}- at that time attemi)ted in Syracuse, perhaps in collusion with the Pythagoreans, to bring his political principles into vogue b}- the exercise of influence upon the tyrant. For the treatment which he experienced at the liands of Dion3"sius, who seems to have threatened his life, is hardl}- to be explained by an}' mere unpopularity of his ethical parrhesia, but is, on the contrary, natural enough if Plato entered politics. At first Plato probably taught in the Socratic manner by conversation, and he souglit to construct concepts with the help of his pupils. But the more his own opinions became finished, and the smaller the organization of the Academy grew in numbers, the more didactic became his work, and the more had it the form of the lecture. In the successive dialogues the work of the interlocutor becomes fainter and less important. Later Aristotle and the other pupils published lectures of Plato.

The philosopher allowed himself only twice to be induced away from his teaching in the Academy, which teaching
^ That about this time public attention turned again to Socrates, is shown by the circumstance that even then the rhetorician Polycrates published an attack upon Socrates. See Diog. Laert., II. 39.

12

178

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT

PIIILOSOl'lIY
life

lasted the entire second half of his

and then only

ideals.

through the hope of

fulfilling

his political

After

the death of the elder Dionysius, he sought, with the help

younger Dionysius. lie had no attempt in 867, and the third Sicilian journey in 361 brought him into great personal danger
of Dion, to influence the
first

success in the

In this journey his special effort was to reconcile Dion and Dionysius the younger. Only the energetic effort of the Pythagoreans who, with Archytas at their head, representing the power of Tarentum, seems to have saved him. Plato died in 347, in his eightieth year, lie was revered by his contcmj)oraries, and celebrated as a hero by posterity. one who united He was a perfect Greek and a great man,
again.

in himself all the excellences of bodily

beauty with

intel-

and moral power. He also ennobled the aesthetic life of the Greeks with a depth of spirituality which assured to him an influence for a thousand years.
lectual
political character of the second and third Sicilian' journe3'S beyond doubt, but that does not preclude the supposition that Plato at that time, in his intercourse with the Pythagoreans, was At any rate, the number theory pursuing his scientific work. exercised an increasing but scarcely' a healthy influence on part of the development of his philosophical thought. On the other hand, his influence on the Pythagoreans was very fruitful. The reports of the ancients as to the length of life and the
is

The

They are time of death of the philosopher differ only a little. easil}- reconciled in the statement that Phito died in the middle of the year 347. It is also said that he died suddenly in the scribens est middle of a niarriage feast. The report of Cicero mortuus signifies onh* that Plato was still laboring to perfect his works at the time of his death. The aspersions upon his character in later literature arose from the animosities of the scholastic controvers}-. They are refuted, however, by the respectful tone with which Aristotle alwa3's spoke of Plato, even when he was battling against his theory. It is not entirely

when Aristotle went his own way and Plato became more Pythagorean in his niy.sticism, that the relations between the two became less close and somewhat inharmonious.
impossil)le that in later time,

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

179

We can get the most reliable picture of Plato from his own
writings.

They show
:

in their

author the realization of the

Socratic ideal

his scientific investigations are carried

on
its

with

all

the seriousness of a moral endeavor seeking

own

fulfilment.

The serene beauty

of his compositions

and the perfect purity of his diction reveal the artist who from the heights of the culture of his time gives to the thought of that time a form that transcends the time.

With the exception

is

of the Apology, they are dialogues in

if

which the conversation and the deciding word,

reached,
fall in

a decision

by far the majority of cases to Socrates.

In reference to their content, only a few of the dialogues

have a fixed plan of philosophical research. Rather, almost always threads of thought were spun from the chief problem in any direction and followed to the end. On that account the dialogues are not scientific treatises, but works of art in which scientific " experiences " are reproduced in an idealized form. One remarks this esthetic character in
which appear usually at the beginning where Plato cannot or will not develop his thought conceptually. The story form of the argument enhances its poetic power.
Plato's use of myths,

or end of an investigation,

By the term " experiences." which are elaborated in Plato's dialogues, we do not mean so much the conferences which the poet philosopher employed or devised as the outer scenery of his works, hut the discussions in which he himself led in the circle of his riper friends.^ Such a dialogue as the Parmenides bears even the character of being the a?sthetic /"//we'of actuallv fought out word-battles. The Platonic authorship of these is extremely doubtful, but they must have originated in the Platonic circle. The actually occurring conversation is idealized and universalized in these dialogues, being placed in the mouth of Socrates and other persons, some of whom had already died. Plato shows here his imagination by his selection and
^

Tili.

practice
diaereses

ctTtainly happened later also, when scliolastic teachinfr ami had place in the Academy, in whicli teaching the preserved and definitions may have been used.

180

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

adoniniciit of the situations under requirements of fiction, in wliich situations these conversations purport to have taken place b>' tlie plastic characterizations of the champions of various theories, in which he uses frequently the effectual means
;

of persiHage

and also by the delicate structiu-e of the conversation, which forms itself into a kind of dramatic movement. Countless allusions, of which onl}' a very few are understood
;

by us, a[)ply to the historical persons figuring in the dialogue, and in part perha[)3 to the conqjaniuns of Plato.
In the uniloubtcdlv genuine riatonic dialogues, Socrates is the s[)eaker of Plato's own views. The onlv exceptions are the latest, Tiinants and ^ V// /'/.*. and the Laws. In the first two the reason for this exception is that Plato deals onl}- with the mythical and not with sure knowledge. In the Ldxrs. the head of the school has become an authorit}' and speaks as such. Usuidly the dramatic scenery in the first dialogues is much more simple and less ornate in the works of his u/v7iTJ, the scenic effect is fully developed in the Pliilehu, on the contrary, and in the other later works, it sinks back again to a schematic investiture. The conversations are partly ''give and take," partly repetitions wltoreby sometimes the chief dialogue is introduced into the discussion of another dialogue. Although the earlier dialogues follow, on the whole, the second piinci()le, and the later the first, yet these principles are not safe critei'ia for the chronological succession ^ of the dinlogues. The reports of antiquity that Plato divided ^ philosoph}' into dialectics, physics, and ethics can refer only to his method in the Academy. This division in the dialogues can be made neither directly nor indirectly. On the whole, epistemological, theoretical, metaphysical, ethical, and sometimes i)h3'sieal motives are so interwoven that while here and there the one or the other interest predominates (in T/iecntrtus the epistemological and theoretical in the Republic the ethico-political), never docs a conscious sundering of the realms of the problems take place. This belongs moreover to the poetic rather than the scientific character of Plato's literary workmanship. Concerning the myths of Plato, compare especially Denschle (Hanau, 18."j4) and Volquardsen (Schleswig, 1871); concerning the general character of Plato's literary activity, see E. Ileitz (O. Mller's Literaturgeschichte.^ II. 2, I4-S-'235).

made

In TheaHetus this innovation

b, c).

is

made, and reason

is

given for

it

(143

The Phido
'>,

also, wliicli

was

certai'jly a late dialogue,

and

the probably later Symiivsium ri-tiirncd to the older method

-

Cicero, Acad.,1.

1!'.

(Oinpiuc Sext. Enq). Ailv.

mal/i.,

VII.

1(J.

MAri:iUALTS>[

AND IDEALISM

181
of the

There

is

iiu

ground for supposing that any one

writings of Plato has been lost.

transmitted collection contains

questionable and ungenuine.
as
certainly

On the other hand, the many that are undoubtedly We may take the following
Crifo,

Platonic

the

Apology,

Frotayoras,

Goryias, Cratylus,
PTicedo, Republic^

Me no,

Thecetetus, Phcednis, Sympos^iiim,

,

Timceus

and also probably Phihbni< and

are certainly not genuine
Axioehn.^,
:

the Laws.

The following
Anterastce,

Ah-i-

hiades II.,

Demodorus,

Upinomis,

Eryxias, Hipparchus, Clitophon, Minos, Sisyphus, Theayes,

and the small studies irepl SiKaiou and Trepl. aperrj^. Among the doubtful, Parmenides, SopJiist, and Politicus are of
special importance.

The

criterion of their genuineness is

who mentions many of name of Plato and title of the book, many only with either name or title, many without certain reference to Plato. To a canon established in this way,
chiefly the testimony of Aristotle,

the -writings with the

there are to be added writings that Plato himself cites, or

whose form and content make them

the writings of Plato,
nection.
is

Plato's.

Just as important as the question of the genuineness of

the question of their order and con-

The

chief controversy over the order of the writ-

ings

is

between the Systematic and Historical theories. The

Systematic theory, advocated by Schleiermacher and ]\[unk, finds a plan in the whole of Plato's writings, a consistent

system organized
a stage in the

at the beginning.

Hermann and Grote

Beside the

advocate the Historical theory, which makes each dialogue

development of Plato's thought.

general reasons for the Historical theory, there are the nu-

merous variations
clearly present

in the establishment, development,

~

application of the fundamental thesis, -

a thesis

and which is
In

although undergoing transformation.

difficult
;

both directions the body of the Platonic writings presents

one of the most

able in

problems of antiquity,

insolv-

some

particulars

yet time has brought about a

182
j)rctty

IIISTOKY OF ANCIENT rilIU)S()l'HV

complete agreement concerning the nioie imi)ortant

ones.

The works of I'lato were arranged and published in antiquity bv Aristophanes of liyzantiwni partially in trilogies, and b}' ThrasyUis in tetralogies. In the Kenaissance they were excellently translated into Latin by Maisilius Ficinus, and printed in Cireek text at \'enice in 151iJ. Further publications of the works are those by Stephanus (Paris, 157M) which has been cited, the Zweibrucken edition (1781 f.), that of Iraman. Bekker (Berlin. 1S16 f.), Stallbauni (Leipzig, 1821 f., 18UJ, Baiter, Orelli. and Winkelniann (Zurich, 1839 f.), K. Fr. Hermann (Leipzig. Teubner, 1801 f.), Schneider and Ilirschig (Paris, 184G), M. Schanz (Leipzig, 1875 f.).
Translations w'ith introtluctions Schleiermacher (Berlin, 1804 f.), Ilieron. Mller and Steinhart (Leipzig, 1850 f.), V. Cousin (Paris, 1825), B. Jowett (Oxford, 1871), II. Bonghi and E. Ferrai (Padua, 1873 ff.). The most nearly com[)lete and comprehensive picture of the special literature which is not to be reproduced here and also concerning the single dialogues, is given b}' Ueberweg-Heinze, I". 138 f. The chief writings on the subject are as follows: Jos. Socher ( Ueher Platon's Schriften (Munich, 1820) Ed. Zeller, Plat. Studien (Y\\hmgQn, 1839) F. Susemihl, Prodrotnus plat. ForKcJnnuien (Gttingen, 1852) Genetixchen Entvickelungen der plat. PJrilo.^. (Leipzig, 1855-60) F. Suckow, D. wissensch. K. kiiastlerlische Form der plat. Schriften (Berlin, 1855) E. INIunk, D. natrliche Ordnung der plat. Schriften (Berlin, H. Bonitz, Platonische Studien (3 ed., Berlin. 1886) 1856) Fr. Ueberweg. Untersvchangen ber Echtheit und Zeit folge ]>lat. Sehr. (1861, Vienna) O. teichmll"!-, D.plat. Frage (Gotha, 1876); Uehcr die Peihe)i folge der plat. J)ialoge (Leipzig, 1879); Fitterar. Fehden im vierten Jahrh. cor Chr. Geh. (Breslau, 1881 f.): A. Krohn, Die plat. Frage (Halle, 1878) W. DittenH. Siebeck, in Jahrhuch f. klas. berger (in Hermes., 1881) Phihdogie (1885) M. Schanz {Hermes, 1886) Th. Gomperz, Zur Zeitfolge plat. Schriften (Wien, 1887) E. Pfleiderer, Zur Ls)ing der plat. Frage (Freiburg. 1888) Jackson, Plato's Later Theory of Ideas (Jour, of Philol., 1881-86); F. Diimmler, Akademik(( (Giessen, 1889) K. Schaarscliniidt, D. Samm. der plat. Sehr. (Bonn, 1866).
:

With reference
'

to

all

the

different

factors,

the
:

Pla^

tonic writings group themselves

somewhat

as follows
little

To

wliifli

there have been added lately, but with

success,

some

pliiIo]()'_deal statistics.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

183

(1) Tlie Works of Plato's Youth. These were written under the overpowering influence of Socrates in part dur;

ing Socrates'
death.

life,

in part in

Megara immediately

after his

group belong Lysis and Laches, and, if they be genuine, Channides, Hippias Minor, and Alcihiades I. so, also, the Apology and both the apologetic dialogues, Crito and Euthyphro.
this
;

To

age)

Lysis (conccrniug friendship) and Ladies (concerning courhave purely Socratic content. Hipjdas Minor is also Socratic, and for its genuineness we have Aristotle's authority in Metaphysics, IV. 29, 1025 a. This treats the })arallel between Achilles and Odysseus from the point of self-conscious virtue. Charmides (concerning moderation) and the rather unskilful and incoherent Alcihiades I. are doubtful. The ApjoUigy and Crito

(concerning Socrates' fidelity to law) are usually placed after the death of Sucrates. Included in this class is Eiit/iyjihro (concerning piety), which also has entirely the character of an Euthyphro criticises the charges of impiety made apologv. against Socrates by proving that ti'ue piety is the Socratic virtue. It is not impossible that the latter three were written about 395, during Plato's residence at Athens, and were an answer to the renewed attacks upon the memory of Socrates.^

The Disputations concerning Sophistical Theories. In these appear now, besides his criticisms of the Sophists, These works are supindications of his own philosophy. posed to have been written or begun in Athens in the time
(2)
Sicilian journeys. They are the Euthydemus, Cratylus, Meno, and Thecetetus. Presumably there belong to this period the first book of the Republic and the dialogue concerning justice.

between the Egyptian and

Protagoras,
Gorgias,

These dialogues, with the exception of the Meno. are entirely polemic and without positive result. They form a solid phalanx against Sophism, and show the falsity and insufficiency of its the Protagoras, by the investigadoctrines one after another tion concerning the teachableness of virtue, which Plato shows
:

Compare above. Further evidence

and

of this

is

the

manner

in

which sev-

eral dialogues {Gorgias, Meiw,

Theieietus),

which for

otlier reasons

are

known

to belonor to that time, contain allusions to the trial of Socrates.

1S4
to

lIISTOm' OF ANTTKNT PIITLOSOPIIV

Ir' presupposed by llio Soi)hists, but iiic()tnp;itil)lo with tlieil rmuliuncntal piinciplos the (rorf/ios, tliroii;j;h a rrilicisin of tlic Sophistic iliotoiic, in contrast with wliich uemiiiu' .scientific culture is cek'l)iatetl as the only foundation for true statecraft; the Enth>jdriniis through the persitlage of eristic; the Cmtylus bv a criticism of the philologic attempts of the sopliistic the Theaitetns, finally, in a criticism of the contemporaries
;
;

e|)istemology of the different schools of Sophists. ProtcKjoras, dramatically the most animated of Plato's diaIt is logues, heads this series as a masterpiece of fine irony. doiibtful whether (forfjids followed it immediately, for there is a great difference in the fundamental tone of the two. Yet it is entirely natural that tlio artist, Plato, in the second dialogue, in wliicli he takes a much more positive position, should adopt a more serious tone, and siiould give a more intensely spiritual expression to his political ideal of life. Tlie Entht/dt^inus and Cmtfflns, which perhai)s, therefore, are to be placed before the Gorgia,^, follow the Profarjoras, tlie irony mounting to the most
insolent caricature.
If Hippias Major is taken as genuine, it belongs in this class, for it contains Plato's criticism of the sophistic art of Hippias.

Major was the proit is probable, rather, that the Hippias duction of a member of the Academy who was fully familiar with the Platonic teachings. The dialogue concerning justice is a polemic against the Sophists, and, indeed, against their naturalistic theory of the state. This dialogue forms at present the first book of the RopuWic, und was possibly its first edition (Gellius, Nort. Aft., XIV. 3. 3). It resembles tiu'oughout in tone the writings of this time, which fact does not obtain as to the chief parts of the Repuhllc Also the first half of the second book of the RcpnhUc (until 3fi7 c) seems to be a copy of a Sophistic speech called Praise of Tiijusfic<',. In the M^'no the Platonic epistemology had its first positive expression, even if it is onlv an exposition developed by suggesThe tions, and stated after the manner of the mathematician. Pythagorean influences, which are also found in the Corgnis. do not oblige us to put the Meno in the time after the first Italian It is remarkaV)le that the Theo'tetus. so soon after the journey. youthful entiiusiasm with which the Gorgias had i)roclaimed (17-i f.) the vocation of the philosopher to be statesmanship, advocated ^ so pessimistically the retirement of the philosopher
Yet
1

The

opinion shared by Th. Bergk

(Fnf Ahh.

z.

Gesch. d.

(jr.

Phil,

u. Astron., Berlin, 1883), that this tlialoiriie slioiikl be

put as late as the

its

fourth decade of the fourth centurv, cannot be reconciled with

content.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

185

from public life. Yet the explanation of this ma}' be that Plato began the Tlu-'crtetns in Athens, and comiileted it after or upon foi- the dialogue refers to a wound that Thea?tetus his journey received in an encounter during the Corintliian war. His clash with the t3-rant and his wily and adroit tlatterer Aristippus?)
;

consistent with his experiences at this time. Thei'e is perhaps a connection between this and the change of form, which makes it necessar}' to place the dialogue at tlie end of this series.
is

Works of the Most Fruitful Period of Plato's These are the Phcedrus, Symjjosium, and the chief part of the Republic. In the same period were probably written the Parmenides, Sojjhist, and Politicus, which certainly came from the Platonic circle.
(o)
Tlie

Activity.

ma}' be viewed as Plato's program delivered teaching in the Academy. Philosophically it contains the fundamental thoughts of this period in mythical dress: the theor}' of the two worlds ( 3.5) and the triple division of the soul ( 36). In the contention between L} sias and Isocrates he takes the hitter's part, but declares thereby (276) that he prefers the living conversation to the If Plato concentrated from now on his powers in written word. oral instruction, it is natural that he should appear not to have published any work in the two following decades. Not until immediately after the Phcedrus did he give the fullest expression to his entire teaching in the " love speeches " ^ of the Symposium (385 or 384). The most superb of all his artistic

The Phcedrxs

upon

his entrance (386) into active

The

exposition of these thonfihts lies so essentially in the direct

Platonic philosophy that
it

line of the

does not seem necessary to

Xeno" phon did not have the slightest occasion to treat the " Inve-speeohes by the side of the Memornhilin as a separate work, as he manifestly
seek their inspiration in the appearance of a work of Xenophon.
did treat them.
It is

rather probable that after Plato idealized the

is

evening feast (for there

the description) in his

count of the
tical

facts.

undoubtedly some historical ground for felt compelled to give an acHis additions were especially to the thoroughly prac-

own way, Xenophon

conception, which Socrates developed, as to the relations of the

sexes.

In addition to these practical reasons there are also verbal and

historical

phon's rather than the opposite.

grounds for placing Plato's account prior to that of XenoCompare A. Ilug (PIiiloL, 1852), and

Rettig (A'en.'s Gastmahl, Greek and German, Leipzig, 1881).

186

IIISTOnV OF ANCIKXT IMIILOSOl'lIV

products, it represents in every respect the acme of his intellect[n the elegance of its rhetoric and in Llie ehaiucterual power, ization of single individuals carried out to verbal detail, it is

surpassed by no work. L pon the background of the cosniolog}-, suggested in the P/iwdras and clearly developed here, it pictures the cpfj? as the living bond of the Platonic society. The MenexeiiK.s has the same general tendencies as the Syviposiaiii and the l^/unclnis, but it was probal)ly written not by Plato, but by one of his pupils. It boasts somewhat proudly at the end that Aspasia has many more beautiful si)eeches like the given funeral-oration. During the time of literary silence that inimediately followed, Plato appears to have been going on with his gieat life work, that one, among all his works, which presents the most serious critical and historical ililliculties. This is the Ixcpublic. As it lies before us, it is wanting in an intellec-tual and artistic unity in
spite of its subtile, often all loo intricate, references

and cross-

All attempts to establish such a unity fail. Following the fruitless dialogue concerning justice, wliich forms the first part of the work (first, according to the present divisions, which were indeed traditional early in antiquity), there comes, after the insertion of a species of sophistic discourse, the conversation with entirely new persons concerning the ideal state, and concerning the education necessary for constructing a state by which the ideal justice may be realized. Thus there appear two perfectly unlike parts welded together, but the second and greater (Books II. -X.) is by no means a decided advance in tiiought. In particular, the diatribe taken up again at the beginning of the tenth book against the poets, stands abruptly in the way between the proofs that the just man in the Platonic sense is the happiest man on earth (liook IX., 2d half, 588 f.) as well as after death It is particularly striking that (Book X., 2d half, 608 c.) whereas the teaching about the ideal state and the education peculiar to it restricts itself entirely to the limits set forth in the Phceclrus and Symposium, we find an intervening section (487-587) which not only expresses the teaching of Ideas as the highest content of this education in the sense stated in the Phfudo and developed in the PJiUchits, but also develops in a more extended way the different metai)hysical teachings of the later peiiod. Tliese and other single references, which cannot be followed out in this placre, show that there are tiu'ce strata in tiie Ri'pnblii: : (1) the dialogue of early origin concerning justice (Book I., possibly including appendix. .')")7-()7) (2) tlie outline of an ideal state as the realization of justice, oi-iginating at the time of his teaching, that followed the Plupdrns and S;/iiipotiimn
references.
;

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

187

^Books II. -V.), and the entire conclusion from Ch. XII. (Book IX.) (3) the theory, dating from the time of the Phtedo and Philebus, of the Idea of the Good, and the critique of the constiAs Plato grew older, he sought tutions of the state (487-587). To accomplish to weld these three parts into one another. this, he now and then worked over the earlier portions, but he did not succeed in bringing them into a perfect organic union. In accepting a successive genesis of tlie whole, the simplest explanation is given of the insertions, which a[)pear still further These inwithin the different parts in polemic justification. sertions are attempts to meet objections that had in the mean time been raised orall}' or in writing. In the course of the discussion of the theory of Ideas in the Acadeni}-, there appeared difficulties in the waj- of their devel;

The Ponneirides and Soj>hist were written especially The Parmeto express these olijections and to discuss them. nides with a dialectic which drew its formal and practical arguments from Eleaticism, tears the theory of Ideas to pieces without reaching a positive result. The contemptuous tone and the boyish immature role which is clearly given to the SocratesPlato, stands in the way of regarding this as Plato's criticism of himself. Probably an older member of the Platonic circle, who was educated in Eleatic sophistry, is the author of this dialogue. The Parmenides does not give to Socrates, but to Parmenides, the deciding word, and it bears entirely the Eleatic character of sterile dialectic.^ The question about the genuineness of the Sophist and the PoUficus is more difficult. That both ha^-e the same author can be inferred from their form. On the one hand, in both, as in Parmenides, not Socrates but a friend and guest, who is an Eleatic, leads the conversation on the other haud, there is the pedantic and somewhat absurd schematism, with which, by a continnoush' progressive dichotomy, the concept of the Sophist and statesman is attained. It is therefore impossible to ascribe one dialogue to Plato and the other not to him. as Suckow has attempted. The two stand or fall together. It might be possible to divine an intended caricature of the philosopher in certain externals that are in other respects wholly nn-Platouic, but the contents of both forbid this. The criticism of the theory
opment.
;

If Pkilebus, 14

c,

refers to Parmenides, the notable

way

in giving

and TroXXd is rather a reason for regarding the Parmenides as a polemic that had been rejected. This is better than to let both these dialogues stand or fall together, as Ueberweg
of ev

up the investigation

prefers (I. 151, 7th ed.).

18.S

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT

I'lIir.OSOPIlY

of Ideas which is contained in tlie Sijilii,'<f (compare 2S; might 1)0 conceived, perhaps, as IMatonic st'll-criticisin, althongh weighty reasons are also against it. lUit the manner in wiiich it solves tl)e discovered ililllciilliVs is not IMutonic' So the PoIiticKs contains many points of view which agree with IMato's pohtical convictions. It is, however, not piol)al)le that tlie philosopher trieil to treat the same problem in a book other than the RcjuihUc, especially since the I'oUticus sets np other teachings which differ on iniportant points. Convincing reasons are therefore adduced for seeking tlie authorship ofbotii in a member of the Acadeni}- with strong Kleatic sympathies.- It is singuhir enough tluit the divergence of Ijoth from the Platonic teaching lies exactly in the direction of the nietaph3sics and politics of Aristotle,^ wiio enteied the Academy in 3G7. About this lime the dialogue lo may have originated, which indeed makes use of Platonic thoughts in its distinction between poetry and pliiloso[)hy, but cannot be safely attributed to the head of the school.

These (4) The Chief Works on Teleological Idealism. were written in the time before and after the third Sicilian
journey.

They

are the Phcedo, J^hilebus, the correspondf.),

ing parts of the Republic (487

and

in

connection with

these the fragment of Critias and the Timceus.

The

characteristic of this period

is

the introduction of

Anaxa-

Pythagorean elements into tlie theory of Ideas. The central concept is the Idea of the Good. The introduction
of these elements finds its full {)erfection in the Plia-do^ wliich was written presumabl}- shortl}- before the third Sicilian journe}-.
1

gorean and

In tho passatje of

Plmdo

flOl d). Plato explains the problem of

the Sophist

and
to

also of Parmeniiles as relatively indifferent problems,

compared
ideas.
*

the

importaTice

of

the establishment of the theory of

Who

perhaj)s

was prevented by
((f)i\6(Tn(f)ns).

third proposed dialoojue

connected as to

its

from the That the trilogy seems to be external framework (which is moreover verv much
deatli or other cause
is

M'anting in fancy) with the conclusion of the T/zerc^eh,

for the Platonic aiitliorship.
'

not decisive

Tlie

way

in

which he mentions both

dialofrues, I

cannot recognize

as proof of their genuineness, in spite of the conclusions of Zeller (11^.

457

f.).

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

189

if conscious of tlie dangers to be met, Plato gives to this dialogue the tone of a last will and testament to the school. Asa delightful counterpart to the Sijiiiposinm, he pictures the d3"ing Wise Man as a teacher of immortality. After this journey, the philosopher ^ reached the zenith of his metaphysics in his investigations concerning the Idea of the Good, which are embodied in the dialogue PliUehus. All the thoughts- that are expressed there, are to be found again in the less abstract presentation in the middle part of the Eepuhlic,^ which was designated ajDove as its third stratum (487-587).* Plato has then, as an afterthought, brought into external relationship the incomplete sketches of his philoso})hy of histor}" {Critias), and Ukewise his mythical theor}' of nature (Timfeus) with the scenic setting of the Hepuhlic (supposably finished at

As

this time).

(5)

The Laivs.

This

is

the

work

of his old age.

This sketch of a second-best state originated at the time when Plato in his Aoyot aypa-Tnoi entirely went through the theory of Ideas with the Pythagorean theory' of numbers in mind. The exposition passes over here into senile formality, although still worthy our admiration. The present form of the work proceeded from Plato even in its details, although the manusci'ipt was said to have been published first by Philip of Opus after the The same scholar had edited the epitome of death of Plato. the Xa;'-.s, which under the title of Epiuomis was received in
the Platonic circle.
35.

Tlie epistemological, metaphysical doctrine,

known
tlie

as the
'

theory of Ideas, forms

the central point in

takes,

The

new course
have
lost

that
in

Plato the

certainly

shows
like

itself

in

the

peculiar fact that

dvafiinja-ii

the specific

and sense which the earher diak>gues have

Philehus

expressions

epws

given them.
2

Among
In

others, the treatment also of the concept of pleasure

to belonfr to Democritus.

which

might he claimed
s

(See above.)

number of pedagoeical and political discussions have been sprinkled, which already could have belonged to the earlier sketch of the i leal state and supposably did belong to it. The detJls cannot be given here.
this part a

appear

to

In this discusinterpolated piece begins with a discussion. the experiences, which the philosopher underwent with the young sion
* Tliis

tjTant at Syracuse, are

made

use uf detail by detail.

100
Platonic

IIISTOKY OV ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIV

])lnlosoiliy.

lies in Plato's

Tlic root of this inspired conception attempt to transcend the Prota<i:orean doc-

trine of relativity,

whose

validity for the world of sense

and

perception he recognized.

concepts after the Socratic

things.

By the help of the study of method he tried to attain a safe

and a nniversally valid science of the true essence of The final motive of this theory was, however, the ethical need of winning true virtiio hy true knowledge.

The

subjective point of departure

was, for Plato as for

Socrates, the conviction of the inellicioncy of customary

virtue.

The

virtue of custom, resting

l)rudential considerations, is unconscious of its

tal ])riucii)lc,

and

is

exposed to
to

upon convention and fundamenthe insecurity of change and

that
it

opinions.

Plato showed

Sophistry^

with
its

its

pleasure theory took the popular point of view for

try renounced all real

own,

and he found the reason for this in the fact that Sophisknowledge, and therefore could find no fundamental basis for virtue. In this sense Plato ^
purposely agreed with the Protagorean theory about the value of sense perception and of opinions based on it.

He was
But

vigorous in asserting the relativity of such knowlits

edge, and

inability to give us the true essence of things.

precisely for that reason the ethical need drove Plato

to fight Protagoras the

beyond Sophistry, and led him

energetically with Protagoras'
virtue of

more
be

own

relativism.

If there

any sort, it must rest on other than relative knowledge, which alone the Sophists considered. But Socrates had, to the mind of Plato, shown us the way through concejitual science to this other knowledge which is independent of all accident of perception and
1

Especially

Meno, 9C

f.

Compare Phuedo, 82

a,

and the Repuhlic

in

different places.
^ '

Chiefly in the Goryias.

All the
])t)ints
flic;

of view of the Sophistic ei)isteni()li)i^y are discussed

thoroujrhlv in

Thealeliis.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

opinion.
called

191

The methodical development

of this postulate

was

by Plato the Dialectic.^

Its object is

hand

to find individual concepts [crvvajcoyi]),

on the one and then to

mutual relations ot tliese concepts by division Plato used the Socratic induction in the main in finding the concepts, and supplemented this by hypothetical discussions in testing and verifying the conestablish the
{Siaipeaif;,
refjiveuv).

cepts.

These hypothetical discussions draw out

^

all

the

consequences from the constructed concept, and thus bring

it

to the touchstone
is

of fact.

The

dividing of these class

^

concepts

the

method which was introduced anew

;

by

Plato with the intention of

exposing the logical relations

this pro-

between concepts

and therefore connected with

i.

cess of dividing there are investigations concerning the

compatibility and incompatibility of concepts,

e.,

concerngoal of

ing the

principle of disjunction.*

As

the last

dialectic, there
cepts,'^

appeared withal a logical system of conto their relations of co-ordina-

tion

arranged according and subordination.

Herbart, De Plat, systematis fundamento. Vol. XII. 61 f. Ribbing, Genetische Darstellung von Dlatons Ideenlehre (Leipzig, 1863-64) H. Cohen, Die plat. Ideenlehre {Zeitschr. H. x. Stein, Sieben f. Yolkerpsych. u. Sprachicissenrh. 1866) Bcher zur Geschichte des Plat. (Gott., 1862-75, 3 vols.) A. Peipers. Unter s^ichnngen ber das System Plat., Vol. I. (The epistemology of Plato, examined with especial reference
S.
;
;

Phcedr

205

f.

Rep..

.511

IhvL. 5.33.
5.34.

Phileh., 16.

Meno, 86;
;

Ph(EfJ.,

101; Rep.,

The Parmenides

similarly

(135 f.)

but applies the Platonic principle in the spirit of the fruitless

antinomy of the Eleatic Sophists.

3

Phileh., 16.

4
^

Particularly Plued., 102

f.

In

their

method, the

Parmenides,

Sophi'^t.

and

Polilicit.'^

stand

entirely on Platonic

ground by their happy and

logically sharp turns.

The
nile

application, however, that they make of the method seems a juveattempt at independent development rather than an ironical auto-

caricature by Plato.

192

mSTOUY OF

AN'CIKXT 1MIIU)S01'IIV

Onotologia platoiiiai to the ThecFtctus) (Leipzig, 1874) ; (Leipzig, 1883). Tlie I'rotagoreiui doctrine of relativity is for I'lato not only an object of polemic. l)iit, as in the case of Deniocritus, is an integral part of liis system. This will become more evident as we proceed. Skepticism of the senses is the mighty corner-stone of both these systems of rationalistn. On the other hand, the ethical point of view of Plato carried with it the attitude and herein that of Dcmocritns was also one with it that it could not ascribe to the Sophistic doctrine of pleasure even the worth of a relatively valid moment. This was at least the doctrine in the first draft of the theory of the Ideas, although later, especially in the I*hilebus^ Plato's conception was in this somewhat changed

( 36).

made by

Direct, logical, or methodological investigations were not 3et Plato, at least not in his writings. On the contrary, one finds numerous isolated statements scattered through his dialogues. In practical treatment the synagogic method outweighs by far the dieretic. Only the Sojihlst and Politicus give examples of the dieretic method, and these are indeed very unfortunate examples. Hypothetical discussions of conce[)ts, however, grew^ to a fruitful priociple in the scientific theories of the Older Academy ( 37).

These concepts include a kind of knowledge that is very and content from that foinided on j)crseption. perception there comes into consciousness the In Conception gives us the world of cliange and appearance.
different in origin

permanent Essence
tent of concei)tual

of things (oucr/a).

The
ideal

objective conIf true

edge
to
Df

thus Plato followed the Socratic

tliis

knowledge

is

the Idea.

knowl-

is

supposed

be given in the concepts, then

must be a knowledge

As, therefore, the relative truth of sense perception consists in its translating the changing
really
is.^

what

relations that spring

up

in the process

the absolute truth of conceptual

lectic) consists in

of Becoming, s(j knowledge (that of Dia-

the fact that

it

conceives in the Ideas

the true
ferent,

Being, independent of qxgvx change.

So two

dif:

worlds ci)rresi)ond to the two ways of knowing

1

TliPArl.,

188; Rep.,

4 70

f.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

193

world of true reality, the Ideas, the object of conceptual knowledge and a Avorld of relative actuality, the things that come and go, the objects of sense perception.^ The predicates of the Eleatic Being belong therefore to the
;

Idea as the object of true knowledge, avro Kad' avro fied' avTov fxovoecSe^ del 6v ;^ it is unchangeable, ovhe ttot ovSajjuf/
ouSa/ioJ?

dWoi(0(Tiv ovBefilav ivSexeraL.^

The

perceivable

individual things, on the contrary, constitute the Heracleitan

flux of

continuous origination, change, and destruction.

principle of the metaphysical epistemol:

The fundamental
ogy of Plato one of which
is

is this

two worlds must be

distinguished,*

and never becomes, the other of which hecomes and never is ; one is the object of the reason (^6770-69), the other is the object of sense (alcrOritjf^'). Since, now,
the objects are
as

completely separated

{^coplf;)

as

the

methods of knowing are distinct, the Ideas stand as incoi-poreal forms (^dacofiara el'Sr]) in contrast to material things, which are perceived by the senses. The Ideas, which are never to be found in space or in matter, which indeed exist purely for themselves (et'A.t/cpti'e?), which are to be grasped ^ not by the senses but only b\' thought, form an intelligible

world in themselves
of

(T67ro<;

i'ot/to'?).

rational

theory
physics.

knowledge

requires

an

immaterialistic

meta-

This immaterialisra was the peculiarlv original creation of Where in the earlier systems, not excluding that of Auaxagoras, the discussion turned upon the spiritual as the distinctive principle, nevertheless the principle always appeared as a peculiar kind of corporeal actuality. Plato, on the other hand, first discovered a purely spiritual world. The theory- of Ideas is, therefore, an entirely new mediation of the Eleatic and the Heracleitan metaphysic, employing the
Plato.
1

This view
f.,

is

stated most clearly in Timceus. 27

2

f..

57

f.

Compare

Rep., 509

533.

Sijmp.. 211.

Phcedo, 78.
Si/}7ip.,

<
6

Tim., 27 d. Rep., 507; Tim., 28.

211.

13

194

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOIMI

opposition between the Protagorean and Soeratic theories of knowledge. Precisely for this reason, in the Thecetetns, Plato bronght the Sophistic theory of perception into closer relationship to the TTiTa (id than the Sophist himself had brought it. On the other hand, the close relationshii) of the Soeratic episteniology to the Eleatic doctrine of Being had already been recogThe positive nietaphysic of nized by the Megarians ( 28). Plato may be characterized, therefore, as innnaterialistic EleatiTherein consists its ontological character (I)euschle). cism.^ It cognizes Being in Ideas, and relegates Becoming to a lower form of knowing. The neo-Pythagorean-neo-Platonic conception was an enAccording to tiiis conceptire misunderstanding of I'lato. tion. Ideas possess no independent actuality, but are only thought-forms supposed to exist in the divine mind. Through the neo-Platonism of the Renaissance, and even down to the beginning of this centur}", this interpretation of Plato obtained. Herbart was of great service in his opposition to it (JmleU. Vol. I. 240 f.). in d. r/dlos., 144 f.
;

Consistent with the theory of two worlds, as

point in Platonism,
is

tlic

central

the

manner

in

which Plato repreis

sented our cognition of Ideas in particidar.

The primary

function of the Ideas

to set fortli the

logical character of the class concepts, to reveal the

comthe

mon

qualities

(to kolvov) of

the

particulars which

comprehend. They are, in the Aristotelian phraseology, the v eVt ttoXXmv? But Plato regarded the process of thought, not as analysis, nor as an abstraction by
class concepts

comparison, but as rather a synoptic intuition^ of reality

presented in single examples.
tained in
its

The Idea cannot be conIt is of

perceived phenomenon.

another sort,

and cannot be found in appearance. In other words, material things do not include the Idea, but are only tlic
1

Tiie relative pluralistic character of the theory of Ideas

is in

con-

trast to oritiinal

Eleaticism.

It did not, as in the earlier

attempts at

mediation, arise from the need of an explanation of Bccoininj:, but from

the circumstance that conceptual knowledge can and nnist refer to a

manifold of inde[)endent content-determinations.

2

Mel.,

I. D,

9'JO b, G.

pkcedr., 265; Rep., 537.

MATERIALISM AND
copies or shadows^ of

II)P:ALISM

195

it. Therefore the perceptions cannot include the Ideas as separable integral parts, but are,

on the contrary, only the occasions for the apprehension of

that Idea that
is

similar to the perceptions but not identi-

cal with them.

flection, it

Since the Idea cannot be created by reoriginal possession of

must be regarded as an
world.

the soul which the soul remembers

the

when
of

it

sees its copy in

is

sense

The recognition

the ideas

dvd-

In the mythical representation in the Phadrus, Plato

presupposes that the

human
its

soul has gazed

with

its

supersensible

faculties,

world of Ideas,
it

before

those

upon the Idea

to
life,

related

the

entrance into earthly

but

ing phenomena.

remembers them only upon the perception of correspondThereby out of the painful feeling of astonishment at the contrast between the Idea and its phenomenon is created the philosophic impulse, the longThis love
is

ing love for the supersensible Idea.

the epw?,^

which conducts

it

back from the transitoriness of sense to

the immortality of the ideal world.*

There is an interesting parallel between the intuitive character, which the recognition of Ideas in Plato possesses, and the yvw/xTj yvrjCTLrj of Democritus. In Plato also analogies to optical impressions predominate. Both Democritus and Plato have in mind immediate knowledge of the pure forms (iSe'at), the absolutely actual ^ which is attained wholly apart from sense percep1

Rep., 514

.-;

Phtedo, 73.
Phcedr., 249
f.,
f.
;

2
*

Meno, 80
Phcpjir.,

f.

Phcedo, 72

f.

250

and

es^pecially

Symp., 200

f.

The

theory of the epws takes on thereby in the Symposium a more uniall

versal aspect of beholdinoi; the living principle of

in the desire for the Idea (ovo-i'a),
logical interpretation of Ideas.
5

Becoming

(yei/eo-tr)

and so prepares the way for the

speak of " sensualism "
in

teleo-

One has

the

same right

to

Plato as in

Both explain true knowledge of the oi/t-wj ov as the reception of the iSeat by the soul, not as an act of sense perception, although
Democritus.
as illustrated

by the analogy to optical perception.

100
tion.

TIISTOKY OF AXriKNT IMIIU )S()PHY

in IMato {Phrednia mythical tbiiii. For since it is a question of the time-process of the knowleilge of the eternal, of the genesis (tf the intuition of the Absolute, a dialectic presentation is not

The exposition of this teaching appears

in

and Symposium)

l)ossible.

Since the Ideas are hypostasized class-concepts, in their

first

draft there are for Plato as or general

many

Ideas as there are

class concepts

names

for different perceptual

things.

There

are, therefore, Ideas of all that is in

any

wise thinkable,^
of the high

Ideas of
of the low.^

things, (lualitics and relations,

of the bad,

of products of art

and nature, of the good and

and

The

later dialogues (^Sympo-

speak only of such Ideas as have an inherent value, such as the good and the beautiful of such as corres|)ond to nature products, like fire, snow, etc. and, finally, of mathematical relations, like great and small,
siu7n, Plicedo, T'nnceus)
;

unity and duality.

Aristotle reports that Plato in later

time did no longer recognize Ideas of artifacts, negations,

and

relations,

and that he held,

in place of these, essentially

nature class-conce])ts.^
circle within

An

exacter determination of the

in different

which the philosopher, especially

periods of his development, extended or wished to extend

Iiis

theory of Ideas, cannot be made.

In general the chronological order of the dialogues indicates that Plato originally constructed a world of Ideas according to In the his logical and epistemological view of class concepts. course of time, however, he came more and more to seek in this su[)ersensible world the highest values and the fundamental ontological forms, according to which the sense world of Becoming From the world of Ideas there thus arose an is modelled.
1
"^

Rep., 596.

For particular proofs, consult Zeller, II^. 585 f. The dialogue Pnnnenides proves with fine irony to the " young Socrates " that he must accept also the Ideas of hair, mud, etc. (130 f.). In as late a
writing as the middle part of the Republic, Plato used the Ideas of bed,
etc
,

to illustrate his theory.

Met., XI.

3,

1070

a, 1.

MATERIALISM AXD IDEALISM

ideal world.

197
of class
influen-

concepts.

The norms of value thus took tlie jjlace The ethical motive became more and more
as appears also in what follows.

tial in his philosopli}',

The more thoroughly the theory

draft distinguished the

of Ideas in their first

two worlds from each other, the

to determine the relation of the

more

difficult it

became

things of sense to their respective Ideas.

of this relation

The

characteristic

Thecetetus,

most frequently given in the dialogues 3Ieno, Phcednis, and Symponum, and likewise in the

This is consistent with the thought is similarity. which the philosopher developed in those same dialogues concerning the origin of concepts for similarity forms the psychological ground through which,^ stimulated by percepSimilartion, the recollection of the Idea is said to come.
Phceclo^
;

ity ,2

however,

is

not equivalence.

The Idea never appears

fully in the things,^

relationship of

and accordingly Plato designated the The Idea is thus the two as ^ifn)cn,<i^.
original (Urbild) (TrapdSety/xa) ^the sensed

regarded
object

as

tlie

as

the copy

(Abbild)

(^eiSoXov') .

Exactly herein

consists the small

1

amount
:

of reality

which the corporeal

Now

ideas,

one would say according to the law of the association of which moreover Plato enunciated expressly in this respect in the
f.

Phoedo, 73
2

In view of the same the

f.),

Parmenides raises the dialectic plea

It is the objection of the

fl31

that

it

presupposes a tertium comparationis for the Idea and the

infinite regress.

phasnomenon and forms an

TpiTo^ audpcoTTos.
3

Compare

Aristotle, Met.,

VI. 113, 1039

a, 2.

Plato was probably prompted to emphasize this by the incongruity

of actual life with the ethical

retical point of

norm

primarily, however, from the theo-

view by the fact that the mathematical concepts are

factors in the consideration, and that these are never the result of perception.

See PJicedo, 73 a; J/eno, 85

e.

The hypothetical

discussion of
this.

concepts stands furthermore in most exact connection with

*

Wliether he thus early adopted this expression from the PythagoSee the freely accommodative and relatively early presentation in
f.

rean number theory need not be discussed.

^

the Republic, 595

198

HISTORY OF ANCIENT ririLosoriiY

C(Mitrast to tlic oi'tox;
its
6i>.

world possesses in hand, viewed from

On
is

the other

logical side, the Idea

the unitary,

the permanent,! in which the things of sense in their origination, change, and destruction have only temporary and

occasional part {ixerexeiv^-"

tologically so viewed that the

This relationship

is,

again, on-

change of qualities of sensible things is reduced ultimately to a coming and going of On account of this change the Idea at one time Ideas. participates in the particular thing (jrapovaia)^ and at
another leaves
it.'*

The

later phase

{Phcedo) of the theory of Ideas has a

thought that seems to have been absent from the original statement, viz., that in the Ideas the causes may be somehow found for the things of sense appearing as they do
appear.
nize

The purpose

of Plato

was

originally only to recog-

permanent true Being. The theory of Ideas in the" Meno, Thecetetus, Phcedrus, and Si/mposium does not attempt The sigto be an explanation of the world of phenomena.
nilicance of the Sophist is that
it

proposes this problem.

Confronting the theory of Ideas with other metaphysical theories, the Sophist asks how this lower world of senseappearance and its Becoming can be conceived as deduced

from supersensible forms which are removed from

1

all

motion
dialectic

The Parmenides (130

f.)

makes

also at this point

f.)

some

objections of the Eleatic sort.

Plato (Philebus, 14

verv curtly deals

with these.
2 *

Symp., 211
Tiie

b.

Pha;d., 100 d.

which the Phcedo develops this (102 f.) shows a remarkable analogy to the teaching of Anaxagoras, which teaching is also As in Anaxsignificant in other respects in this dialogue (see below.)

way

in

agoras, the individuals are said to

owe

the change of their (pialities to

the entrance or exit of the qualitatively unchangeable XP'JM^ ( 22), so liere the Idea is added as giving a quality and as augmenting the thing
(npo<xylyv(a6ai).

Or

it

disappears

a<_'ain

Ideas,

tlie

one already inherent

is

in the

thing shuts out the other.

when, of mutually exclusive This

explanation

essentially that of the Herbartian conception of Ideas as

absolute Qualillen,

MATERIALISM AN'D IDEALISM

and change.
It

199
is

shows that immaterial Eleaticism

as un-

For in order to explain the motion of the sense-world, Ideas must themselves be endowed with motion, life, soul, and reason.
able as early Eleaticism to explain this problem.

But the

elScov (f>iXot

especially the

deny ^ to the Ideas all these most important quality of motion.

qualities,

The Platonic philosophy reaches its zenith in the solution The Fhcedo declares that in the Ideas of this problem.
alone
is

the cause (alrta) of the phenomenal world to be

is

found, and however this relationship

to be conceived, the
its qualities.^

sense object

is

indebted to the Idea alone for

This
it is

is

the strongest of Plato's convictions, and to prove

the greatest problem of the dialectic.

There are

in-

troduced in the same dialogue, however, the two elements, Anaxagoreanism and Pythagoreanism,^ through which this

new phase
1

of the theory of Ideas took

shape in his mind.

Soph.,

248

f.

The author

of

the Sophist founds this criticism

dvvafiis.

(24

d) upon the definition that the ovrcas ou must be thought as

and wliatever possesses Being must be thought as power in order to explain Becoming {das Geschehen). Although this expression is not
to be explained in the spirit of the Aristotelian terminology (Zeller, 11^.
,

575, 3),

still

this

view

lies

nowise in the direction in which Plato later

solved the problem.

8vvafiis is

8vvafxis is active

used in the sense of a faculty of the soul).

pawer (see Republic, 477, where Ideas are, howas are definable only

ever, final causes,

and not such "

faculties "

through their effects (Rep., he cit).

2

Phcedo, 100 d, where reference seems to be

made

to the dialogue

Soph ist.
^

About the time of

this

change Aristotle entered the Academy,

I.

hence

his exposition of the genesis of the theory of Ideas {Met.,

is

6).

The
of

great significance which

its

ascribed in the Metaphysics to the Pythagois

rean theory in
sium.

bearing on Plato
begins

not consistent with the content

any of the foundation dialogues,

Practically
it

Thecetetus. Phcedrus,

first

with the

Ph debus.
its

and SympoBut even the

Phcedo shows,
theless {Met.,

in its choice of
is

persons and also in

discussion of the

problems, that account

XII.

4,

taken of the Pythagorean philosophy. Xever1078 b, 9) Aristotle himself elsewhere remarks

200
If

HISTORY

(F

ANCIKNT rillLoSOPIIY

the Ideas cannot tlicmsclvL-s

they can be the causes of

move and phenomena only in

suffer change,

the sense that

they are the purposes which are realized in phenomena. The only conception which therefore, from the point of

view of the theory of Ideas, appears to be possible as an

explanation of phenomena,
is

the teleological.^

The true phenomenon

relation

between the Idea {ovaia) and the Phito found in (^yeveai^) is that of purpose.

the z^oi}9-theory of Anaxagoras an attempt to make this point of view valid. But while he subjected the insuflicient

development

of thi:^ theory to a sharp criticism,''^

he main-

tained in addition that the establishment as well as the development of a teleological view of the world is possible

only to a theory of

Ideas.-^
is

The same theory

and
in the

further developed in the Philebus

If the

corresponding part of the Republic.

iSophist* from a formal and logical point of view called

attention to the fact that a similar kolvcoviu, a relationship

of co-ordination

and subordination, exists between Ideas as

phenomena and Ideas, so the Republic^ and the Philebus^ emphasized also the systematic unity of the ova-La, and found it in the Idea of the Good, as including Thus the pyramid of conall other Ideas within itself.
well as between

cepts reached

its

apex, not

l)y
it

means

of a formally logical
in the entire Pla-

process of abstraction, but, as

tonic dialectic, by

happens

means

ing here

its

final

an ontological intuition, expressand highest virodeac^;.'' For since all

of
tlie

that the oriiiinal conception of

of tlie
*

theory of Ideas was independent

number
.'i4

theory.
c.
f.
:

Phileb.,

^vfinacrav yfvtcnv oiaias (v(Ka yiyveadai

^vfiiracrrji.

2 8

PhcEflo, 97
Ibid.,

99

f.

lie called this the bevrepos wXovs of pliilosophy,

and

the development of philosophy as a theoretical explanation of phenom-

ena he sketched
Soph., 251
6
f.

in 95 c,

f.

6 '

7?^p.^

511

b.
loc. cit.

Phileb., 16

f.

Phccdo, 101 b; Rep.,

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

that
is, is

201
or of the

for

some good, the Idea

is

of the

Good

absolute purpose

that to which all other Ideas are subor-

dinated, this Subordination being telcological rather than

logical.

The Idea

of the

Good

stands, therefore, even above

Being and Knowing, which are the two highest disjunctives.^ It is the sun- in the realm of Ideas from which evcrvthino;
else

gets

its

value

as
it

well

as

its

actuality.

It

is

the

World Reason.
Godhead.

To

belong the

name

of vovs^

and that of

This immuterialistic perfecting of the Anaxagorean thought is by Plato in the Philthus (28 f.) and stands opposed to the system of irrational necessity of Democritiis. In this connection, as a matter of fact, the rov? and the Godhead and the Idea of the Good, so far as it included all the others under it, were identified with the total world of Ideas (ama compare Zeller, IP. 577 ff., 593 f.). Neither is there here any suggestion of a personal divine spirit. Compare G. Y. Rettig, Airia im PInltbus (Bern. 1866) K. Stumpf. Verhltnis des plat. Gottes zur Idee des Guten
set
;
;

(Halle, 1869).

The

telcological

cosmology of Plato consisted

in

his

regarding Being or the world of Ideas as both purpose and cause ^ of phenomena or the world of matter, and
besides these teleological causes he recognized no other

causes in the strict meaning of the term.

particular relations of

Likewise in the
pre-

phenomena those things which

sent themselves to sense perception as acting and having effect are valid for him only as secondary ^ causes (^waiTia).

The

true cause

is

purpose.
realizes itself fully in corporeal
2
7jjV/.
;

However, the Idea never

1

Rep., 508

f.

compare 517

b.
is

In Philehus, 26

e,

the search for the fourth principle

17

opened with
If

the expressed explanation that

activity)

rov noiovvros

(f)va-is

(the essence of

may be

distinguished only in

name from

the cause (alrla).

is

this cuTia in the

purpose

is

found in the Idea of the Good, then

the

concept of the teleological cause attained.

*

PkcBdo, 99 b, where the cause

is

distinguished from the ov aixv t6

aiTtof oi/K &v

noT

ftrj

alriop.

202
things.

lllSTOUY OF AXCIKNT rillLOSorilY

This

thouo-lit

was peculiar
it

to the first dnift of the

thi'dry of Ideas,

and

got

new

sujiport

and signilicance

tendency toward Pythagoreanisra which set in IMato's the perfect and imperfect worlds in o})position to each The more, however, the world of Ideas became the other.
ideal world, the perfect

the less could

it

Being or the kingdom of Worth, be viewed as the cause of imperfection in

the world of sense.

The world

of imperfection could rather

For the only be sought in the thing that has no Being. sense world as eternally " becoming" has part not only
in that

which has Being (the Ideas), but also in that which has no Being (/lat) 6v).^ Empty space- was regarded as having no Being l)y Plato as by the Eleatics. Plato moreover regarded emjjty space, like the Pythagoreans, as in itself formless and unfashioned, and precisely
for that reason as purc^

negation
all

(o-repr/cri?)

of

Being.

But the formless

is

capable of

possible forms, and retains

them by

virtue of mathematical determinations.

*

In this

sense the Philebus

opposition

makes the Pythagorean fundamental

first principles of

a part of his teleological metaphysic, in that

he defined as the two

the world of experi7rejoa9

ence the aireLpov (endless formless space) and the

(the mathematical limitation and formation of that space).

Out

of the union of the

two the world of the individual

things of sense appears, and the fourth and highest principle forms the basis of this " mixing." This principle is
the alria, the Idea of the Good, or the cosmic reason, the
vov<;.
1

^
fxr]

Rep., 477 a.'vT'**^

That the
in the

ov wliich

is

designated in the Philebus as

tlie

uneipov

Tbmcu.s ( 37) as 8f^afifvrj. (Kfiaytlov, etc., is space, Zeller has proved (IIP. G05 f.; see also II. Siebeck, Untersuchungen, 49 f.).

and

On this account the word " matter " has been avoided, lest it imply its unavoidable subordinate meaning, " unformed stuff." "Unformed stuff,"
tlie vKt)
3

of Aristotle,

had not yet had

9,

its

meaning determined by
*

Plato.
f.

Compare

Arist. Phys., I.

192

a, G.

Pk'deb., 23

MATERIALISM AN]) IDEALISM

203

Mathematics, whose importance for the dialectic has been emphasized above, had an ontological importance also in Plato's system. Mathematical forms are the linlv by means of which
the Idea shapes space teleologically into the sense world. ^ Here for the first time is explained the position wliich the pliilosopher assigns this science in connection with his epistemology. Mathematics is a knowledge not of the phenomenal world but of the permanent world. For that reason in the earlier dialogues it seems to have been used onl}' for dialectic purposes. Its objects, however, especially geometrical objects, have still something of sense in them, which distinguishes them from the Ideas in the Therefore mathematics belongs, later evaluation of the Ideas. according to the schema of the liepublic (509 f., 523 f.) not to the 8o4'a (the knowledge of yeVco-ts), but to v6qcn<; (the knowledge of ovcria). Witliin ovcTia it is to be distinguished as Starota from the peculiar iTTLo-Ty'i^r), the knowledge of the Idea of the Good. Mathematics appears, then, in the education of the ideal state as tlie highest preparation for philosophy, but only as preparation. Concerning Plato as a mathematician, his introduction of definitions and the analytic method, see Cantor, Geschichte der
'^

Mathematik,
Ill

I.

183

f.

borrowed from the Pythagorean by which he hoped for a systematic presentation and articulation of the world of Logical investigations ^ toward this end were given Ideas. up as soon as from the teleological principle the Idea of The Pythagorean the Good had been placed at the head.
his latter days Plato

number theory

the

principle

method of developing concepts according

to the

number series

commended
1

itself to

him.

In adopting this method, Plato

good parallel exists also here between Plato and Democi-itus,

stood the
Phileb., 28
vryKt]
d),

although in the latter's theory in the place of the teleological aiTia of

the
UTTT}

Philebus
ervxfv,

rj

tov aXoyov Koi

elKrj

Sra/ws koi

to.

and aUhough the

the
sense world.

Kevov

(the Ideal of Plato) produce

and the In view of

ax'tfJ^^^Ta

this,

one

can see
critus,

in the exposition in the Philebus, 23-26, a reference to

Demoother

whose teaching

this dialogue

appears to have used

iu

places ( 33).
^

The Meno shows how we can know Ideas by

Sophist, especially 254
f.

geometrical examples

(Pythagorean doctrine).
^

20-4

HISTORY OF AXCIKNT

rillLosOI'IIV

also syinboli/.cd single Ideas by ideal numbers.

The
the

ele-

ments
bus.

uf the Ideas ai-e the aireipov

and (he

irepa^i in

analuo-y

to the principles laid

duwn

fur the sense

world

in

P hue-

The
^

iretpov has hei'e the significance of " intellio-ible

space."

Out

of the ev

which he identihed^ with the Idea

<'"raded series

of the (iood, he derived all other Ideas, as a of conditioning

and conditioned {irpoTepov kuI varepov).

senile

attempt are to be found in the Philibus In other respects we are instructed onlv by Aristotle concerning these aypanra Soy/xara Met., I. G, 'XIl. 4 f. couii)are A. Tiendelenburg. Plat, deideis et monerh <Ioctrina e.c Arist. illustrata (Leipzig, 182G), and Zeller, III 5G7 f.
: ;

Traces of this and the L>nrs.

is

Measured by its first motive, Plato's theory of Ideas an outspoken ethical metajdiysic. Consequently Ethics
36.
chiefly

was the philosophical science which he

fruitfully built upon.

and most

Among

the Ideas that the dialectic

nndertook to develop, social norms had a prominent place. The immaterialism of the double-world theory necessarily
involved an ascetic morality that was very uncharacteristic
of

Greek thought.

