6. VI
THE EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS IN ITALY
The Early Greek Philosophers in Italy
DIOGENES LAERTIUS tells a story about a
youth who, clad in a purple toga, entered the
arena at the Olympian games and asked to compete
with the other youths in boxing. He was derisively
denied admission, presumably because he was beyond
the legitimate age for juvenile contestants. Nothing
daunted, the youth entered the lists of men, and turned
the laugh on his critics by coming off victor. The
youth who performed this feat was named Pythagoras.
He was the same man, if we may credit the story, who
afterwards migrated to Italy and became the founder
of the famous Crotonian School of Philosophy; the
man who developed the religion of the Orphic mysteries;
who conceived the idea of the music of the
spheres; who promulgated the doctrine of metempsychosis;
who first, perhaps, of all men clearly conceived
the notion that this world on which we live is
a ball which moves in space and which may be habitable
on every side.
A strange development that for a stripling pugilist.
But we must not forget that in the Greek world athletics
held a peculiar place. The chief winner of
Olympian games gave his name to an epoch (the ensuing
Olympiad of four years), and was honored almost
before all others in the land. A sound mind in a
sound body was the motto of the day. To excel in
feats of strength and dexterity was an accomplishment
that even a philosopher need not scorn. It will be recalled
that Æschylus distinguished himself at the battle
of Marathon; that Thucydides, the greatest of
Greek historians, was a general in the Peloponnesian
War; that Xenophon, the pupil and biographer of
Socrates, was chiefly famed for having led the Ten
Thousand in the memorable campaign of Cyrus the
Younger; that Plato himself was credited with having
shown great aptitude in early life as a wrestler. If,
then, Pythagoras the philosopher was really the Pythagoras
who won the boxing contest, we may suppose
that in looking back upon this athletic feat from
the heights of his priesthood—for he came to be almost
deified—he regarded it not as an indiscretion of his
youth, but as one of the greatest achievements of his
life. Not unlikely he recalled with pride that he was
credited with being no less an innovator in athletics
than in philosophy. At all events, tradition credits
him with the invention of "scientific'' boxing. Was it
he, perhaps, who taught the Greeks to strike a rising
and swinging blow from the hip, as depicted in the
famous metopes of the Parthenon? If so, the innovation
of Pythagoras was as little heeded in this regard
in a subsequent age as was his theory of the motion of
the earth; for to strike a swinging blow from the hip,
rather than from the shoulder, is a trick which the
pugilist learned anew in our own day.
But enough of pugilism and of what, at best, is a
doubtful tradition. Our concern is with another
"science'' than that of the arena. We must follow the
purple-robed victor to Italy—if, indeed, we be not over-credulous in accepting the tradition—and learn of triumphs
of a different kind that have placed the name of
Pythagoras high on the list of the fathers of Grecian
thought. To Italy? Yes, to the western limits of
the Greek world. Here it was, beyond the confines of
actual Greek territory, that Hellenic thought found its
second home, its first home being, as we have seen, in
Asia Minor. Pythagoras, indeed, to whom we have
just been introduced, was born on the island of Samos,
which lies near the coast of Asia Minor, but he probably
migrated at an early day to Crotona, in Italy.
There he lived, taught, and developed his philosophy
until rather late in life, when, having incurred the
displeasure of his fellow-citizens, he suffered the not
unusual penalty of banishment.
Of the three other great Italic leaders of thought of
the early period, Xenophanes came rather late in life to
Elea and founded the famous Eleatic School, of which
Parmenides became the most distinguished ornament.
These two were Ionians, and they lived in the sixth
century before our era. Empedocles, the Sicilian,
was of Doric origin. He lived about the middle of the
fifth century B.C., at a time, therefore, when Athens
had attained a position of chief glory among the Greek
states; but there is no evidence that Empedocles ever
visited that city, though it was rumored that he returned
to the Peloponnesus to die. The other great Italic
philosophers just named, living, as we have seen, in
the previous century, can scarcely have thought of
Athens as a centre of Greek thought. Indeed, the very
fact that these men lived in Italy made that peninsula,
rather than the mother-land of Greece, the centre of
Hellenic influence. But all these men, it must constantly
be borne in mind, were Greeks by birth and
language, fully recognized as such in their own time
and by posterity. Yet the fact that they lived in a
land which was at no time a part of the geographical
territory of Greece must not be forgotten. They, or
their ancestors of recent generations, had been pioneers
among those venturesome colonists who reached out
into distant portions of the world, and made homes
for themselves in much the same spirit in which colonists
from Europe began to populate America some
two thousand years later. In general, colonists from
the different parts of Greece localized themselves somewhat
definitely in their new homes; yet there must
naturally have been a good deal of commingling among
the various families of pioneers, and, to a certain extent,
a mingling also with the earlier inhabitants of
the country. This racial mingling, combined with the
well-known vitalizing influence of the pioneer life, led,
we may suppose, to a more rapid and more varied
development than occurred among the home-staying
Greeks. In proof of this, witness the remarkable
schools of philosophy which, as we have seen, were
thus developed at the confines of the Greek world, and
which were presently to invade and, as it were, take
by storm the mother-country itself.