The

Tliecetetua^ for cxami)le, sets

up

an ideal of retirement from the world for the philosopher

who, since earthly

life is full

of evil, finds refuge as quickly

as possible in the divine presence.

The Phcedo *
its details.

further

develops this negative ethics in

the whole
life of

all

It pictures

the philoso])her as already a dying, a puri-

fication of the soul

from the dross

as
it

of sense existence.
it

The

soul in the body

itself

is,

were, in prison, and

virtue.

can free

only

l)y

knowledge and
is

This view, which

oreans

particularly like that of the Pythag-

the ancient moral theories, took in the metaphysical theory of Ideas a special form^ by virtue of which the psychological basis was created also for
^

among

Compare
172, 17G

H
.

Siebeck, Untersuchungen, 97

f.

2
3

Aristox. Elem. harm., II. 30.

*

G4.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

the
positive ethics of

205

Plato.

In the theory of the two

worlds the soul must take a peculiar intermediary position,

a theory
soul

that could be developed not without difficulties

and contradictions.

On account

of its ideal character the

must be capable of conceiving the Ideas, and on this account must be related to tliem,^ The soul belongs to the supersensible world, and should have all the qualities of
that world,

changelessness.
life,*^

unity, and But since it is the cari-ier of the Idea of and as cause of motion is itself eternally movable, it

non-origination, indestructibility,

is

not identical to the Ideas, but very similar to them.^

it had pre-existence and lasted beyond Yet in that changeless timelessness of

Therefore for Plato

the earthly body.

Being which belongs

share, since
it

to

the Ideas

it

has likewise only a

it

also belongs to jevai<; but

is

not identijjrin-

cal with the Ideas.

On

the other hand, the Socratic

ciple required that the soul's

goodness and badness must

itself.*
is

not be attributed to external fate, but to the soul

Since
its

essence, related as

it

to the

world of Ideas,

cannot be answerable for a bad decision, its higher nature must be considered as deformed by the temporary inclinations of the senses.^ Hence the theory of the three " parts " ^ of the soul. This theory, although represented

mythically in the
of ethics.

Phcedrus

(consistent with

its

subject

mutter), became in the Republic an entirely dogmatic basis

There

is

the part that

part

is

related to the Ideas,

Xoyia-rLKOv).

the

directing,

reasoning

{rjjefxoviKop,

Then
is

there are the two passionate {affekt volle') parts.

:

One

the nol)ler

it is

the strong activity of will (v^^, vjxo-

eiSe'?).

The

other, less noble, consists of sensuous appetites

{i7ri6v/j,7]TiK6i^, (f)iXo)(^pi]fiaTov).

These three parts appear

in

the Phcedrus and the Republic as the

1

Forms
d.
f. f.

(et'S?;)

of

Pluedo, 78

f.

'^

ThhL, 105
Rep., 617

6^lOl6TaTov\ ibid.,
Ibid.,

80

b.

* 6

611

f.

Phcedrus, 216

200

HISTOKY OF ANCIKNT rillLOSUrilV

activity of the soul in its unity.

Hence

in the Phcedrus,

also, the soul that is described there as a unity, unites in

itself in

the next

life all

the functions that in the dialogues

are ascribed to

its

three parts/

The

ni\ lbs of
/Ae'p?;,

the
of

Timams

for the lirst time expressly sj)eak of tiie

which the

soul

is

such a way that one part, the

mortal.

composed, and treat the parts as separable, in i^oOs^'" is immortal, the others

Z>ie plat. Psycholoffie Jas. Steger, I^lat. Sft(dien, III. (Innsbruck. 1872) P. WiUbuicr, Die I*kij. des Willens, II. (Innsbruck, 1870); II. Siohcck, Gesch. der Psy., I. 1, 187 f.; Schulthess, Plat. Porschxngen (Bonn, 1875). Plato's psychology was by no means only a result of his theory of nature, but was a metaphysical presupposition for it, This is resting upon ethical and epistemological motives. shown in the beginning of the myth in the Timoeus. Preexistence is supposed to expLain our knowledge about Ideas (by ai'iAirjcns) , and on the other hand to ex[)Uiin our guilt, on account of wliich the supersensible soul is bound in an earthly body (see mytli in Phcedrus). The post-existence of the soul, on the other hand, makes possible not only the striving of the soul to reach beyond eartlily life after a completer identification with the world of Ideas, but above all it makes possible moral Thereupon Plato illuminated this teaching everyrecompense. where by mythical representations of judgment at death, of wanderings of souls, etc. (see Gorgias, Pepublic, Phwdo). Consequently, however weak the proofs maj' be which Plato had adduced for individual immortalitv, yet his absolute belief in it Of the arguments is one of the chief points of his teaching. on which he founded this belief, the most valuable is that wherein he (Plupdo, 86 f. ) contended against the Pythagorean definition of the soul as the harmony of the bod}' by the proof of the soul's substantial independence through its control over the bod}-.^ His weakest argument is that in which the Pha^do
; ;

In the Phcedrus that previous determination of the soul

is

ascribed In
tlie
tlu;

to the sense appetites, which explains the errors of earthly

life.

Phcedo,

tlie

fortunes of
its

tlie

soul after death are

made dependent on
Tim., C9
1

adherence of
8

sensuality.

Pre-existenee and post-existence are ascrib'd

soul.
-

in both cases to tlie

whole

f.

Tlie Mendelssohn copy of the PIkiiIh (Rtrl.

Vn4) especially raises

this point in the spirit of the

philosophy of the Enlightenment.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

207

sums up and crowns all the other arguments: a dialectic subreption from the double meaning of the word adciiaros, in which the soul is explained as immortal because it can exist in no other way than as a living thing (J^hcedo, 105 f.). Compare K. F. Hermann, De imrnortulltatis notione in Plat. Phcedone (Marburg, 1835); id. de partibus animre immortalihus (Gott., K. Ph. Fischer, Plat, de immortalitate animcp doctrina 1850) (Erlangen. 1845) ; P. Zimmermann, Die Unsterblichkeit der Seele in Plat. Pha;d. (Leipzig, 1869) ; G. Teichmller, Studien,
;

I.

107

f.

relationship of tlie three parts to the essence of the soul very dhficult, and is not made perfectly clear. Plato maintains clearly-, on the whole, the unit3' of the soul, but only in a i'evf places particularly emphasizes it. On the one hand, the Phredrus makes all the three parts belong to .the essence of the individual, in order to make conceivable the fall of the soul On the other hand, it appears as if both in its pre-existence. the lower parts originated in the union of soul and bod}', and on that account again were stripped ofl' entirely from the true essence of the soul (I'ovs) after a virtuous life {Pep., 611 Phcedo, The abrupt and direct opposition of the two worlds made 83). this troublesome point in his system {Pej)., 435 f.). So also the specific psychological meaning of the three parts, whose origin is made clear by ethical evaluation, is undetermined. In spite of some similarities, this division is in no wise identical with the present-day psychology and its customary triple division
is
;

The

into ideas, sensations, and desires. Yor the aladi^a-eLs did not, according to Plato, belong to the Aoyto-TiKoV, but must, altiiough he has not expressly stated it, be ascribed to both the other
parts.
will,

On

the other hand, there belong to the vovs not only the

knowledge of Ideas, but also the virtuous determination of the

which, according to Socrates, corresponds to that knowledge. to the Platonic thought when we think of the life of the soul as ordered into three different degrees of worth. Each degree has its own theoretic and practical functions in such a wav that the lower functions may exist without the at least in this life in conhigher, but the higher appear So plants have i-L6vm]TiK6v ( Tim., 77 nection with the lower. Pep., 441); animals have t/^.octSe? in addition to i-iOv/j-rp-iKny and men have, besides these two functions, the AoyicmKoV. The vois is localized in the brain, vfxo^ in the heart, and cTriv/xta in the liver. In the application of this to ethnography, he claimed for the

We

come nearest

Asreeing with Democritus.

208
Greeks the
to

IlISTOKY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIV

oxcellciico of Aoyio-TiK-di' (liepublir, 435 e), allowed the warlike Itarbariuns of the north the predominance of iy/o?, and to the weak barbarians of the south tiiat of liriOv^ia.

Upon

the basis of this psychological theory, Plato went

of the

beyond not only the abstract simplicity

theory of
vii'tue,

Socratic

but also the ascetic one-sidedness of his

own first negative statements. That moral conduct alone makes man truly blessed in this or the other life,^ is his
^

fundamental conviction.

IJut

even

find this true happiness only in the

if he was inclined to most complete perfec-

tion of the soul, in whicli hajjjiiness the soul

is

a sharer in

the divine world of Ideas

as

and even

if

therefore he refused^

unworthy

of the soul every utilitarian principle of con-

ventional ethics, yet he recognized other kinds of happiness

as justifiable

moments

of the

highest Good.

These kinds
of the soul's
^

of happiness are all which, in the entire

activities,

sweep

appear as true and noble joys.

The Philehus

develops such a graded series of goods.

reXo'i^ only in

Plato contended

also, in this dialogue, against the theory that w^ould find the

sense pleasure.
all

But against the view

of

those

who

explain

pleasure as only illusory, he held fast

to the reality of a pure

and painless sense-pleasure,^ and he

contended against the one-sided view that sought true happiness only in insight."

But while he on the other hand

(i/oO?),

recognized the legitimacy of intellectual pleasure, he laid

claim to

it

not only for rational knowledge

but also
all this,

for correct ideas in every science

and

art."

Above

liowever, he set the participation in ideal evaluations and

Rep., 353

f.

2
8 * * '

Compare
Rep., 3G2

entir3 conclusion of Rep.,

;

Books IX., X.
f.

Tkeat., 176; Phtedo, G8

f.,

See Lau-a, 717

728

f.

As already seen

in Gorgias.

Supposahly

Deiiiocritiis.

These statements could he aimed

Phileb., 62
.

just as well against Antisthenes,

Euclid, or Democritus {P/iileh., 21, 60).

8

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

their actualization in individual activity.^

209

and

vitality of

All the beauty Greece was amalgamated here in the tranof reality was already suggested in the which the Symposium ^ develops as the

scendental ideal of the philosopher, and a similar union

of the

two sides

series of objects

working

of the epcu?.

A. Trendelenburg, De Plat. Philebiis consUio (Berlia, 1837) Fr. Susemihl, Ueber die Gtertafel im Philebus (Philol. 1863) ; R. Hirzel, De bonis i/ine Philebi enumeratis (Leipzig, 1868).

However, Plato founded the development of his theory more systematic way upon his triple divisions of the soul. While his first dialogues took pains
of virtue in a still

to reduce the single virtues to the Socratic elSo? of

knowl-

edge, the later dialogues proceeded upon the theory of the

distinct independence

particular virtues.

and the respective limitations of the In so far as the one or the other part

of the soul preponderates in different

men

according to

their dispositions," are they suited to developing one or

another virtue.
perfection,

For every part

of the

soul has its

own

which is is grounded in its essence.* Accordingly Plato constructed a group of four cardinal virtues which at that time were beginning to be frequently mentioned in literature. There is the virtue
called its virtue and
of

wisdom (ao^ia) corresponding

to the y^ye^iovtKv
6v/j.oeiS<;

that of

will-power (dvSpla), corresponding to the

that of

self-control (a((f)poavi'T]), corresponding to the iTridv/xTjTiKov.

Finally, since the perfection of the whole soul consists

in

the right relations of the single parts, in the fulfilment of the souFs particular task through every one of these parts
(to,

iavTov irpdrreLv), and in the

PMeb., 66
Rep., 410
f.

regulative

control

of

Sump., 208
Rep., 441
f.

f.

3 ^

f.

In the entire Republic the ascetic thought of stripping

is

off

the lower

parts of the soul

entirely put aside.

14

210

HISTORY OF ANCIENT THILOSfU'IIY

reason over the two other parts,^ so we have as a fourth

virtue tliat of

an equable arrangement

of the whole.

This

last is called hv Plato hiKaioavin].'^

The
the

last term,

which

is

scarcely understandable
ethics,

point of view uf

individual

arises

from from the

jicculiar derivation

in

the Republic.

which Plato has given to these virtues Loyal to the motive of the theory of

Ideas, the Platonic ethics sketched not so

much

the ideal of

the individual as that of the species

perfect
is

it

pictured less the

ethics

man than

the perfect society.

It

The Platonic

primarily social ethics.

does not treat of the happi-

ness

of the individuals, but that of the whole,^

and this

happiness can be reached only in the perfect state.

The

ethics of Plato perfected itself in his teaching of the ideal

state.

K. V. Hermann, Die historischen Elemente des platonischen Idealstautes (Gesch. Abhandl.^ 132 f.); Ed. Zeller, Der pjlat. St<tat in seiner Bedeutung fr die Folgezeit ( Vortrge vnd Abhandl., 1. 62 f.) C. Noble, Die Staatslehre Plat.'s in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung (Jena; 1880).
;

the state,

Whatever* may be the natural and historical origin its task is the same everywhere, according
:

of
to
all

Plato

viz.,

so to direct the

common

life of

man

that

may be happy through

*

virtue.
is

The task can be accomare not mutually exclusive.

Since already aoxppoavm)

accppnaiivr)

possible only througli tho right rule of

diKaioavut)

the appetites,

and

Compare Zellcr, II. 749 f. ^ The most usual verbal

cal,

translation, justice, concerns onl}- the politi-

not the moral spirit of the case.

B ighteousnes's does

not fully state

the Platonic meaning.

^

Precisely on that account tho philosopher must share in public

if

life,

even

he would find his happiness only

devotion to the divine.
first

in his
;

turning from the earthly

also Rrp., 519
f.

and

in his

See above

The
the state,

book of the Rfpubltc develops

critically the

views of the

Sophists on this point.

How

far in the representation of the genesis of

given

in the

second book

(369 f), positive and negative

analogies appear, cannot be discussed here.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

plislied only

211

by ordering

all

the relations of society accord-

ing to the principles of man's moral nature.

state is

The

perfect

divided into three distinct parts, like the soul of

There are the producers, the warriors, and the adminThe great mass of citizens (S/^yLto? yewpyol kuI istrators.

man.

SyfiLoupyol),
^p7]ij,aTov, are

corresponding to the
life

eTriOu/xTjTCKou or (f>i\o-

entrusted with providing for the material

of the state by caring for its daily to

foundation of the

needs
their

and they are prompted

appetites.

own sensuous

make this provision by The warriors and officials

unsel.fish

(eTTiKovpoi),

corresponding to the dv/xocLSe^ in the

fulfilment of duty, have to guard the state externally by

repelling invasion, internally by executing the laws.

The

rulers, finally {ap-^ovre'^), corresponding to XoycaTiKov or

^yefjboviKoi^,

determine, according to their insight, the legis-

The perfection lation and the principles of administration. its "virtue" is justice however of the entire state

(BtKaLoavvrj),^ that every one

may

get his right.

Justice

consists in these three classes having their proper distribu-

tion of power, while at the

same time every one

fulfils

his

own

peculiar task.

Therefore the rulers must have the

highest culture and wisdom (o-oc^/a), the warriors an undaunted devotion to duty (^dvSpia^, and the people an obedience which curbs the appetites (o-oj^poo-w??).

The
best,

constitution of the ideal state for Plato

is

an aristoc-

racy in the strictest sense of the word.

the wise and virtuous.

It is a rule of the

It places all legislation

and

the entire direction of society in the hand of the class of the scientifically cultured
(^^i\,6a-o<j>oi').^

The

task of the

^ Therefore the corresponding virtue of the individual, the ethical equihbrium of the parts of his soul, is designated by the same name.

Thus must
will

the celebrated sentence (Rep., 473 d) be understood.

There

be no end to the sorrow of

man

until the philosophers (the

scientifically cultured) rule or the rulers are philosophers (are scientifi-

cally cultured).

212

IIISTOKV OF ANCIKXT PHILOSOPHY

is

second class
interests

to execute

practically the orders of the

its

highest class, and to maintain the state and preserve

both
internally
to

mankind have
the

and externally. work and obey.

The mass

of

Since, however, the object of the state does not consist in

securing of any merely outward

all its citizens,

benefit, but in the

demanded that the individmerge himself entirely in the state, and that the state should embrace and determine the entire life of its Plato thus went beyond the political principle of citizens. the Greeks. The development which this idea found in the social organization of the iroXneia was restricted, nevertheless, to the two higher classes, which were taken together under the name of " guardians " {(f)vXaKe<i). For the mass of the Bfjfxo^ there is accessible no virtue founded
virtue of

Plato

ual should

on knowledge, but only the conventional virtue of society,

which

is

enforced by the strict execution of the laws and

attained through utilitarian considerations.

politics leaves therefore the third

The Platonic
In
its

class to itself.

desire for acquisition, this class

tally

is

sensuous motive
labor
it

and

it

moved by a fundamenperforms its duty when

furnishes the material foundation for the life of the state, and yields to the guidance of the " guardians." But the prenatal and present life of the " guardians " are
its

by

to be controlled by the state.

of the propagation of the species, Plato

Impressed by the importance would not leave

marriage to the voluntary action of the individual, but decided that the rulers of the state should provide for the
right constitution of the following generation by a fitting

choice of parents.*

Education of the youth

in all depart-

ments belongs to the state, and gives equal attention to bodily and spiritual development. In the latter it progresses from folk-lore and myths through elementary instruction to poetry and nuisic, and thence through math

Rep., 416 b.

MATERIALISM AND InEALTS^[

213

ematical training to interest in philosophy, and, finally, to In the different the knowledge of the Idea of the Good.
steps of this education, which
is

the

same

for all the chil-

dren of the two higher classes, those children are pruned out by the state officials that no longer seeni to show fitness
of disposition

and development

for the higher tasks.

Dif-

ferent grades of officials and warriors are thus formed from

these.

This sifting process leaves ultimately the

^lite,

who

succeed to the position of archons and dedicate their lives

partly to the furthering of science and partly to the administration of the state.

Herein are the two upper classes a

is

great family

every form of private possession

renounced,^

wants are cared for by the state support, w^hich is furnished by the third class. The Platonic state was accordingly to be an institution Its highest aim was to prefor the education of society.

and

their external

pare

man

by the sensible for the supersensible world, by

life.

the earthly for the divine

The

social-religious ideal is

that which floats before the philosopher in his methodical delineation of the " best " state. As all the higher interests
of

man

will be included

by

this social

community

of life, so

the philosopher believed that the state should have exclusive control not only of education art

and

religion.

Only that
is

art

shall be allowed

and science but also of whose

in

imitative^ activity

directed

upon the Ideas, especially the

Plato

Idea of the Good.^

the evaluation
of

The Greek KaXoKorjaQia consisted

everything beautiful as good.

reversed the order of this thought by establishing only the

good as the

really beautiful.

In the same way the ideal

of the

state accepts in the

main the myths and the culture

Greek

state religion as educational material for the third

class of society,

cially in childhood.*

and partly also for the second class, espeBut the state expunges from the
*

Rep., 416 b.

Ibid., 313.

Ibid.,37Q{.

Ibid.,

369

{.

214

HISTKY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

all

myths

things immoral and ambiguous, and permits their

use only as the symbolical representations of ctiiical truths. The religion of the philosophers, however, consists in sci-

ence and virtue, of which the highest goal is the attainment the Godhead. of likeness to the Idea of the Good,

Plato did not conceive his city as an imaginary Utopia, but in lie employed therefore all earnestness as a practicable ideal,
ill

manv

particulars, especially in social arrangements,

numerous

features of the then existing Greek states, and he preferred, natuordinances of the rally enough, the stricter and more aristocratic Doric race Though he was convinced that out of the existing circumstances his ideal could be realized only through force, yet he had none the less faith that if his proposal were tried, he would bestow upon his citizens lasting content, and would make them strong and victorious against all foreign attack. In the

incomplete dialogue, Critias, the philosopher tried to develop that the state founded on culture should show this thought, founded on mere exitself superior to the Atlantis, the state idealizing of the Persian wars probably floats An ternal power. begnnnng, before him. The description is broken off at the very Atlantis there is wonderful similarity in the picture of the and

to the institutions of former American civilizations. As to details, we should make a comparison of the Republic The Politicus offers many with all of Plato's other writings.

similar

foreign-,

thoughts, but with the interweaving of much that is and it has predilection for monarchical forms of government. It deviates from the Republic^ especially in its theory of the different kinds of constitutions, contrasting three worse forms with three better.'^ The kingdom is contrasted to the tyranny, the aristocracy to the oligarchy, the constitutional to Inexact sketches are drawn of the the lawless democracy. In the Ripuhlic,^ seventh, or best, state in contrast to these. Plato used his psychology to show how the worse constitutions come from the deterioration of the ideal states. These are the timocrac}' in which the ambitious rule, the predominance of the the oligarehy in which the avaricious rule, the prev/xoiSs dominance of the i-n-iOvixrjTtKov the democrac}' or realm of universal license; and, finally, the tyranny or the unfettering of the most disgraceful arbitrary power. The aristocratic characteristics of the Platonic state correspond not only to the personal convictions of Plato and his
;

Rep., 540 d.

Polit.,

302

f.

Rep., 545

f.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

215

great teacher, but are developed necessarily from the thought ihat scientific culture can be obtained only by the ver\' few. In scientific culture is the highest virtue of man, and his only Likewise, the exclutitle to political adniinisirution {Goi'gias). sion of all non-intellectual labor from the two directing classes is consistent with the universal Greek prejudice against the However, it is justified by Flato in the reflection proletariat. that all true labor presupposes love for its task, or brings love with it and accordingly, that all manual work necessarily lowers the soul to the sensuous, and makes distant its supersensible From the same motive came the exclusion of family life goal. and private possessions. It is misleading to speak here of a communism. The community of wives, children, and goods is This was not to expressl}' delimited to the two higlier classes. satisfy a claim for universal equality, as was the case in the naturalistic investigations of radical Cynicism, but, on the contrary, to prevent private interest from interfering in any way with the devotion of the warrior and ruler to the welfare It is, in a word, a sacrifice made to the Idea of the state. of the Good. The peculiar character of tlie ethics of Plato, and at the same time its tendency to go beyond actual Greek life, consisted in the complete subordination of the individual life to the purpose of the political whole. In contrast to the degenerating Hellenic culture the philosopher held an ideal picture of political societ}', which could first actually be when the Platonic thought predominated that all earthl}' life has value and meaning only as an education for a higher supersensible existence. To a certain extent the hierarch}' of the Middle Ages realized the Platonic state but with the priests in place of the philosophers. Other moments of the Platonic ideal for example, the control of science by the state have been realized also to some extent in the public measures of some modern nations. Concerning Plato's theory of education see Alex. Kapp (Minden. 1833); E. Snethlage (Berhn, 1834); Volquardsen (Berlin, 1860) K. Benrath (.Jena. 1871) concerning his attitude toward art, K. Justi, Die festh. Elemente in der 2:)lat. Pliilos. (Marburg, 1860) concerning his attitude toward religion, F. Ch. Bauer, Das Christliche des Platonismns (Tbingen, 1873). Compare, also, S. A. Byk, Hellenismus xind Piatonismus (Leipzig, 1870).
;
:

Similarly Plato's ethics also experienced as disadvan-

tageous a later transformation in the

Laws

as his theoretic

210

HISTORY OF ANrir.NT
liis

I'lIILoSOPIIY

pliilosophy in the Iccttircs of

old ngc.

In pessimistic'
ideal, (he phi-

despair- as

ti)

the leali/ation of his

i)()litical

losopiier attempted to sketeh a morally oi'dered

community
on the one

without the controUinjr inHucncc of the theory of Ideas

and

its

devotees.

In the

j)laec of ithilosojjliy,

hand

form miieh nearer to the national mode of thought, and on the other mathematics with its Pythagorean tendencies to music and astronomy. Philosophical culture was replaced by practical prudence ^ and precise conformity to law and the Socratic (</)poi/77cri'?) virtue by a moderate dependence on ancient worthy cusreligion presented itself in a
,

toms.

Thus the

state in the Repuhlic changed,

when

it

appeared
into a
all

in the later writings, into a

mixture of monar-

chico-oligarchic

tlie and democratic elements, compromise with historical conditions.

ideal

power

^Moreover,

this is

set before us in a long-winded, unconcentrated

presentaJ:ion,

which seems

to be

wanting the

last finishing

touches and the final redaction.*

Just because the Laws give details of contemporaneous life, they are of high antiquarian, even if of very little piiilosophical Thev represent so great a deterioration, not only from value. the theory of Ideas, but from Plato's entire idealistic thought, that the doubts which have been wisely put aside again as to Compare Th. their genuineness are vet entirelv conceivable. Oncken, Staatslehre des Arist., 197 f. E. Zeller, IV. 09 f. the five essays by Th. Bergk, concerning the History of Greek Philosophv aiul Astronomy (Leipzig, 1883) E. Pnetorius, iJe
; ;
;

legibus Flat. (Bonn, 1884).

37.

The

epistemological dualism of the theory of Ideas

allowed and demanded a dogmatic statement concerning ethical norms of human life, but no equivalent recognition
^ Laii-s, C44. The conviction as to the ])a(lness of the world grew up here to the extent of a belief in an evil world-soul, which works against Compare 37. See Laws, 89G f. the divine soul.

Ibid., 739

f.

Ibid., 71-2, in

exact antithesis to Rep., 4 73.

* Ibid.,

740

f.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

217

For although Plato had fully deterof nature phenomena. mined that the tasks of metajihysics lay in regarding the Ideas and especially the Idea of the Good as the cause of the sense-world, that world nevertheless remained to him as before a realm of Becoming and Destruction. According
to the premises of his philosophy, this

realm could never

be the object of dialectic or true knowledge.

of nature, but

The

point of

view of the theory of Ideas presupposes a teleological view it offers no knowledge of nature.
In his latter days, complying with the needs of his

his research

drew natural science also within the realm of which science he in the spirit and theory, He, nevertheless, of Socrates had earlier entirely avoided. remained always true to his earlier conviction, and emphaschool, Plato

sized

it

with great clearness and sharpness at the beginning

of the Timceus, in

was set down.^

eiTLcni'iixT]

which the result of these investigations This was to the effect that there can be no

of the
:

Becoming and destruction

of things, but

only TTiaTL^

no science, but only a probable conclusion.

He

claimed therefore for his theory of nature, not the value

of truth, but only of probability.

The presentations

in the

Timceus are only elKore^

to his theory of

however closely related Ideas, they nevertheless form no integral

fivOoi, and.

part of

its

metaphysics.

Aug. Bockh. De Platonica corporis mundaai fabrica (Heidelberg, 1809) Untersuchunyen ber das kosmische System des Plat. (Berlin, 1852) H. Martin. pAudes sur le Timee (2 vols., Paris, 1841). Plato's philosophy of nature stands, then, not in the same, but in a ver\' similar relationship to the metaphysic of his theory of Ideas, as the hypothetical physics of Parraenides to his theory of
;
;

Being. In both cases

1

it

seems to have been a regard

for the

needs

Tim., 28

-which discussion, 27 d, begins witli the recapitulation of

the theory of the two worlds.

to the theory of Ideas
is

The

relation of the philosophy of nature

characterized most exactly by sentence 29 c;

on nep npos

yeveatv oiaia. tovto npoi iriarLV dXrjdeia.

218
{ind

IIISTOKY OF ANCIKNT PIIII^OSOrilY

wishes of the pupils
in
tliat

occasioned their clesceiuliiifr from to an experimental interest in IMato designated expressly this i)lay witii the the ehangeable. tiK<')r f.Lv(>L as the only permissible diversion from his dialectic, whieh was his life-work {Tim., 59 c). Althongh a eritieal and often, indeed, polemieal consideration of existing opinions appeared here, the formal moment of which Diels {^lufs. z. ZeUerJiib., 2.")4 f.) made of great importance in Parmenides, Plato took account of the fact that a school that had a school-membership of the organization and range of the Academy could not hold itself indefinitely aloof from natural science, and that such a school would be obliged fmally to come to some terms or other.^ "While, however, upon the basis of the theor3- of Ideas a perfect knowledge of the comi)arative worth of the individual, society, and history could be obtained, yet the determination of the reality of nature through the Idea of the Good was not to be developed with equal certainty as to details. Suppose, then, l)hysics and ethics to be the two wings of the Platonic edifice,
interest

permanent Heing

the ethical wing is like the main portion of the edifice in style the physics is, however, a lighter, temporary and material structure, and is merely an imitation of the forms of the other. That which pressed upon the philosoj)her and was treated b}' him with careful reserve was, remarkably enough, made of the
;

The greatest importance by his disciples in later centuries. teleological physics of Plato was regarded through Hellenistic time and the entire Middle Ages as his most important achievement, while the theory of Ideas was pressed more or less into Relationships to religious conceptions are the background. chiefly accountable for this, but still more the natui'al circumstance that the school had an especial fondness for the more This explains why tangible and useful part of his teaching. already Aristotle (De an., I. 2, 404 b, IG) contended against the myths of the Tiniceus as though they were serious statements of doctrine.

The

basis for the

myths

of the Timreus is the

metaphys-

ics of the Philehus.

The

sense world consists of infinite

space, and the particular mathematical forms which that

space had taken on in order to re])rescnt the Ideas.

But

conceptual knowledge cannot be given of the efticacy of Consequently the Tlmceiis begins these highest purposes.
^

Concerning the influence of Eudoxus, see

I.

11.

Usener, Prenss. Jahrb.,

LH

lf.

MATERIALISM AXD IDEALISM

219

by personifying this efficacy mythologically as the worklforming God, the ST]fxtovpy6<i. It is purposeful force it is good, and because of its good-will has made the world.' In the act of creation it had in view the Ideas, those pure unitary forms of which the world is a copy.^ The world
;

is

therefore the most perfect, best, and most beautiful,^ and

it is

since

the product of divine reason and goodness,

it

is

the only world.

The perfectness of the o?ie world which is reasserted with especial solemnity at the end of the Tim<xus. is a necessary requisite of the teleological basis of thought. The denial of the opposite proposition, that there are numberless worlds (Tim.. 31 a), appears as a polemic against Deraocritus, especially in
connection with what immediately precedes (30 a). Accordinu' to Democritus' mechanical principle, the vortices arise here and there in the midst of chaotic motion, and out of these the worlds arise. According to Plato, the ordering God forms only one world, and that the most perfect.

That, however, this world corresponds not perfectly with

the Ideas,* but only as closely as possible,
is due to the second principle of the sense world, to space into which God has built the world. Space is known neither by

thought nor sense.

It

is

neither a concept nor percept,

fjui]

Idea nor sense object.

It is the

6v or

what possesses

no Being, without which the ovrwi 6v could not appear,

It " is the ^waiTtov comparison to the true aiTLov, and so also the things formed in it in the individual processes of the world are They form a natural necessity (vd^Krj^ ^ beside ^vvalrta.^

nor the Ideas ^ be copied in sense things.

in

Tim., 29

c.

Ihid.,

30

c.

The

teleological

motive of the teaching of Anaxagoras, wliith

in

was accepted already

*
^

the

Pluedo, forms one

of

the fundamental

teachings of the Timceus.

Tim., 30
a,

46

c.

/j/j.^ 52.

Which
Ibid.,

are
e,
;

midway between Being and not-Being.

meaning a second kind of
Phoedo, 96
f.

Rep., 4 77

f.

'
8

Tim., 68

alria.

46 c

Tim., 48 a, another term used comoletely in Democritau sense.

220

iiisroin'

of ancient thilosopiiy
circniTi'

the divine reason, which necessity under certain

stances stands in the

divine ri'ason.

way
^

of the telcol<2:ical activity of the

Space

(^-^wpa, tottos") is that

c5

wherein the

cosmic process comes to pass (^eKelvo iu

takes on
also the
all
?}

yiyverai^ which

bodily forms

(^(f)uai'i to.

-rnivTa crMfiara he-)(^o^evri^

yeuecreco'i^

Be^a/jLevi]

or u7ro8o^7)

Tt)<;

determinate plasticity

(^a^op^ov eKfiajelov}.

and is inOut of this

,

Nothingness

God

creates the world.

48

" matter" of the rptrov yeVos (Tim., with empty space is most certainly proved by his constnietion of the elements out of triangles (see below), in which connection the philosoi)her identified the mathen)utieal body See also J. P. Wolilstein, immediately with the physical body. M(if( rie und M^eltseele im platonischen >Si/s(ei/i (Marburg, 1HG3).

The
f.)

identity of Platonic

The cosmos must

miurge
soul.2

also, as the
soul.

most perfectly perceivable

thing, possess reason and

in the creation of a

The
is

first

task of the de-

world

the creation of a world-

As

the life-principle of the All, the world-soul

its

must

unite in itself
its

Form-determining capacity,

its

motion and

consciousness.

The

world-soul

is

the

mean between the

unitary (the Idea) and the divisible (Space), and possesses

the opposite qualities of sameness (ravTov)
(ddrepov).
It is itself

It

holds in

itself all

and change numbers and dimensions.

is

the mathematical form of the cosmos,

distrib-

uted by the demiurge into harmonious relations, in which

distribution

an inner

circle of

changing motions and an

outer circle of uniformity (the place of the fixed stars and

The latter is again divided By means of these circles, each moved according to its own nature, the world-soul is supposed to have set the entire cosmos into motion. By means of this motion, permeating the whole and returning*
planets)
is

to be distinguished.
itself.

proportionately within

to itself, the world-soul created in itself

1

and

in individual

Tiii^

43

f.

2
*

Compare
Ibid., 37.

the claims of Democritus.

yVm., 35

1.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

things consciousness, perception, and thought.

221

The most

perfect kind of knowledge, however, is the circular move-

ment
The

of the stars,

which continually returns

to itself.

particulars of this extremely imaginative description of the Timceus are obscure, and have been subject to controversy The tendenc}- toward the number (see Zeller, IP. 646 fF.). theory of the Pythagoreans as well as toward their astronomy and harmonics is unmistakable. In the division of the worldsoul, with which the divisions of the astronomical world are identical, harmonic proportion and arithmetical means play the chief role. The important thought is that with this general division of the mass and motions of the cosmos, a perpetual definiteuess of form (Trepas) belongs to space, which is a companion principle of the aireLpoi' in the Pliihbus ( 35). The mathematical was therefore not for Plato entireh' identical with but it was in the most intimate connection with the world-soul it, and was in a similar intermediary position between the Ideas and the sense world. The characteristic of the Platonic theor}' of motion is that it referred all motions of individual objects to the teleologically determined motion of the whole. It thus was in antipodal
;

opposition to Atomism, which considered motion to be an independent function of single atoms. It is remarkable that the Timceus emphasizes many times (Zeller, II'\ 663, 3) the connection, nay the identity, between motions and intellections. The " right idea " is referred, for example, to the Orepov, to irregular motions rational knowledge, on the other hand, is referred to Tai'Toi', the uniform, circular motions (Ti)/i., 31).^ It is also here characteristic that all particular acts are referred to the universal functioning power of the world-soul. Thus to the world-soul is lacking the characteristic of personality.
;

The
space

further mathematical formation (Trepa?) of empty

accomplished in the individual tilings, which have been introduced by the demiurge into the harmonious sysis

tem

of the world-soul

and,

firstly, in

the formation of the

elements (aroxela).

Besides an

artificial

deduction of their

fourfold number,^ which introduced air and water as the two

^

If in

these theories any use

gard by no means improbable

made of Deniocritus which re his teachings have, at any rate, received

is

an independent treatment,
2

Tim., 31

f.

222

IlISTOUY OF AXCIKNT J'llILOSOrilY

fire and earth, Plato gave a stcreomctrical from these four elements, which development,
^

means between
(levoloi)nioMt

as

among

the

bodies as the

Pvthagoreans, presents the four i-cgular fundamental foi'ms of the elements. The
the

tetrahedron

is

fundamental form of

fire;

the octa-

hedron, of the air; the icosahedron, of the water; the

He conceived, however, these fundamental bodies as constructed out of planes, and indeed of right-angle triangles which arc sometimes isosceles, and sometimes of such a nature that the catheti stand in the
cube, of the earth.
ratio of one to two.^

With

this construction the transfor-

mation
ceived.

of space into corporeal

matter seemed to be con^

From

the different magnitudes and numbers of

Avcre next derived with

these indivisible plane-triangles

clever fancifuhicss the physical and chemical qualities of

individual stuffs, their distribution in space, their mingling,

and the continuous motion in which they

in

exist.

Plato also believed that the individual elements and stuffs are a determined pint of space according to the predominating mass, to wliicli the scattered parts then strive to return. It is not entirely clear how he introduced tlie relationships of weight At any rate, he had been sensible of the into this thought. fact that the (iirection from above downward cannot be regarded as absolute hut that in the world-sphere only the two directions, to the centre and to the periphery, exist.
;

Plato's astronomical views differ

from those

of the Py-

thagoreans essentially in his acceptance of the stationariness of the earth.

like a

According

to his theory, the earth rested

sphere in the middle of a spherical-shaped Avorld-all. Around the " diamond " axle of this world with daily
revolution from east to west swings in the outermost periph1

Tim., 53

f.

The square

is

constructed out of the furnier

the ecjuilateral

tri-

angle, of the latter.

^

V.'hich accordingly take the

])lace of tlic

"trofxa

and

a\r]fj.uTu

of

IVmocritus.

MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

223

ery the heaven of the fixed stars, in which the single stars are conceived as " visible gods " ^ in continuous perfect

movement upon

their

own

axes.

That revolution

is

communicated to the seven spheres, viz., the five planets, These intersect the first circle (of the sun and the moon. direction of the zodiac. The planets, the fixed stars) in the
sun and moon, have, however, within their orbits their own
reverse

movements

of differing velocity.

The last proposition as an astronomical explanation of the apparent irregularity of the movements of the planets, remained The methodical principle for a long time authoritative. lying at its basis has been strikingh- formulated by Plato or
his followers in the question
fxei'UiV
:

KLvrjcr wi'

^ia(jUiB fi to. Trcpi

tlvwv VTroTeOeia-iLv o/^aAwv koI rerayras Kivrjcru<i twv TrAa^oj^ei/cov cjiauvo-

fieva

(comp. Simplicius with Aristotle,

of

De

ccelo, 119).

The theory
tion.2

motion in the

Tiniceiis

concludes with a

detailed account of the psycho-physical process of percepIt is concerned with establishing those conditions motion of external objects and of the body which call forth the motions of the soul, its sensations and feelings.^

of

With great pains

in this

connection the investigations of

Since the

the physiologists, just as the theory of Protagoras,* were

adjusted to the teleological theory of motion.

subjective

moment

is,

moreover, separated from the objecillu-

tive in al'a0r]ai<i, the nature philosophy confirms the episte-

mological point of departure which the Thecetetus had

minated.
Finally, by

way

of appendix, the Timceus gives a sketch

of a theory of diseases

and their

cures,

and thus yields to

the encyclopaedic
1 -

demands

of the Platonic school.

Tim., 40 a.
Ibid., Gl
f.
f.

For

details, see

H. Siebeck, Gesch. der Psych.,

is

I., 1,

201
^

In

tliis

respect the exposition of the Timceus

it

supplemented by

that of the Repnhlic and the Philnhus, while

theoretical principles of the Thecetelus.
*

develops empirically the

And

perhaps much also which belongs to Democritus.

224

IIISTOIIY

OF ANCIENT

rilILOS<

I'lIV

6.

ARISTOTLE;
men around
its

A
large

career of nearly forty years in tcacliing gathered a

number
and

of superior

Plato,

and gave

to

the operations of his school, in

torical
scientific

treatment of ethico-his-

medical studies, that comprehensiveof

ness of which indications appeared in his later dialogues.^

To

the stately

number

men

that belonged to

tlie

school
valu-

more or

less closely, empirical research in the

owed much

able enrichment

immediately succeeding time, but

philosophy gained at their hands scarcely anything worthy

of

mention.
it is

Only the one man, Plato's greatest pupil,

who

true did not remain in the ranks of the

Academy,

but founded a school of his own, was called to bring to completion the history of Greek philosoi)hy with his wonderful system of thought.

This

man was

Aristotle.

history of the Academy is generally divided into three the Ohier Academy, which lasted five periods about a century after the death of Plato the Middle Academy, which filled out the second century, in which period we distinguish two successive schools, that of Archesilaus and that of

The

and perhaps

Carneades the New Academy, which extended to nco-Platonism, and in which the dogmatic movement advocated by Philo of Larissa is to be distinguished from a later eclecticism of Antiochus of Ascalon. The two later phases belong to the syncretic For general comparisons, see skepticism of Greek philosophy. H. Stein, Sieben Bcher zur Gesch. d. Piatonismus (3 vols., Gttingen, 1862-7).
;

38.

The

so-called Older
of

Academy
healthy

stood entirely under

the

influence

that less

tendency which the

Platonic philosophy in later time had shown theoretically toward the Pythagorean number theory and practically toward a popular and religious system of morals. Speusippus (d. 339), the nephew of Plato, took charge of the
*

See H. Usener, Ueberd. Orr/animtion

(Preus.t. Jahrh. 53,
1

d.

idssenscha/dichfin Arbeit

im Alterthum

ff.)

E. Ileitz,

D.

Plil/ux.

xchulen

Athens {Deutsche Recite, 1881).

ARISTOTLE

225

school after Plato, and Xenocrates of Chalccdon followed Speusippus. To the same generation belonged Heracleides

and Philip of Opus. The astronomer Cnidus and Archytas of Tarentum, head of the Pythagoreans of that time, stood in a loose relation to the
of Pontic Heraclea

Eudoxus

of

Platonic scliool. The following generation of the school yielded to the spirit of the time, and turned essentially to
of the school,
of Athens was then head and since his gifted pupil, Grantor, died before him. Crates of Athens became his

ethical investigations.

Polemo

from 314

to 270,

successor.

exact description of all the Academicians of this time is 836 f. F. Bcheier, Acad, philos. index Here >dane/isis (Greifswald, 1869). Our knowledge concerning the different tendencies within the Academy arises from the fact that after Plato's death, as Speusippus had been designated b}- Plato to succeed him as schularch, Xenocrates and Aristotle left Athens. The former was afterward chosen to lead the school the latter somewhat later founded a school of his own. Judging by what has come down to us about Speusippus, he was a vague and diffuse writer. Diogenes Laertius (IV. 4 f.) gives a list of his writings, and these touch upon all parts of The most appear to have been i-^o^An'^iia-a in reference science. to his career as a teacher. It was these that Aristotle had in mind in his frequent and mostly polemical references to SpeusipA writing is particularly mentioned which was concerned pus. with the Pythagorean number, and so also the "O^ota, which is an encyclopedic collection of the facts of natural history- arranged by name. Compare Eavaisson, Speus. de primis rerum prixcipiis pddcita (Paris. 1838) M. A. Fischer, De Sj)ens. vita Xenocrates, Plato's companion upon his third (Rastadl. 1845). Sicilian journey, who was distinguished for his strong, serious personality, was hardly more significant as a philosopher than Speusippus. Diogenes Laertius (IV. 11 f) mentions the long list of his writings. R. Heinze. X. (Leipzig, 1892), gives a comprehensive exposition of his theory with the fragments appended. Heracleides came from the Pontic Heraclea, was won over to the Academy bv Speusippus, and liad especially as an astronomer independent importance. Plato passed over to him, during his last journey to Sicilj', the leadersliip of the Academv. When after Speusippus' death Xenocrates was chosen scholarch,
in Zeller, IP.
;
;

An

15

226

HISTORY or AXCTKNT rniLc^sopiiv

Ilerncleides went to his home and founded there his own school, which he administered until after 380. He was a nuiny-sidcd, ffisthelically inclined, and productive writer, and he was fan)iliar not only with the Tlalonic and Pythagurean teaching, hut also Compare Diog. Laert., V. 80 f. Rouler, with Aristotelianism. De vita et S(Tij)fiti JL r. Poii. (Loewen, 1<S2H) E. Deswert, De Her. Pon. (Loewen. 1830) L. Coliu (in Cotnimnt. p/iil. in hon. Philii> of Opus prohahly edited Baffertfc/ttid, Breslau. 1884). the Dawx of Plato, and was besides the author of the I^jnnomis. The renowned astronomer F^udoxus (40G-3r>,'>) joined the Aead;
; ;

some time accoiding to the many different testimonies of the ancients (Zeller, IF. 845 f ), and he developed its astronomical theories. But on other questions, especially etliical ones, he A. Bockh, Ueber die deviated widely from the Academy. Mtrja/in'f/oi Soiiitenkreise der Alten, besonders den eudoxisv/iat (Berlin, 186.3). Among the later Pythagoreans, Archytas was pre-eminent. In tlie first half of the fourth century he placed a great role in his native city, Tarentuni, as scholar, statesman, and general. Whatever has been transmitted with any assurance concerning him and others, shows us that just as the Pythagoreans influenced Plato in various ways, so also Plato on his side influenced to such a degree the Pythagoreans, that the theory- of numbers in its last phase fused perfectly- with the theory of Ideas, which was nominally its rival. The significance of Archytas lay in the
eni}- for

His philosophy agreed realm of mechanics and astronomy. throughout with that of the Older Academy. On account of the close personal relationship in which he stood to Plato, the genuineness of those fragments may well be possible in which he Tliese fragments are gave a Platonic turn to Pythagoreanism. see Mullach, II. 16 f. collected by Conr. Orelli (Leipzig, 1.S27) G. Hartenstein, De Arch. Tar. frag. j)A{/o.s. (Leipzig, 1833); Petersen (Zei7sc/^r.y. Altert lonsiHsttenachaft, 1836) O. Gruppe, Die FrcKj. des Arc/i. (Berlin, 1840) Fr. Beckmann, De Pythagoreorum reliquiis (Berlin, 1844); Zeller, V^ 103 f.; Eggers, De Arch. Tar. etc. (Paris, 1833). Polemo and Crates owe the leadership of the Academy more to their Athenian birth and their own moral worthiness than to their philosophical significance. Crantor originated in Soli in Cilicia, and was known particularly through his writing, Trepi irevOov?. H. E. Meier, Ueber die Schrift., irefn tteVOous (Halle, F. Kayser, De Crantore Acadefnico (Heidelberg, 1841). 1840)
; ; ;
;

The Older Academy took

as its point of view.

in general the

Laws

of Plato

It ])ushed the

theory of Ideas aside

ARISTOTLE
to

227

number theory. Thus Speusippus on numbers a reality that is supersensible and separs^ted from the objects of sense, the same which Plato had given to the Ideas. Similarly Philip of Opus in the Ei^inomis declared that the highest knowledge upon which the state in the Laws must be built is mathematics and astronomy. For these sciences teach men eternal proportions, according to which God has ordered the world and by which he is leading it to a true piety. Besides this mathematical theology Speusippus, accommodating himself

make way

for the

his side ascribed to

to the spirit of his school, recognized to a greater degree than Plato the worth of empirical science. He dilated upon an aLcrdr]aL<; iTTicrrTj/jLoviKr], which participates in con-

ceptual truth. ^

But he had no explanatory theory

of this,

rather only a collection of facts arranged logically as he pre-

sented them in his

compendium

(Bfioia ouoixara)

which was

manifestly intended for the use of the school.

basis for instruction .^

Xenocrates

divided philosophy into dialectics, ethics and physics as a

He

held firmly to the theory of

Ideas, but recognized that mathematical determinations had,

in contrast to the sense world, an independent reality similar
to that of the Ideas.

He distinguished,
:

accordingly, three

realms of that which can be known the supersensible, the mathematically determined forms of the world-all, and the
sense objects.
7naTi]/j.r],

To

these objects there corresponds,

dialectics

first,

the

including

and

pure

mathematics
is

secondly, the S6|a, which as an astronomical theory

;

given

both an empirical and a mathematical basis thirdly, the aiaOrjOTL^, which is not false, but exposed to all sorts of
delusions.

The

Platonists

seem
of

to

have thought that the chief

task of their metaphysics was the teleological construction

of a graded series

mediatory principles between the

2

Sext.

Emp., VII.

145.

jn^,^ ig.

md^^

147.

228

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOPIIY

the sensible.

supersensible and
task, however,
felt,

In

the sohition of

this

two

opjiosinj^ tendencies

which are connected with the If the former abandoned the theory of and Xenocrates. Ideas, it was essentially because he could reijard the Perfect and the Good,^ not as the alrla of the more Imperfect,

made themselves names of ^})eusippus

the Sensible, but rather as

its

highest teleological
ap-^^rj^

result.

He

therefore

j)ostulated

numbers as the

and unity and plurality as their elements and next in order reometrical magnitudes and stereomctrical forms, to whose fourfold number he added the Pythagorean ether.^ Besides this, he found the principle of motion in the worldsoul (I'oO^r), which he seems to have identified with the The goal of motion is central fire of the Pythagoreans. the Good, wliich as the most perfect belongs at the end. Xenocrates contrasted with this evolution theory the theory of emanation, in that he derived numbers and Ideas from
unity and indeterminate duality (n6piaTo<; Sua?).
are to

Numbers
further
is

him
of

identical

with the Ideas, according to the

schema

Plato's

aypairra SjfMara.

He

also

defined the soul as self-moving

number.^

Thus there

a descent from the unity of the

ble
;

Good down

to the Sensi-

and between the world-soul and corporeal things kingdom of good and bad In this very contrast Plato's pupils showed daemons. that they were engaged upon the unsolved problems of
exists a completely graduated

Plato's later metaphysics, in that they desired to develop

further his teaching on

its

religious side.

The opposition
Idea

and space, between the perfect and the imperfect, grew entirely to* They a religious antithesis of the Good and the Bad. surrendered the monistic motive especially Xenocrates
between alrla and
a-uvalriov,

between

Arist., Met.,

XI.

7,
I.

1072

b, .31.

See

24.

8
*

Plato, Procr. an.,

5 (1012); see Arist., Anal, past., U*. 91 a, 38.

p.

Sec R. Ilcinze, Xenocr.,

15

f.

ARISTOTLE
in the teaching of

229

their master to fantastic speculations

of

which turned particularly upon the cause

world.

eviP in the

More interesting than the fantastic Pythagorizing by the leaders of the school is, on the other hand, the high development of mathematics which arose in the Pythagorean-Platonic circles at this time, even to the solving of the more difficult problems. There was the diorism of Neocleides, the theor}' of the proportion in Archytas and Eudoxus, the golden section, the spiral line, the doubling of the cube by the application of parabolas and hyperbolas (see Cantor, Gesch. der Math., I. 202 f.). Then there was the astronon\y taught b}- Hicetas, Ecphantus, and Heracleides, concerned with the stationai-iness of the fixed heaven of stars and the turning of the axis of the earth. Herakleides thought of Mercurv and Venus as satellites of the sun. See Ideler, Abhandl d. Bed. Akad. d. Whs., 1828 and 1830. On the other hand, however, tliere is the fact that those men, who were only indirectl}' related to the school, developed the relationship of certain motives of Platonism with other teachings. Thus Heracleides still held to the Platonic construction of the elements when he advocated the synthesis that Ecphantes sought
between Atomism and Pythagoreanism
wise conceived the of Anaxagoras.iSeat entirely in

( 25).

Eudoxus

like-

the sense of the homoiomerii

With such a mathematical corruption of the theory of Ideas there was conjoined the lapse into popular moralizing on the part of the older Academicians. Onlv in some
measure, however, did the energy of their religious spirit compensate for this deterioration. As concerns morals, the school can hardly be made answerable for the hedo-

nism

of Eudoxus,^ especially since Heracleides appears * i have openly antagonized it. The theory of goods, howevei, found in the Philehus ^ was cultivated much more in an accommodative sense for Speusippus sought happiness in the
:

See Arist., especially Met., XIII.

Ihid., I.
9,

4,

1091 b, 22.

991

a,

IG,

with the commentary of

Alexander Aphr.

{Schol. in Arist., 572 b, 15).

8 *

Arist. Elh.

Nie,

I.

12, 1101 b, 27.

s

Athen., XTI. 512

a.

Compare above,

36.

230

HISTORY OF AXriENP rillLOSOPITV

; '

perfect dcveloi)nicnt of natural gifts

Xcnocrates, though

recognizing fully the value of virtue, nevertheless recognized external goods as also necessary to the attainment of
the highest good.
practical
<f)p6vi)ai(;

He

set for the majority of

mankind ^ the
which
falls to

in place of the eTria-TijfiT)

the lot of the few, and finally, in opposition to the Stoics,

described

virtue, health, pleasure,

and wealth as the various

to all that

goods, evaluating thcni in that order.

It is especially

noteworthy that according

we

know
of

the social-ethical character and the political tendency

the Platonic morals were not further fostered

among

his pupils.

Rather

in the

Academy

the quest after correct

the foreground.

came more and more into Nature philosophy still engaged the attention of theorists, as can be seen in Grantor's commenEthical researches, however, took on tary to the Tunceus.
rules of living for the individual

the individualistic aspect of

the period.

Polemo taught
{avrapKi]
7r/3o?

that virtue, which

is

the essential condition of happiness,

completely

gives

satisfactory

happiness

evBaifMoviav) only in connection with the goods of the

body

and

life.

Virtue cannot be practised in scientific research,

Scarcely a step was necessary from such
tlie

but in action.*

views to those of
39.

Stoa.

Beneath these different efforts of the Older Academy would obviously lie a fundamental tendency to adjust Plato's idealism to tlie practical interests of Greek society and of he empirical sciences. But dependence upon Pytliagorean?m on the one hand and on the other a general lack of philosophical originality always stunted all these underIn the mean time the problem was solved by takings. him who had brought with him into the Platonic theory
J

Clemens, S/roin.,Jl. 21 (500).

Compare concerning Polemo,

Cicero,

Acarl., II. 42, 1.31.

2
8

Clemens, Strom.,
Sext.

II. 5 (441).

Emp. Adc.

math.,

XI. 51

f.

Diog. Laert., IV. 18.

ARISTOTLE

231

an inborn predilection for medicine and the science of nature. This perfecter of Greek philosophy was Aristotle
(384-322).
Fr. Biese, Die Philos. des Aristoteles (2 vols., Berlin, 1835A. Rosmini-Serbati, Aristute esposto ed.e^OMUuifo (Torino, 42) G. H. Lewes, Aristotle, 1858) Chapter from the History of the Science (Lond. 1864; German, Leipzig, 1865) G. Grote, Aristotle (incomplete, but published by Bain and Robertson, 2 vols., London, 1872) E. Wallace, Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle (Oxford, 1883).
;

The home

of

Aristotle

was

Stagira,^

city

in

the

neighborhood of Athos, on that Thracian peninsula which had been colonized ^ chiefly from Chalcis. He came from an old family of pliysicians. His father, Nicomachus, was
body-physician and a close pergonal friend of the king, Amyntas, of Macedon. Detailed reports about the youth and education of the philosopher are wanting. His education was in the charge of his guardian, Proxenus of Atarneus, after the death of both his parents. He was
only eighteen years old
Plato's death, so far as

367, and his connection with

when he entered the Academy in it was uninterrupted until we know. He won a prominent
was the champion

place in

it

very quickly, grew early from the position of a

pupil to that of a teacher in the band,

literary spirit of the school

through his brilliant writings which at once made him famous, and in public lectures concerning the art of speaking, antagonized Isocrates, to
anti-scientific rhetoric the Platonic school

whose

had never

been reconciled,^
Concerning the life of Aristotle, see J. C. Buhle, '[^ito Arist. per annos digesUi, in the Bipontine edition of the works, I. 80 f.
1
'^

Also Stageiros.
Aristotle disposed in his will (Diog. Laert.,

Y. 14) of a piece of propin the

erty in Chalcis, which he perhaps inherited from his mother. Phaestias.

3

In spite of the advances Plato showed to him

Phcedrus as

always preferable to Lysias.

232
A.

HISTORY

(K

ANCIENT nilLOSOPIIY

Stalir, An'gtotelia, Part T., on the life of Aristotle (Halle, 1830). Of the ancient l)iographics of the philosopher, the more valnable, those of the older Peripatetics, are lost, and only a few of the later remain. It is uncertain wlietlier Aristotle grew up in Stagira or in Pella, the residence of the Macedonian kings. It is as little determinable when his father died, and wliere he himself lived under the tutelage of Proxenus, in Stagira or Atarneus.^ AVe are also entirely restricted to the following sui)p()silions as to his educational training it is scarcely to be doubted that, according to the famil}' tradition, as the son of the Macedonian court physician, he was destined by his famii}' for medicine and received a training for it in the intimate relationship existing between scientific medicine, in which Hippocrates was the leading spirit, and the Democritan studies of nature, it ma}' be su[)posed tluit these were the first elements in the early education of our philosopher. At any rate, he grew up in this atmosphere of the science of medicine in northern Greece, and he owed to it his respect for the results of experience, his keen perception of fact, and his carefulness as to details in investigation, which contrast him with the Attic philosophers. On tiie other hand, it must be said that one must not magnify too much the reach of knowledge tliat his seventeen years in the Academy brought to him. It was certainlv later that Aristotle got his immense scientific erudition, in part, to be sure, during his attachment to the Academy, but chiefiy during his stay in Atarneus, Mitylene, and Stagira before he began to teach. It is possible that Aristotle remained true -to this scientific inclination while he was in the Academy, and that he was in part responsible for gradually causing more attention to be paid to those matters ( 37). At first, however, the spirit of tlie Platonic school must have turned him in other directions, and what we know of his activity in the twenty years of his study, of the form and contents of his writings of that time, tlie rhctoiical lectures, etc., do not allow us to suppose that such inclinations predominated in him. The malicious school gossip which was circulated in later time about the relations between Aristotle and his great teacher should be passed over with a deserved silence. See particulars If one holds himself to that which is safely in Zeller, IIP. 8 f. testified to, especiall}' in the writings of Aristotle, one finds a simple human relationship. The pupil looked upon his teacher

The

later references to

Atarneus can be explained by the fact that

Ilerineias

was

for a long time

an auditor of Plato.

AKISTOTLI-:

233

with great reverence.^ But the more mature he became, the more independently did lie pass judgment upon Plato's philoHe recognized with accurate glance their essophical positions. sential defects, and he did not conceal his doubts, if his aged Nevermaster directed his theory upon unfortunate lines. theless he remained a member of the fraternitj- with his own independent circle of activity, and he separated from the school only at the moment when after his master's death perversity was exalted to principle in the choice of an insignificant head Nothing makes against the conclusion that in of the school. these difficult relations Aristotle avoided both extremes, with that worth}' tact that always characterized his actions. See below concerning the writings of this period. That his relation to Isocrates was somewhat strained, we see on the one Orat., 19, hand from Cicero's reports {De oral., III. 35, 141 62; compare Quint., III. 114), and on the other from the shameful pamphlet which a pupil of the orator published against Aristotle showed here also his noble selfthe philosopher. control, when he later in the Rhetoric did Hot hesitate to give
;

examples from Isocrates.

After Plato's death Aristotle in company with Xenocrates betook himself to Hermeias, the ruler of

Atarneus and

Assus, and a true friend to Aristotle.

Aristotle married

his relative, Pythias, later after the tyrant had met an unhappy end, the victim of Persian treachery. Previously he seems to have migrated for a time to Mytilene, and

perhaps also for a short time to Athens. ^

In

843 he

obeyed the summons of Philip of Macedon to undertake the education of the then thirteen-year-old Alexander. Although we are entirely without information concerning

what kind of education this was, yet the entire later life Also of Alexander bore the best witness of its effect. later the philosopher remained in the best of relations with his great pupil, although the treatment of the nephew of
Aristotle, Callisthenes, by the king

may have brought

temporary estrangement,
1 Compare the simple beautiful verses Eudemus Objmpiod. in Gorg., 16G.
:

of Aristotle

from the elegy

to

See Th. Bergk, Rhein. Mus.,

XXXVII.

359

f.

234

HISTORY OF ANCIF.XT rniLOSOPHV

The regular instruction of the young prince ceased, when he was entrusted hy his father, after 340, with administrative and military duties. The relation of the philosopher was therefore more independent of the
at all events,

Macedonian court, and the next years he was engaged for the most part in scientillc work in his native city, in intimate companionship witii his somewhat younger friend, Theophrastus, who became a real support to him in the following time. For when Alexander entered upon his campaign in Asia and Aristotle saw himself entirely free of immediate further obligation to him, he went with his friend to Athens and founded his own school there. This
school, in the universality of
its scientific interest, in

the

orderliness of

its

methods

of study,

and

in its systematic

arrangements for joint inquiry, very soon rose above the Academy, and became the pattern of all the later societies
of scholars of antiquity.
Its place

gymnasium consecrated
shady walks
school
in
^

to the

was the Lyceum, a Lycian Apollo, from whose

the school got the

name

of Peripatetic.

Twelve years

(335-323)
activity.

Aristotle

administered this
after the

ceaseless

When, however,

death of Alexander, the Athenians began to rise up against

the Macedonian rule in Greece, the position of the philoso-

pher became dangerous, standing as he did in such close connections with the royal house. lie betook himself to
Chalcis, and in the following year a disease of the stomach

cut short his active and honorable career.

Concerning Hermeias" of Atarneus, see A. Biickh, Kleine Schri/f, VI. 185 flf. P. C. Engelbreclit, Ueber die Beziehungen zu Alexander (Eisleben, 1845) Rob. Geier (Halle, 1848 and 185G) M. Carriere {Westennfwn, Monatsh., 1865). Aristotle owed to
;
;

Probably from the custom of lecturing part of the time amhulando.

Zeller, III. 29
f.

See
2

In

memory

of this friend, Aristotle dedicated his

7.

hymn upon

virtue

Diog. Laert., V.

ARISTOTLE
/lis

235

relations with different courts and to his own eas}' circumstances the abundance of the scientific expedients which among other things made his extensive collections possible. The reports of the ancients concerning the greatness of the suras placed at his disposal are obviously somewhat overestimated. One cannot doubt, on the whole, from his court relationships, the support which he found for his work. Concerning the relations of the philosopher and his great pupil, gossip has circulated widely, just because there has been wanting any trustworthy information about it. If the friendship in later years was actually somewhat cooler (as Plutarch also reports, Alexander, 8j, yet it was entire foolishness and slander on the part of later opponents to charge Aristotle with a share in the supposed poisoning of the king (see Zeller. IIP. 36 f.). The favorable relations of the j^hilosopher to the Macedonian court were most clearly confirmed bv the events after the death Doubtful as the single statements here again may of the king. be, it is certain that the philosopher left his circle of activity at Athens in order to avoid a political danger. How great it had become can no longer be determined for the reports concerning the charges of impiety,^ concerning his defence and the excuse for his escape in the expression that he wished to spare the Athenians a second crime against philosophy, all this smacks, especially in its details, ^ strongh* of an attempt to make Aristotle's end as nearly as possible like that of Socrates.
;

To every
tion.

depreciation that the character of Aristotle has

creation of such magnificent proportions and

suffered, his system of science stands as the best contradicIt is a

it can have been only the work with the pure love of truth, and even then it is almost l)eyond our comprehension. For the Aristotelian

of

such construction that

of a life filled

philosophy includes the entire range of knowledge of that

time in such a way that

lier

it comprehends all the lines of eardevelopment at the same time that it considerably elaborates the most of these lines. It turns upon all territories an equal interest and an equal intellectual appreciation.

1 ^

See E. Heitz in O. Muller,

Lit. Gesch., 11-.

;

253

f.

Compare

E. Zeller in Hermes, 1876

H. Usener, Die Organisation

1 f
.

der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit hei den Alten: Preitss. Jahrb., LIII.

(1884).

236
Aristotle

HISTORY OF AXriKNT PHILOSOPIIY

met
tlic tlciuaiids

of tlir liisloi-y of science

more

completely than Plato.

retic

Even

in his VvV/z/cs the purely theo-

scientific spirit

and not the practical interest is funilamental. He is the In him the process of the inkut ^^o-^i'jv.
itself.

dei)endence of the spirit of learning C()mi)letes

He

emis, in the wonderful many-sidedness bodiment of Greek science, and he has for that reason remained "the philosopher" for two thousand years.
of his activity, the

Furthermore he became " the philosopher," not as an isolated Tlie most striking charthinker, but as the head of his school. acteristic of his intellectual personality is the administrative ability with which he (hvided his material, separated and fornuilated his problems, ordered and co-ordinated the entire scientific work. This methodizing of scientific activity is his greatest performance. To this end the beginnings already made in the earlier schools, especially iu that of Democritus, might well have been of service. But the universal sketch of a system of science in the exact statement of methods such as Aristotle gave, first
His brings these earlier attempts to their complete fruition. conduct of the I^yceum can be looked upon not only as a carefully arranged and methodically progressive instruction, but also, above all, it must especially be viewed as an impulsion to independent scientific research and organized work.^ The great number of facts and their orderly arrangement are only to be explained through tlie combined efforts of man\- forces guided and schooled by a common principle. All this appeared and was developed in the Aristotelian writings. The activity of the school, which is itself a work of the master, forms an integral constituent of his great life-work and his works.

The

collections of writings transmitted

nndcr the name

of Aristotle do not give even an aj)})roximately complete

picture of the

immense
of
his

literary activity of the

man.

They

ap))arently include, however, with relatively few exceptions,

just that part

work npon which

his philosophical

significance rests,
1

viz., his scientific

writings.
II. I'^sener,

Compare K.

Zeller in Ilermes, 187G;

Die Organisation

der wissenschaftlicheyi Arbeit bei den Alten: Preuss. Jahrb., LIII.

(1884).

IL

ARISTOTLE

237

Tlie preserved remainder of the Aristotelian writings forms a stateh' pile, even after the genuine have been separated from the doubtful and spurious. But in extent it is manifestly only a smaller part of that which came forth from the literar}workshop of the philosopher. From the two lists of his writings that antiquity' has preserved (published in the Berlin edition, V. 1463 f.) the one of Diogenes Laertius (V. 22 f.), which was changed by the anonymous Megarian, probably by Hesychius, is supposably based upon a report of the Peripatetic Hermippus (about 200 B. c). concerning the Aristotelian collection in the Alexandrian library. The other list originated with the Peripatetic, Ptoleniieus, in the second century a. d., and was preserved partly by Arabic writers (Zeller, IIP. 54). The traditional collection appears essentially to have come from the published Aristotelian writings, which somewhere in the middle of the first century b. c. were prepared b}' Andronicus of Rhodes with the co-operation of the grammarian
still

Tyrannion.

In

modern time

it

was printed

first in

a Latin

translation in 1489, together with the commentaries of Averroi.'S, and in a Greek translation in Venice in 1495 ff. Of the later editions may be mentioned the Bipontine, by Biehle (5 vols.,

incomplete, Biponti et Argentorati, 1791 f.) that of the Berlin Academ\- (text recension by Imm. Becker, annotations h\ Brandis, fragments by Y. Rose, index by Bouitz 5 vols., Berlin, the Didot edition by Dbner, Bssemaker, and 1831-70) Heitz (5 vols., Paris, 1848-74) stereotype edition of Tauchnitz Concerning a special edition of his single (Leipzig, 1843). works, see Ueberweg, V. 186 f. German translations are in different collections, particular!}- in J. v. Kirchmann's Philos.
; ;

BihUothek. These preserved writings offer problems for solution which differ from those in the Platonic writings, but are no less diffiIndeed, there is but little agreement among the authoricult. The discussion has been ties as to the questions involved. onh' a little concerned with the chronologv of single works it has had more concern with the ver}' doubtful genuineness of many of them it has found its greatest concern with the literary character, the origin and purpose of the single writings and
; ;

of the collection.
J, G. Biihlcj De lihromm Arlstotelis di.^frihutione in exotericos et acrotimatiros (Bipontine ed., I. 105 f.) Titze, De Arist. opprum serie et distinctione (Leipzig. 1826) Ch. Brandis (Rhein. 3Ius., 1827) A. Stahr, AHstotelia, Part IL, Die ScJiirl-s(de der Arist. ^^c/i/T/^c^I^ (Leipzig, 1832); L. Spengel, Abhandl. der hair. Akad. der TFiss., 1837 f. V. Rose, De Arist:
;
;

235

IIISTOKY or

AMIHXT

IMIILOSOl'IIY

lihronim ordi7ie et aucforifate (Berlin, 1854) IT. Bonitz, Arist. Studien (Vienna, 18G2 f.) Jac. Bernays, Die l)ia/o(/e des E. lleitz, JJie ccrlore/wii Schriften des Arist. (Berlin, 1803) the same in . Miiller's Litteratur Arist. (Leipzig, 18G) Geschieh.^ 11'-. 256 f. F. Valilen, Arist. Aufstze (Vienna, 187U f.); R. Shnte (Oxford, 1888).
; ; ; ;
;

The
(1)

writings

of Aristotle arc divided witli reference to

:

tlieir literary

character into three classes

The Works published by Arisiutle himself, and

in-

tended for a u'ider circle of ratders. Of these no single work is complete, and only frag-

ments arc extant.

Aristotle's attendance at the

They originated in the main during Academy, and showed strongly

titles, of

the influence, even in their

the Platonic philosophy.

if

They were, on the whole, dialogues, and

they did not also

possess the artistic fancy with which Plato

managed

this

form, they are striking, nevertheless, in their fresh intuitions,

happy inventions,

florid diction, as well as in the

richness of their thought.

These cKSeSoyu-eVot Xoyot were counted b}' Aristotle, in his occasional mention of them in his didactic writings, as belonging to the general class of i^o^repiKol Adyoi. By this class he seems to have understood the more popular treatment of scientific questions in antithesis to the methodical and scholastic cultivation of science. The latter, which centres in the lectures of the head of the school, appeared later as the acroamatic writings. The opposition of the exoteric and the acroamatic teaching does not. then, necessarily signify in itself a difference in content of doctrine, but only a difference in form of presentation. There is no word about a secret teaching. It may, however, be accepted as true that the exoteric writings originated when he was in the Academy, and the acroamatic, when he was an independent teacher and from this fact even essential differences are easily explained. See Zeller, III^. 112 f.; H. Diels. Sitzuncjsher. der Berl. Akad., 1883; H. Suseimhl, Jahrbuch PhiloL, 1884.
;

Aristotle
^

owed

his literary-

fame

in

antiquity to his published

Laert.,

Excepting the personal writings like the verses, the testament (Diog. V. ]'.i f.). and the letters, of wliieh seareely anything genuine is

j)reserved.

ARISTOTLE
writings,

239

and certainly in all justice if we may judge from the few preserved specimens.^ For if, on account of the ''golden flow" of his words, he is classed with Democritus and Plato as a model,'- nevertheless this praise cannot be applied to the writings that have been preserved. The " golden flow " is so seldom in these writings tliat it is more supposable that they are excerpts from his dialogues that were made either b}- Aristotle himself or b}- some of his pupils.^ The composition of the Aristotelian dialogues is said to have been distinguished from the Platonic by a less vivid treatment of the dramatic setting, and also by the circumstance that the In content the}' were Stagirite himself gave the leading word. Thus, the affiliated in part closely to the Platonic dialogues. Eudemus especially appears to have been a detailed cop}' of the Phcedo. Other titles like Trcpt ^iK-atoo-iVv^s, Vpv\.Xo<i rj -n-epl pqTOpLKrjs, (To(f>i(TTri<;, ttoXltlko^, ipoiTLK(k, a-vp-TToa-Lov, Mci'e'^ei'o; remind US immediately of the works of Plato and his school. Others refer directly to popular philosophical discussions, like the three books irepl
TTOLYjTwv, TiepL ttXuvtov,
TTcpt

E^'X^^?

TTCpt

evyd'CLas, TTcpt
all

rjoorrj<;,

Trf.pi

7rat8ctas, Trcpi ^acrtAeta?.*

of these has not been established, nor is it certain that all were in the form of It is very improbable that the nporpcTTTiK-o? was the dialogue. in this form (P.. Hirzel, in Hermes, X. 61 f.). The most significant, and, as it appears, those most independent of the Platonic influence among these exoteric writings, are the three books of the dialogue Trept ^tXocro^tas. (See By water, in Jour, of Philol.,

The genuineness of

1877, 64

f.)

The Compilations ; partly critical excerpts from (2) scientific works (v7rofMvt]/uiaTa), partly collections of zoological, literary-historical, and antiquarian data which Aristotle,
probably with the help of his pupils, used as material for

and theory. These also have unfortunately been lost except a very few fragments, although it appears that at least a portion of them had been published either by Aristotle himself or by his pupils.
scientific research
1

See Cicero, De
See place

nat. denr.. IT. 37, 95.

2 2

in Zeller,

IIP. Ill,

1.

See Fr. Blass, Alt. Beredtsamkeit, 427 note;

also

Rhein. Mus,

1875.
*

Dedicated to Alexander, as also

irepX dnoiKiitv.

240

IliSTOin'

OK AXCIKNT

l'lllLSOl'lIV

To these last belong the notes of the philosopher concerning the later lectures of Plato irepl rdyaOov and Trepi twv el^wv. Com:

pare Ch. Brandis, De percUtif> Arititotelis de bono et ideis libris (Bonn, 1823). There are also reports of some extracts from the Lan-s, the Bepiddic, and the Tiiiurus, the critical notes aliout Alcmieon, the Pytiiagoreans, especiall}- about Archytas, S|)eusippus, and Xenocrates. Also the writings JJc Jfclisso Xeiiojihone Gonjia arose from a like need in the Peripatetic school. Tiie fruits of this comprehensive study of the history of philoso[)liy ap|)ear in the numerous historical relations wliich tlic Aristotelian didactic writings generally set up in entering upon the treatment of prol)lems. The -n-fiokiifiara serve similar l)uri)oses of instruction and of research, although their present form is a later conception of the school. Compare C. Prantl, Abhand. der MnrJin. AkcuL, VI. 341 f. The same holds good for all the definitions and diffireses which antiquity then

possessed. In the magnificent collections which Aristotle planned i^. the Lyceum must first be mentioned the iuro/xui', the descriptive basis for zolog}-, furnished, it seems, with illustrations. Then there is the collection of the rhetorical theories under the title T;:^i'oJv o-vvaywyy], and of the rhetorical models ii'6vixy;^aTa prjTnpiKa besides the collection relating to the history of tragedies and comedies, and the questions raised about the different poets, Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus, Euripides, and others finally, the historical miscellanies: the TroAirctai, reports concerning
;

one hundred

fifty-eight

piKa, ^LKatuy/xara tjv TroAecur,

Greek state constitutions, v6^tp.a /Supy^aand besides 'OAi;yu,7rtovtKat, VvtoviKai,

Trepi evprj/jciTwi', Trcpt Oavfiarrioiv aKova/xaTiov, TrapoLjjLiai, etc.

character of these scientific materials, which were ai^parentlj' entirel}- lost, some years ago a very sur[)rising disclosure was made, parti}- by the fortunate discovery of a most important piece, the IIoAtreia twi'' AT^mtW (published by G. Kaibel and U. v. Wilamowitz-Mi^llendorf, Berlin, 1892 translated into German b}' G. Kaibel and A. Kiessling, Strassburg, 18'J1); the literature on it, especialh' on its genuineness, has, as may be expected, quickly appeared a complete review can be foinid in the English edition of J. V.. Sandys (Lond., 180.3, p. Ixvii). To be sure, tlie beginning and end are wanting, but by far the greatest part is preserved in nearly a complete continuity. It api)ears not as a dry collection of facts, but as a ripe historical work clearl}- and perfectly develThe greatness of conception, the practical simplicit\' oped. of representation, the accuracy' of judgment make it appear a worthy writing of the master in whose last years its compositlie

Concerning

until the present time

ARISTOTLE

241

Should this history of the Athenian tion must have occurred. constitution be the work of one of his pupils, then would it indeed be a new honor for the Lyceum. Although many of those collections that are attributed to Aristotle may have come from his pupils, or perhaps even later, and altliough b\- no means can all those titles refer to writings of the philosopher himself, tljey nevertheless give proof of the versatih'ty and cyclopedic character of the scientific work

Upon all territories, both historical and scienof the school. tific, he gave the fruitful impulse to seek out the entire existing material and to place it in order, and thus to make it available The Lyceum, in its storing of the for scientific treatment. treasures of erudition, was, to a higher degree than the Academy, the centre of culture of Greece.
(3)
Tlie

Didactic Writings originating in the school and

It is these only that

intetidcd for its use.

have been preas the col-

served, and they together

make what
They
the

is

known

lection of Aristotle's works.

ever,

are not complete,

how-

and

in

many

cases probably not in the original form.

exhibit in

They nevertheless
worked
out,

highest

degree

some

peculiar characteristics.

sharply impressed, delicately

and consistently developed terminology is common to them. On the other hand, complete absence of grace and of aesthetic motive of presentation is to be The scheme of investigation is, on the whole, the noted. same the precise formulation of the problem, the criticism of opinions which are submitted concerning the problem,
:

the careful discussion of the single points of view as they

appear, the comprehensive marshalling of the facts, and the
striving for a clear

and conclusive

result.

In

all tliese

respects the Aristotelian writings

sis to

make

a complete antithewritings

the Platonic

the difference being that between sci-

ence

and testhetics. different and therefore

in

The

Aristotelian

afford
It

less attractive

enjoyment.

must

not be forgotten that the excellences

of the Aristotelian

works are qualified

many development, wherein many

striking ways.

The unequal

parts give the impression of

10

242

IIISTOUY or ANCIKNT I'lIILOSOrilY

being masterly and final and others of being hasty and sketchy the disorder which predominates in the principal
;

writings of the transmitted scries of books

verbal
filled

repetitions promises,
;

the
;

in part

of even lengthy sections

the unful-

all

these facts forbid the belief that the

writings in their present form were intended by Aristotle

while, on the other hand, in point of form and content the interconnection of the works is evident, and is emphasized by numerous cross references that are often
for publication

reciprocal.

All these characteristics

also fully conceivable

are only explicable and are upon the hypothesis that Aristotle

entertained the purpose of developing into text-books the

written notes that he had

made

the basis of his lectures.

These text-books would have been manuals of instruction for the Lyceum, and would have been given into the hands
of his pupils.

In addition

it

is

supposable that Aristotle

undertook this work in direct connection with his lectures, and about the same time with reference to the sciences He probably pursued this work during treated by him.
the twelve years of his leadership.

Before, however, this

giant

work came

to

an end, death had seized him.

Except-

ing the smaller works, which perhaps were waiting to be

included in his larger works, only parts of the Logic

Topics in particular

the
It

appear

to liavc

been completed.

may
were

also be accepted that the gaps

which thus remained

filled in part by the most intimate pupils, probably on the basis of their notes of the Aristotelian lectures. These interpolations were made by different pupils differ-

Thus in the school many redactions of the text books were handed on, and among such redactions many
ently.
later productions of the school slipped in. until

This went on
fii'st

Andronicus of Rhodes pul)lished the (60-50 B. c), which lies at the basis of documents.

edition

tlie

present

ARISTOTLE

243

The close relationship between the preserved writings of Aristotle and his actual teaching is evident, even if we take no account of such direct evidence as his address to his auditors at The question is onW as to a the conclusion of the Topics. clearer determination of the relationship, and it would appear as if all the opinions expressed about the relationship may be justified to a certain extent. Undoubtedh' the notes of the philosopher form the body of the discourses not only such sketches as be might use for his lectures, but on the other hand also such as he had made ready for the text-book.' The latter set forth in a wonderful manner the clearness and ripeness of the Aristotelian spirit. Other facts, especially the different redactions of the same book, hardh' allow another interpretation than that of Scaliger, that interpolations from the writings of the auditors have taken place. In accordance with this theor}- the presence of such parts or of entire writings which cannot in form or content be ascribed to Aristotle, is most simply explained. ver\- vent'.u'esome but in itself a not incredible theor}- was spread in antiquit}' concerning the fate of the Aristotelian manusci'ipts.^ They were supposed to have fallen with the property of Theophrastus to his pupil, Neleus of Scepsis in Troas. and to have been hidden in a cellar by his descendants out of fear of the mania for collecting of the kings of Pergamus. Afterwards they were found and purchased in a much damaged state by the Peripatetic Apellicon of Teos and removed to Athens. When Sulla conquered that city, the writings fell into his hands and were published at Rome by the grammarian Tyrannion,
;

and finalh' by Andronicus of Rhodes. This stor}' does not explain, of course, the remarkable condition of the transmitted documents. It is indubitably proved in the case of single writings as is obvious that the Peripatetic school possessed the scientifically most important writings of its founder from the beginning. On the other hand, it is nevertheless not improbable that the rediscovery of the original manuscripts afforded

In this fact and in the smaller importance of the copies by his

auditors consists the chief difference between the character of the corpus

and the somewhat analogous form in which a series ot is presented to us. Hegel had not begun a remodelling of his Hefte for text-books, while, on the other hand, we owe the most valuable of the preserved works of Aristotle to the fact that he had begun such a remodelling. 2 Plutarch, Sulla, 26 Strah XHI. 1, 54 compare E. Essen, Der
Aristotelicum

Hegel's lectures

Keller zu Skepsis (Stargard, 188C).

244

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

Andrpnicus not only the occasion but also, as far as the manuscripts reached, the distinct ground for his standard edition in
contrast to the school tradition. Since the didactic writings form internally a perfectly consistent whole, the question about the order of their origination The question is, moreover, enis comparatively unimportant. tirely i)ur})oseless, since it may be accepted that work upon the writings was continuously and simiiltaneoiish' carried on in connection with the lectures repeatedly given during the twelve Jt nevertheless appears that years of his activity as a teacher. the Lorjic was the first to be conceived, and relativel}' to the others was brought more nearly to com[)letion. Compare with the following Zeller, 111'. 67-109.

The preserved
ranged
(rt)

didactic

writings
:

in the following

groups

are

most simply

ar-

The Treatises on Logic and Rhetoric

the

Cate-

gories, the very doubtful treatise

On

the Proposition, the

Analytics, and the Topics, including the last and comparatively

independent book Concerning the Fallacies ; and the

Rhetoric.

the Byzantine period. A special edition is published b}' Th. Waitz (2 vols., Leip., 1844-4G). The genuineness of the Karayopiai is doubted, espeThe conclusion of cially b}- Prantl {Gcsch. d. Log.., I. 207 f.). these writings, i. e., concerning post-predicaments, can at all events not be ascribed to Aristotle, and the remainder of the book appears to be based upon his sketch only in essentials. ITcpi kpfji-qvems is sul)ject to Stronger suspicions to which even as earl}' a writer as Andronicus gave expression. The Analytics is a masterly logical groundwork, which develops the theory of the conclusion and of proof in two parts {AvaXvTLKo. Trporepa and the second part being vcrrepa), each consisting of two books, not so completely rounded out as the first. Joined to it, as the most complete of all the works, is the Topics, which treats of In connection with it, as its ninth the method of probability. book (Waitz), there is irtpl (ro(f>L(rTLKm' iXeyxw. Tiiere are presei'vcd besides a great number of titles of logical-epistemological theoretical discussions, of which the Aristotelian authorship is more or less doubtful Tnpl dSm' kuI yci'tui', Trepi toji/ di'Tt/ccipc'i'ji', Trepi KttTa^ucrctDS, crvXXoyuTixo!, upiiXTiKu., Trepl luv Trpos ti, mp\ So^t^s,

under

The grouping of the logical works, tl e name opyavov, occurred first

in the
in

customary

series,

TrepX i-m(jTy'ifiy}<;, etc.

ARISTOTLE

245

The first two books of the Rhetoric may be regarded as gennine in spite of some difficulties (Spengel in Ahh. der Much. Jkad., VI.)- The third is doubtful. The so-called Rhetoric to Alexander is, on the contrar}', generali}' regarded as spurious, but it probably belongs to the Peripatetic school. The Rhetoric of Theodectes is also mentioned, which was published during the life of Aristotle. This work embodied the teachings of the philosopher, and was probabl}- based upon his lectures.
the 3Ieta(6) The Writings on Theoretic Philosophy physics, which in Aristotelian terminology was called " first philosophy " or " theology ; " besides, the book on mathelost, the Physics, the History of Animals, the Psychology, and the three minor treatises belonging to

matics being
these three.

The 3Ietc(phi/sics (special edition by Brandis, Berlin, 1823 Schwegler, with translation and commentar}-, Tbingen, 1847translated into German, Berlin, 48 Bonitz, Bonn, 1848-49 1890 Greek edition by W. Christ, Leipzig, 1886) has preserved its traditional name for the philosophic science of principles, because of its place in the ancient collection (fx-era to.
;
; ;
;

<f>vcrLKd).

the fourteen preserved books the second (a lAarrov) is be set apart as a school compilation of manj' parts welded together. Among the other thirteen books the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth books (numbered according to the Berlin edition) form a connected but not a completed, and also not a finally edited investigation, to which after a break the ninth book also belongs. The fourth book, which was cited b}' Aristotle himself, under the title Trept roJ"' 7rocra;;^Js, is a school manual containing a discussion of terminology. The first eight chapters of the tenth and the first half of the eleventh book are either an Aristotelian sketch or a schoolextract from the chief investigation. The second half of the eleventh book is an outline of the teaching of the Godhead. The conclusion of the tenth book is a compilation from the Physics, obviousl}' not b}- Aristotle. Books twelve and thirteen appear to be an older form of the criticism of the Platonic Ideas. The preserved collection is so much the more unique, since it is the more probable that it was taken in hand soon after the death of Aristotle, perhaps by Eudemus. From the series of mathematic-al writings only the discussion
certainl}' to

From

246
irepl

IIISTOPxY

OF AXCIEXT riiiLOsoniY

dro/iwr ypa/i/zun- is cxlant, and its transmitted form is probably spnrious. Of the eight books of lectures on the science of nature, cftva-iKr) the modern name would be " philosophy of nature," Kf}6aaii, books five, six, and eight treat Trcpt Ktr7;o-t>s. The earlier books are concerned with universal principles in the explanation of nature (rrcpi dpxiov) the seventh book gives one the impression of being a preliminary sketch. Astronomy and physics proper are included as developments Trcpt oipavov, Trtpi ytveVcws

Kal 4)6opa<; |UTewpoAoyiKa.

lost,

number of separate
Trcpt

treatises are
koct/iou.

the

firjxa-yi-Kd

is

spurious, and also the

See

below,

49.

parallel work to the Trcpt ra ^<Za laopia, of which book ten presumably not genuine, is the yrcpi ^vtwv, which is lost. On the other hand, some restorations of the former are preserved:

The

is

TTCpi ^(Jfov ^opttui', TTf.p\ ^iwv ycrccrcc?, Trcpt

^wwv

Tropcias.

most mature works belong the three books Trcpt (published by Barthelemy St. Ililaire, Paris, 1846; A. </^'XV? Torstrick, Berlin, 18G2 A.Trendelenburg, 2d ed., Berlin, 1877 With these are collected a E. Wallace, Cambridge, 1882). numlier of treatises on physiological psychology Trcpt ato-orycrcws
the
;

Among

K-ai

alaOrjTwv

',

Trepl

fivr]fiTq<i

Kal aiafivrjcrew?

Trcpt virvov Kai cyp7/yop(rca>s

;

TTcpt ii'VTriLDV
cat

and

TTcpl
;

pa)(yL6Tr)T0<;

T^s KaO' vTTVov fjiavTtKrj<; Trcpt irepl ^w^s kol Oavdrov

;

TTCpt

jUaKpo/3tOT7;T05

avaTri'orj^.

The

writ-

ing

TTcpt TTvcr/zaros

owes

its

origin to the Aristotelian school.

The Writings on Practical and Poetic Philosophy the Ethics (in the Nicomachean and Eudemean versions), the Politics, and the Poetics.
(c)
the preserved forms of the Ethics, the so-called 'Hica essentially only an extract from both the others, of which, moreover, the ten books of the 'HOlko. ISLKOf.m^^eia appear The seven books of the to be nearest to Aristotle's design. 'HOlkol 'Evhyfieia appear to be based on the notes of PLudemus. The identity of the Nicomachean Ethics V.-VII. and the Eudemian IV.-VI. allows room for various interpretations of Of smaller a mutual supplementation of the two redactions. The essay Trcpi dperwv ethical treatises nothing is preserved.

Among

McyaAa

is

at KaKiwv is spurious.

The eight books of the likewise incomplete PoW/cs (published by Susemihl, Leipzig, 1870) are problematic as to their preserved Books seven and order. See literature in Zeller, IIP. G72 f. The eight should undoubtedly come directly after book three.

ARISTOTLE
transposition of books five is not genuine.

247
is
still

and six

in

dispute.

The

Economics

The fragment Trepi ttoh/tik-t}? is preserved, but only in a very fragmentary and altered condition (published by Susemihl, Leipzig. 1865, and Vahlen, Berlin, 1867; G. Teichmller, Aristotelische Forschungen^ Halle, 1860 and 1869).
40.

The

effort to

transform the Socratic-Platonic con-

ceptual

philosophy into a theory that will explain the

phenomenal world was the centre of the Aristotelian The conviction that the tasks of science can philosophy. the method of be solved only by the Socratic method was taken for granted by Arisconceptual knowledge totle, and was his reason for reckoning himself in later time

still

within the Platonic circle.

insufficiency

The advance, however,

which he made upon Platonism was based on his insight

into the
of

the

theory of Ideas to explain

Plato had in the end very
first

empirical facts.

It is true that

emphatically asserted that the Ideas, which at

for

him meant only permanent Being, were

the world of sense.

also the alrla of

later

However, as Aristotle

showed,

Plato had not been able to harmonize this thought with his
first

conception of the world of Ideas.

Aristotle justly found

the ultimate ground for this inharmony in Plato's funda-

mental ascription of a self-substantial separate reality to the world of Ideas. This transcendence of the Ideas, which essentially is only a duplication of the empirical world,

must

be annulled.

The Ideas must not be conceived

as different

from the objects of experience and as existing separate from them. They must be known as the peculiar essence of existence, as its determining content, Plato's weakness as well as his greatness lay in his theory of two worlds. The fundamental thought of Aristotle was that the supersensible world of Ideas and the world of sense are identical.
Aristotle against the theory of Ideas, espeand twelfth book of the Metaphysics, concealed the fact to the earlier criticism that his antagonism
cially in the first,

The polemic of

sixth,

248 was
far

HISTORY OF ANCIKXT

I'lIILOSOI'IIY

outweighed by the importance of the role assiirnecl in liis philosopliy to the theory of Idoj^s for ills (U-penderu-e on that theory was an accepted' fact by him and the circle of his pui)iU, although Arislolle only incidentally alluded to it. The polemic was tlirected solely against the xw/j((r/<(;?, the hypostasizing of Ideas into a second and higher world. He pointed out the dilliculties involved therein that the Ideas make neither

own

motion nor knowledge conceivable, and that their relation to the world of sense has not been satisfactorily and consistently defined. In other rcsi)ects the Stagirite shared throughout the fundamental conceptions of the Attic philosophy he defined the problem of philosophy to be the knowleilge of what really is,* and he asserted that this knowledge is not acquired by perception,- precisely because the things of sense change and are
:

destroyed.^ He likewise characterized the universal, the concepts, as the content of true knowledge, and accordingly also of the truly actual.* However, from the beginning Aristotle united a genetic theory with his ontology, and he demanded that science explain the origin of phenomena from what really is.^ He insisted, therefore, that the Ideas be so understood that they, as the true essence of sense objects, make these oi)jects conceival)le. If Aristotle did not solve his problem perfectly,
it was due entirely to his continuous dependence definitions of the Platonic philosophy.

on fundamental

See Ch. Weisse, De Platonis et AristoteUs in C07istituendis siotimis 2^^'i^oso/)hice j^n'^cipHs differentia (Leipzig, 1828) ; M. Carriere, De Arifitotele Dlatotiis <(?nico ejiisque doctrince justo censore (Gttingen, 1837); Th. Waitz, Phiton u. Aristoteles (Cassel, 1843) Fr. Michelis, De Aristotele Platonis in idearum
;

doctrina adversario (Braunsberg, 18G4); W. Rosenkrantz, Die platonische Ideenlehre iind ihre Beknipfiinq durch Aristoteles (Mainz, 1869); G. Teichmller, Studie n{\^U), p. 226 f.

Since the essence of things

is

known by means

of class
is

concepts, the fundamental problem of Aristotclianism

the relationship of the universal to the particular.

When

Aristotle

made
of

thought

recognized
post., IT. 19,

an object
1

fundamental principle of scientific by Socrates in inspired intuition separate preliminary investigation, he created
this

Anal,

100

a, 9.

a Jbld., J.

31, 87 b, 28.

8 *

Met., VI. 15, 1039 b, 27.

IhiJ., II. 4,

999

a,

28; II. C, 1003

a,

13.

De

an., I. 1,

402

b, 16.

ARISTOTLE

249

the science of logic. He introduced this science as a universal theory of scientific method ^ preliminary to single
practical investigations.

In this self-knowledge of science

the historical process of emancipation of the intellectual life perfects itself into full consciousness. As the " Father
of

Logic," Aristotle represented the

maturity of Greek

scientific

development.

Although Aristotle certaihl}' separated the single branches of science and fixed upon their relationship of rank, yet the preserved documents offer no generally complete division. On the one hand, he treated the branches pedagogically, proceeding fi'om the facts up to their causes, and on the other he inverse]}' proceeded from the principles down to the consequences. Tlie division in the Acadenn* at one time was into logical, physical,

and ethical researches,'- at another time into theoretic, practical, and poetic science,^ while in the Peripatetic school* the division into theoretic and practical science was customary. So much
viz., that Aristotle introduced the Logic (Anah/tics and Topics) as a universal and formal preparation or metiiodolog}- for all other branches, since he himself does

appears to be certain,

not mention it under '* theoretic " sciences.^ A. Trendelenburg, Elementa logices Aristotelecp (3d Ad., Berlin, 1876) Th. Gumposch, Ueber die Logik n. d. logischen H. Rettner, De logices Schriften des Arist. (Leipzig. 1839) Aristotelicce speculatico principio (Halle, 1843) C. Heyder, Die Jlethodologie der arist. Dhilos. (Erlangen, 1845) C. Prantl, Gesch. d. Logik, I. 87 f. (see Al/hatidL der hager. Akad., 1853) F. Kampe, Die Erkenntnisstlieorie des Arist. (Leipzig, 1870); E. Eucken, D. Methode der arist. Forschung (1872, Berlin) R. Biese, D. Erkenntnisslehre des Arist. u. Kant's
;

(Berlin, 1877).

The

principle of the Aristotelian logic is the thought

that just as in natura rerum the universal or conceptually

defined essence
is

the cause or ground of definition of the

particular, so also the ultimate

1

task
I.

of

an explanatory

Met., III. 3, 1005

Met.,
I.

a, 33.

Top.,

14, 105 b 20.

8 * 5

1025

b, IS.
I.
1,

See Eth. Eud.,

Met.,

1214

a,

10

Met.,

I.

993

b, 20.

V.

1,

1026

a, 18,

counts as such only physics, mathematics,

and theology (metaphysics).

250

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PIIILOSOrilV

science consists in deriving (aTrSet^K;) the single from the

universal, and thereby in attaining the conceptual necessity
of the empirically actual.^
in

Scientific explanation consists

understanding the perceptually known from its causes. in It is the reproduction by the process of knowledge of the real the relationship of ground and consequent

in

relation of the universal cause to

its

particular result.
^

However,

all

knowledge consists

only

the

union

and p^/xa), that is, in the premise (TrpoTacrt?) or in the judgment {d'Tr6(f)avai';), since either as an affirmative judgment {KaT(i(j)aaL<i) it exjtresses^ real union or as a negative judgment {ircjjaai'i)
of concepts (X670? as o-u/xttXo/c?; of ovofxa real separation of the determinations of content that are

all

thought in the subject and predicate. So the last task of derivation is the (eTrtcrT?;/;,?;) scientific explanation
(aTToSeift?)

of particular

judgments from the universal.

the conclusion

On

this account the theory of

and

])roof^

which he himself called the Analytics, formed the centre

of the Aristotelian logic.

The

Aristotelian Analytic acquired the appearance of an ab-

stract formal logic through inisunderstandings and through the In misapplied development of it by the School in later times. truth, it was conceived b}- Aristotle methodologically in tlie most
vital relationship to the practical tasks of science
in

and therefore the Peripatetic school the logical treatises are rightly called " organic." But just for this reason are tlicy ruled throughout by a number of epistemological presuppositions concerning that which really is and the relationsliip of thought to Being. The highest presupposition, even if not expressly formulated by Aristotle, is the identity of the f(jrms of apprehending thought with the forms of relationship belonging to actuality.* Thus the first systematic sketch of logic includes in close union the three points of view under which this science was later treated. These are the formal, methodological, and epistemological.
;

Anal,

post., I. 2
7,

f.

Jje cat.. 4, 2 a, 6.

Met., III.

1012
7,

a, 4.

See Met., IV.

1017

a,

23; auxcs

X/y.-rai

roaa^^uys to

fivai

ARISTOTLE

251

One can determine the formal difference between Plato and Aristotle b}- noting that the point of departure of Plato is the concept, of Aristotle the judgment. Aristotle sought truth and error onl\- in the union of concepts ^ in so far as such a union If this emphasizes principall}' the qualitj' is asserted or denied. of the judgment, yet the syllogistic, as the theor}- of the establishment of the judgment, demands a treatment of quantity and thus a distinction between general and particular judgments The consideration of judgment from the (KaOoXov iv /jepei)."^ points of view of relation and modality was still distant from Aristotle. When he pointed out that? the content of judgment is the knowledge either of actuality or necessity or possibility,^ this assertion rests upon that principal point of view in his Metaphysics ( 41), and has nothing to do with modality in its modern sense (Kant, Critique d. r. J^ernii/ift, 9, Kehrb. 92 f). But, finally, all researches which Aristotle instituted for distinguishing judgments are decided by reference to the theory of the conclusion, that is, by the question what significance they can have in the conclusion. As mediating between the two, he treated in a thoroughgoing way the theories of reasoning Anal, prior., I. 2 f.

The Aristotelian syllogistic is the search for that which can* be derived with perfect certainty from given proposiIt finds the fundamental form of inference in the tions. establishing of the particular proposition through the universal, and the subsumption thereunder (inference by subalternation). To this so-called first figure of the syllogism he referred its other two forms {a-^i]ixaTa), whicli are characterized ^ by the different logical place of the middle term (^fiecTov) in both premises {reOevra) and thus mediate in the conclusion {av/ji7repaa/j.a) the differing relations of the two
,

chief concepts (^liKpa).

result of the syllogism

is

So Aristotle conceived that tlie always an answer to the question,

whether at all and to what extent one of these concepts that is, how far the universal is subsumed under the other
;

determination of the latter concept holds for the former.

1

De

an.,

III.

6,

430
24

a,

27.

Compare De
3 ^

interpr.,

I.

16
f.

a,

12.

This thought was hinted at in the dialogue of the Sophist, 259

2
*

Anal, prior.,

I.

1,

a, 17.

/i/,/.^ 2,

25 a, 1.

Ihid., 1, 24 b, 19.

Ibid., 4-6.

252

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PlIILOSolMIV

The syllogistic includes accordingly a system of rules, by which, pro\ ided universal propositions are established, particulars can be derived from them. According to the purpose of the philosopher, it would therefore be established how in the perftried science all particular knowledge may be derived from universal principles and its suliject matter be explained. For practice a universal schematism of proof was accordingly given, in which the tentative etlbrts of the Sophists for an art of proofs were carried out to their scientific conclusion. For the Aristotelian Awfli/tics with a perfectly conclusive certainty solved this definitelv circumscribed problem, viz., according to what rules propositions follow from given propositions. It is therefore conceivable, on the one hand, that this system during the entire Middle Ages, when science was directed not to research but to proof, passed as the highest philosophical norm, and on the other hand that this system in the Renaissance, which was filled with a need for new knowledge and sought an ars incenie/tdi, was set aside in every part as insufficient. Indeed the limitations of the system of Aristotle, like its greatness, consisted in its attention to the entire process of inference from the point of view of the subsumptive relations between concepts. It analyzed these relations, moreover, with absolute completeness. 8ee Ueberweg, System dtr Logik 100 f.
.

Proof and inference, which make up the form of the completed science, presuppose ultimate premises, which are not derived from more universal propositions but are imme-

These {dp-)(^a\ dirohel^etos) are,^ {fieaa)r axioms that rule all knowledge, among which are the law of contradiction and that of the excluded middle in part special propositions, applying to the separate branches and those ai-rived at only from the exact knowldiately certain
in part the
;

edge of the objects'* themselves. The highest principles of explanatory theory cannot be
accordingly demonstrated, but only strengthened as to their
validity for all particulars.
^

They must be sought out by

false conclusions

His investigation also concerning contradiction, indirect proof, and answers this end.
Anal,
post., I. 3, 72 b, 18.
I.
3

/^/(/.^

7^

75

a,

39.

Anal, prior.,

30, 46 a, 17.

ARISTOTLE
science in
its

253

development (investigation in distinction from {e-rraycoyi']), as opposed Induction ascends to deduction, promotes this attempt. from the facts of experience (^ifiireipia) and the opinions
aTTo'Se^lf?).

The process of induction

(evSo^a) about experience to the universal conceptual defi-

nitions by

which the former are explained.

1

This task of
its

investigation, directed to the establishment of principles, is

called

Dialectic

by Aristotle.

The Topics develop

method.

Its results are not logically certain in themselves,

but only probable.

They have, however, the character

;

of

knowledge in so far as they explain phenomena while on the other hand this dialectic, operating as it does with probable proof ('m')(eLpj]^iara) forms, where it is used in the
practical service of politics, the
rhetoric.
scientific

foundation of

Immediate certainty' formed an extremely difficult, but also the most important, tenet of the Aristotelian theor}' of knowledge. In
contrast to Plato, the Stagirite here distinguished the logical from the psychological point of view in a very suggestive way. The ultimate and fundamental propositions, from which all inference proceeds, are logicalU- undemonstrable, but they are neither psychologically innate, nor are the}' gained in early life. The}- must rather be won from experience, through which they cannot be demonstrated but only presented. What the nature of these highest principles is, Aristotle did not explain. From the logical laws valid for all sciences, he mentioned only the above, especialh' the principle of contradiction as the most unconditional and most universal fundamental principle.^ He emphasized very righth' that particular principles belong to the individual sciences, but he did not develop these in detail. What Aristotle understood by induction is to be carefully discriminated from the present meaning of the word. He, for instance, did not mean by induction a kind of proof that is different from the syllogism, but, on the contrary, a method of research and discovery. From this very fact he was satisfied in its application witli a relatively universal {iiri to ttoXv) everywhere, where human knowledge does not lead to the absolutely universal. The syllogistic explanation of all particulars from uni-

Met., III.

2, 3,

1004

b,

25;

Top.,

I. 2,

101 b,

2.

"

Met., III.

1005

b, 17.

254

IIISTOUY OF ANCIKNT TIIILOSOPHY

Versal principles floated before him as the ultimate ideal of all But, as a matter of fact, the material of experience science. reaches in many ways (and everywhere in the special sciences) only to an approximate cuniprchcn.siveness, which satisfies the At tliis point needs of exi)l:uuilion within empirical limits. Aristotle caused the investigator of nature to assume the rule that the pliilosopher is obliged to relinquish. Another practical point of view, the political, supplements scientific exactness in tlie science of rhetoric by means of insiructive persuasiveness {h'vfiyina), wliich is sup[)orted upon what is in general true. Accordingly rhetoric in tlie scientific form that Aristotle first gave to it, is in respect to its purpose, an auxiliar}' science of politics. But in its content and the technism developed from it, it is a branch of Dialectic and For if a speech be parliamentary, juridical, or the Topics.
JESthetic {^(TV^lovXiVTLKv, hlKaVlKOV,
1, 3), it
lTVL?)(.iKTlKOV

ycVoS
in

liketOriC,

order to lead We can refer here only in a the auditors to the speaker's goal. general way to the accuracy of the applied psychology with which Aristotle gave his directions in the Rhetoric.

must always begin with popular ideas

When
particular

Aristotle

thus regarded the derivation

of

the
of

from the universal as the ultimate problem

though not indeed proved,
is

science, but maintained that the insight into the highest

principles,
clarified

sought for and

by the cpagogic investigation based upon facts, this apparent circle of reasoning explains itself from the conception which he held of the

human thinking

process and

its relation to the essence of things.

He

held this, more-

over, in intimate connection with his general view of the

For he meant that the historical and psychological world. development of human knowledge corresponds inversely to the metaphysical and logical connection of things, in that the thinking process, bound as it is to sense perception and developing from it, is recipient of the phenomena and that then from the phenomena it advances by induction to a conception of the true essence of things. Out of this as their fundamental ground the perceivable things arose, and
;

are

therefore

to he entirely

explained

by;_

the perfected

science through the process of deduction.

ARISTOTLE

255

The inverted parallelism in which the method of deduction {Analytics) and that of investigation (Topics) exist in Aristotle's teaching, is explained bv his distinction between ps3'choThat, for instance, which is the logical and logical relations. irpoTepov Kf)o<i yjj.ia<; i. e., the phenomena, is the vcrrepov rfj ^I'o-et conversely, that which is the -n-poTepov rfj ^iWt, i. e., the essence of the thing, appears in the development of our ideas as the va-repov TTpos 7),?.^ While the relationship between cause and effect is identical with that between ground and consequent for the ideal of a perfect explanatory science, this relation in the genesis of knowledge is inverted. In investigation the (sensible and particular) result is the basis of our knowledge of (conceptual and universal) cause. As soon as we, in accordance with the philosopher's explanations, discriminate between the ideal problems of explanatory science and the actual process of investigations leading to it, all apparent differences and difficulties of some of his single expressions vanish. Aristotle made use of his universal metaphysical concepts of possibilitv and actualit\- ( 41, and Zeller, IIP. 198 f.) for conceiving the psychogenetic development of perception in his explanatorv theory, in that he assumed that the concept of Essence that has not come actually into consciousness is latent as an undeveloped possibility in sense representation. Tlie most important point is that, accordingU', human knowledge can obtain a conception of the essential and the permanent onl}' through exact and careful scrutiu}- of the facts. In these teachings Aristotle theoreticall}' adjusted Platonism to empirical science. Aristotle was not at all the nominalist or empiricist that he has been represented here and there but he showed that the problem which Plato set for himself, and which be made his own, was to be solved only through the widest elaboration of the facts.
;

The fundamental

philosophical question about the conis,

ceptual essence of that which really

could be solved,

according to Aristotle, only in systematic connection with

the explanation of the facts.
solutions
for

The

logical

form

of these
is

which
is

all

science

accordingly

strives,

Definition^ (optcr/xo?) in,which the permanent essence (ovata,

rb tI

rjv

ehai)

established as the ground of the changing

conditions and manifestations (ra (TVfjberjKra) for every

1

Anal,

post.,

I.

2,

71

1),

34.

See especially the sixth book of the Topics.

256
single

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

phenomenon

but at the same time the conceptual

dependence u])on the more universal is expressed. The logical form is therefore the judgment of determination in which the subject is defined by its superordinatcd class-concept and by
its

own

specific characteristic.

These deter-

minations of concepts are based partly upon deduction and partly upon induction, but they in turn presuppose ulti-

mately underivablc and only illustrable definitions of the

highest class-concepts {'yevq).

Concepts appear thus here as content of immediate knowledge, and their unfolding (the analytical judgments of Kant) gives the highest axioms of the deductive theories. See Zeller, III^. 190 f. Here appears a wider development of the SocraticPlatonic principle for the explanation of reality. M. Rassow,

De

Arist. deiiotiouis definitione doctrina (Berlin, 1843); C. Khn, notionis definitioiie qualem Arist. constituent (Halle, 1844).

The

Aristotelian system of concepts has no point of uni-

Good. As a scientifiremained entirely conscious of the many possible independent points of departure for scientific theory, and he demanded only that every branch of knowledge should grow from his peculiar principle. He, however, made no attempt to collect and systematically to arrange the indemonstrable principles (Secret? dvairBeLKTot), and just as little the resulting immediate premises {irprfication like the Platonic Idea of the

cally inclined thinker, he

aei<i ajxeaoi).

The

possible kinds of predicates, the Categories, are the

for
logical

highest class-concepts
irreducible.

investigation,

and are

They represent the

different points of view

under which the different concepts can be made elements of a proposition or judgment by virtue of the factual relations of their contents. Aristotle gave ten ^ categories
:

ovala.)

TToaov,
e'x^eiv.
I. 9,

ttolov, irpo^

ti,

ttov,

ttotc, Troietv,

Tracr^eti',

KeiaOai,
1
^

lie sometimes, however, omits the last two.^

b, 21
;

Top.,

103
I.

De

cat., 4, 1 b, 25.
1,

Anal, post.,
a,

22, 83 b, 16; Phys., V.

225 b,

5;

Met., IV.

7,

1017

24.

ARISTOTLE
A.

257

Trendelenburg, Gesch. der Kategorienlehre (Berlin, H. Bonitz. Arist. Studien, Part VI. Fr. Brentano, Von der mannigfachen Bedeutung des Seienden nach Arist. W. Sciiuppe, Die arist. (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1862) Kategorien (Gleiwitz. 1866) Ee^Zelle, Der Unterschied in der Auffassung der Logik hei Arist. u. Kant (Berlin, 1870) W. G. Bauch, Aristotelische Studie?i (Dobberan, 1884) Luthe, Die arist. Kategorien (Ruhrort, 1874) A. Gercke, Ursprung der arist. Kategorien {Arch. f. Gesch. d. Ph., IV. 424 f.). Metaphysical motives enter into Aristotle's theory- of the categories no more than into his whole system of logic, which has,

1846)

as

its

most general presupposition,

tlae

identity of the

Form

of

thought with that of Being. The principle of this theory is manifestly concerned with the office the elements of judgment
{to.

Kara

u-qSe/jiav

ctv^iXok-iji'

Aeyo^ueia,

cat.

4)

are fitted tO

judgment itself. They are either that wliereof affirmation is made, and which can onl}' be subject, i. e., the ova-ia, the ti eVrt or that which is predicated of the substance, and is to be thought as actual onK in connection with it. Arisassume
in the
;

totle

made

this contrast of the ovo-ta to all the other categories

I. 22, 83 b. 24). Under the o-L'fierjKOTa he distinguished {Met., XIII. 2, 1089 a, 10) only modes and relations {ir-q, Trp6<; Ti). In the minute enumeration of possible predicates, the advance is unmistakable from quantitative und qualitative determinations to spatial and temporal relations and thence to causal relations and dependence. Also the grammatical distinctions of substantive, adjective, adverb, and verb, appear to play parts in the ten or eight categories. The medial categories, Kela-Oai and exeiv, were held by the philosopher occasionally as unnecessary, compared to the active and passive.

{Anal, post.,

41.

Aristotle's attempt to reconcile the theory of Ideas

l)is

with
in

empirical conception of the world

is

developed

his Meiapliysics, chiefly in his theory really is (ovala).

concerning that

which

The

conviction that only a coni.

ceptual universal can be the object of true knowledge,

e.,

absolute actuality, forbids us thinking the content of tem-

porary, particular perceptions as ovala.

On

the

other

hand, the conviction that the universal does not have a higher actuality, separated from sense objects, forbids the hypostasizing of class concepts in the Platonic manner.
17

258

inSTOKY OF ANCIENT rillLOSorilY

is

True actuality
ceptually
in

the individual
to

which

is

thought of con-

contrast

changing states
it,

(^avfierjKora).

Accordingly in

and conditions and only in it, does the

general

determination (etSo?) become actual. The ultimate object of scientific knowledge is neither the jiarticular form perceived nor the schemata of absti'action, but the thing wliicli maintains its conceptual essence in the change of its sensible phenomenal aspects.
In the concept of the oiVia, both antithetical tendencies of Aristott'Han thought come together in such a way that his definiHere is a task tion thereof is as diflicult as it is important. whicli, as it happens, is not faciUtatcd by the technical use of Plato gave form to the word oro-i'a in the preserved writings. this conce[)t in antithesis to yeVeo-i?, and constructed the same opposition between Xoyo? and aia-drj<ji^^ and Aristotle remained everywhere loyal to the same use of the terms. But he gave objectively to ovaia and accordingly subjectively to Aoyos an He asserted most positively that entirely different content. complete metaphysical reality belongs onl^- to the individuals ^ The class concepts (ei^r; as over against a dualism {^(ytptcr^o^). and y!'?;, species and genera) are always only qualities, which are common to several things, can be actual only in things, and They subsist not Trapa ra iroW but predicated ^ of things. This factor in the teaching of Aristotle makes K-ara toWmv.^ him later appear as the opponent of scholastic realism, i. e., as the opponent of the recognition of the metaphysical priority of the class concepts, and it makes iiim also appear as a nominalist by This tendency is expressed so strongly in the the same sign. preserved form of the writing Trtpl KaTrjyoptwv * that there the individual things are designated as irpunai oiViai, beside which the yevf] can be called only by wa\' of derivation Sei'rcpai ova-iai. On the other hand, Aristotle distinguished with exactitude every present perception of phenomenal things from the conceptual!}' recognizable substances (7) Kara toi' Xoyov ovcria).^ He asserted that these, permanent in contrast to phenomena, are determined The etSos is true Being : to tl ijv dvat iKarw Kai b}' the 180?.
1

Met.,
Ibi'L,

U.

6, 100.3 a, 5.
b, 8;

VI. 13, 10.38

Anal, post.,

I. 4,

73 b, 26.

Anal,

post., I. 11, 7 7 a, 5.

De

cat., 5,

2 a, 11.

See Met., IV.

8,

1017 h,

10.

Mel., V.

1,

1025

a, 27.

ARISTOTLE
Tr]v
TTpo'yrrjv
oj'crt'ar.^

259

This ovaia is, theu, the essence which is recognizable by its universal, permanent It is an essence which is the basis of the perceptual qualities. phenomenal forms. Therefore ovo-m can sometimes mean essence, sometimes species, sometimes Form, sometimes stuff. Zeller, IIP. 344 f. Met., VI. 3, 1028 b, 33

determined

and

Metaphysical reality

is,

then, to be found between the

:

class-forms and the perceptual forms

ually determined individual thing.

viz., in

the concept-

Aristotle attempted to
of representation

obviate the difficulty of this

manner

by

the universal relationship which governs his entire under-

taking
to
its

the relationship of matter to

Form, of

possibility

actuality.

This mediation between the universal,

its

conceptual essence of things and

tual

particular,

percep-

phenomenon, he found in the Principile of DevelopHis conception of the nature process (7eWo-t?) ment. was that therein the permanent, original essence (^ovaia) of things passed over from mere possibility (Svva/xL'i), into
:

actuality

(ivepyeta')
(vXtj),

that

this

process

completes

itself

when matter
yields to the
totle

which contains
(eZSo?, fiopcf)^])

all possibilities in itself,

is

Form

that

latent in

it.

Aris-

took analogies in part from

human

technical activity,

this theory,

and in part from the life of organic bodies, for grounding and they became to him the fundamental

ideas of his conception of the world.

These fundamental ideas were for Aristotle the universal form of apperception, under which he regarded all things and sought to solve all problems, sometimes too in a very schematic wav. When we speak of a formalism of the Aristotelian method, the formalism lies in the predominance of these concepts of relation,

Met., VI. 1032

this

b,

1.

between
fact that

passage and

The apparent terminological contradiction Dc cat. 5, does not necessarily mean that the
Tlie contradiction
ova-la
is explained away by the means sometimes the perceived thing

categories are spurious.

on the one hand

(Met., II. 4, 999 b, 14, ovaia alariTri, ibid., VII. 2, 1028 b, 24) sometimes essence, while Elbos, on the other hand, means sometimes speciesconcept, sometimes Form.

260

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT PIIILOSOPHY

wliich are not always in point of content the same for tbe pbilosopbor. Tliis is shown very i)laiiily in their application to tiie problematic rehition of the particuhir with tlie universal. On the one bami, that is to sa}', the class forms the undetermined possibility (L'TroKci/ici'ov, apLo-Toy) which is not actual for itself alone viz., the material which is formed and accordingly actualized in the oiuna by a specilic ditference {reXcvTula iu^opu).^ On the other hand, these universal determinations are also the Forms tbiough which and on account of which all actualization of tlie possible is explicable.There is no tioui)t that Aristotle's acceptation of the double meaning (Form and Classconcept) of the eKo? is an important factor in the unsolved ditticullies of the situation. The examples that Aristotle used for elucidating this fundamental relationship, viz., house, statue, growth of plants, prove on the one hand that the principal motive of this most important doctrine was the need of explaining process and change on the other band, that the philosopher had in mind sometimes the work of the artisan ui)on the plastic material and sometimes The ratification therein the oiganic process of development. found of the teleological presuiiposition develo{:ed to a universal principle of exi)lanatioii. Aristotle is throughout governed by Plato in this formation of his fundamental principle, and the ascendency of bis philosophy wholly obscured the mechanical conception of the world of Democritus. In this connection Aristotle perfected in these concepts of relation the ripest sj'nthesis of the Heracleitan and Eleatic prinThose who had tried ciples that inspired ancient pbilosoph}'. to recognize the permanent had. Plato not excepted, not been able to explain Becoming. Those to whom change was patent had been able to give to it either no substrate, or no meaning comprehensible in view of the essence of that which really is. Aristotle established the concept of that which possesses Being as the substance that realizes itself and is conceived in the proHe believed, accordcess from possibility to its actualization. ingly, that this definition satisfied both the ontological and the The earlier systems, he taught,* genetic interest of science.
:

'^

Arist. Met.,

VII.