As to the personality of these pioneer philosophers
of the West, our knowledge is for the most part more or
less traditional. What has been said of Thales may
be repeated, in the main, regarding Pythagoras, Parmenides,
and Empedocles. That they were real persons
is not at all in question, but much that is merely
traditional has come to be associated with their names.
Pythagoras was the senior, and doubtless his ideas
may have influenced the others more or less, though
each is usually spoken of as the founder of an independent
school. Much confusion has all along existed,
however, as to the precise ideas which were to be ascribed
to each of the leaders. Numberless commentators,
indeed, have endeavored to pick out from among
the traditions of antiquity, aided by such fragments,
of the writing of the philosophers as have come down
to us, the particular ideas that characterized each
thinker, and to weave these ideas into systems. But
such efforts, notwithstanding the mental energy that
has been expended upon them, were, of necessity,
futile, since, in the first place, the ancient philosophers
themselves did not specialize and systematize their
ideas according to modern notions, and, in the second
place, the records of their individual teachings have
been too scantily preserved to serve for the purpose of
classification. It is freely admitted that fable has
woven an impenetrable mesh of contradictions about
the personalities of these ancient thinkers, and it would
be folly to hope that this same artificer had been less
busy with their beliefs and theories. When one reads
that Pythagoras advocated an exclusively vegetable
diet, yet that he was the first to train athletes on meat
diet; that he sacrificed only inanimate things, yet that
he offered up a hundred oxen in honor of his great discovery
regarding the sides of a triangle, and such like
inconsistencies in the same biography, one gains a
realizing sense of the extent to which diverse traditions
enter into the story as it has come down to us. And
yet we must reflect that most men change their opinions
in the course of a long lifetime, and that the antagonistic
reports may both be true.
True or false, these fables have an abiding interest,
since they prove the unique and extraordinary character
of the personality about which they are woven.
The alleged witticisms of a Whistler, in our own day,
were doubtless, for the most part, quite unknown to
Whistler himself, yet they never would have been
ascribed to him were they not akin to witticisms that
he did originate—were they not, in short, typical expressions
of his personality. And so of the heroes of
the past. "It is no ordinary man,'' said George Henry
Lewes, speaking of Pythagoras, "whom fable exalts
into the poetic region. Whenever you find romantic
or miraculous deeds attributed, be certain that the
hero was great enough to maintain the weight of the
crown of this fabulous glory.'' [45]
We may not doubt, then, that Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Empedocles,
with whose names fable was so busy throughout antiquity,
were men of extraordinary personality. We
are here chiefly concerned, however, neither with the
personality of the man nor yet with the precise doctrines
which each one of them taught. A knowledge
of the latter would be interesting were it attainable,
but in the confused state of the reports that have come
down to us we cannot hope to be able to ascribe each
idea with precision to its proper source. At best we
can merely outline, even here not too precisely, the
scientific doctrines which the Italic philosophers as a
whole seem to have advocated.
First and foremost, there is the doctrine that the
earth is a sphere. Pythagoras is said to have been the
first advocate of this theory; but, unfortunately, it is
reported also that Parmenides was its author. This
rivalship for the discovery of an important truth we
shall see repeated over and over in more recent times.
Could we know the whole truth, it would perhaps appear
that the idea of the sphericity of the earth was
originated long before the time of the Greek philosophers.
But it must be admitted that there is no record
of any sort to give tangible support to such an assumption.
So far as we can ascertain, no Egyptian or
Babylonian astronomer ever grasped the wonderful
conception that the earth is round. That the Italic
Greeks should have conceived that idea was perhaps
not so much because they were astronomers as because
they were practical geographers and geometers. Pythagoras,
as we have noted, was born at Samos, and,
therefore, made a relatively long sea voyage in passing
to Italy. Now, as every one knows, the most simple
and tangible demonstration of the convexity of the
earth's surface is furnished by observation of an approaching
ship at sea. On a clear day a keen eye may
discern the mast and sails rising gradually above the
horizon, to be followed in due course by the hull.
Similarly, on approaching the shore, high objects become
visible before those that lie nearer the water.
It is at least a plausible supposition that Pythagoras
may have made such observations as these during the
voyage in question, and that therein may lie the germ
of that wonderful conception of the world as a sphere.