6,

1045

a, 23.

Precisely for this reason

Aristotle has used ovaia and (i8os

is

many
a-vvo-

times as equivali-nts, while in the stricter meaning the ov<ria

\ov (^
3

Z\rj9 KCLi (iduvsa, _>:;

Met., VI. 8, 1033

I.

VII.

2,

1043

a,

14; VIII.

(J,

1048

a,

32

Phys.,
*

7,

190

a, 3.
ff.
;

i-ti-.

Plnjs., I. 6

especially

I. 8,

191

a, 34.

ARISTOTLE

261

have furnished the proof that Becoming is to be explained as derived neither out of that which is nor out of tliat which is not, nor out of the union of the two. So it remained to conceive of that which is as something which in its inmost essence is in the It remained also to formulate the conprocess of development. cept of Becoming so that it formed the transition from a condition of a substratum, that no longer is, to one that not yet is, for

which the transition

is

essential.

Metaphysih des Arist. (Berlin, 1841) F. Ravaisson, Essai sur la Metaphysique cV Arist. (Paris, 1837-4G) J. Barthelemy St. HUaire, De la Metaphysique (Paris, 1879) G. V. Hertling, Materie und Fonnhei Arist. (Bonn, 1871).

Compare
; ;

J.

C. Glaser, Die

The fundamental
applied on the one

relation between matter

hand

to individual things,

and Form is and on the

other to relations between things in such a "way that insight

into the essence of
result

Becoming

(f?as

Geschehen)

from

it.

In every individual thing

is made to Form and matter

are in such correlation that there can be no such thing as

formless matter or matterless Form. But precisely on this account they are not to be regarded as distinct pre-existing potencies which have found their union in the individual;^

it is

but the same unitary essence of the individual, in so far as a potentiality and in so far as it is viewed only as a

and in so far as it preeents a complete There exist neither pure potentialities nor perfectly actualized Forms. The ovcrla is not merely
possibility, is matter;

actuality

it is

Form.

nor purely ivepyeia. It is rather a potentiality, in The temporal continuous process of actualization. the determined by the changing change in its conditions is
8vvd/xei,

measure of this actualization. Aristotle called the potenand tiality which belongs to the essence of the individual comes to reality in the individual, the iayj!iTi) v\7].
"^

of

^ The potential tree and the complete tree do not exist independent and before the growing tree. They are only different conceptions of

the thing that

2

is

forming
G,

itself in
;

the tree.
10,

Met., VII.

1045 b, 18

VI.

1035

b, 30.

The expression

is

used

in the logical sense.

In the descending process from the most universal,

262

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIY

the other hand, this lehitioiishii) hecomcs cntircl}'
it

On

dif-

ferent whenever
things.

In this case, where one

is

the other

between different individual is the receptive matter and the moulding Form, the two stand also in a relaobtains

tion of necessary reciprocity.

Yet they

exist also indepen-

dent of each other, and only in their union create the new thing in that now the one is the matter and the other is the
Form.'
is

In

all

these cases the relation of

Form and matter

only a relative one, because the

same thing can be con-

ceived in

one aspect as Form and in another aspect as matter for a higher Form. There is, therefore, a scale of things in which every indiis

vidual

the

Form

in respect to

what

is

beneath

it

and the

matter in respect to what is higher. This system of development must, however, have a limit, both below and above below in a matter which is no longer Form above in a Form
:

which

is

no longer matter.
;

(^irpcrr]

vXtj)

the latter

is

The former is stuff-material pure Form or Godhood (ro ti rfv

ehat TO irpwTov). Since, however, matter is pure possibility, It is, it does not exist for itself, but ever in formed states.
nevertheless, the foundation for the realization of
ticular
all

par-

Forms.

On the other hand, the

concept of pure Form,

all

as absolute reality, excludes all matter,

pure possibility,

and

signifies accordingly perfect Being.

Aristotle did not expressly formulate the two different uses of the schemata of possibility and actuality, matter and Form (potenOne tiii and actus), but he thoroughly api)lied them in practice.

undetermined possibility (Trpwri; vXjj) to ever narrower definition of essence and logical determination, the specific difference, by which the individual is distinguished in its gemix proximum from other individuals,
is

" the last."

This difference coincides with the form of the individual.

this
is

Yet sometimes
1

entirely turned about

4,

and designated
32.

as nprr} vXrj

of the individual.

See Met., IV.

1014

b,

Thus

the timber exists, and the thought of the house in the head of
itself.

the builder exists, each by

The house

is

the result of the co-

operating influence of the

Form

of the latter with the material.

ARISTOTLE

263

nse of these terms is suited to organic development, the other to technical activity. In this difference alone can be exi)lained the fact that this difficult subject is sometimes so presented as if 8i'i'a/iis and ere'pyeta were identical in essence, and only different ways ofconceptiou or phases of development of the same ocrttt At other times Form and matter uniting et^os and vXy in itself. are represented as separate realities, which influence each other. There is a kind of reconciliation between both methods of representing the case for also in the first method the two factors, which are separated onl}' in abstracto are yet so treated as if one influenced the other ^ the automatic or self-developing process is so presented as if it divided itself into a moving Form and a
; ;

moved

Stuff'.'

In presenting matter^ thus on the one hand as the not-yet actual, on the other, nevertheless, as the unoriginated and indestructible'' basis (vTroKiLfuevoi') of all Becoming, in conceiving the system of the latter as an unbroken progress from possibility to actuality, finally in defining tlie Godhead as an absolutel}' pure exclusion of all possibility from himself, the Aristotelian philosophy, like the Platonic, established differing grades and kinds of metaphysical reality. The lowest is matter whose positive character is recognized by Aristotle in his rejection of the and in his desire to call it Democritan-Platoiiic term fir] (TTeprja-L'i in SO far as it is thought in abstracto as deprived of all Form. The highest is the Form complete in itself and entirely changeless, corresponding to the Idea, or ama of Plato. Between these two extremes there is the whole realm of graded things, in which and between which, movement passes from the lower to Different grades of knowledge the higher grades of actuality. correspond in Aristotle to the different grades of Being. Matter

as the afiopcov, a-n-upnv, and apiCTTov is also the detSes and the Since all systematic knowledge is directed toward ayi/wo-Tov.^ the d8o<; and the oiWa, and God is pure form and primary essence, the object of the highest and most perfect knowledge is the Godhead. The things of Becoming must, however, be conceived in that their cTSos is developed out of their v\i].
^

As shown
Phys., III.

especially in the activity of the soul

2,

42.

2 3

202

a, 9.

See Jas. Scherler, Darstellung und

bei Arist.
1,

Wrdigung

des Begriffs

der

Materie
*

(Potsdam, 1873).
1042
a,

Met., VII.

32;

3,

1043

b, 14.
a,

Phjs., III.

C,

207

a,

25; Met., VI. 10, 103G

8;

De

ccelo,

III. 8,

306

b, 17.

264

IIISTOKV OK ANCTKNT IMIir.OSOrilY

is

Motion, Becoming, and Change

a transition from the

condition of possibility to that of actuality, and is based in part upon the essence of the individuals themselves, in
part upon their relations to one another.

Development

belongs accordingly to the nature of things, and is eternal, without beginning or end.^ Every motion {Kivr^ai^) presupposes on the one hand
state of possibility,

moved material, which is the primal and on the other hand the moving Form,

which
of the

is

the final state of actuality.

is

Form

is

then the cause

really
is.

motion which

to be

found-

in that

which

In so far as the evepyeia creates this process of actuahzation,

On the other hand, determined not only by that which is about to become and which exercises the impelling force but also by that out of which it is to become, by
it is

also called by Aristotle ivreXixeia.

is

motion, precisely as transition,

the matter to be changed and bearing in itself the possibility

of change.

Matter stands, however,

in

an essential relation
to realize

to its

Form, and has therefore the tendency

it is

the

Form.

In this, matter reciprocates the influence of

also possibility for

As

possibility,

Form. something else, and

in so far it conditions

movement

to the extent of preventing of bringing about inci-

perfect realization of the

Form, and

dental results which do not directly follow from the Form.

In this sense matter

accidental in nature.

is

the cause of the imperfect

and

the

to be

Thus, according to Aristotle, two kinds* of causes are distinguished in the explanation of motion the
:

formal causes and the material causes.

teleological
dvayK'T)';^.
;

The

formei- are

the latter are mechanical (e| {ov eveKo) Purpose and nature-necessity are of equal importance as princi{)les of the cosmic process. The Platonic and Democritan explanations of nature are reconciled in the relation of
1

Form and
1,

matter.
2 *

Phijs.,

YIII.
I. 9,

252

b, 5.

][fg(^

yilT.

8,

1049
I. 1,

b, 24. b, 11.

Phys.,

192b, 16.

Depart, an.,

639

ARISTOTLE
Aristotle incidentally
explainin^jj
^

265
(ap;^a(') in

distinguished four principles

i'(f>

three last If the three are are together always contrasted with the first. sometimes separated in the realm of particular .processes, they form nevertiiL'less more frequently onh' otit principle (especially in the organic development of the individual) in that the essence of the fact (et8o?), as the thing to be realized (tcAos), is the moving force {klvovv). In this sense as teleological cause the substance or essence is entelechy. The expressions ivip-yna and ivTeXe^aa are generalh' indifferently used in Aristotle, and an exact difference is hardly attempted, certainly not developed, between the two The etymology of the word words. See Zeller, IIP. 350 f. T/\os is obscure: see R. Hirzel, ejTcAe'xeta und ivSeXe^iLa {Rhei)i.
:

movement

v\rj, elSo';,

nv,Ti\ns.

But

tlie

Jfuse inn, 1884).

The reality, which Aristotle ascribed to matter, appears most significantly in the reciprocal actions that he gave to it in its
cause. It is due to the indeterminateness of In this respect that the Forms are imperfecth' realized. Hence it follows that for matter is a principle of obstruction. Aristotle nature's laws, which originate in the conceptual forms of things, are not without exceptions, but are valid onh' i-n-l to TToXv.^ In this way he explained unusual phenomena, repara, abortions, monstrosities, and the like. But furthermore the positive character of matter appears in that it leads to accidental results * in motion on account of its indeterminate possibilities, and these accidents are not immediately involved in the essence or purpose.^ Aristotle named these o-vfierjKOTa, accidental their appearance he called chance, avrofiarov and, within the region of purposed events, tvxv-'' Aristotle's conception of accident, therefore, is entirely teleological. It is also logical so far as tlie purpose is identical with the concept. See W. Windelband, Die Lehren vom Zufall (Berlin, 1870) p. 58 f.,
relation to final
vX.7],^

69

ff.

The application of the name avdyK-r] to the efficiency of tlie stuff makes us at once see Aristotle's intention of recognizing
1

Met.,

I. 3,

983

a,

26

IV. chap. 2;
6.

Ph>/s., II. 3,

194

b, 23.

3
* *

De gen. an., IV. 10, 778 a, De part, an., III. 2, 663 b,

Phjs., II. 4
ff.

28

De

gen. an., IV. 4, 770 b,

9.

These happen

jrapa (pvaw {Phys., II. 6, 197 b, 34), in

irapacjivds,

which

(^vVty
I.

=:

ovala

eiSos.

Compare the expression

197
b, 18.
1

Eth.

Nie,

4,

1096

a, 21.

Phijs., IT. 6,

Ibid., 5,

196

b, 23.

26R

HISTORY OF ANCIENT riiiLosoniY

tlie

Ihr Di'inocritan iniiiciple of mccliaiiisin, while ;it tlic same time toleological activity of the Form is manifestly only a de-

velopment of the I'hUonic concept of the ama. Democrilns thought that an event is determined only through what i)receded it; Pluto thought an event determined by what shall issue from it. Aristotle sought to reconcile this antagonism, and so he attril)uted to matter one kind of determination and to form the other kind. His teaching is therefore the last word of Greek philosophy on the problem of Becoming ( 13). But, however much the philosopher takes account of the Democritan motive, yet in this solution the Platonic thought obviously preponderates. For not only the higher actuality belongs to the final cause in contrast to that of the material cause, but also in their operations they are so distinguished that all results of value come from the final cause, while all that is less important comes from the material cause. Matter is the ground of all imperfection, change, and destruction. To its
positive capacity for obstruction and deflection Aristotle ascribed, with a far better right, all those consequences with which Plato overloaded the ^^ ov. This preference of the Stagirite for his teacher shows itself also in his introduction of mechanical causes under the names ovvaLTLov and ov ovk ai'ev, which are taken from the FhcBclo and the Timceus} In this way mechanical causes are characterized directly as causes of the second class, or accidental causes. Matter alone could not move, but if it is moved by the F'orra. it nevertheless is a determining factor in the movement. Matter is, then, in ever}respect a secondary cause. With this active antagonism the Aristotelian teaching manifests, in spite of its effort at harmony, an expressly dualistic character which ancient thought could not overcome. For the independence of existence and activity, attributed to matter in the explanation of nature, permeates the entire system along with liis fundanrental monistic principle, that matter and Form are essentially identical, and matter is only a striving toward the

realization of P'orm.
totle's

All the oppositions meet finally iu Arisconception of God.

in the

Every motion
is

world has a (relative)

it.

pyrjt "which

the

Form

that causes

Since, however, on account of

its

connection with matter, this

Form

is

also itself
^

moved,
there

the series of causes would have

1

no end
5,

unless
a,

Phys., II.

9,

200
1071

a,

Mel., IV.

10 15

20.

Met., XI.

6,

b, 6.

ARISTOTLE
exists, as

267

an absolute apx; of all motion, the pure Form, {he sharer of no mere possibility and therefore of no motion, the Godhead. Itself unmoved, it is the cause of all motion, the TrpcoTot kivovv.^ Eternal even as motion^

unitary and single even as the band of the entire system ^ of the universe, and unchangeable,'^ it calls all the motions of the world forth, but not by its own activity. That would be a motion in which the Godhead, as without
itself,

But it calls forth all tbe motion of world through the desire of all things for it, and through the endeavor of all things to actualize Kara to hvvajov the Form that is eternally realized in the Godhead.
matter, cannot share.
the

As
d}<;

the object of desire,

ipcofievov.^

it is

the cause of

all

motion

Ktvel

The essence

of the

Godhead

is

immateriality,' perfect inIt is

corporeality, pure spirituality, vov^.

thought, which
vorjcreca^i)^

has no other content than

itself

{v6r)ai<i

and

this self-contemplation (Oecopia) is its eternal blessed life.^

God wishes

nothing,

God does

nothing.^*^

He

is

absolute

self-consciousness.
In the conception of tbe Godhead as the absolute Spirit who, himself unmoved, moves the universe, Aristotle's theory of nature culminated in such a way that he designated his science The scientific establishment of of principles as a theology. monotheism, which, since Xenophanes, formed a leading theme of Greek philosophy, api)eared here completed as its ripest In its form it is like the so-called cosmological proof; fruit. in its content, through its concept of the Godhead as a pure The fundaspirit, it is far superior to all the earlier attempts. mental principles of Plato are just at this point, however,
1

Met., III. 8, 1012 b, 31.

Phjs., VIII. C, 258

b, 10.

8 *
5 ' 8

Met.. XI.

8,

1074

a,

36.
:

di/aXXotWor and oTTaoos

Ibid., Ibid.,

Met., XI.
6

7,

1073

a, 11. a, 26.

1072 b,
1073
a,

7.

/i/j.^

1072

Key^copia-fJiein]

ratv aladrjTav.
^

Ibid.,

1074

b, 34. 8,

Ibid.,

1072 b, 24.
292 b,
4.

"

Eth.

Nie, X.

1178

b, 8

Z>e coelo, II. 12,

26S

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rilTLOSOPIIY

For the Aristotelian doctrine centres' attributes which Plato had ascriltcd to the Ideas, and in wliich the Stagirite determined the relation olCiod
is

tlccisivc for Aristotle.

in (toiI all

the

way

only the exact and shar[) detinition of the teleowhich Plato had indicated l)y the ahia. On tills account the Aristotelian Godhead shares with the Platonic Idea the characteristic of transcendence. In his thcolog}-, Aristotle is the perfecter of Platonic inunuterialism. Thought conceived itself and hypostasized its self-consciousness as the essence of the Godhead. The self-sufficiency of the God of Aristotle, to whose absolute perfection there can be no want,'^ whose activity, directed upon himself and upon naught else, can be no adivity nor creation in our sense of the word, did not satisfy the later religious need. This idea is, however, the true corner-stone of his system, and at the same time eloquent testimony for the theoretic character of the Aristotelian philosophy. Jul. Simon, De deo Aristotelis (Paris, 1839) A. L. Kym, Die GottesleJire des Aristoteles und d((s Christentum (Zrich, \S{j'2) L. F. Goetz. Der aristotelische Gottesbegriff, mit Bezug auf die christliche Gottesidee (Leipzig, 1871).
to the world
loixical

principle,

bond which actualize their Form in their motions, and in their totality are determined by pure Form as their highest purpose. There is, therefore, only this one 2 world, and this world is permeated'* in its activity with a purpose both in the motions and relationships of
42.
of
all

Aristotle looked upon nature as the organic

individuals,

the individual

things.

The

actualizing of the purposes

of things, however, occurs always through the

motion of
is

matter

{Kivrjac^

or

/xeraoX/]).
ttov

change
'

of

{)lacc

{KaTa to

This motion^
(f>opa),

either

or

change of
is

Therefore, in contrast to Speusippus, the Homeric citation

given
eorci).

in

the spirit of

monism

ovk ayaov

TroKvKoijiavlr]

ds Koipavos

Mel., XI. 10. 107C a, 4.

2
'
*

He
De

is

avTpxTis.

JbiJ.,
a,

XIII.
;

4, 1091 b, IG.
8,

coelo, I. 8,

276

18

Met., XI.
coelo, I.

1074
a,

a, ;^1.

Pliys., II.

and 8; De
225
b,

4,

271

33

6 edy

*cal

r;

0iV

oidfv
6

fiaTTfv iroiovaiv.

Polit., I. 8,

1256
192

b, 20. b, 14.

Phys., V.

2,

18;

IL

1,

ARISTOTLE
quality (^Kara to ttolov
tity

269

{Kara to Tzoaov

aXkoLOicn^^., or

change in quan-

av^r]ai<i

Kal

(ftdicris).

Ch. Leveque, La physique d'Aristote et la science contemporaine (Paris, 1863). in Aristotle not a substance, nor an ^I'o-is was, in truth, individual, but a unitar\' somewliat, the total teleological life of In this sense he spoke of the activities, the corporeal world. In connection with his theor}' of purposes, etc., of nature. nature belonjrs therefore also that of the soul, because, although not corporeal itself, the soul as Form of the body is its principle of motion. On the contrary, all those bodies are excluded from his definition of nature which get their form and motion from human activity, and not from their own essence.^ Teleology in Aristotelianism was not only a postulate, but also a developed theory. It was not at all a mythical imagining, but an essential doctrinal princi|)le. The Platonic principle in this theory did not displace the Democritan. Init the Democritan is accepted as a factor, since the mechanical motion having its basis in the material appears as a means toward the actualization of the Form. The teleological fundamental principle, that there is a relationship of rank and value among phenomena, governs Aristotle's conception of the three kinds of motion. Change of place is the lowest, yet it is indispensable to the higher processes. For qualitative changes perfect themselves alwa^-s by spatial dislocations, like condensation and rarefaction." On the other hand, growth is always conditioned^ by the qualitative processes of assimilation and the consequently necessary spatial changes. Thus this division makes the gradation into mechanicaL chemical, and organic processes, in which the higher always involves
the lower.

often
tion

Under the class concept of ueraoXy'], which is, to be sure, made ecjuivalent to KLvq(ji<is Aristotle contrasted origina(yei'co-ts)

rowor sense.

and destruction {(^6np) to kiVt/o-i? in the naiThis kind of change concerns, however, only the

individual things, since there is no absolute origination and destruction :* further, one of the three kinds of motion is alwaj'S present in this change.

compounded

In his investigation into the fundamental principles of

mechanics, Aristotle came to look upon the world as limited

1

Phys.,

II. 1,

193
29;

a.

31.

/j/,/^

yi]!.

7^

2CO

b, 4.

3 Ibid.,

260

a,

De

gen.

et corr., I. 5,

320

a, 15.

* Ibid., 3,

317

a, 32.

270
in space,

IIISTOKY OF ANCIKXT rillLOSOrilY

but on the other hand as moving in time without

ilc disallowed reality to

beginning or end.

empty space,

and denied
contact.^

actio in distans.

Motion

is

possible only through

i.

is the most perfect, Within the world there are two fundain a circle and in a straight mental kinds of motion, Of these two, the former, as self-limiting and unitary, line. is the more nearly perfect, while the latter involves the opposition of the centripetal and centrifugal directions.

The form

of the limited world-all

e., it is

a sphere.

These primitive
motion
formed.
is

spatial

motions are distributed among

dif-

ferent kinds of matter.

The natural medium

of the circular

the sether, out of which the heavenly bodies are

Motions

in straight lines

belong to the elements

{aTOi^ia) of the terrestrial world.

Thus
tially

Aristotle separated his world-all into two essen-

heaven wnth the regular, and the earth with the circular motions changing, antagonistic, and straight-line motions of the elements. The heaven is the place of perfectness, regulardifferent

systems

the

of the

aether,

ity,

and- changelessness.

The earth

is

the theatre of im-

perfection and of the eternally changing manifold.

earthly

While and go, while their qualities are received and lost, while on earth there is increase and diminution, yet the stars do not Become nor pass away. Like the blessed gods, they suffer no change, and in unthings

come

changeable revolutions they move in orbits eternally the

same.
In the definition of space (toVos) as " the boundary of an enclosing body on the side of the enclosed " ^ Aristotle went beyond the relative space relationships of particular bodies, but In contesting did not, ttiorefore, reach an intuition of space. the notion of the void, he had Dcmocritus ^ particularly in mind.
1

Phys., III.
I/jUL,

2,

202

a, G.
;

IV.

4,

211 b, 14

De

ccclo,

IV.

3,

310

b, 7.

Phys., IV., 4-6.

ARISTOTLE

271

In the dispute as to the reality of space, he contended against Plato's position, to whose construetiou of the elements he opposed ^ the distinction between mathematical and physical Against the notion of the endlessness of the corporeal bodies. world (a-eLpov) he maintained - that the woiid can be thought Time, only as complete and perfected, as a fully formed thing. on the contrary, as the measure of motion " ^ and as not actual
itself, but "used only for computing,* is beginningless and endless, like the motion that belongs necessarily to Being. Therefore the Aristotelian philosophy offered in opposition to all earlier philosophy no picture of a creation of the world, and contended against in this respect the presentation in the Platonic

in

Timceus.

On the other hand, his philosophy in its essentials was greatly For the antagonism, formulated influenced by the Tim<eus. b}- Aristotle in an authoritative way for many hundred years, the antagonism between the heavenly and the terrestrial world, was based entirely upon that which Plato had developed in his divisions of the world (see Plato), and also upon those dualistic reflections that had been peculiar to the Pythagoreans Aristotle developed these notions in a theoretic in early times. wa}-. He gave the theory* greater forcefulness conceptually than had been the case with Plato's mathematical development of it these notions became transformed at once into qualifications of value. Such a theor}- obtained also in the contrast drawn between the aether and the four elements. Also in this the Eleatic invariability, unoriginatedness, etc., was attributed to the Godhead in that he explained the stars as living things moved by reasoning spirits of a higher and superhuman order ^ {Bda Therefore there must be for these a better matter, awfiaTo).' the tether, corresponding to their higher form. Aristotle's particular conceptions concerning mechanical mo-

tion

have no peculiarities.

into drawing, pushing, carrying,

His very anthropomorphic division and turning he did not further

develop, and he did not reach the point of formulating laws of

mechanics.
-DTTle.
;
|

Die Haumtheorien des Arisf. vnd

;

oiit's

(Halle,

1850)

A.:_Toj:stiick,

{Fhilol.
1 3

1868)

Ueber des Arist. Abhandh/itg von der Zeit H. Siebeck, Die Zehre des Arist. con der
^ p/^^^.^

De

5
^

HI. 1, 299 a, 12. IV. 11, 220 a, 3. Meteor., I. 3, 339 b, 25.

coelo,

ni.

f.

Ibid.,

4 Ibid., 14,

223

a, 21.
7,

Eth.

Nie, VI.

1141

a, 1.

Met., XI. 8, 1074 a, 30.

-I'l

IIISTOHV or ANCIENT riiiLosorii V.

z.

Uicigkeit der Welt {Cnters.

J'h. d.

(/.,

1873;;
i<S81;.

Th. roselger,

^h'ist. inee/atiiisehel'robleiiie

(HauiiuvLi,

The

astroiioiuiciil

theory of the t5tagirito was, that around

tlie earlli tlie

the stationary sphere oi

liollow spheres revolve

live planets,

concentrically, iu which spiieres the

moon, sun,

and the lixed stars are placed.

Aristotle conceived that

these last, by virtue of their relatively unchanging position, have only a common sphere. This heaven of Uxed stars in the outermost circle of the world is set in motion by the Godhead,' while the other spheres lind the principle of their

movements in their own spirits. Eudoxus and Callippus, the pupil

Aristotle followed here

of

Eudoxus, wdien

in his

explanation of aberrations he ascribed to the planets a plurality of spheres dependent on one another in their movements.

The

star concerned

was supposed

to

have

its

seat in the

lowest of these sj)heres.

He

conceived in his development

all.

of this theory fifty-five spheres in

The motions
life.

of the
tliis

planets influence the motions of the elements, and in

way the planets

in general influence terrestrial

The theory of the spheres in the form established under name of Aristotle pushed aside the riper conceptions of
Pythagoreans and Platonists.
hvpothesis of the
opicvcles.
It itself
J.

the
tlie

L.

Ideler,

had to yield later to the Ueher Eudoxus

(Ahhandl.

d.

Bed. Acad., 1830).

Aristotle provided for a later demonology in his theory of the snbordinato gods of the spheres of the planets, as on the other h.and his theory of the dependence of earthly existence on the stars gave occasion for astrological superstition. To the changing j)ositions of the sun, moon, and planets in relation to the oartli, he attributed the character of eternal change, whicii
in eartiily life is to l)e

contrasted with the eternal regularity- of

the

"

first

heaven."

Aristotle developed the differences between the eartiily

elements from their tendencies to move

*

in straight lines in

Kivfi

w?

ffjwfxfvov, as
et corr., II.

ahove mentioned.
10,

De

yen.

3o6

b,

U.

ARISTOTLE
opposite directions.
tripetal element.
is

273

Fire

is

relatively light,

Between the two there and the water, which is

its

the centrifugal, earth the cenis the air, which

relatively heavy

Therefore the earth has

point of the world-all
;

natural place in the middle and successively toward the peri-

phery

air, and fire. But the elements have qualitative differences as well as mechanical, and these are not originally and in particular derived from mathematical differences. In their development^ Aristotle used the same pairs of opposites which had

of the

heaven, stand water,

played a great role already in the most ancient naturephilosophy and afterward in the younger physiology. These
opposites were

warm and

cold, dry

and moist.

four fundamental kinds of sensation, he

first active

called the

Of these two

and the two

last passive,

and constructed accord-

ingly out of the four possible combinations the qualities of

^ an active and passive quality. Fire is warm and dry air is warm and moist earth is cold and dry water is cold and moist. No element appears unmixed in any individual thing; on the contrary, there is a mixture of all elements in each
; ;
;

the four elements, each one of which must include

thing.

Aristotle explained the

common

elemental meteorological

phenomena by means
in a

partly of the mechanical, partly of the

chemical qualities of the elements, using the earlier theories

most comprehensive way.

Moreover he made a special

study of the distinctly chemical processes, and distinguished

between bodies of equal and of unequal parts, and investigated the origin of new qualities arising from the combination of simple bodies.

Concerning the predecessors of Aristotle as to the doctrine of For Aristotle to have the elements, see Zeller, III'. 441, 2. assumed the four elements of Empedocles is consistent with the traces elsewhere found of the intluence of that ijhilosoj)her. The
1

De

gen.

et corr., II. 2

and

3.

Meteor., IV.

1, 3 78 b,

12.

18

274

HISTORY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPIIY

assertion as to the primariness of qualities was aimed expressly against Plato and Democritus, and therewith Aristotle turned away from mathematical science to an anthropocentric view of For, inasmuch as the first (jualities of the elements nature. were deduced from tactile sensations, so the -wider chemical investigations were chictly derived from mixtures of other sensequalities, es[)ecial]y from those of taste and smell, but also as In this way the investigawell from those of hearing and sight. tions of physiological psychology {J)e an., II., and in smaller
tieatises)

complete the specific chemical treatments which form

Meteorolof/ia, IV. The contrast of active and passive qualities involved, on the one hand, the thought of the internal vitality of all bodies. On the other hand, it led in the whole of the system to the application which the different kinds of matter receive in the organisms. Yet the present division into organic and inorganic chemistry is not to be read into his division of ol^oLofiefn) and avofjoiofufnj, even if the latter were also designated as more completely repre-

senting organic purposiveness. That, finally, this beginning of chemical science at first had at its disposal very s|)oradic and inexact knowledge, and in Aristotle was still limited ^ to clumsy methods of experimentation, like boiling, roasting, etc., cannot be wondered at. Neither does it detract from the value of the first special treatment of chemical problems. See Ideler, Meteorologia veterum (Berlin, 1832).

The
all

series of grades of living creatures is

determined by

differences of soul,

which as the entelechy

of the

body

in

things

is

the

Form

that moves, changes, and fashions

matter.

Souls also have a relative ranking.^

The lower

can exist without the higher, but the higher only in conThe lowest kind of soul is the nection with the lower.
vegetative {to OpeTrrtKi'), wdiich
to assimilation
is

limited in

its

functions
to
])lants.

and proi)agation, and belongs

tliis

The animal
KTLKov),

possesses in addition to

the sensitive soul

same time is appetitive (opeand has also to some degree the power of locomotion Man possesses, besides both these {klv^tlkov kutu tottov).
(to ala-drjTiKov), wdiich at the

other souls, reason (to Biuvotjtikou re koI

1

vov<i).

Meteor., IV2.

f.

^e an., II. 1,

412

a, 27.

3 Jbid..

3.414

b, 29.

ARISTOTLE

275
is

The purposiveness
activity of the
soul.

of the

organism

explicable from the

^

The

soul builds

for itself out of

matter the body as an organ, or as a system of organs. It finds its limitations only in conflict with matter, whose
nature-necessity leads to Forms, that are from the circumstances purposeless or purpose-thwarting.

The

significance of Aristotle as an investigator of nature

lies in his

teleological treatment

of organology. Under his principal came the questions of systematology, of morphology, of anatomy and physiology, and of biology, in a way that was for his time exhaustive and for many cenHis philosophical principle was that turies authoritative. nature strives upward from the very first signs of life, which signs can be seen even in inorganic processes, and that the striving is expressed in an unbroken series from the lowest kinds of spontaneous creations to the highest form of terrestrial life which is manifested in man.

development

When

Aristotle conceived the soul as a principle of inde-

pendent motion of the individual, he attributed to it a number of functions (especiall}' all the vegetative) which pass in the
present-da}' science as purely physiological. The soul was thought by Aristotle to be incorporeal but nevertheless bound to matter which is the possibility of its activity and does not therefore exist for itself alone. It has its seat in a particular organic matter, which is related in the ep/7,01' or the Tn'ev/ja, to the aether and is supposed to be found in animals in the blood chiefl}'. In this doctrine Aristotle allowed himself to be misled back into the popular view, which was opposed to the insight of Alcnifeon, Democritus, and Plato, that the heart is the principal organ of the soul and the brain pla3-s the secondarjrole of a cooling apparatus for the blood boiled in the heart. The sjnritus animoles of later times were developed theoretically from Aristotle's pliysiological psychology. The three grades of life of the soul correspond in general, although only very vaguely, to Plato's three divisions of the soul. Yet this doctrine is conceived and developed with much more

See classical development of the human form

a, 25.

De part,

an.,

IV.

10,

686

2J(]

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT PHILOSOPHY

and clearness
in

conceptual sliarjuioss
predecessor.

Aristotle than

in

his

ganic sciences,
facts

Aristotle's predilection for tek'ology in the realm of the orin which his thoroughgoing treatment of the

no way hindered the care of Jt rather sharpened to a high degree his insight into the anatomical structure of the organs, their moiphological relations, their physiological functions, and their biological signilicauce. Some mistaken analogies and unfortunate generalizations, which have been correctly enough charged against him by modern investigators, cannot They are onl}' injure the fame which is due him in this field. the excrescences and imperfections of his great and comprehenIn details he utilized chief!}" the previous sive conception. works of Democritus, whose mechanical theory, it must be said, had not stood in the way of his conception and admiration of the purpost'fulness of organisms. See J. B. Meyer, Aristoteles' Tierkunde (Berlin, 1855); Th. "Watzel, Die Zoologie des Aristoteles (in three parts, Reichenberg, 1878-80).

most

brilliantly appears, in

his observations

and comparisons.

The psychology of Aristotle has two parts, which, although running over into each other, still reveal the predominance of two distinct scientific points of view: (1) the general theory of animal souls, a doctrine of the psychical processes which are possessed in common by animals and men, although developed in man more richly and more
nearly perfectly
;

(2) the doctrine of the vov^ as the dis-

tinctive possession of

man.

We

can designate these two

views as the empirical and speculative sides of Aristotle's psychology. The former he treated essentially as an investigator by carefully recording, ordering, and explaining the
facts.

The

latter

view, on the contrary, was governed

partly by

his general metaphysics, partly by his interests

in epistemology

and

ethics.^

K. Ph. Fischer, (Erlangen, 1845)

1

De principiis Aristotelicce de anima doctrince W. Volkmann, J>ie Grundzge der aristo;

Aristotle himself ilistinj^nislied bi-lwci'ii the physical

and philosoph1,

ical

treatment of the soul:

De

an.,

I.

403

b,

li;

De

part, an., I.

641a,

17.

ARISTOTLE
telisc/ten
;

277

Psijchologie (Prague, 1858) A. E. Chaignct, Essai sur la psiichologie cVAristote (Paris, 1883); H. Sicbec k, Geschichte der Psychologie, I. 2, pp. 1-127 (Gotha, 1884). which Aristotle loiind predecessors in empirical psychology, is partly physiological psychology, as we to-day designate it, but partly in the physicians and later is not entirely embraced b}' it, nature-philosophers, partlj' in Democritus, and also perhaps in But he also betrayed in his theory of the Plato in the Tinueas. vov'i the inclination which had led all early philosophers to adjust their conceptions of psychology to their epistemological and

ethical views.

from the vegetable soul and unity (/^eo-oT?/?),' which Sensation is the fundamental form is wanting in plants. of activity (at'o-OT^crt?), which he explained^ by the concert of action between the active, Form-giving perceived thing and the passive, impressionable perceiving thing, an action mediated in different senses through different media. The most primary sense and common to all animals is the sense of touch, with which Aristotle likewise In value, however, hearing is first. classified taste. However, the activity of the special senses is restricted to receiving those qualities of the external world which are peculiar to the senses themselves, senses which are in the
soul
is

The animal

differentiated

essentially by its concentration

similarity

of

their

material

adapted to such

reception.

The combination
of things,

of the psychic elements, nevertheless, into

complete perceptions and the conception of the conditions

which are

common

to the different senses

sjiatial

the

conception of their number, their

and temporal connections, their conditions of motion takes place through the central sense organ, the ^ common-sense '' (alad-qr^piov Kocvop), which has its seat in tlie heart. In this central organ arises our knowledge of our own activities.^ In it the ideas remain * as (j^avraa-lai after the external stimulus has

ceased.
1

Imagination liecomes memory

424
a, 4.
'^

{fMV7]fj,7])

as soon as

Dc

an., IT. 11,

Ilnd, 5, 417
ji,ij^ 3^

a, C.

IbUl.,

m.

2,

425

b, 17,

42?

b, 14.

27S
it

HISTORY OF ANriEXT rniLOSoriiY

The entrance

becomes recognized as the copy of an earlier perception. of remembered ideas is conditioned uj)on the series in which they arc bound together. Upon the basis
of this association of ideas voluntary recollection is possible
in

man

(dvdfjLvr)cn<;).^

IL Beck, Arist. de sensuum actione (Berlin, 18G0) A. Cratacap, Arist. de sensibus dodrina (Montpellier, 1866 CI- Biiumker, Des Arist. Lehre -von dem nsseren uvd inneren Sinnesvermgen (Leipzig, 1877) J. Neuliiiscr, Arlst. Lehre von dem sinnlichen
;
)

rkennt)iisfervigen taid seinen Organen (Leipzig, 1878) J. Freiuk'utlial, Ueber den Begriff des Wortes ^ui'Tuo-ia bei AristoFr. Sclieiboldt, De imaginatione disteles (G()ttingen, 1867) qnisitio ex Arist. libris repetifa (Leipzig, 1882) J. Ziaja, Die aristotelische Lehre vo?n Credchtnis und von der Association der Vorstellungen (Leobschtz, 1882). Aristotle's idea of single processes of perception is conditioned by the general principles of his philosophy of natural science, and is in many ways distinguished from that of his preThe most important point in the theoretic part of decessors. his animal psychology is his insight into the s^'nthetic character of perception, which is exi^rcssed in the hypothesis of the common-sense. Aristotle did not follow further the valuable thought that consciousness of activities, i. e., the inner perception as distinguished from the objects of those activities, is rooted in this synthesis. In the doctrine of the association of ideas and in the distinction between voluntary and involuntary memory he scarcely advances beyond Plato.
:
;

Next
soul.
{r)8v

to tlie different grades of ideas, desire (ope^t?) is

the second fundamental form of the activity of the animal

It originates in tlic feeling of pleasure or displeasure

and \v7n]p6v}, which is derived from the ideas so far as the content of these promises to fulfil a purpose or not.
Therefore affirmation or negation results, w-hich express
the essence of the practical
in aversion (hiDKetv
life

of the soul in pursuit or

^ev'yeiv) .^

In

all cases,

then, the idea

of the agreeable is the cause of pleasure

versa.
^

and

desire,

Desire,

however, calls

forth

teleological

and vice move-

See the writing ntfu fivrifx-qs De an., III. 7, 431 a, 15.

Ka\ avcuivrjcrfon.
^

De

mot. an.,

7,

701 b.

7.

ARISTOTLE

279

ments of the organs through their warming or their cooling which follow physiologically from the intensity of the feelings of pleasure and displeasure.
In the fundamental division into theoretical and practical
^

activities of souls, Aristotle associated feeling with the desire as

Yet he taught, on the a constant accompanying phenomenon. other hand, entirely in the spirit of the Socratic psychology, that ever}- desire presupposes the idea of its object as something of value. He represented indeed the genesis of desire as a conclusion wherein the momentarv content of the idea is subsumed under a more universal teleological thought." The result is, then, affirmative or negative, as in a conclusion. It is, moreover, interesting that Aristotle identified the act of agreement or disagreement in the practical functions of feeling and desire exactly* with the logical terms of affirmative and negative judgments (Kara^ao-ts and d7rd<^acrts) This showed in liim, not only in his psychology but in his entire teaching, the characteristic tendency to subordinate the practical under the prevailing determinations of the theoretical.
.

All these activities of animal souls constitute in

material for the development of the
i.

man

the

e.,

the reason (povs)it is

Xo

longer

Form a Form

peculiar to him,
of the body,
is

but

rather of the soul,

purely immaterial,

not to be con-

fused with the body as a potentiality, and as mere

is

simple, unchangeable, and incapable of suffering.^

Form it The
*

vov<;

does not originate with the body, as the animal functhe soul originate.
It
it

tions of

enters from without

as

a higher, godlike activity, and

after the

therefore alone remains

body has passed away.^

activity of the soul is

The fundamental
dai},^

thought
is

(Ziavoelcr-

and

its

oljject is

those highest principles, in which

the ultimate ground of

(fxeo-a)
1

all

Being and knowing

in so far as the
Pol.,

immediately

conceived.

Only
:

reasoning insight
b,

This he also

calls u/idy

VIT.

7,

1327

40: see P. Meyer,

26.

6 dvfis
2 3
5

apud Aristotelem Platonemque, Bonn, 1877. De mot. an., 7, 701 a, 8; Eth. Nie, VII. 5, 1147
ati.,

a,

De De

lU*. 429

a,

15.
a,

*
6

De

gen an.,

II. 3,

736 b, 27.

an., III. 5,

430

23.

Ibid., III. 4,

429

a, 23.

2S0

HISTORY OF ANCIENT riiiLosopnv

is

can bec(,)me the cause of desire, This higher kind of ope^i^ cal.^

tlie

reason also

])racti-

is

designated as ov\r]ai<i.
is

In the iiuinan individual, however, the reason

not pure

Form

but self-developing Form.

Therefore we must again

distinguisii also in human reason between its potentiality and its actuality, between its passive material and its active Form. Therefore, although Aristotle designated'-^ the vov<; itself as ttoiovv, he contrasted it with its potentiality which
is capable of being actualized, as the vov<; iraO-qTiK'i. This potentiality exists, however, in the theoretic func-

tioning of animal souls, yet only so far as these functions

become in the human organism the occasion for reflection upon those highest and immediately certain
can
principles.^
is

Historical development of the reason in

therefore this,

that

men

through the persistence of sense

impressions
Tt]

(/xoj/77) ^

general notions arise {to irpcoTov iv

y^vxv KadoXov), and these then form the entire occasion in the epagogic process for the knowledge of the actual
reason appearing upon the original tabula
TradrjTLK^.

ram ^
is

of the vov<i

dependent upon the physiological process of representation, and it remains so because the sensuous pictures are always assoactualizing of

The

the reason

ciated also with the supersensible product of the thinking

process.^

JiiL_Wolf^ Z)e intellectu agente et patiente doctrina (Berlin, "WJiiehlj Veber den Jiegrijf des vov? bei Aristoteles 1844) (Luiz, 1864) F. E.rentano, Die Psychologie des Aristoteles insbesondere seine Lehre vom vovq ttolyitlkos (Mainz, 1867) A. BuUinger, Aristoteles Hus-Lehre (Dillingen, 1884) E. Zell er,
; ; ; ;

De

2 /^,,v/^ 5^ 430 a. 12, 19. an., III. 10, 4.3.3 a, 14. These functions man shares with the beast but among animals
;

they are not instruments of the reason because the active principle of
reason
*

is

wanting.
f.

This relation does away with the doubt raised by

99
b, 36.
^

Zeller, III. 576

Anal,
Ibid.,

post., II. 19,

7,

j)e an., III. 4,

429

b, 31.

431

a, IC.

ARISTOTLE

281

TTthcr die Lehre (lea Aristoteles von der Eioigkeit des Geistes (Sitzttngs- lie richte der Berl. Ak., 1882).

Tlie ditticiilties of Aristotle's llicorv of the vovs lie first in the fact that the reason in our usual terminology is detined and treated as the peculiarity of the human soul, but it is thereby so
restricted that it can fall no longer under the class concept of the soul as '' the entelechy of tlie bod\'." With Aristotle the true relationship is rather this that the voSs bears the relation to the human ipv^y] (and in so far this is true of animal souls) as the animal xpvxi'i bears to the body.^ In some respect the distinction is the same in the German between Gei.^t and Seele^ and in the Middle Ages a similar distinction was made between spirltus or spiraculum and aninta. Therefore the reason in itself is thought to be pure actuality, and to have no relation to the bod}', to come from without into the body and to live after the bod}'. Aristotle's "possibility" is, on the contrary, the animal and therefore the voCs 7ra6r}TLK6<; " is also mortal (<^6'apTos). \lrvxri On the other hand, the animal ij/vxy does not become the voPs In raOrjTLKo? until by the influence of the rov? TroiqriKik upon it. itself it is empty so far as reasoning knowledge goes, and only offers the occasion for the reasoning knowledge to actualize itself On account of this the Aristotelian didactic writings leave in a very uncertain state the question of individual immortality, concerning which the commentators were in lively dispute even until the Renaissance.^ For doubtless, according to the Aristotelian definition of a concept, all those psychical contents which compose the essence of the individual belong to the vors TTuT^TtKo?, which is destroj'ed with the body. Pure, universal rational knowledge of the vors 7rot7;TtKo? has remaining in it so little that is individual, that according to the characteristics that are ascribed to it pure actuality, unchangeableness, and eternalness a difference between it and the divine spirit cannot be made out. We cannot decide whether or by what jnethod Aristotle tried to solve this problem. But, at any rate, his speculative psychology shows a strong dependence upon the Platonic, and particularl}' upon the form of Platonism in the Timmus. In both cases, to the distinction between a reasoning and an unreasoning part* of the soul there
: ;

So the
b, 26.

j/ovy in

Aristotle

is

called a higher kind of soul:

De

an., II.

2,413
2 ^
*

Ibid., III.

5,430
I.

a, 24.

See Windelband, Gesch. der neueren

Eth.
:

Phil., I. (Leipzig, 1878), p. 15

is

f.

Nie,

13,

1102

a, 27.

There

also in Aristotle a vovs

Xw/atffros

De

an., III. 5, 430 a, 22.

282
is

HISTOJIY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

that tlie fonner is immortal and the latter mortal with the body. The psycho-epistemological eonce|)ti()ii which Aristotle developed concerning tlie temporal actualizing of the i-ovs in man, resembles, also, the Platonic conception. For if the epagogic processes of firiifiij and i/.nretpia lead to the highest principles, whose certainty rests upon the immediate intuition of the vovs, if indeed the natural way from the Trporepoi' Trpos y/iiu'i to the TrpoTtpov TTj (f>vcri does not include the grounding of the highest premises, but ultimately only the occasion for immediate intuition of the same to enter, then this theory is only the development and refinement of the Platonic doctrine of av/.tvr)(TLs. The 8taif)ia, the knowledge which the reason possesses, has a
is

added the postulate

theoretical and practical use {f.Tn(TTi^f.uniK()v and Aoyto-riKoi).^ The former as BeMfua leads to i-n-KTrij/^i], the latter as ^pvrj(TL<; iOTix^-q. But it is also true that the practical reason in itself is onl}' a

theoretic activity, an insight into the right princii)les of action. Whether the individual shall follow that knowledge or not depends upon his free choice.

L. Schneider, Die Unsterhlichkeitdehre des Aristoteles (Passau, 18G7) K. Schlottniann, Das VergUnglicJie unci JJnvergDijliche in der menschlicJien Seele nach Aristoteles (Halle,
;

1873) W. Schrader, Aristotle de voluntate doctrina (Brandenburg, 1847) J, Walter, Die Lehre von der praktischen Vernunft in der griechischen Philosophie (Jena, 1874).
;
;

43.

was

built

Furthermore, the practical pliilosophy of Aristotle up on these universal theoretic principles. The
is

goal of every liuman action

activity (jrpaKrov yadv^.

a Good, to be realized by
this goal is only a

Yet

means
all

to the highest goal. Happiness, on account of which

is

else

desired.

To

perfect evSai/jLovia belongs also the possession

;

of the goods of the body, of the outer world, and of success

but since these are only accessories, their lack will only give
a certain limitation
^

to the

essentia] condition of happiness,

ity,

amount* of happiness. on the contrary, is

The
activ-

and indeed, the

the state
Nie, VI.

activity peculiar to

man

that

is, it is

that of reason.^

Now
1

(e^t?) *

which renders possible

11.
^
ij,;,i^

to

man
17.

the

Eth.

'

Ibid., I.rC,

2, 1139a, lO'J/ko^,

yij
II. 4,

^4

n53b,
11.

iUnd.,

110Gb,

ARISTOTLE
perfect use of his peculiar activity is virtue.

283

V^tue has

in
it

certain bodily qualities its natural aptitude, out of which

is

developed

only by use of the reason.

-

From

the exercise

of virtue, pleasure
activity.

follows as a necessary result of perfect

The problem

of the reason is twofold

;

first, it is

concerned

with knowledge

secondly, with the direction of desire and

action through knowledge.

In this way, Aristotle distin-

guished between the dianoetic and ethical virtues.^

The

former are higher. They unfold the pure formal activity of the vov<i, and give the most noble and perfect pleasure.

The human being

finds in

them

his possible participation

in the divine blessedness.

K. L. Michelet, Die Ethik des Aristoteles (Berlin, 1827) G. Hartenstein, Uther den wissenschalichen Wert der aristotelischen EtJiiJc{m Hist.-philos. AbhandL, Leipzig, 1870); R. Eucken, Ueber die Methode und die Grundlagen der aristotelischen Ethik (Frankfort a. M., 1870); P. Paul, An Analysis of Aristotle's Ethics (London, 1874) A. Olle-lapruue, De Aristotelece ethices fundameido (Paris, 1880). Concerning the Highest Good, G. Teichmller, Die Einheit der aristotelischen Eudnionie (in Bulletin de la classe des sciences hist., etc., de Vacademie de St. Petersbourg., XVI. 305 ff.). Concerning dianoetic virtues, see C. Prantl (Mnchen, 1852, Glck w.- sehr, an Thiersch) and A. Khn (Berlin, 1860). The sense for wliat is actual, the thoroughgoing investigation of facts, and the inclination to bring qualitative distinctions to the same touchstone, are shown in the practical philosophy of Aristotle perhaps more than in his theoretical philosophv. The Xicomachiean ethics definitely refused to take its point of departure from the abstract Idea of the Good, adopting in its stead the Good so far as it is an object of human activity (I. 1, 1094 a, In the determination of the concept of happiness, also, 19). which to him was obviously the highest good, he included the possession of material wealth and good fortune, although alwavs subordinated to the exercise of the reason, if the reason is to reach complete and untrammelled development. Onl}' this
; ;

potential value justifies the consideration of earthly

1

good in ethic&

Eth.

Nie, VI.
13,

13, 1144
a, 2.

b, 4.

Ibid.,

X.

4,

1174b, 31.

8 Ibid., I.

1103

284

HISTORY (W ancient PHILOSOniY

dialectic that had been developed by Socrates upon the question of the relation of pleasure and virtue was completed with exalted simplicity by Aristotle for he taught, in antagonism to the one-sided doctrines, that pleasure is never the motive, but always the result of virtue. Therefore, also, the activity of the reason unfolding itself in virtue is always the measure of the worth of the ditferent pleasures (Et/i. Xic, X. 3. ff.). In respect to the psyciiological characterization of virtue, Aristotle laid weight upon its conception as a continuous condition and not as a single state. On the other hand, he found a 8i'i'a/xt9 for it in bodily qualities, such as the characteristics of the natural disposition, teniperament. inclination, and feelings. These are also in children and animals, but they are not there under tiie rule of the reason. The dianoetic virtues are related to theoretical as well as to practical insight. The latter is either tcxi'v as the knowledge of the right, requisite for artistic creation, or ^porz/crts as tlie recognition of justice, which recognition is necessary for activity in public or private life {E(h. jVic, VI. 5 ft".). The </)poi'7;o-i9 is also split into (1) crweo-ts, the understanding of objects and relations which are the cause of its activity, and (2) i/?oAta, the knowledge of teleological processes. The ao(f)La is of more value, for it is tlie knowledge having no ulterior purpose, but sought on Its content is highest actuality and first prinaccount of itself. ciples. Its application to single sciences and departments is eVto-TT^/iT/ its knowledge of itself is StaVrna, or the vovs as pure Form. It is that ewpia, in which the highest happiness consists {3fet., XI. 7, 1072 b, 24 see B(h. Nie, X. 7, 1177a, 13), and this makes the perfectness of God t; OnapCa to r/Sto-rov kol upio-Toi'. This is ethically, as well as metaphysicallv, the fundamental principle of the philosophy of Aristotle. It is rooted in his personality and is the expression of that pure joy in knowledge that forms the basis of all science and is the absolute condition of the independence of science. In the logic of Aristotle Greek science recognized and formulated its essence, and in his ethics its practicabiUty.
; ; ;

The

As
the

the dianoctic virtues have their seat in

virtues

tlie

intellect,

ethical

have

theirs

in
is

the

will.

Rational

insight, as experience teaches us,

not alone sufficient for

to
it

right action, but there

must be added

the strength of

the will (e^KpcLTeLo)^ in order to give the insight validity

1

Not reckoned among

the virtues

/:-'///.

Nie, IV.

l.'j,

1128

b, 33.

ARISTOTLE
in contrast to the affections and desires.^
sible

285

This

is

only pos-

by the will choosing freely what

is,

Ethical virtue

to be good. then, that continuing state of the will by

it

knows

which practical reason rules the desires. Besides disposition and insight, virtue also needs for its development exercise,^ because the direction of the will must be The rjdo^ is developed out of established through habit.
of

means

the

e'^09.

The control of the desires by the reason consists in the right mean being chosen ^ between the extremes, toward
which uncurbed desires press.
insight
to recognize this right
It is the task of practical

mean

in

individual rela-

tions by using our knowledge of objects

and

of

human

nature

and
of

it

is

the business of virtue to act accordino-

to this insight (op6o<i \o7o?).

this principle Aristotle developed from his knowledge of the world and human kind the single ethical virtues in a rising series, which seem ^ not to have been systematically grounded, articulated, or delineThe purely Greek fundamental principle in it is ated.

Out

accurate

that of the value of moderation.

A. Trendelenburg,

Das

schaft zicische/i griechischen PhilosopJiie (Berlin. 1865).

Ebeninass, ein Band der VerwandtArchologie und griechischen

Although Aristotle regarded right insight as the conditio sine qua non of right action, yet lie was still conscious that it is, after all, the province of the will to follow right insight, and that the will has the power of doing the wrong thing contrary to right insight. It is for us to say (e^' ijuiv) whether w^e wish to act well or ill. The investigation concerning freedom that Aristotle made {Eth. iV/c, III. 1-8) directs itself indeed against the Socratic intellectualism, and views the question essentially from
^

See the polemic against the Socratic doctrine,

Ibid., II.
1,

EtJi.

Nie,

^'II. 3

ff.

1103

a, 24.

Ibid.,

.5,

HOG

a, 28.

See, nevertheless, F. IlUeker,

Das
I.

Einteilwtys-

und Anordnungs-

prinzip der vwrali^chen Tugendreihe in der nikomachischen Ethik (Berlin,

1863J; Th. Zieglur, Gesch. der Ethik,

116.

286

HISTOUY OF ANCIKNT PHILOSOPHY

The question is, how far a human the point of rcsponsil)ility.' being can be regarded as tlie apx.'/ ^' '' own activity.'- Tiiis freedom is annulled through ignorance of the facts and through The Trpoai'pccrts is essential to it, which is the external force. decision through choice between conteMi}lated possibilities. The doi^matic completeness which characterized the Platonip Aristotle made ethics was not reached by Aristotle's system. amends for it by his deep rational insight into the manifold The virtues treated by him are courage relations of life. between fear and daring; temperance (.lr6peiu). as the mean liberal(o-wc/)p()(TiT7/), between intemperance and inscnsibleness and in larger relationships magnificence ity (iXevdepuWrjs) (.ueyaXoTTpeTTctu), between stinginess and prodigality; high-mindedness (j.ieya\nij/vxia) and in affairs of less importance ambition, between vaingloriousness and self-abasement; mildness
:

and indifference; friendliness between ob.sequiousriess and brusciueness urcandor {dki'jOeta), between boastfulness and dissembling banity (eurpaTTcAeia), between trilling and moroseness f finally, justice (StKaioo-i'vTj), which consists in recognizing the rights of men neither too much nor too little. The philosopher gives an exhaustive treatment of justice (Eth. Nie, V.), on the one hand because in a certain sense it comprehends * in itself all the virtues in respect to our fellows, on the other because it is the Its fundamental foundation of the political life of society.
(Trpaor?;?),

between

irascibility

(also called cfuXia)

either the proportional equality of merit principle is equality,^ Therefore Aristotle or the absolute equalit}- of legal rights. distinguished distril)utive justice (t6 iv rais Siavo^a'L'; or to
Siave^rp-LKov SiKatov),
fiaa-L

and commutative justice

(to

ii>

tols

o-waWdy-

Both investigations led to interor TO hiopOwTLKov SiKaiov)." esting details of political economy and political law.
1

With express
b, 34.

reference indeed to criminal law, Eth. Nie, III.

1,

1109

iNIetaphysical aporia from

;

considered in this connection

of the excluded third
'

freedom of the will are not yet and only once in connection with the law
interpr., 9, 18 b, 31.
;

term
1112

De
b,

Eth. Nie, III.

5,

31

3,

1111

a, 73.

Also shame (albas) and sympathy are mentioned by Aristotle in this series, but they indicate excellences of temperament (Eth. Nie, II.
8
7,

1108
*

a,

32); in other words, <])vaiKai dperal.

Ibid.,

V.

3,

1129

b, 17.

llia_^ 5,

1130

b, 9.

Wherever the latter legally carried out would not satisfy the ethical need, and where the former takes its place, there reigns the virtue of
^

fair-mindedness (to (ttkikU)-

ARISTOTLE

287

principle in this series of virtues is to be found onl}- in its content, since the formal mean {ftea-orq^) is ever\'where the same. The principle consists in the gradual advance from the individual relations toward the social relations and among the latter, from the external to the more spiritual relations of life. At the beginning stands courage, the virtue of self-preservation of the individual at the end justice, the ethical basis of the state. Finally, the beautiful representation of friendship, whose ideal the philosopher found in the common striving for the beautiful and good ((^tAta)i forms a transition to the treatment of social life. He applied this standard to some similar relations of
;

and unconventional social relations, raising tiie latter from their utilitarian origin to means for ethical ennoblement. The same obtains also in regard to the
friendsliip, to conventional
state.

See R. Eucken, Aristoteles' Anschamoig von Frexmd,;

schaft und Lthensgtern (Berlin, 1884) ber die lenschen Ar eh. f. Gesch. d.
(^

also Aristoteles' Urteil

Pli.., III.

541

ff.).

Man, however, who

TiKov)
2

is

designed by nature it^ov

social
life.

iroXt-

as

an essentially

being,

can

perfect

his

activity only in

communal
is
is

The natural and funda;

mental form of society

perfect, however,

the family {oIkIo)

the most

the state.
^

Since the ethical virtues of

life of

man
also,

can develop perfectly

essentially

only in the
*

the state, so
utility,

although the state arose

is

out of the needs of

the state

and theoretically the actualization

of

the highest good of the active

man

(TaudpcoTrivov dyaOu).

This idea seemed so important to Aristotle that in the beginning of his Ethics he designated the whole of practical philosophv as ttoXltlkyi,^ which is divided into tlie theory of the conduct of the individual (Ethics) and the theory of the conduct of the whole (Politics). The relationship is not to be so conceived as if ethics set up an ideal of perfect individuality, and as if politics then showed how this ideal was developed liy societ}'. But as the whole is more valuable and essentially
1

Eth.

Mc,

VIII.

f.

po/.,

I. 2.

1253

a. 3.

In the treatment of friendship. Aristotle used frequently the ex-

pression av^u.
*
^

See Eth. Nie, IX. 12, 1171 b, 32. See conclusion of Etliics and beginning of Pnliticx.

Which

lie al.so

called philosophical anthropology

,

(17 tt(^j\

ra afdpilymva,

(f)i\o(ro(f>ia) in

Eth. Nie

X.

10.

1181

b, 15.

288

IIISTOKY OF ANCIENT rillLOSOPHY

earlier than the parts, so also a

in social
life

more perfect
7).

man as an active being attains actuality than in isolation {Eth.

Nie,

I.

1,

1094 b,

Aristotle agreed with Plato and the author of the dialogue, Politicus, in the ethico-teleological conception of the life of But he was thinking here, as in general, not of the state. His state is the transcendent, but the immanent teleology. no form of government of superhuman beings, but the perfection of the earthly life, the full actualization of the natural dis-

On the other hand, Aristotle was far from be swallowed up in the state, as was the case with The individual's participation in the divine holiness of riato. the eu)fna remains his independent enjoyment, even if he must be guided by social education to dianoetic and ethical virtue. While subordinating the citizen to the communitv, Aristotle nevertheless gave to him in private life a very much greater circle of independent activity, since he expressl}- contended against the Platonic conception - of a community of wives, So his theory of the state held the children, and property. hap[)y mean between tlie socialism of Plato and the individualism of other schools, and it became thereby the ideal expression
position of man.
letting

man

of

Greek

life.

Aristotle gave the same relative independence also to the familv, the natural communitv, upon which the state is built. The family is the prototyi)e of the political forms in its relationships of man to wife, parents to children, and to slaves.^ The conception of marriage reached a height in Aristotle which

He saw in it an ethical relationantiquity did not surpass. ship between peers in which only from natural disposition the man is the determining, the wife the determined element. Slavery, which he desired to treat in all humaneness, is an indispensable groundwork for family and political life. He justified
it

feeling

its

practical importance for

Greece

because

only througli it the good of leisure (n-xo^) * is made possible for the citizen, and this leisure is a condition necessary to the exerHe also was of the opinion that natural discise of virtue. position has predetermined one man as slave, another as free
citizen.

See
1

W. OuQken, Die
said ompliatically
in

Staatslehre

des Aristoteles

(Leipzig,

He

fliat tlic

state consists in individuals that are

Politico,

in

some respects like and 2 Ibid., n. 2 ff.

8

others unlike.

TV. 11,

120.") a,

25.

Eth. NIc,

Vni.

12, 11

GO

V).

22.

Concerning the word "

leisure," see f/nil.,

X.

7,

1177 b,

4.

ARISTOTLE
1870) C. Bradley, The Politics of Aristotle ; P. Janet, toire de la science politique (Paris, 1887), I. 165 ft'.
;

289
His-

and perfected virtne of all its citizens is the For the realization ^ of this state. purpose we must take the material at hand viz., a natural, historical and concrete society in a particular environment. Although it is impossible to fix upon a valid norm for the constitution of all states, nevertheless under all circumstances the actual constitution must be measured by the general purpose of the state, and its worth will be assessed according to its sufficiency {opdtf) and deficiency (J^ixapT-qThe political constitution is an arrangement in f^evt]'). which the rule is in the hands of a justly ordained power. Therefore the worth of a state depends on the ruling power keeping the purpose of the state (to kocvov avfiSince tlie rule may be in the hands of (f)epou) ill view. the one or the few or the many, there are^ six possible forms of political constitutions, three good and three that arc deficient. The former three are monarchy ( aaiXeia), aristocracy, and "polity" (TroXiTela) ;^ the latter three are despotism {rvpavvl<;^, oligarchy, and democracy With the fine analysis of an observing (SrjfjbOKparla).^
living
final

The

purpose of the

statesman, Aristotle investigated the essential principles of

these different forms, their conditions, their rise, their
fall,

and their legitimate transmutation one into another. With the firm hand of a philosopher he drew his estimate of these various forms after the " concept " of a state.
1

Pol., VII. 4, 1325 b, 35.

Aristotle changed the

the

number
8
*

of rulers (Ibid., III. 17, 1287 b, 37)

somewhat external principle of division of by considerations about

the character of the different peoples.

Ihld.,
7,

1279

a, 25.

What
as

Aristotle here calls -rroXiTfia in the narrower sense

(Srj/xo/cpart'u)
is
.

was

later

known

democracy

Polybius has a better

name

for the

Aristotelian democracy, which

ox^oKparia.

19

290

HISTORY OF ANCTKNT

I'lIlLOSOPlIY

Among

the good constitutions, monarchy and aristocracy

are the most jtcrfect, since they arc the rule of the best

man or men, ethically speaking. Of these, monarchy would be preferred if we could liopc that it would ever
correspond entirely to
its

concept

that

is,

to the rule of

one

man who

surpasses
offers

all

others in virtue.^

In reality

the aristocracy

greater

guarantees.

Among

the

degenerate kinds of constitutions, the rule of the masses

is

always less nncndurable, that of tyranny the

most
which

abominable.

Under the

prcsupjiosition of fulfilling all conditions

were demanded for realizing the jtolitical ideal, the idea of the best state was delineated, whose development Aristotle began but did not complete.^ The best state must have the fundamental form of '' polity" at least, but the administration of public affairs must, as in the aristocracy, be in the

hands

of the virtuous.
its

It

not of war,^ and

chief task

would be a state of peace and would be tiie correct educacitizens

tion of all its citizens.

The

would not only be

^

efficient in practical affairs,

but they would

also be sen-

sible to

beauty and finally capable of the iiighest enjoyment,

of that

that

is,

which attends knowledge.

the Aristotelian writings
is

The incompleteness of

perhaps

nowhere so much to be regretted as in the Politics. The torso of this work shows a wonderful thoroughness, a philosophical
penetration of all the political conditions of Hellenic history, tiie clearest understanding: of the limitations and th.e developments of jjolitical life. These excellences make all the more keen our regret that the ideal picture of the state, based on what he has given, was only proposed and not developed. In
^

Pol., V. 10, 13K) b, 31.

iu,l..

VIT.

ff.

Aristotle <listinguisbe(l

in

manner not

entirely consistent to

the

new theory

suitaoility
(Ibifl.,
*

rb ovKtvi'fvov
h,

of the throe kinds of power, Vuit yet with an approximate

irefu tqiv

koivwv. to nepi nis ap;^9, to Siku^ov

IV. 14. 1-J97

41).
5

Ihid.,

VII. 14

f.

fi;,i^ VIII. 2

f.

ARISTOTLE

291

the same way the theory of eduction of Aristotle comes to an abrupt end after a sketch of the elementar}- principles of education, suggesting many valuable points of view. It put forth in a clear way that all aesthetical training is to bring about the ethical and theoretical unfolding of what is essentially human.

With

Aristotle's practical philosophy is connected the

Poetics^ the science of the creative activity of

man.

But
on

in the preserved writings, this science is developed only

the side of beauty in fine art, and particularly in reference

to poetry in the Poetics.
J. Bernays, Zwei Abhandhingen ber die aristotelische Theorie A. Dring, Die Kunstlehre des des Dramas (Berlin, 1880) Aristoteles (Jena, 1876) the details of a rich bibliograph}- are found in Dring, p. 263 ff. Ueberweg-Heinze, I'. 225.
;
; ;

All art

is

imitation,

and the different

arts are to be dis-

tinguished partly by their media, partly by the objects to be

imitated.^

mony .^

good or fragment on poetry

The media of poetry are words, rhythm, and harThe objects of poetry are men and their conduct, bad. 2 Tragedy, to whose analysis the preserved
is

essentially limited, presents directly

to the spectator in beautiful

language a significant and

is

complete action through

its

different characters.*
to arouse the

The purpose

of art,

however,

emotions of

man
and

in

such a way that he

dapat^) from their power

intensification.

precisely through
is

may

be freed and purified {kutheir arousal

art presents,
itself

This

possible only

when

not the empirically actual, but that which could be in

possible,

so presenting
1 f. 2

it

that

it

raises

the object into

universality.
1

Poet.,

I hid.,

7,

1447

a, 22.

Tbid., 2

f.

The

celebrated and
:

mnch
\6yM,

discussed definition of tragedy

fiL^Tjcris

is (Ibid.,

G.

1449

b, 24)

ta-riv

ovv rpaycoSia

irpd^eoos (rnovbalas xal TfXfias,

fj-opiois,

fjLtyeos (\ovar]s, fiSva-fxevco

x<>>P'-^

atrrou twu flSv eu tois

8p)UT)v

KOI ou

81'

aTTayytXias,

St'

eXeov Koi (jiov TTepaivovcra

ttjv

rat

ToiovT(i)v Tra6r]p,T(v

Kadapaiv.

292

IlISTOKY OF ANCIKNT IMIILOSOl'H V

Tlie ethical result of tragedy, the purification of the passions,

metUcal, or other with its intellectual Art, like philosophy, presents the actual in its significance. ideal ])urity {J'oed'cs, 9, 1451 b, 5), and is more than the mere facsimile of individual facts, as the la-Topia presents them. This conception of the universal significance annuls the emotions of fear anil sympathy through which tragedy has to operate. The long strife over the meaning of the Aristotelian definition of tragedy has gradually' resolved itself into tlie belief that the healthiness which this caapo-ts brings with it rests upon this idealizing of the a-sthetic result, upon an exaltation to immediate knowledge of the universal. Thus Aristotle fulfilled upon this territory, in contrast to the greatest poetic performances of his nation, the task of its l)hiloso[)hy, which is no other than the attainment of the selfconsciousness of Hellenic culture.
religions.
in

whether the Kapai<; is nsecl in analogy, goes accordingly hand

luunl

HELLENIC-ROMAN rHILOSOniY

293

B.
44.

HELLEXIC-ROMAN PHILOSOPHY
philosophy of Aristotle the essence of Greek
to conceptual

If in the

civilization

was reduced

expression, yet

it

appeared when the sun of Greece was setting. The philosophy of Aristotle was the legacy of dying Greece to the
following generations of man.
spiritual decay of the Grecian civilization at the time Enlightenment had advanced in ever-widening circles, of and from then on led to its external destruction. Already, since the conclusion of the Peloponnesian war, which destroyed forever the vitality of Athens, the centre of Greek culture, the influence of the Persian power in the politics of Greece had been dominant. Moreover, out of this
its

The

lamentable situation Greece

subjection
to

got

freedom only

through
in

the

Macedonian

kingdom.

Likewise
to

the succeeding time

Greece in intermittent and inconsean

quential

movements could only occasionally stagger

independence amid the vicissitudes of the Hellenic kingdoms, especially of Macedonia. Finally, however, it
entirely lost its political independence by its being incor-

porated into the

Roman Empire,

in order to save

here and
ful-

there a wretched respectability.

But
filled

precisely through
in

its political

decadence Greece

a higher
pupil

sense the problems of

of the

its civilization.

The kingly

ripest

Greek philosopher had

borne the victorious Greek spirit into the far East with his conquering ai-ms. In the enormous mingling of the
peoples, which

was begun by

his

campaign

of conquest

and

furthered

by the varying battles of his successors, did

Greek culture become the common possession of the ancient world, and finally the commanding spirit of the Roman Empire, and the eternal possession of humanity. After the creative period of Greek philosophy there fol-

204
lowed,

TTTST(^TiY

OF AXCIKNT
of

I'llII.osoPHV

tliori'fore,

centuries

ciiticism,

appropriation,

readjustment, and remodelling.

history of ancient thought
is

This second section of the

in

incomparably much poorer

content, although covering a longer period of time.

Every

conccj)tual princii)le for comprehending and judging reality had been j)rcsented by Greek science in its youthful inThere only remained for the epigones to see spiration. their way clearly in their variously animated world, to

employ the previously discovered points of view in every possible way, to combine the inherited thought, and to

make

this

combination fruitful for the purposes of the new

life.

situations of
Tlie very

phy shows

which the Hellenic-Roman philosois true even of neoIn Platonism, its most significant intellectual phenomenon. all the independence which its religious principle seemed to give to it, neo-Platonism remained inextricably bound to the thought of Plato and Aristotle. From the critind j^oint of vieii\ which is the authority for the divisions of this survey, Hellenic-Roman pliilosopliy appears
little

originality

in contrast to

Greek philosophy

It is onlv the only a gleaning of Greek philosophy. "after-effects" (Brandis) of Greek philosophy in the Hellenic Among these after-effects the great and Roman realms. systems of Stoicism and Epicureanism are to bo reckoned, not only because they took root and blossomed in those times

to be

when the divisions between Greek and barl)ariun began to break down, but especially also for these two reasons (1) because they, though with great refinement in details, represented in general onh' a new distortion of tiie old principles which the original development of Greek thouglit, until Aristotle, had gained (2) because they made this distortion in a typical manner from the new points of view of indii-Miud 2)^'<^i'C^ic'd wisdom. On the whole, the second section of this history is less important to philosophy than to the history of civilization and literature. This is a natural result of the fact that in this period the literary sources, although very far from pure, are Tiicrefore on this account this nevertheless very much richer.
:

extraordinarily rich in interesting, difllcnlt, and various j)rodnct of philosophical still unsolved, although its principles and fundamental concepts is lelativcly small.

period

is

problems

HELLENIC-ROMAN PHILOSOPHY
With
this relative deficiency in originality

295

we note the

appearance in the post-Aristotelian philosophy of the great

school-associations, with their wholesale scientific productions, rather

than of single personalities.

It is true, detailed

research also hei'e betrays individual shadings in the construction of single theories,

although often indeed seen

;

with difficulty and not with

tions

full certainty

yet such varia-

and significance far behind the great and general antagonisms of the school systems.
stand
in

value

Moreover, such
scientific
its

antagonisms

are

much

less

those
life

of

theory than those of the conception of

and

conduct.

The

post-Aristotelian philosophy showed, therefore, the

peculiar

phenomenon

of the practical convictions of differ-

ent schools existing in sharp conflict, while the peculiar

became gradually obliterated. Scienwas turned to special researches, and found neutral ground partly in nature studies, partly in history,
scientific differences
tific

activity

especially

the history

of

literature.

Upon

this

neutral

ground, although with a certain agreement in fundamental conceptions and methods, the representatives of the differ-

This ardent cultivation had the most universal results of Greek philosophy for its obviously valid fundamental principles, and interest in metaphysical problems passed more and more into the background. Erudition pressed out
of the special sciences

ent schools were in active rivalry.

the spirit

of

speculation.

The

special

sciences

became

independent.

The beginning of this specialization in science already' existed in the Abderite, the Platonic, and particularly the Aristotelian schools. In the Hellenic period specialization was, however,
more remarkable because the period was wanting in great determining personalities and organizing fundamental principles. This popular impulse for specialization was limited neither to Athens nor to Greece. Rhodes, Alexandria, Pergamus, Antioch, Tarsus, etc., became scientific centres, in
the

l'9t)

IIISTOKY OF ANCIENT PIlILOSOrilY

which scholarly work by means of great libraries and collections was being systeniaticall}' carried on. J-,ater Kome, and finally
also liyzantiuni, entered into the competition.

That now, however, the conflict between the schools was no longer waged over theoretical but practical philosophy, was due not only to the fact that Aristotle had given the final word to the speculative movement, but also to the changing character of the times and the changing philoThe more the Greek national life and sophical demands. spirit faded through the universal mixing of nations and
the more the individual retired away from the changing external P'rom the great maelstrom of things he sought to world. save as much as possible of inward peace of mind and sure happiness, and to secure them within the quiet of his inThis, then, in Hellenic time is what was dividual life. expected from philosophy it should be the director of life it should teach the individual how to be free from the world and to stand independent by himself. The determining, fundamental point of view of philosophy became
their destinies, so

much

within

himself and

that oi practical wisdom.

The Greek Enlightenment showed tendencies

in the

in this direction

teachings of Socrates, especially, however, in the teacliings of the Cynics and Cyrenaics, which expressed tlirough their atomistic principles the dismemberment of Greek society (see 29 f.). Opposed to this the great systems of Greek science, especially Platonism and Aristotelianism, had maintained the higher tiiought with the essential political tendency of their ethics. The postAristotelian philosophy even in the schools of both masters turned to the etiiics of the incbvidnal. The antagonisms that developed between them concerned fimdamentally only tiieir subtleties and the enriched developments of the simple types

which Greek life in its bloom had brought forth. Wiiile then the essence of Greek philosoph}- was exclnsivelv directed to a unified conceptual knowledge of the world, tlie science of the succeeding centuries divided (1) into specialization into single branches, for which methodical bases had been established and (2) into a philosoph}' which made all knowl;

HELLENIC-ROMAN PHILOSOPHY

297

edge an ancillary maiden to the art of living, and was concerned entireh' in setting up an ideal of a perfect, free, and liajjpv man. This art of living still retained the name of philosophy, and it is onh' this side of the scientific life of antiquity which is to be followed out further in this place.^
Individualistic etliics,

which the post-Aristotelian schools

made
in the

the burden of their philosophy, was virtually called to

restore to the cultured world of antiquity the religion lost

Greek Renaissance.

on this outer world and the vicissitudes of life. But virtue, as the Stoics and Epicureans taught it, did not prove adequate to
be the solution of this problem
;

fundamental problena ^ was account the release of man from the power of the
Its

thus philosophy also be-

came drawn

into the great religious

movement which' had

In that moveall

possessed the races of the

Roman

Empire.

ment the
forms and
viction.

terrified

mind

seized

upon

kinds of religious

cults,

and eagerly pressed on to a saving con-

The "more this tendency became predominant in philosophy, and the more philosophical interest passed from ethics to religion, so much the more did Platonism, the specific religious form of philosophy, come into the foreground.
Its

transcendent metaphysics,

its

separation of

the material and immaterial worlds,

ciple,

its teleological prin-

and man with it seem called to give scientific form to the amalgamation of religions. Its concept of the world was equal to absorbing the reliwhich regarded the
life

of nature

reference to a divine cosmic purpose,

made

gious forms of the Orient.

It

gave the philosophic material

with which Christianity, the -new religion, constituted itself Out of it the Hellenic world tried, info a didactic system. finally, to create its own religion as the daughter of science.
^

For the development of the

special sciences since Aristotle

one

should consult the respective parts of this manual.

-

See K. Fischer, Gesch. der neueren Philos.,

f.

I.

(2 ed.,

Mannheim.

1865), p. 33

298

iiis'n^Rv

OK ANCIEXT pnii.osoriiY
of ethics into religion divided
inttj

This gradual transmutation

the Ilellenic-llonum )hil(soj)hy

two parts (see above,

Introduction); in the former of which the ethical interest

predominated;

in the latter, the religious interest; Syncretic

riatonism made the transition.

cism, preceded the transition

The controversies between

period.
Patristics

the schools and their adjustment in Skepticism and Eclecti-

on the

one hand, and neo-PIatonism on the other came after this

transition.

1.

The Controversies of the

Schools.

45.

The development

of the Peripatetic school took a

similar course to that of the

Academy

( 38).

It

had

in

fact, at first, its significant centre

in the person of the old

friend and coadjutor of

its

founder; to wit, in Thcophrastus.

Theophrastus knew how to direct the activities of the school, how to inspire the development of the sciences in the true
spirit of the

master, and

how

to give to the

eminent position

in the intellectual life of

Lyceum an Athens through

in his recasting

the brilliancy of his lectures.

Yet

for

him

and supplementation
tlie

of the Aristotelian doctrine,

tlie

and also

for the majority of his associates,

empirical outweighed

philosophical interest, and so

tended to the specialization of

toxenus,the theory of music

scientific

more and more the school work. Thus Theo;

phrastus developed the science of botany especially

;

Aris-

Dicaearchus, historical sciences.

History seems to have taken the most space in the scientific

work

of the school.

Literary-historical

and

scientific-

historical

work were especially carried on

is

in this

and the

succeeding generations of the Peripatetic school, and to

such a degree that this school

designated as the unique

little

centre of the above very learned but

creative spirit.

The

ethical questions, also, were treated by all these

men,
their

and especially by Eudemus, more particularly upon

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

empirical side and with reference to popular moralitj.

299

On

the other hand, however, the ethical questions were sub-

ordinated to a theological interest, in which metaphysical

demands seem

to

have been centred.

Influenced doubtless

by Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines, Eudemus inclined to emphasize the transcendence of the divine Being, and in
a similar manner to maintain the speculative psychology of
Aristotle with the transcendence
(;3^&jp^o-/x'?)

of the reason.

There was another tendency, which, beginning with Theophrastus, ran counter to the above, and developed the principle of immanence, both metaphysically and psychologically. This tendency grew to a thoroughgoing pantheism and naturalism in the person of Strato, who from 287 to 269 followed Theophrastus as head of the school. When Strato explained the concept of pure Form metaphysically and psychologically as unnecessary and equally
as impossible as that of pure matter, he i)ractically identified

God and

the world on the one hand, and on the other

Tlie whole world-system

thought and perception.

ties

and

all

particular events therein are only explainable by the quali-

and forces in things under the law of mechanical Warmth is the most important force among necessity. The these, both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm. soul is the unifying reasoning power {)]yfxoviK6i>), and it
has the senses as
tion
is

its

organs.

Thus

the activity of sensa-

never complete without thought. Thought, liowever,

limited to the given perceptual content.

on

its side is

for the

of Strato seems to be, on the whole, a victory Democritan element that was in the Aristotelian doctrine, although in particular assertions Strato approaches

The theory

very near the Stoic philosophy.

W. Lyngg, Die peripatetische Schule (in Pldlosophische Studien, Cliristiania, 1S78) H. Siebeck, Die Umbildung der peripatetischen Xaturphilosophie in die der Stoiker {Unters, z. Philos. d. Gr., 2 ed., 181-252).
;

300

HISTORY OF AXCIKNT rillLOSOPHY

Tlicophrastus, from Ercsus in Loshos, was about twelve years voimgor than Aristotle. He prohal)!^ got aeiiiiainted ^ with Aristotle in the Academy, and he remained a iilVlong friend to the Stagirite. lie shared the residence of Aristotle after the latter bade adieu to tlie Macedonian conrl, and was his righthand man in the administration of the Lyceum. Theophrastus afterwards assumed the conduct of the Lyceum himself, and directed it wilii the greatest success. An attempt to drive the philosophical schools out of Athens (oOG u. c.) seems to have failed solely by reason of the respect in whicli he was held (F. A. Hoffmann, JJc Jetje contra pltilosopltos imprimis Theojilirastum uudore Sophoch' Atheids lata, Carlsruhe, 1842). There have been preserved of his numerous works (list in Diog. Laert., V. 42 ff.) the two botanical works, vrepi <^uTaJi' to-Toptus and TTcpt <f>vTu)v atTto))', of the greatest importance, since the corresponding works of Aristotle are lost, certain fragments

of his metaphysics, of the history of physics, besides some minor treatises. The tjOikoI ;(paKT%j9, a description of moral failings based on many observations, are a selection from the ethical work of this philosopher. These are published by J. G. Schneider (Leipzig, 181.S); Fr. Wimmer (Breslau, 1842-62); a portion of the metapiiysics in Chr. IJrandis' >S(q)arat-ausrjabe der aristotelischen (Berlin, 1823), p. 308 ff. also newly published b3H. Usener (Bonn, 1890); Characters, Dlibner (Paris, Philippson, vXrj avUpumivi) 1842) and E. Petersen (Leip., 18f)9) (Berlin, 1831) H. Usener, Analect<( Tla'ophrastca (Bonn, the same in XVL volume of Jiliein. J/.s. ; Jac. Bernays, 1858) TIi.'s Schrift liber die Frminigkeit (Berlin, 1866) H. Diels, Dox. Gr., p. 475 ff. E. Meyer, Gesch. der Botanik, p. 164 ff. Th. Gomperz, lieber die Charactere Th.'s ( Wiener Sitz.-Ber.,
;
;

Berlin, 1888).

The naturalism of Theophrastus seems to be expressed in his subsunii)tion of thought under that of motion (KiVvyo-i?), although he did not materialize the conce[)t in the Democritan manner. The dubious conserjuences, that followed for the Aristotelian concept of God, seem to have been expressly deduced lirst by
.Strato.

significance of Theoi)iu'astus lies in tlie realm of science, to be regretted that only few fragments of his history of natural scienc-e have been preserved {(^vcriKri io-ropta). On

The

and

it is

the whole he contented himself with the perfecting of the Aristotelian .system,

and he probably remained

its

representative.

The

results
1

in

logic also,

most complete which he reached

Diog. Laert., V. 30.

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

301

with the aid of Eudemus, concerning the modaht}' of the judgment and the theory of the hypothetical syllogism, are only of minor importance. Eudemus of Rhodes seems to have been a man of less significance althouoh he also possessed encyclopedic knowledge and wrote extensive works, later widely used, on the history of Spengel has collected o-eometrv, arithmetic, and astronomy. See A. the fragments of i^udemus' writings (Berlin, 17U). Th. H.^Fritzsche, De Eaderni Uliodii vita et scrijdis (RegensHis burc, 1851, in connection with the edition of the ethics). theological bias likewise appears to some degree in his elaboraHis departure from its fundation of the Aristotelian ethics. mental political idea is seen in his insertion of economics between
ethics

and

politics.

Aristoxenus of Tarentum was stimulated by the Pythagorean He is doctrine, which he carried into psychology and ethics. especiallv notable in the field of the history and theory of music. Besides "the fragments, there has in particular been preserved his writing, -epl dp/xoi'tKui' o-roixetW, published by P. Marquardt (Berlin, 1868), translated into German, with annotations by R. Westphal (Leipzig, 1883) see AV. L. Mahne, De Aristoxeno (Amsterdam, 1793) C. v. Jan (Landsberg a. W., 1870). The fragments of the historical works of the Peripatetics in general have been published by C. Mller, Fmgmenta historicorum
;

grcecorum,

II.

(Paris, 1848).

Apostasy from the theoretic ideals of Ai-istotle began to appear already in Dicjearch of Messene. in his preference for the practical life which was of interest indeed to the historian and political theorist. From his numerous works in political and literary history, among which the los 'EAAdSos is the most important, and also from his Tpi-oAtriKo's, onlv small portions M. Fuhr, Diccparchi qucn supersunt have been preserved. F. Osann, Btrge, II. (Cassel, 1839). (Darmstadt, 1811) The more original genius, Strato of Lampsacus, was called "the phvsicist," and this shows how actually independent he became of Aristotle. He threw aside all the Platonic iramathe pure spirituality of terialism that Aristotle had retained, God and the supersensible origin and character of the human Even if he thereby threw away the keystone of the reason. Aristotelian teleology, Strato was, on the other hand, opposed to He found the explanation the Democritan mechanical atomism. of the world in the inherent qualities and forces fSiTu/xcts) of particular things. He designated the fundamental forces ((lpx0 Of the two. heat plays the more important as heat and cold. and creative role. The renewal of the old Ionic modes of repre;

302

HIsrOKV OK ANCIKM"

I'lllLOSnl'll V

sentation is thus comi)loted in the Peripatetic school, and it also at the same time fDiiiul expiession among the Stoics. It was a return chaiaelerisLic of the time of tlie epigones. G. Kotlier, La j>h>/si(jiif dv ^Sinilo d. Lamp. (I'aiis, l^i'Jlj.

In the following generations the Peripatetic school became coni]>letely absorbed, so far as we know, in the
specialized investigations of Alexandrian erudition, in which
its

of

champions played an important role. Under Andronicus Rhodes, the eleventh head of the school after the founder,

the school

made a great

efiort for philosophical

autonomy.

The

publications of xVndronicus

marked

the beginning of a

systematic reproduction, interpretation, and defence of the

This activity continued then through the following centuries, and found in Alexander of Aphrodisias (200 a. d.) its most distinguished repreoriginal teaching of Aristotle.
sentative.

The

activity

was maintained

to later time, until

the Periiatetic school was lost in neo-Platonism.

great

come down
Strato,

number of names of Peripatetic philosophers have to us from the company around Theopln-astus and as well as names of some of both the nearer and the
:

more remote pupils of the latter. These latter have in the main no longer significance for us Clearchus of Soli (M. Weber, Breslau, 1880), Pusicles of Rhodes, who was presumably the author of tlie second book of the Metaphysics, Phanias of Eresus (A. Voisin, Gant., 1824), Demetrius of Phalerus (Ch. Ostermann, Ilersfeld. 1847, and Fulda. 1857), Ilipparchus of Stagira, Dnris of Samos, Chamasleon of Heraclea (Kpke, Berlin, 1846) Lyco of Troas, who succeeded Strato (269-226) as head of the school, whose successor was Aristo of Ceos Aristo of Cos, Critolaus, who belonged ^ to the embass}' to Rome, 155 b. c. and, finally, Diodorns of Tyre. From the works of the Peripatetics dealing with the history of literature and the specific history of philosophy, the ^toi of Ilermippus and Satyrus (200 b. c), the ia8oxat twv ^tAoo-oc^tiu' of Sotion, and the abstract of the last by Ileracleides Lembus The later writers, who (about 150) deserve especial mention. form our secondary sources, have drawn upon these works.
;

Cicero, Acad., II. 45, lo7; stc AViskeiuann (Hersfeld, 1867).

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

The
serviceable
his

oUo

work of Anclroniciis was further carried on Boethus of Sidon, nevertheless in a spirit akin to that of Strato and the Stoics. The later exegetes, like Nicolaus of Damascus, and later Aspasius, Adrastus. Herchiefly

by

pupil,

minus, Sosigencs, held rather to the logical writings of Aristotle. coraprchunsive, philosophical, and competent appreciation and exposition of his teaching is first found in the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, '"the exegete." Among his commentaries those upon 1\\g Analytics prior I., Tojjics, Mete-

De se/itsti. and especially the Metaphysi's have been preserved. The last is in the Bonitz edition (P'erlin, 1847). See J. Freudenlhal, Abhandl. ihr Berl. Akad. d. Wiss., 1885. In his own writings {-(.pi /'v^^? -e/Jt diJ.apfj.ivq<; (^vo-lkCov Kol rjdiKwv aopiwr kul Xvcrewv, et al.), he defends his naturalistic interpretation of Aristotle, especially against the Stoics.
reolof/y,

46.

The most important

scientific

epigones developed was Stoicism.

Its

system that the Greek founder was Zeno of

Citium, a

man

perhaps of Semitic or lialf-Semitic origin.

Captivated but not satisfied by the Cynic Crates, he listened

in

Athens

also to the

Megarian

Stilpo,

and

the- Platonists

Xenocrates and Polerao.

his school in the

After long preparation he opened

ttoikIXt] in

Uroa

the last decade of the

fourth century, and from this place his society got its name. His countryman, Persa^us, as well as Cleanthes of Assus, who was Zeno's successor as scholarch, Aristo of Chios, Herillus of Carthage, and Spha?rns from the Bosphorus, are named among his pupils. These from a philosophical point of view stand far behind the third head of the school, Chrysippus of Soli in Cicilia, who was- really the chief literary representative of the school. Among his numerous followers there appeared later Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes of Seleucia, a Babylonian living in Rome in 155, and Antipater
of Tarsus.

In connection with the Stoic school, Eratosthe-

nes and Apollodorus stand

among

the great scholars of the

Alexandrian epoch.
For a general histor}- of the Stoa, see Dietr. Tiedemann. S)/<t. der stoischen philos. (3 vols., Leipzig, 1776); F. Ravaisson, E.ssai sur le Stoicisme (Paris, 1856) R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu
;

304

IIISTOHY OF AN'CIEN'r

1'11IL()S( tlMl

Cictro's philos. Schrini (2 vols., Leipzig, 1882) G. P. WeyDie Philos. dtr Stoa yuich ihrem Wes^eii und ihren Schiclcsaleji (I^Mpzig, 1883) P. Ogcrcau, J-Jsstti nur le s)/sti))ie philos. du /Sfoicis/iw (Paris, 1885). Tlie chief source lor the older Stoics, whose original literature is nearh' entirely lost, is found in Diog. Laert., \'II., who breaks off in the midst of an exposition of
;

golclt,

Chrysippus.

lis

statements go back

in

substance to Antigonus-

C'aiystius (see U. v. Wilamowiz-Molk'iidorlf, lierlin, 1881). The Stoa was characterized as the tyical philosophy' of Hel-

lenism, from the fact tliat it was created and developed in Athens on the principles of Attic pliilosophy, and b^- men that originated in the mixed races of tlie East. Likewise, it was of great moment for the general progress of the world that this particular doctrine was afterwards extended and most vigorously developed in the Roman Empire. for the dilliZeno of Cition, the son of Mnaseas, 310-26.") cult chronology see E. Rhode and Th. Gomi)erz, liheiu. Mks.., 1878 f. was a merchant whose residence in Atliens was perhaps occasioned b}' a shipwreck. He entered the different schools, and co-ordinated their teaching with painstaking care. His

writings (see list of Diog. Laert., VH. 4) deal with the most varied subjects, 3et their form is not remarkable. See Ed. Wellmann, Die Philos. des Stoikers Zeno (Lei|)zig, 1873) C. Wachsmuth, Commentationes I., IL de Zeno Oitii et Cleanth. Assio (Gttingen, 1874) ; A. C. Pearson, The Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes (London, 1890). N. Saal, De Aristone, Ohio et Ilerillo Carth. commentatio H. Heinze, Ariston v. Chios bei Plutarch (Cologne, 1852) nnd Iloraz, and O. Hense, Ariston r. Chios (Rhein. Mus., 1890,
;

flf. and 541 ff.). Cleanthes, who is said to have performed menial work by night in order to listen to Zeno by da}', is in his siniplicit}-, perseverance, and austerity a type of the Cynic Wise Man, but he is insignificant as a philosopher. His hymn to Zeus is preserved and published by Sluiz-Meizdorf (Leipzig, 1835). See F. Mohnike, AleautJies der /Stoiker (Greifswald, 1814). The scientific systematizer of the Stoic doctrine is Chrysippus (280-206), a copious w-riter of great dialectic ability. The titles of his writings are listed in Diog. Laert., VII. 189 fif.

497

See F. N. G. Baguet, De Chrisijqyi vita doctrina et relifjuiis (Loewen, 1822) A. Gercke, Chrnsippea {Juhrh. f. PhiloL, 1885). For further information, see Zeller, IV^ 39, 44, 47 f.
;

second period of the ytoic philosophy, in wliich

to the Peripatetic

it

made a nearer approach

and Platonic

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

teaching, began in the middle of the second century

305
b. c.

with Panaetius of Rhodes, who introduced Stoicism into

Rome.

Boethus
in

of

by a similar

spirit.

Sidon worked beside him, animated After him his pupil Posidonius, of
directed

Apamea

Syria,

the

school

in

Rhodes with

great success.
Pansetius (180-110) won in Rome the friendship of men like and Soipio Africanus the Younger, and accompanied the latter on bis mission as ambassador, in 143 to Alexandria. He became scliolarch in Athens later. He brought the Stoa into great repute and made its success assured in Rome. This success was promoted by his forming Stoicism into a kind of philosoph}' of universal culture for the needs of the Roman
Laelius

Empire.
it

He

ameliorated

its

original seA-erity, he

accommodated

to other great sjstems, he expressed the system itself in a clever and tasteful wa}-. His chief writing, according to Cicero,

irepi Tov Kay'jKovTO'?. See F. G. van Lynden (Leyden, 1802). His contemporary ^ Boethus of Sidon partially followed the doctrine of iStrato and Aristotle in theology and psychology. The eclectic tendency appeared still stronger in Posidonius (135-150). He was listened to with delight by the aristocratic Roman youth in Rhodes, where after extended journeys lie had See J. Bake. Posidonii Rhodii settled as head of the school. reliquke doctn'Nre {Lcydeu, 1810) P. Tpelmann, De Po!<ldonio R. Scheppig, De Posidoido Jlh. rermn scriptore (Bonn, 1867) Apamensi, reriim, f/entmi/i, terraram scriptore (Berlin, 1870) P. Corssen, De Posidonio Phodii. JI. T. Ciceronis in lihr. I. Tusc. auctore (Bonn, 1878). In his comprehensive erudition and many-sided interests, Posidonius is the most successful

was

representative of syncretism, that blending of Stoic, Platonic, and Aristotelian doctrines. He is also the most important of those wlio prepared the way for the Alexandrian philosoph}'. thorough examination of his work in detail seems to be the most important and most difficult desideratum for the history of Hellenic philosophy. For a list of tlie Stoics of this period, see Zeller, IV^. 585 ff. See A. Schmekel, Die Philos. der mittleren Stoa (Berlin, 1892).

During the time

of the empire. Stoicism

;

became merely
it

a popular moral philosophy

but even in this condition

joined together the noblest convictions of antiquity in an

1

Zeller, IV3. 46, 1.

20

306

IHSroKV OF ANCMKNT

IMIIL )S()ril V

impressive form and manner, and

feeling

it

directed the moral

Epictetus,

along

religions

paths.
its

Seneca,

and

Marcus Aurelius ai)pcared as

this time.

chief representatives at

Lucius AnnaMis Seneca, son of the rliotoriciau M. Annanis was born about 4 a. d. in Cordova. He was educated He was the in Konie and called to different ollices of state. teacher of Nero, and condennied to death by his pupil in 65 a. u. He has expressed most completely the monitory character of
St'ueea,
to wliieh the name later Stoicism in his sententious writings, of seientilic researches cannot be unqualifiedly ai)plied. Besides his unimportant Qucestiones naturales^ there are pn served De Providentia^ De constnntia sapientis, De ira, De consokUione, De brevitate vitce. De otio. De vita beata^ De tranquUlitate animi, De dementia^ De be/ieficiis, and the Epistolce morales. Also in his strongly declamatory tragedies there is involved this same conception of life. Complete sets of his works are published by Fickert (3 vols., Leipzig, 1842-45) and Haase (3 German translation by Moser and vols., Leipzig, 1852 f.) Pauly (17 vols., Stuttgart, 1828-55), English translation or parasee Ilolzherr, Die Philos., phrase .b\- T. Long (London, 1014) Alfr. INlartens, De L. A. L. A. Seneca (Tbingen. 1858 f.) Senecce vita et de teinpore quo scripta eius 2)/iiIoso2j/iica comj/osita sint (Altona, 1871); H. Siedler, De L. A. Senecce philosophia morali (Jena, 1878) W. Ribbeck, X. A. Seneca der Philosoph n. sein Verhltniss zu Epicur^ Plato u. dem Further in the history of the Christenthurii (Hannover, 1887). bibliography, see Ueberweg. 244 f., especially for the writings cited elsewhere about his relationship to Christianity, of which the most important are edited by F. Chr. Baur, Seneca und Panhfs (1858), printed in three dissertations and published by Zeller (Lei[)zig, 1875). The satirical poet Persaeus, the erudite Heracleitus, and L. AnuiPus Cornutus, who systematically developed the allegorical significance of myths in a theological writing, are mentioned among the many names of Stoics, and in i)articular, C. Musonius Rufus, who confined himself more closely to the practical teaching of virtue. Compare P. Wcndland, Qi((cstioHes musonianrp (Berlin, 1880). His pupil is Epictetus, the notable slave of a freedman of Nero. He later became free himself, and lived in Nicoi)olis in Epirus, when the leaders in philosophy were proscribed by Domitian. His Icctui'cs wen; pu'.'lished by Arrian as Aiarpt/Sa
;

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

and
'Ey;^ipi8t(jv,

307

in modern times b}' J. Schweighnser appendix is the commentary of Siraplicius 8ee J. Spangenberg, Die Lehre des to tlie J^ncheiridion, 18U0). Epiktet (Hanau, lS-i9) E. M. Scliranka, Der Stoiker Epictet

and

(Lei[)zig,

1799

in tlie

(Frankfort a. 0., 1885) R. Asmus, Questiones H. Schenkl, Die epikteteischen Efnctetem (Freiburg, 1888) Fragmente (Vienna, 1888; A. Bonhfer, Ex)ictet u. d. Stoa (Stuttgart, 1891). Tlie last significant expression of the Stoic literature is the Meditations (to. cts iavrov) of the noblest of Roman emperors. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180). These are edited by J, Stich (Leipzig, 1882), and translated into German b}' A. "Wittstock (Leipzig. 1879) [English translation by G. Long, Bohn's Library, The Thoughts of the Emperor, M. Aurelius Antoninus']. See A. Bach, De 31. AureUo imperatore philosojihante (Leipzig, M. E. de Suckau, Much sur Marc AureJe, sa vie et sa 1826) doctrine (Paris. 1858) A. Braune, 31. AureVs Meditationen (Altenburg. 1878) P. B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
u. seine Phllos.
; ; ;

(London, 1884). The more Stoicism took to moralizing, the more did its Cynic inheritance begin to preponderate. Thus, in the first and second centuries after Christ, Cynicism revived in the persons of those wandering preachers who went from city to cit\" in the costume of the pliilosopher with obtrusive inconsiderateness and in atfectation of beggary. The}- were eccentric figures, but are The of more interest to the student of history than of science. Oinomaus chief types are Demetrius, a contemporary of Seneca of Gadara particularly, however, Demonax, concerning whom we have information in a writing, reported under Lucian's name (see also F. V. Fritsche, Defragm. Demon, phihs.. Rostock and Leipzig, 18G6), and Perigrinus Proteus, whose extraordinary end has been pictured by Lucian. See J. Bernays, Lukian it.
;

die

Eyniker

(Berlin, 1879).

Stoicism, as originally presented, especially by

pus,

Chrysip

was a perfectly well-rounded scientific system, which gradually grew lax in some particular doctrines, and finally vanished into a philosophically colorless moralizing. Yet it must be admitted that from the very beginning it was wanting in such organic coherence of its parts as one finds
in the separate (ireek phihjsophical systems.

In the teach-

ing of Zeno and Chrysip|)us a

number

of the elements of

the earlier sciences are closely interwoven without

making

308

HISTORY OF ANCIENT THILOSOrilY

the texture logically necessary and consistent.

The

Eclectic

development, then, which the Stoic

fate that

scliool took,

was not a

came
its

ti) it

from without, but the necessary conse-

quence of

inner constitution.

atialogons relations ma}' exist between the Stoic teaching, yet one must not make the mistake of tliinking that its elhieal teacliing of submission to natural law might not have lieen as compatil)le to an idealistic nu'taphysic as to its matcriaHsm. It is, moreover, equally certain that the Stoics' anthropological principle of the identity of the human soul and the divine reason nii^ht have been placed at the basis of a rationalistic theory of knowledge, just as well as at the basis of their sensualism and nominalism. Tiie theories of the Stoa are not an organic creation. l)ut woven together with Tiie}- make a well-connected system, but care and cleverness. They could afterwards, therefore, be are not homogeneous. separated with relative ease.
different parts ot
tlie

However many

The
and

scholastic division of philosophy into logic, physics,

ethics

was likewise especially

distinct

among

the Stoics.

The main

point in their teaching lies in their ethics.

To

teach virtue as the art of living was for them the entire

purpose and essence of philosophy.

by them entirely

in

its

practical

Only so far as

this definition of

Virtue was conceived meaning of right action. virtue was identical with the
first division, ethics,

Socratic " correct knowledge," did the

need the other two divisions, logic and physics, for

its basis.

The development of special sciences corresponded so little with the originally established general relationship of the three divisions, and the Stoic logic and physics stood in such loose connection with its ethics, that it is perfectly conceivable how Aristo, a member of the school standing at first close to pure Cynicism, should estimate these collateral subjects of ethics as useless. It is not remarkable, either, that the physical and logical doctrines of the old Stoa were changed for others and then laid entirely aside. Tiu; care with which physics and logic were pursued in the old Stoa in contrast witli ethics shows rather that the scientific intefi'st of the school had not been fully lost. To this interest, which was expressed in the numerous special works

particularly the

historical

Hcrillus com-

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

309

niitted himself, when he declared science in the Aristotelian sense to be the highest good. G. J. Diehl, Zitr Ethik des Stoikers Zeno (Mainz, 1877) F. Ravaisson, De la morale du Stoicisme (Paris, 18U) M. Heinze, Stoica ethica ad origines suas relata (Naumburg, 1862) Kster, Grundzge der stoischen Tugendlehre (Berlin, 1864) Th. Ziegler, Gesch. der Ethik., I. 167 ff.
;

The central point in Stoicism is the Ideal of the Wise Man. Stoicism drew its picture of the normal man after the model of Socrates and Antisthenes. It was its fundamental motive to picture the perfect man in absolute freedom from the changes of this world. This ideal was
first defined negatively as the independence of and conduct from the passions {Affekte'). This apathy (emotionlessness) of the Wise Man consists in his refusal to submit (avjKaTadea-L'i) to the excess of natural impulse, from which excess the passion springs. This refusal makes up the judgment of worth and the functioning of the will. The Wise Man feels impulse, but he does not let it grow into a passion, and he regards the exciting object as neither a good nor an evil. For to him virtue is not only the highest but the only good, and in this he is a true Cynic.

consequently

will

M. Heinze, Stoicorxim de ajfectibus doctrina (Berlin, 1861) O. Apelt, Die stoischen Deiinitio7ien der Affekte und Poseidonius (Jahrb. f. Pliilol. 1885). One must regard it as a result of the ethical psychology of Aristotle, that the Stoics so turned the Cynic unity of virtue and knowledge that they found the essence of passion in the judgment of worth, inasmuch as this judgment is immediately identical with feeling and willing. To desire, and to i-egard something as a good, are two expressions for the same thing. The excess of impulse (6p/x^ TrAec-i/u^oio-a) leads the powers of the soul (rj-yefj-oviKOv) into false judgment, and at the same time to a reasonless and unnatural excitement (aXoyos Kal irapa <f>v(TLv \}/v\ri<; Kiv-qcn<;), and in this very thing consists the excitement, Trao? (perturbatio). The Stoa distinguished four fundamental kinds of unnatural excitement: pleasure, trouble, desire, and fear. Tliey and their subordinate classes were treated as diseases from which the Wise Man is free, for he has true health.
;

"10
."^ince

IIIsroitY

OF ANCIKXT PIIII-OSOrHY

the passions consist in false judgments and menso the virtue of the

tal ilisturbancc,

defined, consists in reasonable insight

Wise Man, and the

positively

resulting

power
will let

of

will.

Virtue
or

is

the reason determining itself

theoretically and practically {recta ratio).

Whether man
depends

loose

this
is

that

passion

in
is

himself,

on him.

That

to say, the

matter

not determined by

external events, but through his own inner nature. " Nature " ((^uo-t?), which, according to the fundamental
principle of the Stoics, is identical with reason (\0709), forms the content of insight, and obedience to insight consti-

tutes virtue.

nature of things, partly

By "Nature" is meant partly the universal human nature. While passion is

unnatural and unreasonable, the Wise Man acts naturally and reasonably when he makes his will to agree with the universal law of nature, and when he subordinates himself to that law. But in this subordination he is only acting as
the reason of

man

requires.
to the

The

ethical principle of the

it

Stoa was obedience

world law, and in this way

pos-

sessed a religious coloring.

The ethical dualism of the Stoics, with its contrast between nature and what is contrar}' to nature, and with its identification of reason and nature, goes back to the Sophistic Enhghtenraent. It avoided, however, the sharpened Cynic antithesis between civihzation and nature. It rather referred what is contrary to nature to the preponderance of the individual impulse, and it characterized the natural as reason dwelling in each and all alike. The latter thought, which led to tlie conventional religious principle of subjection to the world-reason, is an obvious revival of the logos doetiine of Heraclcitus. 'I'he possibility of unnatural and unreasonable phenomena, as they are supposed to. appear in tlie passions, is absohitely irreconcilable with the metaphysical development of the Stoics' doctrine, and with their idea of fate and providence. Their ethical dualism and metaphysical monism stand in absolute contradiction. This difTiculty came to the Stfies in the form of the problem of the freedom of the will and the responsibility of conscience. These are ethical postulates whose union with mechanical necessity made difficulties for them, and difficulties

CO^"TROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

that

311

were solvable only in appearance. In respect to these diffihad to defend themselves against the attacks of Epicurus and Carneades.
culties the}-

In designating the 6/u,oA.oyv;L/iws tij (^i-cret iCrji' as the positive content of virtue, and in representing at the same time the cosmic universal law as " Nature." tlie Stoic lacked a principle of morals Consequently, on the one hand in the that had real content. at all Stoic scliool. human nature was suljstiluted for (/>ro-is, events, according to Chrysippus. with reference to its unity with On the other hand, the purely formal c'haracthe world reason. ter of the consistency and of the harmony of the reason was Jn this sense, suggestive accentuated (simply /xoAoyov/AeVwi). of the ' categoricaf imperative," was Stoicism accepted by the Nevertheless, in the Stoic metaphysiron statesmen of Rome. ics, the formula of subjection to tlie world reason remained an empty form which found its living content first in the Christian

doctrine of love. The Stoics were little able to make theoretically clear their antithesis of the reasonable and the unnatural, yet they rendered the service of introducing into moral philosophy the principle of duty by the accentuation of this antithesis, and by defining virand furtliermore of having laid tue as subjection to cosmic law a greater stress upon the antithesis between tliat which is and Wholly consonant with this is the that which ought to be. pessimism which they for tlie most part held concerning the great mass of mankind and the circumstances of life. The Socratic concept of virtue, that the Stoa lield, concentrated into practical insight (^povv/crt?) the whole of moral life, and allowed the existence of a plurality of virtues only in the sense of the application to many objects of this single fundamental virtue of insight. In this way, for instance, the four Platonic cardinal virtues were derived. Yet herein the Stoic clung to the thought of the unitv of virtue to such a degree that all the particular forms of They form not only the envirtue exist in inseparable union. during characteristic (taecris) of the Wise Man, but tliey also
;

animate his every action.

The unity ami

virtue,

])erfectness,

which the Stoics

like the ^fe-

garians and Cvnics regarded as essential in

tlie

concept of

and in the ideal of the Wise Man, led them in the first thoroughgoing statement of their system to say that this ideal is reached either entirely or not at all. In neither goodness nor badness are there degrees of ethical value.

312

HISTORY OF AXCIKNT nilLOSOl'IIV

had
((f)avXo(). niid
<(i

]\Ion arc cither irood (o-7rouSato<), or

the latter heloiiir

all

who do not

attain the ideal of wisdom.

far
for

It makes no dillcrencc whether they be near to it or from it. They are all fools, sjtiritnaliy sick. Thns

the older Stoics

all

virtuons actions

{/caropdc/jLaTa)

were

ethically of equal value,

and likewise

all

sins (/jLapTjjfiaTa).

With the same rigorism

the Stoics declared virtue as the

all

oidy good, vice as the only evil, and

d(f)opa} indifferent things.

between as (aBi-

The last definition led to many serious consequences in applied ethics in whic-li the Stoics agreed with the Cynics, althougli, it must be said, in theory moro tlian in practice. Since the Stoics assessed the disposition ethically, they therefore made the "Wise Man indifferent in i)rinciple to external conventional forms
of performance or non-performance. In their theory of goods, they made a polemic attack, especially against the Teripatetic recognition of the imi)ortance which the goods of fortune were supposed to have for perfect liappiness. P>specially prominent is their treatment of life as an ^ta^opoi-, which theoreticallv and practically represented suicide as permissible for the Wise Man.

school

This rigoristic dualism could not last long, and so the gradually inserted the striving, earnest man

(^TTpoKTTTwii)

fitting action (to

bctwccu thc Wisc Man and the fool, and the KadrjKov) between virtue and sin. The
lies

school distinguished in the great interval which

the

between

highest good

and the

evil,

the

Trporjy/j.eva

from the

uTTOTrpo'qyfieva.

On the whole, the Stoics arc the most outspoken doctrinaires The Stoa was a school of character that antiquit}' witnessed. In building and nl^o a school in reckless stubl)ornness (Cato). the development of the scliool there entered with thc different individuals many vai'ieties and compromises of doctrine accordThese changes kept pace ing to impending practical needs. with the approach of the school to the teaching of the Lyceum and the Academy. Tiiereupon the ])erfectly unpcdagogical character was gradually stripped off, which the representation of the ideal of the Wise Man originally had, and in its place in later times came the i-everse and admonitory teaching, bow one should become a AViso l\Ian.

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

KaT'jpOtofj.a^

813

the conduct of a "Wise Man. coming from a good disof the ordinary ambitions man adjusted to external requirements, stand somewhat in the relationship wliich modern ethics marks between morality and legality. The setting up of tliis distinction shows how the realized ideal of the Wise Man was making way to the more modest ambition of approximating that ideal.
position,

and

Ka6y]Kor, the activity

The

individualistic tendency expressed in the ideal of

the self-sufficient

Wise 'Man,

is

counterbalanced
the
individual
beings.

by the
to

concept of

the

subordination

of of

the

cosmic
Stoics

law

and the society

rational
social

The
as

recognized, therefore, the

needs of

man

natural and reasonable.

They saw the

realization of those

needs simply on the one side in the friendship of individual Wise Men, and on the other in the rational communion of all

men.

Whatever

lies

its different political

between that is, the national forms passed for them more or

life

in

less as

of historical indifference (^dBLd(f)opov}.

The Wise Man bows

from
it

to this as a temporal necessity, but he holds aloof

as far as possible.

Historico-national distinctions vanish

before that reason, which gives equal laws and equal rights
to
all.

The

jjoint of view

of the Stoic Wise

Man was

that of

the cosmopolitan.

For the remarkable synthesis of individualism and universalism which characterized the Stoa, it is to be noted that the school soon passed in its social theory from individualism to the most general principle of association. The later Eclectic Stoics in particular were concerned with the tlieory of the state, and followed Aristotle in many things. But the ideal of the school remained still the citizenship of the world, the fraternit3' of all men, the ethico-legal equalization of all distinctions of condition and race. From this thought proceeded the beginnings of the idea of natural or reasonable right, which later were laid as fundamental in the scientific theory of Roman right. ^ They reflect in theoretical form the levelling of those
1

See

M.

Voigt, Die Lehre vom /us naturale, etc. bei den

ff.

Rmern

(Leipzig, 185C) to p. 81

'514

HISTORY OF ANCIKXT PllILOSOlMIY

distiiietions, uliicli

/listorical

was completed

for aiitiqiiitv

about

the beginning of this era, and thus siiow Stoicism to bo the ideal philosopliy of tile Konian Empire.'

To

this ethical tcachiiig there

was joined

in a

most

vc-

raarkable

manner an outspoken

materialistic metaphysics.
in the metaj)hysics,

The monistic tendency, expressed

was
an

united with the ethical principle, and was developed

ojjcn polemic against the Aristotelian dualism.

in

Unci'cative

themselves, the Stoics accepted the naive materialism of

the pre-Socratic philosophy in the form of Hei-acleitanism.

They expressly taught

corporeal.

that

nothing

is

real except
in

the

They, however, recognized,

regard to the

relationships of individual things, the Aristotelian duality

of a passive

moving
X6yo<;

force (^iruaxov
foi'ce all

and an active principle, a moved matter and a and ttoioOv}. They give to the unithe characteristics of the lleracleitan
vov<i.

fying cosmic

and the Anaxagorean

But they emphasize

particularly the materiality of this reasonable cosmic force.

In their confessed materialism, the Stoics went nearly to the childish consequence of looking upon all qualities, forces, and
activities of bodies as again themselves bodies which were supposed to inhere spatially in the first bodies (K-pufrts 8t' oAwv). This reminds us in some measure of the homoiomeriai of Anaxagoras. The Stoics also regarded time quitta and the like, as bodies assertions that show nothing more than the doctrinaire wilfulness of the authors. See II. Siebeck on

the subject.

The

Stoics, like Heraclcitus,

is

cosmic force, which

that
fire

God,

which
in this

found in fire the unifying is changed by its own

inner rational law into the world.

They conceived

fully

was the identity of the corporeal primeval matter

spirit,

and the rational

1

and

way they
men

fell

back from

Cicero especially (Z>e rep. and

(f)vcrei

De

leg) developed the Stoic thought

;

of the

SiKaiov as the lex 7uilurce born in all

but also he has

attempted

to

be just to the historical moments of jurisprudence.

n. Sum/s/iJillos.,
I.

See K.
ff.

Ilildenbraad, Gesch. u. Syslemder Hechts-

523

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

fche

315

dualism of the time of the epigones to the naively

Fire
is

vague monism of the previous time.

the Milesians.
world-soul,

therefore on
ap-)(rj

the one hand the original corporeal substrate, the

of

On

the other

it is

the primeval spirit, the

all

the

reason

moving and forming

a
divine

things,

permeating and
(TTvev/j^a^,
it.

governing, like

living

breath

the entire world of plienomena proceeding from

It

is

indeed

the

creative

world-reason, the

X6yo(;

aTrepfiariKO'i.

Fire has differentiated

air,

water, and earth from itself

at the beginning of things, so that the

elements stand

as the active

two more volatile and forming principle, in

In the cosmic devel-

contrast to the two lieavier as matter.

opment the primitive

in

fire

is

destined gradually to reabsorb

the world of variety into a universal

is

itself,

and

will finally

catastrophe

(e'/cTrupwo-i?).

consume it The complete

cosmic cycle

so perfectly determined in all particulars

it is

by the divine Being that

exactly repeated periodically.

In so far as the Godhead acts like a body under the law of

mechanical necessity,

is

this absolute determination of the

movements
as
it

of all individuals Fate {eifxap/xevr]').

it

In so far

acts as a purposeful spirit

(^rrpouoia),

takes on the garb of

Providence

and the Stoic evidently means by

this that nature can yield only perfect and teleological

forms and relationships.