To what extent further proof, based on the fact that
the earth's shadow when the moon is eclipsed is always
convex, may have been known to Pythagoras we cannot
say. There is no proof that any of the Italic philosophers
made extensive records of astronomical observations
as did the Egyptians and Babylonians; but
we must constantly recall that the writings of classical
antiquity have been almost altogether destroyed.
The absence of astronomical records is, therefore, no
proof that such records never existed. Pythagoras, it
should be said, is reported to have travelled in Egypt,
and he must there have gained an inkling of astronomical
methods. Indeed, he speaks of himself specifically,
in a letter quoted by Diogenes, as one who is accustomed
to study astronomy. Yet a later sentence of
the letter, which asserts that the philosopher is not always
occupied about speculations of his own fancy,
suggesting, as it does, the dreamer rather than the observer,
gives us probably a truer glimpse into the philosopher's
mind. There is, indeed, reason to suppose
that the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth appealed
to Pythagoras chiefly because it accorded with his
conception that the sphere is the most perfect solid,
just as the circle is the most perfect plane surface. Be
that as it may, the fact remains that we have here, as
far as we can trace its origin, the first expression of the
scientific theory that the earth is round. Had the
Italic philosophers accomplished nothing more than
this, their accomplishment would none the less mark
an epoch in the progress of thought.
That Pythagoras was an observer of the heavens is
further evidenced by the statement made by Diogenes,
on the authority of Parmenides, that Pythagoras was
the first person who discovered or asserted the identity
of Hesperus and Lucifer—that is to say, of the morning
and the evening star. This was really a remarkable
discovery, and one that was no doubt instrumental
later on in determining that theory of the mechanics
of the heavens which we shall see elaborated presently.
To have made such a discovery argues again for the
practicality of the mind of Pythagoras. His, indeed,
would seem to have been a mind in which practical
common-sense was strangely blended with the capacity
for wide and imaginative generalization. As further
evidence of his practicality, it is asserted that he was
the first person who introduced measures and weights
among the Greeks, this assertion being made on the
authority of Aristoxenus. It will be observed that he
is said to have introduced, not to have invented,
weights and measures, a statement which suggests a
knowledge on the part of the Greeks that weights and
measures were previously employed in Egypt and
Babylonia.
The mind that could conceive the world as a sphere
and that interested itself in weights and measures
was, obviously, a mind of the visualizing type. It is
characteristic of this type of mind to be interested in
the tangibilities of geometry, hence it is not surprising
to be told that Pythagoras "carried that science to
perfection.'' The most famous discovery of Pythagoras
in this field was that the square of the hypotenuse
of a right-angled triangle is equal to the squares of the
other sides of the triangle. We have already noted
the fable that his enthusiasm over this discovery led
him to sacrifice a hecatomb. Doubtless the story is
apocryphal, but doubtless, also, it expresses the truth
as to the fervid joy with which the philosopher must
have contemplated the results of his creative imagination.
No line alleged to have been written by Pythagoras
has come down to us. We are told that he refrained
from publishing his doctrines, except by word of
mouth. "The Lucanians and the Peucetians, and the
Messapians and the Romans,'' we are assured, "flocked
around him, coming with eagerness to hear his discourses;
no fewer than six hundred came to him
every night; and if any one of them had ever been permitted
to see the master, they wrote of it to their friends
as if they had gained some great advantage.'' Nevertheless,
we are assured that until the time of Philolaus
no doctrines of Pythagoras were ever published, to
which statement it is added that "when the three celebrated
books were published, Plato wrote to have them
purchased for him for a hundred minas.'' [46]
But if such books existed, they are lost to the modern world, and
we are obliged to accept the assertions of relatively
late writers as to the theories of the great Crotonian.
Perhaps we cannot do better than quote at length
from an important summary of the remaining doctrines
of Pythagoras, which Diogenes himself quoted from
the work of a predecessor. [47]
Despite its somewhat inchoate character, this summary is a
most remarkable one, as a brief analysis of its contents will
show. It should be explained that Alexander (whose work is
now lost) is said to have found these dogmas set down
in the commentaries of Pythagoras. If this assertion
be accepted, we are brought one step nearer the philosopher
himself. The summary is as follows:
"That the monad was the beginning of everything.
From the monad proceeds an indefinite duad, which is
subordinate to the monad as to its cause. That from
the monad and the indefinite duad proceed numbers.
And from numbers signs. And from these last, lines
of which plane figures consist. And from plane figures
are derived solid bodies. And from solid bodies sensible
bodies, of which last there are four elements—fire,
water, earth, and air. And that the world, which is
indued with life and intellect, and which is of a spherical
figure, having the earth, which is also spherical,
and inhabited all over in its centre,
[48]
results from a combination of these elements, and derives its motion from
them; and also that there are antipodes, and that
what is below, as respects us, is above in respect of
them.