In all this we do not meet new concepts or new ways of The Iloracleitan principle is eoniliinod with tlie stating facts. Platonic and Aristotelian concepts without being scientificali}more serviceable. No scientific contribution worthy of the name can be found among the Stoics. In particular cases, as in astronom}', the Stoics join themselves in essentials with the Peripatetics. On the whole, in their treatment of these questions, they show a relapse from the inductive science of Aristotle to the old metaphysics. The pantheistic character of this conception of nature led the Stoic to a nature religion, which at the same time is a religion characteristic monument to this is the hymn to of reason.

316
Zi'iis

HISTOUY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

of Cloanthes (preserved

in Stob. EcL, I. 30). In the the most comprehensive use of the allegorictil interpretation of myths. Tek>ology was so connected with this interpretation, and was so attennated to a small anthropomorphic spirit in praise of the arrangements useful for human needs, that it anticipated to a great degree the tasteless philosophy of the eighteenth centur\-. The great ethical principles of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy diminished in the hands of the Stoics to a miserable ulilitarian theory, which was the more characteristic the less it found a point of support in the Stoic doctrine of goods. It is of particular interest to note how the Stoics began to work a positive religion into their natural religion for they treated, by the use of the nature-myth inteipretation, the gods anil diemons of the poi)ular faith as special forms of the original divine force. They came in this way to a systematic theology of polytheism, ami they subjoined to it their widely accepted theory of divination, based on the princii)le of a universal teleolog}'. The pantheism and determinism in .Stoicism stood finally in absolute contradiction with its ethical dualism. The former was as optimistic as the lattev was pessimistic. That everything bad happens Trapa ^vo-tv was treated as ethically fundamental, although according to their metaphysical principle it was impossible. This contradiction seems to have come in some measnie to the consciousness of some of the Stoics. In response to the sharp attacks of their opponents, particularly of Carneades, it was the occasion for evasions tending toward such questions as the reconciliation of evil with a divine omnipotence, which we have later designated as theodicy. On the one hand, the Stoics attempted to disclaim the reality of evil, and then on the other to make sin and sufifeiing the teleologicalh' indispensable parts of the good and perfectly organized universe.

same

spirit tiiev

made

was consistent with its universal physical postulates. The body, teleologically put together out of crass elements, is ]iermeated through and tlirough, and in all its functions ruled by the soul. Tlie
of Stoicism

The anthropology

soul

is

the

warm

breath (Trvevfxa euOep/xov'), whicli, as an

emanation

of the divine soul of the world,

forms the uniIt

tary, living guiding force of

stitutes his

man

(to

rjyefjLoviKop').

con-

reason

it

is

the cause of his physiological

functions, of his speech, of his imagination

and desires;

and

it

has

its

seat in the breast.

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

Ludw.
1886-88).
Stein,

817
vols.,

Die

Psycliologie

der Stoa

(2

Berlin,

Tlie essential identit}' of the human and divine soul (taught also b}- the pie-Socraties) was carried out b}- the Stoics, especially on ethical and religious lines. The analogy seemed suitably drawn between the relation of the human soul to its body, and the divine reason to the unirerse. The Stoics consistently ascribed to the soul of man no abso-

the most they gave to it a permanence the absorption of all things in the divine. Yet some Stoics reserved this last privilege only for the souls of the Wise, while the ^avXot were dissipated both in soul and
lute
iinmortalit}'.

At

until the e/c-rpto-ts,

body. In the Stoic anthropology, as in their entire system, the fundamental contradiction was this their theoretic doctrine allowed to appear as mechanically necessary that very rationality which according to their ethical postulate was requisite to the formation of the ideal, so that the actual incompleteness of the ideal is inconceivable. From this is explained the fact that the whole theoretic philosophy of the Stoa was subjected to the point of view of that insight which guides the perfectly Wise Man in his conThe same contradiction showed itself in the Stoic episteduct. molog}', where the emanation from God (e/xc^vTor Trier/^a) was represented as a tahuJa rasa. The tabula rasa does not already possess its rational content, as one would expect from this teaching, but wins its content gradually b}' the action of the
:

senses.-^

We must go back to the

to

Cynic opposition to the Academy

understand how the Stoics can combine a sensualistic

of

and nominalistic theory

a cosmic reason.

knowledge with their doctrine

of

The

Stoics sought in their nominalism,

even as extrinsically as in their ethics, to give to their fundamental principle of individuality the concept of universal validity, a validity from which they could in neither situThe soul is originally like a tablet of wax, on ation escape.

which nothing
1

is

written,

and

in

which ideas ((pavraaiai}

There was therefore an easy union possible with Stoic metaphysics,

wlien the later eclectic popular philosophy (Cicero) said that knowletlge,
])articularly that of practical truths,

was God-implanted, universal

to

humanity, and etpialiy innate.

318

IIISTOKY OF AXCIKNT rillLOSOPHY

tlic influence of things. Every original an impression (TuTrwats) on the soul, or a cliangc in as Chrysippus said, in order to refine this crude materiis

appear througli
idea
it

alism.

On

that account this idea

always refers to par-

ticular things or conditions.

])icturcs

Concepts (ewoiai) are, however, aroused by memory and the reasoning faculty
tlie

irndcred possible by
jective,

memoiy.
nothing

They are purely subactual

and,

tlicrefore,

corresponds

to

them, as in the case of the

knowledge.^

percej^tions.

Yet the Stoa

all scientific

vaguely tried to find in them the essence of

Concepts originate in perception, in part involuntarily

from the very necessity

production, and are

of the

with conscious premeditation.

mental mechanism, in part The former are a natural

to all alike (^kolvoI evvoiai).

common

This class

is

therefore to be regarded as the

norm

of ra-

tional knowledge,

and as the

\'a\\^ presui^iyosition {7rp6Xr]\jn<;).

In this sense the consensus gentium plays a great rule

in Stoic argumentation, especially in ethics

and

religion.

For the consensus ijentlum

existing for
all

is

common

property of concepts

men

with equal necessity.

As regards

the scientific construction of concepts, the

Stoics busied themselves with great, and, for the

most

part,

very imfruitful formalism in their detailed study of the

Aristotelian logic.

They combined

this study with that of

grammar.

In treating of the hypothetical character of

h)gical truth,

which they emphasized especially in their

theory of the syllogism, they needed a criterion of truth for

those original Ideas, from which the logical work of thought

supposed to proceed. They found such an one only in immediate evidence^ according to which single Ideas force themselves upon the soul and compel its assent {^avyKarais
.

deatsi^.

An

idea of this sort they called (Pauraaia KaTaXrj1

See Zcllor, IV^ 77

iT.

CONTROVEKSIKS OF THE SCHOOLS

irriKi^}

319

They found

it

either in clear

and certain percep-

tions or in the Koival evvoiai.

Sur
449

R. Hh-zel, De logica Stoicorum (Berlin, 1879) V. Brochard, la logique du Sto'icisme (Arch. / Gesch. d. Philos., V.
;

ff.)-

the collective name of logic, which they first employed of terms, the Stoics grouped grammatical and rheThey torical studies. especially Chrysippus investigated mauv grammatical problems, and decided a great manv of the questions of fact and terminology for more than for antiquity. Compare Lorsch, Die Sprach})htIosophie d. Alten (Bonn, 1841) Schmanu, Die Lehre von den Redeteilen, nach den Alten dargestellt w. beurteilt (Berlin, 1863) Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sjrrachiviss. bei d. Griechen und Rmern (Berlin, 18G3). Concerning the formal logic of the Stoics, see C. Prantl, Gesch. d. Log., I. 401 ff. When the Stoics distinguished studies concerned with the criterion of truth from those concerned with correct syllogistic metliod, they transmuted the Aristotelian logic into a purely formal science. They were stranded, however, in empt}- sophistry, which was unavoidable in such a limited conception. The Aristotelian analytic always is the frame on which they stretch out their artificial system with its unnecessary terminological changes. The}' have added nothing significant. Elven in their simplification of the tlieor}' of the categories Aristotle himself had preceded them. They recognized only the following tour categories vTroKuixevov, ttolov, ttw? cx"''' ""po's n ttw? c^ov: substratum, quality, condition and relation. See A. Trendelenburg, Gesch. der Kategorienlehre (Berlin, 1846), p. 217 flf. The distinction of involuutar}-, universal ideas that enter the mechanism of representation, from tliose formed with scientific consciousness {Lotze. Ljogik, 1874. 14), has psychological and logical value, but its e[)istemological use by the Stoics is an unhappy one. They also, however, according to their ethical principle, first ascribed full certainty to science as a system of fullv developed concepts: Diog. Laert., VII. 47; Stob. Eel,

Under

in the study

II. 128.

See
1890).
47.

W.

Luthe, Die ErTcenntnisslelrre der Sloiker (Leipzig,

philosophical originality, but witli a greater

With less

degree of nnity and compactness, Epicureanism was the

1 Of the difficulty with this term, the comprehension of the actual from the side of the spirit, or the comprehensibihty of the spirit from the side of what is actual, see Bonnhofer, Ejnktet und die Sloa, p. 288 ff.

320

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

form ill which the Cyrenaic conception of life found development just as Stoicism was the development of Cynicism.
In contrast, however, to the multiform eclecticism which
characterized the Stoa in the jiersons of
scientific chamj)ions

many

of its active

through the centuries. Epicureanism was born mature in its founder as a complete method of living. Its numberless disciples in all antiquity changed
it

scarcely

more than

in its unessentials.

Consequently, apart from Epicurus himself,

who founded

the school in his garden in Athens in 306, there are no

independent thinkers of the school to be named.

We may
;

name some
Zeno
in of

literary representatives
;

Metrodorus of Lamp-

sacus, the friend of the founder

Colotes of the same city

Sidon (100
about 90

b.

c.)
;

Pluudrus,

whom

Cicero heard

Rome

h. c.

Pliilodemus of Gadara and more

especially the

Roman

poet Titus Lucretius

Cams.

See P. Gassendi, De vita, moribtis et doctrina Epicvri (Lcyden, 1G47); G. Prezza, Epicnro e rEpicureismo (Florence, 1877); M. Guyau, La morale (VEpimre (Paris, 1878) P. v. Gizycki, Ueber das Leben nnd die Moralphi}(>s()j)hie des Epikur {WvlWc, R. Schwen, 1879); W. Wallace, Epicureanism (London, 1880) Ueber griech. ?<. riti. Epicureismus (Tarnowitz, 1881). As original sources, besides what is left by Epicurus, there are the didactic poem of Lucretius, De verum natura (edited by I^achniann, Berlin, 1850, and Jac. Bernays, I>cipzig, 1852), and the writings found in Ilerculaneuni, particularly of Pliilodemus: Herculanensium voluminnm qnee svpersunt (first series, Naples, Compare D. Comparetti, La 1793-1855, second since 1861). Th. Gomporz, BerJcuIanenvilla dei Pisoni (Naples, 1879) sische jStudien (Leipzig, 1865 f., Wiener Sitzungsberichte, 1876, Secondary antic^ue sources are Cicero (De nib us and 1879). De natura deorum)^ Seneca, and Diogenes Laertius, B. 10. Epicurus was born 341 in Sanios of an Athenian of the demeHis father seems to have been a school-teacher. Gargettos. Epicurus grew up in simple circumstances. He had read some philosophers, especiull}" Democritus, ami perhaps also listened to some of his older coutemi)oraries in Athens. But he had not at any rate enjoyed a thorough education, when, having tried bis hand as a teacher in Mytilene and Lampsacus, he afterwards
;
; ;

CONTKOVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

321

/ounded his school in Athens, which was later named after the garden in which it was held (ol -n-o twv k-jitojv horti). His teaching was opportune, easily understood, popular, and in harmony with the spirit of the time. It is thus explicable how he found wide acceptance equally with the more serious schools Owing to his personal charm, and because he did of science. not make so high and strict demands either upon the life or thought of his auditors as others made, he became greath* esteemed as the head of the school. As such he worked until He wrote much,^ only a little of which has his death in 270. been preserved. Of the thirty-seven books of Trepi <^vo-ews onl\two were found in the Herculanean librar}' (published bj- Orelli, In addition three didactic letters and the Leipzig, 1818.)
;
;

Kvpiai 6o5ai, besides man\' more or less extensive fragments, have been found. H. Usener has published a notably complete and orderly collection, excepting the two books Trept ^ro-cojs

the name Epkurea (Leipzig. 1887). Epicurus' confidant and celebrated colleague, Metrodorus, died before him. See A. Duening. De M. Epicurei vita et scriptis, cum fragm., Leipzig, 1870. Alfr. Krte, Metrodori fragm., Leipzig. 1890). The headship of the school passed directly then from Epicurus to Hermarciri^s. From that time on, numerous pupils and heads of the school are mentioned (see Zeller, IV^ 368378), but seldom in such a way as to lead us to know their disWe know Colotes from the treatise tinction as philosophers. which Plutarch aims against him, as the champion of the school Zeno and Phnedrus from the reports of Cicero also Philodemus, whose works in part were found in Herculaneum. See the literature in Ueberweg-Heinze. I". 264 f., especiallv H. v. Arnim, Philodemea (Halle, 1888). Especially at Rome, where C. Amafinius (middle of second century. B. c.) had first naturalized Epicureanism to a considerable degree, the theory found many supporters, and most of all in its poetical presentation in Lucretius (97-54). See H. Lotze, Qucestio/ies Lucretianre (Philol, 1852) C. Martha. Le poeme de Lucrece (Faris, 1873; J. Woltjer, L. philosophia cum fontihus
b\;

comparata (Groningen, l<'-i77). Concerning the development of the school, see R. Hirzel,
Unters, zu Cicero's philosophischen Schrien,
T.

98

ff.

The

ethics of Epicurus

was a

reprodnctioii of

hedonism

( 30) in a

form riper

in

so far as the more youthful fresh-

ness of the Aristippan doctrine of sense-pleasure

1

made way

See Diog. Laert., X. 26

21

ff.

322

IILSTOHY OF ANCIKNT I'lllLOSorilV

for deeper reflection, such as already existed

later Cyrenaics.

among

the

Tlic limitation of philosophy to a search

for the means of attaining individual happiness was most boldly expressed by Epicurus, and was developed utterly
regardless of every other interest, esi)ecially of science.

Science and virtue are nothing that should be prized in

themselves.

They have worth only

and
of every desire.

as indispensable
})leasure
is

means

for the attainment of })leasure,

the natural

and obvious goal

Pleasure
is

not only positive pleasure in the narrower

sense which arises out of a motion that satisfies the need

{yjSovT)

iv Kivqaei).

painlessness^
fect rest
^

It is the more valuable pleasure of which goes with the state of more nearly per(Jovr) KaTaar-qfiaTiKij), a state consequent upon

the satisfaction of wants.

The

latter

affords

doubtless
^iju')

a certain pleasure, but perfect happiness (^fiaKapiw^

can be found only in a state in which every want

is

absent.

Happiness
the soul
:

is

health to the body and repose {drapa^ia) of

BiKaLoavvr]<i /capTro? fiejcaro';

drapa^ia?

Epicurus showed his deficiency in scientific training in the ambiguity of his expressions, and in his lack of logical clearness. His deficiencj' also appears in his disdain of all theoretical occuHe had no appreciation of scientific investigations pations. which serve no use. Matliematics, history, the special natuial The theory of pleasure that he sciences were closed to him.
Physics, called ethics, strictly included his entire philosophy. which had a determined ethical task to perform, and was purand sued only so far as it performed it, was only ancillary
;

as a help necessary.

in

preparation for this,

little

logic

was deemed

It has given rise to much confusion, because Epicurus considered ^Sovr; sometimes as a positive pleasure arising from the satisfaction of all want, and because he sometimes used the word in the more general sense when he meant the more valued ataraxy The introduction of the latter idea probably can be {aTapa^ia). When the TrOq are designated as traced back to Democritus.
J

Olymp,

in Plato's Philch.,

274 (also Fr. 41G).

Clem. Strom., VI. 2

(also Fr. 519).

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

323

storms, and ya/\r;i/to-/xos as tranquillity (Diog. Laert., X. 83), we are reminded of the manner of expression of the great Abderite. Tliis Epicurean rapa^La has only an outward resemblance to the The former is the virtue of ethical indifference Stoic apath}'. the latter is passionlessness, which is based to all passions upon the perfect satisfaction of all desire. On this account it was looked upon, botli by Epicureans and Cynics, as acquired only through a limitation of desire. Therefore p]picurus distinguished formally three classes of wants natural and indispensal)le natural and perhaps dispensable and finally, imaginary, which are neither natural nor indispensable. Without satisfying the first, man cannot live without satisfying the second, he cannot be happy the third are to be disregarded. Thus the opposition which tlie C^yrenaics urged between the natural and the conventional was taken up. Its strenuousness was diminished, however, in so far as the Epicureans gave a place to much in the second category, which the Cyrenaics were compelled to discard, because they recognized only the first categorj*.
; : ;

Feeling (irddo^') can only decide as to what exists in any particular pleasure. We need, in order to counteract this, to reflect upon the course of life, and to assess the
different pleasures so as to

bring out also their conse-

Such an estimate is possible only through the rational insight, the fundamental virtue of the Wise Man This virtue was developed into different single {(f)p6vr](Ti<;'). virtues, according to the different problems to be assessed. Through it the Wise Man is able to estimate the different
quences.'

impulses according to their value for perfect satisfaction.

He

is

able to appreciate expectations

value, to free himself

desires,

and

to find in

and fears at their true from illusionary ideas, feelings, and the proper balance of enjoyment that
is

serenity of soul which

allotted only to him.

The Epicurean ideal of the Wise Man is represented in nearly the same particulars as the Stoical Wise Man. The Wise Man is to the Epicureans also as free as the gods. By his reflective insight, rising superior to the course of
1

Eus. Prcep.

ev., 14, 21 (also

Fr. 442).

"24

IIISTOHV OF ANCIKNT I'llILOSUl'lIY

the woi-ld and of external fate, he finds happiness only in

himself and in his virtne, wliieh once acqnircd can never

lost. Yet the Epicurean description is made in somewhat brighter colors than the Stoic, rather more pleasing and more joyous. But even if they avoided the soml)renc'ss

bo

of the Stoics, they were, on the other hand, i-athcr laci<iiig

in

vigor: the Stoic feeling of duty was wanting, as were

both the submission of the individual to universal law and

the consciousness of responsibility.

Epicurus

j)rized, it

is

true, spiritual above bodily satisfactions, because they are

better qualified to lead to the ideal of rest to the soul.

In-

deed, he

recommended what he himself

to a high degree

possessed,

a pure and

nol)le morality, social

all.

refinement,

benevolence, and consideration toward

But all this is commended to us, because every kind of roughness of deportment must appear to an educated Greek as inharmonious with the a'sthetic enjoyment of existence, which had become
to

him

a natural want.

The wisdom
it

of life of the

Epi-

cureans was aesthetic self-enjoyment.

delicate

Their egoism became

and

refined, but nevertheless

was

still

egoism.

(fipdv,)<ri.^ appeared in Epicurus's theory almost ai)peared in that of Aristippus, only the matter of measuVing the consequences of particular pleasures is rather more emphasized tlian in f^picurus. Merely upon this distinction of consequences Epicurus founded his preference for spiritual pleasures over l)odilv pleasures, and not upon an original distinction lie insisted, in accordance with his sensualistic ps}-of worth. chology. that the spiritual pleasures reduce in their simplest terms to bodily (a-dp^) ^ pleasures.

The concept of
it

exactly as

The fundamental characteristics of the ethical atomism of Epicurus are shown most clearly in his treatment of social He recognized no natural community of manrelations.
kind, but he treated
all

the mutual relations of individuals

(1) as those which depend upon the will o.f the individuals, and (2) tho.se which depend upon a rational consider1

Alhen., XII. 4G (also Fr. 409).

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

ation of useful consequences.

325

He

regarded these

human

relations not as higher powers, but only as self-chosen means for individual happiness. In this spirit he dissuaded

Wise Man from entering upon marriage, because it So also he threatens him with care and responsibility. recommended avoidance of public life. He regarded the
the
state as a

union

that has arisen out of the need of mutual

reflection of the
of the state are conditioned in

protection,
individuals.

and created by the rational

The functions

their entirety by the point of view of general utility.

This

purpose of law brings about certain universal principles as everywhere necessary, but law takes a variety of forms of
single laws under different circumstances.

Friendship

is

the only social relationship worthy of the

Wise Man. It rests indeed, too, upon the calculation of mutual usefulness. Among wise and virtuous men, however, it rises to a disinterested communion, and in it the
happiness of the individual reaches
It is
its zenith.

thoroughly characteristic of the Epicurean conception of be a purely individual relationship, Friendship was particularly cultivated in viz., friendship. this school, and in connection with its view of the Wise Man friendship easily got an insipid character of mutual admiration. The X-Oe ^tojcras is the reverse side of it, wherein indifference to political interest and responsil)ilitv, the selfish isolation of the individual, decay of national loyalty, is raised tD a principle. With this egoistic withdrawal into private life. Epicureanism hecame the ' common sense " philosophy of the Roman world. For the strongest basis of despotism is that desire for enjoyment with which everv individual seeks in the quiet of his own life to save as much individual comfort as possible out of the
life,

for its social ideal to

universal confusion.

The utilitarian politics of Epicurus has also its germ in that of the Sophists. Yet Epicurus seems to have been the first to carry politics out consistently, and thus also to have developed
^

Diog. Laert., X. 150 (from the Kvpiai b^ai)

Toil

to

ttJs

(^vcreai

BUaiov

fOTi avfioXov
irrcr6ai.

crvficpepovTos els to

fifj

XnTetv dWijXovs f"/5e X-

326

HISTORY OV ANCIKNT IMIIT.OSOPHV

compncl
((twOi'iki)).

the leading principle of political

tlie

It

was

lv

use of this theory that tlie Enligliteiinient of the seventeenth and eigliteenth centuries tried to conceive the state as the product of the sellisii reason of individuals who were without a state. There was, therefore, for Epicurus such a thing as right and wrong only where this sort of agreement about universal utilit}- takes place between individuals.^ Lucretius has represented in a typical manner this supposed transition of man from a state of savagery to a state of society (V. 022 ff.).
If the insight of the

the

Wise Man,

it

reason shall afford peace of soul to accomplishes this principally by freeing

all

him through

correct knowledge from

superstition, erro-

neous representations of the nature of things, and therefore

from all related idle fears and liopes which could falsely determine the will. In so far the insight is this (^povr^ai^, being not only practical but theoretical in its purpose. To
this

cludes

end we need a physical view of the world which exall myths and miracles, all transcendent, religious, supersensible, and teleological aspects. Epicurus finds such a view in Democritus.

Compare Alb. Lange,

lohn,

Gesch. des Materialismus, (2 ed. Iser-

97 ff.). Familiarity with the theory of Democritus is said to have been made possible to Epicurus through Nausiphanes. At any rate, it is the most significant scientific influence which he experienced. Yet he is far from understanding and taking up into himself the ])ody of thought of the Democritan system. He selected from the cosmology of Democritus what appoai'cd useful for his shallow psciido-enlighteument, and he left untouclied wliat was really [)liil()sophi(,ally significant. The identification of his physical and metaphysical tlieorv with that of Democritus lias undoubtedly done the most to hinder an earlier recognition of the scientific greatness of Democritus.
1873,
I.

74

ff.,

The renewal

of

Atomism by Epicurus
is

is

betrayed

in

the

theory that nothing

and the atoms, and that every event consists merely of the motion of the atoms in empty space. Epicurus refused, however, to acreal except the void
^

Kvpiai So^at, 32

f.;

Diug. Laert., X. 150.

CONTROVERSIES OF THE SCHOOLS

327

cept the fundamental thought of Democritus of the pure

mechanical necessity of
tionless

all

motion.

He

replaced the origi-

nally irregular motion of the atoms in the absolutely direc-

and boundless space, such as Democritus taught, by an originally uniform motion from above downward, which the senses appeared ^ to represent to him as absolutely given. This is the rain of atoms? Since the intermingling of the atoms could not in this way, however, be explained, he asserted that single atoms arbitrarily deviated in a very In consequence, collisslight degree from the direct fall. ions and vortices arose, from which the atom-complexes and finally the worlds came. Thus the cosmic theory of Epicurus again blendd with that of Democritus and servilely followed it from this point on. Yet he depended on the theory of Democritus only in its most general characteristics of anti-teleology and anti-spiritualism. He took pains to explain that it is a matter of indifference how one answers particular scientific questions.^
this gross representation of an absolute fall of the atoms not of Demoeritan origin, but a new theory of Epicurus, can be safel}' accepted after the researches of Brieger and Liepmann so also, Lewes, Hist, of Phi'Ios., I. 101 Guyau, Jlorale cVEpicure, p. 74 Plutarch, Plac, I. 3, 26 {Dax., 285) Cicero, De fin., I. 6, 17 ff. De fato, 20, 46 ff. When Lucretius (IL 225 ff.) made a polemic against the view that earlier was held as Demoeritan, which alleged that the collision of the atoms could be explained by the quicker fall of the heavier ones, he had in mind supposahly the hypothesis of other Epicureans. These latter wished to proceed as determinists guided by the fundamental principle of the master, and this seems to have been at one time the inclination in the school. It is not, indeed, impossible that E[)icurus in part used also this more mechanical method of explanation side by side with the acceptance of inis
;
; ; ; ;

That

finitesimal (eXa^to-Toi/) declinations.

(Cicero.

De

fata, 10, 22.)

Arbitrary self-deviation from the perpendicular fall a theor}' with which Epicurus destroyed entirely the theory of Democ*

Diog. Laert., X. 60.

^
ff.

Lucre.,

De

rer. mil., II. 222.

Diog. Laert., X. 87

328
ritiis

niST(^l{Y

OF ANCIKNT

rilllJ SOl'IIY

is only the solution of a self-created diniciilty. That Kpicmiis prepared for himself this iliHiciilty is to be explained The from his anxious adherence to the truth of the senses. way in which he ex|)lained it was suited to his ethical conception He made of the metaphysical indepi'iidence of the individual. the deviation of the atoms from the perpendicular fall analogous He showed himself to be in to the voluntary activity of man. both cases the opponent of Democritus' leading idea of the

dftapixii'i].

(Cicero,

De fata,

10, 23.)

This anti-teleological conception, which Lucretius especially developed in details, and extended in an Empedoclean fashion to the apparently teleological organic forms, seemed to the Epicureans to be absolute deliverance from superstition. They spoke as little of natural religio.n as of positive religion. On the otlier hand, Epicurus developed a Democritan thought in order to imagine blissful gods in the intermundia, the empty space These gods, undisturbed as between the numberless worlds. they are in these worlds, appear in the eternal enjoyment of their self-satisfying peace as a glorified actualization of the ideal of the Wise Man who does not reach a state of perfection on
earth.

gross

sensualistic

cpistemology was

joined
soul,

to

the

materialistic metaphysics of Epicurus.

The

whose
Sense,
is

materiality and mortality he especially emphasized, receives

all

the content of

its

ideas from sense perception.

(^ivapyeta')
(7rpoX7;i/ret9)

therefore, with its immediate evidence

the
arise

only criterion of truth.

If

concepts

through the aggregation of similar perceptions, and

of these

if

out
are

upon

reflection concerning the causes of

phenom-

ena, opinions {S^at) and accepted views

( yTroXT/A/ret? )

developed, the only criterion of their truth

is

in their re-

peated confirmation by perception.

it, the Canonic, is limSee Th. Tohte, Epikur's Kriterien der Wdhrheit (Clausthal, 1874). He purposely avoided the theories of concepts and syllogisms. In his school Philodemus accomplished something in the scientific construction of the hvpothesis and the inductive method see Fr. Bahnsch, J)es E/)ii^iireer.'^ Phil. .SV7/ /'//?, Trcpi o-rjixeifDi' kiu iry/xiLoxreon', Lj'ck, 1879) R. I'hilippson, De pltil. libro, Trepl arjjxduiv KuX CTT^/i-ciwo-cwv et Epi'

The Logic of

I^picurus, or, as he called

definitions.

ited to such

meagre

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

329

cureorum doctrina lorjica (Berlin, 1881); P. Natorp, Forsc7vmgP7i, 209 ff. In the interest of this metiiodology ^^hich aimed at a theor}' of enii)irieal knowledge, tiie later Epicureans merged But in contrast to the outwith the younger Skeptics ( 48). spoken positivism of the latter, the Epicureans held to the conviction that scientific concepts were formed to give us on the one side the probal)ilities of the imperceptible causes of phenomena (a8qXov), and on the other the expectations about the future (irpoo-fieyov) through the comparison of facts.

2.

Skepticis:m

and Syncretism.

concerning philosophical truth which waged between the four great schools, not only in Athens, but also in other intellectual centres, especially in Alexandria and Rome, necessarily presented to unprejudiced minds

The

strife

fiercely

the skeptical question about the possibility and limits of

human knowledge.
even
if

This would certainly have happened,

the question

development of
It
is

had not already come up in the earlier Greek philosophy, and if it had not reof the Sophists.

mained a current opinion since the time

perfectly comprehensible that

the skeptical

way

of

thinking

should

be consolidated

during

these

school-

controversies, and in contrast w^ith

them should become more and more systematic. At the same time, however, skepticism succumbed to the universal spirit of tlie time, when it was brought into most intimate relations with the question of the wise way of living.
K. F.
Stcudlin, Geschichte, u. Geist des Skepticisvius (Leipzig,
;

N. Maccoli, The Greek Skeptics from Pyrrho to Sextus (London and Cambridge, 1869); V. Brochard, Les sceptiqaes
1794-95)
Grecs (Paris, 1887).

system and ethics of Skepticism was Pyrrho of Elis, whose working years were contemporaneous with the origin of the Stoic and Epicurean
48.
first to

The

perfect

tlie

schools.

He seems

to

to personal instruction, while the literary

have confined himself essentially champion of his

030
(houlit

IITSTC^UY

OK ANCIENT

]'IirL()S(^riIY

have hocu his pupil, Timon of Phlius. The doctrine of skepticism was of such a nature that no school could form arotuid it, and so it vanished with the next generation from the iicld of literature.

socms

to

Cli.
II.

Waddington,

P>/rrIion et Ic Piirrhonisme (Paris, 1877)

Ilirzcl, i'litersucliuiKjen

zn Cicero's 2)hi los. jSchn'fteii, III.

it

P. Natorp, Forschungen, 127 '. Concerning Pvrrho's life little is known. He lived from 3G5 to 275 approximately. That he was acquainted in his home wilh the Klean- Eretrian school, the Megarian Sophism ( 28), is probable. It is vcr}' doubtful whether or not this happened through the medium of Bryso, said to be the son of Stilpo. safer datum is that he joined the Alexandrian campaign with He later lived and taught at his the Democritan, Anaxarchus. home. No writings of his are known. When one speaks of the school of Skeptics, it lies in the nature of the case that one does not mean an organized society for Although moreover the scientilic work, like the four others. Greek historians here also speak of diadochi, yet for this as for later time it must be remembered that only the most distinguished representatives of the skeptical manner of thought Among these Tinion is of the first rank, (ywy?;) are meant. while the other names in the time succeeding Pyrrho (Zeller, Timon lived between 320 IV^. 483) are of no importance. and 230 in Athens in his last years, and from his rich literarj' activity are preserved particularh' fragments of his crt'AAoi, in which he derides the philosophers. See C. Waclismuth, De Tinione PhUasio ceterisque sillogrciphis Grcecis with the fragments (Leipzig, 1859).

The direct derivation of Pyrrhonism from Sophistry shows itself partly in its reliance on Protagorean relativism, and partly in its reproduction of the Skeptical arguments found in the Cynic and Megarian teaching. As regards the relativity of all perceptions and opinions, Pyrrho asserted that if sense and reason were deceptive singly, no truth could be expected from the two in combination.
Perception does not give us things as they are, but as they appear in accidental relations. All opinions, not
excepting the ethical, are conventional
(fciyLtw),

and not

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

of

331

any assertion can be Of contradictory propositions one is not more valid (ou /taWoi/) than the other. We should on this account express nothing, but should
natural
necessity.

Thei'efore

maintained against the

oi)posite.

withhold (iirexecv) our judgment.

that abstains from judgment

Since

we know nothing

of

things, things are also indifferent {dSuicf)opa) to us.

is

He

secure against a disturbed

condition

of

mind
of
it

moral worth

from mistaken views. The the abstinence of judgment (eTroxv) consists

resulting

in the fact that

alone can produce equanimity {aTapa^ia),

which

is

likewise the moral ideal of the Skeptics.

drapa^ta by Epicurus and Pyrrho, aca most distinct disinclination to science, coincides with the idea of a common source of the two theories in the

The equal emphasis on

b}'

companied

Aounger Democritans, Anaxarchiis and Nausiphanes. But nothing is certain about it. That tlie Deraoeritan view of the world rather than that of the teleological systems would necessarilv further an ethical quietism, is plain. But the hedonistic tendency and the one-sided emphasis of the Protagorean relativism which was subordinated in Democritus may be characterized as a falling away from Democritus and a relapse into Sophism. Even if the so-called ten tropes in which later Skepticism formulated its relativity of perception, should not be stated in this form in Pyrrho, nevertheless the Protagorean principle involved is current througliout his teaching. That he took pains to bring Skepticism into some sort of a system is to be seen from the division which Tiraon made, to wit, that there is a distinction between the constitution of things, our right relation to them, and the profit that we have to expect from them. That the last

the proper goal of the entire teaching is self-evident. Tlie arapafta is the happiness of the skeptic. The l-n-oxrj not only in the theoretical, but also in the practical sense is meant as the abstaining from judgment in general, also from judgment of worth, and therefore from desire and feeling. It reminds us of the Stoic
is

In either case the and a denial of life. The Itto-xj] (called also aKaraXrjipLo) was regarded as the central and characteristic concept of the system. Its adherents were designated on that account c4>e.KTLK0L. In this Skeptical theory it is of importance to note that the
ideal of the

apathy which was also a restraint of assent.

Wise Man

is

equally foreign to

life,

XV2
will
is

HISTOKY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

cmphftsized as a inonient in jiulgiin'iit. Tlic doiiial of tlie (scc p. 'MS) is possiltlo only hecausc allliination or (lonial. as woll in llieoivtic ind^mcnt oven as in tlir appiox :il or tiisapproval of natural fooling and inipidso, is an aot of will, and This is a tlioorv common to Skeptics and tliorofore e</>' //AtV. Stoics. It is uncertain how far the former philosophers are
<TiyKaT(if)ai<;

dopoiiilont on the latter.

Skei)ticisin took a scientific

and
it

])ractically

mofe

avail-

able form at

the time

when

temporarily succeeded to

an ascendency over one of the great schools.

Arcesilaus,

Through

and died 241, it was introduced into the Platonic society, and maintained itself there for perhaps a century and a half, a period which is customarily called that of the Middle Academy. The most significant re])resentative of the school at that time was Carneades of Cyrcne, who died 129 b. c. after a long
as leader
leadership.

who followed Crates

distinctly appear.

Academy only these two personalities Neither seems to have left anything in writing. Tiie theory of Arcesilaus was written down by his pupil anil successor, Lacydos. Clitomachus, who died about 110, stood in the same relation to Carneades. We know about these two only indirecth-, especially through Cicero, Sextus P^mpiricus, and Diogenes. Arcesilaus (written also Arcesilas), born about 315 in Pitane in ^Eolia, had listened to Theophrastus and the Academicians. He also came under the influence of the ^legarians, and probably of Pyrrho. He was notable, moreover, as a keen and witty orator. See A. Goffers, De Arcesila (Gttingen, 1841) ibi<L, De Arcenike successor ibui^ (Gttingen, 1845). In scientific significance and authority, Carneades towers above him, Carneades, the great opponent of the Stoics, whose writings he had carefully studied, and in his brilliant lectures refuted. He appeared in Rome in the year 155 with the embassy of philosophers, and gave there a deeply impressive example of the /// vtrdiuqne jxirtem (Usputare in his two discourses for and against justice. Compare Roulez, De Carneade (Ghent, 1824). For the names of the above, see Zeller, IV^ 498, 523 ff.
the entire Middle
;

From

The Academy Skeptics seem

to

tive part of Pyrrho's theory their

have made the negaown, and in the main

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

in

333
its

unchanged form.
arguments

In using this negative doctrine in

the

essentials in their polemic against the Stoics, they directed

their

chiefly against

theory

of

crite-

Carneades took the lead with his destructive dialectic by showing how little the
rion of truth.
this respect

In

subjective

moment

of

assent

(cri^7/caTa6^eo-i?)
l)y

is

safe

determiner of truth or falseness, and

investigating thor-

oughly the numerous

KaraX-qTTTLKrj

difficulties

of

the

theory

of

the

^ai'raala (ideas carrying conviction).

But

he also directed his attack against the guaranty of the

truth in logical reasoning.

He showed how
the
validity
of

every proof
premises,

demands a new proof

which leads
to

for

its

an

infinite regress, since there is

no imme-

diate certainty.
It is astouishing how little these Platonists seem to have cared for the rationahsm of their original school. The}" did not lead their rationalism into the field against the Stoic sensualism nay, they even sacrificed it. for their radical Skepticism Thev did not seem exholds rational knowledge impossible. pressh- to confute rationalism, but the}- silentlv neglected it as passe. When it is said of Arcesilans (Sextus Empiricus, PyrrJi. Hyp., I. 234 f) that he used skepticism simply on the one side as a polemic, and on the other as mental gymnastics, but within the innermost circle of the school he held fast to Platonism, the statement is so far true that the Academy took the skeptical arguments only as welcome instruments against the continuously pressing competition of tlie Stoa. But in doing so, nevertheless, the Academy became estranged from its own positive teaching. It is not impossible, but perfectlv probable, that even if the above were a fact in regard to the leaders of the school, in the scliool itself the Platonic tradition was kei)t alive as before. The strength of the polemic interest among the leaders is shown in Carneades, who raised with these formal objections many practical ones against the Stoics. He combated particularly, and occasionally with great acumen, tlieir theology, teleology, determinism, and theory of natural right.

In the Middle

Academy the

eiroxn (see p. 331)

is

the result-

ant of these views.

Meanwhile Carneades and Arcesilaus

S.'U

IIISTOKV OF AXCIKNl"

rilll, )S()1'I1

saw that the iirox^] was impossible in practice. In order to act, man must consent to certain ideas, and if he renounces truth, he must be satisfied with probability {evXoyov, dXrjde^
<f>aii'6/xei'oi')-

Neither ethical ])rinciples nor the knowledge

of single relatious will bring undoultcd certainty, but the

will is moved by indistinct and not fully evident ideas. Therefore everything depends on judging correctly the

degree of probability of different ideas.

There arc many

of

such degrees, three in particular.

probability
is

The lowest degree

is

present in an idea that

;

plausible in itself

alone {iridavi]^

the higher in such an idea as without con-

tradictions can be

joined to the whole body of ideas to

;

a-TTepiaTraaro^;') the highest present in every individual of such a body of ideas when all the parts have been tested as to their mutual congruit

which
is

belongs (irtOavy] koI

ence

{iridavrj

koI o.TTeplaTTaaro'i koI TrepKoBevfievrj).

to this practical prob-

The content which Carncades gave

ability
is

thoroughly consistent with the doctrine of goods in the Older Academy. The entire system therefore is an

attempt to destroy dogmatism through skepticism and to found a system of morals for the Academy.
This fact, which indeed accorded with the s|>irit of the time, is that the theory of probability of the Middle emphasized Academy originated from an ethical, and not from a logical inIt was applied only to ethical questions. This does not, terest. however, prevent our recognizing that Carneades, to wliora we particularly owe the development of this theory, proceeded in his work in great part upon the basis of the Aristotelian topics, and always with great acuteness. The chief source is Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math., VII. 166 flf.
to be
:

in

Later Skepticism disassociated itself from the Academy, which dogmatic eclectic tendencies became ascendant,
csi)ecially in the circles of the

and was propagated

cal empiricists.

medi-

The representatives

of this theory

were

-/Enesidemus, Agrippa, and Sextus Empiricus.

Concerning the careers of these men there

is little

information.

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

335

See P. L. Haas, De philosophonrni sceptlcoritm successionibus (Wrzbiirg, 1875) and E. Pappenheira, Archiv f. Gesch. d. Phil., I. 37 ff., who puts the locality of the later Skepticism in a city of the East, unknown to us." ^Enesidemus of Cnossus taught in Alexandria, and wrote Iluppwi/etot Aoyoi, which he dedicated to the Academician L. Tubero, of which Photius prepared au abridgment still extant. If this Tubero was the friend of Cicero, one must put the activit}' of -^Enesidemus at the latest in the middle of the first century, or a little earlier. This is, however, not fully certain. Zeller places him at the beginning The calculations according of our era, and MacoU at 130 a. d. to the Diadochi are doubtful on account of the uncertaintj' of See E. Saisset, Le scepthe duration of the school of Skeptics. ticisme: Enesideme, Pascal, Kant (Paris, 1867) P. Natorp, Forschungen, 63 ff., 256 ff. We know about Agrippa onl}- by the mention of his theory of The names only of many of the other Skeptics the five tropes. are preserved (Zeller, V^. 2 ff.). Neither the native place nor residence of Sextus Empiricus (200 A. D.) is known. His writings, on the other hand, form the most complete body of skeptical theories. The HvppMveiot vrroTUTTwo-eis in three books are preserved, and also two other works, which are usuallv grouped under the title of Adversus mathematicos. Of these works, one (Books 1-6) treats of the science of general culture, of grammar, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronom}-, and music; the other (Books 7-11) criticises the logical, physical, and ethical theories of philosophers from a skeptical point of view. See E. Pappenheim, De Se.vt. Emp. Ubrorum numero et ordine (Berlin, 1874) ibid., Lebensverhltnisse des Sext. Enip. (Berlin, 1875). The same author has also translated and annotated the sketches of Pyrrho (Leipzig, 1877); S. Haas, Leben des Se.vt. Emp. (Burghausen, 1883) ibid., Ueber die Schrien des Se.vt. Emp. (Freising, 1883).
;

''

This later Skepticism moved exactly on the general lines and it sought in vain to disown dependence upon the Middle Academy. It particularized the Protagof the older,

orean objections to knowledge based on sensation, and, indeed, as appears first in Jj]nesidemus, there were considered
ten so-called rpoTrot.

These are badly arranged, but have

for their purpose partly the discussion of the relativity of

the perceiving subject, partly that of the perceived object,

and partly that

of the relationship

between the two.

The

oo6
five

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT IMIILOSOIMI

tropes presented bv Agripjja are of more importance.
the theory
Ti
Ti)<;
ol"

To
(iTTo

the rehitivity of perceptions

(^6

a-rro

too

TTpO'i

TpTT?),

and

to

the contiict

among

opinions (6

8ia(f)Cina<;),

Carneades, that proof demands

friiu tiie

he added the thought develoj)ed by eitlier an endless regress

premises (6 ei? ireipov iKdWcov), or presupfjoses unallowed and unproved ])rcmises (6 virodervKO^). He finally added that scientific method supports its proof upon

assumptions which themselves could only be verified by

the thing to be proved.

These opinions

of

Agrippa led his

followers to the reduction of the skeptical theory to two

tropes.

Knowledge would be possible cither through immediate or mediate certainty tlie former is not possible, because the relativity of all representations fails of a cri;

terion,
its

and the second would be possible only

first.^

if

it

found

])remises in the

There is the mooted question whether among all the Skeptics iEnesidemus actually, as Sextus also seems to report, found in the general Sophistic theory of the la-oa-Beveia tC>v \6yw, that is, that tlie aflirniation and negation of every proposition can he
defended, a bridge to the reproduction of the nictaopinion of the reality of opposites. This would connect it with the Ileracleitan thought, and Zeller seems to be decided {V^. 34 ff.) that the ancient reporters have iiiade a mistake. See E. Pa[)penheiin, Di-r aiKjehUdie HfrakUtismHs des yEnesidemus (BlmUu, ISSj. The new tropes, which Agrippa introduced in a clever way, are arrayed especially against the Aristotelian theory of tlie a/xco-a, that is, of immediate certainty, and are closely allied to that doultt, which in modern times has been made by Mill against the syllogism. The ditticulty is that the particular judgment, which is supposed to be based on the syllogism, is itself necessary for a basis of the general premise. (See Sext. J2mp., Pyrrh. hyp., II. 194 ff. J. S. Mill, Lotjk, II. 3, 2 Chr. Sigwart, Lufjik, I. .'), 3. Connected with the opinions of the emijirical schools of phj-sicians, who in denying all causal theories limited themselves entirel}' to medical observations (Vjypv/irt?), there is the more
cquall\- well
pliytiical
; ;

Sext. Eiiip., Pyrrh. hyp.,

I.

178.

'

HELLENIC-ROMAN PHILOSOPHY

337

devefoped treatment, which the Skeptics since ^nesidemus bestowed upon the concept of causahty, in discovering man}' Relativit}', the time dialectical and metaphysical difficulties. relation between cause and effect, the plurality of causes for ever}- event, the inadequacy of hypotheses which themselves

demand

causal explanation,

etc.,

are

among

these difficulties.

See C. Hartenstein,

Ueher die Lehren der antiken Skepsis {Zeitschrift f. Philos. u. ijhilos. Kritik, 1888, vol. 93).
49.

The four great schools

the Academy, Lyceum, Stoa, and by side in Athens made violent, nay, passionate war upon each the Gardens other in the third and second centuries. Long afterward the
side

of philosophy

which existed

opposition was so outspoken that after the time of Marcus Aurelius special chairs in the " university " of Athens

were endowed by the government for them. Through this mutual contact the different theories were so far reconciled that in the first century before Christ the tendency appeared in these schools to emphasize less their disagreements, to render prominent their points of unity, and to unite them upon that common ground which exists in the most highly generalized ethics. The tendency appeared all in the Epicurean school, for that school was least of
relatively stationary.

The Stoa was the

ture, to incline to

first, in

conformity to
adopted into

its

original natlie

such syncretic views.

it

After
its

time of

Panaetius and Posidonius,

teaching
it

many
its

Platonic and Aristotelian doctrines, wliile

ethical rigorism,

tempered

and enriched

its scientific interests.

The
lesa

teleological principle proved a

most

efficient

cement, and

on

this

account Epicureanism remained to a greater or

far

degree excluded from this syncretic process.

How

on

tlie

other hand the advances on the part

of the Aristotelian school could be

the pseudo-Aristotelian w^riting

*

irepl koctixov^

under the circumstances, shows. This

ff,

Published in the works of Aristotle, p. 391

22

338

IIISTOUY OF ANXIKNT I'lIILOSOPIIY

at

was written probably by a Peripatetic, and snpposably

the beiinning of this era.
It

contained the interesting at-

tempt at uniting Aristotelian theism and Stoic pantheism in a way that recoirni/ed the transcendence of the divine spirit, and derived the telcologically arranged world from
its

omnipresent creative power.

It is to

be noticed that

this

view gave to power a value independent of the divine

spirit.

Compare the literature in Zoller, IV^. 631, 3, as well as the cxposiiion following it sec also the same in SitzinK/s-Berichte Zeller regards as a of the Berlin ^Ikadcmie, 1885, j). 391) tf. mean between the reripatetic and Platonic ethics (IV^. 047 f.)the psendo-Aristotelian treatise Trept perwi' cat KaKiHn'. To the iliscrimination between the transcendent essence and the immanent power of God, there is appended, in the writing irepl Tliis is conKoo-fxov, a conception related to the Stoic theolog}'. cerneil witii the degrees of divine })Ower in which the jK'ripatetic teaching of Trrci/xa forms the natural and philosophical link.
;

The union

of the teleological
first

systems that existed

in later

times seems to have been

announced
lie

in the in

In that school Philo of Larissa (87 from Skepticism to dogmatism when

ail

B. c'

Academy. Rome) went

asserted that in

the polemic expressions

its

of

the school teleology had

always remained

esoteric teaching.

But

his representa-

tion of this teleology resembled genuine Platonism only in

very slight degree.

of Ascalon, to

His more distinguished pupil, Antiochus

Cicero was auditor in Athens in the
c, championed the opinion that Plato-

whom
b.

winter of 79-78

nism and Aristotelianism were only different aspects of the same thing, and that this thing also definitely reappears with some terminological changes in Stoicism.
J. Grvsar, Die Akademiker Philon und Antiochus (Cologne, C. F. Hermann, De Phllone Lar Issceo (Gtngan, 1851, 1849) C. Chappe, De Aidiochi AM-.idoniUje vita et dodrina (Paris, 55) R. Iloyer, De Aidiocho Awiihniitd (Bonn, 18S3). 1854) The Platonism of this third, or of the fourth and fifth Academies, is only to l)e found in its ethical t.'achiiiy^. lOven Antiochus himself set aside the theory of Ideas, althougli he was
; ;

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

339

energetic than I'hilo during the breach with the Metaphysics and pliysics both remained Skeptics of the school. in the background for tliese two men, and both epistemology and ethics were quite as Stoic as Platonic. The Alexandrians, Eudorus, Arius Didymus, and Potamo, are said to be continuers of the movement of Antiochus.

much more

naturally gave to

In their adoption of the Greek philosophy the Romans When, after it a thoroughly eclectic form.
first

conquering their
of

aversion, they went into the school

Greek science,

tiiey

went

to

it

in their peculiarly prac-

tical

way with the need

for ethical orientation,

and for that

general culture in ethics such as a statesman might ask.

Undisturbed by the technicalities and hair-splittings of the " controversies of the schools," they selected in the different systems what was suited to their needs.
pleted this choice

from the point

of

They comview that the truth

must be found
nating
all

in

a practically useful conviction illumi-

with

its

natural evidence.

The probabilism

of the Middle

Academy and

the Stoic teaching of consen-

sus gentium, however, for

point of view, which

may

the most part furnished the be called of the " healthy human

understanding."
It

was

Cicero's merit to have given his

tasteful presentation of

tation of the term.

countrymen a Greek philosophy in the above accepHis friend Varro and the School of the
be mentioned with him.
Cicero,

Sextians, which flourished for a brief period at the begin-

ning of this

era,

may

who
had
it

was without independent philosophical

significance,

great success in naturalizing the philosophical content of

fruitful

Greek thought in Latin literature, and in thus making even beyond Roman civilization.
;

E. Zeller, Ueher die Religion und Philosophie hei den Hrnern (Virch. Iloltz. Vortr., Berlin, 1866) Durand de Laur, Le mouve' ment de la pensee i>hilosaphiqne depais Ciceron jusqu' Tacite (Paris, 1874). The fear which the stricter Romanis entertained that the new learning would undermine the traditional morals of society led

340

IIISTOIJY

OF ANCIENT PIIILOSOPHY

to a (locrpc of the Senate in phers and rhetoricians from

KU

b. c.

Kome.

which banished philosoRut in the middle of this

century the How of Cireek philosophy into Roman intellectual At lirst the philolife begun and went on uninterruptedly. sophic message came through the Greek teachers in Rome, then througli the custom among the younger Romans of perin fecting their education in the centres of (ireek science, Athens, Rhodes, and Alexandria and, doubtless, not the least of these inliuences was tlie embassy of Athenian philosophers, Carneades, Critolaus, and Diogenes (lG-l u. c). M. Tullius Cicero (1 06-43) had listened to Greek philosophers of all the schools in Athens and Rhodes, and he had read much, so that in his latter years, when he made Greek philosophy speak the Roman tongue {nJmi.sch reden)^ a rich Out of this, without much material stood at his command. scientific discrimination, but with tact for what was suitable for Rome, he brought his books together fairly quickly. Those preserved are: Academica (partly;. De Jinibus bonorum et malonim, Disputationes Txsadancp, De officiis, Paradoxa, De amicitin, De senectute, De natura deorum, De fata (imperfect), De dirinalione^ De republica (partly). Only fragments of Cicero made no Hortens'ius^ Consolatio, De legibus remain. secret that he was essentially setting forth the Greek originals, and in many cases we can determine liis sources. From the rich literature (see Ueberweg-Heinze, V. 283 f.) we may menDie theologischen tion A. B. Krische, ForscJuoige/t, Vol. I. Lehren der griechischen Denker, eine Prfung der Darstellung Cicero's (G(')ttingen, 1840) J. F. Ilerbart, Ueber die Philosophie des Cicero (1811, Complete AYorks, XII. 167 flf.) R. Kimer, M. T. Cicero in philoso/Jiiam ejusrpte partes merita (Hamburg, I82) C. F. Ilermaini, De interpretatione TimcBi diologi a Ciceronis relicta (Gttingen, 1842) J. Klein, De Th. Schiebe, De fontibns Topicorum Ciceronis (Bonn, 1844) fontibus librorum Ciceronis qtd stint de divimdione (Jena, 1875) K. Hartfelder, Die Quellen von Cicero's De divinatione (Freiburg i. B., 1878) especially R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cicero's phihs. Schriften (3 vols., Leipzig, 1877-83). In his epistemology Cicero adhered to the Middle Academy's teaching as the most moderate, elegant, and important method of plii!os()phizing. Metapliysically he was a Skeptic, and was

indifferent in the main to physical prol)Iems. I'robabflity however did not .satisfy him as an ethical criterion, but he appealed to the Stoic cofiseitsus gentium both in ethics and in the allied topics of natural religion, that is, as to immortalit}-, the existXcvertheless he conceived the ence of God, and providence.

SKEPTICISM AND SYXCKETISM

341

Kotval ei'voiai not in the sense of the Stoic TrpoAryi/^et? (see p. .318), but rather as innate and natural, and therefore immediately certain convictions and his strength rests in a nol)le representa;

tion of these.

made such
him

Likewise his friend, the learned M. Terentius Varro (116-27), a profound study of Greek philosophy as to enable
to distinguish

two hundred and eighty-eight Greek sects. the suitable synthesis of these in the eclecticism of Antiochus of Ascalon, to which he, in the spirit of Panaetius, added somewhat more Stoicism. He took in i)articnlar from Panietius the distinction between a philosopliical, a poetical, and a popular religion. His fragments offer much yet for the See E. Norden, Beitrge, history of Hellenistic philosophy.

He found

p.

428

f.

to Stoicism stand the Sextians, ^vhose first member, Quintus Sextus, lived as early as in the Augustinian age. His son, who bore his name, and Sotion of Alexandria followed him. The latter was a revered teacher of Seneca and of several The school soon became extinct, others (Zeller, IVl 676 f.).

Yet nearer

as it appears, it rested on the personal impression vSome the dignified moral instruction of the Sextians. of their Sentences are still in a S3'rian version (Gildemeister, Bonn, 1873). The Stoic morals form the essential content of these Sentences, interspersed, nevertheless, with old Pythagorean precepts, supposedly through the influence of Sotion. The Eclectic popular philosophy, not as a school, but as the conviction of cultured men, was propagated throughout antiquity nearly in the manner that Cicero had presented it. Its most remarkable later literary representative of this is the well-known physician Claudius Galenus (died about 200). He has immortalized his name in the history of formal logic, through the unfortunate discovery of the fourth figure of the syllogism, named after him. See K. Sprengel, Beitrge zur

because,

made by

Ch. Daremberg, Essai sur Geschichte der Medicin, I. 117 ff. Galien considers comme philosophe (Paris and Leipzig, 1848) a series of discussions by E. Chauvet (Caen and Paris, 1860Ueberweg, Logik, 103. 82)
;

50. It
its

was a

result of the Sophistic

all

Enlightenment and
footing in

destruction of

belief in the supernatural that Plafirst find fast

tonic immaterialism could not at

the circles of Greek and

therefore, all

Roman

civilization

and

that,

the different

schools united in laying

the

whole strength of their convictions

in ethics, while cherish-

;U'J

IIIsn^UY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

tlu'ir

iim-

coUlly

rational

natural

religion.

In

tlic

mean
began

time,
spirit

liowevcr,

among

the

Roman

peoples, the religious

faith.
It

grew

to a

mighty desire for a saving

to

invade philosophy also more and more.

In

The masses

lost the

Hellenic trust in the satisfactoriness of earthly

its

existence.

place there entered that feverish longing

for a higher mysterious satisfaction,

itself in

the groping about after

all cults

which longing showed that were foreign

and

fantastic.

In this way belief in the self-sufficiency of

the "Wise

Man

vanished from philosophy, and yielded to

that expectancy that a higher power would give a bless-

edness and release from the world,

could not guarantee.
world, l)r()kcn as
it

a thing
its

that virtue

When

the consciousness of the old

were, thus rose in

longing for superpost-Aristotelian

natural help, philosophy passed out of the sensualism and

rationalism,

which

had

governed

the

time, into

inmost need philosophy seized then upon that conception of the world which contrasted the sensible and supersensible worlds: viz.,
^fysticism.
its

From

upon Platonism.

The

centre of this

movement was Alexandria, where

in

liveliest intercourse of the

people of the Orient and Occi-

dent the amalgamation of religions was completed on the grandest scale.

Here, at the beginning of our era, two

tendencies in mystic religious Platonism became prominent.

One

of these accorded
life.

the Oriental

ism and the have gone back to the attempt

been fundamental
in the

more with the Greek, the other with They were the so-called neo-PythagoreanJudaic-Alexandrian philosophy. Both seem to
to develop into a scientific

theory, with the help of Platonism, the views which had

Pythagorean mysteries.

1843 ff.); .J. Simon, Ifistoire de Vecole (VAIexandn'e (Paris, K. Matler, Essai sur I'ecole d'Alcxundrif; (Paris, 1840 ff.) E. Vacherot, Histoire critique de Verle d'Alexandrie (Paris, 184G ff.) see W. J. Thiersch, Politik u. Philos. in ihrem Verhltnis
; ;

SKEPTICISM AND SYNXRETISM

343

zur Religion imter Trajan, Hadrian, u. den Antoninen (Marburg, 1853) Th. Ziegler, Ueber die E)itstehung der Alexandrisdien Philos. (PItilologe/iversaninihing, 1882). That the so-called neoPythagoreanism is only a branch of eclectic religious Platonism is obvious from the content of the theory. It has very little to do with the original Pythagorean philosophy ( 24), but the more with the religious spirit of the Pythagorean mysteries. But neo-Pythagoreanism shares (Zeller, V'^ 325 ff.) this with the Jewish sect of Essenes to such a degree that the origin of the Essenes and their new religious conception may be sought in the contact of Judaism with these OrphicPythagorean m^'steries. The practical consequence of this contact was in Palestine the origination of the Essenes the theoretic consequence was in Alexandria the philosophy of
; ;

PhUo.

The Pythagorean band, which

century
but, as
b. c. lost

in the course of the fourth

its

character as a school of philosophy,

its

we may suppose, had always retained

century
b. c.

character

as one of the Mysteries and as an asceticism, reappeared in the

first
it

with philosophic teachings.

were,

must be

said, essentially of a religious cast,

These and

were developed during the next two centuries in a very

large literature, which the band foisted almost altogether

upon Pythagoras or other older Pythagoreans,

Archytas.

especially
this

Among

the personalities

who represented

direction of thought, and were therefore

called neo-Py-

thagoreans, were P. Nigidius Figulus, a friend of Cicero,

Sotion, a friend of the Sextians ( 49),

and particularly
in

Apollonius of Tyana, Moderatus of Gades, and,

times,

later

Nicomachus

of

Gerasa and Xumenius of Apamea.

See M. Hertz, De Xigidii Figuli studiis atque operibus CBerVm, also dissertations by Breysig (Berlin, 1854) and Klein (Bonn, 1861). Apollonius was the ideal of neo-Pythagorean wisdom to himself and to others, and he appeared with great eclat at the time of Nero as the founder of a religion. His life is oddly embellished by Philostratus (220) (published b}' Westermann, Paris, 1848, and Kayser, Leipzig, 1870-71). .Se6 Chr. Baur. A2)olloaius
1845)
;

von Tyana und Christina (in three Ueberweg-Heinze, 1". 300 f.

editions, Leipzig,

1876)

34-4

IIISTOKY OF ANCIEN'l nilLOSOlMl

Numeuiiis, who livi'd in tho second luilf of llic socond ccnwas alivady untlor I'liilo's inlhieneo, tuul prol)tit)ly also uudor that of the Clnostics. Tho ilortfine of tlie three gods is characteristic of liiin (1) the supreme and supersensible; (2) the demiurge giving form to material things; (3) the universe thus formell. (See F. Thedinga, Jh' Nnmenii jMlofi. plat.^ We possess only the arithmetical and musical lionn, 1.S7.J.) works of his younger contemporary Nieomachus. For the spurious literature essentially accounted for by a need of authority for the school, see in Fr. Beckmann, De Futhaqoreorrim reliquiis (Berlin, l-S-l-i); Zeller, \\ 100 IT.
tiirVi
:

Neo-Pythagoreanism joined monotheism to its fantastic cult of gods and demons in entirely the same way in wliich we meet this in the old Pythagoreans, in Plato, and in a But neo-Pythagoreansystematic way among the Stoics. ism transformed its monotheism with the help of the Platonic-Aristotelian teaching into a reverence for

God

as a

pure
fice

spirit,

which man has

to serve not by outwai'd sacri-

and act but in sjjirit, with silent prayer, with virtue and wisdom. A{)ollonius travelled about the ancient world as the proclaimer of this j)ure knowledge of God and this higher worship. Pythagoras and he were Honored as the The sciperfect men in whom God had revealed himself.
entific signilicance of the school,

however, consisted in the

fact that

it

united with this cult a philosophical point of

finds, indeed, this point of view^ in all its essen-

view.

One

tials in Plato, Aristotle,

and in part

in the Stoa

yet

it is

distinguished from the other, one-sided moralizing impulse

of the time by its lively theoretic interests, which, although

dependent and unproductive, extended to logical and physical questions as well.

sharp dualism of spirit and matter

is

the fundamental
is

postulate in this theory in the sense that the former

the

good, pure princi{)le in

principle.

life,

and the
is

latter the bad,

unholy
in

Although God
as

here likewise

pictured
the

Stoical

fashion

the

irvevfia

immanent

in

whole

world, nevertheless he must, on the other hand, be free

SKEPTICIS.M

AND SYNCRETISM

345

all contact with matter wliicli might pollute him. Consequently he cannot directly act upon matter, but the demiurge for this purpose is introduced as a mediator between God and matter (Tim^us). The Ideas according

from

which God perfects the world passed for the neo-Pvthao-oreans only as archetypes in the divine spirit. They became, in a similarly fantastic way, partly identified with the Pythagorean numbers, partly set in some secret relationship, as they had begun to be regarded by Plato and his
to

immediate pupils. At the same time they are the forms of matter in the Aristotelian sense. In the graded interval between God and matter, the daemons and stellar gods find place above men.

The anthropological dualism

of the

neo-Pythagoreans

is

consistent with their metaphysical dualism.

free itself again through purification

The

spirit is

punished by being confined in a corporeal prison, and can

mortification of the flesh,

and expiation, through and through godly life. The Plais

tonic theory of the three parts of the soul

blended with

the Aristotelian teaching of the

vov<i

(Timaeus), and imreligious

mortality

is

represented in the (partially conscious) mythical

form
is

of transmigration.

The moral and

problem

how to lem man

suppress the senses.

is

In the solution of this prob-

revelation,

helped by mediating djemons and by divine which speaks in holy men like Pythagoras and

Apollonius.

Pythagoras is said to have revealed such doctruie to his band and to have veiled it iu his theory of numbers, Plato to have borrowed it from him. The later neo-Pythagoreans. particularly Nunienius,^-referred the revelation still further back to Moses. Tiiis is due to Philo's influence. The authoritative importance which the fundamental opposition of good and bad has for the neo-Pythagorean idea of the world makes this philosophy appear an offshoot of the Okl Academy. Its histurical transition is through eclectic PlatonisTn, supposably iu the form that Posidonius connected it iu
Stoicism.

See R. Ileinze, Xenocrates^ p. 156.

;M(.

iiistohv ov ancient riiiLosornv

noo-rvlliagori'iinisin

Tlio divorgonce of
iiU'l:i)liy!>it'S

from the Platonic

the Ideas (and iimnhers) of thi-ir ruetaplivsical imlei)eudenee and in making them thonnhts in the divine mind. 'I'his is also the anthorita'ihe far-reacliiiiji siiinifitive coneeption for neo-Philonism. oanoe of tliis cliange consisted in tiie fact tiiat tlie iunnaterial substance was tiioiight as spirit, as conscious Jnnnanence. The begiuuing of this tliouglit is to be found iu the Aristotelian if/0-is rajyo-ctus, its wider preparation in the Stoic doctrine which contrasted the content of the ideas (ju Ackti) as incorporeal This tendency to the objects, all of which are corporeal. reached its perfect development in Philo's concept of the divine personality, Neo-Pythagoreauism was the rst system ivhich expressed the priiicipJe of aiithon'ty in the form of divine revelation, and thus against sensualism and rationalism it initiated the mystic diThe saints of this philosophical rection of ancient thought. religion are divinely favored men, to whom the pure doctrine has iu part been given. Theoretically this new source of knowledge was designated still as vo^s, as the immediate intuition of the intelligible (i'ot/toV). It is to be distinguished from the Sittvota, or the knowledge of the understanding, as also from the 86$a and the aio-iyo-ts. I);emonology was the theoretic basis for the peculiar amalgamation of this monotheism with the Mysteries. It rested upon the need of bridging the chasm between God's transcendence and the world. But it offered the possibility of uniting all the fantastic faiths and cults into one system. The detailed system of divination which the neo-Pythagoreans got from the Stoics was united with this theory.

consistod

ossi-iitially in its sliii)[)iiig

The

peculiar blending of Platonisni and Judaism was

also closely related to the above nco-Pythagoreanisni,

and

was conifiletcd at the beginning of our era Alexandrian religious philosophy. Philo was its leader.

in the so-called

of

Alexandria

A. Gfrrer, Philo und die alex. Theosophie (2 ed., Stuttgart, lH3ij); F. Dhne, Die jdisch.-alex. Religionsphilosophie (Ilalle, l^i.'>4); M, Wolff, Die philonische Pliiloi^ophie (2 ed., (Rothenburg, 18")8).
Pili Ill's

Concerning the Aoyos doctrine, see F. Keferstein, Lehre von dem, (jttlicJien Mitlelircfien (Leipzig, 184G)
; ;

J. Bcher,

Philonische Stinlien (Tiibingen, 184-S) Ferd. t)elauney. Philo d'Alex. (Paris, 18G7) J. Reville, Le logos d'apres

SKEPTICISM AND SYNCRETISM

;

347

Philo (Geneva, 1877) Histories of Judaism by Just, Graetz, and Abr. Geiger; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel; Dorner, Entwickelungs(jesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi n. andere dogmengesch. Werke ; see Ueberweg-Heinze, V. 292 f. Philo (born about 25 b. c. and died 50 a. d.) came from one of the most influential Jewish families in Alexandria. He headed the embassy in 39 and 40 that the Alexandrian Jews His writings, among which there is much sent to Caligula. that is doubtful and spurious, have been published b}' Th. ]Mangey (London, 1742), C. E. Richter (Leipzig, 1838 ff.), and stereotyped by Tauchuitz (Leipzig, 1851 ff.). See Ch. G. L. Grossman, Qua'stiones Philonece (Leipzig, 1829, and other editions) Jac. Bernays, Die vnter Philo's Werken stehende Srhri ber die Eicigheit der Wdt (published by Berlin Academy, 1877) concerning the writing Trepl tov iravTa o-ttuvSolov etvat iXei'Gipov, see K. Ausfeld (Gottingen, 1887) and P. Wendland, Arch. f. Gesch. d. Philos., I. 509 ff. H. v. Arnim, QuellenStudien zu Philo (Berlin, 1889) J. Drummond, Philo Judceus (London, 1888) IM. Freudenthal, Die Erkenntnistheorie Philo's
;
; ; ;

(Berlin, 1891).

As early as the middle of the second century before this era there can be seen influences of Greek philosophy, especially Platonic, Stoic, and Aristotelian theories, at work in the interpretation of the Jewish scriptures (Aristobulus, Aristeas, etc.). All doctrines of any essential importance are iuckided
by
Philo.
Ill

the philosophy of Philo, the theory of the transcen-

dence of God is more distinct than in any other form of Alexandrian thought. God is so far beyond all finiteness
that he can be defined only negatively through the denial
of every empirical quality (aTroto?),

as an absolute Being (to 6V,

according

and wholly abstractly,

to the Platonic
is

principle also to yewiKoyTarov').

This absolute Being

beyond all human ideas of perfectness, even beyond virtue and wisdom. Xevertheless the divine Being is the force that forms the universe by his goodness and rules it with his might.^ Since God cannot enter into direct relations "with impure and evil matter which in contrast to him is passive, potencies (SwdfxeK) go out from him witli which
^

The

references here are similar to those in the writing wtpl Kapov

'34S

IIISTOKV OK ANCIKNT
ilirocts the

I'lllLt )S1'IIV

he fnus and

world.

These (Stoical) potencies

were identified on tlic one hand with the Platonic Ideas, and, on the other, with the angels of the Jewish religion. Their nnitv, however, is the Logos, the second God, the content, on the one hand, of all original Ideas {Xoyo<; ivBiddeTOi;
cro(f)ia),

and, on the other, of the tcleological formative

that reveal God's presence in

forces

{Xyo'i Trpo^opLKo^}

the world.
In

man, as the microcosm, the

so involved by its

spirit (vov<i) in its eternal

heritage stands in contrast to the body of mortality (adp^).

own guilt that it can only get from the universal sinfulness by divine helj). Its problem is- how to become like the pure spirit of God. Its attainment of indiiTerence to all desires, modelled after the Stoic apathy, and its purification which rises al)ove this ethical ideal into knowledge (the Aristotelian dianoetic virtue) are ui)ward steps toward that highest blessedness which is only reached in an ecstatic state of absorptiiju in
It
is

release

the divine Being, with the full surrender of one's individuality.

This su))ra-conscious ecstasy

(e^rcrrao-f?) is

accorded

as a revelation

and

gift of

God

only to the most perfect

men.
Platonic and Stoic thories, and incidentally also the Ariswere mingled in the Philosophy of Philo in the most With an abundant employment of the complicated manner. Stoic method of allegorical myth-interpretation he read these theories into the primitive records of his religion, i. e., into the lie found not only in Moses but in the teaching of Moses. teachings of Greek philosophy that revelation of God to which human knowledge alf)ne can never attain. In these religious revelations Philo distinguished the corporeal and spiritual, .the verbal and conceptual sense, (lod has to reveal himself to sensuous man in a manner that man may comprehend. Therefore it is the task of philosophy (or theolotry) to reinterpret the religious records into a system of conceptual insight. Compare Siegfried, Philo von Alex, als Ausleger des alten Testaments (Jena, 187."j). The later so-called "negative theology," which in Philo retotelian,

PATRISTICS

349

garded God as the absolutely inconceivable and inexpressible, corresponded to the theory of ecstasy in which also the human

was conceived to be lifted out of everything limited and representable, and thereby itself became God {diroOeova-Oai,
spirit
deificatio).

The mediation between the neo-Pythagorean transcendence and the Stoic immanence was in the divine potencies. These on the one side inhere in God as Ideas, and on the other w^ork upon matter as independently active potencies. The Logos has also the same specious double aspect of a divine potency and an independent personality. The need of a unifying mediation between God and the world is consistently conceived in the
conception of the Logos.
Finally, in a similar manner, the Platonists of the first and second centuries of this era, under tlie influence of the neo-Pythagorean teaching, perfected a mysticism which substituted a confident faith in divine revelation for the ethical

Wisdom

of the earlier philosophy.

The exponents

of this

are Plutarch of Chaeronea and Apnleius of Madaura.

See Zeller, 203 ff Ueberweg-Heinze, 303 ff religious eclectic circle belong the writings current
. ;

Y\

To

this

name

of Hermes-Trismegistas. Trismegistus (Leipzig, 1875). Plutarch's philosophical writings (Moralia) form, in the edition of Dlibner (Paris, 1841), volumes II L and IV. See R. Volkmann, Leben, Schriften und Plnlos. des Plutarch's (2 ed., Berlin, 1872) E. Dascaritis, Die Psychologie n. Pdagogik des Plutarch's (Gotha, 1889j C. Giesen, De Plutarcho contra Stoicos disputationibus (^Mnster, 1890) von WillamowitzMllendorf, Zii, Plutarch, Gastmahl der sieben Weisen (in the Hermes, 1890). There belongs in the same connection with the philosophical writings of Apuleius (collected by Hildebrand, Leipzig, 1842) his well-known romance, the Golden Ass, whose sharp satire seems to be based allegorically upon the neoPjthagorean mystic view of the world and life.
; ; ;

under the See R. Pietschmann, Hermes

3.

Patristics.
fii^st

The

religious Platonism of the

centuries of onr era,

in the breadth

and variety

of its assimilations of the

most
the

different religious

convictions,

showed a change

in

350

lIISTOin'

OF ANCIENT rillLOSOIMlY
Science as well as philosophv
feverish
religious
life

philosophical point of view.

was placed
religion.

in

the

service of a

need.

Philosophy was no longer to be an ethical art of

but a

When, on

the other hand, science was beginning

its tri-

weary of the problem, the new religion began umphant march through the ancient world. The (-Tospel originally took no note of science
to be
;

it

was

neither

its

friend nor foe, and

its

attitude to the ancient

It had, nev-

political state

ertheless, to

was like its attitude to science. assume more of a positive relation

its

to both, the

more

it

spread, following

own
:

natural impulse

among
need of
thus

the people on the Mediterranean Sea.

In both cases the

its

course of things was as follows

self-justification,

the Church, in

found

itself in

positive contact with the

world, and assimilated

gradually the

ancient

life

it finally overcame Greek science as well as the Roman an impossible result unless Christianity reacted state,^ in turn and adopted the essentials of antiquity for its own. The philosophical secularizing of the Gospel which went on parallel with the organization and political growth of the church was called Patristics, and extended from the second to the fourth and fifth centuries after Christ.

Patristics in the general history of philosophy is usually separated from the development of ancient thought, and then is afterwards generally treated as the beginning of Christian philosophy. It is not our purjiose to pass judgment upon the propriety and usefulness of the usual arrangement, when we make this sketch deviate from that arraiig'ement, or when we draw the most general outlines of Patristic philosophy. This sketch is made, not only because the Patristic philosophy belongs in its time relations to antiquity," but the principal reason
^

bis

See K. J. Neumann, Der rmische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche auf Diokletian, I. (Leipzig, 1890). 2 These actual relations show themselves so strong that the present
Philosophie

author develops the arrangement introduood hero, in his general Geschiclile <lar
:

and he has found

tlieni
first

by far the best

for the

exposition of scientific development in the

centuries of our era.

PATRISTICS
is

351

that in it is to be seen a final development- of ancient thought corresponding throughout to neo-Platouism. It is obvious that all specific theological moments are left out of account, and the survey is limited strictly within philosophical bounds. There is certainly not much of philosophical originality to be expected Originality can be found to some extent only in this period. among the Gnostics and in Origen. Patristic^ is only a variation and development of Greek thought, and tiien only from a rea point of view in which ardent longligious point of view, ing has given place to the firm conviction of faith. "With the text-books on the history of philosophy we must compare the following histories of the church and of dogmatics, See Harnack, Lehrbuch if we would understand this subject. der Dogmengeschidde, Vol. I. (Freiburg i. B., 1886) Deutiuger, Geist der Christlichen UeberUeferu/ig (Regensburg, 18.30-51); A. Ritschi, Die Entstehung der cdtkatolische Kirche (2 ed., Bonn, 1857) F. Chr. Baur, Das Christentum der ersten drei Joh. Alzog, Grundriss der Jahrhunderte (Tbingen, 1860) Alb. Stckl, Geschichte PcUrologie (3 ed., Freiburg i. B. 1876) der Philosophie der patristischen Zeit (Wrzburg, 1859); Joh. Huber, Die Philosojjhie der Kirchenvter (Munich, 1859) E. Havet, Le christianisme et ses origines (2 vol., Paris, 1871) Fr. Overbeck, XTljer die Anfcbige der patristischen Litte ratur (in

The sources of Patristic literature 1882). are most completely collected by J. P. Migne in his collection Patrologice cursus conqjletus (Paris, since 1860).
Hist. Zeitschrift,
:

The occasion

for Christianity taking

some position toward

Greek science arose partly out

structive.

of its polemically apologetic

interests, partly out of those that

were dogmatic and con-

missionary spirit Christianity stepi)ed out upon a scientifically blase world in which even the less
its

With

educated people had learned

.to

flee

from their

relic-ious

doubt to philosophy, and in which philosophy was trying to vouchsafe to those in religious need a contentment that

had been lost to the world. Christianity entered at tlie same time into the religious controversies where, under these circumstances, the victory would belong to that party which absorbed most completely the culture of antiquity. It therefore fidiowed that the new religion had to defend its faith theoretically against the mockery and contempt of

352

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PIIILOSOPIIY.

it

heathen wisdom, but at the same time

itself as

had

to vindicate

the fiillihnent of

human need

of salvation.

The

Apologists undertook to accomplish

this.

On

the other hand, the unity and purity of the Christian

conceptions threatened to be lost with the spreading of the community, on account of the many ways in which those conceptions came into contact with the religious elements
of the

Gra?co-Roman and Oriental philosophies. The church

its

needed for
fidei^

inner constitution not only the simple regula

but also a fundamentally scientific expression of this formula, a fixed and conceptually developed system of dogmatics.

The Gnostics were

first

the

first

to attempt such a

philosophical structure for Christianity.

But inasmuch as

they at the

step

made

a striking departure from the

problem fell into the Alexandrian School of Catechists, which created for Christianity its scientific dogma from the ripest thought of the Grecian world.
rule of faith, the solution of their
of the

hands

51.

To

a philosophical vindication of Christianity, natur-

ally only

who

such members of that communion could be called had a mastery over the thought of Greek and Roman

philosophy.

But even these men,

rationalize the

new

religion,

if their purpose was to would be necessarily inclined

to bring the content of the

new

faith as

near as possible to
Unintention-

the results of ancient science, and to read into the old

philosophy the teachings of the

ally,

new

faith.

therefore, the Gospel

was hellenized by the Apoloof

gists,

the

most important

whom

are Justin Martyr,

Athenagoras, and, among the Romans, Minucius Felix,

and, later, Lactantius.

Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum by Otto (Jena, since 1842).

seculi secundi, published

the predecessors of Justin, we must notice Aristides of especiiiUy, whose frugnients (published in \'enice, 1878) contain a philosopliical argumentation for Cliristianity as a re-

Of

Athens

vealed monotheism.

PATRISTICS

353

Flavius Justin Martyr of Sichern (Flavia Neapolis), in Samaria, a man of Greek origin and culture, after investigating several contemporaneous systems of science, came to the conviction that only the Christian faith was the true philosophy. He suffered death at Rome (163-166) for defence of this doctrine. Of his writings (see first volumes of Otto's edition) the Dialogue icith the Jeic Triphon and both the Apolo[/ies are genuine. See K. Semisch, Justin der Mrtyrer (Breslau, 1840-42) B. Aube, St. Justin, philo sopJie et martyr (Paris, 1861); M. v. Engelhardt, Das Christenthmn Justin d. Mrtyrer (Erlangen, Justin's two Apologies have been translated into Ger1858). man and analyzed by H. Veit. Athenagoras of Athens addressed to Marcus Aurelius (176There is also preserved his 177) his irpecreia Trepi XpuTTLavwy. Trept di/acTTacrets twv veKpwv (in Otto's edition. Vol. VII.). See Th. A. Clarisse, De Athenag. vita scrij^tis et doctrina (Leyden, F. Schurbriug, Die Philosophie des Athenag. (Bern, 1819) 1882). The conception which Theophilus of Antioch (about 180) embodied in his address to Autolycus in writing (Corjms, Vol. VIII.) is related to the above. The Apology of Melito of Sardis and ApoUinaris of Hierapolis is likewise related. The apologetic dialogue, Octavius (about 200), of Minucius Felix (published in the Corpus scriptorum ecdesiasticorum latinorum, by C. Halm, Vienna. 1867) presents Christianit}' nearly entirely in the sense of ethical rationalism. See A. Soulet, IJssai sur V Octavius de Min. Fei. (Strassburg, 1867) R. Khl, Der Oktavius d. Min. Fei. (Leipzig, 1882). Similar ideas are found in beautiful form, but without philosophical significance in the rhetorician Firmianus Lactantius (died aliout 325). He undertook in his chief work, the Institutiones diviner^, to make a system of Christian morals, whose individual characteristics were to be found strewn in Greek philosophy, which nevertheless in their totality could only be conceived as ultimately grounded through a divine illumination. See J. G. Th. Mller, Quoistiones Lactantiece (Gttingen,
; ;

1875).

These hellenizing apologists sought to pi'ove that Christianity was the only "true philosophy," in that it guaranteed not only correct knowledge but also right living and true holiness here and hereafter. They based the pre-eminence of Christian philosophy upon the perfect revelation of God in Jesus Christ. For only through divine inspiration does
23

354

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOrilY

the rational coiue to iiuui,

who

is

buried in the wicked

sense-world and

is

in the toils of diemons.

Nevcrthcless

inspiration has been active

life.

from the beginning in human PyEverything that the great teachers of Greece

thagoras, Socrates, Plato

have

have owed not solely to their part, got it directly through divine revelation, and, in part, indirectly through the inspired teaching of Moses and the
prophets,

known of the truth, they own reason. They have, in

whom

they were said to have used.

But

all

these

revelations are only sporadic and embryonic (\6709 airepIxaTLKo^').

In Jesus

first is

the divine Logos perfectly and

completely revealed and become man.

For the Godhead,

itself,

who

is

nameless and inexpressible in

has unfolded

his entire essence in his Son.

Tlie peculiarity of the teaching of these men, especially of Justin, is tlie tlioroughooing and detailed identiticatiou of reason and revelation. The way was prepared in the Stoic Logosconcept for this and in its transfonnatiou at the hands of Philo, in which the materialistic cliaracter of the Xoyo? was stripped off and only the omnipresent character of the divine When, therefore, Justin spirit in nature and history remained. found nearly all the moments of Christian truth, the ethical

bearhig of which he strongly emphasized, already in ancient philosophy, when he oi)ined that something of the truth of salvation as a natural endowment (c/a^vtov) has come to all people by divine grace, he was regarding as inspired what is natural and rational according to Greek science. Therefore in that teaching ai)proved by him and sanctioned as Christian, he found partly an immediate revelation, partly an appropriation of the statements of Closes and the prophets, of whom he thought Plato had ample knowledge. Philo had already done this before Justin. On the other hand, in contrast to the indefinite search for a revelation which characterized neo-Pythagoreanism and the other forms of mystic Platonism, the Apologists had the enormous advantage of a faith in a determinate, absolute, positive, and historical revelation in Jesus Christ. In tiieir representing him, they united the Logos conception of Piiilo with the ethical religious meaning of the Jewish ideal of a Messiah. They designated him, therefore, as the "second God," created by the Father, in whom ilivine revelation bad been incarnated.

PATKISTICS

355

The metaphysical dualism

of the Apologists stood in intimate

relation to their theory' of inspiration. They metapiiysically set the a/xop^os v\i] over against the Godhead, who forms the world through the Logos, entirely in a Platonic and neo-Pythagoreaa sense. The end of this is to conceive matter as in every way Thus results, as their fundamental prinreasonless and bad.
ciple, the following

tion,

the Logos, as the content of divine revelahas appeared in .Jesus Christ the man in order to redeem
:

man

fallen in sin,

and to establish the kingdom of God.

(Trt'o-Tt?) and its auknowledge (yvcoai^) began very early in the Christian communion. The Pauline It was completed in a larger way at epistles show this. the beginning of the second century within the SyriacAlexandrian circles of Christians. Here neo-Pythagorean, Platonic, and Philonic thought met in a heightened fancy, the occasion of which was the Syriac mixture of Oriental

52.

The

desire to transmute faith

thoritative content into conceptual

and Occidental cults and mythologies. The rivalry of religions was reduced in the presentation of these Gnostics to a Christian philosophy of religion, whose disciples, being
chiefly the

members

of the

culture, constituted themselves in

communion steeped in Hellenic many localities as unique

fantastic
lost,

Mysteries.

They perfected an idealism with the

on

mythological formulae of the East, and

all

this account,

sympathy with the majority of the Christian communwere finally set aside as heretics. The leaders of Gnosticism were Saturninus, Carpocrates, Basilides, Valentinus, and Bardesanes.
ion, so that they

A. W. Neauder, Genetisclie Entirickduvij der vornelunsten gnostischen Systeme (Berlin, 1818); F.. Mattel', Histoi re cn'fique da gnosticisme (2 ed.. Paris, 18-13) F. Clir. Baur, Die christliche Gnosis oder Religionsphilosophie (Tbingen, 183); A. separately published Lipsius, Der Gnosfizismus (Leipzig. 1830 H. S. ^Nlansel, The (Jnostic in Ersch u. Gruber, Vol. 71) Heresies (London, 1875) A. Harnack, Zur Qaellenkritik der A. Ililgenfeld, Geschichte des Gnostizismus (Leipzig, 1873) Die Ketzergeschirhte des Urchristevtiims (Jena, 1884) M. Joel, Bliche in die BeJigionsf/eschichte zu Anfang des ziceiten Jahrhunderts (Breslau," 1880-1883).
;
;

356

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT

I'lIILOSOI'lIY

is

Of the conditions of life of the eminent Gnostics but little known. Only very few fragments of their writings are

Among tliese is particularly the Trtoris a-ocia of an preserved. unlvn)wn author from the circle of Valentinians (published by I'etermann, Berlin, 181). As for the rest, the knowledge we have of the doctrine of these men is limited to what their opponents say about them, especially Irena'us (eAfy;^os Koi dmTpoTrVy TTys //ei'SuJi'v/jiou yvwtrcw?, Leipzig, 183), Ilippolytus (Xty;^o? Kara n-ao-tur aipea-eoji', Oxford, 1851), Justin, TertuUiau (udversus Valenti/iii/iios), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, and Saturninus. who came from Antioeh and taught in the time of Hadrian. Carpocrates flourished about l.'iO in
Alexandria, and was contemporary to Basilides the Syrian. The career of the most notable of these men, \'alentinus, falls somewhat later. \'alentinus lived at Rome and died in Cyprus about KiO. Bardesanes was born in Mesopotamia and lived

See Uhlhorn, Das hasilidlanische System (Gttingen, 1855) Ileinrici, Die valeiitiiikiiiisehe Gnosis u. die heil. Schrift (Berlin, 1871); Fr. Lipsius, Valentinus %i. seine Schule {Jahrb. f.prot. Theol.^ 1887); G. Kstlin, Das gnost. Si/stem des Buchs TTioTts (ro<f>ia {Theol. Jahrb. Tbingen, 1854) A. Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes der letzte Gnostiker (Leipzig, 1864).
;

G.

The fundamental

principle

which secures to the Gnostics

a permanent place in the history of philosophy in spite of

the scnsualistic and mythological fanciful ness with which

they developed this principle,

of a ])hilosophy of history.

is their plan on a great scale This plan originated in their

fundamental religious thought.

to

Since Christianity washed

conceive

itself

as

victory

both over Judaism and

allegorically

Heathenism, the Gnostic interpreted the battle of religions as a battle of the gods of these religions.
this battle ijitellectually also into a theory

They interpreted

that upon the appearance of the

Redeemer not only the

de-

velopment of the human race but also the history of the universe reached its denouement. This denouement, however, the redemption of is the fundamental part of Christianity
:

the ti'icke J through the

pofect revelation of the highest

God

through Jesus Christ.

The transformation

of all nature philosophy into ethical-

PATRISTICS

357

religious categories is consequently the fundamental foiin

of the philosophy of the Gnostics.

They undertook

at first

with a radical one-sidedness to conceive the universe en-

from a religious point of view. They thought of the strife hetween good and evil, which is ended in the redemption of the world by Christ, giving the good the victory. So far as this antithesis was logically conceived, it appeared in the form of a neo-Pythagorean dualism of spirit and matter. In the mythological embodiment of it, however, which took up by far the greatest space in the Gnostic systems, the heathen daemons and the god of the Old Testament, who had the form of the Platonic demiurge, were considered the powers of this world to be overcome. They were brouglit into opposition to the true God, who conquered them by the revelation of Jesus, to the same extirely

cosmic process as a

tent as other religions are brought in opposition to Christianity.

The beginniDgs of the Greek natural sciences were of such a nature that there seemed to be no possibility of giving a satisfactory answer, even in the great teleological systems, to the question of the significance of historical development in its entirety. The science that was wanting to them was the philosophy of history, and of this want the world must needs become conscious when ancient culture was in its senility. The Gnostics are therefore the first pJi'dosophers of history. Since there stands as the centre of their philosophy of history the Christian principle of the salvation of the world by Jesus Christ, they nuist be acknowledged as philosophers of Christian history and religion, in spite of their deviation from later orthodoxy. The conquest of Judaism by Christianity was thus mythologized by men like Cerinthus, the Syrian Cerdo, and particularly Marcion and his pupil Apelles. The God of the Old Testament who formed the world and gave the Judaic law was conceived as a daemon lower than the highest God, who was revealed by Christ. The former is recognizable in nature and in the Old Testament the latter is inexpressible and unknowable the former is only just, the latter is good, an ethical
; ;

distinction

emphasized by Marcion particularly.

'SS

lllSIOKV OF ANCIENT PHILOrHY

This way of ivprosontin^ tilings led the Gnostics into a (hialism between good aid had, spirit anil matter. The diialisiu between spirit and matter was developed in a true Hellenic fashion witb a most deciileil leaning to neo-Pytliugorean syncretism by Carpoerates, but by Saturninus, and particularly by Basilid'es (see Irena'us), by means of Oriental mythology. According to the astronomical dualism of the Pythagorean and Aristotelian thought, the space between God and the world is filled by whole races of d:emons and angels that are arranged according to numerical symbols. The lowest of these is far enough distant from the divine perfectness so that the lowest can have relationship with the impure material, and as demiurge form the workl. In this world then, as already in the spirit world, the battle of the perfect and imperfect, of light and
darkness, waged until the
Ao'yos,

the vov?, Christ, the most per-

fect of the ivons, came down to the world of the tiesh to reThis is the fundamental lease the spirit shut up in matter.

idea of Gnosticism, and its diflfereut mythological shadings are of no philosophical importance. Their anthropology in a corresponding manner distinguished in man the material of sense {v\y]), the daemonic soul (i/'uxv)> and the divine spirit (T-vevfjia). According, then, to the prevalence of one of these three elements man is either spiritual, ps3'chic, or material, a distinction which was incidentally identified by Valentinus with that between Christianity, Ju-

daism, and lleathendom. This dualism originated apparently

is,

in the Alexandrian, that the Hellenic, circle, and assimilated later some analogies from INIanichieism arose later (third century) from the Parseeism. It influence of the (Jnostics upon the religions of the East. was an extreme dualistic religion, and played an important role in the intellectual controversies of the following centuries (F.

Chr.

Baur, Das manichische Relifjionssj/stem (Tbingen, 1831); O. Flgel, Mani u. seine Lehre (Leipzig, 1862)-^ A.

Geyler,

Das

Sjistevi des

Manirhismus (Jena,

187;")).

This dualism accorded with the Christian's ethical convictions as well as with those growing out of his need of redemption but not with his metaphysical principles, which could recognize no other power in the world besides the living God The monistic and be consistent with its Jewish traditions. feeling naturally turned away from the dualism of (xreek Later forms of Gnosthought and tried to overcome it. ticism approached Monism, which predominated among the orthodox churchmen. At the same time it sought to explain dualism by a theory of emanation from the divinity, and it had
;

PATRISTICS

359

as ils model the Stoic theory of the change of the cosmic fire It itself in turn thus became the model for into its elements. neo-Platonism. The school of Basilides, if the statement of Hippolytus refers to it, followed out this motive, and it was perhaps influenced by the notable Gnostic, Valentinus.

Valentinus undertook first to transfer the antitliesis to the being ( TrpoTraraip). He called it the eternal Depth (v66^), whicli created out of its underived and unspeakable content (o-tyr/ eVvota) in the first place the TrT/pw/iu, the world of Ideas. From this world, one Idea, o-o<^ta, falls on account of its unbridled longing for the Father and creates the sense world ^ through the demiurge. There was here attempted for the first time in entirely mythical form the conquest of Greek dualism and the establishment of an idealistic monism, which was a fantastic precreation of neo-Platonism.
original divine

In their teaching and their cult the Gnostic mysteries were so far distant from the Christian Church which had been continuously developing its organization, that Gnosticism was placed under the ban as heresy. Its bold pliilosophy of religion called forth on the one hand an extreme reaction against turning faith into a science, and on the other a polemical limitation of dogma to the Tatian and Tertulsimplest content of the regula fidei. lian are to be named here the one as the radical champion of Orientalism, which beheld in all Greek culture the work of the Devil the other as the ingenious and narrowTertullian pushed the minded opponent of rationalism. far as to maintain that the anthropological dualism so truth in the Gospel is confirmed just because it contradicts human reason. Credo quia absurdum. Contemporaneously with Tertullian and Tatian, Irenseus (140-200) and his pupil Hippolytus combated the anti-Judaic philosophy of
:

history of the Gnostics with the Pauline theory of a divine

method

of education.

According

to this theory the Judaic

Law was

" our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ."

They
that

also formulated a religious philosophy of history in

[*

Windelband, History of Philosophy, 251,

n. 2.

Tr.]

3(i0

HISTORY OF ANCIENT PIIILOSOrilY

they conceived the historical process as a teleological series of acts of divine redemption, which expresses in the conception of the chnrch
(e/c/tXj/cr/a) (lie

ideal

commnnity of
(Stoicism in

mankind.

This anti-Gnosticism was not ahle to maintain

help

itself w'ithont

from Greek

jjliilosophy

Tertnllian, Philonism inlrenasns and Hippolytus)

and even from Gnosticism itself, especially in Tatian, who later went over entirely to Yalentinian Gnosticism.
Tatian was an Assyrian. His treatise, 7rpu<;''EXXr]va^, which used the Justinian reflections for a polemic against all philosopby and set up against the Greek pretended wisdom the faith of tlie l)arbarians, is to be found in Otto's collection, Vol. VI. (Jena, IfSl), printed lately by E. Schwartz (Leipzig, See Daniel, Tertullina der Ajjo/or/et (llalW, 1X^7). 1888). Tertullian (1 00-220), in his last years champion of the Montanists, is the Christian Stoic. His strict, relentless morality and his abrupt contrast of sensationalism and morality is eonjoined with a fantastic materialism and sensualism. His

numerous writings, partly ajjologetic, partly polemic, partly horby F. Oehler (Leipzig, 1853 ff.). Compare A. W. Neander, Ant lgnostic us ; Geist des Tertnllian und KinleitwKj in dessen Schriften (2 ed., Berlin, 1849) A. Ilauek, Tertidlian's Lehen tind Schriften (Erlangen, 1877) G. R. Hauschild, Tertullian's Psychologie und Erlenntniss-Theorie
tatory, are published
;

(Leipzig, 1880).

This same spirit, but without the paradoxical originality of Tertullian, occurred later in tlie African Khetorieian, Arnobius, who wrote his thesis Adversus (jentes about 300 (publishe-d by A. Reiflferscheid in the Corpus scriptoruni en-l. lat.^ \'i.'nua, He and Tertullian uphold in a ty|ucal way the theory 1875). that orthodoxy, intending to demonstrate authority, grace, and revelation to be absolutely necessary for men, suppresses the natural intelligence as far as possible, and makes eomcause with sensualism and its skeptical consequences. Excepting some fragments, the writings of Ireujeus exist only in Latin translations. See Bhringer, Die Kirche Christi (Zurich, 1801), I. 271 ff. II. Ziegler, Irenaeus, der Bischof von Li/on (Berlin, 1871); A. Gouilloud, St. Irenwus et son temps (Lyon, 1876). The work of Hippolytus, whose first book was
;

mon

earlier than the 4>LXo(ro(fiovfj.va of ()rigen, is published

by Duncker
2Iip)2)objtus

and Schneidewin (Gttingen, 1859). See Buusen, und seine Zeit (2 vols., Leipzig, 1852 f.).

PATRISTICS
53.

361
tlie

The

scientific

statement of the religion of

Chris-

Alexandria in the use of the Gnostic and the Apologetic theories by the School of Catechists. Clement of Alexandria (about 200) and Origen, the founder of Christian theology, were the
tian church likewise took final
in

form

leaders of this school.

Guerike, De schola, quce Alexandrue floruit cafecJietlca (Halle, 1824 f.) C. W. Hasselbach, JJe sdiola, quce Alexaudricn floruit further the writings of E. Matter, J. catechetica (Stettin, 1826; Simon, I. Vacherot. The three chief writings that are preserved of Clement are
; ;

Xoyos
last

TrpcJTpeTTTiKos Trpos "EAAvyias,

TratSaywyos

and

crrpc/xarets.

The

has especial significance in the history of philosophy. Clement's dependence on Philo appears clearly in his teaching. It is mutatis mutandis the application of the principles of Philo to Christendom, and it is related to Christendom in exactly the same way as Philo's teaching to Judaism. Although therefore not throughout philosophically independent, Clement has the great significance that through him and the more original form of his theory in Origen, eclectic Platonism, strongly mixed as it was with Stoical elements, was defiuitely crystallized into Christian dogma. See Dhne, De yvwo-ci dementis Alex, et de vestigiis neoplatoniece philosopliicB in ea obviis (Leii> zig, 1831) J. Reinkens, De flde et yi/wcrei Clementis (Breslau, 18.30) and De demente j^reshytero Alexandrino (Breslau, 1851) Lmmer, dement Alex, de Aoyo) doctrina (Leipzig, 1855) Hebert-Diiperron, Essai sur la polemique et la jjJiilosopIiie de Clement (Paris, 1855) J. Cognat, dement d'Alexandrie sa H. Treische, De yvwa-ei doctrine et sei polemique (Paris, 1858) Clementis Alex. (.Jeua, 1871). Origen (185-254), whose surname was the Adamantine, appeared early as teacher iu the School of Catechists tliat had been directed by Clement. He attended afterward the lectures of Ammonius Saccus ( 54). He had to endure much persecution on account of his teaching, and, driven from Alexandria, he spent his old age iu Caesarea and Tyre. The most important
; ;
;

philosophical writings of his are irepl apx^^v and Kara KiXcrov. Celsus, a Platonic philosopher, wrote between 170 and 180 his a\q6r]<; Aoyos, which was partly a reconstruction of the opposing thesis of Origen, and contained an arsenal of verbal weapons against Christianity. See Th. Keim. Celsus's wahres Wort (Zurich, 1873); E. Pelagaut, ^tude sur Celse (Lyon, 1878); Origen's thesis concerning Principles is preserved almost exclusively iu

oG'2

lIlSTom' OK ANtlKNT

P1IIL( SOl'HV

raasius,

Soe Mignc, vol. 11-17; fl. Thothe Latin version 1>y Kiitiiiiis. Ori'jcucs (Xiirnheig, IH'dl) ; Kedepenuing, Origines, cine JJarstelliinij seines Libens lu seiner Lehre (2 vols., Bonn, 1841-46) ; .1. Denis, l>c In p}iilosop}iie d' Orifjene (Fvlvis, 1884) A. Ilarnaok, Jhxjnn.iigeschiehte^ I. 512 ff.

Aiiticipated thus by Clement, Ciii-istian theology was fonndcd by Origeii as a scientific system. For if the church tlu'n and later took offence at some of Origen's doctrines

and supplanted them, yet his philosophical point of view and his conceptual structure i-emained in a manner authoritative for the permanent foundation of Christian dogma in the shape into which he had developed it from the ideas of Origen has the significance that the Alexandrian school.
in trying to transform
ao(f)ia),
Trt'crrt?

into yvMcn'; (he called

it

also

he was not carried away from the Christian fundamental principles by mythical speculation or by philosophical theories.

teaching

is

So far as its purpose is concerned, his then wholly parallel to Gnosticism. But while

the Gnostic boldly and deliberately created a separate and

individual form of Christianity, the Alexandrian school of

Catechists gradually began a scientific organization of the

universal Christian faith from within
itself, and Origen drew with steady hand the fundamental outlines within whose limits later detailed developments were made.

The rer/nla fidei and the oanon accepted by the church of the Holy Writ of the Old and New Testament were therefore for Origen the source and measure of religious knowledge. The
science of faith is the methodical explanation of the (Jospel. After the manner of Philo, Origen said this method consisted in The tlie transJatioii of historiral into eoncepUial relations. historical element in revelation is only the " somatic " meaning of revelation, and is intelligible to the masses. The "psychic" meaning of revelation is its moral interpretation, and is especially Above both is the " pneuapplicable to the Old Testament. matic " meaning of the philosophical teaching expressed in Holy Writ. If thereby an esoteric is distinguished from an exoteric Christianity ( ^^pumavos frw/xariKos ) Origen justified himself by claiming that revelation, equal everywhere in its content, is
,

rATKISTICS

363

suited ill its form to the different endowments and stages of development of the mind. As, therefore, the true spirit of the Old Testament was tirst revealed in the Gospel, so ever behind the New Testament is the eternal pneumatic gospel to be sought, which is now, for the first time, revealed only to a few, by the grace of God.

As
the

the leading principle of the teaching of Origen, stands

concept of

God

as

the pure spirit,

changelessness and unity (em?

(iireKeiva

who
above

in perfect
all

/xoi/a?)

Beings

t%
all

ovaLa<;)

is

recognizable

as the

everlasting

author of

things, but in his entire fulness transcends all

human knowledge.
lute causality of his

His essential characteristic

ivill.

is

the absoele-

Creativeness

is

an essential

ment

of his being,

and therefore

his creative activity is as

of his

eternal as himself.

On account
his

unique unchange-

ableness, nevertheless,
directly with

creative activity

cannot deal

ever-changing individual things, but only

with the eternal revelation of his

image the Logos (6

\6''fo<=;^.

own The Logos

essence, with his

is

expressly con-

ceived by Origen as a person, as an hypostasized being.

He

is

indeed not 6 eo9, but

still ^eo?,

a Sevrepa 6e6^, and

is

the Holy Spirit stands related to

him

as he

related to the
ISea

Father.
Iheoiv,

The X6709

is

related to the world as the

the archetype according to which the divine will

creates all things.

Creation then

is

also everlasting,

and

made up
finally

of the endless

number

of spirits

who
of

are destined

to participate in divine blessedness,

and

all

whom

shall

become part

of the divine essence (^eoTroiov.evoi).

is

They

are endowed, however, with freedom, to which

due

the fact that they each to a greater or less degree, in his

purification

own manner, fall a^yay from the divine essence. For their God created matter, and thus do the spirits in
:

heaven become materialized and graded according to their worth the angels, the stars, mankind, and evil daemons.
In a characteristic and specifically Christian way, and in opposition to Hellenic intellectualism, Origen emphasized the

364
will flud the

HISTORY OF AXCFKNT PIIILOSOrHY

mctaphvsical meaning; attached to it. The will of appears here as the eternal iiocessarv developmeiit of his beiug, but the wills of the spirits, as free temporal choice. The two stand in a mutual relation that in the Platonic si/stem obtains between ovaia and yeVto-t?. In contrast to the unchangeableuess and unity of the divine will, the freedom of will of the spirits includes the principle of variety, of change, in a word, of nature processes. Freedom is the ground both of sin and of materiality. So Origen made it possible to join with his concejjtion of the absolute causality of God, which conception forbids the originality of matter, the existence of wickedness, sense, and imperfection. He reconciled ethical transcendence with physical immanence, God as creator, but not creator of evil. Faith in divine omnipotence and the consciousness of sin are the two fundamental antithetical principles of Christian metaphysics. Origen mediated between them by his conception of freedom. Eternal creation involves the acceptation of an endless series of seons, and of world systems, wherein fall and redemption are continually repeated in new individuals. Yet this ditticult point is not further treated by Origen, but is avoided on account of the concentration of his attention upon the realm of

God

spirits.

The

fallen spirits strive to rise

from matter,

to

which

they are condemned for purification, and to return to their

divine source.

In their

own freedom do they

aspire on

account of the divine essence within them, which is never But entirely lost, however deeply they may be abased.

was always
is

they do not have to act without the help of grace, wliich active in man as a revelation from heaven, and
revealed perfectly in the person of Jesus.

nizes that a propedeutic value

after the

One recogwas given by Origen here,

heathen philoso-

manner

of the Apologists, to the

phy, esjecially to Platonism and Stoicism.

The

eternal

X0709 has connected

itself

in a divine-human unity.

with the blameless yjrvxv ^^ Jesus Through his suffering he has

fact for the

presented redemption as a temporal

whole

body

but through his essence the true illumination has been brought to those especially chosen (the i)noumatically inspired). With his help, the eternal spirit has
of believers,

NEO-PLATOXISM
attained different grades of redemption: faith,

365

gious understanding of the perceptual world,

of the X6709,

the knowledge

reli-

head.
all

and finally absolute absorption in the GodThrough the conjoined action of freedom and grace,
of all

souls shall finall}' be redeemed, material existence shall

vanish, and salvation

((iTTOKaTdaTaaL^).

things be perfected in

God

These are the conceptual principles of Christian theology, as Origen developed them. They show that Christianity seized the ideas of ancient philosophy and revised it with its own religious principle. The changes which dogmatic development made in the system pertain especially to eschatology and Christologv. As to Christology, Origen emphasized more the cosmological than the soteriological aspect of the Adyo?, and neither is fully developed. The battles waged over his theory

and fourth centuries until the perfect consolidation of the Catholic dogma, are attributable to specific theological motives, and change none of his fundamental philosophical
in the third

principles.

4.

Xeo-Platonism.

The
of

Hellenistic thought that ran parallel to Christian

scientific faith

Alexandrian culture,
all

was neo-Platonism. in which

of

Out
all

of the

same

circles

the forms of Greek

theories, the theory

science and

religions met, arose

two contemporaneous

Origen and that of Plotinus.

As

we can

see in Gnosticism a kind of precreation of Christian

theology, so in the eclectic Platonism influenced by Philo

(particularly in

Xumenius) can we

also see a preparation

for neo-Platonism.

Neo-Platonism and Christian theology had a community purpose and a common origin. Both were scientific systems that methodically developed a religious conviction
of

and sought

to prove that this conviction

was the only true

Chris-

source of salvation for the soul needing redemption.

But there

is

a great difference between the two.

366

nisTORV or ancient riiiLosoriiY

was not only supported, but also gradually community organizing itself into a church. Neo-Platonism was a doctrine thought out and defended by individual philosophers, which spread to associations of scholars, and then
tian theology

regulated, by the religious consciousness of a

sought to

i)rorit

by contact with

all

kinds of mysteries.

Christian theology was the scientific external form of a faith that had already mightily developed. Neo-Platonism

which tried incidentally to assimicults. Although the scientific strength of neo-Platonism was certainly not less than that of Christianity, this attempt at assimilation was the cause
religion,
late all the

was an erudite

then existing

of its downfall.

The
stages.

historical unfolding of neo-Platonism

was

in three

In the

first

stage
it

it

was

essentially a scientific

was a systematic theology of polywas in pronounced opposition to Christianity. After it had gone to pieces in this way, it sought in its thii'd stage to become a scholastic recapitulaWe are accustomed tion of the entire Greek philosophy.
theory.

In the next

theism, and in this

it

to designate these different phases as the Alexandrian, the

Syrian, and the Athenian schools, and to place, as the head

of each respectively, Plotinus, Jamblichus,

and Proclus.

See E. Matter, J. Simon, and Vaeherot; Bartheleray SaintStir le concours oi/vert par Vacademie^ etc., sur Vecole d' Alexandrie (Paris, 1845) K. Vogt, Neoplatonismus u. K. Steinhart (in Pauly's RealenChristentum (Berlin, 1836) cyklopdie des Moss. Altertums) R. Ilamerliug, Ein Wort ber die Nenplntoniker (with examples translated into German, Triest, 18.58) H. Kellner, JleUenismvs u. Christentinn oder die geistige Reaktion des antiken Heidentums gegen das Christentum (Cologne, 1866) A. Harnack, Dogmengesehichte, I. 663 flf.
Hilaire,
;

54.

The founder

of neo-Platonism

was Plotinus, born

received his philo-

204

A. D. in

Lycopolis in Egypt.

He

sophical education in Alexandria, especially at the hands

of a certain

Ammonius

Saccus.

He

took part in the expe-

NEO-PLATONISM
dition of the

367

Emperor Gordian

in his Persian

campaign

in

order to pursue scientific studies in the Orient. About 244 he appeared with great eclat as a teacher in Rome, and
died in 269 at
a country estate
in

Campania.

Among

his pupils were Amelius, and especially the publisher of his documents, Porphyry.

Ancient trarlitions designate the porter Animonius (175He abandoned Chris242) as the founder of neo-Platonism. tianity for Hellenism, and held impressive lectures in AlexanAmong his pupils were said to be, besides Plotiaus and dria. Christian Origan, Herennius (Erennius), Origen the the Platonist. and the rhetorician and critic Longinus (213-273). Nothing is, however, at all certain about the teaching of Ammonius, and these so-called pupils travel such theoretically different ways that there is no good reason to speak of AmmoSee nias as the founder of the specific philosophy of Plotinus. W. Lyngg, Die Lehre des Ammonius (publication of Gesellschaft d. Wlssensehuft at Christiania, 187-i). The Platonist Origen is not the Patristic, as G. A. Heigl supposes. See Der Bericht des Porjyhi/rius ber Origenes (Regensburg, 1835); G. Helferich, TIntersuchnnrjen aus der Gebiet der klass. Alterfhumsivissejischaft (Heidelberg, 1860). He asserted probably in opposition to Numenius) the identity of God with that of the world-builder. See his writing oTt/idvos Compare Zeller, V^. 461, 2. TTOLrjTT]^ 6 aa-iXev^. Ets TO. /jieracfiva-LKd is the name of a document transmitted under the name of Herennius, but it is a compilation of much later origin. See A. Mai, C/assicorum Auctorum, I'S..; E. Heitz (Berlin Sitzungsberichte, 1889). Longinus, who taught in Athens, held fast to the pure Platonic teaching of the reality of Ideas independent of the In spite Spirit, and was opposed to Plotinus' interpretation. of many doubters on the point, he is presumably the author of a treatise under his name, irepl vij/ov^ (published by J. Yahlen, The rhetorical phases of the subject seem to have been 1887). of chief interest to the author yet the treatise has real value bej^ond this, for it developed in tlie highest spiritual and intellectual manner the aesthetic concept of the sublime as not only independent of the idea of the beautiful and co-ordinate with it, but also in its numerous variations and applications. This treatise had a very great influence on the aesthetic theory and criticism of later time.
(

368

HISTORY OF ANCIENT

lMIILOS(

I'lIV

If, in comparing the great systems of Origcii and Plotinus, one wishes to draw a conehision as to the doctrine of tlieir common teacher, one meets only the most nniversal principles of the Alexandrian religion-phik)sophies, and even then perhaps only the fundamental principles of overcoming metaphysically the dualism which forms the presupposition of that philosophy. There is not even a hint that would let ns trace these philosophies back to Ammonius. He existed rather in the air, so far as the development of Alexandrian thought was cojicerned. The form of Ammonius is historically as colorless as perchar.ce the view ascribed to him that Aristoteliauism and I'latonism are in essential agreement. See Zeller, V^. 454 flf. Plotinus found so great recognition in the highest circles of Rome that he desired to found a city of philosophers in Campania, witii the help of the Emperor Gallienus. It was to be called riatouopolis. It was to be arranged after the model of the Republic, and would be a retreat for religious contemplation, an Hellenic cloister. But it came to naught. Plotinus was active in a literary way only in his old age, and he wrote his doctrine in single treatises and groups of such. They were classified by his pupil. Porphyry, in six enneads, and published. They were translated into Latin by Marsilius P'icinus (Florence,

1492), and into Greek and Latin (Basel, 1580); new publications of them are: Oxford, 1835, Paris, 18.55; Leipziir (by Kirchhofe), 18.")6 Berlin (by H. Mller), 1878-80. There is also a German translation of them (Leipzig, 1883-84) by
;

Volkmann.
See K. Steinhart (in Pauly's Realencyklopdie) H. Kirchner, Die Philosophie des PI otin's (Halle, 1854); A. Richter, JW?/^;/atonische Studien^ five volumes (Halle, 18G4-G7) II. v. Kleist,
; ;

Plotinisdie Studien (Heidelberg, 1883).

Porphyry, probably born and certainly brought up in Tyre, became the true disciple of Plotinus in Rome. Besides presenting and defending the doctrine of Plotinus, he busied himself especially wMth making commentaries on the Platonic and Aristotelian writings, and particularly on the logic of the
latter.

His EtVaywy^

ets

ras K-arT/yopm?

lished

by Busse

(Berlin, 1887).

portant for the IVIiddle Plotinus (see Kirchhoff and ]\Iiiller's publication of the works of Plotinus) and his s)iialler single writings. See bil)li(tgrapliy in Ueberweg-Heinze, I". 313. See also the Parisian Plotinus eilition.

is preserved. It is pubThis became exceedingly imAges, as was also his biography of

Avas the

The ])roblem of tlic Alexandrian philosophy of same for the Hellene as for the Christian.

religion

In the

NEO-PLATONISM

369

development of ancient thought, the individualization and

the contemplativeness of the spiritual

and created
most

life kept equal pace, burning desire to conceive the divine essence immediately and wholly with the inner-

finally

the

activity of the soul,

to

unite oneself entirely

undividedly with that essence.

fidence in the

and But the more that con-

ancient forms of mythical representation

off,

vanished, the farther

the

incomprehensible appeared the divine essence.

tian faith

more unknown, and the more The Chrisby the principle of love
;

overcame

this difficulty

the

mythical religion by the interpolation of countless

grades between

God and matter

science, by attempting to

conceive the totality of things as a series in diminishing

perfection from the one all-creative divine power, and, con-

upon the entire cosmic life as the simigraded returning series of things completed in God. The neo-Pythagorean dualism was to be overcome both ethically and metaphysically and therein Plotinus and Origen agreed. But while the latter, absorbed in the mysteries
versely, by looking
larly
of the fall into sin

and the redemption, analyzed the entire

in the

physical existence in ethical and religious terms, the former

strove to
itual

make conceptual

terms of sense the

spir-

unity of the universe.

according to the conception of

Whereas the return to God Origen formed a tremendous

it

historical cosmic process for the entire spiritual realm,

was limited by Plotinus

individual.

to the mysterious ecstasy of the

Metaphysics and ethics to Plotinus were, then, in inverted

parallelism
:

ethics teaches the

way

of salvation to be tiie

same
is

series of stages of
in

known

development toward an end, which metaphysics as the process of origination from

a beginning.

To Plotinus the
irpwTov) superior to

Godhead

is

the original

Being

(to

all oppositions, inaccessible to all defin-

itive characterization,

wholly unspeakable (apprjTov).

24

As

370

HISTOHY OF ANCIENT THILOSOPHY

it is

absolute unity

superior to
{v6rjai<;^

all

oppositions, especially to
(ovaia).

those of thuught

and Being
it

Only by
cosmic

relative determinations can

final

be conceived

as a

cause (to dya66v) and a cosmic force

(.s?<&'f/-(^^/(*.s'),

(ttpctt] Bvva/jLi<;),

as pure, substratum-less

creating activity.

As

such,
less,

it

creates the world out of itself in an eternal, time-

yet

it is

and necessary process. It is present in all creatures, separate and distinct from plurality. Itself eterit

nally finished,
self

lets the fulness of things

itself

proceed from

it-

without division of

or losing

anything of

its

The emanation of the world from the Godhead an Overflowing in which the Godhead is as unchanged as light when it thi-ows its gleam into the depths of the darkessence.
is

ness.

But as

its

gleam becomes
its

less

and

less strong with

the increase of distance from the

source, so the creations of

re-

flection

Godhead are only a reflection of its glor\', which becomes less and less bright and finally ends

in

darkness.

The attempt to reconcile the monistic causality of God with the fact of the imperfection of individual things, and on the other hand of reconciUng (religious) transcendence with (Stoical) pantheism, became also very prominent in I^lotinus. His " dynamic pantheism " completed an abstract monotheism which sought to regard tlie (xodliead neither as spirit, soul, nor matter, nor in fact under any category. Yet the theory conceived tbe Godhead, though entirely contentless, as the origin of all determinations and as superior to them all. The light in the darkness is an illustration yet this simile defines also tbe thought of the philosopher from his point of view.
;

There are three particular steps

ceeds from the divine being
{vov<;)
:

in

which emanation promatter.