"He also taught that light and darkness, and cold
and heat, and dryness and moisture, were equally divided
in the world; and that while heat was predominant
it was summer; while cold had the mastery, it
was winter; when dryness prevailed, it was spring; and
when moisture preponderated, winter. And while all
these qualities were on a level, then was the loveliest
season of the year; of which the flourishing spring was
the wholesome period, and the season of autumn the
most pernicious one. Of the day, he said that the
flourishing period was the morning, and the fading one
the evening; on which account that also was the least
healthy time.
"Another of his theories was that the air around
the earth was immovable and pregnant with disease,
and that everything in it was mortal; but that the upper
air was in perpetual motion, and pure and salubrious,
and that everything in that was immortal, and
on that account divine. And that the sun and the
moon and the stars were all gods; for in them the warm
principle predominates which is the cause of life. And
that the moon derives its light from the sun. And
that there is a relationship between men and the gods,
because men partake of the divine principle; on which
account, also, God exercises his providence for our advantage.
Also, that Fate is the cause of the arrangement
of the world both generally and particularly.
Moreover, that a ray from the sun penetrated both the
cold æther and the dense æther; and they call the air
the cold æther, and the sea and moisture they call the
dense æther. And this ray descends into the depths,
and in this way vivifies everything. And everything
which partakes of the principle of heat lives, on which
account, also, plants are animated beings; but that all
living things have not necessarily souls. And that
the soul is a something tom off from the æther, both
warm and cold, from its partaking of the cold æther.
And that the soul is something different from life.
Also, that it is immortal, because that from which it
has been detached is immortal.
"Also, that animals are born from one another by
seeds, and that it is impossible for there to be any
spontaneous production by the earth. And that seed
is a drop from the brain which contains in itself a
warm vapor; and that when this is applied to the
womb it transmits virtue and moisture and blood
from the brain, from which flesh and sinews and bones
and hair and the whole body are produced. And
from the vapor is produced the soul, and also sensation.
And that the infant first becomes a solid body
at the end of forty days; but, according to the principles
of harmony, it is not perfect till seven, or perhaps
nine, or at most ten months, and then it is
brought forth. And that it contains in itself all the
principles of life, which are all connected together, and
by their union and combination form a harmonious
whole, each of them developing itself at the appointed
time.
"The senses in general, and especially the sight, are a
vapor of excessive warmth, and on this account a man
is said to see through air and through water. For the
hot principle is opposed by the cold one; since, if the
vapor in the eyes were cold, it would have the same
temperature as the air, and so would be dissipated.
As it is, in some passages he calls the eyes the gates
of the sun; and he speaks in a similar manner of
hearing and of the other senses.
"He also says that the soul of man is divided into
three parts: into intuition and reason and mind, and
that the first and last divisions are found also in other
animals, but that the middle one, reason, is only found
in man. And that the chief abode of the soul is in
those parts of the body which are between the heart
and the brain. And that that portion of it which is in
the heart is the mind; but that deliberation and reason
reside in the brain.
Moreover, that the senses are drops from them;
and that the reasoning sense is immortal, but the others
are mortal. And that the soul is nourished by the
blood; and that reasons are the winds of the soul.
That it is invisible, and so are its reasons, since the
æther itself is invisible. That the links of the soul are
the veins and the arteries and the nerves. But that
when it is vigorous, and is by itself in a quiescent state,
then its links are words and actions. That when it is
cast forth upon the earth it wanders about, resembling
the body. Moreover, that Mercury is the steward
of the souls, and that on this account he has
the name of Conductor, and Commercial, and Infernal,
since it is he who conducts the souls from their bodies,
and from earth and sea; and that he conducts the pure
souls to the highest region, and that he does not allow
the impure ones to approach them, nor to come near one
another, but commits them to be bound in indissoluble
fetters by the Furies. The Pythagoreans also assert
that the whole air is full of souls, and that these are
those which are accounted dæmons and heroes. Also,
that it is by them that dreams are sent among men, and
also the tokens of disease and health; these last, too,
being sent not only to men, but to sheep also, and other
cattle. Also that it is they who are concerned with
purifications and expiations and all kinds of divination
and oracular predictions, and things of that kind.''
[49]
A brief consideration of this summary of the doctrines
of Pythagoras will show that it at least outlines
a most extraordinary variety of scientific ideas. (1)
There is suggested a theory of monads and the conception
of the development from simple to more complex
bodies, passing through the stages of lines, plain
figures, and solids to sensible bodies. (2) The doctrine
of the four elements—fire, water, earth, and air—as the
basis of all organisms is put forward. (3) The idea,
not merely of the sphericity of the earth, but an explicit
conception of the antipodes, is expressed. (4)
A conception of the sanitary influence of the air is
clearly expressed. (5) An idea of the problems of
generation and heredity is shown, together with a distinct
disavowal of the doctrine of spontaneous generation—
a doctrine which, it may be added, remained
in vogue, nevertheless, for some twenty-four hundred
years after the time of Pythagoras. (6) A remarkable
analysis of mind is made, and a distinction between
animal minds and the human mind is based on this
analysis. The physiological doctrine that the heart
is the organ of one department of mind is offset by the
clear statement that the remaining factors of mind
reside in the brain. This early recognition of brain
as the organ of mind must not be forgotten in our later
studies. It should be recalled, however, that a Crotonian
physician, Alemaean, a younger contemporary
of Pythagoras, is also credited with the same theory.