Spirit
in itself tlie

spirit, soul,

as the

innige {fiKoiv)

of the

One bears

principle of duality.
of self,

For

all

thinking, even consciousness

object, of

involves the oj)position of subject and

(vorirt').

thought-activity and thought-content

The

roO?

having

its

source in

the

Godhead

is

indeed a

unitary,

NEO TLATONISM
self-related, intuitive function.

371
it

Xevertheless

includes

within

itself

the

entire

manifold of objects, the

of individuals.

Ideas
in

which are the archetypes

the vov^ and form in
it

These are then

designated as single spiritual potencies

the Koo-fio^

(^vol).

They are

1^077x09,

but as efficient

powers they are at the same time the particular causes of

events.

From reflection upon the essential duality of the activity and the content of thought, there resulted the fact that the neo-Platonists were the first to formulate and investigate
with exactness the psychological conception of consciousness {avvaicrOqa-Ls;). The Al'istoteliau theory of ala-BrjTr'jpLoi' koIkov gave them a point of departure which they happih' further followed out. The distinction between the unconscious content of an idea and the activity to be directed upon that content is current in their psychology and was their most important service. See H. Siebeck. Gesch. der Psi/c/i., I. b, 331 ff. This distiuction naturally ceases to appl}' to the divine vows in so far as it thinks its entire content of ideas as eternally actual. In Aristotelian Phraseology, Plotiuus said that the duality (erepor?;?) within the Spirit's essence presupposes the antithesis of thought-form (voT/crts) and thought-conteut (vkrj vorjrLK-q)^ a couteut which is distinguished nevertheless from sense-content by the fact that it is formed without residuum

and

in timeless ivepyeta.

" is here the principle of pluralit}', and Plotiuus followed this thought also so far as to develop the manifold of Ideas in a Pj'thagorean number-speculation. In this the Idea is however no longer the Platonic class-concept, but the (Stoic) archetype of the particular thing. In respect to the intelligible world the Aristotelian categories were cast aside in so far as they refer to spatial and temporal relations and especially empirical events. For these Plotiuus substituted five fundamental conceptions which were experimentally treated in the dialogue Sojjhist (254 b) as KotvwvLa raJv
leMV
:

" Matter

ov, crTa(TL<;, KivTym?, rai'Torr;?, eTepoTr]<;.

far as Ideas are causes of events, they are called Xoyoi, as for that matter the voZs of Plotiuus has throughout to take the place of the Aoyo? of the Philonic and Christian philosophy.

So

See M. Heinze, IHe Lehre com

Lorjos^ p.

306

flf.

The Sold

i^vx^']) stands in the

eV.

same

relation to the Spirit

it

as the Spirit to the

Since, although

belongs to the

.?72

IIISTOKV OF AXriKNT IMIIT-OSOrilV

light,
it

world of
hility,

stands on the hounds of

a duality in
it:

tlic

world

of

darkness, there

is

the higher and the

first

(1) unity and (2) divisilower souls. This duality is

place of the world-soul, which Plotwo potencies, and the lower part, the (f)vaL<;, as a directly foiniativc power (deafxa) creates the hody of the world and enters into it. It is the same with the individual souls into which the Avorld-soul has discharged itself. There exists also in mankind the supersensible soul, to which were ascribed the functions of the Aristotelian 1/0U9. (See above.) This has pre-existed, and shall after death undergo metempsychosis according to its This soul is to he distinguished from the lower deserts. soul which has built up the body as an instrument of its working power and is present in all its parts as well as in its sensational and functional activities.
tinus divided
into

predicated in the

As

the light gradually fades

away

into

darkness, the
finally in
fit)

streaming out of the divine essence degenerates

mattej".

Plotinus regarded matter expressly as

it

6v in

the sense that

has no metaphysical dualistic independto

It is the absolute Godhead. aTep7)at<;, the irevta TravreXij'i, and as airovcria rod ayaOov it Plotinus founded his theodicy upon is also irpoiTov KaKov.

ence in

relation

the

these negative determinations.

Whatever

is true, is
ixr)

divine

and good

the bad

is

only what belongs to the

6v.

By

the same necessity with which the gleaming of light is lost in the darkness, souls were supposed to create matter out

and enter into it as formative powers. The world of sense phenomena has an existence that is In a circular process of mejust as eternal as the soul.
of themselves

chanical development

it

unrolls the archetypes of Ideas.

Then
ity of

follows not merely a teleological conception of na-

ture, but a

downright magical one.

:

Every event

is

an

activ-

the soul

the pure world-soul creates gods, star-s))irits,

of itself.

and the (pucrc^-dxmons out

In the mysterious

NEO-PLATONISM

373

co-operation of the whole is the individual sympathetically All investigation bound and prophetically to be foreseen. of nature was here annulled, but the door to all forms of faith and superstition was opened. This comprehensive view of nature, however, was under
these premises cleft in two.

The entrance
fall into

of the soul into

its

the matter created by sense

it

is its

the darkness,

alienation from the divine source of light.

is

The world

of

bad and irrational. Yet, on the other hand, tlie is formed by the soul which enters into it as X670? cTTre/o/LiaTt/c?, and to that extent is it reasonable and world of sense
beautiful.

In this respect Plotinus, in spite of the dualistic

point of departure

made necessary by

his religious problem,

held distinctly to the Greek conception of the beauty of the

world of sense, and he knew how to connect it in the most happy way with the fundamental outlines of his picture of
the world.

When

he enthusiastically praised,
of

in opposition

particularly to the Gnostic disdain of nature, the

harmony,

soulfulness

and perfection
aesthetic.

the world, and proved this

out of his idealistic construction of the world, he gave us a

metaphysical

Beautiful

is

the object of sense

when

it

makes

its Xoyoii, its

ideal form, its elSo?, appear in a

is

perceptible form.

Beautiful
it is

the world because

down

to

the lowest deeps

divine essence.

permeated and illuminated by the

Like a last farewell to the Grecian world was this theory of the beautiful which Plotinus brought into close connection with the ultimate principles of his system, and which he used for the first time as an integral part of a sj'stem of philosophy. To be sure, he strongly used Platonic and Aristotelian thoughts in it. But even the theory of the beautiful was not so fully developed by Plato, nor was it so essential a moment of Plato's as of Plotinus's system. The celebrated Ennead, I. 6, is doubtless the most original scientific achievement of Plotinus. The distinction of bodily and spiritual beauty, the contrast between the beauty of nature and of art, the organic insertion of aesthetics parti}' into his metaph^'sical system and partly into the de-

.i74

HISTORY OF ANCIENT

I'llILOSOlMIV.

velopment of his etliios aud psychology JiH these are great points of view which Plotimis is the first conceptually to define. See Ed. Midler, Gcsrii. der Theorie der Knust bei den Alten^ II. 285 ff. (Berlin, ISoT) K. Ziinuierniaun, Gesch. der sthetik (Vienna, IS.S), 122 IT.; R. Volkniann, Die Hhe der anliken ^Esthetik oder Plotitt's Abhandl. rom i^chxen (Stettin, 1800) E. Brenning, Die Lehre roni Schnen bei Plolin (Gottingen, A. J. Vitringa, De egregio, quod in rebus corporeis con1864) stituit Plotinus pulcri principio (Amsterdam, 1864) J. Walter, Gesch. der ^-Esthetik in Altertham (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 736786.
; ;
;

Plotinus set out from the opposite point of view in his

that men have in independence of the worUl as their goal and also when he conceived of the freeing of the soul from the body and its purification from sense
ethics,

when he designated the share

;

the divine Hfe and their

in a word, the turning

away from the material

as the fun-

damental ethical task. There is not lacking a positive supplement to this negative morality although only in small measure did the philosopher indeed find such positive suj pleraentation in ethical or, as he called
it,

political virtues.

Conduct was of

little

value to him, for

it

binds the soul to

is

the material world.

Social and political integrity

only

o.

preparation by which the soul learns

how

to

become

free

from the power of sense. Therefore the teaching of Plotinus was also without significance for political life. His attempt to realize the Platonic Republic seemed to be not a political experiment but the realizing of a condition in which chosen men could live their true lives of " contemplation."

The return
the
vovii
little

of the soul to
it

God

consists in

its

soai-ing to
offers

from which

came.

Pure sense-perception
;

help to the soul for this return

reflection affords
is

rather more.

The most potent

incentive

found in love

for the beautiful, the

Platonic epw?,

when

the soul turns

from sense impressions to tlie illuminating Idea. He who has an immediate recognition of the pure Idea, is pressing

NEO-rLATNISM
on to higher perfection.
less attained only

375
is

Yet true blessedness

in

neverthe-

an ecstasy (e/co-racrisO transcending thought for a more complete contact and union
(a(^y'l,

when man

airXwai^^ with the divine unity, forgets himself and

the objective world and becomes one with the

Godhead

in

such moments of consecration.

Plotinus regarded this highest holiness as a grace which to few, and to these but seldom. He granted that the culture of positive religion is a help to the attainment of this ecstatic condition, although in other respects he opposed posi-

comes only

tive religion.

This help, however, had earlier seemed essential

to Porphyr}', and among the later came the all-important thing.

members

of the school

it

be-

55.

pupil of Porphyry, the Syrian Jamblichus, used the

philosophy of Plotinus as the groundwork of a speculative

theology of polytheism, which co-ordinated
all

the cults of

ancient religions in a systematic whole, and while exclud-

ing Christianity attempted to consider the religious move-

ment

as complete.

Among

the enthusiastic supporters of

this speculative theology are of Ephesus, the

Theodorus

of Asine,

Maximus

Emperor

Julian, his friend Sallustius, and

the martyr Hypatia.

Jamblichus came from Chalcis in Coele-Syria, and listened to Porphyry and his pupil Anatolius in Rome. He himself went to Syria as a teacher and religious reformer, and had very soon a numerous school, which exalted him as a worker of miracles. Nothing further is known of his life, and his death also is only approximately set about 330. His literary activity was limited almost entire!}' to commentaries on Plato and Aristotle, as well as on the theological works of the Orphics, Chakheans, and the Pythagoreans. Portions of his exposition of Pythagoreanism are preserved ttc/ji tov Ilv9ayopi.Kov iov (published by Kiessling, Leipzig, 1815 f., and "Westermann, Paris, 18,50) Aoyo? TrpoTpeir: ;

(Kiessliug, Leipzig, 1813) vepl r^? koli'^s TTcpt T-^s NiKofJLa6r]fxaTLKrj<i iTTta-njp.r]'; (YiUoison, Venice, 1781) fjid^ov apiO [xrjTiKrj'i eicraywy?/ and ra OeoXnyovncva ttJs apL0ixi]TLKrj<; (Fr. Ast, Leipzig, 1817). Related (and probably erroneously ascribed to him) is De mysteriis ^-Egyptiorum (by Parthey, Bar
TtKos ets
(f>LXo(TO(f>Lav
;

;176

HISTORY OF ANCIKXT riiiLosoniY.

1857)
;

lin,

sec Ilarlcss,
ls.").s);

Des

BiirJi

rnn den iuiyptischen Mifste-

Kellner, Annhise der iSrhn'ft des ffttmUic/iiis Jfc Mi/stcn'is (in Thenl. Qnnrlalsschrift, IXCT). ^Edesiiis, Clirysantliius, I'risous, Sopater, Eusebiiis, Dexippus are other nienilters of the school. writing of Dexippus concerning the Aristotelian categories is prcser\'ed (edited by Sj)engel, Munich, 18.J9). Some of the biographies of philosophers of the time by Eunapius of Sardis are also preserved (edited by Boissouade, Amsterdam, 1822). INIaximns played a great rAle at the court of Emperor .Julian, whose short reign marks the zenith of the power of this Syrian school. Precisely these same court connections drove the school into its hopeless war with Christianity. Julian himself was a devoted follower of Jamblichus. The letters published under his name are spurious. His views appear in his speeches and in the fragments of bis thesis against the Christians. Juliani contra C/in'stianos (jHce supersu/it (E. J. Neuman, Leipzig, 1880 translated into German, Leipzig, 1880) other editions of his writings by K. Talbot (Paris, 18G3) and F. C. Hertlein (2 vols., Leipzig, 1875 flf.). See A. W. Neander, Ueber den Kaiser Julian u. seine Zeitalter (Leipzig, 1812) W. S. Teuffel, De Juliano Imp. Christianismi contemtore et osore (Tbingen, 18-44); D. Fr. Strauss, Julian der Abtrnnige^ der Romantiker auf dem Thron der Csaren (Mannheim, 1847) Auer, Kaiser Julian (Vienna, 1855) W. Mangold, Julian der Abtrihmige (Stuttgart, 18G2) C. Gemisch, Julian der Abtrnnige (Breslau, 1862) Fr. Lbker, Jidian^s Kampf u. Ende (Kamburg, 18G4) A. Mcke, Julian nach den Quellen (Gotha, 186G-68) A. Naville, Julien V Apostat et sa philos. du polytheisme (Neufchatel, 177) F. Rode, Gesch. der Reaction Julian's gegen die christliche Kirche (Jena, compendium by Sallust of the theology of Jamblichus 1877) . is preserved (published by Orelli, Zurich, 1821). Concerning Ilypatia, see Rich. Hoche {\\\ Philol. 18G0) St. Wolff (Czernowitz, 1879) II. Ligier (Dijon, 1880). Her pupil was the bishop Synesius, who tried to unite Neo-Platonisni to Christianity in a unique way. See R. Volkmaun, /Sijnesios von Kyrene (Berlin, 18G9).
n'cn
(Muiiicli,
II.

The theology

of

view for philosophy.

Jamblichus included no new point of His metaphysics and ethics were entreatment
is

tirely those of Plotinus so far as the

conceptual.

But this was exactly what did not satisfy the theologian. Born in a land of the greatest religious eclecticism, a land where Christian Gnosticism had arisen, he wished to trans-

NEO-PLATOXISM
form
this philosophy into

377
all religions.

an amalgamation of

Since he regarded the ordinances of the Mysteries and the

activities of all

their fantastic cults as indispensable for

moral and religious problems, he used the neo-Platonic metaphysic only for inserting by allegorical interpretation the forms of gods of all religions in
sinning
in solving

man

the intermediate grades which Plotinus had supposed to

lie

between the human soul and God. In order to find place for this fantastic pantheon, he had to increase considerably the number of these intermediaries and in order to bring the entire world of gods into a system, he had nothing better to use than the Pythagorean number-scheme.
;

that this theor}' had in the cultured and world shows only the obstinacy with wliich the Hellenic, as opposed to the Christian world, held fast to the hope of solving the religious j^roblem from within itself and Julian also, who gave historical siguificance to this fautastic theory, can only thus be understood. The details of this polytheism, and indeed those of the theurgic undertakings of Jamblichus and liis pupils, are philosophically unimportant. Even his fancy of setting the ttuvt?; apprjTo^ ap^i]
political
;

The passing success

over the eV of Plotinus, which, bare of qualities, must not also be identified with the dyaow, is still only aimless sophistry. Plotinus set up the opposition of subject and object in the vol}?, and Jamblichus made out of this opposition the Koajxo^ vorjTo^ and the K(Tp.o<; vocpos. These are two worlds which are peopled with their own gods, and are again trebly divided. Some of his pupils further developed these divisions, and in this showed a preference for the triad schema, as did Jamblichus also to a certain extent.

56.

The

failure of this philosophical restoration of the

back to erudite which again appeared finally at Through the influence of Plutarch of Athens Athens. and his pupils Syrianus and Hierocles, the school turned back to the study of Plato and Aristotle. In the person of its leader Proclus (410-485) it tried to systematize in a
old
religions

frightened neo-Platonism
of

studies,

the

centre

:'78

IIIST(mY OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOl'IIY.

ilialcctic

way

tlie

entire historical content of

Greek

philo-

sophic tiiought.

The commentators stanil out advantageously against the background of fantastic theories of the time. As Themistius previously, so Siraplicius and Philoponus now, transmitted their learned compilations of the works of Aristotle, which Ipecame of value to subsequent time. But when the pupils of Proclus Marinus and Damascius undertook to develop the system of their master, then they fell victims The effect of this was unfortunate to unfruitful quibbling. in proportion as the diction was bombastic and assertive. The power of Greek thought was extinguished. The simple magnificent spirit of Greek philosophy had, to speak after the manner of Plotinus, grown so weak through all the Hellenic emanations that it })assed away into its op-

posite, into ostentatious vapidity.

the

The edict by w'hich the Emperor Justinian in 529 closed Academy, confiscated its property, and prohibited lecwas the
official certi-

tures on Greek pliiloso])hy in Athens,

fication of the death of ancient philosophy.

Plutarch was called "The Great" by bis pupils after the neo-Platouic manner of excessively admiring the leaders of their school. By this title he is generally distinguished from He died soon after 480. his really more significant namesake. He seems to have been particularly interested in psychological questions, and he further developed a theory of consciousness, defining it as the activity of the reason in sense perception. Of the Syrian commentaries on Aristotle's writings, that upon a part of the Metaphysics is preserved and published in the fifth volume of the Berlin edition of Aristotle (p. 837 ff.). The commentary of Hierocles on the Golden Poem of the Pythagoreans is in Mullach's Fragments (I. 40S ff.) Photius has preserved extracts from Hierocles' writing, -n-epl Tr/^xji/ota?. Hierocles and his pupil Theosohius worked in Alexandria, and Syrianus was seholarch in ^Vthens. Proclus was the intimate pupil and follower of S3Tianus. He was of Lycian family, born in Constantinople, educated in Alexandria under Olympiodorus the Aristotelian, and was re;

NEO-PLATONISM

379

vered as head of the school b}' his pupils with extravagant deHis life was written by his pupil Marinus {Cobefs votion. Edition of Diog. Laert.). Among the works of Froclus (see J. Freudenthal in the Hermes, 1881, and Zeller, V. 778 ff.), espeand there cially noteworthy is -n-epl tt)? Kara nXciTojva OeoXoyia<; are also the commentaries on the Timceus, Republic, and Parmenides. These are collected by V. Cousin (Paris, 1820-25), with Supplement (Paris, 1864). See A. Berger, Frodus, exposition de. sa doctrine (Paris, 1840); H. Kirchner, De Frocli metaphysica (Berlin, 1846) K. Steinhart, article in Pauli/'s
;
;

Reulencyclopdie

Of the pupils of Proclus there are mentioned, besides his successor Marinus, Hermias, who wrote a commentary on the Phaedrns the son of Hermias, Ammonius, who edited the writings of Aristotle the mathematician Asclepiodotns, and The biography of further, Isidorns, Hegias, and Zenodotus. Isidorus by Damascius is partly preserved in the writings of Photius. The last scholarch of the Academy was Damascius, who, like Isidorus, returned to the fantastic theories of Jamblichus. He was born in Damascus and studied in Alexandria and Athens. After the closing of the school he emigrated with Simplicius and other neo-Platonists to Persia. They returned soon, however, after some hard experiences. Of his writings we possess, besides fragments of various commentaries and his biography of Isodorus, also a portion of his writing irepl twi^ TrpwTwv ap-^i^v (published by J. Kapp, Frankfort on the ]Main, 1826, with details of his personality), and also the conclusion of his commentary on the Parmeiddes. This commentary shows markedly the influence of Proclus. See Ch. E. Ruelle, Le Philosophe Danicsclns (Paris, 1861, and also in Arch. f. Gesch. d. Ph. 1890); E. Heitz (particularly). Der Philos. Damascius (in Strass'burger Ahliandl. zur P/iilos., Freiburg i. B. und Tbingen, 1884). Among the commentators who occupied a position of greater independence toward the neo-Platonie theory was Tliemistius, called 6 ev4>paST]i on account of his remarkable manner of presentation. He lived about 317-387, and taught in Constantinople. Those of his preserved paraphrases upon Aristotle are upon the second Analytics, the Physics, and the PsycJioJor// (published by Spengel, Leipzig, 1866). The paraphrase erroneously ascribed to him on the first Analytics can be found in the Ber;
;

lin edition

See of commentators (M. Wallies, Berlin, 1884). V. Rose (in the Hermes, 1867). Of the commentaries of Simplicius the Cilician, who, next to

3S0

IIISTOKY OF ANCIKNT rillLOSOl'II V.

T\-as the most notable expotuulor of Aristotle and the coiitciiiporai y and companion of Damascius, there are preserved those upon the first four hooks of the I*/i;/sics

AlcxandiM- of Aphrodisias,

(published by II. Diels, Berlin, 1.S82), and his commentary on JJe rrrln (published by S. Karstein, Utrecht, 18G5), on De anima

(published by M. Hayduek, Berlin, 1882), on the Categories (Basel, l;");")!), and on Kpictetus' EiirJieiridion. By the side of Priseianus and Asclepius there was the younger Olynipioilorus, whose commentaries on the Goryiaff, J^hilebiis, Phanio, and W\-g.t AI cih indes (witii the life of Plato) are preserved. There was also John Philiponus, of whose numerous commentaries (Venice, 1027 f.) those on the Pioisics have been publisiied in the Berlin collection l)y Vitelli (1887). Of still greater sigiiificance than these men for our present knowledge of ancient philosophy tiiere was a neo-Platonist, who, a contemporary to them, came out of the movement in the East. This was Boethius, who was condemned in 525. Although calling himself a Christian, he recognized only the arguments of ancient science in his treatise, l>e covsolutione philnsophicB (published by R. Peiper, Leipzig, 1871). His translations and expositions of Aristotle's Lo(jic and of the Isa(jocfe of Porph3'ry belong among the important writings on philosophy in the early Middle Ages. Ses F. Nitzsch, I)as S//stem des Boethius (Berlin, 1860) H. Usener, Anekdoton liolderi (Bonn, 1877) A. Ililderbrand, Boethius u. seine Stellung zum Christenthum (Regeusburg, 1885).
; ;

The

pcculiar.ity of the

work

of Proclus

was

his union of

mythological fancifiilness with barren formulism, of his

insatiable desire for faith with the gift of dialectic combination.

He was

a theologian to the same extent as was Jam-

blichus, but he constructed for his teaching a philosophical

schematism which was carried out with exactness even to the smallest detail. He got the content of his teaching from authority from the barbarian and Hellenic religions, and in addition from the great ])hilosophers, especially Plato, Plotinus, and Jamblichus. He had himself initiated into all the mysteries, and no superstition however childish was so bad as to be rejected by him. He did not rest until he had given a place in his universal system to every such
:

significant thought

and he was the true systcmatizer of

Heathendom and

the scholastic of Hellenism.

NEO-PLATONISM

381

The fundamentallj
its

constructive thought in his system was

abstract expression for the universal problem of neo:

Platonism

the problem to

velopment

of the

One

into the

make comprehensible the Many and the return of

it
;

de-

the

Many

into the One.

The manifold

effect is similar to the

unitary cause, and yet different from

diction
is

and

this contra-

reconciled by the fact that the effect strives by

from from the cause. Hence these three moments, permanence, going-forth, and return {fiov% irpoho'^,
its state

means

of that very similarity to return to the cause of separation

iTTccTTpocj)?]),

are essential in every event.

This

is

the lead-

ing idea of the conception of nature of Plotinus,

also -added the further principle that the return

who had
through

is

the

same phases

as

the going-forth.

Proclus, however,

applied this triadic schematism with a powerful dialectic to

every distinct phase of development in nature, and repeated it again and again even in treatment of the finest details.

Every form of his metaphysical theology divides into three which is again subjected to the same dialectic fate ad infinitum.
parts, each of
certain formal likeness is obvious between this method of Proclus aud the thesis, antithesis, and sj^nthesis of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. It must not be overlooked, however, that by the latter the relationship is considered as between concepts, by the former between m3'thieal potencies. But Hegel and Proclus are particularly alike in striving to S3'stematize a very large given content of ideas in a dialectic way. (W. Windelband, Gesch. der neueren Philos., II. 306 ff.)

The development
in

of the world out of the

Godhead was,

then, represented by Proclus as a system of triadic chains,

which the descent is from the universal to the particufrom the simple to the complex, from the perfect to the imperfect. At the apex stands the original One, the original Good, which is raised above all determinations, entirely inexpressible, and only figuratively represented as the One, the Good, the alriov. Out of this One emanate
lar,

382

HISTORY OF ANCIKNT PIIILOSOIMIY.

vov<;)

(even before the

unrecognizable.

a limited, but, for our knowledge, an

indeterminable number of unities (ei^aSe?) which are also

These are above Being, life, and reason, and are gods having power over the world.

These Ilenades bad this tlieological siguilicance for Procliis, that the}' place at his disposal a great nunil)er of supernatural incognizable gods. Metaphysically these appear in place of the second eV of Jainblichus. Another "Somewhat" accordingly Proclus is. like Porphyry, an perhaps plays a part here. The unioutsp(iken realist iu the spirit of the Middle Ages. versal stands over against the particular as a higher and more near!}' primitive actuality. Cause is identical with the universal, and tiie highest cause, the h; is identical with the highest, most One might, accordingly, supnearly^ characterless abstraction. pose these simple abstract concepts to be the Henades, over and above which conceptions only the "Somewhat" remains. The}' have then a meaning similar to the Spinozistic attributes of the divine substance.

scheme of Proclus, into the The vorjTov, the vorjTov a/xa koI voepov, and the voepov. Plotinian distinction between thought content and thought activity is fundamental here, but it is, however, at once disregarded on account of the theological construction. For here the vorjru is divided into three parts, in which the concepts of irepa';, a-n-eipov, and /jliktov are combined reFurther, the spectively with 7raTj']p, Svva/jii<i, and v6r)ai,<;. concepts of oucn'a and V7rap^i<;, of ^coi] and alcov are combined in so multifarious a relationshij), and with so many interchangeable meanings that a whole army of gods results. This same play repeats itself in the second sphere, and in part with the same categories. In the third sphere
Spirit is divided, in the

The

there

are

the

seven

Hebdomadcs

of

intellectual

gods,

among which,

Olympians appear. This entire construction, which iu accoinlaucc with the same scheme is carried in the psychical world to gods, daemons, and heroes, has no real intellectual motive at its
for example, the
basis.

It is a

kind of jibilosopbical

''

luuuiniification" of

NEU-PLATONISM
Hellenism.

383

This is partly due to the dialectic architectonic, and partly to the need of giving to every form of polytheism its place in the hierarchy of mythological formula) into which Proclus had translated the Greek conceptual
world.

show httle individuality. and adduced oidy this new thought that the material is not derived from the psycliieal, but directly from the a-n-apov of the first intelligible triad, and that it is fancifully formed by the lower world-soul, the 4>vo-i<;. His attempt in ethics is to lower the metaphysical dignity of the human soul and to make it appear thereb}' the more needy of the help of positive religious exercise and of divine and ditmonic

The physics and

stood far
off

ethics of Proclus
first,

He

from the

grace. Proclus thinks, therefore, that the characteristic of the The steps of its soul is its freedom, and therefore its guilt. redemption are here also "political" virtue, scientific knowledge, divine illumination, faith, and finally ecstasy (jxavia) for which a peculiar power of the soul is presupposed.

The two great streams

of

theosophy which burst forth

from Alexandria, on the one hand, into Christian theology, on the other into neo-Platonism, were not long separate from each other. Although neo-Platonism was destroyed
by scholasticism,
it

sent

its

thought through a thousand

channels into the orthodox as well as the heterodox development of Christian thought after Origen. Both systems
of thought

found their perfect reconciliation in an original

thinker,
tine.

Auguswho was the philosoi)her of Christianity, The doctrine of Augustine, however, was much more
philosophy.
It

than a receptacle for the confluent streams of Hellenic-

was rather the living fountain ol His was an initiating rather than a consummating work, and therefore he does not
the thought of the future.

Roman

belong to the history of ancient philosophy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
(A
list

of

works on Ancient Philosopliy

for English readers.)

[Histories of Philosophy: by Stanley, Loudon, 1655; Tenne-

mann, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, English

tr.

in

Bohn

Library, 1833, 1852;

Ueherweg, 3

vols.,

8th

ed.,

tr.

by

G. S. Morris, New York, 1872-74; Hegel, Vorlesimgen ber die Geschichte der Philosophie (vols. XIIL-XV. of the Complete Works), tr. by E. S. Haidane, 3 vols., London, 1892-96;
Schwegler,
Sterling,
tr.

by Seelye,
ed.,

New

York, 1856
1879;

ff.,

7th
vols.,

Edinburgh,

Cousin,

and by J. H. tr. by 0. W.

Wight, 2

New
tr.

teriallsmxis,

vols., tr.

York, 1889; Lange, Geschichte des Maby E. C. Thomas, London, 1878-81;

W. S. Hough, London, 1890; London, 1863; Windelband, tr. by Weber, tr. by F. J. H. Tufts, London and New York, 1893 Thilly, New York, 1898.
Erdmann, 3
Lewes, 2
vols.,

edited by

vols.,

3d

ed.,

Histories of Greek Philosophy: by Zeller, 5 vols., in 3 parts,

New

S. F. Alleyne and 0. J. Eeichel, London and 1876-1883; ibid., Grxmdnss, tr. by S. F. Alleyne and Evelyn Abbot, New York, 1890; Ferrier, Lecturer, on Greek Philosoph//, 2 vols., Edinburgh and London, 1866, London, 1888; Burnet, Early Greek Philosophers, London and Edinburgh, 1892; ]\rayor, A Sketch of Ancient Philosoph?/

5th

ed., tr.

by

York,

from Thales

Benn, The Greek Short History of Greek Philosopjhy, London, 1891 Butler, Lectures on the History of Ancient PJiilosopJiy.,2 vols., London, 1866; Bitter, History of Ancient Philosophy, tr. by J. W. Morrison, Oxford,
to Cicero,

Cambridge. 1881

ff.;

Philosophers, 2 vols., London, 1883;

INLar.shall,
;

25

r)80

BIBLIOGUAI'IIV
Aiulorstiii,

ISoS4(1;

tigated in Origin

The Pliilosoplti/ of Ancient Greece and Progress, Edinbur^li, 17*.)1.

:

Inves-

Histories of Greece, Greek Literature, otc.

Greece, 6th ed., 10 vols., Loiulon,

Grote, Jlistory of

1888; Mahaffy, History of Classical Greek Literature, 2d od., 3 vols., London, 1892; Laurie, Historical Surrey of jire-Christian Education, London,

History of Hthics, London and New York, History of the Philosophy of History, New York, 1.S94; l^osanquot. History of .Eatlietics, London and New York,
1895;

Sidgwick,

1S9L*; Flint,

1892;

Wundt,
;

Ethics,

vol.

IL,

tr.

by M. F. Washburn,

New

York, 1897

Cuslmian,

vard Ct)llege

History of the Idea, of Cause, HarDoctorate Thesis, Harvard Library; Botsford,

History of Greece, New York, 1899; Holm, History of Greece, English tr., 4 vols., Boston, 1894: How and Leigh, History <f
Ji'oiiie

to the

Death of

Ccesar,

New

York, 1896; J5ury, History

(ft hi' Ikoiiian Empire, New York, 1893; Mommsen, History of Rome, 5 vols., New York, 1869-70; Peter-Cliawner, Chronological

Tables of Greek History,

New York
1892
;

Kiepeil,

Atlas

Antiquus, Berlin and Boston,

Ancient Geography,

Kiepert,

Manual of

York, 1881 Teul'fel, Geschichte der by G.G. W. Warr, New York, 1891; Jel)b, Primer of Greeh Literature, New York, 1878; A. S. Wilkins, Primer of Roman Literature, New York, 1890; Alar haffy. History of Classical Greek Literature, 2 vols., New York, 1891; Cruttwell, History of Roman Literature, New York, 1878; Middleton and Mills, The Student'' s Companion to Latin Authors, New York, 1896; J. W. Mackail, Latin
;

New
tr.

rmischen Literatur,

Literature,

New

York, 1895.
:

The
with

pre-Socratic Greeks
translations,

Burnet,

Early Greek Philosophy

Edinburgh, 1892; Patrick, Ileraeleitus on Nature, Baltimore, 1889; Bohn's Classical Library, translations
;

London and

Encyclopoidia Brita/nnica, especially' article

by H. Jackson on

Sojjhists ; Davidson,
1,

The Fragments of ParSt.

vienides, in Jour, of Spec. Phil. IV.,

\\^orks on Socrates
:

Louis, Jan. 1870.

Plato, Apology, Crito,

etc.
;

and Pluedo,
Grote,

Phce-

drus, Meno, Thecetetus,

Xenophon, Memorabilia and SymI.,

jwsinm;

Aristotle,

3Ietaphysics,

ff.

History of

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Greece, vol. VIII., ch. 68
;

387

Potter, Characteristics of the Greek

Plato,

Philosophers, Socrates
den,

London, 1845; K. D. HampThe Fathers of Greek Philosophy, Edinburgh, 1869 see

and

also articles in Encyclopcedia Brltannica.

Works on Plato

Jowett, Translation of the Dialogues, with

New York and London, 1892; Grote, Plato and Other Companions of Socrates, 3 vols., London, 1865; Pater, Plato and Platonism, New York and London, 1893; Van Oordt, Plato and His Times, Oxford
introductions and analyses, in 5 vols.. 3d ed.,

and the Hague, 1895

public,

Bosanquet,

Companion

to

Plato's He-

Isew York, 1895; Havtmann, Philosojjhi/ of the Unconscious, tr. by E. C. Thomas of the chapter On the Unconscious

in Mysticism ; Martineau, Types of Ethiccd Theory, London and New York, 1886 see also Essays ; Campbell, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, article Plato ; Nettleship, in Hellenica, The Theory of Education in Plato's Republic ; Mill, J. S., Essays
;

and Discicssions. Works on Aristotle, Translations

Wallace,

Psycholo;/y in Greek and

English, page for page, with introduction and notes, by E.

Cambridge,

analysis and notes

by

J.

1882 E.

C.

Nicomachcean Ethics, tr. with Welldon, New York and London,

by Williams, 1876, Chase, 1877, Hatch, 1879, Peters, Politics, tr. by Welldon, Cambridge, 1888, also by Jowett, 2 vols. 1885-88, Ellis, with introduction by Morley, 1892 0 the Constitution of Athens, tr. with notes by Kenyon, London, 1891; Politics, tr. by Wharton, Cambridge, 1883 Rhetoric, tr. by Welldon, London and New York, 1886 Metaphysics, Organon, and History of Animals, tr. in the Bohn Library; Lewes, Aristotle, London, 1864; Grote, Aristotle, 2 vols., incomplete, 3d ed., London, 1884; E. Wallace, Outlines of the Philosop)hy of Aristotle, 3d ed., Oxford, 1883; A. Grant, Aristotle, in Ancient Classics for English Readers, Edinburgh and London, 1878 Davidson, Aristotle and Ancient Educational Ideals, New York, 1892 Th. H. Green, Works ; Bradley, in Hellenica, on Aristotle's Theory of the State; Taylor, Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle, London, 1813; Bain, Senses and Intellect, supplement by (Jrote, London, 1869.
1892
;

also

1881, Gillies, 1892

388

RIRLlocliAPIIV
period:
AV. AVallace,
;

The post-Aristotelian

Epicureanism,

London, 1880; Grote, u:lrts<o^/e (sec Aristotle) Jackson, eneca and Kant, 1881; Bryant, The Mtitual Inflnence of Christianity and the Stoic School, London, 18G6; Capes, Stoicism, L<indon,
1880; Lightfoot, ^7. Paul's Epistle
to

the Philippians, 4tli ed.,

London, 1878.
F<ir

Epictetus, the Aiarfuat

for

Iligginson, Boston, 1865;

tr.

and 'Ey;(ctpt8toi/, Marcus Aurelius,

tr.
to.

by T.
cis

W.

iavrov,

by G. Long; Watson, Life of Marcus Aurelius, London, 1884; Drumniond, Philo Judceus, London, 1888; Schrer, History of the Jewish People, 5 vols., New York, 1891; Muiiro,
tr.

of

Lucretius' poem,

De Natura Rerum,
Theory

London,

1886;

of Lucretius, London, 1884; Courtney, in Uellenica, subject, Ep)icureanism ; Maccoll, Tlie Greek Sceptics, London, 1869; Owen, Erenings ivith the Sceptics,

Masson,

The Ato^nic

London, 1881; A. Seth, in Encyclopaedia Britannica,

Scepticism;
Cicero,

article

Translations

of,

in

the

Bohn Library;
;

Tredwell, Life of Apollonius of Tyana,

Marius
tr.

the

Epicurean, London and

New York, 1886; Pater, New York, 1888 Yonge,

Plotinus,
tr.

of Philo,

vols.,

Bohn

Library, London.
Patristics:
of

Works on neo-Platonism and

parts
of

by Th. Taylor, London, 1787, 1794, 1817; Harnack, Neo-Platonism in Encyclopoedia Britannica;
works
of,

St. Paul. Epistle to Corinthians, L,

XV.

ihid.,

Phihppians, I.;

Gale, Life of Protarioras, of Plotinus, and Epistle to Aneho, by Porphyry, Oxford, 1678 ; Taylor, Life of Pythagoras, London, 1818; Chiswick, Ef/yptian Mysteries, 182], also by Taylor;
Schaff and Wace, Library of Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers,

New

York,

1890

Mansel,

The

G?iost{c

Heresies,

London,

1875; Allen, Continuity of Christian 27iO//A^ Boston, 1884;

Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine ; Neander, Expositions of the Gnostic Systems, tr. by
Torrey, Boston,
brary
;

1865

ihid.,

Antiynosticus,

tr.

in
,

Bohn

Li-

P>igg,

Christian Platonists of Alexandria

ai'ticle

Oxford,

1887;
Taylor,

Harnack, Ennjclopmdia Britannica, tr. of works of Proclus.

Origen

INDEX
Academy
its

(see also

uuder names of

representatives).

Older, 224 ff., 249. Middle, 224, 332.

Apollodorus, 43, 303. Apollouius (mathematician), 343. Apologists, 352 ff. Apuleius, .349.
Arcesilaus, 224, 332
1

New,

224.

ff.

Acusilaus, 27.

Adrastus, 303.
-Sdesius, 376.

^nesidemus, 33
^schines, 127.
-iEschylus, 109.
"

f.

Archagoras, 14. Archelaus, 87, 103 f., 123. Archytas (philosopher and mathematician), 94, 225 f., 229.
Aristeas, 25, 347.
Aristides, 352.

Alcidamus, 114, 123. Alcmason, 106, 108.

Aristippus, 145-151, 135. Aristobulus, 347.

Alexander
380.

of

Aphrodisias,

303

f.,

Aristo of Chios, 302 Aristo of Ceos, 302. Aristo of Cos, 302.

f.

Ale.xandrian philosophy, 342.

Alexiiius, 137, 139.

Aristophanes, 113, 127, 130.

Aristotle, 224
124,
ff.,
f.,

Amafiuius, 321. Amelias, 367.

36

u.,

37, 74, 81, 83,

152
ff.

f.,

160,

188, 230-292,

Ammonias
Ammonias,

Saccus, 362
379.

366.

314

Aristagoras, 24.
f,,
f.,

Anatolius, 375.

Anaxagoras, 80-87, 88
110
314.
f.,

93

f.,

102
f.,

f.,

Aristoxenus, 298 f., 301 Arius Didymus, 339.

Arnol)ius, 360.

ff.

165

f.,

175

199

229,

Arrian, 306.
49, 70.

Anaxarchus, 173, 331. Anaximander, 36, 39-43, Anaximenes, 36, 43^5.

Androniciis, 237
f.,

Asclepiades (The), 24. Aselepiodotus (philosopher), 379.

Asclepius, 380.

243.

Aspasius, 303.

Auniceris, 145
Antiochiis, 224

f.,

149.

Aiitimterus, 114.
f.,

Athenagoras, 352 f. Athenian (embassy), 340.

f.

338

Atomists,

68,

73,

87-93,

151-174,

Antipater, 303.

104, 229.

Anytus, 126

n.

Antistheues, 140-145, 135. Apellicon, 243.

Apelles, 357.

Augustine, 228, 356, 383. Averroes, 237.

Bacox,

154.
f.

Apollinarls, 353.

anlesanes, 355

390
Hasileidcs, 355
Biiis, 20.
f.,

INDEX
358
f.

Demonax,
Dcxipptis,

307.
.'>76.

IJililiogrupliy coiiccruiug ptiilusophy,

Diagoras, 123.
Dica;arch, 298, 301
Dioiles, 94, 107.
f.

7-15.

Hiou, 141.
lithius, 380.

Diodorus Cronus, 136

f.

Bthus (Peripatetic), 303. Bcthus (.Stoic), 305.

Diodcirus of Tyre, 302.

Cadmus,

25.

Canities, 114, 122.

Callippus, 272.
Carueatles, 224
f.,

Diogenes of Apollonia, 101 f. Diogenes of Siuope, 140-144. Diogenes the Babylonian, 303 Diogenes Laertius, 157, 237 f. Dionysius (logograplier), 25.
Dionysius of Syracuse, 140. Dionysiodorus, 120. Duris, 302.

f.,

340.

332

ff.,

339.

Carpoerates, 355

f.

Catechi.sts (scliool of), 352.

Cebes, 94.
CeLsu.s, 361.

Cerdon, 357.
Ceriuthus, 357.

ECIIECRATES, 94. Ecphantes, 103, 229.

Elean-Eretrian school, 139.
Eleatics, 46-52, 59-65,
1

Chamaleou,

302.

52,

75,

93

ff .,

Chrysauthius, 37G.

Chrysippus (philosopher), 303

Cicero, 338
ff.

f.

260 f. Empedocles, 23,

102
f.,

69, 73-80, 81

ff.,

88

f.,

113

f.,

164.

Cleauthus, 303 f., 3 IG. Clearchus, 302. Cleidemus, 105. Clement of Alexandria, 356, 359
Cliuias, 94.

Epitharnius, 109.
Epictetus. 306
ff.
f.

Epicurus and Epicureans, 319-329, 104 ff., 297,331 f.

Epimeuidt'S, 27.

Clitomachus, 332. Cnidian Sentences, 24. Colotes, 320 f. Cornutus, 30G. Crautor, 225 f., 230. Crates of Athens, 225 f., 303, 332. Crates the Cynic, 140.
Cratinus, 109. Cratylns, 103, 110, 175.
Critia.s, 114, 123.

Eratosthenes, 303. Erennius, 367 f.

Eristic, 138.

Euathlus, 114.
Euhuli<les, 137, 139,

Euclid (philosopher), 125 f., 176. Eudemus, 298-301, 239, 245 f.

Critolaus, 302, .339.

Eudorus, 339. Eudoxus, 225 f., 229, 272. Euernus of Paros, 114. Euemerus, 145 f., 150.
f.

Cynics, 140, 145, 135, 290

Eupdlis, 109.

Cynics

307 f. Cyrenaics, 145-151, 13.5, 171,290

(later),

Eurytus, 94.
f.,

lCury|)lii)n, 24.

320

f.

Eu.so1)ius, 356, 376.

Eutlu'demus, 120.

Damascius, 378

ff.

Demetrius of Phalerns, 302. Demetrius, Cynic, 307. Democritus, 151-173, 87 ff.,

U.,

Gai.i-ni's, 341.
(ialilco, 1.54.

195, 207

fJassendi, 154.
Gcloii. 18.

203

ff.,

322, 320

f.

INDEX
Gnomic
poets, 26, 28, 32, 50, 109.

391

Isiodorus, 379.
Lsucrates,

Uorgias, 113 f., 119, 79, 142. and the Greeks, the earlv, 16 puetiy, 1^, 2-i, Orient, 21 .
;
;

30

n.,

231

f.

26

f.; later

puetn,

lu'J.

Jamblichis, 366 f., 375-377. Jewish Alexandrian philosophv,

346
ff.
f.

Hecateids,

25.

Julian, 375
Justin, 353
150.

Hegel, 243 n.
Hegesias, 145
f.,

ff.

Justinian,

Emperor, 378.
f.

Hegias, 379.

Helleuic-Romau philosophy, 293

Heracleides of Toutus, 220
f.,

ff.

Lactaxtics, 352

229.

Heracleides Lenibus, 302.

Heracleitus, 46, 52, 59-63, 70
ff..

76,
f.,

82 f., 88 f., 93 159 f., 175, 193

Heracleiteaus, 103.

ff.,
f.,

110

f.,

117

260

f.,

310

ff.

Lacydes, 332. Leucippus, 69, 87-93, 159 Logographers, The, 25. Longinus, 367. Lucretius, 320 f.
Lycis, 94.

f.

Heracleitus (Stoic), 306.

Herbart, 194.

Lyco, 126 n., 302. Lycophrou, 114, 123.

Herennius, see Erennius.

Herillus, 303, 308.

Maxich-Eism, 358.
Marcion, 357.

Hermarchus, 321. Hermeius (Academician), 2.33 f. Hermeius (Xeo-Platonist). 379.

Marcus Aurelius, 306

Mariiius, 378.

f.,

337, 353.

Hermes Trismegistus,
Hermias, 378.
HerminiLs, 303.

349.

Martyr, Justin, 352 f. Maximus, 376 f. Megariaus, 135-140, 194.

:\Ieletus,

Hermippus, 302. Hermodorus, 176. Hermotimus, 27.

Herodotus, 108, 24. Hesychius, 237. Hesiod, 20.
Hicetas, 105.

126 n.

Melissus, 69.
Melito, 353.

Menedemus,

140.
28,
87,

Metrodorus of Lampsacus, 320 f Metrodorus of Chios, 173.

Metrocles, 140
f.
f.

Hiero, 18.

Hipparchia, 140 f. Hipparchus, 302. Hippasus, 103. Hippias, 112, 122.

^liuucius Felix, 352

Moderatus, 343. Musonius, 306. The, Mvsteries,

n.

26,

31

f.,

47,

Hippodamus, 123
Hippocrates
156.

56.

of

Cos,
359.

107,

24,

101,

XArsiPHAXES,
f.,

173, 326, 331.

Hippohtus, 356 Hippo, 105.

Xeleus. 243.
Xeocleides, 229. Neo-Platonists, The, 365-383.

Homer,

28.
f.

Hypatia, 375
Id.eus, 101.

Neo-Pythagoreans, The, 97, 342

Nicolaus, 303.

ff.

IreniEUs, 356, 359

ff.

Nicomachus. 343 Numenius, 343 f.

f.

392
OrKi.ns, 94
<

INDEX
Prisons, 376.
.'^07.

linoinaiis,

Proclus, 366
Srif,,

f.,
1

377-383.
15, 123.

)hiniii(>(lorns, .167, 378.

rigou (Christiiiii),

361

ff.,

367.

Prodicus, 112, Prorus, 94.

Origen (Neu-riatoiiist), 367.

Orpines, 32.

Prota-onis,
159
f.,

114-123,
14.
ff.

146

f.,

152

f.,

175, 19uff.
1

Protarchus,

Pan.stius, 305, 337. Parmenides, 23, 46, 59-65, 69 ff. 73 f., 80, 88 ff., 93 f., 110 f., 135 f.
Pa.sieles, 34, 302.

Pyrrho, 17.3,329

Pythagoras,

28

ff.,

23,

56,

79,

171,

344

ff

I'tolenueu.s, 237.

Peisistratus, 18.

Periander, 18.
Perioles, 87.

Pytliagorenns, The, 23, 24, 26, 64 72, 77, 79, 93, 100, 175 ff., 199

ff.,

ff.,

229
ff.

f.

Peregrinus. Proteus, 307.

Peripatetics, The, 298

t'FDS, C. MUSONIUS, 306.

Persicus, 303, 306.

PiiKdo, 140.
Phffidriis,

Salu'stius, 375
f.

f.

320

Saturninus, 355

f.

Phalcas, 123 ii. Phauias, 302. Phanto, 94.

Satyrns, 302. Seneca, 305 f. Sextians, The, 341

f.

Phereeydes, 27, 30. Philip of Opus, 189, 225 f. Philodemus, 320. Philolaus, 93-100. Philo of Larissa, 224 f., 338. Philo the Jew, 343-349.

Sextus Enipiricus, 333 f. Seven Wi.se Men, 19, 132.

Sicilian
113.

school

of

rhetoric,

7,

9,

Philopomus, 378
Photius, 379. Piudar, 109.
Pittacus, 18, 20.

ff.

Simmias, 94. Simon, 127. Simonides, 109. Simplicius, 379 f. Skeptics, The, 329-337.
Socrates, 123-135, 152, 172, 296
f.

Plato,

174-224,
ff.,

124

ff.,

146,

151,

Socratics, The, 135

f.

250 ff., 260 f. Platonism, Eclectic, 339 ff. Plotinus, 366-375.

Plutarcli of Clia'roiiea, 349.

232

Solon, 20, 28. Sopater, 376.

Sophi.sts,
1

The,

34,

108-123,

128

f.,

59.

Plutarch of Athens, 376 f. Points of view regarding philosopliv

6f. Poetry, Early, 18.

Sopliocles, 109.

Sosigenes, 303.

Sotion (Peripatetic), 302.

Sotion
343.

(Neo-Pythagoreau),
f.

341,

Potamo, 339.
Polenio, 225,
.303.

Spensij)pns, 224
Rj)ha'rns, 303.
Stilix), 136, 139,

Pulycrates, 18.

Polymnastus,

94.

I'orphyry, 367 ff. Posidonius, 305, 337, 345. Positivism, 116.

Prisciauus, 380.

Stoics,

303 f. The. 303-319, 230, 299.

Strato, 299-302.

Synesins, 376.

Svrianus, 377

f.

INDEX
Tatiax, 359.
Teles, 141.

393
ff.

Valextints, 355
Yarro, 339
ff.

Tertullian,

.356, 3.59f.

Thaies, 20, 22, 36-39, 105. Themistius, 378 f. Tlieudorus (mathematician), 114.

Xaxtippe, 126
Xeuocrates,
303.

n.

Xeneiiiades, 114, 141.

225
28,

f.,

230
46-52,
183

f.,

233,
62,

Theudorus Theodorus

(Cyiiif), 14.5-151. (of Asine), 375.

Xenophanes,
267.

56,

Theophilus, 353. Thephrastus,243f.,298f.,300E.,332. Theosebius, 378.

XenophoD,

124, 127

ff.,

f.

Xuthus, 104.

Thrasymachus,
Thrasyllus, 157.

123.

Thrasybulus, 39.

Zexo
136

of
ff.

Elea,

51,

65-69,

119

Thucydides, 108. Timajus, 94. Timou, 330 f. Tubero, 333.

Zeno of Cition, 137, 303 Zeno of Tarsus, 303. Zeno of Sidon, 320.
Zeuodotus, 379.

ff.

THE EPOCHS OF PHILOSOPHY

Edited by

John Grier Hieben, Princeton

University

The aim of the series on TJie Epochs of Philosophy is to present the significant features of philosophical thought in the There is no attempt to give chief periods of its development. a complete account in every case of the men or their works which these various periods have produced; but rather to estimate and interpret the characteristic contributions which each age may have made to the permanent store of philosophical
knowledge. Such a process of interpretation, therefore, must be necessarily selective. And in the light of the specific purposes of this series the principle of
selection suggests
itself,

namely, to emphasise especially those doctrines which have appeared as effective factors in the evolution of philosophical Moreover, these various periods arfe intithought as a whole. mately connected; the history is a continuous one. While there are several distinct epochs of philosophy, there is but one movement of philosophical thought, and it is hoped that
the present series will serve, in some slight measure at least, to deepen the impression of that fundamental unity which characterises the progress of philosophy through the many phases of its development.

VOLUMES AND AUTHORS

THE BEGINNINGS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY
By
F. J. E.

Woodbridge,

Professor in Columbia University.

THE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY

By
A. E. Taylor, Professor of University.

Moral Philosophy,

St.

Andrew's

THE ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY

By Paul Shorey,
Professor of Greek, University of Chicago.

THE EPOCHS OF PHILOSOPHY

STOIC AND EPICUREAN
By
R. D. Hicks, Fellow Cambridge. (Now ready.)

and

late

Lecturer,

Trinity

College,

NEO-PLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY

By
F.

W. BussELL,

Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.

THE MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY

(Author to be announced
later.)

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE

By
Ch.'^rles

REN.\ISS.\NCE
Professor of Philosophy, Yale Uni-

M. Bakewell,

versity.

THE

RISE OF THE HISTORICAL METHOD IN PHILOSOPHY By J. E. Creighton, Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, Cornell
University.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF RATIONALISM

By Fr.axk Thilly, Professor By John
versity.

of Ethics, Cornell University.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Grier Hieben,
ready.)

Professor of

Logic, Princeton

Uni-

(Now

THE CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY

By JosiAH Royce,
University.

Professor of the History of Philosophy, Harvard

THE IDEALISTIC MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT NINETEENTH CENTURY

By
J. B. versity.

IN

THE

Baillie, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Aberdeen Uni-

An

additional volume
S.

pected from A.

Metaphysics

in

(title to be announced Pringle-Pattison, Professor the University of Edinburgh.

later) is ex-

of

Logic and

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
By

ALFRED WEBER
Professor in the

University of Strasbourg

Translated by

FRANK THILLY
Professor of Philosophy in the

University of Missouri

8vo,

$2.50 Net
is

"The

special value of this

work

in its clear

and compact exposi=

field."

lion of the development of thought.

It

covers the whole

The
"From
its

Outlook.

size, its clearness,

its

proportion,

it

is

adapted better for

history

an ordinary college text-book than

philosophy."

any extant general

of

Professor William James, Harvard University.

probably no book better
.

"There

is

fitted for
. .

acquainting the student

with the development of thought.

The book may be recom-

mended
on the

to

universities

and schools as the most serviceable manual

subject."

New
is

York Sun.

" Professor

Weber

among

the very few

who have
I

rightly estimated

the significance of

Locke and Hume.

...

cannot close this im-

perfect account of Professor Weber's

book without expressing

my

great

appreciation of the

work done by

the translator, both in the transla-

tion itself, but especially in the very extensive notes

authorities,

and references to

and

in

the complete index;

all

these additions contribute

much

to

make

the book available to students, and help

I

make

it

the best

history of philosophy

have seen

in

English form."

Professor John

E. Russell, in

The

A^ezu

World.

CHarles

Scribner's

Sons,

PviblisKers,

Ne-w

YorK

AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY
By

OF ETHICS

FRANK THILLY
Professor of Philosophy
in

the University of Missouri.

12mo. $1.25 Net

" Introductions to ethics

and

treatises

thereon abound, but in the

we do not remember to have seen anythmg remotely approaching Professor Thilly's work in scope or manner. Such a commultitude
bination of breadth with brevity should occasion cheer in every study.

As

a text-book

it

is difficult

to see

how

it

may

be improved."

Boston

Transcript.
to provide

" Professor Thilly's

endeavor

in this

volume has been

an

introduction to the general study of ethics, and in this he has suc-

ceeded admirably."

versity, in Tlie Philosophical

Professor John Grier Hieben, of Princeton UniReview.

" This

book

will help to clear the thinking of those

him, as well as of his friends.

parsimony of words."
"

who differ with has a good clear style and a wise The Sunday School Times.

He

His

style

is

simple and clear, and the book

St.

is

for the average

reader as well as the student."

"

Louis Globe-Democrat.

Exhaustive

arid

book.

... A

scholarly, and well adapted for a college textwelcome contribution to a question which needs con-

tinual readjustment."
"

The

Critic.

subject in America."

Must be regarded as a distinct addition The Churchman.

to the literature of the

CKarles

Scribner's

Sons,

PublisHers.

Ne-w

"YorK

A SYSTEM OF ETHICS
By

FRIEDRICH PAULSEN
Professor of Philosophy
in

the

University of Berlin

Translated
Professor of PhilosopJiy

By
University of Missouri

FRANK. THILLY
in the

8vo,

$3.00

Net

" So successful has Professor Thilly been in rendering the German into English that the reader is hardly conscious of the fact that he has only a translation before him yet the ease and fluency of the English Only a pracis not attained at the expense of the German expression. tised hand, guided by infinite patience, could have produced such a result. One is particularly grateful for it because the work itself is so well calculated to interest and inform a circle much wider than that of the professed students of philosophy, dealing as it does with many of the most important practical questions of the day, and dealing with them in no pedantic or scholastic fashion, but in a way that the man of ordinary culture can have no difficulty in understanding."
;

The Philosophical Review.

it

"
for

useful practical help in solving the problems of life. Most ethical works are somewhat hard reading, but there is not a dull page in Paulsen's book." London Academy.

namely,
We

remarkable book, and admirably adapted for those

people

is

intended

who want

" feel a debt of more than common obligation to Professor Thilly for his translation of this important work, and for having enriched it with a most valuable bibliography at the beginning of each chapter relating to the particular contents of that chapter. The translation is another testimony to the quickness of the American University to seize on the best that is being thought and written in Europe." London Spectator.

" Professor Thilly has done his work as translator with accuracy and The reader is rarely reminded that the original is in German a merit which those who have tried to translate German philosophy will appreciate at its true value." London Saturday Revieiv.
skill.

CHarles

Scribner's

Sons.

PublisHers,

Ne-w

"YorK

IMMANUEL KANT: HIS LIFE AND DOCTRINE

By

FRIEDRICH PAULSEN
Professor of Philosophy
in

Berlin

University

Translated by
J. E.

CREIGHTON

and ALDEIRT

LEFEVRE

of the Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University

8vo,

$2.50 Net
exposition.

"
. .

The whole book

.

is

a fine example of philosophical

is

Especially

worthy of praise

the

introductory

chapter on

Kant's significance, both for the thought of his

general history of thought."
"

own

time and for the

London Athenaeum.
work and
as an authorita-

Of

value both as an exposition of Kant's

it."

tive opinion of
"

The

Dial.

Those who wish

to study

Kant

himself, rather than to read about

is

him, will find here a light for their path, pointing to what

of per-

manent value
"
is

in his

system and also to what

is

not."

The Outlook.

Professor Paulsen's exposition of the great philosopher's doctrines

.
.

singularly able, clear and coherent.

The

translation

is

ex-

cellent "

and idiomatic."

London Academy.
find a

Seldom does one

book that with such keen

critical

insight

combines so lucid an interpretation, so considerate and adequate an

adaptation to the limitations of the student."

Boston Transcript.

CHarles

Scribner's

Sons,

PublisHers,

Ne-w

"YorK

X OhO o o
CNJ

>>c

CO

r-i

C30

rH=te:|l

Si Ph -p

<D

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES 59 QUEEN'S PARK CRESCENT

TORONTO -^5, CANADA

ill