(7) A knowledge of anatomy is at least vaguely foreshadowed
in the assertion that veins, arteries, and
nerves are the links of the soul. In this connection it
should be recalled that Pythagoras was a practical
physician.
As against these scientific doctrines, however, some
of them being at least remarkable guesses at the truth,
attention must be called to the concluding paragraph
of our quotation, in which the old familiar dæmonology
is outlined, quite after the Oriental fashion. We
shall have occasion to say more as to this phase of the
subject later on. Meantime, before leaving Pythagoras,
let us note that his practical studies of humanity
led him to assert the doctrine that "the property of
friends is common, and that friendship is equality.''
His disciples, we are told, used to put all their possessions
together in one store and use them in common.
Here, then, seemingly, is the doctrine of communism
put to the test of experiment at this early day. If it
seem that reference to this carries us beyond the
bounds of science, it may be replied that questions such
as this will not lie beyond the bounds of the science of
the near future.
XENOPHANES AND PARMENIDES
There is a whimsical tale about Pythagoras, according
to which the philosopher was wont to declare that
in an earlier state he had visited Hades, and had there
seen Homer and Hesiod tortured because of the absurd
things they had said about the gods. Apocrypbal
or otherwise, the tale suggests that Pythagoras
was an agnostic as regards the current Greek religion
of his time. The same thing is perhaps true of most
of the great thinkers of this earliest period. But one
among them was remembered in later times as having
had a peculiar aversion to the anthropomorphic conceptions
of his fellows. This was Xenophanes, who was
born at Colophon probably about the year 580 B.C., and
who, after a life of wandering, settled finally in Italy
and became the founder of the so-called Eleatic School.
A few fragments of the philosophical poem in which
Xenophanes expressed his views have come down to
us, and these fragments include a tolerably definite
avowal of his faith. "God is one supreme among gods
and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind,''
says Xenophanes. Again he asserts that "mortals suppose
that the gods are born (as they themselves are),
that they wear man's clothing and have human voice
and body; but,'' he continues, "if cattle or lions had
hands so as to paint with their hands and produce
works of art as men do, they would paint their gods
and give them bodies in form like their own—horses
like horses, cattle like cattle.'' Elsewhere he says, with
great acumen: "There has not been a man, nor will
there be, who knows distinctly what I say about the
gods or in regard to all things. For even if one chance
for the most part to say what is true, still he would
not know; but every one thinks that he knows.''
[50]
In the same spirit Xenophanes speaks of the battles
of Titans, of giants, and of centaurs as "fictions of
former ages.'' All this tells of the questioning spirit
which distinguishes the scientific investigator. Precisely
whither this spirit led him we do not know, but
the writers of a later time have preserved a tradition
regarding a belief of Xenophanes that perhaps entitles
him to be considered the father of geology. Thus
Hippolytus records that Xenophanes studied the fossils
to be found in quarries, and drew from their observation
remarkable conclusions. His words are as
follows: "Xenophanes believes that once the earth
was mingled with the sea, but in the course of time it
became freed from moisture; and his proofs are such
as these: that shells are found in the midst of the
land and among the mountains, that in the quarries
of Syracuse the imprints of a fish and of seals had
been found, and in Paros the imprint of an anchovy
at some depth in the stone, and in Melite shallow
impressions of all sorts of sea products. He says that
these imprints were made when everything long ago
was covered with mud, and then the imprint dried in
the mud. Further, he says that all men will be destroyed
when the earth sinks into the sea and becomes
mud, and that the race will begin anew from the beginning;
and this transformation takes place for all
worlds.''
[51] Here, then, we see
this earliest of paleontologists
studying the fossil-bearing strata of the earth,
and drawing from his observations a marvellously
scientific induction. Almost two thousand years later
another famous citizen of Italy, Leonardo da Vinci,
was independently to think out similar conclusions
from like observations. But not until the nineteenth
century of our era, some twenty-four hundred years
after the time of Xenophanes, was the old Greek's
doctrine to be accepted by the scientific world. The
ideas of Xenophanes were known to his contemporaries
and, as we see, quoted for a few centuries by his
successors, then they were ignored or quite forgotten;
and if any philosopher of an ensuing age before the
time of Leonardo championed a like rational explanation
of the fossils, we have no record of the fact. The
geological doctrine of Xenophanes, then, must be listed
among those remarkable Greek anticipations of nineteenth
-century science which suffered almost total
eclipse in the intervening centuries.
Among the pupils of Xenophanes was Parmenides,
the thinker who was destined to carry on the work of
his master along the same scientific lines, though at
the same time mingling his scientific conceptions with
the mysticism of the poet. We have already had occasion
to mention that Parmenides championed the
idea that the earth is round; noting also that doubts
exist as to whether he or Pythagoras originated this
doctrine. No explicit answer to this question can
possibly be hoped for. It seems clear, however, that
for a long time the Italic School, to which both these
philosophers belonged, had a monopoly of the belief
in question. Parmenides, like Pythagoras, is credited
with having believed in the motion of the earth,
though the evidence furnished by the writings of the
philosopher himself is not as demonstrative as one
could wish. Unfortunately, the copyists of a later
age were more concerned with metaphysical speculations
than with more tangible things. But as far as
the fragmentary references to the ideas of Parmenides
may be accepted, they do not support the idea of the
earth's motion. Indeed, Parmenides is made to say
explicitly, in preserved fragments, that "the world is
immovable, limited, and spheroidal in form.''
[52]
Nevertheless, some modern interpreters have found
an opposite meaning in Parmenides. Thus Ritter
interprets him as supposing "that the earth is in the
centre spherical, and maintained in rotary motion by
its equiponderance; around it lie certain rings, the
highest composed of the rare element fire, the next
lower a compound of light and darkness, and lowest of
all one wholly of night, which probably indicated to
his mind the surface of the earth, the centre of which
again he probably considered to be fire.''
[53] But this,
like too many interpretations of ancient thought,
appears to read into the fragments ideas which the
words themselves do not warrant. There seems no
reason to doubt, however, that Parmenides actually
held the doctrine of the earth's sphericity. Another
glimpse of his astronomical doctrines is furnished us
by a fragment which tells us that he conceived the
morning and the evening stars to be the same, a doctrine
which, as we have seen, was ascribed also to
Pythagoras. Indeed, we may repeat that it is quite
impossible to distinguish between the astronomical
doctrines of these two philosophers.
The poem of Parmenides in which the cosmogonic
speculations occur treats also of the origin of man.
The author seems to have had a clear conception that
intelligence depends on bodily organism, and that the
more elaborately developed the organism the higher
the intelligence. But in the interpretation of this
thought we are hampered by the characteristic vagueness
of expression, which may best be evidenced by
putting before the reader two English translations of
the same stanza. Here is Ritter's rendering, as made
into English by his translator, Morrison:
"For exactly as each has the state of his limbs many-jointed,
So invariably stands it with men in their mind and their reason;
For the system of limbs is that which thinketh in mankind
Alike in all and in each: for thought is the fulness.''[54]
The same stanza is given thus by George Henry Lewes:
"Such as to each man is the nature of his many-jointed limbs,
Such also is the intelligence of each man; for it is
The nature of limbs (organization) which thinketh in men,
Both in one and in all; for the highest degree of organization
gives the highest degree of thought.'' [55]
Here it will be observed that there is virtual agreement
between the translators except as to the last clause,
but that clause is most essential. The Greek phrase
is το γαρ
πλεον εστι
νοημα. Ritter, it will be
observed, renders this, "for thought is the fulness.''
Lewes paraphrases it, "for the highest degree of organization
gives the highest degre of thought.'' The
difference is intentional, since Lewes himself criticises
the translation of Ritter. Ritter's translation
is certainly the more literal, but the fact that such
diversity is possible suggests one of the chief elements
of uncertainty that hamper our interpretation
of the thought of antiquity. Unfortunately, the
mind of the commentator has usually been directed
towards such subtleties, rather than towards the expression
of precise knowledge. Hence it is that the
philosophers of Greece are usually thought of as mere
dreamers, and that their true status as scientific discoverers
is so often overlooked. With these intangibilities
we have no present concern beyond this bare
mention; for us it suffices to gain as clear an idea as we
may of the really scientific conceptions of these thinkers,
leaving the subtleties of their deductive reasoning
for the most part untouched.
EMPEDOCLES
The latest of the important pre-Socratic philosophers
of the Italic school was Empedocles, who was born
about 494 B.C. and lived to the age of sixty. These
dates make Empedocles strictly contemporary with
Anaxagoras, a fact which we shall do well to bear in
mind when we come to consider the latter's philosophy
in the succeeding chapter. Like Pythagoras, Empedocles
is an imposing figure. Indeed, there is much
of similarity between the personalities, as between the
doctrines, of the two men. Empedocles, like Pythagoras,
was a physician; like him also he was the founder
of a cult. As statesman, prophet, physicist, physician,
reformer, and poet he showed a versatility that,
coupled with profundity, marks the highest genius.
In point of versatility we shall perhaps hardly find
his equal at a later day—unless, indeed, an exception
be made of Eratosthenes. The myths that have
grown about the name of Empedocles show that he
was a remarkable personality. He is said to have been
an awe-inspiring figure, clothing himself in Oriental
splendor and moving among mankind as a superior
being. Tradition has it that he threw himself into the
crater of a volcano that his otherwise unexplained
disappearance might lead his disciples to believe that
he had been miraculously translated; but tradition
goes on to say that one of the brazen slippers of the
philosopher was thrown up by the volcano, thus revealing
his subterfuge. Another tradition of far more
credible aspect asserts that Empedocles retreated
from Italy, returning to the home of his fathers in
Peloponnesus to die there obscurely. It seems odd
that the facts regarding the death of so great a man,
at so comparatively late a period, should be obscure;
but this, perhaps, is in keeping with the personality
of the man himself. His disciples would hesitate
to ascribe a merely natural death to so inspired a
prophet.
Empedocles appears to have been at once an observer
and a dreamer. He is credited with noting that the
pressure of air will sustain the weight of water in an
inverted tube; with divining, without the possibility
of proof, that light has actual motion in space; and
with asserting that centrifugal motion must keep the
heavens from falling. He is credited with a great
sanitary feat in the draining of a marsh, and his knowledge
of medicine was held to be supernatural. Fortunately,
some fragments of the writings of Empedocles
have come down to us, enabling us to judge at
first hand as to part of his doctrines; while still more is
known through the references made to him by Plato,
Aristotle, and other commentators. Empedocles was
a poet whose verses stood the test of criticism.
In this regard he is in a like position with
Parmenides; but in neither case are the preserved
fragments sufficient to enable us fully to estimate their
author's scientific attainments. Philosophical writings
are obscure enough at the best, and they perforce
become doubly so when expressed in verse. Yet there
are certain passages of Empedocles that are unequivocal
and full of interest. Perhaps the most important
conception which the works of Empedocles reveal to
us is the denial of anthropomorphism as applied to
deity. We have seen how early the anthropomorphic
conception was developed and how closely it was all
along clung to; to shake the mind free from it then was
a remarkable feat, in accomplishing which Empedocles
took a long step in the direction of rationalism. His
conception is paralleled by that of another physician,
Alcmæon, of Proton, who contended that man's ideas
of the gods amounted to mere suppositions at the very
most. A rationalistic or sceptical tendency has been
the accompaniment of medical training in all ages.
The words in which Empedocles expresses his
conception of deity have been preserved and are well
worth quoting: "It is not impossible,'' he says, "to
draw near (to god) even with the eyes or to take hold
of him with our hands, which in truth is the best
highway of persuasion in the mind of man; for he has
no human head fitted to a body, nor do two shoots
branch out from the trunk, nor has he feet, nor swift
legs, nor hairy parts, but he is sacred and ineffable
mind alone, darting through the whole world with
swift thoughts.'' [56]
How far Empedocles carried his denial of anthropomorphism
is illustrated by a reference of Aristotle,
who asserts "that Empedocles regards god as most
lacking in the power of perception; for he alone does
not know one of the elements, Strife (hence), of perishable
things.'' It is difficult to avoid the feeling that
Empedocles here approaches the modern philosophical
conception that God, however postulated as immutable,
must also be postulated as unconscious, since intelligence,
as we know it, is dependent upon the transmutations
of matter. But to urge this thought would be
to yield to that philosophizing tendency which has
been the bane of interpretation as applied to the
ancient thinkers.
Considering for a moment the more tangible
accomplishments of Empedocles, we find it alleged that one
of his "miracles'' consisted of the preservation of a
dead body without putrefaction for some weeks after
death. We may assume from this that he had gained
in some way a knowledge of embalming. As he was
notoriously fond of experiment, and as the body in
question (assuming for the moment the authenticity
of the legend) must have been preserved without
disfigurement, it is conceivable even that he had hit upon
the idea of injecting the arteries. This, of course, is
pure conjecture; yet it finds a certain warrant, both in
the fact that the words of Pythagoras lead us to believe
that the arteries were known and studied, and in
the fact that Empedocles' own words reveal him also
as a student of the vascular system. Thus Plutarch
cites Empedocles as believing "that the ruling part is
not in the head or in the breast, but in the blood;
wherefore in whatever part of the body the more of
this is spread in that part men excel.''
[57]
And Empedocles' own words, as preserved by Stobæus, assert
"(the heart) lies in seas of blood which dart in opposite
directions, and there most of all intelligence centres for
men; for blood about the heart is intelligence in the case
of man.'' All this implies a really remarkable appreciation
of the dependence of vital activities upon the blood.
This correct physiological conception, however, was
by no means the most remarkable of the ideas to which
Empedoeles was led by his anatomical studies. His
greatest accomplishment was to have conceived and
clearly expressed an idea which the modern evolutionist
connotes when he speaks of homologous parts—an
idea which found a famous modern expositor in Goethe,
as we shall see when we come to deal with eighteenth-
century science. Empedocles expresses the idea in
these words: "Hair, and leaves, and thick feathers of
birds, are the same thing in origin, and reptile scales
too on strong limbs. But on hedgehogs sharp-pointed
hair bristles on their backs.''
[58]
That the idea of transmutation of parts, as well as of mere
homology, was in mind is evidenced by a very remarkable sentence in
which Aristotle asserts, "Empedocles says that fingernails
rise from sinew from hardening.'' Nor is this
quite all, for surely we find the germ of the Lamarckian
conception of evolution through the transmission of
acquired characters in the assertion that "many
characteristics appear in animals because it happened to
be thus in their birth, as that they have such a spine
because they happen to be descended from one that
bent itself backward.''
[59] Aristotle,
in quoting this remark, asserts, with the dogmatism which characterizes
the philosophical commentators of every age,
that "Empedocles is wrong,'' in making this assertion;
but Lamarck, who lived twenty-three hundred years
after Empedocles, is famous in the history of the doctrine
of evolution for elaborating this very idea.
It is fair to add, however, that the dreamings of
Empedocles regarding the origin of living organisms
led him to some conceptions that were much less
luminous. On occasion, Empedocles the poet got the
better of Empedocles the scientist, and we are presented
with a conception of creation as grotesque as
that which delighted the readers of Paradise Lost at a
later day. Empedocles assures us that "many heads
grow up without necks, and arms were wandering
about, necks bereft of shoulders, and eyes roamed
about alone with no foreheads.''
[60] This
chaotic condition, so the poet dreamed, led to the union of many
incongruous parts, producing "creatures with double
faces, offspring of oxen with human faces, and children
of men with oxen heads.'' But out of this chaos
came, finally, we are led to infer, a harmonious
aggregation of parts, producing ultimately the perfected
organisms that we see. Unfortunately the preserved
portions of the writings of Empedocles do not enlighten
us as to the precise way in which final evolution was
supposed to be effected; although the idea of endless
experimentation until natural selection resulted in
survival of the fittest seems not far afield from certain
of the poetical assertions. Thus: "As divinity was
mingled yet more with divinity, these things (the various
members) kept coming together in whatever way
each might chance.'' Again: "At one time all the
limbs which form the body united into one by love
grew vigorously in the prime of life; but yet at another
time, separated by evil Strife, they wander each in
different directions along the breakers of the sea of life.
Just so is it with plants, and with fishes dwelling in
watery halls, and beasts whose lair is in the mountains,
and birds borne on wings.''
[61]
All this is poetry rather than science, yet such
imaginings could come only to one who was groping towards
what we moderns should term an evolutionary conception
of the origins of organic life; and however grotesque
some of these expressions may appear, it must be
admitted that the morphological ideas of Empedocles,
as above quoted, give the Sicilian philosopher a secure
place among the anticipators of the modern evolutionist.
Notes
[[45]]
(p. 117). George Henry Lewes, A
Biographical History of Philosophy from its Origin in Greece
down to the Present Day, enlarged edition, New York,
1888, p. 17.
[[46]]
2 (p. 121). Diogenes Laertius, The Lives
and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, C. D. Yonge's
translation, London, 1853, VIII., 15.
[[47]]
(p. 121). Alexander, Successions of
Philosophers.
[[48]]
(p. 122). "All over its centre.''
Presumably this is intended to refer to the entire equatorial
region.
[[49]]
(p. 125). Laertius, op. cit.,
pp. 348-351.
[[50]]
(p. 128). Arthur Fairbanks, The First
Philosophers of Greece, London, 1898, pp. 67-71.
[[51]]
(p. 129). Ibid., p. 83.
[[52]]
(p. 130). Ibid., p. 109.
[[53]]
(p. 131). Heinrich Ritter, The
History of Ancient Philosophy, translated from the German
by A. J. W. Morrison, 4 vols., London, 1838, vol, I., p.
463.
[[54]]
(p. 131) Ibid., p. 465.
[[55]]
(p. 132). George Henry Lewes, op.
cit., p. 51.
[[56]]
(p. 135). Fairbanks, op. cit.,
p. 201.
[[57]]
(p. 136). Ibid., p. 234.
[[58]]
(p. 137). Ibid., p. 189.
[[59]]
(p. 137). Ibid., p. 220.
[[60]]
(p. 138). Ibid., p. 189.
[[61]]
(p. 138). Ibid., p. 191.